Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Moopy wrote:Barque? Really? REALLY? That's not even clever, and way to close to the DE.

I guess you know more about Necrons than Jes Goodwin

Honestly if the transports look like that sketch, I think that's about as much as I could hope for, I'd be fairly happy with that kinda look. Ties together monolith and destroyer type hovering look.

Vhalyar wrote:

Moopy wrote:Barque? Really? REALLY? That's not even clever, and way to close to the DE.

I guess you know more about Necrons than Jes Goodwin

Even Jes can come up with really horrible not-even-clever names. You'll also notice that picture has no masts or sails, furthering my confidence that this new "codex entery" is garbage.

Not all Barques did either

Egyptian (primary real-world influence int he rewrite, apparently) Funeral Barques (barque being the western translation. The egyptian is hard to say- dead language ) were rowed, not sailed, and needed no mast or sails.

They rarely went more than a few miles along a wide and non-turbulent river.

Why does everyone have this huge issue with the idea of a funeral barque as a transport? Granted the name isn't inspired, but it is at least pronouncable.

The Dark Eldar skiffs (raider, ravager) are not barques in any way. If anything they seem closer to miniature phoenecian ships or flying biremes without the oars. Completely different historical source

What's so bad about "barque"? It's Barque-esque so call it a barque. Monoliths are monolithic, Warriors are warriors, Immortals seem to never die, Wraiths are ghostly, Tomb Spyders are spidery, The Deciever decieves.

Necron names are just to the point, and the names are actually their Imperial classifications like Tyranid nomenclature.

On the topic of names, if the page is legit, I really like the wargear names, though necroshell sounds a little silly. Just hope we don't get necro-fists, necro-missiles, necro-talons...

asimo77 wrote:What's so bad about "barque"? It's Barque-esque so call it a barque. Monoliths are monolithic, Warriors are warriors, Immortals seem to never die, Wraiths are ghostly, Tomb Spyders are spidery, The Deciever decieves.

Necron names are just to the point, and the names are actually their Imperial classifications like Tyranid nomenclature.

While I would have agreed the Fall of Damnos book seriously undermines this preemise as the Necrons utilize this terminology when reffering to themselves.

That page is fake.

yakface wrote:
That page is fake.

well so much for that rumour

On the topic of names, if the page is legit, I really like the wargear names, though necroshell sounds a little silly. Just hope we don't get necro-fists, necro-missiles, necro-talons...

Don't challenge the fate...

Yakface has spoken!

KarlPedder wrote:

asimo77 wrote:What's so bad about "barque"? It's Barque-esque so call it a barque. Monoliths are monolithic, Warriors are warriors, Immortals seem to never die, Wraiths are ghostly, Tomb Spyders are spidery, The Deciever decieves.

Necron names are just to the point, and the names are actually their Imperial classifications like Tyranid nomenclature.

While I would have agreed the Fall of Damnos book seriously undermines this preemise as the Necrons utilize this terminology when reffering to themselves.

Actually forgot about Damnos there. I'm sure the Necrons have their own names for stuff, we just aren't privy to that information, but at least in the current codex, and other fluff all the Necron names come from Imperial classifications or Eldar translations. Necron Lords are usually named Harbinger of Storms,Sorrows,Pain,Grimdark or we have something like The Silent King as another example. But I bet their real names are quite different, like we had in Damnos: Satah, Ankh, and some others IIRC.

I actually quite like the look of the vehicle in that sketch. Looks like a skimming tomb. They can call it a Barque if they want. I would be less than happy if we do get actual skimmer boat looking things though.

I REALLY hope this codex goes well, if it is crap i will be selling my 'crons and starting a renegade IG army to supplement my IW.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Vhalyar wrote:

Moopy wrote:Barque? Really? REALLY? That's not even clever, and way to close to the DE.

I guess you know more about Necrons than Jes Goodwin

For those of you who cant follow the link for whatever reason........

I do really like that sketch and I'm assuming that would be the transport that would hold 15. It's look follows the current style just fine.

Here are some ideas for the vehicles... (as found in Warseer by Kelvan)

1. First one is Death Barque with one big cannon and two minor guns. http://kelvan.w.interii.pl/1.%20Death%20Barque.jpg

IMO it looks stupid, especially this big skull at the front. This sketch could fit with Tabitha rumours of MC/Vehicle type thing which is out of Necron theme.

2. Second one is War Barque which looks like hovering Rhino which portal at its front.
http://kelvan.w.interii.pl/2.%20War%20Barque.jpg

3. Here we have War Altars with guns and portals at their front.
http://kelvan.w.interii.pl/3.%20War%20Altars.jpg I think it was prototype of the Monolith an we won't see it.

4. Funeral Barque. This one looks like combination of heavy support and mobile portal warmachine.

http://kelvan.w.interii.pl/4.%20Warm...h%20Portal.jpg

Here is the ready homemade model

http://storage.canalblog.com/11/30/731795/53057450.jpg

5. Last one is simple Barge style warmachine with crew. This one looks like Fast Heavy Support platform with crew mentioned in FOD.
http://kelvan.w.interii.pl/5.%20Warmachine.jpg

Due to Monolith we all used to think that Necrons vehicles don't have any crew or mounted steermans. However, first sketches say something else and if we combine this knowledge with informations obtained from FOD I think we can expect that few vehicles from these sketches for sure would be at new Necron codex.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
So yes... the barque scheme IS visible

Yeah.. really don't like the ones with the giant skulls in the front. Yeah they're "skeletons", but I like the "floating rhino" design quite a bit more.

Same here

Praxiss wrote:Same here

I agree but, the one thing I'm not looking forward to is the assumed inevitability that all of these will be strictly >Transports< and not highly-mobile monolith portals as I would hope they would be (and the fluff would dictate they should be)...

It'll be interesting to see what they end up being or if they even exist... Personally, I find a good amount of Yak's rumours highly improbable and find other rumour sets equally or more plausible.

Wouldn't it be nice (fluff-wise) if a unit with more than 1 wound enters one of these monolith-like portals it exits at full strength.

Broken?

Anpu-adom wrote:Wouldn't it be nice (fluff-wise) if a unit with more than 1 wound enters one of these monolith-like portals it exits at full strength.

Broken?

Space Wolves get JOTWW. It's not broken, it's justice.

Fr0z3n wrote:

Praxiss wrote:Same here

I agree but, the one thing I'm not looking forward to is the assumed inevitability that all of these will be strictly >Transports< and not highly-mobile monolith portals as I would hope they would be (and the fluff would dictate they should be)...

I fail to see how mobile portals aren't what the fluff would dictate so they might work a different way mechanically to the Monolith portal but that doesn't mean the existing mechanics for transports can't fit the Necrons make it so models embarked cant shoot (if they are indeed open topped as rumored) maybe embarked models go into reserve when the vehicle is destroyed instead of emergency disembark, put a portal on the front, make it look like the max transport capacity couldn't physically fit in the transport. All ways that make the transports thematically mobile portals instead of traditional transports but utilizing to a large extent an already widely understood mechanic.

Fr0z3n wrote:

Praxiss wrote:Same here

I agree but, the one thing I'm not looking forward to is the assumed inevitability that all of these will be strictly >Transports< and not highly-mobile monolith portals as I would hope they would be (and the fluff would dictate they should be)...

It'll be interesting to see what they end up being or if they even exist... Personally, I find a good amount of Yak's rumours highly improbable and find other rumour sets equally or more plausible.

Its a new codex, brand new fluff. Dont compare what seems to be the new rules/units with the old fluff(Which was nearly zero) as there will be new fluff supporting those units and rules. Necrons might be some undead chicken tomorrow and happy clowns. That WILL be their fluff and they will never be refered to as undead machines. They wont be no more. Current fluff is for the current rules/units. Get over it. Its gonna change. I know this will probably upset some people but the new fluff cant be any worst. We currently have nearly no fluff, anything will be an improvement. And who knoes in the end we might all like the transports.

necr0n wrote:

Fr0z3n wrote:

Praxiss wrote:Same here

I agree but, the one thing I'm not looking forward to is the assumed inevitability that all of these will be strictly >Transports< and not highly-mobile monolith portals as I would hope they would be (and the fluff would dictate they should be)...

It'll be interesting to see what they end up being or if they even exist... Personally, I find a good amount of Yak's rumours highly improbable and find other rumour sets equally or more plausible.

Its a new codex, brand new fluff. Dont compare what seems to be the new rules/units with the old fluff(Which was nearly zero) as there will be new fluff supporting those units and rules. Necrons might be some undead chicken tomorrow and happy clowns. That WILL be their fluff and they will never be refered to as undead machines. They wont be no more. Current fluff is for the current rules/units. Get over it. Its gonna change. I know this will probably upset some people but the new fluff cant be any worst. We currently have nearly no fluff, anything will be an improvement. And who knoes in the end we might all like the transports.

This is it basically we must wait till we have something solid, have faith and time will tell!

Anpu-adom wrote:Wouldn't it be nice (fluff-wise) if a unit with more than 1 wound enters one of these monolith-like portals it exits at full strength.

Broken?

Wouldn't it be nice if the multi-wound models continued to fix themselves after they get back up from dead? Why does it just stop at the bear minimum? *Shrug*

Mar wrote:

necr0n wrote:

Fr0z3n wrote:

Praxiss wrote:Same here

I agree but, the one thing I'm not looking forward to is the assumed inevitability that all of these will be strictly >Transports< and not highly-mobile monolith portals as I would hope they would be (and the fluff would dictate they should be)...

It'll be interesting to see what they end up being or if they even exist... Personally, I find a good amount of Yak's rumours highly improbable and find other rumour sets equally or more plausible.

Its a new codex, brand new fluff. Dont compare what seems to be the new rules/units with the old fluff(Which was nearly zero) as there will be new fluff supporting those units and rules. Necrons might be some undead chicken tomorrow and happy clowns. That WILL be their fluff and they will never be refered to as undead machines. They wont be no more. Current fluff is for the current rules/units. Get over it. Its gonna change. I know this will probably upset some people but the new fluff cant be any worst. We currently have nearly no fluff, anything will be an improvement. And who knoes in the end we might all like the transports.

This is it basically we must wait till we have something solid, have faith and time will tell!

I was re-reading the 3rd edition codex and yeah I will be happy to have a bit more fluff for my army. Basically the whole thing is just about the 'war in heaven' against the old ones and the Ctan.

Kevin949 wrote:

Anpu-adom wrote:Wouldn't it be nice (fluff-wise) if a unit with more than 1 wound enters one of these monolith-like portals it exits at full strength.

Broken?

Wouldn't it be nice if the multi-wound models continued to fix themselves after they get back up from dead? Why does it just stop at the bear minimum? *Shrug*

"And now I roll to see if my wounded models recover any wounds....."
(5 minutes later)...
"And now I see if any of my downed models get back up..."
(5 minutes later)...
"And now I start my movement phase..."


Can anyone remind me why I want to pick up a game where the above scenario is "Good" game design?

Or how about...

"Now I see if my guys hit your guys. (5 minutes)
Now I see if my guys hurt your guys. (5 minutes)
Now we see if my guys actually hit your guys because your guys are standing in grass that is up to their knees instead of grass that is ankle length
or
we'll see if you guys' armor deflects enough of the blast so that he isn't really hurt in the first place."

Seems to me, however you put it... a roll to negate the effect of TWO rolls is bad game design. *sigh* but I love how the necrons look.

Anpu-adom wrote:

Kevin949 wrote:

Anpu-adom wrote:Wouldn't it be nice (fluff-wise) if a unit with more than 1 wound enters one of these monolith-like portals it exits at full strength.

Broken?

Wouldn't it be nice if the multi-wound models continued to fix themselves after they get back up from dead? Why does it just stop at the bear minimum? *Shrug*

"And now I roll to see if my wounded models recover any wounds....."
(5 minutes later)...
"And now I see if any of my downed models get back up..."
(5 minutes later)...
"And now I start my movement phase..."


Can anyone remind me why I want to pick up a game where the above scenario is "Good" game design?

Or how about...

"Now I see if my guys hit your guys. (5 minutes)
Now I see if my guys hurt your guys. (5 minutes)
Now we see if my guys actually hit your guys because your guys are standing in grass that is up to their knees instead of grass that is ankle length
or
we'll see if you guys' armor deflects enough of the blast so that he isn't really hurt in the first place."

Seems to me, however you put it... a roll to negate the effect of TWO rolls is bad game design. *sigh* but I love how the necrons look.

Well, other than lords the only multi-wound models are scarabs and tomb spyders (oh and C'tan but they're not "necrons" currently) sooo...wouldn't really be that difficult to keep track of.

As for your last statement, there are actually many models that allow for two rolls to negate your two rolls that only requires one success to negate your mandatory two success to hit and wound. Fewer still are models that allow you to ignore X amount of damage outright or regenerate old damage negating even MORE. So...ya...

Kevin949 wrote:

Anpu-adom wrote:

...
"Now I see if my guys hit your guys. (5 minutes)
Now I see if my guys hurt your guys. (5 minutes)
Now we see if my guys actually hit your guys because your guys are standing in grass that is up to their knees instead of grass that is ankle length
or
we'll see if you guys' armor deflects enough of the blast so that he isn't really hurt in the first place."

Seems to me, however you put it... a roll to negate the effect of TWO rolls is bad game design. *sigh* but I love how the necrons look.

Well, other than lords the only multi-wound models are scarabs and tomb spyders (oh and C'tan but they're not "necrons" currently) sooo...wouldn't really be that difficult to keep track of.

As for your last statement, there are actually many models that allow for two rolls to negate your two rolls that only requires one success to negate your mandatory two success to hit and wound. Fewer still are models that allow you to ignore X amount of damage outright or regenerate old damage negating even MORE. So...ya...

LOL! Yes, I am new. One success on two rolls to negate two successful rolls...
Did Games Workshop advise when they developed the US Tax Code?

So, the rules aren't making me want to learn this game. It's not making me want to teach this game to my students.
I hear Privateer Press is having a great sale right now.

Then go play that game. Nobody is asking you to "teach this game to your students". There are plenty of us that enjoy a little added complexity in our games, as shown by the large number of people who play warhammer. If you don't like it, go play something else.

Quite frankly what is wrong with floating crypts with the undead inside? Sounds awfully fluffy to me. Like floating cemetary!

Anpu-adom wrote:
LOL! Yes, I am new. One success on two rolls to negate two successful rolls...
Did Games Workshop advise when they developed the US Tax Code?

So, the rules aren't making me want to learn this game. It's not making me want to teach this game to my students.
I hear Privateer Press is having a great sale right now.

Meh, the game is still fun. As long as you play for fun anyway. Tourneys can get heated in rules debates from what I hear (I don't play in tourneys). Anyway, even a game like warmachine will have it's facets of rules that are just ridiculous or don't make any sense to you (I've read over the quick start, and I'm interested in it but I can see some stuff that would make it stale). Just because there's one facet of the way the game plays that you (by your own admission) don't understand and haven't played doesn't mean anything. Try playing the game (an actual game, not what the red shirts in the store have you do as a "trial") and you'll get it. You'll see that terrain layout can make or break your game. Heck, if you don't like the terrain rules then don't play with them. You don't HAVE to follow every rule if you're playing with friends.