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.

HBMC: Brilliant placement of that eavesdropping mic unit has really paid off. Please keep us up to date with further transcripts.

they should retire them

please take the 2 shots and 2 beers into consideration when reading my post:

WTF are Necrons??? I have over 20 Chaos androids in 40k scale and one unit in epic scale(or at least i HAD one unit before they f@#ked that entire game up!) These figures even pre-date the 1990s, 2nd edition WD Necro nArmy.

Here is the "fluf" about chaos androids from "Renegades" 1992:

"The Chaos Android is a shining skeleton of hardened plasteel. Its cunning construction is a secret know only to certain tainted Squat fabricators working in league with Chaos Renegades. Each Android contains a tiny bound deamon, an animated spirit inprisioned within its plasteel shell by the conjuration of a Chaos Sorcerer.

The Contained daemon hates being trapped in this way and will do anything to escape, but it is bound to obey any direct order it is given. The daemon will always try to interpert any comand in as perverse way as posible in order to avoid doing what it is supposed to.

Chaos Androids are just as much daemons as robots and are therefore considered to be daemons for rules purposes." the rest are rule particular to Epic: Space
Marine.






Automatically Appended Next Post:
I hope that my post ilistrates just how silly it is to "argue" over necron Rumors, and their rules. It's just a game! Anyways, I'll post a real response to this tomorrow, when I'm sober. Also more pictures of Chaos Androids! Have a good night!


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Just like Necrons "We'll Be Back" this post was started in 2008, how come no one called Necron-o-mance?

Zathras wrote:

n0t_u wrote:

I am SOOOO stealing that pic!!!!

I got it through google. The image itself is on cool mini or not.

I'm all for FNP and the loss of Phase out.

Necrons need the weapons to go Rending, more useful units like a smaller Monolith for transports and i'd like to see a form of Necron Walker.

Perturabo's Chosen wrote:
Just like Necrons "We'll Be Back" this post was started in 2008, how come no one called Necron-o-mance?

Frazzled wrote:Due to Brimstone update I am leaving open. Any more news Brimmy?

There's your answer.

gorgon wrote:Except that GW explicitly said that said special characters can be used to rep an archetype (such as an elder Farseer) and not only said individual. And except that *star gods* represent an entirely different scale of conflict. And except that there ARE only 4 star gods per the fluff, and you could have the same C'tan on either side of the table.

C'tan never should have been in the book in the first place, or at least not as star gods.

then by that same (incredibly, terribly poor) reasoning, wouldn't we be able to say that it's just an "archetype" of the star god? Like say the "Night Carrier" rather than the "Night Bringer"? Since the C'Tan are "special" characters?

or are you trying to say that YOUR "special" characters are more "special" than someone elses "special" characters?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

JohnHwangDD wrote:

So that C'Tan template can make a very durable, mobile, hard-hitting model that doesn't generate as many complaints of "cheese" based on not understanding how the C'Tan works.

I'm pretty sure you have been around long enough to know that "cheese" gets thrown around whenever someone loses. Especially when they lost with their one trick pony, kiddie killer tournament list.

To add fuel to the fire, Necron Lords in Dawn of War: Dark Crusade "channeled" the C'Tan. So the precedence is there.

I think the biggest thing they have to address about the Necrons if they transition to more USRs is how they are going to handle templates. We now have guard armies on the table that can easily blast away MEQs with massed low AP templates that their codex gives out like candy.

Here is what I want to see.

Necron Warriors that cost 18 points, FNP, Rending, 3+/5++, Relentless

Couple that with improving the Monolith's rules (streamlining which USRs don't effect it and let it shoot and teleport in the same turn) and add an Obelisk tank that can teleport, some better counter assault options, and you have a pretty cool play style.

Howlingmoon wrote:

gorgon wrote:Except that GW explicitly said that said special characters can be used to rep an archetype (such as an elder Farseer) and not only said individual. And except that *star gods* represent an entirely different scale of conflict. And except that there ARE only 4 star gods per the fluff, and you could have the same C'tan on either side of the table.

C'tan never should have been in the book in the first place, or at least not as star gods.

then by that same (incredibly, terribly poor) reasoning, wouldn't we be able to say that it's just an "archetype" of the star god? Like say the "Night Carrier" rather than the "Night Bringer"? Since the C'Tan are "special" characters?

or are you trying to say that YOUR "special" characters are more "special" than someone elses "special" characters?

If you want to field an avatar of the C'tan, you're in luck...that's probably exactly what you're getting in the new codex! *pops the champagne*

Of course I'm splitting hairs and making stuff up, but I'm giving you alternative reasoning that's just as fluffilogically supported as yours. However, the point remains that there's a difference between unnamed IG commander/SM chapter leader/Eldar farseer on a battlefield and a star god.

It's like a WWII game in which one side gets Patton and the other side gets the Archangel Michael. Patton might be a little inappropriate, but representatives of the heavenly host are really inappropriate.

I think the biggest thing they have to address about the Necrons if they transition to more USRs is how they are going to handle templates. We now have guard armies on the table that can easily blast away MEQs with massed low AP templates that their codex gives out like candy.

No need for an invulnerable save imo. Have res orbs remove the limitations on Feel no Pain (AP2, etc etc).

Then have monoliths replenish a squad whenever they teleport through it (eg roll a dice for every model missing from the unit, on a 4 they come back).

Problem solved. Basically I don't think basic warriors should be nigh unkillable on their own, but should get some serious buffs from other units to make them so.

Mahu wrote:Necron Warriors that cost 18 points, FNP, Rending, 3+/5++, Relentless

A "package" of FNP, Rending, Invulnerable, and Relentless should bump the cost to something like 25 points, so you're undercosted by quite a bit without a serious Phase Out penalty.

I disagree.

5 years ago I would say you are right, but with the current costing of units now, 18 points for a unit like that which has no transport option is fine. Or do we want to discuss how much benefits that unit gets versus a Guard army with any amount of heavy support in it.

Thinking about it further, I think the unit needs stubborn more then relentless.

You have to realize this is a unit in a codex where Monoliths should cost 300 points, and with a tiered Lord system, HQ choices will probably soak up points to adequately support the Warriors.

JohnHwangDD wrote:

Mahu wrote:Necron Warriors that cost 18 points, FNP, Rending, 3+/5++, Relentless

A "package" of FNP, Rending, Invulnerable, and Relentless should bump the cost to something like 25 points, so you're undercosted by quite a bit without a serious Phase Out penalty.

I disagree as well. The unit we're talking about is going to be walking across the field. It has no weapons or transport options. The entire army is exceedingly vulnerable while it moves into position. This can be mitigated by monoliths to some extent if they deepstrike and show up early enough in the game to affect it. Marines have droped in points, as have IG, and Orks. Necrons need similar treatment.

@DD: Yes the rules need to streamlined into the USRs. What I worry about is getting hammered by those USRs. I would not be a happy camper if my monolith was suddenly USR bait AND went up in points while doing less.

Looking at the possibly new stats of warriors, again what is stopping the warriors from getting Sweeping Advanced, especially with the supposed I1?

Also, to others, I have a feeling that they'll introduce some new stupid transport option or something to keep up with the whole "You need at least 5 tanks on the field" idea

Looking at the possibly new stats of warriors, again what is stopping the warriors from getting Sweeping Advanced, especially with the supposed I1?

Durability. Make WBB affect the outcome of the combat via Feel no Pain, and combine with a boost to T5 and possibly other durability boosts via HQs or Tomb Spyders. I think that would be an interesting way to deal with necron close combat issues, instead of introducing yet another army that ignores morale.

I have no problem with warriors getting stubborn or fearless via lords or similar though. Or with immortals and destroyers and the like having stubborn stock (fits the background). But warriors should be a bit more vulnerable imo.

Oh, damn, yeah, I also forgot about FNP, which will hopefully mean less getting killed in CC too...

FNP is a bonus, sort of, but will probably make resurrection orbs (if they always allow FNP) to be even more prevalent considering the amount of melta and plasma running around now a days, probably should just make it standard equipment on the lord. Maybe if they do that we will even get it slightly cheaper

Feel No Pain and Stubborn should be good enough to handle their lack of CC. Warriors have always played that they can take a charge, hold, and teleport out of combat to shoot some more. That is their CC answer.

Pariahs need to be 2 attacks base, if there is no more phase out (which there shouldn't) that will go along way to make them valid counter assault troops and gives Necrons an answer to Terminators on their lines.

JohnHwangDD wrote:

Mahu wrote:Necron Warriors that cost 18 points, FNP, Rending, 3+/5++, Relentless

A "package" of FNP, Rending, Invulnerable, and Relentless should bump the cost to something like 25 points, so you're undercosted by quite a bit without a serious Phase Out penalty.

I start with a basic Necron Warrior statline at 13 pts (like a CSM), then add 3pts per USR for 4 USRs.

The other way to look at it is like a Chaos Cult Marine, which is 20-26 pts and simpler rules-wise. Getting a 5++ combined with FNP is worth full cost as these rules complement each other. Rending on a BS4 Rapid-Fire gun is also very good. Relentless is the only USR that might not be worth full points.
____

Sarge wrote: The unit we're talking about is going to be walking across the field.

This can be mitigated by monoliths to some extent if they deepstrike and show up early enough in the game to affect it.

Marines have droped in points, as have IG, and Orks. Necrons need similar treatment.

Actually, most likely, it will be Outflanking, Deep Striking, or cascading off another Deep Striker. I don't see Transports, but I definitely see Teleport / Portal type capabilities being added to address current mobility issues.

Sounds like you're defining a standard build, akin to current SM Podding.

Yes, everything dropped in points, but the proposed statline is a considerable buff. For the 18 pts to hold, then you should only get FNP and maybe Rending without the other USRs.

They wont make it 5++, or at least i dont see any reason why they would FNP makes sense but invulnerable saves dont seem to fit.
Personally i hope they get ws3, I1, T5 4+ armor along with FNP and Rending and maybe a drop in points or more likely staying the same (they are worse against shooting as AP 4 is easy to come by and obviously worse in assault) and you have a model that is not a Space Marine with an apothecary in the squad!

True, I am basing my comments on what they can do now transport-wise. Which is nada. They may come up with some new toys to let them move about the battlefield. Hopefully they do. I'd really like to see a cascading teleport, which is currently disallowed.

What other statbuffs did I miss? I was under the impression Necrons would get FNP (rending is a new one for me).

@Sarge: With 5th being all about objectives, and 6th likely to accelerate that trend, Necrons are definitely going to gain mobility somehow, just to stay in the game, but I don't know how GW is going to do it.

The 5++ & Relentless are the actual buffs. Then assuming / hoping / wishing for Rending to replace Gauss.

I start with a basic Necron Warrior statline at 13 pts (like a CSM), then add 3pts per USR for 4 USRs.

3 points per USR to too unilateral and doesn't take into account the usefulness of the USR on that trooper or in the context of the army.

It is also hard to compare them to Cult Marines as GW always puts a higher value on Fearless then what is required.

There is no standardization for price in lists. It's impossible to have price structures and maintain balance in units.

Warriors which will always be ground pounding infantry need to have inherent survivability that other lists don't need because they can bring tanks. They are the only elite infantry in the game that doesn't have access to armored protection and there are too many armies that can exploit that.

Getting a 5++ combined with FNP is worth full cost as these rules complement each other.

Not really, though both increase the survivability of the model, it is against different types of attacks, you either will get your FNP or your invulnerable save. Rarely both at the same time. Necrons need some answer to handle Demolisher shells and Vindicators, etc. Right now they do, they simple get back up next turn.

Rending on a BS4 Rapid-Fire gun is also very good.

I would disagree with that too. It's only str. 4 so it barely effects vehicles, and shots per point barely effects infantry with how little the rend will show up and the prevalence of cover.

Relentless is the only USR that might not be worth full points.

Relentless is huge, and much more important. Being able to rapid fire and charge would help the Necrons be a little more proactive. They need stubborn or fearless to make sure return attacks don't completely demolish them. Remember, this is a group of models with no access to transports, heavy weapons, or special close combat weapons. The balance has always been that their base guys are frustratingly hard to kill.

Actually, most likely, it will be Outflanking, Deep Striking, or cascading off another Deep Striker. I don't see Transports, but I definitely see Teleport / Portal type capabilities being added to address current mobility issues.

I think teleporting should be an intrinsically part of the Necron playstyle. It highlights a uniqueness they have other other races.

The basic playstyle of the army has and will always be slow but hard to kill infantry supported by specialist units. Warriors are not meant to be the end all, but they will always be the top priority to the Necron opponent because of their scoring status. The basic warrior should be durable enough and cheap enough so you can take a respectable number of them and still have room in the list for the support units.

This thread is titled "Necron rumors" yet it seems fairly sparse on rumors lately, but I see a lot of wish lists and "this is what they'd get if I was designing Necrons" type posts. Does anyone have any actual information to share? For all of us out here who are interested in actual rumors and information, thanks in advance.

The only verifiable Rumor is Brim's post, I think the thread should be moved because it is too far out for real information

gorgon wrote:Except that GW explicitly said that said special characters can be used to rep an archetype (such as an elder Farseer) and not only said individual. And except that *star gods* represent an entirely different scale of conflict. And except that there ARE only 4 star gods per the fluff, and you could have the same C'tan on either side of the table.

C'tan never should have been in the book in the first place, or at least not as star gods.

Were does this keep coming from... I mean seriously. The C'tan that you field are not the full embodiment of the C'tan, the C'tan that are fielded are in parity with the Eldar Avatar. The C'tan on the table top are not entirety of the C'tan; they can break themselves into multiple chunks with all acting with a singular will. The C'tan are multi-dimensional entities of an order higher than ours, when they manifest themselves on the physical plane it is more like the a creature reaching out its tentacles where each tentacle can function independently. If a tentacle is chopped off, it can grow back. Losing one of its manifestations may impose a set back but it by no means damages the larger whole. We can not think of a C'tan as a Primarch or the Emperor... the was only one Emperor and he could only be in one place at a time... there is only one of each C'tan but they can each be in many places at the same time.

Across hundreds of thousands of battlefields are hundreds of manifestations of the C'tan, work in concert with the singular purpose, will, and drive to devourer the psychic presence of all life. To think of the C'tan on the table as a singular and unique representation of the C'tan shows limited dimensional thinking.

I'd like to see Obelisks as their other vehicle type thing. Have it always able to enter play via Deep Strike following the same rules as a Drop Pod, then give it the same portal capacities as the Monolith.

If they did something like that I'd be fine with Slow and Purposeful since that also gives you Relentless. A slow march forward, dishing out full range fire the whole way isn't too bad.

People think that the c'tan as they exist in the current codex are too powerful?


Really?

ROM, Spaceknight, doesn't think C'Tan are too powerful per se, but he does find them too rules complex for casual play!

Flayed ones should be in Fast before they are in Troop.

5++ sounds cool. Whole army is 5++ and FNP. Tough little bastards.

It will be interesting what they do with it, I believe the whole point to getting rid of Phase Out is simply to make games with Necrons play faster. Especially for newer gamers.

Monolith makes FNP a re-roll within 12"?