Switch Theme:

Have necrons just stopped winning?  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


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.




Made in us
Insect-Infested Nurgle Chaos Lord





In My Lab

I was unaware of her warlord trait. That is new info, so yeah, that’d make my math wrong.

Clocks for the clockmaker! Cogs for the cog throne! 
   
Made in us
Omnipotent Necron Overlord






 JNAProductions wrote:
I was unaware of her warlord trait. That is new info, so yeah, that’d make my math wrong.

Yeah she also fights twice for free 1 time.
Outshoots Gman - has a cyclone missle launcher basically.
She out damages Gman in melee vs hordes hands down - vs hard targets they are about equal with gman having a slight edge. The chances they do equal damage are pretty high.
Outsurvives him. 4++ half damage is better than a 3++ with +1 wound.
Buffs are equal IMO - though not identical. You could give the edge to gman here I suppose - personally I think it is better to be able to give a unit reroll all wounds rather than multiple units reroll all hits. Granted her other ability is at least giving those units reroll 1's. The 12" aura of reroll 1's and +1 to charges is really nice...but still - it's not a huge synergy for what you want from him anyways.

Only really unique feature that Gman has is coming back to life on a 4+ with D6 wounds. No doubt a powerful ability - I'd honestly trade it for a 4++ with half damage anyways.

I'd say - in a fair world - these units are within 20 points of each other. Given the fact that there is no chance the similarities between the units could not have been missed at the rules conception phase. The comparisons were obviously made and they still made her cost nearly 100 points less.

Why do we even play this game?

If we fail to anticipate the unforeseen or expect the unexpected in a universe of infinite possibilities, we may find ourselves at the mercy of anyone or anything that cannot be programmed, categorized or easily referenced.
- Fox Mulder 
   
Made in us
Pyro Pilot of a Triach Stalker





Tycho wrote:
Praetorians aren't core because they're triarch units; they don't get the <dynasty> keyword either, they operate outside the typical hierarchy and answer only to the Silent King. Praets and Stalkers not being core despite being our jump pack and walker units is an example of valuing lore over mechanics, for better or worse.


And this right here shows exactly how poorly thought out "CORE" is. So you want to play the fluff card? Fair enough. If we go by "fluff" and what units interact with the higher-ups, than EVERY unit in the marine book should have it. All of them. Every. Single. One.

That defeats the purpose though doesn't it? Now, let's ignore the piles and piles of fluff that say you're wrong about certain aspects of the assumptions you're making for Necrons in that post and just assume that you're right about why some units have core and some don't. Anyting answering directly to the Silent King should probably get "CORE" if he's in the army right? If it's about who answers to who, Destroyer cult units should probably get "Destroyer CCORE" if led by a Destroyer or Skorpek lord right? Your reasoning only makes sense if you refuse to look at almost everything else.

So you can't claim "fluff" because that's overwhelmingly, obviously not the answer. So let's look at why they made core. They made it so that Space Marine Captains aren't sitting on the backline babysitting tanks. That's it. Presumably, they also wanted a way to give infantry more "oomph" as well, but that's not what they said when they introduced the rule. So they succeeded on the tank buff deal. They failed everywhere else. Because once again, rather than just adjust the "problem unit/units" they made a blanket rule that hits all other armies/units needlessly. The Necron implementation is probably a lot closer to how it SHOULD be (with the exception that the non-core units should NOT be costed as though they have core), but since they are the lone book running that way (due to core never really being all that well thought out), they have been hamstrung, and the "Core" implementation has been haphazard and lazy as we go.

Have you actually read the codex? Szarekh buffs triarch units, Destroyer Lords buff destroyers. Not being core means they don't benefit from Overlords and other HQ's in the traditional dynastic hierarchy. I don't appreciate a Blood Angels player pretending he knows more about Necrons than me.
   
Made in us
Quick-fingered Warlord Moderatus




 Arachnofiend wrote:
Tycho wrote:
Praetorians aren't core because they're triarch units; they don't get the <dynasty> keyword either, they operate outside the typical hierarchy and answer only to the Silent King. Praets and Stalkers not being core despite being our jump pack and walker units is an example of valuing lore over mechanics, for better or worse.


And this right here shows exactly how poorly thought out "CORE" is. So you want to play the fluff card? Fair enough. If we go by "fluff" and what units interact with the higher-ups, than EVERY unit in the marine book should have it. All of them. Every. Single. One.

That defeats the purpose though doesn't it? Now, let's ignore the piles and piles of fluff that say you're wrong about certain aspects of the assumptions you're making for Necrons in that post and just assume that you're right about why some units have core and some don't. Anyting answering directly to the Silent King should probably get "CORE" if he's in the army right? If it's about who answers to who, Destroyer cult units should probably get "Destroyer CCORE" if led by a Destroyer or Skorpek lord right? Your reasoning only makes sense if you refuse to look at almost everything else.

So you can't claim "fluff" because that's overwhelmingly, obviously not the answer. So let's look at why they made core. They made it so that Space Marine Captains aren't sitting on the backline babysitting tanks. That's it. Presumably, they also wanted a way to give infantry more "oomph" as well, but that's not what they said when they introduced the rule. So they succeeded on the tank buff deal. They failed everywhere else. Because once again, rather than just adjust the "problem unit/units" they made a blanket rule that hits all other armies/units needlessly. The Necron implementation is probably a lot closer to how it SHOULD be (with the exception that the non-core units should NOT be costed as though they have core), but since they are the lone book running that way (due to core never really being all that well thought out), they have been hamstrung, and the "Core" implementation has been haphazard and lazy as we go.

Have you actually read the codex? Szarekh buffs triarch units, Destroyer Lords buff destroyers. Not being core means they don't benefit from Overlords and other HQ's in the traditional dynastic hierarchy. I don't appreciate a Blood Angels player pretending he knows more about Necrons than me.


So, you said essentially, that "Core is fluff based". I said it's not and pointed out a bunch of reasons why it ISN'T fluff based if you look at all it's applications. I never said Destroyer Lords don't buff destroyers. I said they should have had their own version of core. So all of what I said still stands. I'm not sure why you're mad? Chip on your shoulder much? lol

I haven't played Blood Angels since the end of 5th. I have played Necrons since 2nd edition. The problem is, the non-core units (in the 'cron dex specifically) are costed like they have core. You're actively shut out of a lot if you don't have core in that 'dex (it's pretty telling too when you look at a lot of the top 'cron lists). Getting the small buffs from Skorpek lords ≠ actually having access to core or a modified core (like I said Destroyer Core or some other similar mechanic). That's cool if you're happy with something like a Skorpek Lord essentially being treated like a less capable Marine LT, but I was hoping for more after having so terrible a book for so long. It feels like they wanted a way to make units like Lychguard better but couldn't figure out how to do it, so they just "took away" form the other units.

Like I said before, it probably is on a better path than the other books, but since it's the lone stand out in that regard, it's going to suffer for its approach in the long term. Mind you, I'm not with Xeno where I think the sky is falling. I still think it's a great book. It's just been artificially hamstrung by how poorly they handled core.

So TL;DR :

You said core is fluff based. I said it's not and listed those reasons. You are now upset because ... why again?

This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2021/06/18 21:24:00


Edit: I just googled ablutions and apparently it does not including dropping a duece. I should have looked it up early sorry for any confusion. - Baldsmug

Psiensis on the "good old days":
"Kids these days...
... I invented the 6th Ed meta back in 3rd ed.
Wait, what were we talking about again? Did I ever tell you about the time I gave you five bees for a quarter? That's what you'd say in those days, "give me five bees for a quarter", is what you'd say in those days. And you'd go down to the D&D shop, with an onion in your belt, 'cause that was the style of the time. So there I was in the D&D shop..." 
   
 
Forum Index » 40K General Discussion
Go to: