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.

Sidstyler wrote:I don't know if anyone has really commented on this yet, but isn't a "high-risk investment" basically every non-Space Marine release?

No. IG, Orks, and Nids have pretty solid fanbase. If the codex is mid-level competitive, it'll sell as will the new models. Necrons, Dark Eldar, and Tau are all less established, and since they're all really post-3rd edition books, I don't think it is surprising. (iirc, Necrons were introduced towards the end of 2nd ed as allies, but I may be wrong).

Regardless the Eldar are in no way a Necron Instant killing force, Fluff nor in gameplay.

I think Necrons had a sort of micro-codex in a white dwarf early third edition era. Only two or three entries in it (necrons warriors, scarabs and possibly a HQ choice) and they were supposed to be used as antagonists or "neutral forces" for story driven scenarios. In 3rd ed rulebook there is a drawing of a necron in the small collection of "other dangerous aliens" but it is designated "Unknown".

Janthkin wrote:

Whatever1 wrote:Russ's have always run in that points cost range even before they could be bought in squadrons. For another,a Russ can't move 12" and fire it's Ordinance weapon. It can only move at Combat speed(6") and fire Ordinance,same as the Monolith. However,the Monolith being a Skimmer can ignore terrain as it moves and the Russ can't,which makes the Monolith the more mobile Ordinance platform.

If the Monolith could actually get past terrain with a 6" move, it could ignore terrain. However, outside of very skinny walls, the electric brick is going to end up in terrain, and suffer from the same dangerous terrain test as the Russ.

The Flux arc on the Monolith at BS 4 is infinately better than the H.Bolter on the Russ at BS 3 as a secondary weapon. No,the Flux arc isn't devastating,but it's still way better as a secondary weapon.

You keep using that word. I do not think it means, what you think it means....

The Flux arc is a short-range anti-troop weapon. A heavy bolter is a long range anti-troop weapon. The HB works very well on the Russ (especially if you take 3 of them), as it is primarily a long-range anti-troop platform; it's weapons are complementary.

If the Monolith can make it over ANY difficult terrain features without having to check,then it has a mobility advantage. It can also move over or end it's movement phase in impassable terrain if you're willing to take a difficult terrain check. The issue with it clearing terrain is really more of an issue with the way Necron players play the Monolith than the actual size of the model. Per the rules as written,all skimmers are suppossed to be mounted on flying bases. The Monolith,being a skimmer,should be on a large flying base,which is suppossed to be provided in the Monolith kit per GW's site. I realize that a common complaint is that many Monolith kits didn't come with them,but Necron players should either buy bases or should've called up GW and said they didn't get their base with the kit. As it stands,most of them just set the Monolith on the ground,which should technically only happen if it's Immobolized or Destroyed. The way I've always seen it played with Skimmer movement is that if the base clears the terrain piece,the model is considered clear,so if people based the Monolith properly,it would clear more terrain features than it can now. However,most Necron players either don't know the RaW on Skimmers,don't care to drill out a hole for the base in the bottom of the Monolith,think the Monolith is too unbalanced on a flying base,and/or would just rather set the model on the ground so that it completely blocks LoS to any models they have behind it instead of just giving them a cover save.

The original discussion with Voronesh was that he wouldn't pay 160 points for a Monolith if they dropped Living Metal and just gave it a 4+ cover save. 3xH.Bolters is better than the Guass Flux arc in most situations,but the Guass Flux is better than 1xH.Bolter. Giving the Russ 3xH.Bolters puts it at 170 and pretty much out of the discussion.

The point is that even without Living Metal,there's simply no way to justify the Monolith at 160 points. Everything else aside,it has AV 14 all the way around,so it doesn't have to worry about Outflanking Genestealers assaulting with Str 4 Rending against AV 10 or even an Outflanking squad of Space Marine Scouts blowing it to heck with Krak Grenades. The Russ does.

Actually, Rules As Written is that you mount them on the base they come with. It's not that "many" Monoliths don't come with a base, it's that I have Never seen one that has. They've got their own built in risers on the bottom of the model, and don't use a traditional flight stand. Not to mention that even if you did put one on a traditional vehicle flight stand, it's only going to raise it up ever so slightly if any at all, due to those built in risers, and the point where the base would connect to being inset.

Ostrakon wrote:My mistake. I didn't have the IG codex on hand, but I knew they had some kind of special move+fire ordnance thing.

But what's the special rule, then? Anything can move combat and fire ordnance, right?

The HB on the LRBT doesn't even matter. You're never going to fire it unless your opponent is lucky enough to get a WD result against AV14 or 13.

Yes, we have the option to transport troops around, but it's not a terribly useful one. And any warriors in reserve HAVE to pop out of the monolith portal unless there's some sort of errata on that, so it becomes infeasible. I'd love to just have them walk out on my table edge and have the option of teleporting it, but being forced to drop them somewhere I don't want them to be makes it an extremely unattractive option. For an ability that's usually only used in an emergency and isn't terribly useful even then, it shouldn't be worth a lot of points on a vehicle that's already supposed to be at a discount.

The monolith being a skimmer doesn't help so much, really. It's huge, so terrain would have to be impossibly small for it to move 6 inches and ignore it. It's base is so big you can't even pass directly over a single tacmarine. And keep in mind it's permanently stuck at moving 6 (or less) inches.

The Russ can basically move Combat and fire it's turret weapon in addition to one other weapon. So,you will fire the H.Bolter if you're shooting at Troop units and it's in range.

The Monolith portal may be somewhat suboptimal,but it's still useful,and has to be accounted for in the Monolith's points cost.

The Monolith is suppossed to be on a large(60 mm) flying base. Basically,the base is 2",which give you 4" of wiggle room to clear that wall,trench,tree,whatever.

Best thing about the monolith? Hearing someone try to explain to you that you can't PW after deep striking.

Monolith kits don't come with a flying base, so it's assumed not to have one. Rules also say that you're supposed to use the base it's supplied with. And it doesn't have a mobility advantage: it can't ignore terrain without taking a test, because it is impossible to move over any segment of terrain larger than an infinitesimally thin line due to its sheer size.

160 points for the monolith without living metal, but with a 4+ coversave? Probably not. 180 or 200? If we're not keeping Phaseout, meaning it would be meaningful to engage it, I really don't see why not. It becomes little more than a more heavily armored Battlecannon with a teleport ability you rarely want to use and a secondary weapon that is only ever meaningful when you take more than 2 monoliths. Hell, I wouldn't really take them now if I didn't need them to block LoS and grant a cover save for my warriors to avoid getting phased out. (Then again, the army needs more AP3 stuff.)


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Kurgash wrote:Best thing about the monolith? Hearing someone try to explain to you that you can't PW after deep striking.

Ha, I love doing that. Codex > BGB

Alright, about this whole "stealing" ideas thing. There is a difference between complete stealing and inspiration. I would like to make an example with something completely unrelated to wargaming. For all you people out there who like music: every artist out there today was inspired by someone before himself.

For example a guitar player who really like Eddie Van Halen (if in the extremely rare case you don't know who this is, look him up) spends a large chunk of his time listening to him. He starts learning some of his songs and eventually may implement some of Eddie's techniques in his own music. Eddie pretty much invented tapping (look it up) yet many artists, particularly metal artists, use tapping in their own music as well. You don't see Eddie standing there going "You stole my idea," or see people saying "You stole his idea," because that technique was made so it could used and could increase the art of music further.

Now GW, in my opinion, hasn't stolen anything. As long as they aren't exactly the same in both looks and backround, I'm totally fine with it. You don't see a whole lot of people (aside from those that complain about everything GW does for no real reason) saying that they stole the idea, because the didn't. If anything, I am inspired to lead my army of Terminators or Aliens against all who oppose me.

dietrich wrote:

Sidstyler wrote:I don't know if anyone has really commented on this yet, but isn't a "high-risk investment" basically every non-Space Marine release?

No. IG, Orks, and Nids have pretty solid fanbase. If the codex is mid-level competitive, it'll sell as will the new models. Necrons, Dark Eldar, and Tau are all less established, and since they're all really post-3rd edition books, I don't think it is surprising. (iirc, Necrons were introduced towards the end of 2nd ed as allies, but I may be wrong).

Plus it is a self fulfilling high-risk investment. GW fails to support a particular army, and due to the lack of interested players(implied or otherwise) the army becomes looked at as high risk. If they had updated Necrons, Dar Eldar, and Orks even half as much as they did any of the Space Marine chapters they would have better sales and be less high-risk. The truth is that as a whole the Non-SM armies out sell the Space Marine armies 2:1. The Space Marines happen to be the Single best seller because they are a introductory army that is heavily supported by GW and is the central character in the majority of Narratives.

Aduro wrote:Actually, Rules As Written is that you mount them on the base they come with. It's not that "many" Monoliths don't come with a base, it's that I have Never seen one that has. They've got their own built in risers on the bottom of the model, and don't use a traditional flight stand. Not to mention that even if you did put one on a traditional vehicle flight stand, it's only going to raise it up ever so slightly if any at all, due to those built in risers, and the point where the base would connect to being inset.

"Model supplied with a large flying base."

http://www.games-workshop.com/gws/catalog/productDetail.jsp?catId=cat380014&prodId=prod1090227

I have seen Monoliths that have come with them,BTW. I've just never seen anybody take the time to drill the bottom so they can attach it. However,whether one got packed in with the model is immaterial. GW says it comes with one,which means that it's the proper base for the model. I don't believe that the 4th edition rulebook had the cavaet that "Unlike other vehicles,skimmers have transparent flying bases under their hull." As the rules have changed with the new edition,the model should technically have it. Even if it didn't come with one in the past,it's no different than IG players having rebase their old metal heavy weapon teams,which used to be two distinct figs on two seperate bases,onto the new HW team bases. If the RAW is indeed that you mount them on the base they come with,then that's a violation of RAW,as the HW team is no longer on it's original base. However,the biggest argument is that the clear flying base is,by rule,the representation of a Skimmer,now. If the Monolith is simply sitting on it's prongs and not on a flying base,then it's not WYSIWYG.

Whatever1 wrote:

Aduro wrote:Actually, Rules As Written is that you mount them on the base they come with. It's not that "many" Monoliths don't come with a base, it's that I have Never seen one that has. They've got their own built in risers on the bottom of the model, and don't use a traditional flight stand. Not to mention that even if you did put one on a traditional vehicle flight stand, it's only going to raise it up ever so slightly if any at all, due to those built in risers, and the point where the base would connect to being inset.

"Model supplied with a large flying base."

http://www.games-workshop.com/gws/catalog/productDetail.jsp?catId=cat380014&prodId=prod1090227

I have seen Monoliths that have come with them,BTW. I've just never seen anybody take the time to drill the bottom so they can attach it. However,whether one got packed in with the model is immaterial. GW says it comes with one,which means that it's the proper base for the model. I don't believe that the 4th edition rulebook had the cavaet that "Unlike other vehicles,skimmers have transparent flying bases under their hull." As the rules have changed with the new edition,the model should technically have it. Even if it didn't come with one in the past,it's no different than IG players having rebase their old metal heavy weapon teams,which used to be two distinct figs on two seperate bases,onto the new HW team bases. If the RAW is indeed that you mount them on the base they come with,then that's a violation of RAW,as the HW team is no longer on it's original base. However,the biggest argument is that the clear flying base is,by rule,the representation of a Skimmer,now. If the Monolith is simply sitting on it's prongs and not on a flying base,then it's not WYSIWYG.

It was already stated though that the bottom of the monolith has the riser portion built into it. I bet if you measure it it is 60mm as well. If I was at home at the moment I'd check. They way the bottom of the model is constructed anyway wouldn't make a typical clear base have it up any higher. Considering how large it is, anyway, it wouldn't make much, if any, difference. Also FYI, the two monoliths I bought in the last year (I'm still a noob) didn't come with a clear base nor does it show one on the box as part of the contents.

*Edit*
Besides, the GW website is not as up to date as should be, just look at the scarabs they show still - http://www.games-workshop.com/gws/catalog/productDetail.jsp?catId=cat380012&prodId=99060110003

Whatever1 wrote:

Aduro wrote:Actually, Rules As Written is that you mount them on the base they come with. It's not that "many" Monoliths don't come with a base, it's that I have Never seen one that has. They've got their own built in risers on the bottom of the model, and don't use a traditional flight stand. Not to mention that even if you did put one on a traditional vehicle flight stand, it's only going to raise it up ever so slightly if any at all, due to those built in risers, and the point where the base would connect to being inset.

"Model supplied with a large flying base."

http://www.games-workshop.com/gws/catalog/productDetail.jsp?catId=cat380014&prodId=prod1090227

I have seen Monoliths that have come with them,BTW. I've just never seen anybody take the time to drill the bottom so they can attach it. However,whether one got packed in with the model is immaterial. GW says it comes with one,which means that it's the proper base for the model. I don't believe that the 4th edition rulebook had the cavaet that "Unlike other vehicles,skimmers have transparent flying bases under their hull." As the rules have changed with the new edition,the model should technically have it. Even if it didn't come with one in the past,it's no different than IG players having rebase their old metal heavy weapon teams,which used to be two distinct figs on two seperate bases,onto the new HW team bases. If the RAW is indeed that you mount them on the base they come with,then that's a violation of RAW,as the HW team is no longer on it's original base. However,the biggest argument is that the clear flying base is,by rule,the representation of a Skimmer,now. If the Monolith is simply sitting on it's prongs and not on a flying base,then it's not WYSIWYG.

I made magnetized flight stands for all my Monoliths. I have 3" clear plastic doll rods drilled into 60mm bases. It puts them a little higher off the ground than I would like but it puts it in line with a skimmer and even makes it easier to deploy a 10 man squad of Warriors out of the Portal(most Necron players will know that it is difficult to place all 10 warriors due to the 2 inch rule.

Mellon wrote:I think Necrons had a sort of micro-codex in a white dwarf early third edition era. Only two or three entries in it (necrons warriors, scarabs and possibly a HQ choice) and they were supposed to be used as antagonists or "neutral forces" for story driven scenarios. In 3rd ed rulebook there is a drawing of a necron in the small collection of "other dangerous aliens" but it is designated "Unknown".

There was a Chapter approved army list in early 3rd, as you say. It was more extensive than that though. It included Lords, Immortals, Warriors, Scarabs, Destroyers and Heavy Destroyers. I remember this because I started playing Necrons way back then.

From the Scarab description page:

Upgraded with disruption fields Scarabs are perfect for taking out enemy vehicles, as a 36 point unit of 3 bases should score a glancing hit, stopping a 100+ point vehicle from shooting or even destroying it.

That's just double wrong. It's 48 points, and unless that unit is opentopped or part of a squadron, they won't be killing anything. Have they not updated the description since 4E or something? (And are those the old WD Scarabs? They need to go in the frakking collectors section)

But yeah, the only time I have ever seen a monolith with a flying base is in the codex, and that one looks like it's using one of the regular Destroyer/Jetbike bases... And no way am I trying to balance my Monolith on that gak.

Necrons first showed up in a White Dwarf back in second edition with a lord warriors and scarabs. A second White Dwarf came out with immortals and destroyers. In third edition Necrons got 2 full White Dwarf army lists before the codex finally came out.

As for a monolith’s movement, the monolith is 6"x6"x9" so when it moves it can’t leap over any terrain at all because it can’t move fast enough. With it being so tall, wide, and slow it is VERRY hard to get out of line of sight if there was anything big enough to hide behind. That is why the monolith has living metal so you can get some play time out of it. Who would pay $50 for the slowest and largest tank in the game unless it is can shrug off almost any hit.

I have played Necrons from second ED on and I have 4 monoliths none of them has come with a flying base. I have only seen person put one on a flying base and needed 4 of them one in each corner to keep it balanced. One flying base is not stable enough to support a monolith that is why the monolith has little feet on the bottom to rise it up off the ground.

Whatever1 wrote:

Aduro wrote:Actually, Rules As Written is that you mount them on the base they come with. It's not that "many" Monoliths don't come with a base, it's that I have Never seen one that has. They've got their own built in risers on the bottom of the model, and don't use a traditional flight stand. Not to mention that even if you did put one on a traditional vehicle flight stand, it's only going to raise it up ever so slightly if any at all, due to those built in risers, and the point where the base would connect to being inset.

"Model supplied with a large flying base."

http://www.games-workshop.com/gws/catalog/productDetail.jsp?catId=cat380014&prodId=prod1090227

I have seen Monoliths that have come with them,BTW. I've just never seen anybody take the time to drill the bottom so they can attach it. However,whether one got packed in with the model is immaterial. GW says it comes with one,which means that it's the proper base for the model. I don't believe that the 4th edition rulebook had the cavaet that "Unlike other vehicles,skimmers have transparent flying bases under their hull." As the rules have changed with the new edition,the model should technically have it. Even if it didn't come with one in the past,it's no different than IG players having rebase their old metal heavy weapon teams,which used to be two distinct figs on two seperate bases,onto the new HW team bases. If the RAW is indeed that you mount them on the base they come with,then that's a violation of RAW,as the HW team is no longer on it's original base. However,the biggest argument is that the clear flying base is,by rule,the representation of a Skimmer,now. If the Monolith is simply sitting on it's prongs and not on a flying base,then it's not WYSIWYG.

No It was not supplied with the base they have never included a base, so by raw i don't have have a base because it didn't come with one. And even en it doesn't matter sinceall measerments are made from the hull any way so it wouldn't help it in the least

Ostrakon wrote:

JohnHwangDD wrote:

Ostrakon wrote:Gah, why can't C'Tan stay? People complain about them all the time, but they're not really 'gods' so much as they are 'essence of god stuffed into a metal container'.

The problem with C'Tan is they're a rules nightmare. On top of being a conceptual problem. They're so far off the norm, it's just a mess to play against them. If they were just a regular Greater Daemon, there wouldn't be any problem at all.

Wait, how are C'Tan a problem ruleswise? Yeah, they have a couple of weird, corner-case special rules (like how they interact with Wraithcannons) but that's about all I can think of that are actual problems.

I agree, that "C'Tan" belong in Apoc, but I definately what the models and rules to continue into the next edition.
The C'Tan rules aren't that troublesome, but a little tweaking is easy.

youbedead wrote:

Whatever1 wrote:

Aduro wrote:Actually, Rules As Written is that you mount them on the base they come with. It's not that "many" Monoliths don't come with a base, it's that I have Never seen one that has. They've got their own built in risers on the bottom of the model, and don't use a traditional flight stand. Not to mention that even if you did put one on a traditional vehicle flight stand, it's only going to raise it up ever so slightly if any at all, due to those built in risers, and the point where the base would connect to being inset.

"Model supplied with a large flying base."

http://www.games-workshop.com/gws/catalog/productDetail.jsp?catId=cat380014&prodId=prod1090227

I have seen Monoliths that have come with them,BTW. I've just never seen anybody take the time to drill the bottom so they can attach it. However,whether one got packed in with the model is immaterial. GW says it comes with one,which means that it's the proper base for the model. I don't believe that the 4th edition rulebook had the cavaet that "Unlike other vehicles,skimmers have transparent flying bases under their hull." As the rules have changed with the new edition,the model should technically have it. Even if it didn't come with one in the past,it's no different than IG players having rebase their old metal heavy weapon teams,which used to be two distinct figs on two seperate bases,onto the new HW team bases. If the RAW is indeed that you mount them on the base they come with,then that's a violation of RAW,as the HW team is no longer on it's original base. However,the biggest argument is that the clear flying base is,by rule,the representation of a Skimmer,now. If the Monolith is simply sitting on it's prongs and not on a flying base,then it's not WYSIWYG.

No It was not supplied with the base they have never included a base, so by raw i don't have have a base because it didn't come with one. And even en it doesn't matter sinceall measerments are made from the hull any way so it wouldn't help it in the least

If you've followed this discussion any other forums,people have gotten Monoliths with flying bases(or at least claim to). I've got a flying base on an old 2nd ed Landspeeder that my buddy got in his Monolith box. Just because you haven't gotten one with a flying base doesn't mean that people haven't gotten them. Per GW,the model is suppossed to have a flying base. If GW doesn't pack the bases in with a unit of Terminators,does that mean that I can just have a unit of Termies running around without bases? No,it doesn't.

For another,the RAW does not state that if the model didn't include a base,it didn't have to be based. Per pg. 3 of the 5th ed rulebook.

"Bases. Citadel miniatures are normally supplied with a plastic base. If so,they must be glued onto their bases before they can be used in the game."

RAW does not state that if the model didn't come with a base,it doesn't have to be on a base. RAW states that if the model comes with a base,it must be glued onto that base.

Per the RAW on pg. 71 for Skimmers.

"Unlike other vehicles,skimmers have transparant flying bases under their hulls."

and

"Note that it is not permitted to remove the flying stand other than in the two cases above(Immobilized and Wrecked),as normally skimmers cannot land in battle conditions."

Tau skimmers,for example,can take Landing Gear to voluntarily land. However,the Necron codex provides no such ability for the Monolith. If it's just sitting on it's pylons,then it's illegal,by RAW,as there are no rules in the Necron codex to override the rules for skimmers in the base rules.

Now,ultimately,I'm not going to bust anybody's balls over just sticking the thing on the ground,but the RAI I've seen everyone use for skimmer movement is that if the base clears the terrain and the hull isn't making contact,then no difficult terrain test is required. However,when the discussion involves comparitive movements and points cost,the fact that it should be a flying base is a valid point. I'm not slamming my fist and saying "Grrrraaaaaahhhhhh!!!!!! All Necron players should have their Monoliths on flying bases,and I will not rest until those cheating bastards conform to the RAW!!!!!!!!" I'm saying,"You know,you could clear more terrain pieces with that thing if you'd just put it on the proper base." It doesn't matter to me either way. However,it's having it both ways if you're complaining about restrictive movement when it could be better if you'd just base the model properly,IMO. Ultimately,none of it matters to the original point about the Monolith being a more mobile Ordinance platform than a Russ,anyways,and this has gotten way OT.

Whatever1 wrote:"Bases. Citadel miniatures are normally supplied with a plastic base. If so,they must be glued onto their bases before they can be used in the game."

I highlighted the qualifiers in that sentence for you so you can see where the discrepancy comes into play.

insaniak wrote:

SweetLou wrote:no its BARE not BEAR BEAR is a animal

It's 'bear'

'Bare' means 'uncovered'.

'Bear' is an animal, but the word also has other meanings. To 'bear' something can mean 'to carry' (as in 'ring bearer'), to support (as in a 'load bearing structure') or to put up with (as in 'bear with me')...

OH SNAP!

NecronLord3 wrote:Regardless the Eldar are in no way a Necron Instant killing force, Fluff nor in gameplay.

Idk why people seem to think Eldar are a anti-necron army, imo Eldar and Necrons are opposite ends of the spectrum Eldar being fast and weak, Necrons being slow and hard.

I just really want some options in my army.

I think some kind of "Outsider Aura" would be cool, maybe causing an infectious insainty? I think that would be neat.

Can't..get...my hopes up..... though.

I just can't wait!



And Matt Ward is writing it? is this confirmed? or just speculation?

Codex SM was alright, and I can't pass judgement on the BA codex yet.

I'd still prefer Phil Kelly....

They should make new vehicles too.

Whatever1 wrote:I'm not slamming my fist and saying "Grrrraaaaaahhhhhh!!!!!! All Necron players should have their Monoliths on flying bases,and I will not rest until those cheating bastards conform to the RAW!!!!!!!!"

"I don't really care if people base them or not. No...I've just written several large paragraphs explaining the RAW behind the monolith's base and insinuating that everyone who doesn't put their huge plastic brick on a brittle flying stand that doesn't even come with most of the kits sold is playing the game 'wrong'. But I don't care."

Could've fooled me.

Sasori wrote:I just really want some options in my army.

I think some kind of "Outsider Aura" would be cool, maybe causing an infectious insainty? I think that would be neat.

Can't..get...my hopes up..... though.

I just can't wait!



And Matt Ward is writing it? is this confirmed? or just speculation?

Codex SM was alright, and I can't pass judgement on the BA codex yet.

I'd still prefer Phil Kelly....

I dunno if Matt Ward is confirmed, but most rumors point to him. Guy seems like he knows what he's doing, so I'm optimistic.

Leaked concept art of the Necromancer...

Farmer wrote:

NecronLord3 wrote:Regardless the Eldar are in no way a Necron Instant killing force, Fluff nor in gameplay.

Idk why people seem to think Eldar are a anti-necron army, imo Eldar and Necrons are opposite ends of the spectrum Eldar being fast and weak, Necrons being slow and hard.

Retrace the thread. They were talking about Fluff.

Farmer wrote:

NecronLord3 wrote:Regardless the Eldar are in no way a Necron Instant killing force, Fluff nor in gameplay.

Idk why people seem to think Eldar are a anti-necron army, imo Eldar and Necrons are opposite ends of the spectrum Eldar being fast and weak, Necrons being slow and hard.

Actually, crunchwise, like 1/3 of the units in Codex: Necrons are jetbikes of some variety.

These are the things im hoping to see in the new necrons,

1. Increased Unit size of Wraiths.
2. A Multi Plastic piece set of at least 3 Wraiths.
3. Increase the Tomb Spyders BS to at least 4 or 3
4. No Removal of C'tan but tune the rules down a bit.
5. More HQ and Troop variety.
6. More Vehicles
7. And other plastic sets (see first post)

and im sure GW will extract somthing from the Reaper boss from ME2