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.

Yup, that's what I was thinking. And of course, the +1 to escaping being over run.

"After all Slow and Purposeful and Feel No Pain makes Necron Warriors to similar to Thousand Sons. "

Papa Nurgle gonna smack you.


Heh, I am expecting the new pariahs to turn out like Khorne Berzerkers but with FNP. Which would totally kick ass!

How so?

The overwhelming bulk of the time, opponents have already made their attacks, so you're only killing guys who've already swung. Whether you simul or go first vs the PF, you still get all of your attacks. So you kill a few guys, he kills a few guys and it's a wash.

The only time it matters is when the PF is the last guy standing. In this case, you get the chance to kill him before he kills a couple of your guys. But as PFs were nerfed to not gain the +1A except when paired, this isn't nearly as common.

And the +1 to escaping over run?
Btw, PMs are cheaper than 26 points.
And they get transport options.
And they get defensive grenades.
And they get special weapons.
And they get more attacks.
And they get squad leaders.
And they get I3.
And they get T5.

But they don't get SAP, so I suppose that's alright.

JohnHwangDD wrote:

If you take Phase Out away, then Necrons need to cost at least 25 pts each and/or get much worse stat-wise.

Like I1?

@ H.B.M.C.

Wait one second... So everyone already bought destroyers and lords and warriors and whatnot. They bought them because they were good. In a few cases too good in others just functional. Thus because people already own them the powers that be will tone them down. Can't it just be said that people buy the powerful stuff because it is powerful then GW tones it down because it was too powerful?

Throw out that whole "games workshop makes the new models good!@1!1 stuff for a bit. Your saying that people buy the models that are powerful because they are powerful thus GW gives them new models before releasing a codex. Then in subsequent versions reduces their power. But model ranges like the necrons tend to get overhauled in large segments. The last major overhaul happened all at once. They couldn't have "powered up the new models!" because they were all new. In fact the newest ones if i remember right were all universally bad (pariahs and wraiths).

By that same logic the land speeder storm should have been amazing, the thunderfire canon should have been a masterpiece, scout bikes should have been awesome, the master of the forge should have been fantastic, the ironclad dreadnaut should have been.. Well.. You get the idea.

Things get better for two reasons:

1. No one bought it in the last edition because it sucked or wasn't as good as somthing comparable (eg. Assault Terminatotrs in the last Codex compared to this one).
2. There's a new model kit coming out (eg. Stealth Suits).

So it comes down to what are people using, and what are people not using?

If something wasn't bought in the last edition because it wasn't as good as something comparable (eg. assault termies) then it was underpowered (eg. assault termies). That is a reason in and of itself to overhaul and improve, beyond the need for driving sales.

And really, the new model thing just doesn't work. Too many new releases in the past few years have been crap. Practically nothing in the new marine book that has a new model is particularly good, and very little new in the chaos book was either. Going back the last few years there's only a few examples of large rules improvements to new models especially when compared to new models with rules that virtually insure no one will buy them.

Its a dead horse. Put the bat down.

ShumaGorath wrote:Thus because people already own them the powers that be will tone them down. Can't it just be said that people buy the powerful stuff because it is powerful then GW tones it down because it was too powerful?

It's actually a bit of both. Sometimes they will tone something down because it actually needs to be toned down, Assault Cannons being a good example.

However, historically, GW has shown to be either a bit ancient in their revisions (ie. something that was powerful in 3rd and then wasn't in 4th getting toned down when it's Codex gets updated becuse it was powerful in 3rd), or they over balance things (decrease power of assault cannons... and then reduce their numbers... and then increase their price... then make you feel guilty for taking them... and so on).

But GW have nothing to gain by up-powering Destroyers. They also have nothing to gain by leaving them as is. However, if they make something else that no one took (like Wraiths) into an awesome unit, then they don't have to worry, as everyone will rush to buy them.

ShumaGorath wrote:Throw out that whole "games workshop makes the new models good!@1!1 stuff for a bit.

Why?

They're a business Shummy. Their goal is to make money. GW does this by selling miniatures. The best way to drive sales is to change rules. So if something has already sold a bundle, there's no sense in upping its power because people who already have them are unlikely to buy more of them. It makes far more sense to up power something that nobody bought, especially if it replaces the thign that peoiple already own, so everyone goes out and buys those.

GW gets more $$$, therefore they win.

ShumaGorath wrote:Your saying that people buy the models that are powerful because they are powerful thus GW gives them new models before releasing a codex.

People buy models that are effective, yes. This isn't a revelation, it's normal. Not bad, evil, underhanded or even good - just normal. And I don't know what you mean about "giving them models before releasing a Codex".

ShumaGorath wrote:Then in subsequent versions reduces their power.

Or, like with Stealth Suits and probably with Immortals (and maybe even Destroyers, given their popularity), they give them a suite of new options, but only make them available on a completely new kit. That way the options are only available on a new model which people have to buy, or convert the old one, which also involves buying more stuff. So, again, a win for GW as they get more $$$.

And, as I said, this isn't 'evil' of them. It's not them being 'dishonest' or 'bad'. It's just standard - normal - unremarkable.

ShumaGorath wrote:But model ranges like the necrons tend to get overhauled in large segments.

What model ranges are there like the Necrons?

ShumaGorath wrote:The last major overhaul happened all at once.

I think you mean the only overhaul for the Necrons there Shummy. Plus I wouldn't call it an overhaul either. Remember that Necrons didn't even have a Codex until their 'overhaul'. They were a test race developed towards the end of 2nd Ed to test the waters. They proved popular enough, with releases for Immortals and (hideous) Destroyers coming after the original Warriors, so they were given a 'to get you buy' list at first (like Sisters in 3rd), and then finally a full Codex with a new art style and a model release to go with this new art style.

ShumaGorath wrote:They couldn't have "powered up the new models!" because they were all new.

The race was new. You don't have to power up everything in a new race. It being new is often enough to make people buy it. There's the "Oooh! Shiny!" factor in here. Look at the Tau. They sucked in 3rd yet everyone still went out and bought them... then subsequently sold them off.

Besides, the units that were often the best (Destroyers, Scarabs, Monolith) were in plastic, which also just happens to be the most expensive type of mould to produce. Funny that.

ShumaGorath wrote:In fact the newest ones if i remember right were all universally bad (pariahs and wraiths).

Takes a while for the Codex to disseminate throughout the community. Within 6 months some of the 'Ooh shiny!' will wear out on the Marines as well and people will start taking hard looks at which of the new stuff is really worthwhile. Moreover, as it was a new race for 40K, rather than a test-race like it had been in 2nd Ed, there were bound to be mistakes. Mistakes are human, and GW seem more human than most when it comes to mistakes, so it's to be expected really.

ShumaGorath wrote:By that same logic the land speeder storm should have been amazing

What... being more frightening than a Bloodthirster isn't good enough for you?

ShumaGorath wrote:the thunderfire canon should have been a masterpiece

I already said that there's usually one new unit per Codex that gets a new kit but actually sucks. Possessed and Tank Bustaz are two good examples. The Thunderfire Cannon joins them.

And as I said, GW makes mistakes. You could even go so far - I won't, but you could - to say that some new things are left bad so that they can up-power them next time they revise it without needing to make a new model.

ShumaGorath wrote:scout bikes should have been awesome

Scout Bikes have been given every special rule under the sun.

ShumaGorath wrote:the master of the forge should have been fantastic

He ain't getting a new model (that we know of).

ShumaGorath wrote:the ironclad dreadnaut should have been.. Well.. You get the idea.

AV13 Dread > AV12 Dread, so I don't know what you're saying here.

ShumaGorath wrote:If something wasn't bought in the last edition because it wasn't as good as something comparable (eg. assault termies) then it was underpowered (eg. assault termies). That is a reason in and of itself to overhaul and improve, beyond the need for driving sales.

But selling miniatures is what counts. They're a miniature company, not a rules company. Again, not a conspiracy, or them being 'evil', it's what they are. It's their business model, and I hold no grudges against them for it.

Using Assault Termies as the example, they didn't sell not because they were an inherently bad unit, but because the alternative (2 AssCan Termy Squads) were so much better. Now AssCans have been (over) balanced, and regular Termies aren't the New Hotness any more, and now that Storm Shields have been beefed up, Assault Termies are better than Termy Squads (which, like with the opposite, aren't bad units, but Assault Termies are just better units). So they drive sales for Assault Termies without having to make a new kit because the majority of people wouldn't've bothered with them, so didn't own any in the first place.

Instant $$$ for GW. They win again.

ShumaGorath wrote:Its a dead horse. Put the bat down.

It's a logical assessment of their business model. Only the most extreme apologist here will deny the GW pendulum style of rules design (even my main man DD agrees here), and their pendulum style of rules design fits directly with their plan for selling models. Those on the upswing get new model kits, or if they're not getting new model kits it's because they were on the downswing last edition so no one reallay bought them last time.

As I've said, this isn't a conspiracy. This isn't GW being sneaky, underhanded. This isn't some 'evil empire' theory. GW aren't evil. Their rules writers are imbeciles most of the time, but they're not evil. It's just how GW operate, and as long as they keep making cool new models, it's fine.

BYE

though it may pain me to say it: Point to HMBC

Also, please for the love of god don't give Necrons rending on Gauss Weaponry, we don't need necrons auto-killing Wraithlords and near wiping out terminator units due to sloppy rules writing.

On the other hand, Flayed ones, and wraiths, deservedly need rending.

All I know is that Necrons as they stand in 5th are complete junk.

strange_eric wrote:though it may pain me to say it: Point to HMBC

One of these days I'm going to hunt down that HMBC fella and kill him for stealing all of my points, kudos, congratulations and witty retorts!!!!!

strange_eric wrote:Also, please for the love of god don't give Necrons rending on Gauss Weaponry, we don't need necrons auto-killing Wraithlords and near wiping out terminator units due to sloppy rules writing.

I doubt they will, but that doesn't mean Rending is out for certain types of Gauss weapons, like the Gauss thingy that Destroyers have. Then again, that up-powering would require a new kit, but if they're doing a combined/non-hybrid Destroy/Heavy Destroyer kit, that might be enough to drive the sale.

And Wraiths don't need Rending. Wraiths need power weapons. About as much as Lictors need 'em.

BYE

I really hope that they keep phase out and make the nercons much more customisable and give thema bigger army list or even just armoury

But GW have nothing to gain by up-powering Destroyers. They also have nothing to gain by leaving them as is. However, if they make something else that no one took (like Wraiths) into an awesome unit, then they don't have to worry, as everyone will rush to buy them.

They have nothing to gain by powering up destroyers because yes, everyone already owns the models and because they are fine in the current ruleset. If everyone already bought the model because it was powerful then powering it up would in fact be detrimental to the game. It would cause armies to consist of little other than the unit in question because it is too powerful. This would effectively drive down the sales of the other more standardly powerful units from the book. There is market incentive to good rules. A balanced codex will sell MORE models more evenly across the board then one with little variety.

They're a business Shummy. Their goal is to make money. GW does this by selling miniatures. The best way to drive sales is to change rules.

Incorrect. The best way to drive sales is through a solid ruleset that encourages new players and vets to maintain a stream of new alternative purchases. They don't make their money through flavor of the month overpowering of new model kits. They make the VAST majority of their money through army sales. A first time player collecting his first army doesn't really care about "new" models because they are all new. And a veteran starting a new army doesn't care about "new" models because they are all new to him as well. The incremental purchases to an existing army over time after the initial spending spree has ended accounts for very little profit by contrast to the initial expenditure.

So if something has already sold a bundle, there's no sense in upping its power because people who already have them are unlikely to buy more of them. It makes far more sense to up power something that nobody bought, especially if it replaces the thign that peoiple already own, so everyone goes out and buys those.

The minor sales spike a model line experiences pales in comparison to its long term profitability. By designing an unbalanced ruleset that favors a small list of newer models you inevitably harm the sales of the older models in the long term. Which is the term that matters. A newer model doesn't make the company any more than an older one.

People buy models that are effective, yes. This isn't a revelation, it's normal. Not bad, evil, underhanded or even good - just normal. And I don't know what you mean about "giving them models before releasing a Codex".

I should have said "as they were releasing".

Or, like with Stealth Suits and probably with Immortals (and maybe even Destroyers, given their popularity), they give them a suite of new options, but only make them available on a completely new kit. That way the options are only available on a new model which people have to buy, or convert the old one, which also involves buying more stuff. So, again, a win for GW as they get more $$$.

This is yet another logical fallacy. To improve upon stealth suits they had options. They could use the same models and simply up the statline of everything involved, irrevocably changing the way in which its unit entry would function with the rest of the book. Or they could simply give it upgrade options. Stealth suits sucked before. They do not now. I'm not denying it. But the method by which they upgraded the unit makes more sense then the alternative that would not require a new model. This was an incidental upgrade to the model line that sat well with the upgrade to their rules. Was it a required model update? Yes. However it was better than the alternative methods of improving the very static previous ruleset.

model ranges are there like the Necrons?

The tyranids had a near total overhaul with their fourth edition codex and the only unit that came out of it well was the carnifex. Lictors suck, raveners suck, zoanthropes are marginal, biovores are terrible, broodlords were terrible, etc. By underpowering the other choices and perhaps making the carnifex too good they did in fact increase carnifex sales. However the sales of all of the other models I have listed dropped by comparison. At best it was an even split in profitability, at worst they lost money on expensive molds for models that saw sales and use very rarely.

I think you mean the only overhaul for the Necrons there Shummy. Plus I wouldn't call it an overhaul either. Remember that Necrons didn't even have a Codex until their 'overhaul'. They were a test race developed towards the end of 2nd Ed to test the waters. They proved popular enough, with releases for Immortals and (hideous) Destroyers coming after the original Warriors, so they were given a 'to get you buy' list at first (like Sisters in 3rd), and then finally a full Codex with a new art style and a model release to compensate.

So they had a soft release, an overhaul, then a total overhaul. Got it. Keep in mind I've been playing necron armies since I started this game back when my tyranids came out of a third edition rulebook. They've changed several times in that span.

The race was new. You don't have to power up everything in a new race.

Except they weren't new.

Besides, the units that were often the best (Destroyers, Scarabs, Monolith) were in plastic, which also just happens to be the most expensive type of mould to produce. Funny that.

Produce yes, but not to maintain. While the initial cost of plastic injection molds is high the long term profitablity is superior to that of pewter molds because they last forever. When you underpower units constructed with metals youre losing money by requiring that those same models remain on shelves and in warehouses. They absorb tax dollars and while you may theoretically make up the lower cost of the mold more quickly, in effect you do not by diminishing sales by overpowering that which is plastic molded. Again, it is at best a tie and at worst a self destructive market strategy that will cause minor sales increases but a long term decline in market share and profitability. Which, despite the fact that that is happening. Is not what GW is shooting for.

What... being more frightening than a Bloodthirster isn't good enough for you?

Yeah, your going to have to explain that one.

I already said that there's usually one new unit per Codex that gets a new kit but actually sucks. Possessed and Tank Bustaz are two good examples. The Thunderfire Cannon joins them.

And flash gitz. And chaos spawn. And deathkoptas. How many new models have to suck before you become wrong? Or is there no limit on the cieling?

Scout Bikes have been given every special rule under the sun.

And yet they are still marginal.

AV13 Dread > AV12 Dread, so I don't know what you're saying here.

AV 13 Dread with no gun. A dreadnaut without a gun is a dreadnaut thats not making back its points any time soon. One more armor value doesn't help the fact that its in the same place as the close combat carnifex. A hardy unit that has to walk across the board so that if it lives it can maybe kill enough to make up its points in the two turns of combat it gets.

But selling miniatures is what counts. They're a miniature company, not a rules company. Again, not a conspiracy, or them being 'evil', it's what they are. It's their business model, and I hold no grudges against them for it.

Actually they are a company that by and large functions by IP. Miniature sales may make up a large percentage of its market but liscensing, expanding, and maintaining its IP while introducing continually tight rulesets are how it survives. Dark heresy doesn't make them much of a profit in minis sales. Neither does Dawn of War. But by having a sensical and stable base game to pull from they make more money in the long term by gaining a reliable and multifaceted customer base. A consistent ruleset with balance will make them more money than flash in the pan flavor of the month units because a balanced ruleset will attract new customers and maintain old ones. It's a long term strategy, the methods you describe for profitability are at once very short term and not particularly profitable. They are also self destructive.

Using Assault Termies as the example, they didn't sell not because they were an inherently bad unit, but because the alternative (2 AssCan Termy Squads) were so much better.

Assault termies were pretty terrible. They were a high cost slow moving unit that could easily be avoided or sand trapped. They were very hard to kill, but they accomplished very little.

Now AssCans have been (over) balanced, and regular Termies aren't the New Hotness any more, and now that Storm Shields have been beefed up, Assault Termies are better than Termy Squads (which, like with the opposite, aren't bad units, but Assault Termies are just better units). So they drive sales for Assault Termies without having to make a new kit because the majority of people wouldn't've bothered with them, therefore don't own anyway.

I also don't believe that assault canons have been overbalanced. It's still the best gun in the game. They have just shortened the gap between the usability of both units. This is how a book becomes balanced and it is WHY the longterm strategy of balance leads to more sales. Because when both options are good people will buy both options. You don't need to force them to do so by over or underpowering one of the two. It will happen anyway if they are both good choices.

It's a logical assessment of their business model.

It's an illogical conspiracy laden rant that takes many liberties with the ideas of profitability and sustainability and ignores reality.

Only the most extreme apologist here will deny the GW pendulum style of rules design (even my main man DD agrees here), and their pendulum style of rules design fits directly with their plan for selling models.

There is a pendulum style of rules design in codexes because they are idiots and cant seem to balance between rulesets. Not because they are trying to drive individual model sales. A bi polar and unbalanced ruleset loses far more money in lost customers than it does in flash in the pan short term model sales. You're just projecting your bias onto the coincidental human capacity to make mistakes (with GW a lot of mistakes).

As I've said, this isn't a conspiracy.

Yes it is, stop trying to ligitimize yourself. For every stealth team there is a sky ray. For every carnifex there is a ravener. And for every plague marine there is a possessed. These imbalances occur due to lax playtesting and poorly concieved design. Not due to some ridiculous conspiracy theory about sales drive.

This isn't GW being sneaky, underhanded. This isn't some 'evil empire' theory. GW aren't evil. Their rules writers are imbeciles most of the time, but they're not evil. It's just how GW operate, and as long as they keep making cool new models, it's fine.

Its true, they can be imbecilles. It's true they are not evil. And its true that thats just how they operate. As a company. Developing a game on a continual quest to maintain the precarious sense of balance inherent with being as large and multifaceted as it is.

[DOUBLE POST]

ShumaGorath wrote:It's an illogical conspiracy laden rant that takes many liberties with the ideas of profitability and sustainability and ignores reality.

You're the only one saying it's a conspiracy... look:

ShumaGorath wrote:Yes it is

See??? OMG!!!



I tried to be civil, but you went for the jugular, went with the adhominems and generally BS'ed your way through your post.

So let me respond in kind - get right down your level:


You're too stupid to live ShumaGorath, and I wish you didn't post here. I'm done with you.


Now go on. Change your Location to "Trying to kill HBMC" or "Loading my pistol and planning his death" or whatever else obsessed bs you've got running through that malfunctioning brain. You know you want to.

BYE

And thus we get to the core of the internet tough guy. When you can't just use aggression or a text wall to win an argument you fall apart. Sorry for interrupting the cycle of overt aggression maintained by lax moderation and random Kudos by disenfranchised teens that has supported your posting.. But here we are.

If you don't want me to say its a conspiracy stop saying its not, then treating your opinions as generally accepted facts being spoken down to one of the unlearned chuds from the sewers. People often times believe differently than you and if you fall apart every time one refuses to go away or give in you're going to be falling apart a lot.






In retrospect, did you put me on ignore..? Huh, thats going to be an odd question to have answered in the affirmative.

Also in retrospect its only ad hominim if I attack you. By calling your argument a conspiracy laden rant I was attacking the argument, albeit in a way that isn't a well formed counterargument. Though I had a lot of those too. It would have been ad hominim if I said it was a conspiracy laden rant because your a heroin addict or something. I have to actually attack you somehow for it to be ad hominim.

I think what would be nice is an evolution of the Necrons as a race, rather than just a pendulum swinging to make good bad and bad good.

The Necrons are, currently, a raiding force - the forces of a race that is still sleeping. I think that the next stage would be to overhaul the race into a fully fledged army, and make them the newest 'Greatest threat to the Imperium EVAR!!!!!!!!!!!!!@{" (y'know, after every other race).

So give them new models, take them from 'raiders' to 'army'. Still keep the core concepts of the Necron race - timeless warriors that are in no hurry, are virtually impossible to kill, and wield weapons of unimaginable power. Boils down to more variety I suppose.

Necrons suffer from being a 'boring' race because everything is exactly as you see it. Necron Warriors only ever do one thing. Flayed Ones do exactly one thing and never deviate. They're great bad guys, but they have no real personality. I love them, but mainly because I always loved Undead in Warhammer and these guys are the 40K version of that, but even Undead have a wealth of different units and options. Necrons are very much 'first gen'.

It's time to open up the Tombs and show us what the C'Tan's creations are really capable of!!!

BYE

I think I'm being ignored.

Think what you like, but as I said, I'm done with you.

Now do you want to discuss Necrons, or continue stalking me?

BYE

We can do the necron thing.

Wow! That was better than UFC Unleashed! Seriously, H.B.M.C. is right, the Necrons are still finding their way. Of course, the last Chaos Space Marine codex pretty much took almost everything distinctive about the traitor legions and threw it in the garbage, so in 6th edition, the Necrons will have whatever cool personality they get in their next codex taken away. One of these days GW will learn, or we'll wise up and stop buying their stuff. Yeah, right.

ShumaGorath wrote:A balanced codex will sell MORE models more evenly across the board then one with little variety.

I'm not at all sure that even sales should be the goal. Lately, I'm of a mind that GW deliberately over- or under-prices various units based on what they think an army should field more (or less) of. That is, any given Codex can be defined as containing things the army does well (underprice slightly), does poorly (overprice slightly), or not at all (remove from Codex).

In the case of Necrons, if they're the key to the army not phasing out, and players are forced to take them, then GW can "pull an Eldar" and deliberately overprice them by 10% or 15%. Whereas things like Monoliths and such are clearly good for their points, so they can be made effectively underpriced. On net, the tension of having expensive mandatory units balances against having more attractive optional units.

The minor sales spike a model line experiences pales in comparison to its long term profitability. By designing an unbalanced ruleset that favors a small list of newer models you inevitably harm the sales of the older models in the long term. Which is the term that matters. A newer model doesn't make the company any more than an older one.

I don't think GW favors newer models. The Eldar Wraithlord is a perfect example of this. In 3rd Edition, the Wraithlord was great. Totally worth his points. And a 2nd Edition model. In 4th, he got worse because of how the new rules worked. In 5th, he's hardly playable, having been nerfed pretty heavily. And all this despite a brand new plastic model that required tremendous setup costs.

Or what about Terminator Lords, Possessed, Spawn, and Daemonettes / Bloodletters (possibly Defiler, depending on who's reviewing) relative to the current CSM book? All of these are roundly derided, but they got shiny brand new plastic model kits...

And then, there's Codex Daemons, which is practically all new stuff representing a high development effort. Is that army overpowered? The recent GT results don't seem to show it.


If GW really were trying to push new models via rules, I think they could have done a much better job of it.


Personally, I think GW has this pendulum effect because they *intend* to overcorrect things that players complain about. "See? You have no basis for complaint : we *listened* to you!"

mattyboy22 wrote:

JohnHwangDD wrote:
If you take Phase Out away, then Necrons need to cost at least 25 pts each and/or get much worse stat-wise.

Like I1?

Well, you can't go to I0, or they can't fight in HtH.

Da Boss wrote:And the +1 to escaping over run?

But they don't get SAP, so I suppose that's alright.

I'm assuming they get Gauss = Rending, which should be expensive ranged and en masse.

strange_eric wrote:Also, please for the love of god don't give Necrons rending on Gauss Weaponry, we don't need necrons auto-killing Wraithlords and near wiping out terminator units due to sloppy rules writing.

200 pts of Terminators would be 8 Necrons at my proposed 25 pts each. That's 16 shots; 11 hits; 2- Rends, 4 Wounds; about 2 kills total. If they could be Phased Out at 20 pts each, then it's 20 shots, 14 hits, 2+ Rends, 5 Wounds; still 2 or 3 kills total. Of course, that would be after the Termies killed about 1 Necron via shooting, Of course, those 2 or 3 remaining Termies would clean up big time with their PFs in HtH...

I'm gonna have to side with DD here and say that the difference between I1 or I2 is really a much of a muchness. Whatever the case you're swinging after Guardsmen and that's the way it is. Power Fists (and their ilk) aren't what they once were in 5th, so it's not a huge deal.

They should also be WS3, as having the same combat skills as a Marine or Banshee just doesn't make sense.

BYE

HBMC is right about GW tendency to boost anything with new models and nerfing the things everyone already uses. There is also the trend that GW goofs when it comes to writing rules for new units.

The thing I suspect we'll see is more fleshing out of the differences between the necrons that follow each of the C'Tan. Necron lords will probably get a boost that ties into that.

To flesh out the Necrons from raiding force to army, they need additional units. I think they need a vehicle smaller than a monolith, bigger than destroyers, either a dedicated transport that ties into the whole teleporting networking thing or a big gun tank. Kinda like either of the two aspects of the monolith. A jump pack type unit.

And knowing GW we'll probably see a new unit that's done in a lazy way, like just an extra part on an existing kit. Probably a new type of Destroyer.

I'm just going to add: WBB and Phase Out are cool rules. Thing is you can't WBB a Power Weapon or a Russ template anyway, so nothing is lost really (fluff/ game-wise) going to FNP. They are confusing rules that make the game slower, especially in the BANG-BANG 5th edition.

They should keep Pariahs the same but give them two wounds and FNP and be done with it.

They could keep the Necron rule and make it so only Necron units can teleport/ deep strike. The rest of them have to deal.

I1 seems silly but at least they differentiate. It also gives other units a role, with close combat units at higher I. Or Necron lords that give Necron Warriors bonuses, which I believe was rumoured, especially Special Characters.

Railguns wrote:Why does the removal of "phase out" make Pariahs any better? Sure, this removed the liability of do nothing points that made you easier to fade out. This does not make Pariahs any more effective than they were before.

I've somewhat loudly advocated transforming Pariahs into a specialized psychological weapon that's an upgrade for Warrior units. Someone suggested that they'd work even better if you could buy multiples in HQ and then disperse them as you see it, and I like that even better.

But I think Pariahs don't need a combat boost, but a refocusing around the Soulless rule (which may need to be adjusted too). If Jervis means what he says (about rules reflecting fluff), it'll happen. That's why the Necrons harvest them, according to the background. It has nothing to do with their ability to swing an axe. Necrons are meant to be *scary*, and Pariahs need to be the scariest.

On Warseer, Brimstone would only say that Pariahs work quite differently now. I hope that's a positive sign. Oh, and Brimstone also indicated that Necron assault capability should be much improved. So I'm guessing Flayed Ones and Wraiths get boosts.

aka_mythos wrote:The thing I suspect we'll see is more fleshing out of the differences between the necrons that follow each of the C'Tan. Necron lords will probably get a boost that ties into that.

Rumors seem to focus around different levels of Lords affecting the org chart -- the idea being different levels of Lords have designated roles. So a gold Lord or whatever that's designated for assault duty might get a Destroyer body and then be able to take extra Destroyer units or something. Don't read what I said literally -- that's just the general idea and specifics seem hard to come by.

To flesh out the Necrons from raiding force to army, they need additional units. I think they need a vehicle smaller than a monolith, bigger than destroyers, either a dedicated transport that ties into the whole teleporting networking thing or a big gun tank. Kinda like either of the two aspects of the monolith. A jump pack type unit.

I think Brimstone hinted at another vehicle. Most think it's going to be an Obelisk or something like that...again, something that's been on Necron players' wish lists for a long time.

I don't think they need much else unit wise. They have enough units, the problem is not enough of them are effective. That's why I really hope Phil Kelly is writing it, but since we've heard nothing on that front, it might be in Alessio's hands. So I worry that they'll be just as cookie-cutter in their next incarnation.

I do think the Tomb Spyder should get the Carnifex treatment in terms of customizability and plastic kit. That's one of the Necron units with the most untapped potential.

One thing Shuma pointed out (before his post descended into madness) that I would like to counter is the notion that GW doesn't boost a new model's rules to sell more, because new models don't make more money than old models.

That is true, but ignores the fact that new models COST more than old models. Old models have (likely) already payed off their initial start up cost of moulds and design. New models start off in that hole, and need to sell to get back into the black as it were. When it comes to plastics and their high expense, I think we find that that explains the somewhat odd fluxuation of power pretty well when mixed with an appreciation for human error in rules writing.
In other words, we can probably assume that if GW comes out with a new plastic kit, it is because they expect to sell a great many of the kit in a reasonably short amount of time, which is why most armies have plastic troop choices at least, and usually have plastic transport vehicles and/or tanks, while retaining metal elites and HQs (where those are not just slightly fancier versions of troops).

Now, this theory does not mean that EVERY new kit will get great rules, especially if it is a relatively cheap to set up metal. I think GW does try to make things reasonably balanced. However, I think it does point to there being a bias towards making whatever the new plastic kits will be "special" to encourage purchases, with the result of "special" generally being "with really great rules" as an emergent property of a system that 1) rewards selling new models, and 2) does not necessarily reward excellent rules design. I posit 2) because it seems to me, and is generally accepted I think, that GW does not worry about producing tight, highly balanced and well written rules so much as it could or should.

One thing Shuma pointed out (before his post descended into madness)

It didn't descend into madness until after HBMC replied. Sorry I don't agree with your games workshop shot kennedy conclusions.

That is true, but ignores the fact that new models COST more than old models. Old models have (likely) already payed off their initial start up cost of moulds and design.

But that doesn't actually matter. Businesses operate in the overall longterm. Not by concerning themselves with individually recouped costs of production. There are far too many variables, and again far too many examples of it just not happening. The sky ray is plastic. The possessed were plastic. The standard marine dreadnaut is plastic. Yet the venerable is metal. The venerable is clearly superior, and indeed appears more often in marine armies. Yet it is the less expensive and shorter term pewter mold that is being used to push production. No to mention the higher cost of metals related, which further drives down profits.

I think we find that that explains the somewhat odd fluxuation of power pretty well when mixed with an appreciation for human error in rules writing.

Actually all it does is add a layer of conspiracy where a clear answer already existed. That being the lax testing and rife human error.

In other words, we can probably assume that if GW comes out with a new plastic kit, it is because they expect to sell a great many of the kit in a reasonably short amount of time,

Actually, given that plastic kits make back their cost in the long term not the short term due to the cheaper cost of plastics versus metals and the larger inherent cost of a plastic mold what your saying doesn't even make sense. They use plastic kits for volumous models such as vehicles or very large and complex kits like ork and gaunt sprues because it is far cheaper to produce in the end and yields better results. Not because of some wacky short term sales scheme. And on the reverse metal molds are superior for smaller less volumous models where lower sales are expected because the initial cost to produce them is cheaper and the wear on the mold and higher cost of metals won't impact as much.

Now, this theory does not mean that EVERY new kit will get great rules, especially if it is a relatively cheap to set up metal. I think GW does try to make things reasonably balanced. However, I think it does point to there being a bias towards making whatever the new plastic kits will be "special" to encourage purchases, with the result of "special" generally being "with really great rules

There are simply far far too many examples conflicting with that for it too be true.

I think the part of the discussion focusing on GW tendencies really should be moved to a new thread in General Discussion.

gorgon wrote:Rumors seem to focus around different levels of Lords affecting the org chart -- the idea being different levels of Lords have designated roles. So a gold Lord or whatever that's designated for assault duty might get a Destroyer body and then be able to take extra Destroyer units or something. Don't read what I said literally -- that's just the general idea and specifics seem hard to come by.

That whole tier-ing lord concept though has little to do with what I said. The tier system is no different than say having Marine Commander/Captain/Chapter Master, its just a hierarchy of progressively better stats. Personally I hope they do it a little differently than other Codices, where its less a hierarchy and more just a matter of specializing in a different combat method. Also if they go with "silver/gold /platinum lord," the bling lord naming convention I will not play with or against necrons.

What I was talking about before was more like a Necron lord who follows the Nightbringer might be able to get a upgrade that say... makes so any unit shooting at him has too follow night-fight, for example. So I was really saying more like C'tan worshiping specific wargear.

gorgon wrote:I think Brimstone hinted at another vehicle. Most think it's going to be an Obelisk or something like that...again, something that's been on Necron players' wish lists for a long time.

I don't think they need much else unit wise. They have enough units, the problem is not enough of them are effective. That's why I really hope Phil Kelly is writing it, but since we've heard nothing on that front, it might be in Alessio's hands. So I worry that they'll be just as cookie-cutter in their next incarnation.

I do think the Tomb Spyder should get the Carnifex treatment in terms of customizability and plastic kit. That's one of the Necron units with the most untapped potential.

I agree on the Tomb spider, as it is now it seems less like a weapon and more like a piece of construction equipment. I think it'd be neat to see a close combat dreadnought sized model, whether its a tombspider or destroyer variant.
I think a large amount of the armies problem can be solved with re-writes. But I also have to say that Necrons are losing one of their most unique aspect with phase out and wbb gone. The other things I think do an ok job of representing them, but wbb and phase out really gave them an alien feel by the unorthodox rules.
Some unit needs to be a second troop choice. They need a less pricey vehicle option for smaller games.

The whole applying universal special rules to the necrons certainly sounds like Alesso's mantra. If Alesso writes we'll all open it up and be like "Hey, this looks exactly like the old one... wait wait, there's a new picture."

aka_mythos wrote:I agree on the Tomb spider, as it is now it seems less like a weapon and more like a piece of construction equipment. I think it'd be neat to see a close combat dreadnought sized model, whether its a tombspider or destroyer variant.

The whole applying universal special rules to the necrons certainly sounds like Alesso's mantra.

Given that I *just* played against a Necron player who didn't know his own Codex and the vagaries of WBB, making WBB into FNP would have been a huge help in speeding gameplay along. Where a Special Rule is essentially similar in effect to a USR, just make it a USR.

And, yes, the Tomb Spyder is a problem. It doens't look like a weapon at all, and I always figured that to be intentional.

I'd very much like to see Combat Destroyers - those would be great substitutes for Jump Packers, and the model conversion would be easy - just a single new sprue for the squadron.

If the Tomb Spyder gets properly redone to be styled more like a Destroyer, then an AV12 Living Metal "Dreadnought" with 2 DNCCWs and a shoulder-mounted cannon would be great. This could also be used to provide the basis for Ordnance fire support, taking on the Predator / Whirlwind roles.