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.

Hecaton wrote:

 fraser1191 wrote:
I'm not sure what the right answer is to the question but I'm gonna go out on a limb and say that the Stateline is fine for a warrior. I'd says it's RP that's not correct. I think it's very proper that a Necron gets taken out by whatever and then gets back up. Isn't that more on theme than being 2 wounds?

Easy to knock down but difficult to keep down.

Well they're also supposed to be tough as hell to begin with. If what you're arguing is the case why not make GEQs with RP?

Well they have T4 so they're tougher than most. The problem is that RP is just a weaker FNP (though I think there's an argument for just making it a FNP instead).

I mean we could make Necrons T3 but they are made of metal and orks are T4 with flesh which would be a little odd. (off topic but orks probably should get away with 2W before Necrons)

I like them where they’re at really. I like how they play on the table at this point level. Gives me that feeling of this legion that keeps getting back up and keeps coming.

Tough call. A Necron Warrior should clearly beat an Imperial Guardsman to crap - that's the entire police station vs. a T800.

I think an marine should be close to have a slight advantage on a Warrior - that's like a fight between Dutch (from Predator) fully armed & armored vs. a T800.

Now, I think a Necron Immortal ought to give a Marine a run for his money, with the advantage going to the Necron Immortal - like the T800 (representing the marine) vs. the T3 terminator (representing an Immortal).

So, so far, a whopping 35% seem to like them as they are. . . Which is the lowest point they've ever been relative to Astartes.
. . .

 Canadian 5th wrote:

Spoiler:

 Insectum7 wrote:
As durable as a marine, plus RP, with slightly better firepower. 25-29.

Reposting my graph for context.

Is the TLDR of this supposed to be, "Just play 5e. Stop buying current product and play 5e for free.", because I could swear that's all you actually want.

 Canadian 5th wrote:

 Eonfuzz wrote:
Once again you somehow manage to miss the point

The point being what? That the Murheen shooty toys are better than my plastic elf shooty toys and it wasn't this way a decade ago when my brain produced more dopamine so I hate the game now. Removed - Rule #1 please

0 for 3 my man. Good job!

As a newer Necron player, I really like where Warriors ended up on the points scale. When I played in 4th and 5th edition, I didn't like the Necron aesthetic as much because of the relative dominance of the warriors in force compositions due to their greater point value. With the way they are priced now, warriors are just one element of a more fleshed out force, which feels much more satisfying in my opinion. I just think warrior design lacks too much in variety to be worth more points.

I voted for the same points as a marine. I don't think they should have identical stats, but I'd like them to be roughly equivalent. In my mind Necron warriors should be amongst the most elite of basic troops in the game, probably due to nostalgia based on when they were first introduced. I think the graph Insectum7 posted demonstrates quite nicely how powerful necron warriors were when first introduced.

I'd like it if the only "basic troop" units that out-performed necron warriors were Custodes. Possibly Primaris, but they should be on par with oldmarines, and Immortals should be comparable to Custodes/TEQ.

I'd be fine with them being equal to a Marine, they certainly look like they are. Some sort of drawback due to them being mindless roberts to balance out them being more durable? Not sure.

Just about where they are, and it makes me very happy that that is where they'll stay.

When it comes down to it, you have to choose between the relentless hoard and the elite monster. You can't have them both in a balanced game. It's like in a TV Show or game where they introduce a new badass opponent that the heroes have problem defeating at the beginning of the season. By the end of the season, those same guys are just another set of mooks to takedown.

I therefore want them to be more hoard than elite.

I just realized this whole thing is actually a new VS old lore thing.

Elite robot army VS endless robot dynasty

The thing is you could build them as a horde even when they were more ppm than a marine.

 Insectum7 wrote:
The thing is you could build them as a horde even when they were more ppm than a marine.

The thing is you pretty much had to in order to prevent Phase Out. They were the cheapest Necron model that you could horde with at the time.

 Charistoph wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
The thing is you could build them as a horde even when they were more ppm than a marine.

The thing is you pretty much had to in order to prevent Phase Out. They were the cheapest Necron model that you could horde with at the time.

Only sorta. I ran armies running from 50 to 80 at the time.

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
The thing is you could build them as a horde even when they were more ppm than a marine.

The thing is you pretty much had to in order to prevent Phase Out. They were the cheapest Necron model that you could horde with at the time.

Only sorta. I ran armies running from 50 to 80 at the time.

Which is a lot more than most Marine armies ran for Troops in the same time.

As I said, the reason for doing so was to pad out one's Phase Out number. They simply were the best model for the job. Everything else was too limited and/or expensive to help.

If you approach it from the perspective that marines were created to try and compete with the monstrous foes of the galaxy, it means that marines should at best be equal to everything else, but worse than others.

Orks were blatantly the main threat they were built to fight, as they had to outlast them in melee and be able to fight overwhelming number without tiring. Bolters and chainswords are particularly effective against orks, as they tear tissue out and make their healing systems work harder.


Marines were created to provide humanity something that could fight on an even playing field against things normal humans were no match for.

So from this perspective, the stats of most armies should have some form of competitive equivalence.

orks are as strong and tough, but don't wear as heavy armour.

Eldar are faster, more skilled and have more advanced technology, but are not as tough or strong.

Necrons are more advanced, tougher, but not necessarily as fast or skilled (especially as they've started breaking down over the last 60 million years).



So, if we assume that the current tactical marine is the standard and 'correct' marine, I'd probably do something like this for necrons:

warriors
M5" WS4+ BS4+ S4 T5 W2 A1 Ld10 Sv4+

Flayer 24" Assault 2 S5 AP-1 D1
*6s to wound cause double wounds.

Immortals
M5" WS3+ BS3+ S5 T5 W2 A2 Ld10 Sv3+

Blaster 18" Assault 3 S5 AP-2 D1
*6s to wound cause double wounds


Reanimation protocols:
Whenever a model is destroyed in a unit, roll a D6. on a 5+ the model is not destroyed. If the model has more than 1 wound, roll a D6 for each wound and if they are all 4+, the model is not destroyed.


Phase out could be something like:
If every unit in the army is under half its starting strength and units of one model under half its starting wounds, the army leaves the battlefield.

 Charistoph wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
The thing is you could build them as a horde even when they were more ppm than a marine.

The thing is you pretty much had to in order to prevent Phase Out. They were the cheapest Necron model that you could horde with at the time.

Only sorta. I ran armies running from 50 to 80 at the time.

Which is a lot more than most Marine armies ran for Troops in the same time.

As I said, the reason for doing so was to pad out one's Phase Out number. They simply were the best model for the job. Everything else was too limited and/or expensive to help.

Sure. . . But it also shows that models more expensive than Marines can horde up.

Flayed ones were the same cost as Warriors, and so padded oit the numbers with a different choice.

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
The thing is you could build them as a horde even when they were more ppm than a marine.

The thing is you pretty much had to in order to prevent Phase Out. They were the cheapest Necron model that you could horde with at the time.

Only sorta. I ran armies running from 50 to 80 at the time.

Yes, but at that point you had exactly these unit options:

HQ - 2
Necron Lord [Min 100 pts.]
The Nightbringer (Limit 1 per army) (Can't be taken alongside the Deceiver) (Doesn't count for Phase Out) [Min 360 pts. for 1 model]
The Deceiver (Limit 1 per army) (Can't be taken alongside the Deceiver) (Doesn't count for Phase Out) [Min 300 pts. for 1 model]

Elite - 3
Pariahs (Limit 1 unit per army) (Doesn't count for Phase Out) [Min 144pts. for 4 models]
Immortals [Min 140 pts. for 5 models]
Flayed Ones [Min 72 pts. for 4 models]

Troops - 1
Warriors - [Min 180 pts. for 10 models]

Fast Attack - 3
Wraiths - [Min 41 pts. for 1 model]
Destroyers - [Min 150 pts. for 3 models]
Scarabs - (Doesn't count for Phase Out) [Min 36 pts. for 3 models]

Heavy Support - 3
Tomb Spiders - (Doesn't count for Phase Out) [Min 55 pts. for 1 model]
Heavy Destroyer - [Min 65 pts. for 1 model]
Monolith - (Doesn't count for Phase Out) [Min 235 pts. for 1 model]

Given that a game of 3e was commonly 1,500 points with a large game being 2,000 points you really had to be careful which toys you brought because if the enemy rolled hot for a turn your game could end very quickly.

 Insectum7 wrote:
Flayed ones were the same cost as Warriors, and so padded oit the numbers with a different choice.

They didn't have grenades so good luck not fighting last on a lot of boards. They also couldn't harm something like a Dreadnought and could be locked up all game long trading a 10 man unit costing 180 to 210 points for a unit that only costs 105 points if run cheap.

So yeah, I'd venture a guess that Flay Ones were niche at best for anybody trying to actually win. Real lists did things like castling up behind a couple of monoliths and sending out Wraiths to actually fight stuff. If you'd like I'll find you battle reports from major tournaments that back me up on this.

Insectum7 wrote:Sure. . . But it also shows that models more expensive than Marines can horde up.

Not necessarily. Sure in point values, but how many in that price range could equal their squad size? I think only the Chaos Marines could with their 3.5 codex and Black Templars once Armaggeddon became available (though that one is kind of cheating).

Insectum7 wrote:Flayed ones were the same cost as Warriors, and so padded oit the numbers with a different choice.

Same cost, but limited by unit size and FOC slot and competing with either better firepower of the Immortals or the Psyker-screwing Pariahs in that slot with a unit that was completely dedicated to close combat, and somewhat poor at the job when compared to the Astartes due to low Initiative and lack of Grenades (though I1 isn't so bad when you're I2 unless Charging Orks or Fire Warriors :/ ). They could take Disruptions Fields, though, for slightly more than the Warrior.

Hellebore wrote:Phase out could be something like:
If every unit in the army is under half its starting strength and units of one model under half its starting wounds, the army leaves the battlefield.

That would actually be worse than the original Phase Out. At least back then it was a 75% casualty rate (among the Necrons, ignored Vehicles and automatons).

I played Necrons then and played them well enough to not require battle reports. Flayed Ones were good for tying up some things, killing other things. and you could always pull them out (and re-assault another section of the board) if need be.

Running more than one Monolith could be done, and I did it often enough, but it could also be a liability depending on opponent. Tau Railguns were S10 on the Broadsides back then (another unit that suffered degradation) and could make quick worth of Monoliths. My favorite list ran just one, and it often began with dropping onto the table and launching Flayed Ones into combat.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Charistoph wrote:

Insectum7 wrote:Sure. . . But it also shows that models more expensive than Marines can horde up.

Not necessarily. Sure in point values, but how many in that price range could equal their squad size?

Hordes is less about squad size and rather more about the number of models fielded.

 Insectum7 wrote:
I played Necrons then and played them, and played them well enough to not require battle reports. Flayed Ones were good for tying up some things, killing other things. and you could always pull them out (and re-assault another section of the board) if need be.

Running more than one Monolith could be done, and I did it often enough, but it could also be a liability depending on opponent. Tau Railguns were S10 on the Broadsides back then (another unit that suffered degradation) and could make quick worth of Monoliths. My favorite list ran just one, and it often began with dropping onto the table and launching Flayed Ones into combat.

Did you play tournaments or are we talking about Insectum's local meta of questionable quality again?

 Canadian 5th wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
I played Necrons then and played them, and played them well enough to not require battle reports. Flayed Ones were good for tying up some things, killing other things. and you could always pull them out (and re-assault another section of the board) if need be.

Running more than one Monolith could be done, and I did it often enough, but it could also be a liability depending on opponent. Tau Railguns were S10 on the Broadsides back then (another unit that suffered degradation) and could make quick worth of Monoliths. My favorite list ran just one, and it often began with dropping onto the table and launching Flayed Ones into combat.

Did you play tournaments or are we talking about Insectum's local meta of questionable quality again?

If that's your go-to argument I suppose you don't have much else.

A: There's no way you're going to convince me that I was bad at the game or playing Necrons wrong.
B: The majority of players don't play tournaments and play in local metas of various sorts, so arguably an army's play for local metas is more important than tournies.

Insectum7 wrote:Flayed Ones were good for tying up some things, killing other things. and you could always pull them out (and re-assault another section of the board) if need be.

Not saying they couldn't, I'm just saying what they were competing with in the Elite slot that the Warriors couldn't quite provide as well. A squad of 20 Warriors can tie things up and be pulled out of assault as easily as 10 Flayed Ones. They lacked the 2nd Attack a Flayed One had and that fun little Leadership rule that could actually prove to make the Flayed Ones more durable in Melee against a low Ld army (or bad Ld rolls), but Warriors could bring the bulk of a unit in to play that Flayed Ones simply couldn't.

Insectum7 wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:

Insectum7 wrote:Sure. . . But it also shows that models more expensive than Marines can horde up.

Not necessarily. Sure in point values, but how many in that price range could equal their squad size?

Hordes is less about squad size and rather more about the number of models fielded.

Eh, having a good squad size helps represent the horde aspect. Fielding 4 squads of 5 doesn't really feel very hordish, but 2 units of 20 do and 4 units of 20 definitely does. For Marines to put 40 Tacticals on the board, that's 4 Troop slots at a minimum, and they couldn't field more than 60 total till 6th Edition (though, Assaults and Devastators were little different till you looked at equipment). Of course, it's not like anyone but Necrons had to pad numbers to avoid Phase Out.

And aside from the later Chaos Marines and Necron Warriors, how many models at their PPM could be higher than 10?

 Void__Dragon wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:
Are you sure about taking canadian 5ths position now?
You realise he has neither player 8th nor 9th and admitted that?

I don't know what this post has to do with anything I said but I do know it is a naked attempt to poison the well, which is a form of as hominem.

Sure buddy, whatevs, doesn't change the fact that canadian is probably a lot more out of touch than insectum in regards to the game state atm.

Really don’t understand the purpose of the this thread/poll.

First off the ranges make no sense. 10-14 points as example might as well say “some points.” The difference between 10 and 14 is the difference between an unplayable unit and an OP one (assuming nothing else changes ). Also any range over 20 serves no purpose unless you are dramatically changing how warriors work.

Finally is the OP implying that marine troops are better than necron warriors? That would be absurd, because warriors are very clearly better. Competitive Marine list run as little troops as possible (, while competitive necron lists run as many warriors as possible (within reason, no 70+ warrior lists do well). Both types of the lists win tournaments, so that should tell you something

Salt donkey wrote:
Really don’t understand the purpose of the this thread/poll.

First off the ranges make no sense. 10-14 points as example might as well say “some points.” The difference between 10 and 14 is the difference between an unplayable unit and an OP one (assuming nothing else changes ). Also any range over 20 serves no purpose unless you are dramatically changing how warriors work.

Finally is the OP implying that marine troops are better than necron warriors? That would be absurd, because warriors are very clearly better. Competitive Marine list run as little troops as possible (, while competitive necron lists run as many warriors as possible (within reason, no 70+ warrior lists do well). Both types of the lists win tournaments, so that should tell you something

From the OP:

 JNAProductions wrote:

Note, this is NOT dependent upon their current profiles! This is based on how you feel they should be, relative to one another, in your ideal 40k.

This thread is not about the current relative power of the models or their current profiles - it's about what we personally feel Necrons should be like on the battlefield, how effective we feel individuals Warriors should be in comparison to individual Astartes.

For example, the 10-14 point range can be read as "notably worse than Astartes on an individual level, but still reasonable line infantry. 20 Warriors should be roughly equivalent to a 10-man Astartes squad, maybe slightly advantaged", while 30-40 can be read as "definitely stronger than Astartes on an individual level. 10 Warriors should require multiple Astartes squads to reliably put down, and a 20 strong unit is one of the scariest units out there."

Personally I'm in the 15-19 point range - I think individual Warriors should be slightly worse than Astartes overall, but slightly better in some ways and definitely closer to them than your average horde infantry.

I really don't understand the obsesion with warriors when Inmortals should be the elite necron troop.

That way necrons can field both horde armies and elite armies.

If you make necron warriors new inmortals and inmortals super inmortals you remove the option for people to play different styles of armies.

Is like asking for ork boyz to become as powerfull as nobz instead of making nobz troops.

More ways to build and play an army= better.

Yeah, i've always kind of liked necron warriors as kind of a shambling, broken down horde that isn't particularly flexible or adaptable but can batter down elite units by sheer force of numbers, so I don't have any serious problem with them being approximately 2 to 1 vs astartes. They're still a cut above every 'horde' type unit in the game, and equivalent to many factions' elites.

Aelyn wrote:

Salt donkey wrote:
Really don’t understand the purpose of the this thread/poll.

First off the ranges make no sense. 10-14 points as example might as well say “some points.” The difference between 10 and 14 is the difference between an unplayable unit and an OP one (assuming nothing else changes ). Also any range over 20 serves no purpose unless you are dramatically changing how warriors work.

Finally is the OP implying that marine troops are better than necron warriors? That would be absurd, because warriors are very clearly better. Competitive Marine list run as little troops as possible (, while competitive necron lists run as many warriors as possible (within reason, no 70+ warrior lists do well). Both types of the lists win tournaments, so that should tell you something

From the OP:

 JNAProductions wrote:

Note, this is NOT dependent upon their current profiles! This is based on how you feel they should be, relative to one another, in your ideal 40k.

This thread is not about the current relative power of the models or their current profiles - it's about what we personally feel Necrons should be like on the battlefield, how effective we feel individuals Warriors should be in comparison to individual Astartes.

For example, the 10-14 point range can be read as "notably worse than Astartes on an individual level, but still reasonable line infantry. 20 Warriors should be roughly equivalent to a 10-man Astartes squad, maybe slightly advantaged", while 30-40 can be read as "definitely stronger than Astartes on an individual level. 10 Warriors should require multiple Astartes squads to reliably put down, and a 20 strong unit is one of the scariest units out there."

Personally I'm in the 15-19 point range - I think individual Warriors should be slightly worse than Astartes overall, but slightly better in some ways and definitely closer to them than your average horde infantry.

Got it. So stems from back to 3-4 Ed when warriors where more expensive/ powerful MEQ. I don’t feel we need to return to that. Silvertide is more thematic IMO and as another poster said, immortals can become the better mEQ since they are the elites of the necron foot soldiers.

Six people voted for 4 or less points right now.

That seems excessively low. That's literally one-fifth the power of a Marine (as presented in the question) at best.

Those who voted for 4-, can I get an explanation? Why do you think Warriors should be that little value compared to a Marine?

the_scotsman wrote:
Yeah, i've always kind of liked necron warriors as kind of a shambling, broken down horde that isn't particularly flexible or adaptable but can batter down elite units by sheer force of numbers, so I don't have any serious problem with them being approximately 2 to 1 vs astartes. They're still a cut above every 'horde' type unit in the game, and equivalent to many factions' elites.

Because it represents a degradation of the unit over time. Originally they were 50% more expensive than an Astartes, and each one represented an undying killing machine that was more than a match for a Space Marine. Now you're saying that 2:1vs Astartes is fine. That's a serious reduction.