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.

So I was recently reading some old issues of White Dwarf and I spotted this in the old Designer’s Notes for the 3rd edition Necrons.

"Inevitably, the two ideas merged and the C’tan popped into full existence as the Necrons ‘’gods’’, the powerful beings that had transformed the ancient Necrontyr into the Necrons. This gave the Necrons hat they needed, a motivating force and a sense of personality-the kind lent by a potent Necromancer or Vampire Count to a fantasy undead army. The last few blocks where falling into place and the Necrons where becoming more and more of a fully rounded race."- White Dwarf US 268. Pg. 11

At least looking back, the original intention for the Necrons was for the C’tan to be the force of personality behind the Necrons, just like the Fantasy Vampire Counts or Tomb Kings of the time. That’s not surprising as Necrons were Space Undead from their very earliest conception and the 3rd edition Necrons only reformed that. Now the obvious problem with that, is that when the force of personality of an army is restricted to two Special Characters that not every player might be interested in, as opposed to into the now-defunct Fantasy where there where many Vampires and Necromancers that one can simply make up as the force of personality for their faceless undead hordes.

Now, I know that for the Necrons that there was a controversial change in the background that caused an upset with the new Necrons of 5th edition that retconned a lot of the old fluff into the ‘’Newcrons’’ that caught a lot of flak from the 40k player base for not being as horrifying or as evocative as the ‘Oldcrons’’. It seems to be, with looking at the original designers’ notes, having some form of personality to lead the army always seemed to be a factor when fleshing out the Necrons beyond the mysterious raiders. This becomes a problem when the ‘’force of personality’’ is redistricted to two Special Characters. The move to making the Necron nobility into the masters while the C’tan became the slaves. The Necrons went from harvesting all life for their star vampire masters to just reclaiming their old empire. The loss of that horror angle was something that was criticized by people.

What I’m asking is would it perhaps have been better for the Necrons to instead go ‘’Vampire Counts in Space’’ as opposed to ‘’Tomb Kings in Space’’ that is derided by many people? For example a multitude of Ct’an instead of four (two) C’tan. With the C’tan being reworked with emphasis as energy vampires rather than star gods, with perhaps the named characters of the Deceiver and Nightbringer merely being the most prominent and godlike of the C’tan?

Vampires in space are already in 40k, blood angels. Another vampire set would have been possibly too much. The dropping of all the bloodlines in fantasy supports that somewhat.

 JamesY wrote:
Vampires in space are already in 40k, blood angels. Another vampire set would have been possibly too much. The dropping of all the bloodlines in fantasy supports that somewhat.

Vampire Counts, not just vampires. And Blood Angels are still astartes first and foremost so they barely qualify as vampires in space - they don't even drink blood or some other kind of "life force" for sustenance - it's just ritualistic. They don't really touch on any vampire themes other than bloody chalices and (more) gothic decorations on their armour. Plus the Night Lords arguably do the vampire theme more justice.

If I'm understanding this correctly, when the OP says ''Vampire Counts in Space", he means having C'tan characters lead the Necron armies directly, like vampires from different bloodlines/clans lead the undead armies. The more powerful C'tan become the progenitors of the "bloodlines," from which the weaker and younger C'tan are descended (somewhat like Nagash, who created all vampires).

I think yea, I would like that idea more. The vampire counts have actually gotten pretty cool since 7th ed. That codex was badass (kinda like the Dark Eldar 5th ed codex - it was a revival).

I honestly think that the new fluff gives them more flavor and color, and it brings a sense of balance to the setting. Under the new fluff the different dynasties all have different motive, and you have many different sub factions. In the fluff its one of the major reasons the necron threat is usually Isolated and regional. If they were under the control of the ctan in a similar manner to the vampire counts of fantasy, the faction would be mostly unified, and if that were the case, then no race in the galaxy could stand up to them. They have weaponry to extinguish star systems from across the galaxy, and they hold troops in reserve in manufactured alternate pocket dimensions, as well as being able to manipulate time and the fundamental elements of the universe. The only place that would be safe from them would be the web way, and even then they can break in.

so better for who? Yes it would be better for the crons, but worse for everyone else, and it would throw the balance of the conflict in the lore way off. If the crons were unified and pan galactic, the only thing that would explain them not sweeping the galaxy and completely dominating every other faction would be gross incompetence, and that would be truly unpleasant fluff.

 JamesY wrote:
Vampires in space are already in 40k, blood angels. Another vampire set would have been possibly too much. The dropping of all the bloodlines in fantasy supports that somewhat.

however, they are not the Iconic raise dead vampires of fantasy.

OP: what makes you think they aren't?They are Tomb Kings at the very least, which is pretty much the same.

Oh, and James is right there are vampires among the Blood Angels, when the used the primarch gene seed after he died, it caused a blood thirst trait to trigger in the Blood Angels created with that gene seed.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 GKTiberius wrote:
I honestly think that the new fluff gives them more flavor and color, and it brings a sense of balance to the setting.

To each their own, but I totally disagree. Something creepy and captivating about a race of beings giving up freedom and mortality to a God like being. Just to escape their short lived and painful life, in order to defeat the Old Ones, because the envied their perfection of form and hated that they were eternal.

I thought the role of the necromancer was given to the Necron lords. Or do rank-and-file Newcrons have a will of their own too?

Either way, I think it was creepier with the old C'tan in charge since they had an almost Lovecraftian vibe to them.

Any Lovecraftian vibe to Oldcrons was created by players. It wasn't there from the writing. It's also a rather... inaccurate description of Lovecraft's themes, which are basically nihilism.

The Codex provides for a number of abilities to C'Tan Shards, so you can have pretty much any "custom" C'Tan you want running the show for your Dynasty, should you prefer the OldCron vibe.

Enope, then the Twilight fans would never leave my home.

I'm guessing most people aren't familiar with the Vampire Counts. Otherwise there wouldn't be comparisons to Twilight. Oh well.

I mean come on, they're pretty cool. Besides, I don't think the point is to have vampires but to have the C'tan in a more prominent and similar role.

Oh I know full well about them, I even grumbled at the loss of the bloodlines and the powers when they got streamlined into "Von Carsteins only" and how Ghouls eventually became proper undead, losing their uniqueness in the army.

But the Twilight fans here need their vampire fix one way or the other. And they're really drawn to the idea of "male Lahmians".

 MechaEmperor7000 wrote:
Oh I know full well about them, I even grumbled at the loss of the bloodlines and the powers when they got streamlined into "Von Carsteins only" and how Ghouls eventually became proper undead, losing their uniqueness in the army.

But the Twilight fans here need their vampire fix one way or the other. And they're really drawn to the idea of "male Lahmians".

That's a bit paranoid isn't it? Nowhere in the OP is there an indication of making C'tan "male Lahmians" or even vampires at all (well they're already vampiric in a sense to begin with). There's just talk about making the C'tan more numerous to act as generals of Necron armies - in the sense that the Necrons are just extensions of their will, like zombies, ghouls, or skeletons are for the Vampire Counts.

 EngulfedObject wrote:

 MechaEmperor7000 wrote:
Oh I know full well about them, I even grumbled at the loss of the bloodlines and the powers when they got streamlined into "Von Carsteins only" and how Ghouls eventually became proper undead, losing their uniqueness in the army.

But the Twilight fans here need their vampire fix one way or the other. And they're really drawn to the idea of "male Lahmians".

That's a bit paranoid isn't it? Nowhere in the OP is there an indication of making C'tan "male Lahmians" or even vampires at all (well they're already vampiric in a sense to begin with). There's just talk about making the C'tan more numerous to act as generals of Necron armies - in the sense that the Necrons are just extensions of their will, like zombies, ghouls, or skeletons are for the Vampire Counts.

You can still do this with NewCrons. This is something that people just don't seem to "get". If you want your NewCron Dynasty to be subservient to the C'Tan Shard(s) it has in its possession, it can be. There are still Dynasties that function in this way, the NewCron fluff did not invalidate this idea. What NewCron fluff did, however, was provide options for people who didn't want to have that as the background for their army.

 Psienesis wrote:
You can still do this with NewCrons. This is something that people just don't seem to "get". If you want your NewCron Dynasty to be subservient to the C'Tan Shard(s) it has in its possession, it can be. There are still Dynasties that function in this way, the NewCron fluff did not invalidate this idea. What NewCron fluff did, however, was provide options for people who didn't want to have that as the background for their army.

Not really. If I'm not mistaken, there are no C'tan special characters, nor are they available as HQ choices any longer. Even if you have C'tan leading your army, it's now reduced to head canon and can't be properly represented on the tabletop.

Plus that goes against the main narrative with the Silent King and C'tan shards, and what not. What's the point of having C'tan lead your army if they no longer play a role in the larger narrative?

They crapped the Necrons up. Originally they were the walking dead, and the first Codex, while a bit barren, had a kind of "pall of doom" over it which I absolutely loved. It was full of mystery, and a weird, slow-burning urgency, if that makes sense.

Now they're just the Tomb Kings in space and considerably less frightening. They've developed personalities, they're no longer remorseless death machines, and apparently their numbers rival those of humanity. EDIT: And the C'Tan, invincible star-gods who can wipe out whole worlds on their own, are suddenly Cron bitches with no personality.

Nice going, "spiritual liege", you ruined a genuinely scary race. It's the worst impact I've ever seen a Codex make on anyone's fluff.

 EngulfedObject wrote:

 Psienesis wrote:
You can still do this with NewCrons. This is something that people just don't seem to "get". If you want your NewCron Dynasty to be subservient to the C'Tan Shard(s) it has in its possession, it can be. There are still Dynasties that function in this way, the NewCron fluff did not invalidate this idea. What NewCron fluff did, however, was provide options for people who didn't want to have that as the background for their army.

Not really. If I'm not mistaken, there are no C'tan special characters, nor are they available as HQ choices any longer. Even if you have C'tan leading your army, it's now reduced to head canon and can't be properly represented on the tabletop.

Plus that goes against the main narrative with the Silent King and C'tan shards, and what not. What's the point of having C'tan lead your army if they no longer play a role in the larger narrative?

Which is true of anyone playing any army that is not one of the studio-published armies. My Order Militant, the Order of the Argent Blade? Not a "canon" Sororitas Order. Their story is one I create myself, and is not affected by what GW publishes. All those people playing Successor Chapters of the studio Astartes? All head canon. Same with those playing their own Hive Fleets, Craftworlds, Kabals, Warbands, Waaaghs, Klans, Cults, Regiments, Forges, Cadres and Houses. All such players are simply using the abstractions of the rules presented in the rule book and codices to "forge their narrative", as GW calls it. Nothing that ever happens with anyone's army will ever be anything more than "head canon", excepting the most coincidental of circumstances.

Take a Transcendent. So what if it isn't the HQ? Why would a Star God lower itself to being present on a battlefield? Take a Shard, park it in the back behind the legions. The actual HQ is renamed to "Bobcron, Speaker for the Shard" or some similar title.

Who gives a gak about the Silent King and what happened sixty million years ago? His narrative and his story is not that of your Dynasty.

 Psienesis wrote:
Which is true of anyone playing any army that is not one of the studio-published armies. My Order Militant, the Order of the Argent Blade? Not a "canon" Sororitas Order. Their story is one I create myself, and is not affected by what GW publishes. All those people playing Successor Chapters of the studio Astartes? All head canon. Same with those playing their own Hive Fleets, Craftworlds, Kabals, Warbands, Waaaghs, Klans, Cults, Regiments, Forges, Cadres and Houses. All such players are simply using the abstractions of the rules presented in the rule book and codices to "forge their narrative", as GW calls it. Nothing that ever happens with anyone's army will ever be anything more than "head canon", excepting the most coincidental of circumstances.

Take a Transcendent. So what if it isn't the HQ? Why would a Star God lower itself to being present on a battlefield? Take a Shard, park it in the back behind the legions. The actual HQ is renamed to "Bobcron, Speaker for the Shard" or some similar title.

Who gives a gak about the Silent King and what happened sixty million years ago? His narrative and his story is not that of your Dynasty.

Oh, not this again. It's the "there is no canon, do whatever you want!" thing again. I think you're missing the point. But let's not get into this discussion. If your base assumption is none of the narrative background in the codices matters, then why bother discussing it? And what does it matter if it's newcrons, oldcrons, or vampire counts? None of it matters from that point of view, so this discussion is moot.

And no, a Star God doesn't have to lower himself/itself to be present on the battlefield (though uh, with oldcrons, they kinda were - Nightbringer and the Deceiver could be fielded). But if you have, again, like with Vampire Counts, the main C'tan as leaders of "bloodlines/dysnasties/whatever"' then you can have their descendants, who are weaker, aspiring C'tan, have a battlefield presence, rather than mindless necrons being led my not-so-mindless necrons (or have the weaker C'tan as C'tan "shards" - pieces of the main C'tan, sort of like Greater Daemons, with them representing different aspects of the C'tan gods).

Plus, what's their objective? The whole thing with the biotransference thing is rather confusing - first their biological bodies are weak and they don't want them, then they want them again to the point that they defend the galaxy against the Tyranids just so they can find a suitable host species. And apparently they conquered the galaxy but got bored but now want to do so again for... vague reasons. What's the deal? The C'tan as thirsting star gods provided a much more focused narrative.

Apparently you guys read a different Codex than I did if you think the NewCrons aren't a genocidal threat to humanity, because my codex has multiple stories of tomb worlds awakening beneath the feet of unsuspecting Imperial cities. This never ends well. The Necrons view non-Necron (inferior) races the same way we view insects. They are an infestation that has infected their old empire and they must be wiped out in order to take it back.

I'm among those that really liked the new direction they took the Crons in. Let's be honest, here, the 'silent faceless inhuman death robots of death' thing is cool, but really getting overdone now. Terminator, Cylons, Cybermen, Borg, the list goes on. The personality injection the 5th Ed Codex gave them a much-needed shot in the arm, made playing them far more appealing (to me at least, someone who likes fluff behind his army, something not really doable with OldCrons) and made anything involving them much more interesting. The political backstabbery and double dealing rivalled only by the Eldar, the quirks of personality in the characters (is it Zandrekh that still thinks he's fighting the old Necrontyr, and thinks that Orks and Tyranids are just very, very elaborate disguises? Always thought that was brilliant, him being totally nuts and Oberon trying to keep him at least somewhat rational). and above all that, they didn't lose the 'faceless robots' thing either, the Warriors and Immortals and Flayed Ones and Destroyers all still have that going on.

C'tan are called, on occasion, Star Vampires. Just so you know.

 Paradigm wrote:
I'm among those that really liked the new direction they took the Crons in. Let's be honest, here, the 'silent faceless inhuman death robots of death' thing is cool, but really getting overdone now. Terminator, Cylons, Cybermen, Borg, the list goes on. The personality injection the 5th Ed Codex gave them a much-needed shot in the arm, made playing them far more appealing (to me at least, someone who likes fluff behind his army, something not really doable with OldCrons) and made anything involving them much more interesting. The political backstabbery and double dealing rivalled only by the Eldar, the quirks of personality in the characters (is it Zandrekh that still thinks he's fighting the old Necrontyr, and thinks that Orks and Tyranids are just very, very elaborate disguises? Always thought that was brilliant, him being totally nuts and Oberon trying to keep him at least somewhat rational). and above all that, they didn't lose the 'faceless robots' thing either, the Warriors and Immortals and Flayed Ones and Destroyers all still have that going on.

Yeah. Zandrekh is basically Robot Don Quixote.

 Psienesis wrote:
The Codex provides for a number of abilities to C'Tan Shards, so you can have pretty much any "custom" C'Tan you want running the show for your Dynasty, should you prefer the OldCron vibe.

No it doesn't. You cannot have a Necron Lord who is less completely under the thrall of the C'Tan, but who is forced to harvest for their gods so that his relative freedom is not noticed and crushed under the C'Tan's gaze, while also harvesting lives on the side for his own experiments to try to fully break free of the C'Tan control. You cannot have this because this relies on the C'Tan being something that a free-willed Necron would fear to the point where even attracting one's attention is considered disaster, and not something that has been repeatedly smashed and enslaved.

That is how I would have fleshed out the Necrons: by letting people build an army which is either entirely under the thrall of the C'Tan - with only the Necron Lord showing any sign of sapience under the C'Tan's crushing will, but able to field the C'Tan special characters, or an army which has regained some measure of what the Necrontyr were beneath the C'Tan's attention - never fielding C'Tan special characters, but having access to lesser Necrons who possess some degree of personality, like the old Wolf Guard squad that could be broken up to act as minor characters.

 EngulfedObject wrote:

I mean come on, they're pretty cool. Besides, I don't think the point is to have vampires but to have the C'tan in a more prominent and similar role.

Essentially that was my point. To furfull both the need to have the Necrons lead by a force of personality while maintaining the C'tan as the leaders of the Necrons. I wasn't proposing anything like Space Twilight or Space Dracula. While the C'tan are vampiric they are energy vampires. Many players criticized the Newcrons as losing the dark horror edge they had before with being the slaves of malevolent star vampires who wanted to harvest the souls of the living. From what I understand the chief problem with that was the C'tan numbered only two on the tabletop and that inherently limited players to make their own leader or army.

Essentially the Oldcrons seems to be (broadly) much like the dynamic with charismatic and terrifying Vampire Lords leading armies of mindless undead, and served by Wight King lieutenants, who essentially played second fiddle to the Vampires and Necromancers of the fantasy armies. With the Newcrons it would be like removing Vampires from Vampire Counts and putting the Wight Kings as the charismatic leaders.

(Which is kinda what happened when the original Undead book split)

 NoPoet wrote:
They crapped the Necrons up. Originally they were the walking dead, and the first Codex, while a bit barren, had a kind of "pall of doom" over it which I absolutely loved. It was full of mystery, and a weird, slow-burning urgency, if that makes sense.

Now they're just the Tomb Kings in space and considerably less frightening. They've developed personalities, they're no longer remorseless death machines, and apparently their numbers rival those of humanity. EDIT: And the C'Tan, invincible star-gods who can wipe out whole worlds on their own, are suddenly Cron bitches with no personality.

Nice going, "spiritual liege", you ruined a genuinely scary race. It's the worst impact I've ever seen a Codex make on anyone's fluff.

This is part of what I'm addressing. At least going back from the original GW designer's notes, the Necrons from the very beginning where intended to be lead by a sapient intelligent force with it's own personality. Originally that was the C'tan, but the inherant problem with that was the fact that there where only two C'tan Special Characters on the tabletop and not everyone would wish to have the same two characters form the core of their army. That at least is what I assume the main reasoning for the Newcron retcon to allow players to develop their own leaders and armies better.

Basically what I'm wondering if the Necrons could have maintained that dark impending horror vibe by merely making the C'tan more widespread than two Special Characters (four technically...) and with the chance for players to make their own. That would still allow Necrons to exist as forces serving life-eating immortal monsters and at the same time allowing different forces for players to customize their armies.

EngulfedObject wrote:

 Psienesis wrote:
Which is true of anyone playing any army that is not one of the studio-published armies. My Order Militant, the Order of the Argent Blade? Not a "canon" Sororitas Order. Their story is one I create myself, and is not affected by what GW publishes. All those people playing Successor Chapters of the studio Astartes? All head canon. Same with those playing their own Hive Fleets, Craftworlds, Kabals, Warbands, Waaaghs, Klans, Cults, Regiments, Forges, Cadres and Houses. All such players are simply using the abstractions of the rules presented in the rule book and codices to "forge their narrative", as GW calls it. Nothing that ever happens with anyone's army will ever be anything more than "head canon", excepting the most coincidental of circumstances.

Take a Transcendent. So what if it isn't the HQ? Why would a Star God lower itself to being present on a battlefield? Take a Shard, park it in the back behind the legions. The actual HQ is renamed to "Bobcron, Speaker for the Shard" or some similar title.

Who gives a gak about the Silent King and what happened sixty million years ago? His narrative and his story is not that of your Dynasty.

Oh, not this again. It's the "there is no canon, do whatever you want!" thing again. I think you're missing the point. But let's not get into this discussion. If your base assumption is none of the narrative background in the codices matters, then why bother discussing it? And what does it matter if it's newcrons, oldcrons, or vampire counts? None of it matters from that point of view, so this discussion is moot.

And no, a Star God doesn't have to lower himself/itself to be present on the battlefield (though uh, with oldcrons, they kinda were - Nightbringer and the Deceiver could be fielded). But if you have, again, like with Vampire Counts, the main C'tan as leaders of "bloodlines/dysnasties/whatever"' then you can have their descendants, who are weaker, aspiring C'tan, have a battlefield presence, rather than mindless necrons being led my not-so-mindless necrons (or have the weaker C'tan as C'tan "shards" - pieces of the main C'tan, sort of like Greater Daemons, with them representing different aspects of the C'tan gods).

Plus, what's their objective? The whole thing with the biotransference thing is rather confusing - first their biological bodies are weak and they don't want them, then they want them again to the point that they defend the galaxy against the Tyranids just so they can find a suitable host species. And apparently they conquered the galaxy but got bored but now want to do so again for... vague reasons. What's the deal? The C'tan as thirsting star gods provided a much more focused narrative.

Actually, you seem to be missing the point. Psi was saying that you still have the capability to create a Necron army that is enslaved to their C'tan (don't the C'tan shards seek to reassemble themselves?) shards. With Newcrons, you can still bring C'tan shards, and you can still bring Lords, and the like. It's not ever going to be perfect (nothing ever is), not even close to perfect, but it's still better than whining about how it's so unfair! Newcrons suck, boohoo, I miss my Oldcrons, why can't we just have those? With the current rendition of the Necron Codex, you can have just about any flavor of Necrons that you want. You want Necrons that are dominated by their C'tan shards (perhaps their C'tan shards were all unleashed in a desperate battle, and banded together to overcome their Overlords after winning the battle, suddenly, the master becomes the slave! Now we have a Necron Dynasty that is serving their C'tan overlords acquire more and more souls to consume, so that the C'tan can return to their former power. All the while, more and more shards are being recovered whenever the chance presents itself). Obviously, you will never have it the way that you want it, but the current Necron Codex at least gives people the capability to make virtually any kind of Necron Dynasty, from one that is all but consumed by the Flayer Virus, or closely allied to the Destroyer Cults, to one that is obsessed with purity and refuses to allow the Flayed Ones to even exist within the confines of the Dynasty's territory. You can create so many different dynasties, including one ruled by the C'tan, which is why NewCrons are [arguably] better than OldCrons, simply due to the versatility of the Codex, in terms of fluff.
Now, don't get me wrong, your idea is great, I like it a lot, but it does seem very much like Chaos Daemons with a skeleton-theme (actually, that sounds awesome, why hasn't GW done this already?). Personally, I think that they should make a Necron supplement for Necron Dynasties that are ruled by C'tan, specifically to satisfy the fans of OldCrons, but, then, I have no pull whatsoever, in GW, so it doesn't really matter.

EnTyme wrote:Apparently you guys read a different Codex than I did if you think the NewCrons aren't a genocidal threat to humanity, because my codex has multiple stories of tomb worlds awakening beneath the feet of unsuspecting Imperial cities. This never ends well. The Necrons view non-Necron (inferior) races the same way we view insects. They are an infestation that has infected their old empire and they must be wiped out in order to take it back.

iirc, the Stormlord conquers non-Necron planets, and turns them into vassal states (he seems like he has an Egyptian-Roman trope to him), and this is a common practice among Necrons. It's been a while since I've read the 7e Necron Codex, so I'm not entirely certain.

EDIT: Crap, I just came up with the fluff for a new Necron army that I am now required to start building by the laws of me actually liking the fluff that I just came up with :( my wallet is not going to be happy

 EngulfedObject wrote:

 MechaEmperor7000 wrote:
Oh I know full well about them, I even grumbled at the loss of the bloodlines and the powers when they got streamlined into "Von Carsteins only" and how Ghouls eventually became proper undead, losing their uniqueness in the army.

But the Twilight fans here need their vampire fix one way or the other. And they're really drawn to the idea of "male Lahmians".

That's a bit paranoid isn't it? Nowhere in the OP is there an indication of making C'tan "male Lahmians" or even vampires at all (well they're already vampiric in a sense to begin with). There's just talk about making the C'tan more numerous to act as generals of Necron armies - in the sense that the Necrons are just extensions of their will, like zombies, ghouls, or skeletons are for the Vampire Counts.

I was talking about fanfics about the ACTUAL Vampire Counts, not that we'd make C'tans into Male Lahmians. I wouldn't actually pitch the idea to the rabid twilight fans here.

 dusara217 wrote:
Actually, you seem to be missing the point. Psi was saying that you still have the capability to create a Necron army that is enslaved to their C'tan (don't the C'tan shards seek to reassemble themselves?) shards.

No, that was not the point. See the post the OP made right above yours.

 dusara217 wrote:
Now, don't get me wrong, your idea is great, I like it a lot, but it does seem very much like Chaos Daemons with a skeleton-theme (actually, that sounds awesome, why hasn't GW done this already?). Personally, I think that they should make a Necron supplement for Necron Dynasties that are ruled by C'tan, specifically to satisfy the fans of OldCrons, but, then, I have no pull whatsoever, in GW, so it doesn't really matter.

It's not my idea, it's the OP's. I only stepped in because the thread was in danger of being derailed to ranting about Twilight.

Gree wrote:

 EngulfedObject wrote:

I mean come on, they're pretty cool. Besides, I don't think the point is to have vampires but to have the C'tan in a more prominent and similar role.

Essentially that was my point. To furfull both the need to have the Necrons lead by a force of personality while maintaining the C'tan as the leaders of the Necrons. I wasn't proposing anything like Space Twilight or Space Dracula. While the C'tan are vampiric they are energy vampires. Many players criticized the Newcrons as losing the dark horror edge they had before with being the slaves of malevolent star vampires who wanted to harvest the souls of the living. From what I understand the chief problem with that was the C'tan numbered only two on the tabletop and that inherently limited players to make their own leader or army.

Essentially the Oldcrons seems to be (broadly) much like the dynamic with charismatic and terrifying Vampire Lords leading armies of mindless undead, and served by Wight King lieutenants, who essentially played second fiddle to the Vampires and Necromancers of the fantasy armies. With the Newcrons it would be like removing Vampires from Vampire Counts and putting the Wight Kings as the charismatic leaders.

(Which is kinda what happened when the original Undead book split)

Awesome, so I did understand you correctly. And yes, exactly, that's one of the main issues I have with the newcrons, though I have to admit I found the oldcrons boring as well. But making the changes we've discussed would make them much more interesting.

 EngulfedObject wrote:

 dusara217 wrote:
Actually, you seem to be missing the point. Psi was saying that you still have the capability to create a Necron army that is enslaved to their C'tan (don't the C'tan shards seek to reassemble themselves?) shards.

No, that was not the point. See the post the OP made right above yours.

Psi was making a comment about people complaining about NewCrons, and how NewCrons completely eliminated the option to include horror in a Necron army. He was specifically talking about how you could still make the kind of army that people who espouse the OldCron style want to make. Obviously, it wasn't a competely on-topic post, due to the fact that it wasn't specifically addressed towards OP's idea, but it was about Old-v.-NewCrons, in fact, he was making a response to your complaints regarding what's wrong with NewCrons, not about how you can "Vampire Counts in spaaaaaaace" with the Necrons (although, from the descriptions you guys gave, that sounds exactly like NewCrons, with Overlords in place of Counts and Lords in place of Wight Kings).

 dusara217 wrote:
Psi was making a comment about people complaining about NewCrons, and how NewCrons completely eliminated the option to include horror in a Necron army. He was specifically talking about how you could still make the kind of army that people who espouse the OldCron style want to make. Obviously, it wasn't a competely on-topic post, due to the fact that it wasn't specifically addressed towards OP's idea, but it was about Old-v.-NewCrons, in fact, he was making a response to your complaints regarding what's wrong with NewCrons, not about how you can "Vampire Counts in spaaaaaaace" with the Necrons (although, from the descriptions you guys gave, that sounds exactly like NewCrons, with Overlords in place of Counts and Lords in place of Wight Kings).

Yes, and I replied to that, though I disagree. Others have replied as well, so it's been discussed, not ignored. Don't pick and choose, scroll up and read how the thread progressed.

The newcrons lack direction. I think implementing the changes discussed, and having C'tan characters in the lead would make them more interesting, and, like the OP said, keep that horror (or star vampire, whatever you want to call it) vibe. But of course that's just my opinion, you can breathe easy.

Also, it's not about making the Necrons "Vampire Counts in spaaaaaaace." I think you missed the point

Edit: Btw, if it makes you feel better, I'm not trying to rile you up or anything. I'm just surprised by how many chose to ignore what the OP was saying and decided to go off on their own off-topic tangents and rants about Twilight, or newcrons vs oldcrons, thereby preventing a proper discussion of the topic.

And don't take it personally. I've been following the discussion with a mostly blank, maybe a little angst-ridden face, distracted by more serious RL stuff, so there's not that much emotion involved. Plus Psi posts very frequently on these forums, so I'm sure he'd post himself if he wanted to discuss this tangent further.

 EngulfedObject wrote:

And don't take it personally. I've been following the discussion with a mostly blank, maybe a little angst-ridden face, distracted by more serious RL stuff, so there's not that much emotion involved. Plus Psi posts very frequently on these forums, so I'm sure he'd post himself if he wanted to discuss this tangent further.

Take what personally? You do realize that I do argue entirely for fun, right? This is what I do when I'm bored and can't think of anything to do besides watch TV, reread a book for the thousandth time, or replay a video game for the thousandth time.

 dusara217 wrote:
Take what personally? You do realize that I do argue entirely for fun, right? This is what I do when I'm bored and can't think of anything to do besides watch TV, reread a book for the thousandth time, or replay a video game for the thousandth time.

Yes, you've said as much before, though it's hard to tell whether you're upset or not, as you come across as very aggressive (also been said before and not by me). But I find this topic worth discussing so I'm not really willing to indulge you by going off on a tangent about interpreting what Psi did or didn't say. PM me if you wish to discuss that further (rather pointless though, no?).

Anyway, I'll shut up now so people can actually respond to the OP's topic. Though please, let's talk no further about Twilight or vampires in spaaaace, as that is not the point, as the OP has confirmed.

Dark Eldar kind of strike me as the Vampire counts of 40K. Particularly the Archons.