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.

"No we are looking at comparing the standard basic infantry of each faction - which is Guardsmen vs Necron Warriors."

I'm not looking at that. They are conceptually nothing like each other. Their arbitrary army role is not the issue. Basically, GW is saying there is no technological difference between Imperium and Eldar/Necrons, despite all descriptions to the contrary.

SecondTime wrote:
"No we are looking at comparing the standard basic infantry of each faction - which is Guardsmen vs Necron Warriors."

I'm not looking at that. They are conceptually nothing like each other. Basically, GW is saying there is no technological difference between Imperium and Eldar/Necrons, despite all descriptions to the contrary.

No they dont - you are talking complete nonsense.

 Mr Morden wrote:

SecondTime wrote:
"No we are looking at comparing the standard basic infantry of each faction - which is Guardsmen vs Necron Warriors."

I'm not looking at that. They are conceptually nothing like each other. Basically, GW is saying there is no technological difference between Imperium and Eldar/Necrons, despite all descriptions to the contrary.

No they dont - you are talking complete nonsense.

Am I?

SecondTime wrote:

 vipoid wrote:

 Mr Morden wrote:
They are still durable - they come back if even if you kill them - thats the whole point

Except that they're now nowhere near as durable as Marines - which is the whole point.

Coming back on a 5+ *if* the unit is even still alive, makes them far less durable than Marines with 2 wounds apiece.

More specifically, 13 pts for a warrior v 18 pts for a tac just seems like pure unadulterated marine fapping.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Mr Morden wrote:

 vipoid wrote:

 Mr Morden wrote:
They are still durable - they come back if even if you kill them - thats the whole point

Except that they're now nowhere near as durable as Marines - which is the whole point.

Coming back on a 5+ *if* the unit is even still alive, makes them far less durable than Marines with 2 wounds apiece.

Thats what it was orginally - you came back only if other Necrons were about or Res Orbs.

Plus now you don;t fade out when you loose too many units.

I personally feel that 2W works for Marines - and yes I am a Marine player (and most other factions, and get acused of Hating Marines by great minds like Breton) but for me it fits narrratively as long as pts are right.

Again compare Necron Warriors with Guard - Necron Elites with Marines.

Why? Those are arbitrary labels. Necron warriors are conceptually nothing like guardsmen.

Please stop using the term "marine fapping", it devalues literally any argument you could make.

You also seem to have an issue with appropriate tech levels being demonstrated, so lets have crons come and just annihilate terra with a single shot from one of their larger interplanetary weapons as it's in the fluff they can do that. Orks build battle stations out of moons that whole fleets struggle to stop, why bother landing the boyz?

Unless you strip out some of the more extreme fluff and weapons there's little point playing the game, just pretend you called exterminatus on the planet and have done.

Why? It's appropriate in the context of GW's current philosophy.

"Unless you strip out some of the more extreme fluff and weapons there's little point playing the game, just pretend you called exterminatus on the planet and have done."

Yeah, I guess that's my issue. They need to do a better job of justifying these battles and framing the scope of conflicts.

SecondTime wrote:
Why? It's appropriate in the context of GW's current philosophy.

Because it makes your posts read as a petty immature meme rather than having any intellectual basis.

Dudeface wrote:

SecondTime wrote:
Why? It's appropriate in the context of GW's current philosophy.

Because it makes your posts read as a petty immature meme rather than having any intellectual basis.

Well, I AM trying to communicate disdain for GW's current direction on marines. It's all a matter of taste anyway; I'm objecting to representations that GW make and then how it translates.

I played a game on Saturday with my Blood Angels vs his custom Necron dynasty. I used eradicators, bladeguard vets, veteran intercessors, outriders, and an atv among other primaris. I struggled to wound his Immortals and only killed 2 of his skorpek destroyers with my eradicators before the remaining one wiped the squad. I was tabled by turn 4. I insisted that because I had eradicators that he couldn't win and offered him the option to concede. Somehow with all my extra wounds and eradicator usage I failed to kill a single unit before I was overrun. This is just a single game and I rolled poorly but I get the feeling that future games will be similar as far as capability. I am not concerned about marines vs necrons power level.

SecondTime wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

SecondTime wrote:
Why? It's appropriate in the context of GW's current philosophy.

Because it makes your posts read as a petty immature meme rather than having any intellectual basis.

Well, I AM trying to communicate disdain for GW's current direction on marines. It's all a matter of taste anyway; I'm objecting to representations that GW make and then how it translates.

Much better

To engage with the topic though, I'm not 100% sure they actually have a direction any more, I think they're rushing out what they have and seeing what the market can handle. To be an optimist I hope they're getting all the marine love out the way then reinforcing the other factions for a few years now they've pocketed the cash.

You rolling poorly to kill Skorpekhs with the Eradicators has no bearing on the conversation LOL

 Brotherjanus wrote:
I played a game on Saturday with my Blood Angels vs his custom Necron dynasty. I used eradicators, bladeguard vets, veteran intercessors, outriders, and an atv among other primaris. I struggled to wound his Immortals and only killed 2 of his skorpek destroyers with my eradicators before the remaining one wiped the squad. I was tabled by turn 4. I insisted that because I had eradicators that he couldn't win and offered him the option to concede. Somehow with all my extra wounds and eradicator usage I failed to kill a single unit before I was overrun. This is just a single game and I rolled poorly but I get the feeling that future games will be similar as far as capability. I am not concerned about marines vs necrons power level.

This doesn't jive with the batreps I've been watching.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Dudeface wrote:

SecondTime wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

SecondTime wrote:
Why? It's appropriate in the context of GW's current philosophy.

Because it makes your posts read as a petty immature meme rather than having any intellectual basis.

Well, I AM trying to communicate disdain for GW's current direction on marines. It's all a matter of taste anyway; I'm objecting to representations that GW make and then how it translates.

Much better

To engage with the topic though, I'm not 100% sure they actually have a direction any more, I think they're rushing out what they have and seeing what the market can handle. To be an optimist I hope they're getting all the marine love out the way then reinforcing the other factions for a few years now they've pocketed the cash.

Some factions have been waiting for a decade or more for such reinforcements. Hence, my original use of terminology.

SecondTime wrote:

 Brotherjanus wrote:
I played a game on Saturday with my Blood Angels vs his custom Necron dynasty. I used eradicators, bladeguard vets, veteran intercessors, outriders, and an atv among other primaris. I struggled to wound his Immortals and only killed 2 of his skorpek destroyers with my eradicators before the remaining one wiped the squad. I was tabled by turn 4. I insisted that because I had eradicators that he couldn't win and offered him the option to concede. Somehow with all my extra wounds and eradicator usage I failed to kill a single unit before I was overrun. This is just a single game and I rolled poorly but I get the feeling that future games will be similar as far as capability. I am not concerned about marines vs necrons power level.

This doesn't jive with the batreps I've been watching.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Dudeface wrote:

SecondTime wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

SecondTime wrote:
Why? It's appropriate in the context of GW's current philosophy.

Because it makes your posts read as a petty immature meme rather than having any intellectual basis.

Well, I AM trying to communicate disdain for GW's current direction on marines. It's all a matter of taste anyway; I'm objecting to representations that GW make and then how it translates.

Much better

To engage with the topic though, I'm not 100% sure they actually have a direction any more, I think they're rushing out what they have and seeing what the market can handle. To be an optimist I hope they're getting all the marine love out the way then reinforcing the other factions for a few years now they've pocketed the cash.

Some factions have been waiting for a decade or more for such reinforcements. Hence, my original use of terminology.

No faction has gone a decade with nothing now, maybe not as much support as they need, but they need to up this from token gestures to a wider release. Who knows, 2021 might be the year, they've already shown willingness to branch out and make brand new ranges and refresh ancient kits recently.

I'm not optimistic, and I think 9th is interesting, but I don't want to use the marine codex, nor play against it. GW just can't help themselves with marines. A relatively recent phenomenon, but boy are they making up for lost time. Every complaint Xeno players have had in the past about marines are coming true now.

 Mr Morden wrote:

Thats what it was orginally - you came back only if other Necrons were about or Res Orbs.

Sure. But whilst not whoelly reliable, that durability was still an objective improvement over that of Marines (which had the same toughness, wounds and save). Even after Necrons got knocked back to a 4+ save, RPs still gave them a clear edge in the durability department.

Now, though, Marines are just outright better. Because that extra wound is vastly better than what RPs achieve for Necrons.

So we have a race whose whole shtick is durability, but still being outdone in durability by Marines. Again, what fantastic representation of the fluff and definitely not just massive Marine bias.

 Mr Morden wrote:
Again compare Necron Warriors with Guard - Necron Elites with Marines.

Why? Why are only Marines allowed to have elite infantry as their baseline, while other, previously elite factions have to all now suck even in their defining attributes just so that Marines get to feel extra, super special.


But it seems I'm never going to be able to convince you that maybe Marines shouldn't automatically be the best at everything, so I'll let this be my final argument.

"So we have a race whose whole shtick is durability"

They should have more going for them than this, because of their technology. That's my point.

SecondTime wrote:
"So we have a race whose whole shtick is durability"

They should have more going for them than this, because of their technology. That's my point.

Just to clarify, I didn't mean to say that Necrons should be good at durability and nothing else.

The thing is, a lot of races supposedly have advanced technology. So at the very least, I wouldn't expect Necrons to automatically be the best in that area (not necessarily compared with Marines but more with the equally-ancient Eldar races).

However, durability seems like the one thing they really should excel at over all other races.


Also, nice to see you back, Martel.

 vipoid wrote:

SecondTime wrote:
"So we have a race whose whole shtick is durability"

They should have more going for them than this, because of their technology. That's my point.

Just to clarify, I didn't mean to say that Necrons should be good at durability and nothing else.

The thing is, a lot of races supposedly have advanced technology. So at the very least, I wouldn't expect Necrons to automatically be the best in that area (not necessarily compared with Marines but more with the equally-ancient Eldar races).

However, durability seems like the one thing they really should excel at over all other races.


Also, nice to see you back, Martel.

It seems to me that Eldar and Necrons should have bigger edges there than currently represented. The 7th ed Wraithknight was very good conceptually for example, they just massively miscosted it. D weapons were a great sci-fi weapon, but GW struggles to cost basic weapons, much less something like a D weapon.

 vipoid wrote:

 Mr Morden wrote:

Thats what it was orginally - you came back only if other Necrons were about or Res Orbs.

Sure. But whilst not whoelly reliable, that durability was still an objective improvement over that of Marines (which had the same toughness, wounds and save). Even after Necrons got knocked back to a 4+ save, RPs still gave them a clear edge in the durability department.

Now, though, Marines are just outright better. Because that extra wound is vastly better than what RPs achieve for Necrons.

So we have a race whose whole shtick is durability, but still being outdone in durability by Marines. Again, what fantastic representation of the fluff and definitely not just massive Marine bias.

 Mr Morden wrote:
Again compare Necron Warriors with Guard - Necron Elites with Marines.

Why? Why are only Marines allowed to have elite infantry as their baseline, while other, previously elite factions have to all now suck even in their defining attributes just so that Marines get to feel extra, super special.


But it seems I'm never going to be able to convince you that maybe Marines shouldn't automatically be the best at everything, so I'll let this be my final argument.

Morden really isn't someone who believes that and they're really not. They're not the most elite troops in the game - custodes and grey knights cover that with cron immortals giving them a good run for their money.

The problem is what you define as an elite faction - eldar of all flavours are/were an elite faction but not because of their stat lines, they had all the rules and weapons going for them along with speed.

Tau always straddled the elite line depending on if they were suit heavy or not, they've got issues as a faction generally atm and the pricing isn't quite right on suits.

Chaos marines have always had this weird should they/shouldn't they because they come with daemons or mortals normally giving the army this weird could be elites but maybe isn't thing.

The only ones to have had a codex for 9th beyond marines is Necrons and the immortals do imo give marine troops more than a run for their money. Warriors have had their fluff changed to be brainless silver tide, their current stats cover that well.

" Warriors have had their fluff changed to be brainless silver tide"

That doesn't preclude their chassis being technologically superior to marines. But this means fewer models, I know. But it feeds into the conception that everyone else is an NPC for marines to punch out.

I don't think their stats should be tied to this arbitrary role if Necrons are truly that much more advanced than the Imperium. But again, fewer models.

I think immortals are far too weak compared to marines atm.

I was under the impression that this thread was arguing that the extra wound on regular marines meant that marines in general became op. I disagree with that but what is this Necron argument? Is it that Necrons should be op because of their technology instead of marines? Are people saying that Necrons should have Custodes stat lines? I don't understand the goal.

 Brotherjanus wrote:
I was under the impression that this thread was arguing that the extra wound on regular marines meant that marines in general became op. I disagree with that but what is this Necron argument? Is it that Necrons should be op because of their technology instead of marines? Are people saying that Necrons should have Custodes stat lines? I don't understand the goal.

I don't know specifically. The discussion started with extra wound for marines, but then Necrons were brought into as an analogous unit that marines have completely eclipsed. (Especially if you compare the costs) The technological gap makes such an eclipse completely inappropriate in my personal view. It's an extra point that I think Necron units are far too weak on a model by model basis given their stated origin and background. Remember that a unit being OP is completely dependent upon its cost relative to its capabilities. Very weak units miscosted in the past have been just as problematic as very powerful units miscosted in the past.

Since people are using the term "elite" interchangeably with "power on a model by model basis", I suppose I'm saying it would make more sense for Necrons to be more elite than marines. Even the warriors. But then that wrecks the narrative of the outnumbered marines, right? They don't want the visual of multiple marines struggling to defeat a single Necron, even though this makes more sense given the representations. But simultaneously, its okay for multiple necrons to struggle to defeat a single marine according to GW. Because marines are Mary Sues now, I guess.

 Mr Morden wrote:

 vipoid wrote:

 Mr Morden wrote:
They are still durable - they come back if even if you kill them - thats the whole point

Except that they're now nowhere near as durable as Marines - which is the whole point.

Coming back on a 5+ *if* the unit is even still alive, makes them far less durable than Marines with 2 wounds apiece.

Thats what it was orginally - you came back only if other Necrons were about or Res Orbs.

Plus now you don;t fade out when you loose too many units.

To be fair, the Warriors had a 3+ save back then and while they had to be nearby other Necrons for WBB to work, it didn't have to be the same unit, if you had two units of Warriors next to each other and wiped one, they'd still all get to roll for WBB, while a Marine was W1 with no Bolter Discipline, no Shock Asssault, no Chapter Tactics (at least not in the way they are now as direct power-enhancing freebies as opposed to availability of upgrade purchases), no Combat Doctrines, no Combat Squads, no reroll Aura's, etc.

Fade-out was a thing sure, but I don't think I personally ever forced a Necron Army to Phase Out (at least before 5E, but then Necrons were using a 3E book that was almost a decade old by the time it got replaced).

I think GW has always had trouble turning the lore into gameplay. With that aside, I think every army should be brought up to the level marines are instead of bringing marines down. If the armies on the table "feel" like they should as described in the lore then I think that is where it should be. Right now marines are closer to that feel. I want to be menaced by Necrons when I play against them and the last game I played did that. I want to feel overwhelmed when I go against Tyranids or Orks or even Imperial Guard. This sort of thing is difficult to translate but I think my opinion is more inline with the designer's. I like that they have started to make 2 sets of rules, one for matched and another for narrative/casual. The hard part is keeping it fair for matched play.

Elaborate. Necron rules seem very weak compared to marines, and the batreps I've watched don't do much to dispel it. No armies seem to have anything close to enough offense to deal with marine killy units AND their troops now. For the rules they get, marines seem way too cheap even after 9th ed point hikes.

SecondTime wrote:

 Brotherjanus wrote:
I was under the impression that this thread was arguing that the extra wound on regular marines meant that marines in general became op. I disagree with that but what is this Necron argument? Is it that Necrons should be op because of their technology instead of marines? Are people saying that Necrons should have Custodes stat lines? I don't understand the goal.

I don't know specifically. The discussion started with extra wound for marines, but then Necrons were brought into as an analogous unit that marines have completely eclipsed. (Especially if you compare the costs) The technological gap makes such an eclipse completely inappropriate in my personal view. It's an extra point that I think Necron units are far too weak on a model by model basis given their stated origin and background. Remember that a unit being OP is completely dependent upon its cost relative to its capabilities. Very weak units miscosted in the past have been just as problematic as very powerful units miscosted in the past.

Since people are using the term "elite" interchangeably with "power on a model by model basis", I suppose I'm saying it would make more sense for Necrons to be more elite than marines. Even the warriors. But then that wrecks the narrative of the outnumbered marines, right? They don't want the visual of multiple marines struggling to defeat a single Necron, even though this makes more sense given the representations. But simultaneously, its okay for multiple necrons to struggle to defeat a single marine according to GW. Because marines are Mary Sues now, I guess.

I think the problem is assuming that superior technology = superior troops. Just because Necrons have better technology doesn't mean that they would use it to create better troops, they may consider large numbers of slightly inferior troops a better option than smaller numbers of superior troops. It's a war, not a technological showcase. It's entirely possible that Necrons favor numerical superiority in troops over raw power, and thus create large numbers of such troops instead of investing resources into stronger, but less numerical, troops. They have the technology, but find it better to use it in a different way than you would.

For a representation of their superior technology, just compare vehicles. The majority of marine vehicles are T7 or T8 with a 3+ save, with a few packing a 5++, and a few rare examples a 4++. Necrons, on the other hand, have multiple vehicles with Quantum Shielding, which provides both a 5++ and causes all weapons to wound on a natural 4+ regardless of strength. So a S16 AP-5 volcano cannon is wounding a T6 Necron vehicle on 4s instead of 2s, with that vehicle still saving on 5s. Point that same gun at a T8 2+ Land Raider though.....

I can't speak to the batreps you have seen but I play the crusade missions and use lots of los blocking terrain. The best I can do is say what I faced and why it did well. My opponent used 3 squads of Immortals as his only troop units, an overlord, the new scorp lord, the new scorp unit, praetorian guard (the axe and shield guys), and the single model unit that can't be shot with overwatch from the new set. Everything was at least toughness 5 so my regular shooting needed 5's to wound. In melee it was a bit better needing 4's to wound since I was Blood Angels but he was able to get the charge on me in several places as I went first and made moves to score objectives. His Dynasty ability lowered my toughness by 1 so he was able to wound me easily. It could have gone the other way for me if my rolling had been average instead of below. I think in a vacuum the rules seem weak but in practice with scenario choices and dice it's closer than it appears.

Correct me if fluff changed or got specified, but aren't Warriors basically Necron citizens which number into the billions?

So their technology turned a frail, short lived meatbag into one of the toughest, "mass produced" chassis known to the galaxy.

The Imperium can do it too, but on a much smaller scale. In the fluff, every Marine is a hero and a vital asset for the Imperium, revered by those who seen them and only whispered as a myth by others. While Warriors - with a similar statline - are a throw away unit, nothing compared to the actual Necron soldiers.

SecondTime wrote:
Elaborate. Necron rules seem very weak compared to marines, and the batreps I've watched don't do much to dispel it. No armies seem to have anything close to enough offense to deal with marine killy units AND their troops now. For the rules they get, marines seem way too cheap even after 9th ed point hikes.

Spin it round, why do you think marines are so much more powerful than necrons, with empirical evidence if not a detailed opinion.

For necrons it seems to be the custom dynasties doing a lot of the lifting with hard to target/kill obsec units everywhere backed up by deadly melee and close range shooting if people try to engage and clear them.

Dudeface wrote:

SecondTime wrote:
Elaborate. Necron rules seem very weak compared to marines, and the batreps I've watched don't do much to dispel it. No armies seem to have anything close to enough offense to deal with marine killy units AND their troops now. For the rules they get, marines seem way too cheap even after 9th ed point hikes.

Spin it round, why do you think marines are so much more powerful than necrons, with empirical evidence if not a detailed opinion.

For necrons it seems to be the custom dynasties doing a lot of the lifting with hard to target/kill obsec units everywhere backed up by deadly melee and close range shooting if people try to engage and clear them.

Two wound troops for starters. Way more rerolls. More mobility. More CC power. Marines can push almost anything off an objective and then keep it. And they are cheap enough to have lots of bodies on the board. No one has the firepower to engage all the T4 3+ wounds marines put on the table now.

I intend to play more games with various marine lists against Necrons but I don't see it being as black and white as you do.