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.

SecondTime wrote:

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.

They have reduced rerolls now and they already had 2 wound troops, intercessors didn't get cheaper and tac marines are still worse stats wise, they're fairly even now.

Nothing you list is new or additional from this codex, they had access to all that before.

10 necron immortals will kill 1.5 tac marines outside of bolter range, better yet 10 marines in rapid fire range, in tactical doctrine drop a little over 1 immortal.

SecondTime wrote:
" 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.

Did you see literally none of the buffs Immortals got? Better weapons, T5, A2 at base, and FNP on steroids? Thats significantly better than whatever Tactical Marines got with the W2 LOL

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

SecondTime wrote:
" 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.

Did you see literally none of the buffs Immortals got? Better weapons, T5, A2 at base, and FNP on steroids? Thats significantly better than whatever Tactical Marines got with the W2 LOL

Their weaker weapon got 6" of range, correct?
And their stronger one now was buffed against hit penalties, but is much weaker with hit bonuses. Before, at -1 to-hit, they got 1/2 hits; at normal shooting, 1/1 hits; and at +1, 3/2 hits. Now it's 5/6, 6/6, and 7/6 respectively.

T5 is good. No arguments there.

A2 is better-but they're still garbage in melee. It takes a squad of seven to bully a ten man Guard squad low enough to claim an objective from them in melee by reducing them to 6 models.

FNP on steroids is only true if you're dealing with weapons that have more than 1 Damage. Against anything 1 Damage, it's FNP... But worse, since you can't take it on the attack that wipes the squad. In a 10 Man squad, that can be tough, but 5 man... Not as much.

Overall, Immortals did get better. But that doesn't make them compare favorably to Intercessors.

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

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.....

The thing is Necrons used to have VASTLY superior troops. Like, it was a thing. They've taken a mighty tumble over the years.

The original Necron Warrior had:
T5
2+ save
Costed 50% more than a Marine
Had an AP-2 on their gun
Didn't take morale/Ld tests.
If killed, rolled every turn to come back on a 6+
Had an aura that effected nearby technology which meant:
1: Vehicles/Dreadnoughts within 6" of a Necron Warrior required a roll of 4+ to Move, and if they succeeded they could only move at half rate.
2: Shooting weapons attempting to fire suffered a -1 to hit for each Necron within 6".
3: Necron opponents in CC couldn't use any strength bonuses for weapons in CC.

It should also be noted with Immortals that the "upgrade" to T5 is a return to their original Toughness through the first several editions of their existence.

It's interesting to see how Marines have gotten consistently improved and bloated in terms of both table and lore power, while the Necron Warrior has been similarly actively degraded and reduced, going from T5 2+sv when first introduced in 2E, to T4 3+sv in 3E, to T4 4+sv in just a few months before 6E.

a_typical_hero wrote:
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.

You're operating from the assumption that the Necrons are supposed to be on par with the Imperium power-wise; that Warriors should be weaker than Marines because there are a lot of Warriors and not a lot of Marines. That's never been the case. Unlike the Eldar or Imperium, they haven't lost the technology they possessed at their peak, so their baseline for a disposable cheap cannon fodder unit is on the level of a Space Marine and it only gets nastier from there.

Their whole shtick was that even the lowliest Warrior, the basic grunt footsoldier of this empire, was comparable to the Imperium's transhuman heroes, and when all the tomb worlds wake up the Imperium is going to be in serious trouble. Which will be the same day that all the hive fleets arrive, all the Orks unite under one leader, the Emperor dies, and every other Looming Bad Thing The Imperium Cannot Survive comes to pass- which is to say never, as long as the game continues to exist.

 Vaktathi wrote:
It should also be noted with Immortals that the "upgrade" to T5 is a return to their original Toughness through the first several editions of their existence.

It's interesting to see how Marines have gotten consistently improved and bloated in terms of both table and lore power, while the Necron Warrior has been similarly actively degraded and reduced, going from T5 2+sv when first introduced in 2E, to T4 3+sv in 3E, to T4 4+sv in just a few months before 6E.

To say nothing of the Heavy Intercessors which are now a thing. :/

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
It should also be noted with Immortals that the "upgrade" to T5 is a return to their original Toughness through the first several editions of their existence.

It's interesting to see how Marines have gotten consistently improved and bloated in terms of both table and lore power, while the Necron Warrior has been similarly actively degraded and reduced, going from T5 2+sv when first introduced in 2E, to T4 3+sv in 3E, to T4 4+sv in just a few months before 6E.

To say nothing of the Heavy Intercessors which are now a thing. :/

Indeed. Marine troopers have gone from T3 W1 4+sv at their start to T4 W1 3+ to now in some cases T5 W3 3+ and universally at least W2, it's a wee bit silly, to say nothing of the special rules layered on top.

Dudeface wrote:

SecondTime wrote:

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.

They have reduced rerolls now and they already had 2 wound troops, intercessors didn't get cheaper and tac marines are still worse stats wise, they're fairly even now.

Nothing you list is new or additional from this codex, they had access to all that before.

10 necron immortals will kill 1.5 tac marines outside of bolter range, better yet 10 marines in rapid fire range, in tactical doctrine drop a little over 1 immortal.

I didn't say it was new. Just that it exists. 8.5 marines were far superior to necrons, 9th marines kept most of that stuff and are now merely significantly superior instead of far superior. The main difference is now oldbois are now magically signficantly superior as well.

 Gadzilla666 wrote:
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.

Except that historically Necrons had been able to create massive numbers of troops that were one-for-one an equal to Astartes (more or less). That's changed recently.

SecondTime wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

SecondTime wrote:

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.

They have reduced rerolls now and they already had 2 wound troops, intercessors didn't get cheaper and tac marines are still worse stats wise, they're fairly even now.

Nothing you list is new or additional from this codex, they had access to all that before.

10 necron immortals will kill 1.5 tac marines outside of bolter range, better yet 10 marines in rapid fire range, in tactical doctrine drop a little over 1 immortal.

I didn't say it was new. Just that it exists. 8.5 marines were far superior to necrons, 9th marines kept most of that stuff and are now merely significantly superior instead of far superior. The main difference is now oldbois are now magically signficantly superior as well.

8.0 marines had 2 wound troops and plenty of rerolls, I'd actually agree the marine book is marginally better, but it feels like you're just buying into blind Internet hype with no rational thought at this stage, which is ironic given your experience with those blood angels last edition who you claimed were trash until the end.

I have to say that is obvious that normal marines are more durable than necron warriors but I would not say just because they have two wounds they become miles ahead than necron warriors, even from a "feeling" perspective. My preference would be still for Inmortals to have 2 wounds, and I have no problem with all marines having two wounds, but thats more about expecting the phase out of mini marines instead of this strange mix we have now.
Warriors still have a better weapon, for example, and are much more resilient agaisnt all kind of multi damage weapons, from 2 to 1d6.


And personally I would put inmortals with no sinergy whatsoever but with their base rules (That means no rerroll bubles, stratagems, character support but shock assault, RP, bolter discipline, chapter tactics, etc...) over Intercessors right now at least in the feeling of power department. They are more durable (Agaisnt nearly everything), they are better at shooting, and slighly worse in meele unless the sargeant has a meele weapon (But thats more points) in wich case they are much worse at meele. It looks off that the marine has two wounds and the inmortal has 1 wound, but thats more because how 40K has keep the wound count in all this years. In age of sigmar GW has been much more free to give different wound stats (And I know damage works diferently) to different units so just because one has two wounds doesnt means hes instantly more elite than one that has just 1, like Savage Orc Boyz vs Lumineth or Osiarch spearmen.

"like you're just buying into blind Internet hype"

Are bat reps blind internet hype? I'm watching the same problems unfold over and over.

SecondTime wrote:
"like you're just buying into blind Internet hype"

Are bat reps blind internet hype? I'm watching the same problems unfold over and over.

Which bat reps?

Both tabletop tactics and tabletop titans did marine v cron games on release day and both were fairly close score wise iirc.

Link to some of the bat reps, name something specific.

I want to be convinced but so far you've simply said that marines are better at stuff, nothing more precise or constructive.

The tabletop tactics match alone is sufficient to demonstrate my concerns. The marine troops are just too difficult for the Necrons to damage. The score might have been close, but the match didn't seem close on the table. I don't know how good either of these lists were, though. Redemptors are now like wave serpents that shoot better and punch.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nLFPkm-X28E

I've watched several others with the same kind of result with the marine troops just being too hard to shift.

SecondTime wrote:
The tabletop tactics match alone is sufficient to demonstrate my concerns. The marine troops are just too difficult for the Necrons to damage. The score might have been close, but the match didn't seem close on the table. I don't know how good either of these lists were, though. Redemptors are now like wave serpents that shoot better and punch.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nLFPkm-X28E

I've watched several others with the same kind of result with the marine troops just being too hard to shift.

They're literally no harder to remove than they have been the last 3 years... come on.

The primaris maybe, but now they're all like that.Fundamentally, I think GW has changed too much too quickly with marines.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Devastating is a hell of a stretch for the Gauss rule. Basically 10% of your shots will glance. If you're talking about the bigger more expensive vehicles it looks nice, but anything around 100 points it's hilariously inefficient.

1/6th not 10% And it was utterly devastating. A squad of 20 warriors in RF range would basically disintegrate any vehicle they encountered. Having the ability to destroy Heavy tanks/vehicles with your basic infantry was amazing for Necrons and really helped them because their other choices were somewhat...garbage.

So put that in perspective. You had a rather large mob of Warriors, comparable to Marines as far as durability (used to be much better) and whose BASIC rifle was able to destroy heavy vehicles. Now compare that to today's Necrons.

 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.

3 Eradicators, NO upgrades are averaging 6 shots, 4 hits, 2.66 = 2.66 dead Skorpekhs a turn. Yeah I get it you rolled badly, but with 8' movement you should have at the very least gotten 2 turns to blast them off the table. If you had upgraded 1 to a Multi-melta than it should have been 1 dead unit of skorpekhs turn 1. On his turn, if he gets into CC he only had 3 attacks, so if he wiped out your 3 eradicators than he rolled really well. 3 attacks hitting on 3s rerolling 1s = 2.33 hits, wounding on 2s = 1.94 wounds, so he should have averaged 2 dead Marines. So apparently you rolled really poorly and he rolled really well. Not exactly an indictment on how under powered Eradicators are.

 Brotherjanus wrote:
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.

The problem with your solution is that every time an army is brought up to SM power levels the same individuals come out of the wood work screaming that (Insert non SM army) is OP and needs massive nerfs. Keep in mind, we have people actively saying Eradicators are not OP and that Aggressors are now useless trash, Oh, and Intercessors are perfectly balanced being better at both Ranged combat compared to Fire warriors and melee combat compared to Genestealers on a point for point basis. FFS we had a Marine player in here complaining that the Ork relic Klaw was just too OP and needed to be nerfed to be worse than a normal SM thunder hammer.

if you want to feel "overwhelmed" by horde factions than guess what? units like Eradicators/aggressors and intercessors all need HEAVY nerfs. That or you need to make those horde armies significantly cheaper. If you want to get that feeling of being overwhelmed but still keep those units as is than my 110pt buggies need to be closer to 50pts. My Ork boyz need to be back down to 6ppm not 8ppm, and even then they would probably need a durability increase thanks to aggressors even existing.

Dudeface wrote:
They have reduced rerolls now and they already had 2 wound troops, intercessors didn't get cheaper and tac marines are still worse stats wise, they're fairly even now.
Nothing you list is new or additional from this codex, they had access to all that before.
10 necron immortals will kill 1.5 tac marines outside of bolter range, better yet 10 marines in rapid fire range, in tactical doctrine drop a little over 1 immortal.

Problem is, everything that used to target those 8th edition Intercessors is now more expensive and is having to target Tac Marines which are almost as good as Intercessors.

10 Necron immortals are a bit cheaper than 10 Intercessors and just about the same price as Tac Marines. 10 Immortals get 10 shots, 6.66 hits 4.44 wounds and basically 3 unsaved wounds for 1.5 dead Tac Marines. 10 Tac Marines under tac doctrine get 20 shots, 13.33 hits, against T5 that is 4.44 wounds and 2.22 unsaved wounds which is 2.22 dead Immortals. They have the same range, and Tac Marines no longer need to get into "Rapid Fire" range. So your basic Tac Marine outperforms immortals at ranged combat. Those intercessors though, they are doing 3 dmg at 30' range to those Immortals. And if not in TAC doctrine its 1.5 dead immortals and 2.2 respectively.

If you factor in Reanimation protocols they get a 5+ per wound to come back to life so if you kill 3, likely 1 comes back. Problem I see with this is 1: if you do 1 damage to those Immortals the likelihood is they lose 1 model, where as it takes 2 damage to inflict the same loss in damage output to those Marines, so if you manage 10 dmg vs immortals you wipe the unit, if you manage 10 damage against those Marines? Well you still have 5 Marines standing to get through. So yeah, they have similar damage output but those Marines are still more durable thanks to having 2 wounds each.

Dudeface wrote:

SecondTime wrote:
The tabletop tactics match alone is sufficient to demonstrate my concerns. The marine troops are just too difficult for the Necrons to damage. The score might have been close, but the match didn't seem close on the table. I don't know how good either of these lists were, though. Redemptors are now like wave serpents that shoot better and punch.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nLFPkm-X28E

I've watched several others with the same kind of result with the marine troops just being too hard to shift.

They're literally no harder to remove than they have been the last 3 years... come on.

2W Intercessors have always been a bad decision. It's just now Tactical Marines get 2W, and they do more damage than Intercessors. Either way most baseline infantry get shafted against marines.

SemperMortis wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Devastating is a hell of a stretch for the Gauss rule. Basically 10% of your shots will glance. If you're talking about the bigger more expensive vehicles it looks nice, but anything around 100 points it's hilariously inefficient.

1/6th not 10% And it was utterly devastating. A squad of 20 warriors in RF range would basically disintegrate any vehicle they encountered. Having the ability to destroy Heavy tanks/vehicles with your basic infantry was amazing for Necrons and really helped them because their other choices were somewhat...garbage.

So put that in perspective. You had a rather large mob of Warriors, comparable to Marines as far as durability (used to be much better) and whose BASIC rifle was able to destroy heavy vehicles. Now compare that to today's Necrons.

 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.

3 Eradicators, NO upgrades are averaging 6 shots, 4 hits, 2.66 = 2.66 dead Skorpekhs a turn. Yeah I get it you rolled badly, but with 8' movement you should have at the very least gotten 2 turns to blast them off the table. If you had upgraded 1 to a Multi-melta than it should have been 1 dead unit of skorpekhs turn 1. On his turn, if he gets into CC he only had 3 attacks, so if he wiped out your 3 eradicators than he rolled really well. 3 attacks hitting on 3s rerolling 1s = 2.33 hits, wounding on 2s = 1.94 wounds, so he should have averaged 2 dead Marines. So apparently you rolled really poorly and he rolled really well. Not exactly an indictment on how under powered Eradicators are.

 Brotherjanus wrote:
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.

The problem with your solution is that every time an army is brought up to SM power levels the same individuals come out of the wood work screaming that (Insert non SM army) is OP and needs massive nerfs. Keep in mind, we have people actively saying Eradicators are not OP and that Aggressors are now useless trash, Oh, and Intercessors are perfectly balanced being better at both Ranged combat compared to Fire warriors and melee combat compared to Genestealers on a point for point basis. FFS we had a Marine player in here complaining that the Ork relic Klaw was just too OP and needed to be nerfed to be worse than a normal SM thunder hammer.

if you want to feel "overwhelmed" by horde factions than guess what? units like Eradicators/aggressors and intercessors all need HEAVY nerfs. That or you need to make those horde armies significantly cheaper. If you want to get that feeling of being overwhelmed but still keep those units as is than my 110pt buggies need to be closer to 50pts. My Ork boyz need to be back down to 6ppm not 8ppm, and even then they would probably need a durability increase thanks to aggressors even existing.

Dudeface wrote:
They have reduced rerolls now and they already had 2 wound troops, intercessors didn't get cheaper and tac marines are still worse stats wise, they're fairly even now.
Nothing you list is new or additional from this codex, they had access to all that before.
10 necron immortals will kill 1.5 tac marines outside of bolter range, better yet 10 marines in rapid fire range, in tactical doctrine drop a little over 1 immortal.

Problem is, everything that used to target those 8th edition Intercessors is now more expensive and is having to target Tac Marines which are almost as good as Intercessors.

10 Necron immortals are a bit cheaper than 10 Intercessors and just about the same price as Tac Marines. 10 Immortals get 10 shots, 6.66 hits 4.44 wounds and basically 3 unsaved wounds for 1.5 dead Tac Marines. 10 Tac Marines under tac doctrine get 20 shots, 13.33 hits, against T5 that is 4.44 wounds and 2.22 unsaved wounds which is 2.22 dead Immortals. They have the same range, and Tac Marines no longer need to get into "Rapid Fire" range. So your basic Tac Marine outperforms immortals at ranged combat. Those intercessors though, they are doing 3 dmg at 30' range to those Immortals. And if not in TAC doctrine its 1.5 dead immortals and 2.2 respectively.

If you factor in Reanimation protocols they get a 5+ per wound to come back to life so if you kill 3, likely 1 comes back. Problem I see with this is 1: if you do 1 damage to those Immortals the likelihood is they lose 1 model, where as it takes 2 damage to inflict the same loss in damage output to those Marines, so if you manage 10 dmg vs immortals you wipe the unit, if you manage 10 damage against those Marines? Well you still have 5 Marines standing to get through. So yeah, they have similar damage output but those Marines are still more durable thanks to having 2 wounds each.

You forgot the hit roll, chief. 2/3 of the Warriors or Immortals hit, and then 1/6 after that glance. That's a 10% chance per shot to glance. So yes it IS inefficient if you bothered to do the math for it.

SemperMortis wrote:

Dudeface wrote:
They have reduced rerolls now and they already had 2 wound troops, intercessors didn't get cheaper and tac marines are still worse stats wise, they're fairly even now.
Nothing you list is new or additional from this codex, they had access to all that before.
10 necron immortals will kill 1.5 tac marines outside of bolter range, better yet 10 marines in rapid fire range, in tactical doctrine drop a little over 1 immortal.

Problem is, everything that used to target those 8th edition Intercessors is now more expensive and is having to target Tac Marines which are almost as good as Intercessors.

10 Necron immortals are a bit cheaper than 10 Intercessors and just about the same price as Tac Marines. 10 Immortals get 10 shots, 6.66 hits 4.44 wounds and basically 3 unsaved wounds for 1.5 dead Tac Marines. 10 Tac Marines under tac doctrine get 20 shots, 13.33 hits, against T5 that is 4.44 wounds and 2.22 unsaved wounds which is 2.22 dead Immortals. They have the same range, and Tac Marines no longer need to get into "Rapid Fire" range. So your basic Tac Marine outperforms immortals at ranged combat. Those intercessors though, they are doing 3 dmg at 30' range to those Immortals. And if not in TAC doctrine its 1.5 dead immortals and 2.2 respectively.

If you factor in Reanimation protocols they get a 5+ per wound to come back to life so if you kill 3, likely 1 comes back. Problem I see with this is 1: if you do 1 damage to those Immortals the likelihood is they lose 1 model, where as it takes 2 damage to inflict the same loss in damage output to those Marines, so if you manage 10 dmg vs immortals you wipe the unit, if you manage 10 damage against those Marines? Well you still have 5 Marines standing to get through. So yeah, they have similar damage output but those Marines are still more durable thanks to having 2 wounds each.

Tac marines have 24" range, they can't kill the immortals from 30" but do take losses, as a gauss blaster is 30" now. But you just proved they trade favourably.

Dudeface wrote:

SemperMortis wrote:

Dudeface wrote:
They have reduced rerolls now and they already had 2 wound troops, intercessors didn't get cheaper and tac marines are still worse stats wise, they're fairly even now.
Nothing you list is new or additional from this codex, they had access to all that before.
10 necron immortals will kill 1.5 tac marines outside of bolter range, better yet 10 marines in rapid fire range, in tactical doctrine drop a little over 1 immortal.

Problem is, everything that used to target those 8th edition Intercessors is now more expensive and is having to target Tac Marines which are almost as good as Intercessors.

10 Necron immortals are a bit cheaper than 10 Intercessors and just about the same price as Tac Marines. 10 Immortals get 10 shots, 6.66 hits 4.44 wounds and basically 3 unsaved wounds for 1.5 dead Tac Marines. 10 Tac Marines under tac doctrine get 20 shots, 13.33 hits, against T5 that is 4.44 wounds and 2.22 unsaved wounds which is 2.22 dead Immortals. They have the same range, and Tac Marines no longer need to get into "Rapid Fire" range. So your basic Tac Marine outperforms immortals at ranged combat. Those intercessors though, they are doing 3 dmg at 30' range to those Immortals. And if not in TAC doctrine its 1.5 dead immortals and 2.2 respectively.

If you factor in Reanimation protocols they get a 5+ per wound to come back to life so if you kill 3, likely 1 comes back. Problem I see with this is 1: if you do 1 damage to those Immortals the likelihood is they lose 1 model, where as it takes 2 damage to inflict the same loss in damage output to those Marines, so if you manage 10 dmg vs immortals you wipe the unit, if you manage 10 damage against those Marines? Well you still have 5 Marines standing to get through. So yeah, they have similar damage output but those Marines are still more durable thanks to having 2 wounds each.

Tac marines have 24" range, they can't kill the immortals from 30" but do take losses, as a gauss blaster is 30" now. But you just proved they trade favourably.

Grav Cannon is 30" range now, iirc.

I'm sort of finding the whole thread weird because as people say, intercessors have been around a long time.

The critique of the Tabletop Tactics game is probably that both armies could have been tuned up - but then I'm not sure Redemptors are bad under the new rules. I feel you'd shave the troops for at least one more unit of eradicators. Possibly ditch the impulsors for more bodies too.

Its harder to work out what Necron players are going to spam going forward.

I think redemptors are quite good now because as I said, they are wave serpents that can punch.

 Insectum7 wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

SemperMortis wrote:

Dudeface wrote:
They have reduced rerolls now and they already had 2 wound troops, intercessors didn't get cheaper and tac marines are still worse stats wise, they're fairly even now.
Nothing you list is new or additional from this codex, they had access to all that before.
10 necron immortals will kill 1.5 tac marines outside of bolter range, better yet 10 marines in rapid fire range, in tactical doctrine drop a little over 1 immortal.

Problem is, everything that used to target those 8th edition Intercessors is now more expensive and is having to target Tac Marines which are almost as good as Intercessors.

10 Necron immortals are a bit cheaper than 10 Intercessors and just about the same price as Tac Marines. 10 Immortals get 10 shots, 6.66 hits 4.44 wounds and basically 3 unsaved wounds for 1.5 dead Tac Marines. 10 Tac Marines under tac doctrine get 20 shots, 13.33 hits, against T5 that is 4.44 wounds and 2.22 unsaved wounds which is 2.22 dead Immortals. They have the same range, and Tac Marines no longer need to get into "Rapid Fire" range. So your basic Tac Marine outperforms immortals at ranged combat. Those intercessors though, they are doing 3 dmg at 30' range to those Immortals. And if not in TAC doctrine its 1.5 dead immortals and 2.2 respectively.

If you factor in Reanimation protocols they get a 5+ per wound to come back to life so if you kill 3, likely 1 comes back. Problem I see with this is 1: if you do 1 damage to those Immortals the likelihood is they lose 1 model, where as it takes 2 damage to inflict the same loss in damage output to those Marines, so if you manage 10 dmg vs immortals you wipe the unit, if you manage 10 damage against those Marines? Well you still have 5 Marines standing to get through. So yeah, they have similar damage output but those Marines are still more durable thanks to having 2 wounds each.

Tac marines have 24" range, they can't kill the immortals from 30" but do take losses, as a gauss blaster is 30" now. But you just proved they trade favourably.

Grav Cannon is 30" range now, iirc.

I think so off top of my head but then the immortals outnumber the tac squad, not sure which way it swings it. Tac squad still needs to move into bolter range butting the grav cannon at -1 for a turn regardless.

Napkin maths the tac marines win purely due to the slow speed of the immortals and bolter discipline. But it's not a landslide overly.

Going to be interesting to see if proved wrong - but I don't think anyone is going to take Tacs over Intercessors. At least as I see it, one special weapon isn't worth a significantly worse gun and 1 attack, for a fairly trivial amount of points.

Tyel wrote:
Going to be interesting to see if proved wrong - but I don't think anyone is going to take Tacs over Intercessors. At least as I see it, one special weapon isn't worth a significantly worse gun and 1 attack, for a fairly trivial amount of points.

If I were to play marines again, I might just so I can shoot MOAR plasma at enemy marines. I can pack in 4 plasma guns into one Rhino.

if you want to feel "overwhelmed" by horde factions than guess what? units like Eradicators/aggressors and intercessors all need HEAVY nerfs. That or you need to make those horde armies significantly cheaper. If you want to get that feeling of being overwhelmed but still keep those units as is than my 110pt buggies need to be closer to 50pts. My Ork boyz need to be back down to 6ppm not 8ppm, and even then they would probably need a durability increase thanks to aggressors even existing.

Orks already have lists that win by camping objectives and running a horde, you want them to have even more models, and at the same time intercessors being worse at shoting then tau and orks at melee, so every skew army would beat them? that is madness.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

You forgot the hit roll, chief. 2/3 of the Warriors or Immortals hit, and then 1/6 after that glance. That's a 10% chance per shot to glance. So yes it IS inefficient if you bothered to do the math for it.

Ah, ok "chief" my mistake for thinking we were talking specifically hits instead of shots.

Regardless, 20 Warriors were inflicting 2.2 glances per vehicle per turn, and if they somehow got into RF range they were gutting a vehicle entirely. How many HPs did most vehicles in the game have? 3-5? so the necrons basic troops choice was killing a vehicle every 2 turns, not bad for a troops choice that used to also be one of the most durable in the game.

SecondTime wrote:
I think redemptors are quite good now because as I said, they are wave serpents that can punch.

Except Redemptors take up elite-slots, aren't transports, don't move 14", don't have Fly, etc...

Not saying Redemptors aren't good, but this comparison feels both disingenuous and pointless.
It doesn't get much more "apples vs. oranges" than this.