Author |
Message |
 |
|
 |
Advert
|
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. |
|
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2020/10/29 05:18:49
Subject: The thing that I don't like about the necron codex
|
 |
Been Around the Block
|
First of all, hi ! This is my first time here.
I have bought the necron codex on release and have been quite a fan of the faction for several editions now (although I rarely played them at all). But while I do really like a lot of the changes, the new units, the new life of the Nightbringer, the more useful than before RP... But after making a handful of games with them, playing a bit with list building and talking about it with friends, I do have one big issue with the codex. Something that bothers me and that strikes to me as a missed opportunity and a design flaw.
Is it the relics ? well they're pretty bad in general, but it's not that
The warlord traits then ? they're underwhelming and bland, but nothing too awful
Did your favorite unit get nuked and is now unplayable ? Quite the opposite actually...
The issue starts with the troop choices, only 2 options, both with the core keyword.
Then the fact that the codex is separated in 3 sections, each with their own buffing HQ and keyword: core, canoptek and destroyer.
Then the fact that command protocols cannot be used if your army doesn't have a noble on the table (and nobles mainly buff core units).
Then the fact that a lot of the other good stuff in the codex can only be used on core units...
In short, the game wants you to bring warriors, immortals and Overlords/CCB
You just cannot do otherwise, and I feel that it is a damn shame. With all the new releases, GW could have done the really cool thing of allowing the player to do a full canoptek or full destroyer, but alas, it was not meant to be.
I personally love destroyers, I have a whole bunch of old destroyers and Heavy destroyers, 6 skorpekhs from indomitus, a lot of old metal wraiths that I can finally just convert to ophidians, the Skorpekh Lord, and would even fancy these new good-looking plastic flayed ones if they were actually troop choice and I would have an actual all-murder-crazy-machines army and that would be awesome.
But no, not only the codex would makes it very suboptimal, it's also impossible because I HAVE to bring at least 2 units of warrior and a noble. And as a player who likes competitive, but likes flavorful armies even more, I think it is really a missed opportunity from them.
This goes as well for a canoptek army, with crypteks, wraiths, scarabs, spyders, soomstalkers...
I really think scarabs and Flayed ones should have been troops, even at a small point increase. Not only would this bring more variety to the troop choice (because right now it's just "you want the thing that shoots or the things that shoots a bit harder ?) but also allow both fantasies described above. And also not force the player to take a noble in order to have the protocols work.
This is even more frustrating when you compare to the marine codex, which is only 1 big blob of core (in which even some vehicles have access to) with plenty of troop choices (RIP scouts tho') and the ability to make a flavorful army without even thinking about it.
That is my 2 cents, I wanted to know what you thought about it. Is it reasonable ? Am I venting in the wind aimlessly ?...
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2020/10/29 06:00:25
Subject: The thing that I don't like about the necron codex
|
 |
Longtime Dakkanaut
|
Nah, not really. GW did radically change necrons and generally improve them over 8e. (Like that was a high bar to hurdle)
It's true that some things do suck tremendously tho.
I hate that a destroyer lord can't take VoD and use it with a destroyer unit.
The reanimation walker is so good you want to take it but so fragile you can't.
Now we have an awesome close combat unit that can't get to an enemy without being shot to pieces and RP doesn't really work for it, and another one that can DS but is pretty fragile.
It seems to buh-low that a monolith didn't become an anti psyker/warp unit like the design implied, and still no IS or QS, but hey, you can stick a chronomancer on it for a 5+IS, then again with a 2+ save and the fact that not a lot of weapons have a -4 AP (Tho the ones that do will all be aimed at your monolith) it usually gets 5+ anyway that can't be negated by something that blocks an IS. I kinda wish the monolith did have like a "Massive repair engine" rule that let its LM restore 2 wounds per turn but that would not have been a real big deal. A "massive construct" rule that limited how muvch damage it coiuld take per phase, like maybe 6, would have been nice.
Also, not letting RP work for things like exploding vehicle casualties, I mean WTF?
But still all in all I'd rather play a 9e necron army than an 8e one.
|
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2020/10/29 06:13:36
"But the universe is a big place, and whatever happens, you will not be missed..." |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2020/10/29 06:39:51
Subject: The thing that I don't like about the necron codex
|
 |
Decrepit Dakkanaut
|
Mr Raptor wrote:But no, not only the codex would makes it very suboptimal, it's also impossible because I HAVE to bring at least 2 units of warrior and a noble. And as a player who likes competitive, but likes flavorful armies even more, I think it is really a missed opportunity from them.
Vanguard, Spearhead, Outrider - depending which of Elites, HS or FA you need more of for a Destroyer army (or a Canoptek one), there's no requirement to bring any Troops at all to have a legal army.
Sure, you'll miss out on the Command Protocols - but looking at the army from a background perspective, should the kill-crazed Destroyers or the non-sentient Canoptek units really benefit from them?
|
2021-4 Plog - Here we go again... - my fifth attempt at a Dakka PLOG
My Pile of Potential - updates ongoing...
Gamgee on Tau Players wrote:we all kill cats and sell our own families to the devil and eat live puppies.
Kanluwen wrote:This is, emphatically, why I will continue suggesting nuking Guard and starting over again. It's a legacy army that needs to be rebooted with a new focal point.
Confirmation of why no-one should listen to Kanluwen when it comes to the IG - he doesn't want the IG, he want's Kan's New Model Army...
tneva82 wrote:You aren't even trying ty pretend for honest arqument. Open bad faith trolling. - No reason to keep this here, unless people want to use it for something... |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2020/10/29 07:44:18
Subject: The thing that I don't like about the necron codex
|
 |
Longtime Dakkanaut
|
I know little about Necrons, but many, many armies have this issue.
Sisters have ONE troops choice. Batlle Conclaves are slotless, so you can't even use Vanguard detachments to field Ministorum only SoB armies. (Though adding 3 units of Penitent Engines does allow you to make a Ministorum Spearhead, and you can add as many Battle Conclave units to that as you want because they're slotless- it's fun to tell people you're putting 9 units of elites into a Spearhead and yep, it's perfectly legal).
DE need to play at Strikeforce level in order to be able to field any unit in the DEX since Kabal/Cult/Coven units can't be in the same detachment.
Inquisition has no troops units.
SoS have only Elites!
Orks hate the fact that Ghaz can only synergize with the army if you play the subfaction everyone hates the most.
All of these things do suck, but they also make it so that playing a different army actually feels different.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/10/29 07:48:16
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2020/10/29 07:59:58
Subject: Re:The thing that I don't like about the necron codex
|
 |
Nihilistic Necron Lord
|
They improved, and nerfed RP at the same time. Its now even stronger small games, to a point where it becomes impossible to wipe out a unit. Its also almost impossible to get a multi wound model back with RP (if only one dies), and those multi wound models still pay for RP.
Necrons are the only faction (i think) that cant transport all of their two (!) troop choices. Its not possible to place a character and warriors in a ghost ark, because the minimal size for them is 10, and ghost arks cannot transport more than 10 models. Immortals have a minimum size of 5, but they cant use ghost arks. Skorpekh lords, lokhust lords can use ghost arks, but immortals cannot, because reasons.
Necron Spyders can repair vehicles, but they cannot repair other spyders, because they are monster, wrong keyword.
Warlords traits are garbage, relics are garbage, except for one or two.
You have to choose protocols before the game, without knowing whats gonna happen, and you cant change them, except for one dynasty, which can change one of five protocols.
Anrakyr the traveller cannot use any means of transportation, he cant embark on any transport, and he cant be teleported, because he has no dynasty. How does he travel the galaxy, when all he can do is walk around the battlefield ?
Automatically Appended Next Post: Dysartes wrote:
Sure, you'll miss out on the Command Protocols - but looking at the army from a background perspective, should the kill-crazed Destroyers or the non-sentient Canoptek units really benefit from them?
All you need is a NOBLE, and every necron unit within 6" of a character (except ctan shards) benefits from command protocols.
|
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2020/10/29 08:05:02
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2020/10/29 08:16:00
Subject: Re:The thing that I don't like about the necron codex
|
 |
Decrepit Dakkanaut
|
p5freak wrote: Dysartes wrote:
Sure, you'll miss out on the Command Protocols - but looking at the army from a background perspective, should the kill-crazed Destroyers or the non-sentient Canoptek units really benefit from them?
All you need is a NOBLE, and every necron unit within 6" of a character (except ctan shards) benefits from command protocols.
Fair enough - from how the OP phrased it, it sounded like there weren't NOBLE options in the Destroyer/Canoptek branches of the army.
My main point was meant to be that Troops weren't required this edition (though they're probably still useful)
|
2021-4 Plog - Here we go again... - my fifth attempt at a Dakka PLOG
My Pile of Potential - updates ongoing...
Gamgee on Tau Players wrote:we all kill cats and sell our own families to the devil and eat live puppies.
Kanluwen wrote:This is, emphatically, why I will continue suggesting nuking Guard and starting over again. It's a legacy army that needs to be rebooted with a new focal point.
Confirmation of why no-one should listen to Kanluwen when it comes to the IG - he doesn't want the IG, he want's Kan's New Model Army...
tneva82 wrote:You aren't even trying ty pretend for honest arqument. Open bad faith trolling. - No reason to keep this here, unless people want to use it for something... |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2020/10/29 08:17:54
Subject: The thing that I don't like about the necron codex
|
 |
Ork Admiral Kroozin Da Kosmos on Da Hulk
|
What's the gripe with the two troops choices? Having 2-4 troops is fairly normal?
|
7 Ork facts people always get wrong:
Ragnar did not win against Thrakka, but suffered two crushing defeats within a few days of each other.
A lasgun is powerful enough to sever an ork's appendage or head in a single, well aimed shot.
Orks meks have a better understanding of electrics and mechanics than most Tech Priests.
Orks actually do not think that purple makes them harder to see. The joke was made canon by Alex Stewart's Caphias Cain books.
Gharkull Blackfang did not even come close to killing the emperor.
Orks can be corrupted by chaos, but few of them have any interest in what chaos offers.
Orks do not have the power of believe. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2020/10/29 08:19:02
Subject: Re:The thing that I don't like about the necron codex
|
 |
Fixture of Dakka
|
p5freak wrote:
Necrons are the only faction (i think) that cant transport all of their two (!) troop choices. Its not possible to place a character and warriors in a ghost ark, because the minimal size for them is 10, and ghost arks cannot transport more than 10 models. Immortals have a minimum size of 5, but they cant use ghost arks. Skorpekh lords, lokhust lords can use ghost arks, but immortals cannot, because reasons.
My Night Scythe - with it's transport cap of 20 {Dynasty} infantry, {Dynasty} infantry characters, or Dynastic Agent Infantry - says hello. Automatically Appended Next Post: I don't mind there only being two troops options as much as I do them shifting my Monoliths into the LoW category.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/10/29 08:23:20
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2020/10/29 08:44:35
Subject: Re:The thing that I don't like about the necron codex
|
 |
Nihilistic Necron Lord
|
ccs wrote:
My Night Scythe - with it's transport cap of 20 {Dynasty} infantry, {Dynasty} infantry characters, or Dynastic Agent Infantry - says hello.
I was talking about the ghost ark. Its transport rules are ridiculous.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2020/10/29 08:51:22
Subject: The thing that I don't like about the necron codex
|
 |
Ork Admiral Kroozin Da Kosmos on Da Hulk
|
It never has been any different though?
It's literally a vehicle for repairing or recycling low-class necrons, not an APC.
|
7 Ork facts people always get wrong:
Ragnar did not win against Thrakka, but suffered two crushing defeats within a few days of each other.
A lasgun is powerful enough to sever an ork's appendage or head in a single, well aimed shot.
Orks meks have a better understanding of electrics and mechanics than most Tech Priests.
Orks actually do not think that purple makes them harder to see. The joke was made canon by Alex Stewart's Caphias Cain books.
Gharkull Blackfang did not even come close to killing the emperor.
Orks can be corrupted by chaos, but few of them have any interest in what chaos offers.
Orks do not have the power of believe. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2020/10/29 09:05:10
Subject: Re:The thing that I don't like about the necron codex
|
 |
Swift Swooping Hawk
UK
|
A lot of armies actually only have around 2 Troops choices on average. 2-4 being generous.
Flayed Ones have always been Elites and it makes no sense for them to be a troops unit; they are not a main line unit of Necron forces; they're weird janky freaks that show up when they feel like it.
Scarabs have at least some potential to be a Troops unit, but I think GW (rightly) wants to incentivise a Necron army to have a core of Warriors and Immortals, not a bunch of MSU scarab bodies. Yes, we can point to other armies that can take swarms as Troops, but there's no guarantee that they'll be the same come their 9th Codex. With the way Scouts got moved to Elites, I highly suspect Nurglings could be moved somewhere else because again, GW wants to incentivise certain units over others as being the core troops units of an army. They could also do other stuff like keeping them Troops, but not counting them as a slot so you can't fill a Battalion with Nurglings for example.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/10/29 09:05:26
Nazi punks feth off |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2020/10/29 10:08:59
Subject: Re:The thing that I don't like about the necron codex
|
 |
Fixture of Dakka
|
p5freak wrote:ccs wrote:
My Night Scythe - with it's transport cap of 20 {Dynasty} infantry, {Dynasty} infantry characters, or Dynastic Agent Infantry - says hello.
I was talking about the ghost ark. Its transport rules are ridiculous.
So then what was that bit about Necrons not being able to transport both of thier troop types?
Look, if you want to vent about the ark, vent about the ark. But don't lead off with factually inaccurate statements & then shift the goal posts when corrected.
Just own it that you forgot/didn't know about the Scythe.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2020/10/29 10:32:09
Subject: The thing that I don't like about the necron codex
|
 |
Killer Klaivex
The dark behind the eyes.
|
Jidmah wrote:What's the gripe with the two troops choices? Having 2-4 troops is fairly normal?
I think it's probably down to the lack of variation.
Which is your favourite Necron troop choice - the mid-range shooty unit or the other mid-range shooty unit?
It also means that if you want to make a Canoptek-themed or Destroyer-themed army, you still have to include troops that are neither of those things.
|
blood reaper wrote:I will respect human rights and trans people but I will never under any circumstances use the phrase 'folks' or 'ya'll'. I would rather be killed by firing squad.
the_scotsman wrote:Yeah, when i read the small novel that is the Death Guard unit options and think about resolving the attacks from a melee-oriented min size death guard squad, the thing that springs to mind is "Accessible!"
Argive wrote:GW seems to have a crystal ball and just pulls hairbrained ideas out of their backside for the most part.
Andilus Greatsword wrote:
"Prepare to open fire at that towering Wraithknight!"
"ARE YOU DAFT MAN!?! YOU MIGHT HIT THE MEN WHO COME UP TO ITS ANKLES!!!"
Akiasura wrote:I hate to sound like a serial killer, but I'll be reaching for my friend occam's razor yet again.
insaniak wrote:
You're not. If you're worried about your opponent using 'fake' rules, you're having fun the wrong way. This hobby isn't about rules. It's about buying Citadel miniatures.
Please report to your nearest GW store for attitude readjustment. Take your wallet. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2020/10/29 10:33:39
Subject: The thing that I don't like about the necron codex
|
 |
Nihilistic Necron Lord
|
Jidmah wrote:It never has been any different though?
It's literally a vehicle for repairing or recycling low-class necrons, not an APC.
Really ? It can transport 3 skorpekh lords, 3 lokhust lords, 3 overlords, and 1 cryptek, but it cant transport 5 immortals ?
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/10/29 10:34:44
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2020/10/29 10:41:13
Subject: The thing that I don't like about the necron codex
|
 |
Longtime Dakkanaut
|
p5freak wrote: Jidmah wrote:It never has been any different though?
It's literally a vehicle for repairing or recycling low-class necrons, not an APC.
Really ? It can transport 3 skorpekh lords, 3 lokhust lords, 3 overlords, and 1 cryptek, but it cant transport 5 immortals ?
And FB marines can't fit into a Repulsor for some reason ...
|
As an aside, as "infinite" rolls is actually impossible even if the FAQ "allows" it, then it will always be a non-zero chance to pass them all. Eventually the two players will die. If they pass the game on to their decendents, they too will eventually die. And, at the end of it all, the universe will experience heat death and it, too, will die. In the instance of "infinite" hits, we're talking more of functional infinity, rather than literal.
RAW you can't pass the game onto descendants, permissive ruleset. Unless we get an FAQ from GW. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2020/10/29 10:45:10
Subject: The thing that I don't like about the necron codex
|
 |
The Dread Evil Lord Varlak
|
Type40 wrote: p5freak wrote: Jidmah wrote:It never has been any different though?
It's literally a vehicle for repairing or recycling low-class necrons, not an APC.
Really ? It can transport 3 skorpekh lords, 3 lokhust lords, 3 overlords, and 1 cryptek, but it cant transport 5 immortals ?
And FB marines can't fit into a Repulsor for some reason ...
Yeah about that...
|
https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/766717.page
A Mostly Renegades and Heretics blog.
GW:"Space marines got too many options to balance, therefore we decided to legends HH units."
Players: "why?!? Now we finally got decent plastic kits and you cut them?"
Chaos marines players: "Since when are Daemonengines 30k models and why do i have NO droppods now?"
GW" MONEY.... erm i meant TOO MANY OPTIONS (to resell your army to you again by disalowing former units)! Do you want specific tyranid fighiting Primaris? Even a new sabotage lieutnant!"
Chaos players: Guess i stop playing or go to HH. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2020/10/29 11:00:15
Subject: Re:The thing that I don't like about the necron codex
|
 |
Chalice-Wielding Sanguinary High Priest
|
It is disappointing that Necrons haven't got more Troops options - although at least the options they have are all reasonably decent, even with the different weapon options there aren't any that just flat-out suck.
A Canoptek Troops unit of some kind would be great to be able to put a viable Canoptek force together.
I realise it's not the greatest idea for balance concerns, but - I kind of like the fact that Destroyers don't have any Troops, because it almost seems like they shouldn't care about traditional objectives? Maybe give them a Troops slot unit but prevent it from having ObSec.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/10/29 11:00:33
"Hard pressed on my right. My centre is yielding. Impossible to manoeuvre. Situation excellent. I am attacking." - General Ferdinand Foch |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2020/10/29 12:10:06
Subject: The thing that I don't like about the necron codex
|
 |
Ork Admiral Kroozin Da Kosmos on Da Hulk
|
p5freak wrote: Jidmah wrote:It never has been any different though?
It's literally a vehicle for repairing or recycling low-class necrons, not an APC.
Really ? It can transport 3 skorpekh lords, 3 lokhust lords, 3 overlords, and 1 cryptek, but it cant transport 5 immortals ?
You are right, it should absolutely lose the ability to transport more than one character. Automatically Appended Next Post: vipoid wrote: Jidmah wrote:What's the gripe with the two troops choices? Having 2-4 troops is fairly normal?
I think it's probably down to the lack of variation.
Which is your favourite Necron troop choice - the mid-range shooty unit or the other mid-range shooty unit?
I see. Basically you get boyz and 'ard boyz.
It also means that if you want to make a Canoptek-themed or Destroyer-themed army, you still have to include troops that are neither of those things.
That's pretty much true for everyone though, plus you can always take one of the none-core detachment to skip troops.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/10/29 12:11:53
7 Ork facts people always get wrong:
Ragnar did not win against Thrakka, but suffered two crushing defeats within a few days of each other.
A lasgun is powerful enough to sever an ork's appendage or head in a single, well aimed shot.
Orks meks have a better understanding of electrics and mechanics than most Tech Priests.
Orks actually do not think that purple makes them harder to see. The joke was made canon by Alex Stewart's Caphias Cain books.
Gharkull Blackfang did not even come close to killing the emperor.
Orks can be corrupted by chaos, but few of them have any interest in what chaos offers.
Orks do not have the power of believe. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2020/10/29 17:08:57
Subject: Re:The thing that I don't like about the necron codex
|
 |
Been Around the Block
|
Dysartes wrote: p5freak wrote: Dysartes wrote:
Sure, you'll miss out on the Command Protocols - but looking at the army from a background perspective, should the kill-crazed Destroyers or the non-sentient Canoptek units really benefit from them?
All you need is a NOBLE, and every necron unit within 6" of a character (except ctan shards) benefits from command protocols.
Fair enough - from how the OP phrased it, it sounded like there weren't NOBLE options in the Destroyer/Canoptek branches of the army.
My main point was meant to be that Troops weren't required this edition (though they're probably still useful) 
I wasn't being misleading, there are literally no noble in the Destroyer/Canoptek branches of the army
The only Nobles in the codex are the lords, overlords, CCB and the overlord/phaeron type special characters. All of which are only buffing/supporting the Core part of the codex (even the Silent king).
Now, I am not saying this is atrocious and that the necron codex sucks or anything. It's a good codex with fairly good internal balance. But when I see the plethora of models and new models necrons have, when I see they literally divided the codex in 3 parts (core, canoptek and destroyers) likely for fluff reasons, when I see that one of these part is essential for the army to function as intended... Idk, I really feel this is a missed opportunity, not because it was there before and now it's not, but because it had the potential to be but never did.
The other formats: Vanguard, Spearhead and Outrider are only half solutions (on top of costing a lot of CP), because I still need a Noble tax to use protocols. I know some people don't like the protocols, but it's still a new toy I want to use because it's fun (on top of technically having my army paying for it even if I don't use it).
I really don't see why a tomb world couldn't just wake up with so many destroyers/flayed ones that they could become the entirety of the army. Reading the rules make me feel GW is telling me that's not possible, or that they'll punish me if I try to make it so.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2020/10/30 13:22:42
Subject: The thing that I don't like about the necron codex
|
 |
Longtime Dakkanaut
|
Hm, most of the complaints in this thread smell a lot to me like "I'm mad I can't take whatever units I like (i.e. the best ones) with absolutely zero drawbacks, so as to best steamroll my opponent." Personally, I'd much rather have restrictions and incentives that encourage building thematic armies, rather than unit selection being a complete free-for-all.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2020/10/30 13:52:56
Subject: The thing that I don't like about the necron codex
|
 |
Killer Klaivex
The dark behind the eyes.
|
Nazrak wrote:Hm, most of the complaints in this thread smell a lot to me like "I'm mad I can't take whatever units I like (i.e. the best ones) with absolutely zero drawbacks, so as to best steamroll my opponent." Personally, I'd much rather have restrictions and incentives that encourage building thematic armies, rather than unit selection being a complete free-for-all.
Indeed. And thank goodness this design philosophy is being applied equally to all armies. Good job there definitely isn't a faction that gets to do exactly what you're describing here, otherwise Necron players might have good reason to feel irate. And its especially good that this purely hypothetical faction (which definitely doesn't exist) wasn't also released at the same time as their own book.
|
blood reaper wrote:I will respect human rights and trans people but I will never under any circumstances use the phrase 'folks' or 'ya'll'. I would rather be killed by firing squad.
the_scotsman wrote:Yeah, when i read the small novel that is the Death Guard unit options and think about resolving the attacks from a melee-oriented min size death guard squad, the thing that springs to mind is "Accessible!"
Argive wrote:GW seems to have a crystal ball and just pulls hairbrained ideas out of their backside for the most part.
Andilus Greatsword wrote:
"Prepare to open fire at that towering Wraithknight!"
"ARE YOU DAFT MAN!?! YOU MIGHT HIT THE MEN WHO COME UP TO ITS ANKLES!!!"
Akiasura wrote:I hate to sound like a serial killer, but I'll be reaching for my friend occam's razor yet again.
insaniak wrote:
You're not. If you're worried about your opponent using 'fake' rules, you're having fun the wrong way. This hobby isn't about rules. It's about buying Citadel miniatures.
Please report to your nearest GW store for attitude readjustment. Take your wallet. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2020/10/30 15:02:31
Subject: The thing that I don't like about the necron codex
|
 |
Longtime Dakkanaut
|
I think it's just a fluff thing and I truly believe that the non-core units are mostly priced accordingly.
It's frustrating that you can't make your whole list have perfect synergy, but consider that every single army is also going to have this issue to varying extents.
I just think Necrons, who have large subsets of their army (canoptek and destroyers) that are non-core is a more extreme example when compared to Space Marines. In Necron lore, Destroyers are pariahs and canoptek units are just brainless drones (think servitors but better). Makes perfect sense that they are not core, same as servitors make sense not being core in Space Marines.
I think other armies will fall on varying points in the scale of percentage of core units, with SM being high percentage, and Necron on the lower (lowest?) side.
The army seems to function just fine as is though.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2020/10/30 15:54:57
Subject: The thing that I don't like about the necron codex
|
 |
Omnipotent Necron Overlord
|
More units should be core is my main complaint.
lokust Destroyers
canoptec scarabs
flayed ones
These not being core units is utterly silly.
Meanwhile...space marine dreads are core...theres like...10 to 20 dreads in a 1000 man chapter? Literally millions of scarabs in a necron invasion force?
|
If we fail to anticipate the unforeseen or expect the unexpected in a universe of infinite possibilities, we may find ourselves at the mercy of anyone or anything that cannot be programmed, categorized or easily referenced.
- Fox Mulder |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2020/10/30 16:15:29
Subject: The thing that I don't like about the necron codex
|
 |
Decrepit Dakkanaut
|
Wait they still didn't fix Skorpekh Lords being able to ride Ghost Arks?
Man feth this game.
|
CaptainStabby wrote:If Tyberos falls and needs to catch himself it's because the ground needed killing.
jy2 wrote:BTW, I can't wait to run Double-D-thirsters! Man, just thinking about it gets me Khorney.
vipoid wrote:Indeed - what sort of bastard would want to use their codex?
MarsNZ wrote:ITT: SoB players upset that they're receiving the same condescending treatment that they've doled out in every CSM thread ever. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2020/10/30 16:44:07
Subject: The thing that I don't like about the necron codex
|
 |
Killer Klaivex
The dark behind the eyes.
|
Xenomancers wrote:More units should be core is my main complaint.
lokust Destroyers
canoptec scarabs
flayed ones
These not being core units is utterly silly.
Meanwhile...space marine dreads are core...theres like...10 to 20 dreads in a 1000 man chapter? Literally millions of scarabs in a necron invasion force?
I'd agree with this.
However, I think it also highlights the problem that 'core' is such an utterly worthless term. Not only that, but we've got this bizarre situation wherein 'core' is entirely separate from 'troops' and also entirely separate from any sort of mandatory army requirements.
We seem to be acquiring more and more army-building mechanics, but without every discarding the old ones.
Also, I'm open to the idea of keywords, but there are so many now (most entirely superfluous) that it just looks as if someone vomited a thesaurus onto every dataslate.
|
blood reaper wrote:I will respect human rights and trans people but I will never under any circumstances use the phrase 'folks' or 'ya'll'. I would rather be killed by firing squad.
the_scotsman wrote:Yeah, when i read the small novel that is the Death Guard unit options and think about resolving the attacks from a melee-oriented min size death guard squad, the thing that springs to mind is "Accessible!"
Argive wrote:GW seems to have a crystal ball and just pulls hairbrained ideas out of their backside for the most part.
Andilus Greatsword wrote:
"Prepare to open fire at that towering Wraithknight!"
"ARE YOU DAFT MAN!?! YOU MIGHT HIT THE MEN WHO COME UP TO ITS ANKLES!!!"
Akiasura wrote:I hate to sound like a serial killer, but I'll be reaching for my friend occam's razor yet again.
insaniak wrote:
You're not. If you're worried about your opponent using 'fake' rules, you're having fun the wrong way. This hobby isn't about rules. It's about buying Citadel miniatures.
Please report to your nearest GW store for attitude readjustment. Take your wallet. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2020/10/30 16:53:38
Subject: The thing that I don't like about the necron codex
|
 |
Longtime Dakkanaut
|
Not having core is not that big a detriment from what I'm seeing. The non-core units seem to have their own buffs/stratagems and are costed pretty efficiently.
One thing that actually bothers me more than the Core thing is the hierarchy. If I take a Skorpekh Lord and an Overlord, I can't make the Skorpekh Lord my warlord. If Destroyers are "outside" of the hierarchy and don't really take commands from Overlords, then I don't see why they can't be a Warlord -- I could definitely see some rogue Skorpeks show up with their Skorpekh lord and kinda shove aside an Overlord on the battlefield!
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2020/10/30 16:57:26
Subject: The thing that I don't like about the necron codex
|
 |
Killer Klaivex
The dark behind the eyes.
|
Quasistellar wrote:Not having core is not that big a detriment from what I'm seeing. The non-core units seem to have their own buffs/stratagems and are costed pretty efficiently.
One thing that actually bothers me more than the Core thing is the hierarchy. If I take a Skorpekh Lord and an Overlord, I can't make the Skorpekh Lord my warlord. If Destroyers are "outside" of the hierarchy and don't really take commands from Overlords, then I don't see why they can't be a Warlord -- I could definitely see some rogue Skorpeks show up with their Skorpekh lord and kinda shove aside an Overlord on the battlefield!
Yeah, I think it's little things like this (and the artefacts being crap) that bother me.
The warlord hierarchy thing just seems totally unnecessary - something that restricts fun without actually being of any benefit in terms of game balance.
|
blood reaper wrote:I will respect human rights and trans people but I will never under any circumstances use the phrase 'folks' or 'ya'll'. I would rather be killed by firing squad.
the_scotsman wrote:Yeah, when i read the small novel that is the Death Guard unit options and think about resolving the attacks from a melee-oriented min size death guard squad, the thing that springs to mind is "Accessible!"
Argive wrote:GW seems to have a crystal ball and just pulls hairbrained ideas out of their backside for the most part.
Andilus Greatsword wrote:
"Prepare to open fire at that towering Wraithknight!"
"ARE YOU DAFT MAN!?! YOU MIGHT HIT THE MEN WHO COME UP TO ITS ANKLES!!!"
Akiasura wrote:I hate to sound like a serial killer, but I'll be reaching for my friend occam's razor yet again.
insaniak wrote:
You're not. If you're worried about your opponent using 'fake' rules, you're having fun the wrong way. This hobby isn't about rules. It's about buying Citadel miniatures.
Please report to your nearest GW store for attitude readjustment. Take your wallet. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2020/10/30 17:05:50
Subject: The thing that I don't like about the necron codex
|
 |
Longtime Dakkanaut
|
vipoid wrote:Quasistellar wrote:Not having core is not that big a detriment from what I'm seeing. The non-core units seem to have their own buffs/stratagems and are costed pretty efficiently.
One thing that actually bothers me more than the Core thing is the hierarchy. If I take a Skorpekh Lord and an Overlord, I can't make the Skorpekh Lord my warlord. If Destroyers are "outside" of the hierarchy and don't really take commands from Overlords, then I don't see why they can't be a Warlord -- I could definitely see some rogue Skorpeks show up with their Skorpekh lord and kinda shove aside an Overlord on the battlefield!
Yeah, I think it's little things like this (and the artefacts being crap) that bother me.
The warlord hierarchy thing just seems totally unnecessary - something that restricts fun without actually being of any benefit in terms of game balance.
I had the exact same reaction to the Kharadron Overlords battletome. I still even have that feeling. They have a ton of abilities (most abilities in fact) that are simply turned off when they do their signature thing of garrisoning their airships.
But, after playing them, I can see why they restricted things. They are powerful! That tome came out shortly before Covid, so there weren't many early results, but since things have been opening up KO have been pretty dominant.
I would not be surprised to see something similar happen with Necrons. They seem to have some really strong units that aren't core. And, I suppose if they need to, they could just add the core keyword to some of the units that I think people were expecting to see have it. I really don't think we'll see that any time soon though. Canoptek stuff seems pretty good already, and only the basic Lokhust destroyers seem under-par at first glance.
It's really a case of just making a feels-bad during list building (and I know we all love to list-build  ), but in the game it might be liberating to not have to worry about auras and such with things like Canoptek and Destroyers.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2020/10/30 17:16:50
Subject: The thing that I don't like about the necron codex
|
 |
Lieutenant General
|
Xenomancers wrote:More units should be core is my main complaint.
lokust Destroyers
canoptec scarabs
flayed ones
These not being core units is utterly silly.
And it is supported by the fluff that they should NOT be Core (see 'Outsiders and Exiles' on page 19 of Codex Necrons).
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/10/30 17:34:46
'It is a source of constant consternation that my opponents cannot correlate their innate inferiority with their inevitable defeat. It would seem that stupidity is as eternal as war.'
- Nemesor Zahndrekh of the Sautekh Dynasty Overlord of the Crownworld of Gidrim |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2020/10/30 17:39:10
Subject: The thing that I don't like about the necron codex
|
 |
Been Around the Block
|
Nazrak wrote:Hm, most of the complaints in this thread smell a lot to me like "I'm mad I can't take whatever units I like (i.e. the best ones) with absolutely zero drawbacks, so as to best steamroll my opponent." Personally, I'd much rather have restrictions and incentives that encourage building thematic armies, rather than unit selection being a complete free-for-all.
Quite the opposite actually, I don't want to "take the best units" to powergame the hell out of the codex. If that was the case I would actually take a lot of core units, because warriors, immortals, lich guards and tomb blades are actually really good. The DDA is still also very viable, the named C'tans I feel are amazing, the Silent king looks pretty great too, and the CCB is much likely the best HQ choice in the codex.
But as Viptoid says, it's the little things. I was actually so happy when I saw the new skorpehks, the ophidians, the Skorpehk lord, and I thought to myself "yes ! I might actually be able to make a full crazy-murder-bot army !" but looking at it right now, I either have to depart from this fantasy or shoot myself in the foot to do so (while already taking some sub-optimal choices like destroyers and heavy destroyers)
The biggest frustrating thing about that I believe is the hierarchy. And the noble keyword to be able to use command protocols. Imagine if Space Marines couldn't use doctrines if they didn't have a living captain on the field...
I'm playing in a semi-competitive environment where 80% of players are marine players. I'm not trying to make winning tournament lists, but I also want to use the codex to its full extent and play with the new toys we're given while still being able to make a fluffy army to forge great moments.
|
|
 |
 |
|