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.

 Charistoph wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
You seem to be saying that you're not sayin what you're saying.

You appear to claim that it's ok for Warriors to be weaker than Marines because Warriors are the "chaff" of Necrons.

Or maybe you're translating it in to your brain to what you want to read instead of what I'm saying.

So. . . Exhibit A:

 Charistoph wrote:

I pointed out the Necron Warriors being SLIGHTLY weaker than the Tacticals is okay considering they are the Conscript chaff of the Necron army, especially when the Astartes are NOT Humanity's Conscripts (because those are Conscripts), but their Elites.

It's exactly, precisely what you're saying, practically word for word.

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
You seem to be saying that you're not sayin what you're saying.

You appear to claim that it's ok for Warriors to be weaker than Marines because Warriors are the "chaff" of Necrons.

Or maybe you're translating it in to your brain to what you want to read instead of what I'm saying.

So. . . Exhibit A:

 Charistoph wrote:

I pointed out the Necron Warriors being SLIGHTLY weaker than the Tacticals is okay considering they are the Conscript chaff of the Necron army, especially when the Astartes are NOT Humanity's Conscripts (because those are Conscripts), but their Elites.

It's exactly, precisely what you're saying, practically word for word.

Except for a very important adverb which is emphasized by capital letters.

I've given evidence that it has largely been in place since 3rd Ed, one of your favorite version of Necrons, So, please, counter that if you can provide the evidence.

 Charistoph wrote:

The misquote is how I said was asking for "where I said that it's okay for Marines to be better or should be better than the Necrons", meaning the army as a whole, not one unit of the whole.

I pointed out the Necron Warriors being SLIGHTLY weaker than the Tacticals is okay considering they are the Conscript chaff of the Necron army, especially when the Astartes are NOT Humanity's Conscripts (because those are Conscripts), but their Elites.

Two very important pieces of context that were ignored.

The difference is that, what some of us are saying, is that part of the point of Necrons back in the 90's is their basic "chaff" was on par with Astartes. Another way to look at it is that the Necrons' "conscripts" are Scarabs. Thematically, this made them very scary and this idea has been ground down by the years of Astartes power fantasies.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Charistoph wrote:

Except for a very important adverb which is emphasized by capital letters.

I've given evidence that it has largely been in place since 3rd Ed, one of your favorite version of Necrons, So, please, counter that if you can provide the evidence.

3ed Necrons had a slightly different statline than marines (higher Ld but lower I) but a better gun and WBB. What evidence do you have against that?

 Charistoph wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
You seem to be saying that you're not sayin what you're saying.

You appear to claim that it's ok for Warriors to be weaker than Marines because Warriors are the "chaff" of Necrons.

Or maybe you're translating it in to your brain to what you want to read instead of what I'm saying.

So. . . Exhibit A:

 Charistoph wrote:

I pointed out the Necron Warriors being SLIGHTLY weaker than the Tacticals is okay considering they are the Conscript chaff of the Necron army, especially when the Astartes are NOT Humanity's Conscripts (because those are Conscripts), but their Elites.

It's exactly, precisely what you're saying, practically word for word.

Except for a very important adverb which is emphasized by capital letters.

I've given evidence that it has largely been in place since 3rd Ed, one of your favorite version of Necrons, So, please, counter that if you can provide the evidence.

The meat of your message remains as I've stated it.

In 3rd, Warriors were valued higher than Tacticals by ppm, regardless of your efforts to diminish the fact. In the 5th Ed codex Warriors went from 3+ to 4+ save, a huge drop in the AP paradigm at the time, and their RP went from 4+ to 5+. They went from 18 ppm to 13, about 2/3ds their former value. Immortals dropped from T5 to T4, had their gun neutered, and went from 28 ppm to 17, 1 point LOWER than Warriors were at formerly. Flayed Ones were similarly reduced from 18 to 13. Besides Pariahs, these three units were the only Infantry units in the Necron army, and they suffered a huge downgrade, while Pariahs were removed altogether.

Not Online!!! wrote:

Karol wrote:
Plus, humanity did go to war against a self replicating plague of machines, and actualy won it not by the opponent going to sleep, but by destroying them, durning the dawn of the golden age of humanity.

Ne ego si iterum eodem modo vicero, sine ullo milite Epirum revertar.
If I achieve such a victory again, I shall return to Epirus without any soldier.
— Orosius[2]

Hey, a wins a win at the end of the day. Go Humanity !


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Galas wrote:
Necron Inmortals eat both tacticals and intercessors for breakfast.

At the end of the day, this is all about that second wound space marines received. It irked a ton of people the wrong way. And I can understand why. It feels "wrong". But lets just not ignore how the actual units feel on the table.

Wounds have always been a bit odd for the game. Not to be like " Gooo Marines ! " but I always thought that marines should have 2 wounds since I started playing. If it will mean anything great in the long run only time will tell but of course nothing is fair in this for some others it's just the nature of the beast.

 Charistoph wrote:
Except for a very important adverb which is emphasized by capital letters.

I've given evidence that it has largely been in place since 3rd Ed, one of your favorite version of Necrons, So, please, counter that if you can provide the evidence.

Necron Warriors had higher points costs than Tacticals, so they were considered more valuable by the designers. That's that, really.

Even after the 5th Ed change they were only slightly worse than Tacticals- RP helped compensate for worse armor and they could still go toe-to-toe with Marines.

This paradigm of Tactical Marines being far more powerful than basic Necron Warriors and beating out even Immortals is as recent as the 9th Ed wounds change. It's the historical anomaly. Fundamentally, Insectum is correct- for the rest of the history of the game, basic Necrons were better than or roughly on par with Marines.

Except they don't beat out Immortals still.

Hecaton wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:

The misquote is how I said was asking for "where I said that it's okay for Marines to be better or should be better than the Necrons", meaning the army as a whole, not one unit of the whole.

I pointed out the Necron Warriors being SLIGHTLY weaker than the Tacticals is okay considering they are the Conscript chaff of the Necron army, especially when the Astartes are NOT Humanity's Conscripts (because those are Conscripts), but their Elites.

Two very important pieces of context that were ignored.

The difference is that, what some of us are saying, is that part of the point of Necrons back in the 90's is their basic "chaff" was on par with Astartes. Another way to look at it is that the Necrons' "conscripts" are Scarabs. Thematically, this made them very scary and this idea has been ground down by the years of Astartes power fantasies.

I agree with the last sentence and have repeated that quite a few times now.

Necron Warriors being the Conscripts starts with 5th Edition lore, obviously, but it is still a consideration on what we have now. Scarabs really can't be compared to a comparable Infantry unit because they are literally a Swarm of bugs like Rippers.

Hecaton wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:

Except for a very important adverb which is emphasized by capital letters.

I've given evidence that it has largely been in place since 3rd Ed, one of your favorite version of Necrons, So, please, counter that if you can provide the evidence.

3ed Necrons had a slightly different statline than marines (higher Ld but lower I) but a better gun and WBB. What evidence do you have against that?

I'll repeat myself again.

Charistoph wrote:Even in the 3rd Edition, Necron Warrior's statline was the same as Tacticals, save for Initiative and Leadership. At this point of consideration they are generally weaker as the lower Initiative will cause more problems than the higher Leadership. Their gun's stats are equivalent: Str: 4, AP: 5 Rapid Fire. Out of this, only the Warrior's Armor Save changed between them in 5th Edition.

Then you consider special rules, and WBB is superior to ATSKNF in most situations, and Gauss was superior to the Boltgun's lack of anything else. But then, the Astartes can have a close combat specialist with a weapon that will cause WBB to not be usable, they can also add a Special weapon (1 of which would cause WBB to be ignored) and a Heavy Weapon (3 of which can cause WBB to be ignored), as well as get Grenades. Meanwhile the Warriors had the option to outnumber the Tactical Squad and/or have Vehicle Gauss in Melee. At this point, if it wasn't for WBB and other resources like the Monolith's Gate, Warrior's would be weaker than Astartes, and in Melee (especially with an equipped Sergeant) they most definitely are. At range, the Astartes would be hard pressed to keep up unless they are dedicating AT weapons to slowly whittle away at the unit. In many respects, this is a draw, especially if one considers other support elements like a Lord and Monolith's Gate.

And this is the Necron's Conscripts that the Elite Astartes are being compared against.

For a little more specificity:

3rd Ed Necron Warriors were 18 ppm base, but could add the Disruption Fields for 20 ppm, and that was it aside from Squad size which was 10-20.

3rd Ed Tactical Squads started at 15 ppm, and could go from 5-10 in squad size. You could double the cost of the Sergeant (which added +1 A and +1 Ld). The squad could go close combat focused for free swapping their Bolter for pistol and CCW. All the models in the squad could get Grenades, which would equate their cost with the base Necron Warrior if both were taken (admittedly Kraks were useless against Necrons at the time, I think). One member could get a Heavy Weapon (sorry, was in error here earlier, Multimelta was not an option in 3rd for Tacticals, but was in 4th), with the Lascannon doubling the model's cost, and the Missile Launcher only adding 2/3 of the Lascannon's price. I will add another correction as the Tactical's Sergeant could not take Power Weapons in 3rd, but they could in 4th.

A full Tactical Squad could cost more than a minimal Necron Warrior Squad, depending on how you equipped it.

Insectum7 wrote:In 3rd, Warriors were valued higher than Tacticals by ppm, regardless of your efforts to diminish the fact. In the 5th Ed codex Warriors went from 3+ to 4+ save, a huge drop in the AP paradigm at the time, and their RP went from 4+ to 5+. They went from 18 ppm to 13, about 2/3ds their former value. Immortals dropped from T5 to T4, had their gun neutered, and went from 28 ppm to 17, 1 point LOWER than Warriors were at formerly. Flayed Ones were similarly reduced from 18 to 13. Besides Pariahs, these three units were the only Infantry units in the Necron army, and they suffered a huge downgrade, while Pariahs were removed altogether.

Review the above again as you seem to have ignored it in my previous response to you. Also remember that 3rd Ed Necrons were closer in design scheme to 4th Ed Marines than with 3rd as well. The only nerf that Immortals had with their gun is that it went from Assault 2 to Rapid Fire 1 (besides the changes to all Gauss weapons which only affected Wounding). While the Pariahs were lost (a poor choice in my opinion), the Lychguard and the Pariahs were brought in, and now there are the new Destroyers.

Could someone please confirm if Immortals were brought back up to T5 with the latest codex?

Astartes also have seen point reductions, so don't be so quick to bring on the one-sided judgements, gained free grenades, and received a lot more Special Rules. Part of the reason for point reductions is so GW could sell more models, and points have rarely been a good measure for the value of a model. In fact, making them much cheaper with only a small change in statistics actually provides for more of of that scariness to be employed.

Nor does that change the statement I have made to almost every response to you which you have yet to acknowledge, that the Marines have seen upgrade after upgrade over the years that the other armies have not been adapted in kind with.

catbarf wrote:Necron Warriors had higher points costs than Tacticals, so they were considered more valuable by the designers. That's that, really.

A 10 man Warrior squad was either 180 or 200 points. A 10 man Tactical Squad started at 150 points, but could reach 200 points easily, and I left out taking the Krak Grenades since they are pretty useless against Necrons at the time. With 4th Edition, I could add more because the Veteran Sergeant could start taking Power Weapons.

catbarf wrote:Even after the 5th Ed change they were only slightly worse than Tacticals- RP helped compensate for worse armor and they could still go toe-to-toe with Marines.

With the exception that they lost their upgrades and the Marines got Grenades for free now. But that is part of my point. Even with the loss of a point of Save they are only slightly weaker than a Tactical Squad, largely because of the Tactical Squad's capacity to upgrade.

catbarf wrote:This paradigm of Tactical Marines being far more powerful than basic Necron Warriors and beating out even Immortals is as recent as the 9th Ed wounds change. It's the historical anomaly. Fundamentally, Insectum is correct- for the rest of the history of the game, basic Necrons were better than or roughly on par with Marines.

Hence my use of the word, "slightly". The difference was relatively minor between bare bone units, even back in 3rd Ed. Warriors were better at the shooting game while Tacticals were better in melee. I have never stated that Tactical Marines were "far more powerful than basic Necron Warriors". That is an artifice of your construction.

 Charistoph wrote:
Nor does that change the statement I have made to almost every response to you which you have yet to acknowledge, that the Marines have seen upgrade after upgrade over the years that the other armies have not been adapted in kind with.

Acknowledging that proves me right and you wrong, not the other way around. It's a fact, it's not a matter of acknowledging it or not.

 Charistoph wrote:
With the exception that they lost their upgrades and the Marines got Grenades for free now. But that is part of my point. Even with the loss of a point of Save they are only slightly weaker than a Tactical Squad, largely because of the Tactical Squad's capacity to upgrade.

But this is part of a slow process of devaluing Necron warriors compared to Astartes. We're saying "Astartes are more powerful than Necron Warriors, rules wise" and you're saying that, for certain periods of the game's history, they were but only slightly. This just proves us right.

Hecaton wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:
Nor does that change the statement I have made to almost every response to you which you have yet to acknowledge, that the Marines have seen upgrade after upgrade over the years that the other armies have not been adapted in kind with.

Acknowledging that proves me right and you wrong, not the other way around. It's a fact, it's not a matter of acknowledging it or not

Nor was it directed at you, so you saying this is a non sequitor.

Hecaton wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:
With the exception that they lost their upgrades and the Marines got Grenades for free now. But that is part of my point. Even with the loss of a point of Save they are only slightly weaker than a Tactical Squad, largely because of the Tactical Squad's capacity to upgrade.

But this is part of a slow process of devaluing Necron warriors compared to Astartes. We're saying "Astartes are more powerful than Necron Warriors, rules wise" and you're saying that, for certain periods of the game's history, they were but only slightly. This just proves us right.

No, people were saying that Necron Warriors were vastly more powerful than Astartes. This only existed in their introduction before 3rd Edition, yet 3rd Edition is the gold standard that Insectum7 keeps referring to. The response I was giving was to when the Necron Warriors were changed in 5th Edition.

Stat-wise, Necron Warriors have only had one stat changed, Armor Save. With a reduction in points at the same time one could field more of them (180 to 140), which actually aided in their Reanimation Protocols (despite all the changes to that over the years). Their ability to have Dynasty abilities on top of that, along with the Ghost Ark, has gone a ways in keeping them at that Metal Horde capacity that has kept them close to the Tactical in relative power, but it is not as close as it used to be because the Tacticals have had so much more added on at the same time. For all intents and purposes, Necrons just got their 6th Edition upgrade, but we're now in 9th for the Astartes.

Before Space Marines 9th, Necron Warriors were slightly behind Tacticals, and compared to Guard Conscripts, they still are. Compared to their closeness in 3rd Edition, though, it may seem like a chasm to some.

 Charistoph wrote:
No, people were saying that Necron Warriors were vastly more powerful than Astartes.

That is incorrect, and a fabrication on your part. Stop lying. Necrons were slightly more powerful than Astartes in 3e, and that's what people have been saying.

This is why I have a problem:

You cool if I use that graph elsewhere?

Hecaton wrote:
You cool if I use that graph elsewhere?

Be my guest!

 Insectum7 wrote:
This is why I have a problem:

Spoiler:

Nice graph, very effective at getting your point across. Have an exalt!

@Charistoph

I think it's possible you might be getting the wrong end of the stick with regard to what people are saying about Necrons vs. Marines.

I'll try and explain the argument if I may:

- Historically, Warriors were roughly equivalent to basic Marines. Their stats and basic weapons were about the same (Warriors had a slightly better gun, but this was only really noteworthy in 6th-7th, due to how effective massed Gauss Flayers were against hull points). Most notably, though, Warriors were significantly more durable - having the same toughness, wounds and save as Marines whilst also getting RPs.

- Even in subsequent editions, when their save dropped to 4+, Warriors still generally exceeded Marines in terms of durability as a result of RPs.

- Immortals were superior to basic Marines in terms of both their durability (T5 in 3rd) and their gun (in 3rd it was 24" Assault 2 S5 AP4, Gauss).

- Even in subsequent editions, when they dropped to troops and their toughness was lowered, they still boasted superior durability and firepower to basic Marines (like 3rd edition Warriors, they had the same defensive stats as Marines, but augmented them with RPs).

- However, this is not to say that Warriors and Immortals were superior to Marines in every aspect:
- Marines had better initiative.
- Marines had more of a toolkit (even in terms of basic gear, Marines still had stuff like grenades and pistols).
- Marines had better morale (Necrons had higher base Ld, but ATSKNF was vastly better in terms of keeping Marines in the fight).
- Marines could take special and heavy weapons (Immortals had better firepower than basic bolters, but would still lose to Marines boasting Plasma, for example).
- Marine Sergeants could take upgraded Melee weapons (and generally had enough attacks to make reasonable use of them).

In other words, Necron 'superiority' was entirely down to their improved durability and better basic weapons.

What people are finding frustrating is that Marines are now exceeding Warriors and even Immortals in durability, with RPs failing to sufficiently tip the scales.

Bear in mind that resilience is one of the key characteristics of Necrons as a whole, so when Marines are allowed to exceed that anyway it feels like yet another Xeno trait has been usurped by Marines.

It is no different than if Tactical Marines suddenly became more durable than Plague Marines. It just feels fundamentally wrong.

Logically speaking my guy should be able to beat up your guy.

So Warriors have been worse than space marines for 10 years? That seems a pretty long time.

To me is more obvious the degradation of inmortals, because you can see that when Inmortals were introduced, they took the role that previously had Necron Warriors as the tought necron infantry.

But even then, Inmortals as you can see in point cost have been basically the same as marines for more than a decade now. And right now, an Inmortal is better than a tactical space marine and in many cases better than an Intercessor even if its slighly cheaper. That doesnt mean that marines don't have too much special rules backed into them. Thats a balance concern.

I know for people that has been in the hobby for 30 years, don't seem that much, but this is like people complaining in World of Warcraft about stuff that was there in Wrath of the Lich Kin-... wait...

Nurglitch wrote:
Logically speaking my guy should be able to beat up your guy.

Fundamentally, some people want a game system where you pick your faction and you get to be the tough one, the shooty one, the fast one, the magic one, etc, and other people want a game where the one main faction is the best at all of that and the others all compete by having more dudes than the main faction.

That's going to be a fundamental conflict in how people perceive the game should be.

 Galas wrote:
So Warriors have been worse than space marines for 10 years? That seems a pretty long time.

Warriors have been valued less than SMs for 10 years.

However, it's only since 9th edition that Marines have exceeded Warriors when it comes to durability (as they now have not only a better save but also twice as many wounds as Warriors).

Hecaton wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:
No, people were saying that Necron Warriors were vastly more powerful than Astartes.

That is incorrect, and a fabrication on your part. Stop lying. Necrons were slightly more powerful than Astartes in 3e, and that's what people have been saying.

Except Necron Warriors weren't, that's part of why I went through the trouble to point out the differences. Sure for 3rd Ed, if starting at 24", between a single Warrior and Tactical, it would more likely go to who went first. Their weapons are the same (Gauss would not provide an impact until you got to something high in Toughness or hitting a Vehicle), and personal stats are the same. WBB required some models of the same type in order to be activated, and ATSKNF requires running away to be activated.

What throws the balance off a little is that a Necron player only needed Warriors and an HQ, and a Lord with an Orb and Veil of Darkness to move a unit across the board. They didn't need the high Str of a Heavy Destroyer's gun and a Destroyer's gun almost came out as a wash when you considered pricing for its rate of fire, and same could easily be said of Immortals. Any other model on the table (aside from Flayed Ones and Wraiths) reduced the number of models needed to cause Phase Out, which meant that Warriors had to be spammed.

Still, as I keep pointing out, Marines could bring specialists that could handle the most troublesome rule of the Necrons, We'll Be Back. Ignoring Armor Saves in Melee prevented its use. Weapons at Str 8+ would also prevent its use. Even the base Tactical was superior in melee, and could take Grenades which helped them be more effective at it.

Insectum7 wrote:This is why I have a problem:

After all this time, you know that points don't mean as much as one should think in 40K. Point cost is more a limitation of use than it is any indication of power. There are numerous imbalances in this system. Which is why one has to look at the whole package. And as I have already demonstrated, I can make a unit of 10 3rd Ed Tacticals cost more than a unit of 10 Warriors. It gets easier with 4th Ed, but harder with early 5th when Tacticals got Grenades for free.

vipoid wrote:- Historically, Warriors were roughly equivalent to basic Marines. Their stats and basic weapons were about the same (Warriors had a slightly better gun, but this was only really noteworthy in 6th-7th, due to how effective massed Gauss Flayers were against hull points). Most notably, though, Warriors were significantly more durable - having the same toughness, wounds and save as Marines whilst also getting RPs.

But being weaker in melee, where a lot of Marine players liked to be as well, especially those of certain temperaments. Also people tend to forget that it was extremely rare to see a unit of basic Marines. At the bare minimum Tacticals would be carrying a Special and Heavy Weapon, as well as Frag Grenades. And if you swept a unit, neither WBB or RP could bring them back.

One thing that is more noteworthy is that due to both WBB and Phase Out rules, Necron players were encouraged to bring a lot of Warriors in big units. They were the cheapest Necron unit as well as the only Troop, which meant that they were the model of choice to pad out the Phase Out rule. They were also the unit with the greatest capacity, which was helpful in having models nearby to assist with that WBB trigger. It wasn't until they got more models to fill out their Elites that they could bring Immortals down in to Troops and they dropped the Phase Out rule all together.

vipoid wrote:- Even in subsequent editions, when their save dropped to 4+, Warriors still generally exceeded Marines in terms of durability as a result of RPs.

That is arguable, and mostly because sometimes RP just wasn't as useful as some options Marines would have access to by the time Warriors had their Armor Save dropped, and Marines got better at sweeping Necrons with every new codex. Oh, I know the perception was there from the Marines side, but there was a lot of complaining about the limitations that RP had when compared to WBB.

vipoid wrote:- Even in subsequent editions, when they dropped to troops and their toughness was lowered, they still boasted superior durability and firepower to basic Marines (like 3rd edition Warriors, they had the same defensive stats as Marines, but augmented them with RPs).

- However, this is not to say that Warriors and Immortals were superior to Marines in every aspect:
- Marines had better initiative.
- Marines had more of a toolkit (even in terms of basic gear, Marines still had stuff like grenades and pistols).
- Marines had better morale (Necrons had higher base Ld, but ATSKNF was vastly better in terms of keeping Marines in the fight).
- Marines could take special and heavy weapons (Immortals had better firepower than basic bolters, but would still lose to Marines boasting Plasma, for example).
- Marine Sergeants could take upgraded Melee weapons (and generally had enough attacks to make reasonable use of them).

In other words, Necron 'superiority' was entirely down to their improved durability and better basic weapons.

What people are finding frustrating is that Marines are now exceeding Warriors and even Immortals in durability, with RPs failing to sufficiently tip the scales.

It also fails to consider the fact that from a lore perspective, Marines are not in the same category as Immortals and Warriors. Only in game terms is this a consideration because in the game as Marines can be taken as Troops. Might as well compare Mega Armor Nobs to Conscripts.

vipoid wrote:Bear in mind that resilience is one of the key characteristics of Necrons as a whole, so when Marines are allowed to exceed that anyway it feels like yet another Xeno trait has been usurped by Marines.

It is no different than if Tactical Marines suddenly became more durable than Plague Marines. It just feels fundamentally wrong.

I get the feelings on it, and as I have stated numerous times at this point, I agree that this Astartes change went too far without similarly seeing an equivalent upgrade across the rest of armies, especially Durable Army #1 whose codex was developed at the same time. Those statements seem to be ignored. It is like they are taking my statements about the past and placing them in consideration of the current codex.

There is another problem here that no one wants to take in to account and keep rejecting: Where Marines sit in consideration of Humanity's Army. The closest we see to another race's army being broken up in to sub factions with their own codices are Genestealer Cults and Harlequins (and possibly Ynnari, that's a weird one). Imagine a new Necron sub-codex called the Pariah Nexus where the Troop are Flightless Pariahs. There are no Warriors, Immortals, Scarabs, or Canoptek options, just the Vehicles, Destroyers, Pariahs, Lychguard, Lords, and Crypteks. That is what the Marine codices are for Humanity. Does that mean that if the Marines get a boost the Necrons should be ignored? No. As I have said, we should be seeing equivalent increases in this army as we should be in a few units in other armies, such as Nobs. No one seems to be concerned about them so far, it's only been the Necron Warriors that have people in a tizzy, the lowest infantry unit of their army.

vipoid wrote:

 Galas wrote:
So Warriors have been worse than space marines for 10 years? That seems a pretty long time.

Warriors have been valued less than SMs for 10 years.

Almost 10 years. Decaversary is in November. Necron 3rd Edition came out in July '02 for reference.

 Charistoph wrote:
Except Necron Warriors weren't, that's part of why I went through the trouble to point out the differences.

You're wrong, and moreover you've been misrepresenting other people's arguments in bad faith. WBB gives the Warrior enough durability to statistically beat the Astartes. Sure, you could spend the points to give your Sergeant a power fist, or whatever, but that's not the basic Astartes anymore.

Also, the whole point you're making about where Astartes sit in "humanity's army" fails for a number of reasons, not least of which is that things like Terminators and Custodes were always superior to Necron Warriors, and that's fine. You're working from the premise that Astartes need to be better than other factions' mass-produced infantry, and part of the thematics of the Necrons was that that *wasn't* true. It was also true for demons - Bloodletters used to rip Astartes a new one in CC when their swords counted as power weapons, and it actually made Grey Knights make sense, since it meant that basic Astartes weren't prepared to handle demons.

 Charistoph wrote:

Hecaton wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:
No, people were saying that Necron Warriors were vastly more powerful than Astartes.

That is incorrect, and a fabrication on your part. Stop lying. Necrons were slightly more powerful than Astartes in 3e, and that's what people have been saying.

Except Necron Warriors weren't. . .

What's better, a base Tactical Marine or a Tactical Marine with a better gun that revives himself on a 4+?

And it's pretty immaterial how you decide to call it, because the fact of the matter is the Cron units were downgraded.

 vipoid wrote:

Bear in mind that resilience is one of the key characteristics of Necrons as a whole, so when Marines are allowed to exceed that anyway it feels like yet another Xeno trait has been usurped by Marines.

It is no different than if Tactical Marines suddenly became more durable than Plague Marines. It just feels fundamentally wrong.

I don't know what you are talking about. Orkz boyz are renowned as good CC units and Point for point will always slaughter Marines. Case and point, 80pts of boyz is 10 boyz, and 80pts of Intercessors is 4 intercessors. Those 10 boyz get 30 attacks, and those puny Marines only get 12. Orkz get 20 hits, Intercessors 8. Orkz get 10 wounds, Intercessors 4. Orkz deal 3.33 dmg Intercessors 3.33. Orkz lose 33.3% combat efficiency, Marines Lose 25% combat efficiency....well shoot....I thought Orkz were supposed to be the CC unit and those Intercessors with their 30' S4 AP-1(2) guns were supposed to be a shooty unit. Maybe my shooty orkz are better pt for pt than those Marines...that would make sense since the Marines are as good if not better than Orkz on the charge.

10 shoota boyz are out ranged by 12' to start. At 18' range they get 20 shots for 7.77 hits, 3.8ish wounds and a grand total of... 1.29 dmg. Marines lose nobody yet since they are all 2 wounds.

4 intercessors start out shooting at 30' range, get 8 shots for 5.3 hits, 2.65 wounds and 2.65 dead Ork boyz. before they even suffer dmg they get to blast away again at those pesky shootaboyz with their OP guns and kill another 2.65 boyz, so before those orkz are even in range they have lost 50% of their force. ....so yeah they are better at shooting.

But in fairness, orkz are faster and can get the charge off easier. I mean they are movement 5 compared to marines....6...well crap. But hey we can advance and charge if we have a warboss nearby! Just like the entire White Scars Chapter can do without needing a character nearby.... hmm....I'm beginning to think you have a point here. Anything a xenos faction can do, a Space Marine chapter can do better...

 Charistoph wrote:

But being weaker in melee, where a lot of Marine players liked to be as well, especially those of certain temperaments.

I believe I already covered this?

I specifically said that Warriors (and Immortals) were not better than Marines in every aspect.

In fact, they were really only superior to Marines in two ways - they were more durable and their basic guns were better.

 Charistoph wrote:
Also people tend to forget that it was extremely rare to see a unit of basic Marines. At the bare minimum Tacticals would be carrying a Special and Heavy Weapon, as well as Frag Grenades.

Again, I didn't forget this. In fact I specifically drew attention to it.

 Charistoph wrote:

That is arguable, and mostly because sometimes RP just wasn't as useful as some options Marines would have access to

Unless I'm mistaken, Marines had no options that improved their durability. So I'm afraid I'm not seeing how this is relevant when I was solely juxtaposing their respective durability.

If you want to argue that a Marine with a plasmagun or a Sergeant with a Power Fist was better than a Warrior with RPs, sure. I don't disagree. Again, I literally explained that most people here (myself included) aren't trying to argue that Warriors/Immortals were superior than Marines in every conceivable way.

In this instance, I was comparing durability and only durability. Because it is (or was) one of the defining characteristics of Necrons.

 Charistoph wrote:
and Marines got better at sweeping Necrons with every new codex. Oh, I know the perception was there from the Marines side, but there was a lot of complaining about the limitations that RP had when compared to WBB.

As an aside, I'm pretty sure WBB was countered by sweeping as well.

Regardless, RPs was not a flawless defence. However, I think you'd be hard-pressed to argue that a model with T4 4+ and a 5+ chance to get back up was less durable (on average) than a model with T4 3+.

Hecaton wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:
Except Necron Warriors weren't, that's part of why I went through the trouble to point out the differences.

You're wrong, and moreover you've been misrepresenting other people's arguments in bad faith. WBB gives the Warrior enough durability to statistically beat the Astartes. Sure, you could spend the points to give your Sergeant a power fist, or whatever, but that's not the basic Astartes anymore.

I haven't been misrepresenting other people's arguments, and you have misrepresented mine at least twice.

Basic Astartes were cheaper, which means you could bring more men if you kept them basic, and if you brought more in to melee, the Warriors died faster leading to a better chance at a Sweep where their famed durability meant nothing. Also consider if I bring more, they would be in two units and that would mean the Warriors would only shooting one per turn due to the rules of the time. But hey, you just want to ignore that because it counters your argument. But if you want to be bringing equal points, you're going to be bringing in to those extra tools which help counter WBB.

If you think I'm wrong, please provide a proper counter other than, "you're wrong."

Hecaton wrote:Also, the whole point you're making about where Astartes sit in "humanity's army" fails for a number of reasons, not least of which is that things like Terminators and Custodes were always superior to Necron Warriors, and that's fine. You're working from the premise that Astartes need to be better than other factions' mass-produced infantry, and part of the thematics of the Necrons was that that *wasn't* true. It was also true for demons - Bloodletters used to rip Astartes a new one in CC when their swords counted as power weapons, and it actually made Grey Knights make sense, since it meant that basic Astartes weren't prepared to handle demons.

Now here is another misrepresentation. I am NOT working from the premise that Astartes NEED to be better than other factions' mass-produced infantry. I am pointing out that the Astartes are NOT the Imperium's mass produced infantry, but Warriors are for the Necrons. I have also stated numerous times now that having Necron Warriors and Astartes standing toe to toe (even if there is a slight edge here or there) with each other IS A GOOD THING.

Insectum7 wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:

Hecaton wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:
No, people were saying that Necron Warriors were vastly more powerful than Astartes.

That is incorrect, and a fabrication on your part. Stop lying. Necrons were slightly more powerful than Astartes in 3e, and that's what people have been saying.

Except Necron Warriors weren't. . .

What's better, a base Tactical Marine or a Tactical Marine with a better gun that revives himself on a 4+?

And it's pretty immaterial how you decide to call it, because the fact of the matter is the Cron units were downgraded.

A Tactical Marine that can be swept by anyone with a better gun that might be able to revive himself on a 4+ if his unit isn't swept?

Not to mention, 3rd Ed Gauss Flayers offered nothing beneficial against Tacticals. It only got better against really tough targets you couldn't Wound or Glance with a Bolter, nor could any be upgraded with something that could handle other targets better. Not everything is so cut and dry.

And considering that downgrade also came with a points reduction as well as the Ghost Ark, it's not so bad until this latest round of Marine upgrades.

vipoid wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:

But being weaker in melee, where a lot of Marine players liked to be as well, especially those of certain temperaments.

I believe I already covered this?

I specifically said that Warriors (and Immortals) were not better than Marines in every aspect.

In fact, they were really only superior to Marines in two ways - they were more durable and their basic guns were better.

Which is something I have repeatedly stated at this point, though the guns were only better against specific targets. I'm assuming Gauss was put in due to the lack of inorganic weapon support that almost every other race besides Tyranids could deploy.

vipoid wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:

That is arguable, and mostly because sometimes RP just wasn't as useful as some options Marines would have access to

Unless I'm mistaken, Marines had no options that improved their durability. So I'm afraid I'm not seeing how this is relevant when I was solely juxtaposing their respective durability.

In 3rd, not so much. In 4th we started to see some Chapter Tactics like the Apothecary Sergeant, then of course Iron Hands had several iterations over the years.

vipoid wrote:If you want to argue that a Marine with a plasmagun or a Sergeant with a Power Fist was better than a Warrior with RPs, sure. I don't disagree. Again, I literally explained that most people here (myself included) aren't trying to argue that Warriors/Immortals were superior than Marines in every conceivable way.

And I haven't been arguing with everyone, I just was arguing with the ones who were saying they were, or at least implying it. Some of my responses to you earlier was about reinforcing your statements and reminding people of what I have actually been saying.

vipoid wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:
and Marines got better at sweeping Necrons with every new codex. Oh, I know the perception was there from the Marines side, but there was a lot of complaining about the limitations that RP had when compared to WBB.

As an aside, I'm pretty sure WBB was countered by sweeping as well.

Regardless, RPs was not a flawless defence. However, I think you'd be hard-pressed to argue that a model with T4 4+ and a 5+ chance to get back up was less durable (on average) than a model with T4 3+.

So long as they weren't removed as a casualty in some way, WBB won't work (and I've mentioned it a couple times now). Now, as I said, I'm not familiar with 3rd Ed or 4th Ed rules, so I don't know how it would be ruled or was ruled, but I know that was a standard tactic both before Necrons got their 5th Ed codex and afterwards. Heck I remember a Necron player being happy about facing Tau players because he had a chance to Sweep them!

Nor have I argued that the Necron Warriors weren't durable (though that has fluctuated depending on how RP was written). However, there are more things to a unit's power than their durability, such as flexibility via options, offensive capability, how much you can take (Necrons must take 10 Warriors, but SM only have to take 5 Tacticals, but Necrons can take up to 20 Warriors, but 10 Tacticals is SM's unit limit), and what taking the unit makes unavailable (i.e. point cost). It is forgetting these other factors which has lead to a knee jerk reaction in believing how amazingly powerful Necron Warriors were over Tactical Marines, when it was far closer after analysis.

We could go back and forth about what constitutes a "better" model all week, but none of your words refute that:

1: 18>15, hence the designers themselves considered Necron Warriors to be individually superior to the base Marine

2: The 2011 codex considerably reduced their durability and cost.

3: The current model to model balance represents an even further downgrade.

And to leave the issue of Necrons behind, since you appear to be stuck, the bigger problem is that I could make a similar graph with Daemons, Banshees, Genestealers, Shuriken Catapults, all sorts of things.

 Charistoph wrote:

I haven't been misrepresenting other people's arguments, and you have misrepresented mine at least twice.

Basic Astartes were cheaper, which means you could bring more men if you kept them basic, and if you brought more in to melee, the Warriors died faster leading to a better chance at a Sweep where their famed durability meant nothing. Also consider if I bring more, they would be in two units and that would mean the Warriors would only shooting one per turn due to the rules of the time. But hey, you just want to ignore that because it counters your argument. But if you want to be bringing equal points, you're going to be bringing in to those extra tools which help counter WBB.

If you think I'm wrong, please provide a proper counter other than, "you're wrong."

If you're arguing that Astartes could beat Necrons with superior numbers that's... fine, actually, and was my whole point. Let's go back to those days, where a basic conscript Necron warrior is more than a match for an elite and highly trained Astartes.

 Charistoph wrote:

Now here is another misrepresentation. I am NOT working from the premise that Astartes NEED to be better than other factions' mass-produced infantry. I am pointing out that the Astartes are NOT the Imperium's mass produced infantry, but Warriors are for the Necrons. I have also stated numerous times now that having Necron Warriors and Astartes standing toe to toe (even if there is a slight edge here or there) with each other IS A GOOD THING.

Well than you should say I'm right, because that's the idea I've brought forth here.

 Charistoph wrote:

A Tactical Marine that can be swept by anyone with a better gun that might be able to revive himself on a 4+ if his unit isn't swept?

Not to mention, 3rd Ed Gauss Flayers offered nothing beneficial against Tacticals. It only got better against really tough targets you couldn't Wound or Glance with a Bolter, nor could any be upgraded with something that could handle other targets better. Not everything is so cut and dry.

And considering that downgrade also came with a points reduction as well as the Ghost Ark, it's not so bad until this latest round of Marine upgrades.

You were claiming that people were saying that Necron warriors were 'vastly better" than Astartes in 3e. You failed to show that anybody had been saying that, ergo you're wrong.

SemperMortis wrote:

 vipoid wrote:

Bear in mind that resilience is one of the key characteristics of Necrons as a whole, so when Marines are allowed to exceed that anyway it feels like yet another Xeno trait has been usurped by Marines.

It is no different than if Tactical Marines suddenly became more durable than Plague Marines. It just feels fundamentally wrong.

I don't know what you are talking about. Orkz boyz are renowned as good CC units and Point for point will always slaughter Marines. Case and point, 80pts of boyz is 10 boyz, and 80pts of Intercessors is 4 intercessors. Those 10 boyz get 30 attacks, and those puny Marines only get 12. Orkz get 20 hits, Intercessors 8. Orkz get 10 wounds, Intercessors 4.

We're not talking point to point, but individual to individual. You can water down units as much as you like and they'll still be effective if they're cheap enough. Case in point, Orks now kill Marines at half the rate since they're 2W now. And I'm remembering 10 Slugga Boys being able to average more than a single MEQ kill back in the day.

Let's see, from memory I get (30×.5×.333x.5= 2.49), so two and a half 1W Marines dead (with charge it'd be 40 attacks for 3.3). The Marines only had 1 Attack apiece, their guns were worse and couldn't Rapid Fire on the move. (3rd edition). I can't check the points now, but I'll be happy ro in the morning.

the_scotsman wrote:

Nurglitch wrote:
Logically speaking my guy should be able to beat up your guy.

Fundamentally, some people want a game system where you pick your faction and you get to be the tough one, the shooty one, the fast one, the magic one, etc, and other people want a game where the one main faction is the best at all of that and the others all compete by having more dudes than the main faction.

That's going to be a fundamental conflict in how people perceive the game should be.

It does seem to be one of the fundamental tensions in the game about how to balance a set of asymmetrical forces. It would be cool to be able to designate units as protagonists or mooks or npcs to change how they behave. I've harped on it at length about how it sucks for Tyranids and Orks, the mookiest of enemy mooks, to have to spend 3x the money as SM to field an army of the same size, but imagine if you could designate a unit as a horde so that it could keep coming back onto the board, or as protagonists so that they could move models away from the enemy rather than suffering wounds, or as npcs so they could Look Out, Sir your protagonists.