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.
2021/02/19 17:28:25
Subject: Re:Thematically, should lesser demons, Necron warriors, etc, be less impressive than a basic Astartes?
I see some misconceptions of what I am talking about here in regards to how things are being considered. Some are taking my statements regarding how things used to be as to being how things are. This is not the case, as I have stated several times now.
Some also seem to be confusing how I see a Marine's place in the 40K world that has been built up. There are 3 different tiers that are in this consideration.
First is the Military Tier. In this I am looking at the entry in respect to its military hierarchy and has no bearing on its effectiveness of the same tier of another army, and for the Marines that is taking in to consideration the entirety of the Imperium of Man, unlike almost every other codex out there. Keep in mind that this a LORE perspective. So with that in mind we'd be looking at:
Conscripts/Chaff: Guard Conscripts, Gretchin, Kroot, Cultists, Guardians, Necron Warriors etc.
Troopers: Imperial Guardsmen, Sororitas, Scions, Fire Warrior Breachers/Strikers, Dire Avengers, Immortals etc.
Elite Infantry: Astartes, Crisis Suits, Aspect Warriors, Praetorians, Destroyers, etc.
Super Elite Infantry: Custodes
Second is the Game Tier. I only talked about this when dealing directly with stats, gear, Special Rules, and options. And honestly, I liked how Warriors have been right around where the Tacticals were, and even when they were just a little lower baseline, the Immortals were there to be just a bit above them, too. This gets messy due to different release times, prejudices of the codex author, poor pricing models, and the fact that Marines are technically a codex of an elite force of one part of an army, while the Necron's entire army is listed in their codex, along with most other Xenos.
Third is the Galactic Tier. This is where everyone is in relation to each other across the board. Most of this is a Lore perspective, but partly a game perspective, too. From this perspective, Tactical Marines, Immortals (upper), Warriors (mid to lower), Marine Scouts (lower), Nobs (middle), and maybe some Aspect Warriors, are roughly in the same tier level with some slight variations on where they stand in it which depends on the author and specific codex.
With the addition of the Primaris and the upgrades in the latest Marine codex this has been thrown off because the Marines moved, while no one else saw any significant change. Codex Marines have basically gotten a +2 improvement while Necrons got a +0.5. This is a BAD thing.
Insectum7 wrote:1: 18>15, hence the designers themselves considered Necron Warriors to be individually superior to the base Marine
Maybe, or it could have been meant to limit how many you could take. Especially considering that one make a Tactical Squad cost the same as a Necron Warrior squad. Again, the unit as a whole must be looked at, not just what one starts with. Consider also that Phase Out would be a factor in the point cost of the Warriors (the cheapest and most potentially numerous Necron model available).
Insectum7 wrote:2: The 2011 codex considerably reduced their durability and cost.
The Warriors points were reduced and their Armor Save was reduced. WBB was changed to RP, which was successful on a higher number, so base durability was reduced, but not considerably. However, RP matched WBB when you can have Resurrection Orb in almost every squad (which can be easily provided by a Royal Court's Lord), and then there is the Ghost Ark which can be go beyond what RP or WBB could do and completely restore lost models to the unit. Sure a Monolith could do that in 3rd, but the Monolith was limited by being Heavy Support, very expensive so reduced the Phase Out limit while not adding to it, and could only do it on the turn after the unit lost the models, not every Player Turn.
Subsequent codices reduced the Orb capacity as Lords were not as spammable or directly by being one-offs, but I do believe it is an aura now instead of having to be in the unit at least.
Insectum7 wrote:3: The current model to model balance represents an even further downgrade.
To which I have not argued against and supported with almost every response to you, which you seem to have ignored every single time. What I have been arguing against is how far apart Necron Warriors and Tacticals have been. How many more times must I repeat it.
Insectum7 wrote: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.
I brought up Ork Nobs earlier. You kept going on about Necrons, so you were the stuck one.
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.
Still misrepresenting my statements. It was just a match for the elite and highly trained Astartes, not more than a match as of 3rd Edition. The Astartes were more flexible (i.e. had more options) and superior in close combat. You forget that flexibility with your quick analysis. Nor is stating that they were being close to each other in power defines a belief or need that Astartes should be vastly more powerful.
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.
Why should I say you're right when you misrepresent what I say such that I was saying the opposite of what I actually said? I have not stated that Astartes should be or need to be more powerful than anything they face, which is something you have accused me of saying.
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.
Nor was this statement directed at you. This was correcting a false image of what the Necron Warrior was in 3e that Insectum7 keeps pushing. By making these corrections, I am countering the "vastly better" image that Insectum7 is presenting who only focuses on a couple points while ignoring what the Tactical Marine Squad brought to the table.
Are you a Wolf, a Sheep, or a Hound?
Megavolt wrote:They called me crazy…they called me insane…THEY CALLED ME LOONEY!! and boy, were they right.
2021/02/19 17:47:50
Subject: Re:Thematically, should lesser demons, Necron warriors, etc, be less impressive than a basic Astartes?
Conscripts/Chaff: Guard Conscripts, Gretchin, Kroot, Cultists, Guardians, Necron Warriors etc.
Troopers: Imperial Guardsmen, Sororitas, Scions, Fire Warrior Breachers/Strikers, Dire Avengers, Immortals etc.
Elite Infantry: Astartes, Crisis Suits, Aspect Warriors, Praetorians, Destroyers, etc.
Super Elite Infantry: Custodes
Hang on, Dire Avengers are just as elite as the other Aspect Warriors are in the lore. They may be more numerous, but that's closer to the relationship between a Tacmarine/Inceptor and more specialized marines, than that between a guardsman and an Astartes.
2021/02/19 18:01:42
Subject: Re:Thematically, should lesser demons, Necron warriors, etc, be less impressive than a basic Astartes?
Nor was this statement directed at you. This was correcting a false image of what the Necron Warrior was in 3e that Insectum7 keeps pushing. By making these corrections, I am countering the "vastly better" image that Insectum7 is presenting who only focuses on a couple points while ignoring what the Tactical Marine Squad brought to the table.
Again, where is Insectum7 saying "vastly? That's you misrepresenting his argument. He and I were saying they were "slightly" better.
So again, you can't tell the truth or make a counterargument without lying. If you misrepresent someone else's argument I'm going to call it out whether or not it's directed at me.
The Tac Marine "flexibility" wasn't such a big deal; there was a reason people took minimum squads of tacs with maxed special weapons back then.
All your talk about tiers is meaningless and is just circular reasoning on your part.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2021/02/19 18:03:09
2021/02/19 18:06:45
Subject: Re:Thematically, should lesser demons, Necron warriors, etc, be less impressive than a basic Astartes?
The Warriors points were reduced and their Armor Save was reduced. WBB was changed to RP, which was successful on a higher number, so base durability was reduced, but not considerably.
A 3+ save reduced to a 4+ Save during the 3-7th AP paradigm is considerable. Durability was in fact the only change to Warriors, and they dropped from 18 points to 13 points. So again, the designers appear to disagree with your assessment, as do I.
10 Bolter hits to Warriors in 3rd: (10x.5x.333x.5) = 0.83 (3+ save, 4+WBB)
10 Bolter hits to Warriors post 5th: (10x.5x.5x.666) = 1.665 (4+ save, 5+ RP) Warriors took DOUBLE the casualties against Bolters.
3 HB to hits Warriors in 3rd: (3x.666x.333x.5) = 0.33
3 HB to hits Warriors post 5th: (3x.666x.666) = 1.333 Warriors took FOUR TIMES the casualties against Heavy Bolters.
The quantitative evidence says "considerably".
Either way I'm done with this part of the conversation about Warriors. You're bending over backwards to try to make a point that is both not even there, and irrelevant in the face of the broader argument.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2021/02/19 18:11:54
Conscripts/Chaff: Guard Conscripts, Gretchin, Kroot, Cultists, Guardians, Necron Warriors etc.
Troopers: Imperial Guardsmen, Sororitas, Scions, Fire Warrior Breachers/Strikers, Dire Avengers, Immortals etc.
Elite Infantry: Astartes, Crisis Suits, Aspect Warriors, Praetorians, Destroyers, etc.
Super Elite Infantry: Custodes
Hang on, Dire Avengers are just as elite as the other Aspect Warriors are in the lore. They may be more numerous, but that's closer to the relationship between a Tacmarine/Inceptor and more specialized marines, than that between a guardsman and an Astartes.
They are closer to Scions actually. While they are impressive for Eldar, they are more generalists and more numerous than the other Aspects tended to be. Scions are elite in the Guard, but compared to the Astartes, they were closer to Troopers.
Nor was this statement directed at you. This was correcting a false image of what the Necron Warrior was in 3e that Insectum7 keeps pushing. By making these corrections, I am countering the "vastly better" image that Insectum7 is presenting who only focuses on a couple points while ignoring what the Tactical Marine Squad brought to the table.
Again, where is Insectum7 saying "vastly? That's you misrepresenting his argument. He and I were saying they were "slightly" better.
"Vastly" was actually your addition to the conversation when you accused me of a perspective I never stated.
Hecaton wrote:The Tac Marine "flexibility" wasn't such a big deal; there was a reason people took minimum squads of tacs with maxed special weapons back then.
Actually it quite is. Flamers, Frag Missiles, and Heavy Bolters could generate more hits, Plasma Guns would ignore their armor, and Meltaguns, Krak Missiles and Lascannons would cause WBB to not trigger as well as ignore armor. These are important considerations. Meanwhile the Necron Warrios could only plink at the Tacticals like they were firing Bolters.
Not to mention, you had to kill every last Astartes to beat them. Necrons were in danger of Phase Out if they reached a 75% casualty rate (and you had to ignore units like C'tan, Pariahs, Swarms, Monoliths, and Spyders).
Hecaton wrote:All your talk about tiers is meaningless and is just circular reasoning on your part.
Either because you cannot understand it or cannot refute it, so you just demean it. It is my perspective on it.
The Warriors points were reduced and their Armor Save was reduced. WBB was changed to RP, which was successful on a higher number, so base durability was reduced, but not considerably.
A 3+ save reduced to a 4+ Save during the 3-7th AP paradigm is considerable. Durability was in fact the only change to Warriors, and they dropped from 18 points to 13 points. So again, the designers appear to disagree with your assessment, as do I.
They also lost the auto-wound on Gauss (irrelevant against Tacticals), upgrade option for Vehicle Gauss in Melee, and the Phase Out rule. They gained the only access to the Ghost Ark as a Dedicated Transport which also repaired them improving their durability. For 5th, they gained access to the Royal Court, effectively giving them access to a "sergeant" with a Resurrection Orb (sadly, this was somewhat lost in 7th, but they had the Decurion for that to compensate).
Again, the point value of a model is a limitation, especially when a factor like Phase Out is taken in to consideration.
Insectum7 wrote:10 Bolter hits to Warriors in 3rd: (10x.5x.333x.5) = 0.83 (3+ save, 4+WBB)
10 Bolter hits to Warriors post 5th: (10x.5x.5x.666) = 1.665 (4+ save, 5+ RP) Warriors took DOUBLE the casualties against Bolters.
3 HB to hits Warriors in 3rd: (3x.666x.333x.5) = 0.33
3 HB to hits Warriors post 5th: (3x.666x.666) = 1.333 Warriors took FOUR TIMES the casualties against Heavy Bolters.
The quantitative evidence says "considerably".
This quantitative evidence also ignores what they gained, too, which I listed above. Aside from Kill Teams, when was it ever so simple?
Insectum7 wrote:Either way I'm done with this part of the conversation about Warriors. You're bending over backwards to try to make a point that is both not even there, and irrelevant in the face of the broader argument.
Says the person who focused only on points for a time, ignored the flexibility of the Tactical Squad, ignored what Warriors gained at the same time they lost, as well as ignored when I agreed with them that the current paradigm has swung too far in favor of the Marines. Who is doing the most bending backwards here?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/02/19 18:46:00
Are you a Wolf, a Sheep, or a Hound?
Megavolt wrote:They called me crazy…they called me insane…THEY CALLED ME LOONEY!! and boy, were they right.
2021/02/19 19:35:07
Subject: Re:Thematically, should lesser demons, Necron warriors, etc, be less impressive than a basic Astartes?
They are closer to Scions actually. While they are impressive for Eldar, they are more generalists and more numerous than the other Aspects tended to be. Scions are elite in the Guard, but compared to the Astartes, they were closer to Troopers.
Then what makes the other Aspects different? None of them are noticeably more elite than Avengers. They're equipped and trained for different things, not equipped and trained better. And of course, none of them are biologically different to the same degree as that between a human and an Astartes.
2021/02/19 19:45:57
Subject: Re:Thematically, should lesser demons, Necron warriors, etc, be less impressive than a basic Astartes?
Conscripts/Chaff: Guard Conscripts, Gretchin, Kroot, Cultists, Guardians, Necron Warriors etc.
Troopers: Imperial Guardsmen, Sororitas, Scions, Fire Warrior Breachers/Strikers, Dire Avengers, Immortals etc.
Elite Infantry: Astartes, Crisis Suits, Aspect Warriors, Praetorians, Destroyers, etc.
Super Elite Infantry: Custodes
Hang on, Dire Avengers are just as elite as the other Aspect Warriors are in the lore. They may be more numerous, but that's closer to the relationship between a Tacmarine/Inceptor and more specialized marines, than that between a guardsman and an Astartes.
They are closer to Scions actually. While they are impressive for Eldar, they are more generalists and more numerous than the other Aspects tended to be. Scions are elite in the Guard, but compared to the Astartes, they were closer to Troopers.
Nor was this statement directed at you. This was correcting a false image of what the Necron Warrior was in 3e that Insectum7 keeps pushing. By making these corrections, I am countering the "vastly better" image that Insectum7 is presenting who only focuses on a couple points while ignoring what the Tactical Marine Squad brought to the table.
Again, where is Insectum7 saying "vastly? That's you misrepresenting his argument. He and I were saying they were "slightly" better.
"Vastly" was actually your addition to the conversation when you accused me of a perspective I never stated.
Hecaton wrote:The Tac Marine "flexibility" wasn't such a big deal; there was a reason people took minimum squads of tacs with maxed special weapons back then.
Actually it quite is. Flamers, Frag Missiles, and Heavy Bolters could generate more hits, Plasma Guns would ignore their armor, and Meltaguns, Krak Missiles and Lascannons would cause WBB to not trigger as well as ignore armor. These are important considerations. Meanwhile the Necron Warrios could only plink at the Tacticals like they were firing Bolters.
Not to mention, you had to kill every last Astartes to beat them. Necrons were in danger of Phase Out if they reached a 75% casualty rate (and you had to ignore units like C'tan, Pariahs, Swarms, Monoliths, and Spyders).
Hecaton wrote:All your talk about tiers is meaningless and is just circular reasoning on your part.
Either because you cannot understand it or cannot refute it, so you just demean it. It is my perspective on it.
The Warriors points were reduced and their Armor Save was reduced. WBB was changed to RP, which was successful on a higher number, so base durability was reduced, but not considerably.
A 3+ save reduced to a 4+ Save during the 3-7th AP paradigm is considerable. Durability was in fact the only change to Warriors, and they dropped from 18 points to 13 points. So again, the designers appear to disagree with your assessment, as do I.
They also lost the auto-wound on Gauss (irrelevant against Tacticals), upgrade option for Vehicle Gauss in Melee, and the Phase Out rule. They gained the only access to the Ghost Ark as a Dedicated Transport which also repaired them improving their durability. For 5th, they gained access to the Royal Court, effectively giving them access to a "sergeant" with a Resurrection Orb (sadly, this was somewhat lost in 7th, but they had the Decurion for that to compensate).
Again, the point value of a model is a limitation, especially when a factor like Phase Out is taken in to consideration.
Insectum7 wrote:10 Bolter hits to Warriors in 3rd: (10x.5x.333x.5) = 0.83 (3+ save, 4+WBB)
10 Bolter hits to Warriors post 5th: (10x.5x.5x.666) = 1.665 (4+ save, 5+ RP) Warriors took DOUBLE the casualties against Bolters.
3 HB to hits Warriors in 3rd: (3x.666x.333x.5) = 0.33
3 HB to hits Warriors post 5th: (3x.666x.666) = 1.333 Warriors took FOUR TIMES the casualties against Heavy Bolters.
The quantitative evidence says "considerably".
This quantitative evidence also ignores what they gained, too, which I listed above. Aside from Kill Teams, when was it ever so simple?
Insectum7 wrote:Either way I'm done with this part of the conversation about Warriors. You're bending over backwards to try to make a point that is both not even there, and irrelevant in the face of the broader argument.
Says the person who focused only on points for a time, ignored the flexibility of the Tactical Squad, ignored what Warriors gained at the same time they lost, as well as ignored when I agreed with them that the current paradigm has swung too far in favor of the Marines. Who is doing the most bending backwards here?
I chose to focus on points because even if they are a bit sloppy, they still function as a representation of aggregate model worth. Both the 3rd ed and 5th Ed Necron books have supporting elements that can be brought to bear on the Warriors, so Ghost Arks etc. are pretty much a wash. It's also unrelated to my point, which is about base individual models. Arguably, your point about Phase Out works in my favor, since without Phase out, the 18ppm for Warriors would be higher. Phase Out was introduced because Necrons were designed as OP. Having the capability to field a large army of models who were as resilient as a marine, who then got back up on a 4+ is really, really, powerful.
Providing quantitative evidence is not "bending over backwards", it's rather the opposite.
If you want to go ahead and attempt to make a strong quantitative argument, be my guest. Until then I just going to claim victory for this one, as I think most reasonable people will see my point.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/02/19 19:46:47
Actually it quite is. Flamers, Frag Missiles, and Heavy Bolters could generate more hits, Plasma Guns would ignore their armor, and Meltaguns, Krak Missiles and Lascannons would cause WBB to not trigger as well as ignore armor. These are important considerations. Meanwhile the Necron Warrios could only plink at the Tacticals like they were firing Bolters.
Not to mention, you had to kill every last Astartes to beat them. Necrons were in danger of Phase Out if they reached a 75% casualty rate (and you had to ignore units like C'tan, Pariahs, Swarms, Monoliths, and Spyders).
I don't see any quantitative considerations there, and moreover, we saw plenty of "5 tacticals in a razorback" back then. You and I both know that. So this is just you stating some nebulous things that don't really support your point.
Either because you cannot understand it or cannot refute it, so you just demean it. It is my perspective on it.
There's nothing there to refute. When Necrons were originally presented, their foot soldier-level troops were more elite than Astartes. I find this thematically pleasing. If you don't, that's fine, but you're trying to act like it's an objective good for that not to be the case.
Charistoph wrote: Again, the point value of a model is a limitation, especially when a factor like Phase Out is taken in to consideration.
This is backwards logic. If GW saw them as higher points cost than tacticals, GW saw them as more valuable.
Says the person who focused only on points for a time, ignored the flexibility of the Tactical Squad, ignored what Warriors gained at the same time they lost, as well as ignored when I agreed with them that the current paradigm has swung too far in favor of the Marines. Who is doing the most bending backwards here?
It's definitely you, considering you have to lie to attempt to make your points.
2021/02/19 22:11:36
Subject: Re:Thematically, should lesser demons, Necron warriors, etc, be less impressive than a basic Astartes?
First is the Military Tier. In this I am looking at the entry in respect to its military hierarchy and has no bearing on its effectiveness of the same tier of another army, and for the Marines that is taking in to consideration the entirety of the Imperium of Man, unlike almost every other codex out there. Keep in mind that this a LORE perspective. So with that in mind we'd be looking at:
Conscripts/Chaff: Guard Conscripts, Gretchin, Kroot, Cultists, Guardians, Necron Warriors etc. Troopers: Imperial Guardsmen, Sororitas, Scions, Fire Warrior Breachers/Strikers, Dire Avengers, Immortals etc. Elite Infantry: Astartes, Crisis Suits, Aspect Warriors, Praetorians, Destroyers, etc. Super Elite Infantry: Custodes
Nobody is going to point this out? really? Ok, guess I will.
Guard Conscripts: Considered over priced at....5ppm. Grotz: ARE massively over priced at 5ppm Kroot: considered over priced at 6ppm Cultists: are considered over priced at 6ppm Guardians: considered over priced at 8ppm
And now Necron Warriors: 13ppm.
One of these things is not like the others. You are comparing garbage units that are almost universally over priced and are, with the exception of the Guardians, less than 1/2 the price of a Necron Warrior.
Ironically you didn't mention Ork boyz in your Tier 2 but even they are 8ppm, Nobz are 17ppm and are probably closer to Necron Warriors at 13ppm as far as dmg potential/durability.
So I get it, you want to label Necron Warriors as "chaff" but you are attempting to rationalize a position based on your perception of the fluff as opposed to A: How they function in the game B: How they actually are written in the fluff (Not just bolter XXX books) and C: their historical place in the game.
Besides the mary sue SM books where a handful of marines can destroy an entire WAAAGH or defeat an Eldar craftworld etc, (exaggeration for effect) the necron fluff puts warriors at an even match for a SM. In the game they historically have been a match for a SM. IE they were more durable and better at ranged combat, but tended to die when you got them in CC. But come on dude, stop trying to put them in the same category as a fething Grot! who last edition was priced at 3ppm and even than was considered over priced for what little it was able to do barring the 1 bullet shield stratagem.
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.
I showed point to point to make it an even contest. You want to compare model for model?
In 7th an Ork had 4 attacks on the charge, in CC that was 2.66 hits and 1.33 wound for .443 dmg to a SM. That single SM swinging back would do 1 attack .66 hits, .33 wounds for .275 dmg.
So model for model an ork was BETTER than Tac Marine and was more likely to beat a single marine in close combat than the Marine was to beat him in close combat.
Since than the Ork has gone UP in points 33% while gaining basically 1 strength (flat 4 as opposed to 4 on the charge) and DDD while also losing movement and furious assault special rule.. Comparatively, that SM has gone up in price from 13pts to I think its 18pts now or about 27.7% increase in price. They also gained, doctrines, super doctrines, 1 wound bolter discipline, shock assault and i'm probably forgetting some other stuff. I'm not going to count chapter tactics since Orkz got that as well in the form of "Kulture".
So now the math is 1 ork on the charge gets 3 attacks for 2 hits, 1 wound and .33dmg to a Space Marine, that single space marine gets 2 attacks, 1.33 hits, .554dmg to that Ork. they both get to shoot pistols in CC now...guess who does better here? and then swing again, which ends with that 1 marine likely not losing a single wound but being able to take out 2 Orkz on average.
So in prior editions 1 ork was better than 1 Marine in CC, 3 orkz would generate 1.32 dmg, 23 orkz would kill a full Tac squad of Marines in 1 turn. To guarantee 1 dead Marine in CC now though, those orkz need roughly 6 Orkz instead of overkilling with 3, and to wipe out that same tactical squad? Ohh boy. you need 45 boyz, split into 2 squads of over 20. And if either squad drops below 20 you can't do it
So the point was that Ork boyz shtick was that they were garbage at range but were deadly in CC. Now they are just as garbage at range (1 shot with DDD has a 16.6% chance to generate a 33% chance to hit with 50% chance to wound and 33% chance to do dmg. Or another way to put it 0.92% ) and are now significantly less deadly in CC vs that same target. While at the same time those Marines are now significantly more deadly at range, are literally twice as durable AND doubled their # of attacks in the 1st round of combat.
And lets not even get started on Intercessors who are 2pts more expensive, have better guns and are 2 attacks base 3 on the charge.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2021/02/19 22:55:21
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.
I showed point to point to make it an even contest. You want to compare model for model?
In 7th an Ork had 4 attacks on the charge, in CC that was 2.66 hits and 1.33 wound for .443 dmg to a SM. That single SM swinging back would do 1 attack .66 hits, .33 wounds for .275 dmg.
So model for model an ork was BETTER than Tac Marine and was more likely to beat a single marine in close combat than the Marine was to beat him in close combat.
Since than the Ork has gone UP in points 33% while gaining basically 1 strength (flat 4 as opposed to 4 on the charge) and DDD while also losing movement and furious assault special rule.. Comparatively, that SM has gone up in price from 13pts to I think its 18pts now or about 27.7% increase in price. They also gained, doctrines, super doctrines, 1 wound bolter discipline, shock assault and i'm probably forgetting some other stuff. I'm not going to count chapter tactics since Orkz got that as well in the form of "Kulture".
So now the math is 1 ork on the charge gets 3 attacks for 2 hits, 1 wound and .33dmg to a Space Marine, that single space marine gets 2 attacks, 1.33 hits, .554dmg to that Ork. they both get to shoot pistols in CC now...guess who does better here? and then swing again, which ends with that 1 marine likely not losing a single wound but being able to take out 2 Orkz on average.
So in prior editions 1 ork was better than 1 Marine in CC, 3 orkz would generate 1.32 dmg, 23 orkz would kill a full Tac squad of Marines in 1 turn. To guarantee 1 dead Marine in CC now though, those orkz need roughly 6 Orkz instead of overkilling with 3, and to wipe out that same tactical squad? Ohh boy. you need 45 boyz, split into 2 squads of over 20. And if either squad drops below 20 you can't do it
So the point was that Ork boyz shtick was that they were garbage at range but were deadly in CC. Now they are just as garbage at range (1 shot with DDD has a 16.6% chance to generate a 33% chance to hit with 50% chance to wound and 33% chance to do dmg. Or another way to put it 0.92% ) and are now significantly less deadly in CC vs that same target. While at the same time those Marines are now significantly more deadly at range, are literally twice as durable AND doubled their # of attacks in the 1st round of combat.
And lets not even get started on Intercessors who are 2pts more expensive, have better guns and are 2 attacks base 3 on the charge.
What a great world we live in, eh!
I'm going to be looking at the Xenos codexes very critically as 9th progresses. Things like Genestealers better get some mean upgrades to combat the 2W Marine paradigm we've got going on. Genestealers who used to easily tear through Terminators are bouncing off Marines as it stands.
I found the points for a 3rd ed Slugga Boy btw. 9ppm. So 10 Orks bought you 6 Tactical Marines. They would fight simultaneously (They had an initiative of 4 on a successful Waagh test, which was a 2D6 roll against the number of models in the unit.) to Marines, killing 3 Marines while losing one of their own. It's downhill for the Marines from there.
So imagine that, 10 Orks killing three Marines in a round of combat, putting the Marines at a huge disadvantage for the rest of the fight. And that was in a world where if a Marine moved, he couldn't fire his Bolter twice, or even once beyond 12".
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/02/19 23:54:40
Insectum7 wrote:Either way I'm done with this part of the conversation about Warriors. You're bending over backwards to try to make a point that is both not even there, and irrelevant in the face of the broader argument.
Says the person who focused only on points for a time, ignored the flexibility of the Tactical Squad, ignored what Warriors gained at the same time they lost, as well as ignored when I agreed with them that the current paradigm has swung too far in favor of the Marines. Who is doing the most bending backwards here?
I chose to focus on points because even if they are a bit sloppy, they still function as a representation of aggregate model worth. Both the 3rd ed and 5th Ed Necron books have supporting elements that can be brought to bear on the Warriors, so Ghost Arks etc. are pretty much a wash. It's also unrelated to my point, which is about base individual models. Arguably, your point about Phase Out works in my favor, since without Phase out, the 18ppm for Warriors would be higher. Phase Out was introduced because Necrons were designed as OP. Having the capability to field a large army of models who were as resilient as a marine, who then got back up on a 4+ is really, really, powerful.
Providing quantitative evidence is not "bending over backwards", it's rather the opposite.
If you want to go ahead and attempt to make a strong quantitative argument, be my guest. Until then I just going to claim victory for this one, as I think most reasonable people will see my point.
Which when I bring in quantitative evidence, you claim it is bending over backwards". I didn't know that including a "Sergeant" and Dedicated Transport that was a standard take in normal FOCs is "bending over backwards".
The point values in an army, especially back in 3rd, was based on consideration of the army as a whole using the FOC, not just a Kill Team or a Combat Patrol, meanwhile your analysis is solely based on ignoring the rest of the army and expecting to go in to a Kill Team or Combat Patrol in that edition. We didn't see anything close to unique values for one on one until the recent Kill Team series of books was released.
Actually it quite is. Flamers, Frag Missiles, and Heavy Bolters could generate more hits, Plasma Guns would ignore their armor, and Meltaguns, Krak Missiles and Lascannons would cause WBB to not trigger as well as ignore armor. These are important considerations. Meanwhile the Necron Warrios could only plink at the Tacticals like they were firing Bolters.
Not to mention, you had to kill every last Astartes to beat them. Necrons were in danger of Phase Out if they reached a 75% casualty rate (and you had to ignore units like C'tan, Pariahs, Swarms, Monoliths, and Spyders).
I don't see any quantitative considerations there, and moreover, we saw plenty of "5 tacticals in a razorback" back then. You and I both know that. So this is just you stating some nebulous things that don't really support your point.
Hilarious that you think that we should only consider base values then ignore what considerations those base values bring, but when I bring up trying to equalize the points, you call it "nebulous".
Either because you cannot understand it or cannot refute it, so you just demean it. It is my perspective on it.
There's nothing there to refute. When Necrons were originally presented, their foot soldier-level troops were more elite than Astartes. I find this thematically pleasing. If you don't, that's fine, but you're trying to act like it's an objective good for that not to be the case.
Don't complain about others misrepresenting, and then proceed to do so yourself. They initially cost more, they weren't more elite. But that doesn't change the fact that this was the most basic trooper of the Necron army, and Marines are far from being the most basic trooper of the Imperium. Sure, on a galactic scale, and even on a game scale, they were close to even, and that's a good thing. It demonstrates the power of the Necron army that their cheapest, most throw away troops were standing toe-to-toe with the Tactical Marine instead of being absolutely dominated by them like Grots, Kroot, or Guardians. The Necorns START at the elite Marine's level instead of catching up to it like the other armies in 40K do. Or at least they used to before these latest codices.
Hecaton wrote:
Charistoph wrote: Again, the point value of a model is a limitation, especially when a factor like Phase Out is taken in to consideration.
This is backwards logic. If GW saw them as higher points cost than tacticals, GW saw them as more valuable.
It's only backwards if you don't actually take the steps to consider it.
Necron Warriors were the cheapest and most plentiful Necron model, period. Two units required with four more being able to be bought, minimum of 10 to a maximum of 20, allowing 120 Warriors maximum in an FOC. Flayed Ones were the same cost, but were limited to 10 and were Elites, so no more than 3 squads, with 30 total in an FOC. Every other model in the Necron army cost more, couldn't beat Flayed Ones in size, or weren't Necrons (Pariahs, Scarabs, C'tan, Spyders, and Monoliths didn't count).
120 3rd Ed Warriors was 2160 points. If they were priced as Tacticals, it would be 1800 points. A usual list saw at least 2 units of Warriors at 20 models each, though some reduced the size and spread them across several more units to bring more Warriors. That's 720 if they don't take Disruption Fields, at 15 points, that's 600. That's half the cost of a Monolith in difference, and almost a minimum squad of Immortals, or 8 more Warriors in difference.
The Phase out rule was a key lose condition for Necrons. The cheaper Warriors were, the harder it was to reach that Phase Out point. The pricing of Warriors had this in mind because pricing was made with taking the entire FOC in mind, not just one unit comparing them to each other. The cheaper the Warriors, the more you can take. The more Warriors you take the more your opponent has to kill to trigger Phase Out. What evidence can you provide to counter this?
This quantitative evidence also ignores what they gained, too, which I listed above/
So show us some math that backs up your point.
The "Sergeant" Lord can provide a Resurrection Orb which changed RP from a 5+ to a 4+, which changes those numbers Insectum used. The Ghost Ark can bring back d3 Warriors a turn to a unit, so what RP loses, the GA can bring back.
Says the person who focused only on points for a time, ignored the flexibility of the Tactical Squad, ignored what Warriors gained at the same time they lost, as well as ignored when I agreed with them that the current paradigm has swung too far in favor of the Marines. Who is doing the most bending backwards here?
It's definitely you, considering you have to lie to attempt to make your points.
Where was the lie in that statement before "bending backwards"?
First is the Military Tier. In this I am looking at the entry in respect to its military hierarchy and has no bearing on its effectiveness of the same tier of another army, and for the Marines that is taking in to consideration the entirety of the Imperium of Man, unlike almost every other codex out there. Keep in mind that this a LORE perspective. So with that in mind we'd be looking at:
Conscripts/Chaff: Guard Conscripts, Gretchin, Kroot, Cultists, Guardians, Necron Warriors etc.
Troopers: Imperial Guardsmen, Sororitas, Scions, Fire Warrior Breachers/Strikers, Dire Avengers, Immortals etc.
Elite Infantry: Astartes, Crisis Suits, Aspect Warriors, Praetorians, Destroyers, etc.
Super Elite Infantry: Custodes
Nobody is going to point this out? really? Ok, guess I will.
Guard Conscripts: Considered over priced at....5ppm.
Grotz: ARE massively over priced at 5ppm
Kroot: considered over priced at 6ppm
Cultists: are considered over priced at 6ppm
Guardians: considered over priced at 8ppm
And now Necron Warriors: 13ppm.
One of these things is not like the others. You are comparing garbage units that are almost universally over priced and are, with the exception of the Guardians, less than 1/2 the price of a Necron Warrior.
Ironically you didn't mention Ork boyz in your Tier 2 but even they are 8ppm, Nobz are 17ppm and are probably closer to Necron Warriors at 13ppm as far as dmg potential/durability.
And thus my point is proven about some people not understanding some of the perspectives. The list provided above was an internal list of the individual armies, not a list comparing the units to each other. In this case, points of other armies mean nothing. For this list, Immortals are only being considered where they are in relation to Necron Warriors and Praetorians, not where they are in relation to Marines or Eldar. I pretty much stated this in the introductory paragraph (now colored green).
The moment you start stating that Necron Warriors aren't the same level as Grots because Grots are cheaper, you have lost the point of this specific tier list. For comparing units of other armies to each other, that is the Galactic Scale, where points matter a little more, but not as much as stats and Special Rules.
SemperMortis wrote:So I get it, you want to label Necron Warriors as "chaff" but you are attempting to rationalize a position based on your perception of the fluff as opposed to
A: How they function in the game
B: How they actually are written in the fluff (Not just bolter XXX books)
and C: their historical place in the game.
Because that is how Necron Warriors are listed in the lore since 5th Edition. The professional soldiers of the Necrontyr were converted to Immortals. The civilians and unprofessional soldiers were converted in to Warriors. They are literally the conscripts of the Necron army by definition.
Because how they function in relation to other armies in the game or in the fluff meant nothing in this tier. It is only looking at how they function in their army alone. To which, the Warriors are the most numerous and cheapest of the Necron army, both in unit size and by being Troops. If you have a better example, please point out an Infantry Troop unit of the Necron army which can be taken for cheaper. provide the same number of bases or more in a single unit, and provide more units overall in a Patrol Detachment.
SemperMortis wrote:Besides the mary sue SM books where a handful of marines can destroy an entire WAAAGH or defeat an Eldar craftworld etc, (exaggeration for effect) the necron fluff puts warriors at an even match for a SM. In the game they historically have been a match for a SM. IE they were more durable and better at ranged combat, but tended to die when you got them in CC. But come on dude, stop trying to put them in the same category as a fething Grot! who last edition was priced at 3ppm and even than was considered over priced for what little it was able to do barring the 1 bullet shield stratagem.
Maybe you should read more instead of going off half-cocked. On a galactic scale, if Tactical Astartes were a C Tier unit (in a universe where a Greater Daemon or C'tan Shard would be S or SS tier), Necron Warriors would be in that tier (maybe on the lower end, but still there), while Grots would be on the E or F Tier.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2021/02/20 21:08:54
Are you a Wolf, a Sheep, or a Hound?
Megavolt wrote:They called me crazy…they called me insane…THEY CALLED ME LOONEY!! and boy, were they right.
2021/02/20 22:03:49
Subject: Thematically, should lesser demons, Necron warriors, etc, be less impressive than a basic Astartes?
Which when I bring in quantitative evidence, you claim it is bending over backwards". I didn't know that including a "Sergeant" and Dedicated Transport that was a standard take in normal FOCs is "bending over backwards".
The point values in an army, especially back in 3rd, was based on consideration of the army as a whole using the FOC, not just a Kill Team or a Combat Patrol, meanwhile your analysis is solely based on ignoring the rest of the army and expecting to go in to a Kill Team or Combat Patrol in that edition. We didn't see anything close to unique values for one on one until the recent Kill Team series of books was released.
And how, quantitatively, does that prove you right and us wrong? It doesn't.
Interesting that you excluded what I was quoting...
Only because I want to laser in on where you were wrong. You used the words "vastly superior" to misrepresent other people's arguments, and you can't even refute what I'm saying except to try to obfuscate the issue.
Hilarious that you think that we should only consider base values then ignore what considerations those base values bring, but when I bring up trying to equalize the points, you call it "nebulous".
Equalizing the points would imply that the Astartes are beating Necrons with strength of numbers, which would mean I was right.
Charistoph wrote: Don't complain about others misrepresenting, and then proceed to do so yourself. They initially cost more, they weren't more elite.
T5, 2+ save, and a field that gives everyone -1 to hit them? That's pretty damn elite. That's unequivocally more elite than Astartes.
Charistoph wrote: But that doesn't change the fact that this was the most basic trooper of the Necron army, and Marines are far from being the most basic trooper of the Imperium. Sure, on a galactic scale, and even on a game scale, they were close to even, and that's a good thing. It demonstrates the power of the Necron army that their cheapest, most throw away troops were standing toe-to-toe with the Tactical Marine instead of being absolutely dominated by them like Grots, Kroot, or Guardians. The Necorns START at the elite Marine's level instead of catching up to it like the other armies in 40K do. Or at least they used to before these latest codices.
The most basic trooper of the Necron army is a Scarab.
It's only backwards if you don't actually take the steps to consider it.
No, that's how it works. Again, you're using circular logic.
Charistoph wrote: Necron Warriors were the cheapest and most plentiful Necron model, period. Two units required with four more being able to be bought, minimum of 10 to a maximum of 20, allowing 120 Warriors maximum in an FOC. Flayed Ones were the same cost, but were limited to 10 and were Elites, so no more than 3 squads, with 30 total in an FOC. Every other model in the Necron army cost more, couldn't beat Flayed Ones in size, or weren't Necrons (Pariahs, Scarabs, C'tan, Spyders, and Monoliths didn't count).
No, Scarabs do count. It's insulting to think that you think I'd fall for that kind of linguistic sleight of hand.
Charistoph wrote: 120 3rd Ed Warriors was 2160 points. If they were priced as Tacticals, it would be 1800 points. A usual list saw at least 2 units of Warriors at 20 models each, though some reduced the size and spread them across several more units to bring more Warriors. That's 720 if they don't take Disruption Fields, at 15 points, that's 600. That's half the cost of a Monolith in difference, and almost a minimum squad of Immortals, or 8 more Warriors in difference.
The Phase out rule was a key lose condition for Necrons. The cheaper Warriors were, the harder it was to reach that Phase Out point. The pricing of Warriors had this in mind because pricing was made with taking the entire FOC in mind, not just one unit comparing them to each other. The cheaper the Warriors, the more you can take. The more Warriors you take the more your opponent has to kill to trigger Phase Out. What evidence can you provide to counter this?
You haven't actually provided any strong evidence here that Necron warriors were overcosted specifically because of Phase Out. Moreover, in basically all situations in 3e, a basic Necron warrior was as good or better than a marine in terms of attack power and durability, making their increased point cost justified on the level of power alone.
The "Sergeant" Lord can provide a Resurrection Orb which changed RP from a 5+ to a 4+, which changes those numbers Insectum used. The Ghost Ark can bring back d3 Warriors a turn to a unit, so what RP loses, the GA can bring back.
Where was the lie in that statement before "bending backwards"?
Like when you said that we stated that Necron Warriors were vastly superior to Astartes, or when you said that Astartes could beat Necron Warriors through strength of numbers, and therefore they're more elite.
The moment you start stating that Necron Warriors aren't the same level as Grots because Grots are cheaper, you have lost the point of this specific tier list. For comparing units of other armies to each other, that is the Galactic Scale, where points matter a little more, but not as much as stats and Special Rules.
No, he's shown that this "specific tier list" is not actually based on any meaningful criteria. Grots in an Ork army are more analogous to Scarabs in the Necron army; you don't want to admit that, because it shows you're full of gak, but it's true.
Because that is how Necron Warriors are listed in the lore since 5th Edition. The professional soldiers of the Necrontyr were converted to Immortals. The civilians and unprofessional soldiers were converted in to Warriors. They are literally the conscripts of the Necron army by definition.
And through the power of Necron science, they're a higher-tier unit than Astartes in many of their incarnations. Let's not forget that many Astartes are conscripted into their chapters, too.
Charistoph wrote: Because how they function in relation to other armies in the game or in the fluff meant nothing in this tier. It is only looking at how they function in their army alone. To which, the Warriors are the most numerous and cheapest of the Necron army, both in unit size and by being Troops. If you have a better example, please point out an Infantry Troop unit of the Necron army which can be taken for cheaper. provide the same number of bases or more in a single unit, and provide more units overall in a Patrol Detachment.
Considering Scarabs have more units per base, it's clear that you're trying to lie to prove your point.
2021/02/21 00:44:14
Subject: Thematically, should lesser demons, Necron warriors, etc, be less impressive than a basic Astartes?
Void__Dragon wrote: What a great world to live in, where Marines are finally as elite as they should be.
Maybe Astartes are where they should be in relation to Guardsmen, but everything else is out of wack.
Some things are, but Necron warriors? No, they're about right.
Mmmm... Nope, they aren't right either. Unless you're taking your cues from Bolter-porn.
In which case, please keep it out of this game, it doesn't belong.
2021/02/21 00:58:56
Subject: Thematically, should lesser demons, Necron warriors, etc, be less impressive than a basic Astartes?
Void__Dragon wrote: What a great world to live in, where Marines are finally as elite as they should be.
Maybe Astartes are where they should be in relation to Guardsmen, but everything else is out of wack.
Some things are, but Necron warriors? No, they're about right.
Mmmm... Nope, they aren't right either. Unless you're taking your cues from Bolter-porn.
In which case, please keep it out of this game, it doesn't belong.
Sorry the Necrons aren't a mary sue faction with a militia chaff troop numbering in the trillions that is individually better than a Space Marine.
Oh wait no I'm not, that's laughably stupid.
2021/02/21 01:09:27
Subject: Thematically, should lesser demons, Necron warriors, etc, be less impressive than a basic Astartes?
Void__Dragon wrote: What a great world to live in, where Marines are finally as elite as they should be.
Maybe Astartes are where they should be in relation to Guardsmen, but everything else is out of wack.
Some things are, but Necron warriors? No, they're about right.
Mmmm... Nope, they aren't right either. Unless you're taking your cues from Bolter-porn.
In which case, please keep it out of this game, it doesn't belong.
Sorry the Necrons aren't a mary sue faction with a militia chaff troop numbering in the trillions that is individually better than a Space Marine.
Oh wait no I'm not, that's laughably stupid.
You're absolutely correct. Having Mary Sue factions is laughably stupid.
And you are supporting Marines being such because...?
That said, let's change your strawman into a slightly different statement:
Sorry the Necrons aren't a faction with a militia troop numbering in the trillions that is individually better than a Space Marine with no special equipment.
This was part of the original appeal and horror of the Necrons, subdued by the fact that those trillions were still mostly asleep. This was part of what made it grimdark. Throwing this away for your bolter-porn fantasies is, to again borrow a phrase, laughably stupid.
2021/02/21 06:56:17
Subject: Thematically, should lesser demons, Necron warriors, etc, be less impressive than a basic Astartes?
Which when I bring in quantitative evidence, you claim it is bending over backwards". I didn't know that including a "Sergeant" and Dedicated Transport that was a standard take in normal FOCs is "bending over backwards".
The point values in an army, especially back in 3rd, was based on consideration of the army as a whole using the FOC, not just a Kill Team or a Combat Patrol, meanwhile your analysis is solely based on ignoring the rest of the army and expecting to go in to a Kill Team or Combat Patrol in that edition. We didn't see anything close to unique values for one on one until the recent Kill Team series of books was released.
And how, quantitatively, does that prove you right and us wrong? It doesn't.
How so? Anything else other than, "Nuh Uh, YOU'RE wrong!"?
Interesting that you excluded what I was quoting...
Only because I want to laser in on where you were wrong. You used the words "vastly superior" to misrepresent other people's arguments, and you can't even refute what I'm saying except to try to obfuscate the issue.
Actually I used the phrase "vastly superior" because that is the phrase YOU used in describing what I was saying, which is why the quote is important. But apparently you didn't catch that.
Hilarious that you think that we should only consider base values then ignore what considerations those base values bring, but when I bring up trying to equalize the points, you call it "nebulous".
Equalizing the points would imply that the Astartes are beating Necrons with strength of numbers, which would mean I was right.
Not quite. By using some steps to equalize those points through the flexibility that the Tacticals have, I can negate some of those advantages. I didn't even change the difference in numbers. And even as it is, this narrow view still ignores how everything works as an army.
Charistoph wrote: But that doesn't change the fact that this was the most basic trooper of the Necron army, and Marines are far from being the most basic trooper of the Imperium. Sure, on a galactic scale, and even on a game scale, they were close to even, and that's a good thing. It demonstrates the power of the Necron army that their cheapest, most throw away troops were standing toe-to-toe with the Tactical Marine instead of being absolutely dominated by them like Grots, Kroot, or Guardians. The Necorns START at the elite Marine's level instead of catching up to it like the other armies in 40K do. Or at least they used to before these latest codices.
The most basic trooper of the Necron army is a Scarab.
Scarabs are animalistic automatons that operate in swarms. Swarms are not Troopers, and are part of the Fast Attack group of the Necron Army. Rippers are closer to being basic Trooper because at least they've been in the Troops slot, but still aren't because they aren't Infantry.
Charistoph wrote: Necron Warriors were the cheapest and most plentiful Necron model, period. Two units required with four more being able to be bought, minimum of 10 to a maximum of 20, allowing 120 Warriors maximum in an FOC. Flayed Ones were the same cost, but were limited to 10 and were Elites, so no more than 3 squads, with 30 total in an FOC. Every other model in the Necron army cost more, couldn't beat Flayed Ones in size, or weren't Necrons (Pariahs, Scarabs, C'tan, Spyders, and Monoliths didn't count).
No, Scarabs do count. It's insulting to think that you think I'd fall for that kind of linguistic sleight of hand.
No linguistic sleight of hand at all. They are specifically stated as being ignored in the rule. Here:
Necron 3rd Edition wrote:PHASE OUT
If a Necron army is reduced to 25% or less of its original number of models..., it will disappear in an eerie fashion, leaving behind nothing of its presence. This gives an automatic victory to the enemy, regardless of the victory conditions of the scenario being played....Remember that you can only count models with the Necron special ability, so C'tan, Pariahs, Scarab swarms, Monoliths and Tomb Sypders do not contribute to the total number of Necrons in the army or to the current number of casualties. However when Phase Out occurs, the whole Necron army, including models without the Necron ability, phases out.
Highlighted in cyan for those who like to skip over important details, and examples were elipsed out for brevity.
Charistoph wrote: 120 3rd Ed Warriors was 2160 points. If they were priced as Tacticals, it would be 1800 points. A usual list saw at least 2 units of Warriors at 20 models each, though some reduced the size and spread them across several more units to bring more Warriors. That's 720 if they don't take Disruption Fields, at 15 points, that's 600. That's half the cost of a Monolith in difference, and almost a minimum squad of Immortals, or 8 more Warriors in difference.
The Phase out rule was a key lose condition for Necrons. The cheaper Warriors were, the harder it was to reach that Phase Out point. The pricing of Warriors had this in mind because pricing was made with taking the entire FOC in mind, not just one unit comparing them to each other. The cheaper the Warriors, the more you can take. The more Warriors you take the more your opponent has to kill to trigger Phase Out. What evidence can you provide to counter this?
You haven't actually provided any strong evidence here that Necron warriors were overcosted specifically because of Phase Out. Moreover, in basically all situations in 3e, a basic Necron warrior was as good or better than a marine in terms of attack power and durability, making their increased point cost justified on the level of power alone.
I never said they were overcosted. That is putting words in my mouth again. I said that they were priced with Phase Out in mind.
Nor were Necron Warriors as good or better than a Marine in terms of attack power, though they were in durability. If left to basic weapons, sure, but expecting a Marine Squad to just come with just Bolters is pure folly.
Lascannons, Missile Launchers, and Meltaguns were far more capable at killing Vehicles in 3rd Edition than Flayers because they could actually Penetrate most of the Vehicles (Land Raiders and Monoliths could be a problem, though). In order to have that same hitting power, one had to look at Heavy Destroyers or the Monolith.
Flamers and Heavy Bolters were far more effective against horde units like Boyz, Gants, and Gaunts because of their greater capacity at generating hits. In 3rd Edition, Rapid Fire weapons only shot once, period. They didn't get double tap till later. For Necrons to match that firepower, you're looking at base Destroyers, a Lord, or a Monolith.
The "Sergeant" Lord can provide a Resurrection Orb which changed RP from a 5+ to a 4+, which changes those numbers Insectum used. The Ghost Ark can bring back d3 Warriors a turn to a unit, so what RP loses, the GA can bring back.
And why does that support your argument?
If you can't figure out how improving the Reanimation Protocols in every Warrior Squad as well as having their own transport bringing models back every turn improves their durability, then you really don't understand what you're talking about.
Where was the lie in that statement before "bending backwards"?
Like when you said that we stated that Necron Warriors were vastly superior to Astartes, or when you said that Astartes could beat Necron Warriors through strength of numbers, and therefore they're more elite.
Here is another case of misrepresentation helped by deleting what I was quoting. Actually try reading what that statement was quoting for context, because nothing you said actually applies.
Charistoph wrote: The moment you start stating that Necron Warriors aren't the same level as Grots because Grots are cheaper, you have lost the point of this specific tier list. For comparing units of other armies to each other, that is the Galactic Scale, where points matter a little more, but not as much as stats and Special Rules.
No, he's shown that this "specific tier list" is not actually based on any meaningful criteria. Grots in an Ork army are more analogous to Scarabs in the Necron army; you don't want to admit that, because it shows you're full of gak, but it's true.
You're still wrong on two cases.
Scarabs are not Infantry nor have ever been Troops prior to 8th Edition, while Grots have always been Infantry and always been Troops, or do you prefer the kit's name of Gretchin? Maybe you're confusing Fantasy's Snotlings (who are Swarms) with Grots (who are closer to Goblins).
If Gretchin are not the cheapest and most numerous Infantry unit available in the Orks army, what is? You haven't provided a replacement in this. Keep in mind, the Boyz would be the Troopers in this case.
Because that is how Necron Warriors are listed in the lore since 5th Edition. The professional soldiers of the Necrontyr were converted to Immortals. The civilians and unprofessional soldiers were converted in to Warriors. They are literally the conscripts of the Necron army by definition.
And through the power of Necron science, they're a higher-tier unit than Astartes in many of their incarnations. Let's not forget that many Astartes are conscripted into their chapters, too.
In regards to conscription, it really depends on the Chapter. Most are volunteers who have fought as part of the locals fighters.
No matter the source, Astartes are also professionally trained to an extremely high caliber in relation to the rest of Humanity, given the best gear Humanity has to offer (for those not guarding the Golden Throne or dedicated to hunting Daemons), while Necron Warriors are given the bare minimum for a Trooper.
Charistoph wrote: Because how they function in relation to other armies in the game or in the fluff meant nothing in this tier. It is only looking at how they function in their army alone. To which, the Warriors are the most numerous and cheapest of the Necron army, both in unit size and by being Troops. If you have a better example, please point out an Infantry Troop unit of the Necron army which can be taken for cheaper. provide the same number of bases or more in a single unit, and provide more units overall in a Patrol Detachment.
Considering Scarabs have more units per base, it's clear that you're trying to lie to prove your point.
More Wounds per base, not more units per base (that's a contradiction in terms), and even then, they are fewer max bases per unit (9-10, depending on Edition, vs Warriors' 20). Scarabs are not Infantry, are not Troops, and have always been Fast Attack. A Patrol Detachment doesn't get a lot of Fast Attack slots, nor did the standard FOC of 3rd-5th Ed.
You don't seem to be reading very well. Try rereading what I say and apply the context of what I quote to it. It might actually help you understand it better instead of going half cocked on what you think I'm saying.
Void__Dragon wrote:Sorry the Necrons aren't a mary sue faction with a militia chaff troop numbering in the trillions that is individually better than a Space Marine.
Oh wait no I'm not, that's laughably stupid.
Sadly, this statement may describe half of the thread.
Though, we really don't know how many Necrontyr were converted to Warriors, but as many as there were saw enough losses that even the Silent King decided to put his whole culture to sleep for millions of years so that they would have an easier time conquering the galaxy... Woops.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2021/02/21 07:02:22
Are you a Wolf, a Sheep, or a Hound?
Megavolt wrote:They called me crazy…they called me insane…THEY CALLED ME LOONEY!! and boy, were they right.
2021/02/21 07:20:49
Subject: Thematically, should lesser demons, Necron warriors, etc, be less impressive than a basic Astartes?
Actually I used the phrase "vastly superior" because that is the phrase YOU used in describing what I was saying, which is why the quote is important. But apparently you didn't catch that.
No. You were the first one to use that phrase, and if you could quote me saying it from earlier in the thread you would. But you can't, so you won't, you'll just lie about it.
Not quite. By using some steps to equalize those points through the flexibility that the Tacticals have, I can negate some of those advantages. I didn't even change the difference in numbers. And even as it is, this narrow view still ignores how everything works as an army.
Scarabs are animalistic automatons that operate in swarms. Swarms are not Troopers, and are part of the Fast Attack group of the Necron Army. Rippers are closer to being basic Trooper because at least they've been in the Troops slot, but still aren't because they aren't Infantry.
And Scouts are currently in the Astartes "Elites" slot, but they're the least elite troop that that faction has to offer. Sorry, you're wrong; Scarabs are the "chaff" of the Necron army.
I never said they were overcosted. That is putting words in my mouth again. I said that they were priced with Phase Out in mind.
And do you have any evidence that the extra points *aren't* because of WBB? I don't think you do. So when you say they were priced with Phase Out in mind, it's bs.
Charistoph wrote: Nor were Necron Warriors as good or better than a Marine in terms of attack power, though they were in durability. If left to basic weapons, sure, but expecting a Marine Squad to just come with just Bolters is pure folly.
Special weapons have their own points costs distinct from basic Astartes/Necron point costs, and aren't part of this discussion.
Charistoph wrote: Lascannons, Missile Launchers, and Meltaguns were far more capable at killing Vehicles in 3rd Edition than Flayers because they could actually Penetrate most of the Vehicles (Land Raiders and Monoliths could be a problem, though). In order to have that same hitting power, one had to look at Heavy Destroyers or the Monolith.
Flamers and Heavy Bolters were far more effective against horde units like Boyz, Gants, and Gaunts because of their greater capacity at generating hits. In 3rd Edition, Rapid Fire weapons only shot once, period. They didn't get double tap till later. For Necrons to match that firepower, you're looking at base Destroyers, a Lord, or a Monolith.
Again, those have their own points costs, and aren't reflected in a basic Astartes.
If you can't figure out how improving the Reanimation Protocols in every Warrior Squad as well as having their own transport bringing models back every turn improves their durability, then you really don't understand what you're talking about.
Why would that be relevant? You're saying a bunch of things, some of which are true, and some of which are lies on your part, but you can't relate them back to any sort of coherent point (mainly because the point you're trying to argue is incorrect.)
Here is another case of misrepresentation helped by deleting what I was quoting. Actually try reading what that statement was quoting for context, because nothing you said actually applies.
Nope, I had the context right, and you know that, otherwise you'd actually be able to explain where I went wrong instead of lying more and going "nuh-uh!"
Scarabs are not Infantry nor have ever been Troops prior to 8th Edition,
Neither of those factors are relevant.
Charistoph wrote: while Grots have always been Infantry and always been Troops, or do you prefer the kit's name of Gretchin? Maybe you're confusing Fantasy's Snotlings (who are Swarms) with Grots (who are closer to Goblins).
If Gretchin are not the cheapest and most numerous Infantry unit available in the Orks army, what is? You haven't provided a replacement in this. Keep in mind, the Boyz would be the Troopers in this case.
Why would them being Infantry matter? You're moving goalposts to try to make your arguments correct, but I'm not the kind of idiot who would fall for that.
In regards to conscription, it really depends on the Chapter. Most are volunteers who have fought as part of the locals fighters.
Citation needed on that one.
Charistoph wrote: No matter the source, Astartes are also professionally trained to an extremely high caliber in relation to the rest of Humanity, given the best gear Humanity has to offer (for those not guarding the Golden Throne or dedicated to hunting Daemons), while Necron Warriors are given the bare minimum for a Trooper.
And that gear, as they were initially portrayed, is of a higher quality than what Astartes have. Moreover, their morale is high, and their accuracy and skill in melee is the equal of Astartes. So their relative position within their own faction doesn't really matter; the point is, they were better than an Astartes one for one, and should have remained so, in my estimation.
More Wounds per base, not more units per base (that's a contradiction in terms), and even then, they are fewer max bases per unit (9-10, depending on Edition, vs Warriors' 20). Scarabs are not Infantry, are not Troops, and have always been Fast Attack. A Patrol Detachment doesn't get a lot of Fast Attack slots, nor did the standard FOC of 3rd-5th Ed.
You don't seem to be reading very well. Try rereading what I say and apply the context of what I quote to it. It might actually help you understand it better instead of going half cocked on what you think I'm saying.
REMOVED - RULE #1 PLEASE. You keep bringing up intra-faction comparisons, when that's not relevant. It doesn't matter what position a Necron Warrior occupies in the Necron hierarchy- only its comparison to an Astartes. The Astartes are elite, sure, but they're the elite of a backwards anti-science society, no wonder they'd be outclassed by Necrons... Removed.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/02/21 10:04:22
2021/02/21 07:52:48
Subject: Thematically, should lesser demons, Necron warriors, etc, be less impressive than a basic Astartes?
I really don't understand what the problems with powerful Space Marines are.
They are supposed to be a pre-Imperium genetically engineered elite force capable of creating the Imperium of Man in record time and then be a pillar in keeping it together for like 10 000 years.
So I don't mind if they also work like it in the rules.
2021/02/21 07:55:48
Subject: Thematically, should lesser demons, Necron warriors, etc, be less impressive than a basic Astartes?
Gurkhal wrote: I really don't understand what the problems with powerful Space Marines are.
They are supposed to be a pre-Imperium genetically engineered elite force capable of creating the Imperium of Man in record time and then be a pillar in keeping it together for like 10 000 years.
So I don't mind if they also work like it in the rules.
Having powerful Space Marines isn't the problem. The problem is that the Space Marines of other factions (Aspect warriors, Necron Warriors etc.) aren't as powerful on the tabletop when they should be fluffwize.
2021/02/21 08:00:11
Subject: Thematically, should lesser demons, Necron warriors, etc, be less impressive than a basic Astartes?
Gurkhal wrote: I really don't understand what the problems with powerful Space Marines are.
They are supposed to be a pre-Imperium genetically engineered elite force capable of creating the Imperium of Man in record time and then be a pillar in keeping it together for like 10 000 years.
So I don't mind if they also work like it in the rules.
Having powerful Space Marines isn't the problem. The problem is that the Space Marines of other factions (Aspect warriors, Necron Warriors etc.) aren't as powerful on the tabletop when they should be fluffwize.
Then allow me to extend my desire for other such powerful fighters to be modelled, relatively, accurately in the rules.
2021/02/21 08:30:04
Subject: Thematically, should lesser demons, Necron warriors, etc, be less impressive than a basic Astartes?
Gurkhal wrote: I really don't understand what the problems with powerful Space Marines are.
They are supposed to be a pre-Imperium genetically engineered elite force capable of creating the Imperium of Man in record time and then be a pillar in keeping it together for like 10 000 years.
So I don't mind if they also work like it in the rules.
The central question was how they match up to things like Bloodletters and Necron Warriors, not IG.
2021/02/21 11:10:20
Subject: Thematically, should lesser demons, Necron warriors, etc, be less impressive than a basic Astartes?
I think Necrons is a tough one as they were taken in a new direction as the faction was fleshed out. A marine should be above average at all things (when compared to a guardsman being average), but the likes of Aspect Warriors, Daemons etc should be better at some things.
4 4 4 4 4 1 4 1 8
4 3 3 3 3 1 3 1 7
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2021/02/21 11:12:23
2021/02/21 11:15:05
Subject: Thematically, should lesser demons, Necron warriors, etc, be less impressive than a basic Astartes?
Dai wrote: I think Necrons is a tough one as they were taken in a new direction as the faction was fleshed out. A marine should be above average at all things (when compared to a guardsman being average), but the likes of Aspect Warriors, Daemons etc should be better at some things.
4 4 4 4 4 1 4 1 8
4 3 3 3 3 1 3 1 7
Sure. Problems arise when a Space Marine shoots like a Firewarrior, hits like a Banshee and is as durable as Necron Warrior.
2021/02/21 11:19:05
Subject: Thematically, should lesser demons, Necron warriors, etc, be less impressive than a basic Astartes?
The game is written now so that Space Marines are supposed to be the best at everything and everyone else is a horde army for them to kill in large numbers to make Space Marine players feel powerful. The game is a Space Marine power fantasy now. Weird choice but you can see that a lot of people like it in this thread and in other threads on the background forum and so on. For some reason they also kinda can't admit that this is what they like though.
Dai wrote: I think Necrons is a tough one as they were taken in a new direction as the faction was fleshed out. A marine should be above average at all things (when compared to a guardsman being average), but the likes of Aspect Warriors, Daemons etc should be better at some things.
4 4 4 4 4 1 4 1 8
4 3 3 3 3 1 3 1 7
This sounds very reasonable. I like the idea that in general there are plenty of stuff that are stronger than Space Marines at their specific thing but the marines are stronger than these guys in the fields that are not their specific thing.
The way I see it the Space Marines should probably not be the best in anything, but second best in everything. Thus a Howling Banishee hits better in melee but the Marine can take more of a beating and shoots better. A Tau may shooter better but the Marine is tougher and better at melee and so on. Kind of like excellent at everything, except numbers, but masters of nothing except that they can take a ton of damage and not get swept away by a single lucky roll, for the most part.
And mind you, Marine armies should probably be fairly small. More like strike forces than entire companies. But this is very much just my opinion.
*****
I wonder if some of the problem has to do with the limited diversification of stats? It seems to me that with stats ranging from 1-10, except Wounds, then its difficult to fine tune differences between models that are kind of similar but not quite at level. You either end up with them having the same stats or one being notably better or worse than the other.
I don't have a good solution to this but it is something which I've noticed.
2021/02/21 11:51:37
Subject: Thematically, should lesser demons, Necron warriors, etc, be less impressive than a basic Astartes?
Dai wrote: I think Necrons is a tough one as they were taken in a new direction as the faction was fleshed out. A marine should be above average at all things (when compared to a guardsman being average), but the likes of Aspect Warriors, Daemons etc should be better at some things.
4 4 4 4 4 1 4 1 8
4 3 3 3 3 1 3 1 7
This sounds very reasonable. I like the idea that in general there are plenty of stuff that are stronger than Space Marines at their specific thing but the marines are stronger than these guys in the fields that are not their specific thing.
The way I see it the Space Marines should probably not be the best in anything, but second best in everything. Thus a Howling Banishee hits better in melee but the Marine can take more of a beating and shoots better. A Tau may shooter better but the Marine is tougher and better at melee and so on. Kind of like excellent at everything, except numbers, but masters of nothing except that they can take a ton of damage and not get swept away by a single lucky roll, for the most part.
And mind you, Marine armies should probably be fairly small. More like strike forces than entire companies. But this is very much just my opinion.
*****
I wonder if some of the problem has to do with the limited diversification of stats? It seems to me that with stats ranging from 1-10, except Wounds, then its difficult to fine tune differences between models that are kind of similar but not quite at level. You either end up with them having the same stats or one being notably better or worse than the other.
I don't have a good solution to this but it is something which I've noticed.
The lack of diversification in stats certainly is something. After all, for base troops, most of them tend to be 3 or 4 (ws, bs, s, t). Add to that that marines have a 4 for everything, and a lack of desire to move further on the scale (like giving shooting aspect warriors a bs of 5 or melee ones a ws of 5) you have a very limited scale indeed. It's not even a 1-10 scale because for most stats, 1 and 2 practically don't exist, and above 4 tends to be a territory beyond normal infantry although it still exists. So yes, stats offer very little in the way of differentiation.
Add to that that specialists of other races are basically only allowed to go up to the Marine Limit (beyond that is mostly the territory of heroes and the like) it means that marines will always be better unless their adversaries somehow have better equipment.
You are comparing garbage units that are almost universally over priced and are, with the exception of the Guardians, less than 1/2 the price of a Necron Warrior. 
