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.

Hecaton wrote:

 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.

Oh god you're being serious?

By that logic, the most basic trooper of the Space Marine army is either a Scout or a Servitor. But, that's clearly ridiculous, as well as the idea that the Scarab, what is essentially a worker drone, is the "basic trooper".

If you were trying to make a point, you just lost all respect I might have had for it.

 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.

There's no sleight of hand. You're just crying foul because you don't have a response.

There's no shame in that, but it's kind of embarrassing seeing you call foul over reasonable logic.

 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.

They're really not. Scarabs are literally used as drones and assistants. *Snotlings* might be, but snotlings aren't fielded on the battlefield. Gretchin aren't snotlings. Gretchin literally *are* chaff units.

Scarabs are the same thing that Servitors are - non-combatant forces present on the battlefield used in a combat situation. This is not the same as the chaff/conscript tier, which are poorly trained units who's primary goal is combat.

Hecaton wrote:

 Void__Dragon wrote:


Some things are, but Necron warriors? No, they're about right.

Well, those of us who have been playing the game for some time disagree.

Yikes, that's a dogwhistle if ever I heard one.

So if Scouts arent "chaff", and Scarabs aren't "chaff". . . Why do Warriors need to be "chaff" if Tacticals aren't "chaff"?

Why do armies need "chaff"? And "chaff" or not, why do they have to be worse than Space Marines?

Edit: and I still think it's arguable that Scarabs are the chaff of Necrons, but it's really beside the point.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Charistoph wrote:

Insectum7 wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:

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.

I don't recall seeing any quantitative evidence.

@"Sergeant" etc. If you have to spend additional points on support units to meet a units prior capability, that means the unit has degraded.

@points: context matters for points, yes. But when a unit gets reduced in ppm by 30%, and their base durability takes a huge hit, the correspondence is pretty effin clear.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

Oh god you're being serious?

By that logic, the most basic trooper of the Space Marine army is either a Scout or a Servitor. But, that's clearly ridiculous, as well as the idea that the Scarab, what is essentially a worker drone, is the "basic trooper".

If you were trying to make a point, you just lost all respect I might have had for it.

Depends on what you mean my "most basic" - in the sense of "least elite," sure.

Removed - Rule #1 please

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
There's no sleight of hand. You're just crying foul because you don't have a response.

There's no shame in that, but it's kind of embarrassing seeing you call foul over reasonable logic.

It's not reasonable logic - scarabs are just excluded because they'd prove these Charistoph's arguments wrong, for no particular reason.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
They're really not. Scarabs are literally used as drones and assistants. *Snotlings* might be, but snotlings aren't fielded on the battlefield. Gretchin aren't snotlings. Gretchin literally *are* chaff units.

Scarabs are the same thing that Servitors are - non-combatant forces present on the battlefield used in a combat situation. This is not the same as the chaff/conscript tier, which are poorly trained units who's primary goal is combat.

Given that Necron Warriors are BS and WS 4/3+, you can't really describe them as "poorly trained" so they don't fall into the chaff territory either. The closest thing Necrons have are Scarabs, which are so numerous and weak that they are represented multiples to a base like rippers or snotlings.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
Yikes, that's a dogwhistle if ever I heard one.

We don't have to "whistle." The game has changed in this way, to its detriment.

Insectum7 wrote:So if Scouts arent "chaff", and Scarabs aren't "chaff". . . Why do Warriors need to be "chaff" if Tacticals aren't "chaff"?

Why do armies need "chaff"? And "chaff" or not, why do they have to be worse than Space Marines?

Edit: and I still think it's arguable that Scarabs are the chaff of Necrons, but it's really beside the point.

Because I think you're misunderstanding what the point being made in that particular example was.

I believe what is being discussed is the internal status of those units within their faction (faction being IoM, in the context of this) - not at all how they related to their gameplay utility.

Necron Warriors *are* chaff conscripted troops *in regards to their own standing in the Necron army* because that's what their lore paints them as. That doesn't necessarily make them inferior. I'm personally undecided on where I stand on the matter of Warriors strength relative to Astartes, but I am seeing some dishonest arguments all the same.

Do armies need chaff? No, they don't, I'm not sure where anyone said that was the case. But in the Necrons' own lore, they *are* conscripted chaff troops. Does that make them inferior? Not necessarily, which I think is what people are getting hung up on. They can be "chaff" and also powerful.

Again, as I just said - I'm not weighing in on where I think Warriors should be on the power scale, because I'm still undecided myself, but I will attempt to clear up what I see as a misrepresentation of an argument.

Hecaton wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

Oh god you're being serious?

By that logic, the most basic trooper of the Space Marine army is either a Scout or a Servitor. But, that's clearly ridiculous, as well as the idea that the Scarab, what is essentially a worker drone, is the "basic trooper".

If you were trying to make a point, you just lost all respect I might have had for it.

Depends on what you mean my "most basic" - in the sense of "least elite," sure.

By that logic then, Servitors are the most basic Space Marine unit. Perhaps that lens might need adjusting.

Removed - Rule #1 please

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
There's no sleight of hand. You're just crying foul because you don't have a response.

There's no shame in that, but it's kind of embarrassing seeing you call foul over reasonable logic.

It's not reasonable logic - scarabs are just excluded because they'd prove these Charistoph's arguments wrong, for no particular reason.

Why are you ignoring Servitors then? Scarab aren't included because they simply aren't what's being judged.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
They're really not. Scarabs are literally used as drones and assistants. *Snotlings* might be, but snotlings aren't fielded on the battlefield. Gretchin aren't snotlings. Gretchin literally *are* chaff units.

Scarabs are the same thing that Servitors are - non-combatant forces present on the battlefield used in a combat situation. This is not the same as the chaff/conscript tier, which are poorly trained units who's primary goal is combat.

Given that Necron Warriors are BS and WS 4/3+, you can't really describe them as "poorly trained" so they don't fall into the chaff territory either. The closest thing Necrons have are Scarabs, which are so numerous and weak that they are represented multiples to a base like rippers or snotlings.

Yet again, you're missing the point. This classification isn't about relative similarity in profile. It's about *how they are described within their faction*.

A scarab is a construction tool. The warrior is a press-ganged conscript. They are, by the Necron standard, poorly trained, but that doesn't mean that's the same standard as everyone else. You're complaining about how the comparison is rubbish because you don't understand how this particular comparison is being conducted. You're getting hung up on "chaff" needing to be of the same level, when it's the case here that what different factions class their chaff as are at different tiers.

So, the chaff of one faction might be closer to the trooper tier of a different faction, for example.

Go back, read it again, and maybe you'll get somewhere.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
Yikes, that's a dogwhistle if ever I heard one.

We don't have to "whistle." The game has changed in this way, to its detriment.

In the words of The Dude, "that's just like, uh, your opinion".
Bringing out the "we've been around longer" card just reeks of falling back on false authority when you can't come up with an argument that stands on it's own merit. Just a little warning for how that comes across, aye?

Again, just to make clear - not weighing in on where I think the power swings, but just pointing out some pretty sketchy misinterpretations of a point.

I made a related thread, with a poll.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
Because I think you're misunderstanding what the point being made in that particular example was.

I believe what is being discussed is the internal status of those units within their faction (faction being IoM, in the context of this) - not at all how they related to their gameplay utility.

Necron Warriors *are* chaff conscripted troops *in regards to their own standing in the Necron army* because that's what their lore paints them as. That doesn't necessarily make them inferior. I'm personally undecided on where I stand on the matter of Warriors strength relative to Astartes, but I am seeing some dishonest arguments all the same.

Do armies need chaff? No, they don't, I'm not sure where anyone said that was the case. But in the Necrons' own lore, they *are* conscripted chaff troops. Does that make them inferior? Not necessarily, which I think is what people are getting hung up on. They can be "chaff" and also powerful.

Again, as I just said - I'm not weighing in on where I think Warriors should be on the power scale, because I'm still undecided myself, but I will attempt to clear up what I see as a misrepresentation of an argument.

Necron warriors are not "chaff" because the Necrons devote significant resources to repairing them and in fact historically have just up and left if they lose too many of them. They're the foot soldiers, sure, but they treat them with much more care than the Imperium does theirs.

The other thing is that argument towards how a faction, internally, treats its troops have no bearing on the overall argument of the thread, which is a cross-faction comparison. If you think that that directly relates, you're wrong, but people have been presenting that as an argument for why Astartes should be superior to everyone else's units.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
By that logic then, Servitors are the most basic Space Marine unit. Perhaps that lens might need adjusting.

In a certain sense, they are, which is exactly why the criteria created is meaningless.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:


There's no shame in that, but it's kind of embarrassing seeing you call foul over reasonable logic.

Nah, I'm pointing out how the meaningless bleating of "Necrons are chaff units and therefore should be less powerful than Tactical Marines" has both incorrect premises and wouldn't follow from those premises even if it was true.

But I'm guessing logic isn't your strong suit.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
Why are you ignoring Servitors then? Scarab aren't included because they simply aren't what's being judged.

I'm not ignoring servitors. My argument never involved them. I agree, they are pretty much the "most expendable" thing in the Astartes list, even if, depending on the edition, they might actually be more dangerous than a scout due to having an industrial power fist.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
Scarabs are the same thing that Servitors are - non-combatant forces present on the battlefield used in a combat situation. This is not the same as the chaff/conscript tier, which are poorly trained units who's primary goal is combat.

Neither of those are non-combatant. Servitors are sometimes support personnel, sometimes have weaponry of their own, and Scarabs' perform a specialized rule on the battlefield.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
Yet again, you're missing the point. This classification isn't about relative similarity in profile. It's about *how they are described within their faction*.

First of all, they're not described as chaff within their faction. Find me a passage that describes Necrons as being as careless about their troopers as the Imperial Guard is about the average guardsman (spoilers: you can't). Second, the basic Necron Warrior has comparable "training" to the elite units of other factions. Third, the comparison made by the thread was comparing Necron Warriors to things outside of their faction, so even if they were "chaff" that wouldn't be relevant to the argument.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
A scarab is a construction tool. The warrior is a press-ganged conscript. They are, by the Necron standard, poorly trained, but that doesn't mean that's the same standard as everyone else. You're complaining about how the comparison is rubbish because you don't understand how this particular comparison is being conducted. You're getting hung up on "chaff" needing to be of the same level, when it's the case here that what different factions class their chaff as are at different tiers.

I understand the comparison perfectly, and I've already explained how it doesn't make a good argument.

As I mentioned above, "chaff" doesn't have to be of the same level, but Necrons aren't chaff. Fire Warriors aren't chaff, because the Tau are not as disregarding of sentient life as the Imperium.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
Go back, read it again, and maybe you'll get somewhere.

Nah, again, I read it, and I understand the arguments being made better than the people making them, which is honestly kind of sad.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
In the words of The Dude, "that's just like, uh, your opinion".
Bringing out the "we've been around longer" card just reeks of falling back on false authority when you can't come up with an argument that stands on it's own merit. Just a little warning for how that comes across, aye?

Yeah, it is my opinion, but there's good narrative reasons why Astartes shouldn't be portrayed as effortlessly overcoming all threats they encounter (including spiky Astartes). I'm guessing that would ruin the power fantasy for you, though.

And it isn't false authority when it's generally understood that 40k has lost some of its spark over the years.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
Again, just to make clear - not weighing in on where I think the power swings, but just pointing out some pretty sketchy misinterpretations of a point.

And you've failed at that, considering that you think that the Astartes power fantasy is more important than having a good game or a good story.

Well as a Necron player I do view Scarabs as our version of chaff, in the absence of anything better. We use them to screen and to eat smites, amongst other things

Do I wish they were cheaper or we had even crappier units to use as chaff? Yes, but you gotta work with what you have

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

Insectum7 wrote:So if Scouts arent "chaff", and Scarabs aren't "chaff". . . Why do Warriors need to be "chaff" if Tacticals aren't "chaff"?

Why do armies need "chaff"? And "chaff" or not, why do they have to be worse than Space Marines?

Edit: and I still think it's arguable that Scarabs are the chaff of Necrons, but it's really beside the point.

Because I think you're misunderstanding what the point being made in that particular example was.

I believe what is being discussed is the internal status of those units within their faction (faction being IoM, in the context of this) - not at all how they related to their gameplay utility.

Necron Warriors *are* chaff conscripted troops *in regards to their own standing in the Necron army* because that's what their lore paints them as. That doesn't necessarily make them inferior. I'm personally undecided on where I stand on the matter of Warriors strength relative to Astartes, but I am seeing some dishonest arguments all the same.

Do armies need chaff? No, they don't, I'm not sure where anyone said that was the case. But in the Necrons' own lore, they *are* conscripted chaff troops. Does that make them inferior? Not necessarily, which I think is what people are getting hung up on. They can be "chaff" and also powerful.

Again, as I just said - I'm not weighing in on where I think Warriors should be on the power scale, because I'm still undecided myself, but I will attempt to clear up what I see as a misrepresentation of an argument.

Well like I said, either way it's beside the point, since chaff or not there's no reason they need to be lesser troops than marines.

Hecaton wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:

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.

Talk in specifics here.

I have several times, you've ignored them. Go back and read if you really want to know.

Hecaton wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:

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.

Scouts have been Troops. Scouts are and always have been Infantry.

Scarabs have never been Infantry, nor have they ever been Troops. You have yet to counter this. For quite a time the Swarms couldn't do anything with Objectives. In 3rd Ed, it was literally a rule for the Scarab Swarms in their entry.

They can be used as chaff, since they provide Wounds on the cheap, but their Swarms still can't provide more bases than a Warrior unit, and require a specialty Detachment to provide more units.

Hecaton wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:

No linguistic sleight of hand at all. They are specifically stated as being ignored in the rule

Whether or not they're affected by that rule has nothing to do with whether they're more or less elite than Necrons.

The point of the paragraphs were referencing how to provide the most models to prevent Phase Out. You have misrepresented me again here because you didn't take time to read.

Hecaton wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:

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.

I never excluded WBB, either. Again, misrepresenting by trying to counter something I did not say.

It's not like they had a protocol for determining the base cost of units back then. I find it quite probable that they tested it (as "scientific" as their testing is) and found at certain point costs Warriors made it too hard to Phase Out the army, so they raised the points. I doubt they ever just took 10 Necron Warriors against 10 Barebone Tacticals and based their points on the result in those days like you insist we do here now.

Hecaton wrote:

 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.

No, YOU don't want them as part of this discussion because it counters your points, especially when it was rarer than hen's teeth for a Tactical Marine Squad to NOT have Weapon upgrades. The idea is as ridiculous as not having a 3rd Ed Necron Lord with a Reanimation Orb.

Hecaton wrote:

 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.

Then provide sufficient evidence that bare bones Tactical were a valid way to run them to make it a focus of the discussion. Currently the only time I see Marines doing that is in 30K/Horus Heresy where they literally don't have the option.

Hecaton wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:

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.)

So you don't know what you're talking about.

It's a discussion about durability. How they achieved that durability changed, and aside from the Armour Save, is roughly the same, if not improved due to the ease of access to the Ghost Ark as opposed to the Monolith.

Hecaton wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:

You're still wrong on two cases.

Scarabs are not Infantry nor have ever been Troops prior to 8th Edition,

Neither of those factors are relevant.

Considering those are exactly the standards I presented and have been using and you ignored, I would consider them relevant.

Hecaton wrote:

 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.

Actually I've used the same goal posts the entire time. You just didn't understand why the goal posts were there in the first place and want them moved to satisfy you.

Why would being Infantry matter? Infantry could board transports. In some Editions, only Infantry could take Objectives while Swarms were denied. Swarms are animalistic groups as opposed to individuals. There is no point in including Scarabs in this discussion because they are not Infantry like the Tactical Marine, the Guard Conscript, the Gretchin, the Boyz, the Guardians, the Dire Avengers, etc.

Hecaton wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:

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.

Cite where they are all conscripts first.

Hecaton wrote:

 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.

Their basic gun is barely higher quality than what Astartes had as a basic firearm, it really depended on targets. Astartes could equip upgrades that were better at certain jobs to compensate, though.

The morale of Necron Warriors is literally nothing. This has always been the case. Their Leadership was better, though, that's true.

Necron Warriors could hit things in melee as skillfully as an Astartes, but their low Initiative meant they were a little less skilled and more easily Swept, actually, nor do they have access to Frag Grenades to compensate for Charging in to Cover. There is a reason that trying to Sweep them was a standard tactic for a very long time.

Necron Warriors being the cheap Conscript of the Necron Army is actually part of the point that you continue to ignore, though. If they are close to the Tactical Marine (either slightly above or slightly below), but they are still the weakest Infantry unit of the Necron Army, then that should indicate how much more powerful on the Galactic Scale the units of the Necrons should be above everyone else. I've said this repeatedly at this point, but no, you assume I need the Marines to be the most powerful evah.

Hecaton wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:

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.

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.

Again, misrepresenting what I have said because you want to make your point. For the second time in this response, and I don't know how many times I have said it before, the importance of recognizing that the Necron Warrior is at the same status in the Necron Army as the Conscript is to the Imperium of Man, yet be able to go toe to toe with the mighty Astartes, is to demonstrate just how powerful the Necron army as a whole should be. Even if Warriors weren't upgraded this codex in response to the upgrades the Marines got, the rest of the Necron army should have had the same appropriate upgrades in turn to compensate. As it is, Warriors should have received an upgrade as well.

Cynista wrote:Well as a Necron player I do view Scarabs as our version of chaff, in the absence of anything better. We use them to screen and to eat smites, amongst other things

Do I wish they were cheaper or we had even crappier units to use as chaff? Yes, but you gotta work with what you have

Well, yeah, you can use them as chaff, especially since their rules have went all over the place from codex to codex. It got easier after Phase Out was no longer a problem, though.

Still they couldn't provide the number of bases for Phase Out protection with the 3rd Ed Codex, have never been Troops, and couldn't touch Objectives for some time.

Insectum7 wrote:Well like I said, either way it's beside the point, since chaff or not there's no reason they need to be lesser troops than marines.

They can, so long as the difference isn't to any large degree, and so long as Immortals are at least as much better over Tacticals as Tacticals are over the Necron Warriors. Either way, in terms of both game and lore power, it should be obvious to put them in the same tier ranking when comparing all the armies together. I don't think that has really held since the Primaris were launched, and has only gotten worse with these latest codices.

Hecaton wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
Because I think you're misunderstanding what the point being made in that particular example was.

I believe what is being discussed is the internal status of those units within their faction (faction being IoM, in the context of this) - not at all how they related to their gameplay utility.

Necron Warriors *are* chaff conscripted troops *in regards to their own standing in the Necron army* because that's what their lore paints them as. That doesn't necessarily make them inferior. I'm personally undecided on where I stand on the matter of Warriors strength relative to Astartes, but I am seeing some dishonest arguments all the same.

Do armies need chaff? No, they don't, I'm not sure where anyone said that was the case. But in the Necrons' own lore, they *are* conscripted chaff troops. Does that make them inferior? Not necessarily, which I think is what people are getting hung up on. They can be "chaff" and also powerful.

Again, as I just said - I'm not weighing in on where I think Warriors should be on the power scale, because I'm still undecided myself, but I will attempt to clear up what I see as a misrepresentation of an argument.

Necron warriors are not "chaff" because the Necrons devote significant resources to repairing them and in fact historically have just up and left if they lose too many of them. They're the foot soldiers, sure, but they treat them with much more care than the Imperium does theirs.

Significant resources? I'm not sure they "devote" resources so much as "they can, so they do" when it comes to repair.

Regarding their Phase Out, that never felt like a "compassion" thing, and actually far more as just tactical decision on the behalf of the Overlord.

I wouldn't say they're treated with more care. Both Imperial and Necron commanders throw their conscripts and warriors in fairly heedlessly - it's just that Necron chaff is just much better.

The other thing is that argument towards how a faction, internally, treats its troops have no bearing on the overall argument of the thread, which is a cross-faction comparison. If you think that that directly relates, you're wrong, but people have been presenting that as an argument for why Astartes should be superior to everyone else's units.

Perhaps not, but it would be helpful if you actually were talking about what that argument *is*, instead of erecting your own misinterpretation of what it is.

As I said, I'm not decided on where I fall, but misrepresenting arguments ain't on.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
By that logic then, Servitors are the most basic Space Marine unit. Perhaps that lens might need adjusting.

In a certain sense, they are, which is exactly why the criteria created is meaningless.

Except they're not, because Servitors aren't used in a chaff function in the Space Marine army, which renders your definition of "chaff" somewhat flawed.

Chaff isn't just "weakest unit". It's "relatively untrained unit used to soak bullets". Scarabs don't fit this, as they're not sent into battle as bullet sponges - they *were* deployed as vehicle shredders and armour busters and menial labourers, in a similar way to Servitors. But Conscripts and Warriors? They do.

Chaff isn't a consistent tier. It's a tier within the faction.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:


There's no shame in that, but it's kind of embarrassing seeing you call foul over reasonable logic.

Nah, I'm pointing out how the meaningless bleating of "Necrons are chaff units and therefore should be less powerful than Tactical Marines" has both incorrect premises and wouldn't follow from those premises even if it was true.

I don't think anyone was claiming that just because they were chaff, they had to be less powerful. In fact, they explicitly said that they *wanted* Warriors to be powerful.

Yet again what I mean by misrepresenting arguments.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
Why are you ignoring Servitors then? Scarab aren't included because they simply aren't what's being judged.

I'm not ignoring servitors.

Uh, you never mentioned them until I did. I think that's definitely ignoring.

My argument never involved them.

Exactly - you didn't even feature them in your breakdown - almost like they never crossed your mind, because your point is based on faulty logic.

I agree, they are pretty much the "most expendable" thing in the Astartes list, even if, depending on the edition, they might actually be more dangerous than a scout due to having an industrial power fist.

But, the most important thing is that they're *not* used in that manner. Just because they're the "most expendable thing" doesn't make them chaff *if they're not used as chaff*, which is the point being made. Scarabs and Servitors are combat engineer assistant units, builders in an RTS. They're not "chaff" just because they're cheap.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
Scarabs are the same thing that Servitors are - non-combatant forces present on the battlefield used in a combat situation. This is not the same as the chaff/conscript tier, which are poorly trained units who's primary goal is combat.

Neither of those are non-combatant. Servitors are sometimes support personnel, sometimes have weaponry of their own, and Scarabs' perform a specialized rule on the battlefield.

Servitors are glorified automata, and a Scarab's role on the battlefield is shredding armour. Neither of which are "chaff" roles.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
Yet again, you're missing the point. This classification isn't about relative similarity in profile. It's about *how they are described within their faction*.

First of all, they're not described as chaff within their faction.

They literally are. They're indentured slaves, press-ganged into service. Do you need a reminder, or are you still stuck in older lore?
"The everyday citizens of Necrontyr society received the leftovers; comparatively primitive bodies that almost served as prisons: these, now the Necron Warriors, are incapable of feeling almost all emotion, and retain little sentience."
"It was a given that the civilian necrontyr would not receive the same care as their betters during biotransferrence, but it is possible that this mental degradation was intentional: all the better for the nobles to command their servants and receive total, unconditional loyalty." Source, 5th ed Codex.

Gee, that sounds awfully like a chaff unit.

Find me a passage that describes Necrons as being as careless about their troopers as the Imperial Guard is about the average guardsman (spoilers: you can't).

My above quotes would suffice. Leaving your civilians trapped in mental prisons and robbed of sentience is *much* worse than human shields.

Second, the basic Necron Warrior has comparable "training" to the elite units of other factions.

"With their limited mental capacities, Necron Warriors require constant instructions." - 5th ed.

Sorry, but the Codex disagrees.

Third, the comparison made by the thread was comparing Necron Warriors to things outside of their faction, so even if they were "chaff" that wouldn't be relevant to the argument.

But that's not what you were arguing about though. I'm not discussing the comparison in the thread, I'm pointing out how you were arguing in bad faith.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
A scarab is a construction tool. The warrior is a press-ganged conscript. They are, by the Necron standard, poorly trained, but that doesn't mean that's the same standard as everyone else. You're complaining about how the comparison is rubbish because you don't understand how this particular comparison is being conducted. You're getting hung up on "chaff" needing to be of the same level, when it's the case here that what different factions class their chaff as are at different tiers.

I understand the comparison perfectly

Debatable.

and I've already explained how it doesn't make a good argument.

Also debatable.

As I mentioned above, "chaff" doesn't have to be of the same level, but Necrons aren't chaff. Fire Warriors aren't chaff, because the Tau are not as disregarding of sentient life as the Imperium.

Disagree. My above quotes definitely put Necrons on chaff tier. Tau "chaff" tier would be Gun Drones, because they're *actually* built for combat and deployed as frontline troops, unlike Scarabs and Servitors. Does this mean Necrons are equal to gun drones in power? No.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
In the words of The Dude, "that's just like, uh, your opinion".
Bringing out the "we've been around longer" card just reeks of falling back on false authority when you can't come up with an argument that stands on it's own merit. Just a little warning for how that comes across, aye?

Yeah, it is my opinion, but there's good narrative reasons why Astartes shouldn't be portrayed as effortlessly overcoming all threats they encounter (including spiky Astartes). I'm guessing that would ruin the power fantasy for you, though.

Ah, the tried and true method of "this person thinks differently, they must be a child with a power fantasy" - look, I know it's easy to draw on your own experience of how the world works for you, but we're not all like you, yeah?

You're welcome to your opinion, but you're all to eager to infantilise anyone who disagrees, and frankly, it just makes you like like a child.

And it isn't false authority when it's generally understood that 40k has lost some of its spark over the years.

Ah, "spark" - that famously objective thing that we can all measure!
For some people, they might have felt that 40k has regained a spark of life. I'm not making claims on my standing in the matter, but, you know, I'd perhaps get your high horse.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
Again, just to make clear - not weighing in on where I think the power swings, but just pointing out some pretty sketchy misinterpretations of a point.

And you've failed at that, considering that you think that the Astartes power fantasy is more important than having a good game or a good story.

Where have I mentioned anything about an Astartes power fantasy? Hell, I've explicitly said I don't have a stance in this discussion, other than to point out sheer intellectual dishonesty, which you're demonstrating for us right now.

Come on, you're clearly eager to pin some kind of "power fantasy" on me - but where have I said it? Or was that all just your lashing out to make up for a failing argument?



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Charistoph wrote:
Again, misrepresenting what I have said because you want to make your point. For the second time in this response, and I don't know how many times I have said it before, the importance of recognizing that the Necron Warrior is at the same status in the Necron Army as the Conscript is to the Imperium of Man, yet be able to go toe to toe with the mighty Astartes, is to demonstrate just how powerful the Necron army as a whole should be. Even if Warriors weren't upgraded this codex in response to the upgrades the Marines got, the rest of the Necron army should have had the same appropriate upgrades in turn to compensate. As it is, Warriors should have received an upgrade as well.

No, you've been pretty clear with that, it's not even slanderous to Warriors - hell, you make them sound much more powerful and threatening than "nuh uh Necwons are TOTALLY super-duper powerful how DARE you compare them with humans". It's why the Tau and Necrons were so scary, their basic rifles and chaff respectively were a match for factions of elite soldiers But, alas. It seems that there's just no getting through to intellectual dishonesty and blatant misrepresentation.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
In the words of The Dude, "that's just like, uh, your opinion".
Bringing out the "we've been around longer" card just reeks of falling back on false authority when you can't come up with an argument that stands on it's own merit. Just a little warning for how that comes across, aye?

Yeah, it is my opinion, but there's good narrative reasons why Astartes shouldn't be portrayed as effortlessly overcoming all threats they encounter (including spiky Astartes). I'm guessing that would ruin the power fantasy for you, though.

Ah, the tried and true method of "this person thinks differently, they must be a child with a power fantasy" - look, I know it's easy to draw on your own experience of how the world works for you, but we're not all like you, yeah?

You're welcome to your opinion, but you're all to eager to infantilise anyone who disagrees, and frankly, it just makes you like like a child.

You missed the meat of the argument. I've highlighted it to help you out.

Yeah, I'm not going to engage anymore with people who refuse to engage with my posts because it would prove them wrong. If the mods won't do anything about you lying and trolling, it's not worth it.

Charistoph, you continually lied about your misrepresentation of other people claiming that Necron warriors were "vastly superior" to Astartes. As Insectum pointed out, you either ignored or failed to understand my argument. You're just incapable of understanding how wrong your worldview is; both of you are firmly in Dunning-Kruger territory.

Smudge, as per previous posts you think that Astartes should effortlessly beat their enemies in the background and effortlessly beat non-Astartes armies in the game, too, so you're not a good faith actor here, just a bolter porn aficionado.

Insectum7 wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
In the words of The Dude, "that's just like, uh, your opinion".
Bringing out the "we've been around longer" card just reeks of falling back on false authority when you can't come up with an argument that stands on it's own merit. Just a little warning for how that comes across, aye?

Yeah, it is my opinion, but there's good narrative reasons why Astartes shouldn't be portrayed as effortlessly overcoming all threats they encounter (including spiky Astartes). I'm guessing that would ruin the power fantasy for you, though.

Ah, the tried and true method of "this person thinks differently, they must be a child with a power fantasy" - look, I know it's easy to draw on your own experience of how the world works for you, but we're not all like you, yeah?

You're welcome to your opinion, but you're all to eager to infantilise anyone who disagrees, and frankly, it just makes you like like a child.

You missed the meat of the argument. I've highlighted it to help you out.

Thank you for the highlight, but I would like to emphasise that those good narrative reasons are still a personal preference for certain people. I'm not going to say that those are wrong, only that not everyone believes in those narrative reasons. And before you think that's me saying that, that's not my personal opinion. As I have said, I'm still undecided on where I stand regarding the power of things. I'm only saying that those reasons don't mean the same to everyone, and that's not something to sneer down on other people for.

But, more to the point, and I think this is the most important thing: I've not said at all that I disagree with that notion but I'm still being accused of having a power fantasy, despite explicitly not giving an opinion on the actual topic. Insectum, I'm sure you've seen that as well - is that something you think is being fair?

Hecaton wrote:Yeah, I'm not going to engage anymore with people who refuse to engage with my posts because it would prove them wrong. If the mods won't do anything about you lying and trolling, it's not worth it.

Where have I refused to engage? I've remarked on all your "points", and highlighted the issues with all of them, or why you seem to be mistaken.

As for lying and trolling - just because you disagree with me doesn't mean I'm lying and trolling, and frankly, you just look like a sore loser.

You're just incapable of understanding how wrong your worldview is; both of you are firmly in Dunning-Kruger territory.

You see, the fun part about Dunning-Kruger is that you would fit in it as well - and you'd be none the wiser. Are you so sure of yourself that you don't?
Just food for thought.

Smudge, as per previous posts

Oooh, goody! Let's see them, shall we? After all, if you're just going to accuse me of things, bring proof, yes?

Or, maybe, and perhaps a mod can weigh in, perhaps launching directly into ad-hom attacks and disrespectful rumours starting from other threads aren't expected from users of this site.

But regardless, if you're going to make that claim, bring proof please, dear.

Sgt_Smudge wrote:No, you've been pretty clear with that, it's not even slanderous to Warriors - hell, you make them sound much more powerful and threatening than "nuh uh Necwons are TOTALLY super-duper powerful how DARE you compare them with humans". It's why the Tau and Necrons were so scary, their basic rifles and chaff respectively were a match for factions of elite soldiers But, alas. It seems that there's just no getting through to intellectual dishonesty and blatant misrepresentation.

Apparently I wasn't that clear because someone kept ignoring that point on a repeated basis, and also accused me of needing Marines to be the most powerful. I had to keep repeating that point so they would understand, which is why it was quoting them for that response.

Hecaton wrote:Yeah, I'm not going to engage anymore with people who refuse to engage with my posts because it would prove them wrong. If the mods won't do anything about you lying and trolling, it's not worth it.

Said the person who has accused something of what they didn't say, misrepresented what they DID say consistently, flat out ignored the context of an argument when it did counter their argument, and you want to accuse me of lying and trolling. That is rich.

Hecaton wrote:Charistoph, you continually lied about your misrepresentation of other people claiming that Necron warriors were "vastly superior" to Astartes. As Insectum pointed out, you either ignored or failed to understand my argument. You're just incapable of understanding how wrong your worldview is; both of you are firmly in Dunning-Kruger territory.

Hyperbole taken as fact. How wonderful. Considering how you accused me numerous times of saying something I never stated, such as a need to have Marines be more powerful than Necron Warriors.

You present no proper counter-argument, just accuse others of lying and misrepresentation. When you ignore the context of the other person's argument, you now state I am ignoring yours. Talk about about the Dunning-Kruger effect.

No, you are claiming to quit because you simply cannot keep up in the discussion. Unlike Insectum who actually would put up a proper argument.

Hecaton wrote:Smudge, as per previous posts you think that Astartes should effortlessly beat their enemies in the background and effortlessly beat non-Astartes armies in the game, too, so you're not a good faith actor here, just a bolter porn aficionado.

When did Smudge say that again?

Charistoph wrote:

Sgt_Smudge wrote:No, you've been pretty clear with that, it's not even slanderous to Warriors - hell, you make them sound much more powerful and threatening than "nuh uh Necwons are TOTALLY super-duper powerful how DARE you compare them with humans". It's why the Tau and Necrons were so scary, their basic rifles and chaff respectively were a match for factions of elite soldiers But, alas. It seems that there's just no getting through to intellectual dishonesty and blatant misrepresentation.

Apparently I wasn't that clear because someone kept ignoring that point on a repeated basis, and also accused me of needing Marines to be the most powerful. I had to keep repeating that point so they would understand, which is why it was quoting them for that response.

Indeed. For someone who is so eager to accuse others of lying and trolling, they're strangely unable to read what you've actually written in favour of painting you as some kind of infantilising role.

Almost like this is normal and persistent behaviour from them.

Hecaton wrote:Smudge, as per previous posts you think that Astartes should effortlessly beat their enemies in the background and effortlessly beat non-Astartes armies in the game, too, so you're not a good faith actor here, just a bolter porn aficionado.

When did Smudge say that again?

I didn't - in fact, I've explicitly, almost painfully frequently because I've seen the kind of misrepresentation that's been peddled here, stated that I am still undecided how strong Warriors should be in comparison to Astartes. But, if quality of argument was informing my thought process, I would have to apologise to Insectum, because Hec is not doing your "side" any favours with this persistent misrepresentation and blatant falsification.

I think the representations of "Power Levels" is almost perfect in the FFG series of RPG's for w40k. In Dark Heresy 2e for example an Acolyte (Humanities best, probably) can barely stand up against a single Necron Warrior unless they get a drop on it.

An Astartes is probably a match for the Warrior, but there's always more than just oen Necron around.

Anyway, this discussion is essentially the same as bashing two toys together and making pew pew sounds. The amount of novels out there that paints things in dumb amounts of skew and plot armor is ridiculous.

 Eonfuzz wrote:
Anyway, this discussion is essentially the same as bashing two toys together and making pew pew sounds. The amount of novels out there that paints things in dumb amounts of skew and plot armor is ridiculous.

Agreed. It's entirely based on what sources and novels you choose to put more faith in, and none of them are inherently "better" or "worse" takes to have.

Hey all, Let's tone it down please, remember the Ignore function exists. If people cannot handle themselves going forward, warnings and possible vacations will be issued, and this thread will get closed. None of us want that. If there's something specific that comes up, please PM me or another Moderator instead of responding in anger. Thanks!

pothocboots wrote:

 Void__Dragon wrote:

pothocboots wrote:

 Void__Dragon wrote:

Hecaton wrote:

 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.

Calm down my friend, unlike some people I'm not mindlessly stanning my army of choice, because my army of choice is not Space Marines. Necrons were what got me interested in 40k, and these days my favorite armies are Custodes, Daemons, and Harlequins, though I still play some Necrons. I don't think I've ever played loyalist Marines. But of these armies only the Custodes should have a basic troop unit better than a Marine individually (maybe Harlequins too).

Marines conceptually are not a mary sue faction, though they do have mary sue stories, and seeing as most stories are about them they have more mary sue stories than anyone else.

But Necrons having basic troopers superior to an astartes that number in the billions on a single tomb world would be laughable. Sorry not sorry, but your army doesn't get to have militia men which outnumber pretty much any non-horde force that are also each better than what are among the most individually elite soldiers in the entire galaxy.

And my friend, only one of us is clinging to a fantasy. The reality is Necron warriors are not portrayed as being on par with a marine and haven't even been depicted as such for a long time. I'm secure in my position because I know all the people in this thread consumed with marine envy are powerless to do anything about it and that my position will continue to be the one that is legitimized by GW.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Hecaton wrote:

 Void__Dragon wrote:


Some things are, but Necron warriors? No, they're about right.

Well, those of us who have been playing the game for some time disagree. At a certain point, there needs to be things that are scary even to Astartes.

And necron warriors which number in the trillions or more aren't one of them, not individually anyway. They have guns that can easily kill marines and despite their slowness have the strength to swarm them and kill them in hand to hand. In mass they are a significant threat to marines in game and should be in the fluff, they just aren't as likely to win a fight one on one. And this is fine. Warriors should pretty much always outnumber marines in any particular battle.

But should some things be equal or better than most marines? Sure, and I'm sympathetic to the idea that things like immortals, lychguard, or whatever should be proportionally better than they are.

But warriors are fine.

 Void__Dragon wrote:
And necron warriors which number in the trillions or more aren't one of them, not individually anyway.

Again, I disagree. The fact that there's an ungodly number of them isn't actually a setting-breaking issue for the Imperium - Basilisks can "kill" plenty of Necrons, just like they can kill power-armored superhumans.

Hecaton wrote:

 Void__Dragon wrote:
And necron warriors which number in the trillions or more aren't one of them, not individually anyway.

Again, I disagree. The fact that there's an ungodly number of them isn't actually a setting-breaking issue for the Imperium - Basilisks can "kill" plenty of Necrons, just like they can kill power-armored superhumans.

You might have something vaguely resembling a point if Necrons didn't have the best technology in the galaxy with force field and teleportation tech more sophisticated than anyone else, with artillery of their own that is, in the fluff at least, superior to the Imperium's and just about everyone else's.

No, there's no way to have the Necron warrior be as numerous as they are while simultaneously being more formidable than any troop save a Custodian Guard without damaging the integrity of the setting.

 Void__Dragon wrote:

Hecaton wrote:

 Void__Dragon wrote:
And necron warriors which number in the trillions or more aren't one of them, not individually anyway.

Again, I disagree. The fact that there's an ungodly number of them isn't actually a setting-breaking issue for the Imperium - Basilisks can "kill" plenty of Necrons, just like they can kill power-armored superhumans.

You might have something vaguely resembling a point if Necrons didn't have the best technology in the galaxy with force field and teleportation tech more sophisticated than anyone else, with artillery of their own that is, in the fluff at least, superior to the Imperium's and just about everyone else's.

No, there's no way to have the Necron warrior be as numerous as they are while simultaneously being more formidable than any troop save a Custodian Guard without damaging the integrity of the setting.

Why?

 Void__Dragon wrote:

Hecaton wrote:

 Void__Dragon wrote:
And necron warriors which number in the trillions or more aren't one of them, not individually anyway.

Again, I disagree. The fact that there's an ungodly number of them isn't actually a setting-breaking issue for the Imperium - Basilisks can "kill" plenty of Necrons, just like they can kill power-armored superhumans.

You might have something vaguely resembling a point if Necrons didn't have the best technology in the galaxy with force field and teleportation tech more sophisticated than anyone else, with artillery of their own that is, in the fluff at least, superior to the Imperium's and just about everyone else's.

No, there's no way to have the Necron warrior be as numerous as they are while simultaneously being more formidable than any troop save a Custodian Guard without damaging the integrity of the setting.

I don't think it would imbalance the setting, but it would imbalance the game. Having strong stats and decent squad size with low points is incredibly imbalancing as you can't put out enough damage to counter their numbers. The story can allude to trillions of Warriors out there, but we would still only be facing a relative few in the game because of the territory the game covers.

 Charistoph wrote:
[
I don't think it would imbalance the setting, but it would imbalance the game. Having strong stats and decent squad size with low points is incredibly imbalancing as you can't put out enough damage to counter their numbers.

So they should cost more points!

 Lord Damocles wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:
[
I don't think it would imbalance the setting, but it would imbalance the game. Having strong stats and decent squad size with low points is incredibly imbalancing as you can't put out enough damage to counter their numbers.

So they should cost more points!

I don't really know what people are asking for.

I said it before either in this thread or the other that this just seems like an old fluff VS new fluff argument.

You got the people that want the same carbon copy guy for their army and then you got the guys that want that but also some other stuff.

I see the appeal of the old stuff but it kinda wrote itself into a corner, and honestly once you have enough for an army there's no incentive to buy more which is a bad business design.

Personally I prefer the new stuff. Much more scary

 fraser1191 wrote:
I don't really know what people are asking for.

I said it before either in this thread or the other that this just seems like an old fluff VS new fluff argument.

You got the people that want the same carbon copy guy for their army and then you got the guys that want that but also some other stuff.

I see the appeal of the old stuff but it kinda wrote itself into a corner, and honestly once you have enough for an army there's no incentive to buy more which is a bad business design.

Personally I prefer the new stuff. Much more scary

I'm not asking for a full return for the old army, nor do I think it's completely incompatible with the new. But Warriors really are at their worst in comparison to Astartes atm.

The other few things that really annoy me about the state of Necrons are:

1: The Monolith is not very good right now.
2: No Pariahs
3: C'tan are enslaved.
4: Destroyers and Immortals are also pretty downgraded.

If I had things my way, I'd bring Pariahs and pump up Monoliths for all Necrons. Then I'd offer the option for a Living C'tan Necron army, representing Necrons that are (volountarily or not) still under the sway of a C'tan entity. I'd use this as an excuse to pump up the traditional units when taking this option, and I'd put Phase Out back on the table. I'd also re-introduce the original "Transcendent C'tan" unit from (Apocalypse? 40K Escalation?), the really really nasty one.

That way people could have their "undead" Crons, and some of us could have their "hyper-terminator" Crons.

 Charistoph wrote:

 Void__Dragon wrote:

Hecaton wrote:

 Void__Dragon wrote:
And necron warriors which number in the trillions or more aren't one of them, not individually anyway.

Again, I disagree. The fact that there's an ungodly number of them isn't actually a setting-breaking issue for the Imperium - Basilisks can "kill" plenty of Necrons, just like they can kill power-armored superhumans.

You might have something vaguely resembling a point if Necrons didn't have the best technology in the galaxy with force field and teleportation tech more sophisticated than anyone else, with artillery of their own that is, in the fluff at least, superior to the Imperium's and just about everyone else's.

No, there's no way to have the Necron warrior be as numerous as they are while simultaneously being more formidable than any troop save a Custodian Guard without damaging the integrity of the setting.

I don't think it would imbalance the setting, but it would imbalance the game. Having strong stats and decent squad size with low points is incredibly imbalancing as you can't put out enough damage to counter their numbers. The story can allude to trillions of Warriors out there, but we would still only be facing a relative few in the game because of the territory the game covers.

Necrons do number in the trillions. But that is a drop in the ocean compared to the "hordes" of humanity they would face. A Necron warrior was a match for a space marine, but in most settings it wouldn't be 1 space marine vs 1 necron warrior. It would be 10-20 necron warriors vs 1 space marine and a few hundred guardsmen.

A prime example would be Tyranid Warriors. There are a hell of a lot more Tyranid warriors in the galaxy than there are Space Marines, and a warrior is a match for a Space Marine in most aspects. But when the Nidz are attacking, its not a single chapter of Marines vs the Nidz, its a conglomeration of all available assets and humanity usually brings in a few million expendable human troops as well. Even the special snowflake Ultramarines didn't fight off the Nidz by themselves, they used their Space Marine trained auxiliary as support. A couple thousand Marines isn't going to do much, but a couple thousand Marines backed up by a fethload of well trained guardsmen and a bunch of tanks/air support is going to do wonders.

 Insectum7 wrote:
So if Scouts arent "chaff", and Scarabs aren't "chaff". . . Why do Warriors need to be "chaff" if Tacticals aren't "chaff"?

Why do armies need "chaff"? And "chaff" or not, why do they have to be worse than Space Marines?

Is this a retorical question? Because it not, then chaff is needed because of how movment, terrain rules, targeting rules and other core rules work in 9th ed.
I have no anwser to why to why, other then if necron are undead in space, then undead skeletons are always weak enemies. Making them suddenly more powerful then marines seems strange.

 Insectum7 wrote:

 fraser1191 wrote:
I don't really know what people are asking for.

I said it before either in this thread or the other that this just seems like an old fluff VS new fluff argument.

You got the people that want the same carbon copy guy for their army and then you got the guys that want that but also some other stuff.

I see the appeal of the old stuff but it kinda wrote itself into a corner, and honestly once you have enough for an army there's no incentive to buy more which is a bad business design.

Personally I prefer the new stuff. Much more scary

I'm not asking for a full return for the old army, nor do I think it's completely incompatible with the new. But Warriors really are at their worst in comparison to Astartes atm.

The other few things that really annoy me about the state of Necrons are:

1: The Monolith is not very good right now.
2: No Pariahs
3: C'tan are enslaved.
4: Destroyers and Immortals are also pretty downgraded.

If I had things my way, I'd bring Pariahs and pump up Monoliths for all Necrons. Then I'd offer the option for a Living C'tan Necron army, representing Necrons that are (volountarily or not) still under the sway of a C'tan entity. I'd use this as an excuse to pump up the traditional units when taking this option, and I'd put Phase Out back on the table. I'd also re-introduce the original "Transcendent C'tan" unit from (Apocalypse? 40K Escalation?), the really really nasty one.

That way people could have their "undead" Crons, and some of us could have their "hyper-terminator" Crons.

I'm just going to start off with saying Pariahs should be a thing again and arguably the Necrons could do that to other races. Big metal ork melee unit. Scary stuff. (but I see the obvious complaint about it)

Lore wise it'd be cool to see Catan loyal Necrons. If that were the case I'd say Necron warriors can be on par or slightly better than marines since there would be a 1:1 enemy out there, in similar numbers and tech. Even still with Necrons at that level I'd wager no faction could compete. Not orks, eldar, nids already struggle against them, Tau. Poor Tau they'd just surround them.

See I figured when Necrons first stated coming into being it was mostly warriors and then immortals popped up later. But no according to yourself they came out together. I think it might be more reasonable to ask for immortals to be the hyper elite star you're asking for over a warrior. I'm not saying that the warrior shouldn't be improved. But it seems like more ideal since we already know that the warrior is essentially bottom tier Necron.

So it'd almost be an army of marines (warriors), with some immortals (custodians) and then praetorians(Primaris custodians)

And then you probably do need the phase out rule if you want to field an army but then it just turns into the other player needing to do some major alpha strike or they get rofl stomped by the Necron player