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.

 Insectum7 wrote:
Yeah. . . I was going to pick up Necrons again, and then noticed how much they've been even further degraded over the years. It's not the army that I played back in 3rd-4th, that's for sure.

Eh.

That Immortal was T5 3+ and stood back up on 4+. The gun was Assault A2 S5 and could wound anything ( as well as glance anything ) on a 6.

Back then breaking that wound anything barrier or glance anything was fairly significant. Additionally, 2 shots with assault offered unparalleled maneuverability compared to marines with rapid fire in an era with no pre-measure.

So making a chart that compares point costs is pretty misleading when no premeasure is gone and anything can get wounded on a 6 anyway.

They're not really weaker - they're just different ( aside from reanimate, which seems weaker, but the army has other tools now ).

I wouldn't mind Immortals going to W2 though.

 Tyran wrote:
Sure, but everyone is being nerfed in that way.

Marines lost ATSKNF, Synapse is no longer immunity, vehicles and monsters have to take break tests now.
There is a blatant design intent that everyone has to care about LD.

Sure. But I wasn't pointing out that Necron Warriors had worse Leadership than they had previously, I was pointing out that they have worse Leadership than Legionaries, AKA Chaos Space Marines, which they've always had superior Leadership to in previous editions. They're flipping that particular paradigm between the two factions.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
Yeah. . . I was going to pick up Necrons again, and then noticed how much they've been even further degraded over the years. It's not the army that I played back in 3rd-4th, that's for sure.

Eh.

That Immortal was T5 3+ and stood back up on 4+. The gun was Assault A2 S5 and could wound anything ( as well as glance anything ) on a 6.

Back then breaking that wound anything barrier or glance anything was fairly significant. Additionally, 2 shots with assault offered unparalleled maneuverability compared to marines with rapid fire in an era with no pre-measure.

So making a chart that compares point costs is pretty misleading when no premeasure is gone and anything can get wounded on a 6 anyway.

They're not really weaker - they're just different ( aside from reanimate, which seems weaker, but the army has other tools now ).

I wouldn't mind Immortals going to W2 though.

Brah. . . you insane. I don't have the time or patience to deal with your pants-on-head logic right now.

In 3rd ed. Immortals were 28 ppm. Tac Marines 15. Currently Immortals are 16 ppm to a Tac Marines 18. Yes it's just points, but points are still a rough measure of "battlefield worth". Immortals and Warriors have plummeted in comparison to Marines, full stop.

Yeah. Immortals are roughly comparable to their 3rd edition counterparts.
Marines are miles better than they were in 3rd.

 JNAProductions wrote:
Yeah. Immortals are roughly comparable to their 3rd edition counterparts.
Marines are miles better than they were in 3rd.

I would even doubt that Immortals are roughly comparable with their 3rd ed versions, particularly when glancing on 6s could be lethal to any vehicle.

 kodos wrote:
yeah, no point in providing any examples, as you see the fluff text about leaders of a chaos army as the same fluff as the darc pact special rule for troops
what example should I provide? you are going to say anyway that this is the same any way no matter the text and rules

but I guess everything is fine, all CSM units have the same fluff since 3rd, never seen any changes and if there are some people are just not able to see that those are the same

Where does the rule we've seen force you to use it? Chaos is always waiting for a stubborn unit to fall fully, you can keep your legion pure by not making any pacts.

 kurhanik wrote:
Mildly curious if they are changing wound allocation again. Reanimation protocols specifically notes the possibility of having multiple wounded models in a unit. I'm wondering if they are going to allow you to spread wounds, if its going to be location based (like 7th and closest models), or if that it to just cover some very niche cases where a weapon can wound multiple models in a single unit.

I hope we'll avoid spreading Wounds around since that was easily broken in 7th. My guess is there will be rules for characters (perhaps a Strategem) to join a squad during battle, so they wrote the rule to cover multiple wounded models in case you have a wounded Royal Warden joins a wounded Warrior squad.

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
Yeah. . . I was going to pick up Necrons again, and then noticed how much they've been even further degraded over the years. It's not the army that I played back in 3rd-4th, that's for sure.

Eh.

That Immortal was T5 3+ and stood back up on 4+. The gun was Assault A2 S5 and could wound anything ( as well as glance anything ) on a 6.

Back then breaking that wound anything barrier or glance anything was fairly significant. Additionally, 2 shots with assault offered unparalleled maneuverability compared to marines with rapid fire in an era with no pre-measure.

So making a chart that compares point costs is pretty misleading when no premeasure is gone and anything can get wounded on a 6 anyway.

They're not really weaker - they're just different ( aside from reanimate, which seems weaker, but the army has other tools now ).

I wouldn't mind Immortals going to W2 though.

Brah. . . you insane. I don't have the time or patience to deal with your pants-on-head logic right now.

In 3rd ed. Immortals were 28 ppm. Tac Marines 15. Currently Immortals are 16 ppm to a Tac Marines 18. Yes it's just points, but points are still a rough measure of "battlefield worth". Immortals and Warriors have plummeted in comparison to Marines, full stop.

All I said was a basic points comparison is bad, because the game has changed so much. Immortals broke rules. Now they don't. Points go down.

What's pants on head about that?

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
Yeah. . . I was going to pick up Necrons again, and then noticed how much they've been even further degraded over the years. It's not the army that I played back in 3rd-4th, that's for sure.

Eh.

That Immortal was T5 3+ and stood back up on 4+. The gun was Assault A2 S5 and could wound anything ( as well as glance anything ) on a 6.

Back then breaking that wound anything barrier or glance anything was fairly significant. Additionally, 2 shots with assault offered unparalleled maneuverability compared to marines with rapid fire in an era with no pre-measure.

So making a chart that compares point costs is pretty misleading when no premeasure is gone and anything can get wounded on a 6 anyway.

They're not really weaker - they're just different ( aside from reanimate, which seems weaker, but the army has other tools now ).

I wouldn't mind Immortals going to W2 though.

Brah. . . you insane. I don't have the time or patience to deal with your pants-on-head logic right now.

In 3rd ed. Immortals were 28 ppm. Tac Marines 15. Currently Immortals are 16 ppm to a Tac Marines 18. Yes it's just points, but points are still a rough measure of "battlefield worth". Immortals and Warriors have plummeted in comparison to Marines, full stop.

All I said was a basic points comparison is bad, because the game has changed so much. Immortals broke rules. Now they don't. Points go down.

What's pants on head about that?

Immortals were more powerful than Marines by a good chunk, in the past.
They are no longer more powerful.

The exact reason for the change isn't the most important thing.

Also worth keeping in mind the Necron army has expanded as a whole since their Super Tough Infantry Days.

We’ve gain transports, gun platforms, Jetbikes (very shooty Jetbikes at that) support walkers, flyers, artillery after a fashion.

 JNAProductions wrote:
Immortals were more powerful than Marines by a good chunk, in the past.
They are no longer more powerful.

The exact reason for the change isn't the most important thing.

Right, but they weren't more powerful due to weapon ( stats not special rule ) or base stats, but rather how they interacted with the game.

Basically they alpha struck the pants off anything and expecting them to be able to return to that in a balanced fashion will just never happen.

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
Yeah. . . I was going to pick up Necrons again, and then noticed how much they've been even further degraded over the years. It's not the army that I played back in 3rd-4th, that's for sure.

Eh.

That Immortal was T5 3+ and stood back up on 4+. The gun was Assault A2 S5 and could wound anything ( as well as glance anything ) on a 6.

Back then breaking that wound anything barrier or glance anything was fairly significant. Additionally, 2 shots with assault offered unparalleled maneuverability compared to marines with rapid fire in an era with no pre-measure.

So making a chart that compares point costs is pretty misleading when no premeasure is gone and anything can get wounded on a 6 anyway.

They're not really weaker - they're just different ( aside from reanimate, which seems weaker, but the army has other tools now ).

I wouldn't mind Immortals going to W2 though.

Brah. . . you insane. I don't have the time or patience to deal with your pants-on-head logic right now.

In 3rd ed. Immortals were 28 ppm. Tac Marines 15. Currently Immortals are 16 ppm to a Tac Marines 18. Yes it's just points, but points are still a rough measure of "battlefield worth". Immortals and Warriors have plummeted in comparison to Marines, full stop.

Yeah, and no one uses payphones anymore either! Bring back the yellow pages! I want a BETA MAX TAPE SET!

It literally doesn't matter.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
Immortals were more powerful than Marines by a good chunk, in the past.
They are no longer more powerful.

The exact reason for the change isn't the most important thing.

Right, but they weren't more powerful due to weapon ( stats not special rule ) or base stats, but rather how they interacted with the game.

Basically they alpha struck the pants off anything and expecting them to be able to return to that in a balanced fashion will just never happen.

Why not? There are Marine units geared to "Alpha Strike the pants off anything". Xenos just can't have this because "balance"?

The time to complain about a new paradigm for Necrons was several editions ago.

 Insectum7 wrote:
Why not? There are Marine units geared to "Alpha Strike the pants off anything". Xenos just can't have this because "balance"?

I mean they could, but the dynamics are just really different and it's hard to replicate that without getting crazy. Alpha striking kind of died a while ago so it hasn't really been a cause for concern ( lots of stuff dies still though ).

Making an Immortal have that same points gap puts them in the terminator category, which would feel a bit weird.

Anyway, yea, it sucks, but maybe Immortals will have room to stand out more this edition.

Herp de derp all rules changes lead to previously elite units becoming Marine fodder. Wait and see if they're as trash as the even trashier trash units which were formally better than Marines.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Also worth keeping in mind the Necron army has expanded as a whole since their Super Tough Infantry Days.

We’ve gain transports, gun platforms, Jetbikes (very shooty Jetbikes at that) support walkers, flyers, artillery after a fashion.

And Marines have expanded into about 6 armies' worth of models.

Funny how that has resulted in basic Marines getting stronger.

Necrons having reduced leadership makes quite a bit of sense. 8th/9th leadership meant units running, and necrons don't really run or suffer from attrition. 10th leadership is about cohesion which is very different. If a necron model that's pressing the button on an objective dies it might take longer for another warrior to walk over and start pressing it.

novembermike wrote:
Necrons having reduced leadership makes quite a bit of sense.

LOL no it doesn't. Necrons having LD10 has been a legacy thing, and you're just making up justifications.

I'm not Insectum levels of annoyed because of how good Immortals fill that gap of what Warriors used to feel like, but this statline is a huge step backward, ad they not only LD value but their BS value as well

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
Why not? There are Marine units geared to "Alpha Strike the pants off anything". Xenos just can't have this because "balance"?

I mean they could, but the dynamics are just really different and it's hard to replicate that without getting crazy. Alpha striking kind of died a while ago so it hasn't really been a cause for concern ( lots of stuff dies still though ).

Making an Immortal have that same points gap puts them in the terminator category, which would feel a bit weird.

Anyway, yea, it sucks, but maybe Immortals will have room to stand out more this edition.

"Dynanics are just kind of different ..." blah blah blah blah.

"Marines Uber Alles" is all i hear, along with weak-a** excuses. None of what you're posting makes any sense. There's no reason why a Xenos faction can't have units that are more (far more) capable than a Marine unit.

 Insectum7 wrote:
"Dynanics are just kind of different ..." blah blah blah blah.

"Marines Uber Alles" is all i hear, along with weak-a** excuses. None of what you're posting makes any sense. There's no reason why a Xenos faction can't have units that are more (far more) capable than a Marine unit.

For rather a lot of 10th edition that was most Xenos units. Just because there aren't many units that ado what marines do but better doesn't mean that other factions don't have good units.

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
Why not? There are Marine units geared to "Alpha Strike the pants off anything". Xenos just can't have this because "balance"?

I mean they could, but the dynamics are just really different and it's hard to replicate that without getting crazy. Alpha striking kind of died a while ago so it hasn't really been a cause for concern ( lots of stuff dies still though ).

Making an Immortal have that same points gap puts them in the terminator category, which would feel a bit weird.

Anyway, yea, it sucks, but maybe Immortals will have room to stand out more this edition.

"Dynanics are just kind of different ..." blah blah blah blah.

"Marines Uber Alles" is all i hear, along with weak-a** excuses. None of what you're posting makes any sense. There's no reason why a Xenos faction can't have units that are more (far more) capable than a Marine unit.

Immortals fill the role of what Warriors used to be, but there was no reason to degrade their stats even further when things like Eldar Guardians got their initial boost to hit values because Kelly favoritism.

I have to say, I think a lot of the negative reaction to these rules is based on an inability to understand that the same lore can be expressed through multiple mechanics. Not to mention that mechanics represent lore abstractly, not literally. In the past, the fact that Necron warriors were implacable soulless near-automata bound by the unshakable will of of their leaders was expressed differently. Because those editions had far less interactions between characters and other units, the blanket high leadership was sufficient to do so.

Now, in an edition where morale is clearly intended to play a more impactful role, and considering the shift toward more direct character-unit interaction, that is expressed to match.

The same can be said for the change to synapse, the dark pact rule etc. It's a different way to express the themes of factions that have always existed... Some people take mechanics a little too literally.

 Las wrote:
I have to say, I think a lot of the negative reaction to these rules is based on an inability to understand that the same lore can be expressed through multiple mechanics. Not to mention that mechanics represent lore abstractly, not literally. In the past, the fact that Necron warriors were implacable soulless near-automata bound by the unshakable will of of their leaders was expressed differently. Because those editions had far less interactions between characters and other units, the blanket high leadership was sufficient to do so.

Strange how this different expression leads to individual marines getting stronger and stronger and stronger, while for non-Marines it's expressed by their individual soldiers getting weaker and weaker.

 vipoid wrote:

 Las wrote:
I have to say, I think a lot of the negative reaction to these rules is based on an inability to understand that the same lore can be expressed through multiple mechanics. Not to mention that mechanics represent lore abstractly, not literally. In the past, the fact that Necron warriors were implacable soulless near-automata bound by the unshakable will of of their leaders was expressed differently. Because those editions had far less interactions between characters and other units, the blanket high leadership was sufficient to do so.

Strange how this different expression leads to individual marines getting stronger and stronger and stronger, while for non-Marines it's expressed by their individual soldiers getting weaker and weaker.

Did Marines get stronger? It seems to me like they'll fail morale more often in 10th than they did in 9th.

 Canadian 5th wrote:

 vipoid wrote:

 Las wrote:
I have to say, I think a lot of the negative reaction to these rules is based on an inability to understand that the same lore can be expressed through multiple mechanics. Not to mention that mechanics represent lore abstractly, not literally. In the past, the fact that Necron warriors were implacable soulless near-automata bound by the unshakable will of of their leaders was expressed differently. Because those editions had far less interactions between characters and other units, the blanket high leadership was sufficient to do so.

Strange how this different expression leads to individual marines getting stronger and stronger and stronger, while for non-Marines it's expressed by their individual soldiers getting weaker and weaker.

Did Marines get stronger? It seems to me like they'll fail morale more often in 10th than they did in 9th.

We ARE talking about more distant past than just 9th edition.

Compare even a 7th Marine to a current one.

"It's a new edition so all the prior buffs to Marines and nerfs to non-Marines no longer count, even though the new rules are building on those same buffs and nerfs."

 Las wrote:
I have to say, I think a lot of the negative reaction to these rules is based on an inability to understand that the same lore can be expressed through multiple mechanics. Not to mention that mechanics represent lore abstractly, not literally. In the past, the fact that Necron warriors were implacable soulless near-automata bound by the unshakable will of of their leaders was expressed differently. Because those editions had far less interactions between characters and other units, the blanket high leadership was sufficient to do so.

Now, in an edition where morale is clearly intended to play a more impactful role, and considering the shift toward more direct character-unit interaction, that is expressed to match.

The same can be said for the change to synapse, the dark pact rule etc. It's a different way to express the themes of factions that have always existed... Some people take mechanics a little too literally.

Bruh, they lost LD value AND their hit value, on top of having a worse RP. What are you talking about?

 vipoid wrote:
"It's a new edition so all the prior buffs to Marines and nerfs to non-Marines no longer count, even though the new rules are building on those same buffs and nerfs."

More like, "Marines were ass for most of 9th edition even with their buffed stats, what exactly are you whining about?"

EviscerationPlague wrote:
Bruh, they lost LD value AND their hit value, on top of having a worse RP. What are you talking about?

Does this make them bad? That's going to depend on points and the new meta but base stats aren't the only thing that makes a unit good or bad.

 Canadian 5th wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
We ARE talking about more distant past than just 9th edition.

Compare even a 7th Marine to a current one.

You've missed the boat on that by several editions. You can choose to be like Chaos players and whine about how 3.5 was the pinnacle of game design until the end of time but it isn't a good look.

Looks better than your viewpoint. Could you try not insulting people?