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.

 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.

Reminder that Necrons had very shooty jetbikes in 3rd edition. They were called Destroyers and Heavy Destroyers, and they literally had the Jetbike rules for movement.

You can expand a range without squashing their stats at the same time. Proof? Marines, who expand their range AND inflate their stats at the same time.

It's not about the unit being good or bad, for the same reason just dumpstering the points costs wasn't a satisfying way to fix the space marine profile. Warriors are mindless automatons but they're not chaff units.

The multiple wounded models thing might be to account for if a character has been sniped after the unit has been damaged by another source without precision

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

Removed - rule #1

 Arachnofiend wrote:
It's not about the unit being good or bad, for the same reason just dumpstering the points costs wasn't a satisfying way to fix the space marine profile. Warriors are mindless automatons but they're not chaff units.

Necrons started out as legally distinct Terminator knock-offs but haven't been that for more than a decade now. Once they stopped being Terminator clones Warriors and Immortals became closer to undead from Warhammer. This is just following that same trend within the paradigm of 10th edition.

 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.

Well, warriors have twice the OC of a marine if they keep roughly the same cost ratio. Durability is the big question mark.

Lethal Hits is basically Gauss for 10th. If Immortals keep BS3 and maybe 2 shots all the time then with S5 and minimum ap1 they'll be better than marines.

Just not twice as good like 3rd.

 Canadian 5th wrote:

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

Removed - rule #1

 Arachnofiend wrote:
It's not about the unit being good or bad, for the same reason just dumpstering the points costs wasn't a satisfying way to fix the space marine profile. Warriors are mindless automatons but they're not chaff units.

Necrons started out as legally distinct Terminator knock-offs but haven't been that for more than a decade now. Once they stopped being Terminator clones Warriors and Immortals became closer to undead from Warhammer. This is just following that same trend within the paradigm of 10th edition.

Good job. You have confirmed that they are a shadow of their former selves. That's at least a step beyond Daedaelus.

Feel free to call me whatever you want. I lament the loss of a faction I used to love. What continues to be relevant is how the trend may simply continue, and it's not just Necrons that get effected.

 Insectum7 wrote:
Feel free to call me whatever you want. I lament the loss of a faction I used to love. What continues to be relevant is how the trend may simply continue, and it's not just Necrons that get effected.

Lament the loss... My Brother in Christ the army still exists and still gets updates. The old sculpts can be picked up online; green rods and all.

Nothing is stopping you from playing them but you.

 Canadian 5th wrote:
Necrons started out as legally distinct Terminator knock-offs but haven't been that for more than a decade now. Once they stopped being Terminator clones Warriors and Immortals became closer to undead from Warhammer. This is just following that same trend within the paradigm of 10th edition.

I understand why you'd assume otherwise since near everyone else complaining about it feels that way but Necrons being the skeleton horde army is why I like them. My other army is Thousand Sons because they're necromancers leading an army of spirit constructs. Warriors being cyber-skeletons doesn't mean they need to keep having their profile degraded.

 Insectum7 wrote:

Good job. You have confirmed that they are a shadow of their former selves. That's at least a step beyond Daedaelus.

I guess I failed to communicate my thoughts in a way that made sense to you. Thanks for all the insults along the way though.

 Insectum7 wrote:
Feel free to call me whatever you want. I lament the loss of a faction I used to love. What continues to be relevant is how the trend may simply continue, and it's not just Necrons that get effected.

It's fun trying to have these discussions with people who buy into whatever GW says hook, line and sinker, instantly believing that new = better.

Fight fight fight kiss kiss kiss

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
Feel free to call me whatever you want. I lament the loss of a faction I used to love. What continues to be relevant is how the trend may simply continue, and it's not just Necrons that get effected.

It's fun trying to have these discussions with people who buy into whatever GW says hook, line and sinker, instantly believing that new = better.

As opposed to people who think that anything that isn't what they liked 30 years ago is bad.

Where have I seen that dynamic before....

And to think all I had the audacity to do is disagree with the premise of a weird chart. feth me, right?

 Canadian 5th wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
Feel free to call me whatever you want. I lament the loss of a faction I used to love. What continues to be relevant is how the trend may simply continue, and it's not just Necrons that get effected.

Lament the loss... My Brother in Christ the army still exists and still gets updates. The old sculpts can be picked up online; green rods and all.

Nothing is stopping you from playing them but you.

I'm sure people would love it if Space Marines were degraded to be notably lesser troops than Tau Fire Warriors. I'm sure that would feel like the same army, and nobody would have any issues with that.

 Daedalus81 wrote:
As opposed to people who think that anything that isn't what they liked 30 years ago is bad.

Your hyperbole is fun, but lacks any element of truth.

Outside of the overly simplistic and illogical terrain rules and any system that keeps a "remove models" rather than a "suffer damage" mechanic (ie. desperate breakout), I think the structure of 10th sounds far, far, faaar better than 9th. I find GW's inability and unwillingness to fix problems and instead just toss systems out in an attempt to reinvent the wheel frustrating, but as I've always said that's not always the incorrect approach (eg. 9th Ed "morale" vs 10th Ed battleshock).

The devil, as always, is in the detail though, and where GW has always consistently fallen over is with the Codices. I think they're getting their faction-defining core rules either backwards (Oaths of Moment over Doctrines, Dark Pacts in general), or just plain dull (Shadow in the Warp), and I think that they are consolidating too many weapons into single profiles despite reintroducing tons of universal/weapon rules that are precisely the kind of of mechanics one uses to differentiate items. I also think they went way too far in shrinking down options, pushing the pendulum from "too much choice" to "no choice at all". Psychic powers are the biggest loser here, IMO, but reducing Warlord Traits and Relics to just 4, combined, is perhaps too much of a contraction. We also have to see whether the death of Power Level really is the end of that blatantly unbalanced system, because if 10th Ed points are just PWx20, with no costs for weapon/unit upgrades, then really all we've done is change Power Level to a set of higher numbers and are calling it "Points" in the hope no one will notice (but that's just idle speculation based on nothing at all except every decision GW has made with points in late 9th).

And most of all, I have a real problem with people who look at all these changes and just accept them without question or criticism, acting as if everything that's changing is instantly better, forgetting years and years of GW's history with messing rules up and, perhaps blindly, assuming that they could never possibly make those mistakes again.

 Daedalus81 wrote:
And to think all I had the audacity to do is disagree with the premise of a weird chart. feth me, right?

It's not fun having people throw random blocks of numbers at you as if they were the only thing that mattered, is it?

It’s not “How good are they FOR THE POINTS”-modes can be stonkingly good based on points and still not feel like they should.
It’s “How good are they relative to another model”-that matters.

If you want to argue a Necron Warrior or Immortal SHOULD be worse than a Marine, argue that-don’t just pretend nothing changed.

Something I realized just a month or two ago is that power levels use isn't to replace points, its to give folks who play a game with "I'll tale 5 guys and you'll take 5 guys and we'll make them fight, but you have 1 really big guy so I'll take 6 to your 5" some idea of how many guys that big guy is worth. GW made the mistake of writing rules that (as written) require everyone to use power level (crusade, strategic reserves) when it should always have just been an option (giving both and letting people decide for themselves)

 JNAProductions wrote:
It’s not “How good are they FOR THE POINTS”-modes can be stonkingly good based on points and still not feel like they should.
It’s “How good are they relative to another model”-that matters.

If you want to argue a Necron Warrior or Immortal SHOULD be worse than a Marine, argue that-don’t just pretend nothing changed.

I think that Necrons as they are now offer a much-needed difference in gameplay texture that wouldn't work if they sat in some middle ground between Marines and Custodes. They still advance as an unstoppable wave of metal but now they're easy to damage, hard to kill instead of hard to damage, and even harder to kill but expensive and with a serious downside on top of that.

Given how lethal 40k was these past two editions would anybody have wanted to play 2W 3+ save Necrons for 25 points per Warrior with Phase Out?

I personally don't think the new Reanimation is worse than in 9th.

Warriors in 9th had a 5+ RP, or 4+ if you had a Reanimator. Now it's d6 wounds. In 10th that means 3.5 Warriors per turn get back up. In 9th, 5+ is a 1-in-3, requiring 10.5 dead Warriors to get 3.5 back (7 for a 4+). So a minimum squad of Warriors is already better off than in 9th. A bigger squad... Well, if you're losing 11+ Warriors in a single turn, chances are that squad has been marked for annihilation by your opponent anyway.

Then multi-wound models/units get d3 wounds back, for 2 wounds average. That's better than Living Metal which only gives 1.

So yeah... It's not a huge improvement, and if you're spamming big units it could be worse, but I personally think the new RP is pretty good.

 Canadian 5th wrote:

Given how lethal 40k was these past two editions would anybody have wanted to play 2W 3+ save Necrons for 25 points per Warrior with Phase Out?

Yeah. Me. Because that would have been closer to how Necrons were when they first entered the game (and the following decade). That's the faction I wanted to play.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
Feel free to call me whatever you want. I lament the loss of a faction I used to love. What continues to be relevant is how the trend may simply continue, and it's not just Necrons that get effected.

It's fun trying to have these discussions with people who buy into whatever GW says hook, line and sinker, instantly believing that new = better.

As opposed to people who think that anything that isn't what they liked 30 years ago is bad.

Where have I seen that dynamic before....

And to think all I had the audacity to do is disagree with the premise of a weird chart. feth me, right?

The chart is weird because . . . It uses points?

What are points other than an approximate measure of the battlefield value of a model?

We could go into all the various ways in which Immortals were far superior to Marines back then if you like. But it's not necessary, because value as expressed by points gets the point across just as well, and is quicker.

 Insectum7 wrote:
Yeah. Me. Because that would have been closer to how Necrons were when they first entered the game (and the following decade). That's the faction I wanted to play.

Too bad. You missed the boat on that a long while ago and there wasn't exactly a huge outcry when the change happened.

 Canadian 5th wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
Yeah. Me. Because that would have been closer to how Necrons were when they first entered the game (and the following decade). That's the faction I wanted to play.

Too bad. You missed the boat on that a long while ago and there wasn't exactly a huge outcry when the change happened.

My tastes being different than that of others doesn't surprise me. "Superior" is what I call it. :p

You argue in such bad faith it's not even worth my time.

Hecate wrote:
I personally don't think the new Reanimation is worse than in 9th.

It's worse since it's at your Command Phase instead of each time models die.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Spoiler:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:
As opposed to people who think that anything that isn't what they liked 30 years ago is bad.

Your hyperbole is fun, but lacks any element of truth.

Outside of the overly simplistic and illogical terrain rules and any system that keeps a "remove models" rather than a "suffer damage" mechanic (ie. desperate breakout), I think the structure of 10th sounds far, far, faaar better than 9th. I find GW's inability and unwillingness to fix problems and instead just toss systems out in an attempt to reinvent the wheel frustrating, but as I've always said that's not always the incorrect approach (eg. 9th Ed "morale" vs 10th Ed battleshock).

The devil, as always, is in the detail though, and where GW has always consistently fallen over is with the Codices. I think they're getting their faction-defining core rules either backwards (Oaths of Moment over Doctrines, Dark Pacts in general), or just plain dull (Shadow in the Warp), and I think that they are consolidating too many weapons into single profiles despite reintroducing tons of universal/weapon rules that are precisely the kind of of mechanics one uses to differentiate items. I also think they went way too far in shrinking down options, pushing the pendulum from "too much choice" to "no choice at all". Psychic powers are the biggest loser here, IMO, but reducing Warlord Traits and Relics to just 4, combined, is perhaps too much of a contraction. We also have to see whether the death of Power Level really is the end of that blatantly unbalanced system, because if 10th Ed points are just PWx20, with no costs for weapon/unit upgrades, then really all we've done is change Power Level to a set of higher numbers and are calling it "Points" in the hope no one will notice (but that's just idle speculation based on nothing at all except every decision GW has made with points in late 9th).

And most of all, I have a real problem with people who look at all these changes and just accept them without question or criticism, acting as if everything that's changing is instantly better, forgetting years and years of GW's history with messing rules up and, perhaps blindly, assuming that they could never possibly make those mistakes again.

 Daedalus81 wrote:
And to think all I had the audacity to do is disagree with the premise of a weird chart. feth me, right?

It's not fun having people throw random blocks of numbers at you as if they were the only thing that mattered, is it?

You argue in such bad faith it's not even worth my time.

GW likes your zealous attitude to defend them, though!

Having to survive an entire enemy turn to get RP is part of what made the rule so terrible in 8th... Lethality will have to go down a lot for you to see it. I fear the Space Marine matchup in particular.

Regarding the Necron Warriors vs Marines debate, the elephant in the room is that the GW's lore and vision behind Necron Warriors had changed a lot since their inception.

The moment GW depicted Necron Warriors as this spammable soldier that numbers in the trillions is the moment they were pretty much doomed to stats deflation as GW's vision of Necron Warriors is basically these large silvertide legions, and for that to be a thing they kinda need to be somewhat cheap.

 Tyran wrote:
Regarding the Necron Warriors vs Marines debate, the elephant in the room is that the GW's lore and vision behind Necron Warriors had changed a lot since their inception.

The moment GW depicted Necron Warriors as this spammable soldier that numbers in the trillions is the moment they were pretty much doomed to stats deflation as GW's vision of Necron Warriors is basically these large silvertide legions, and for that to be a thing they kinda need to be somewhat cheap.

That's not really true either. Their first real codex had the "Their number is Legion. Their Name is Death." tagline printed on it, and they were still priced higher than Marines. But I also recall seeing 80+ Warrior armies on the table in those days. You were totally capable of fielding "silverside" even though the models weren't "chaff". It's the same way one can field the "Power Armor horde" list. It's also true that just because an enemy numbers in the trillions, they don't need to be "lesser" models. See: Tyranid Warriors.

Tyranid warriors were famously crap for most of their existence until 9th ed finally made them playable.

I mean they historically were BS4+ T4 Sv4+ models.

 Tyran wrote:
Tyranid warriors were famously crap for most of their existence until 9th ed finally made them playable.

I mean they historically were BS4+ T4 Sv4+ models.

And multiple wounds, when such a thing was pretty damn rare on anything besides characters and monsters.

Time to call out the elephant in the room. Necron Warriors are crap so that you actually get an army of varied models to play with. Think about how small a Necron army would be if we had:

Necron Warriors - Intercessors with Reanimation Protocols
Immortals - Even better Necron Warriors with a much more badass gun
Deathmarks - Even better Necron Warriors with nasty sniper rifle
Lychguard - Assault Terminators with Reanimation Protocols

And I could go on and on. Get ready to field 1/3 less models in you Necron Armies so that you too can live what other have derisively called the Space Marine Power Fantasy. The only problem is that your army will look nothing like the unstoppable tide of silver that gives Guardsmen nightmares. Instead, it will be the small elite force of Necrons, even smaller that the Space Marines.

 JNAProductions wrote:
Multiple wounds with crap save in editions defined by AP breakpoints were just crap wounds.

As for GW's vision of the Necrons, at their inception there were the uber mysterious and uber powerful uber ancient race. But nowadays their pov has been quite explored.
Back then a Necron warrior was a mysterious killing machine, now we now a Necron warrior is a lobotomized civilian in a body that is kinda falling apart under 65 million years of entropy.

The Necrons have gained character, but it cost them mysticism and creed.