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.

 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.

Agreed and a lot of it comes down to which armies GW wants the basic troops to be "Elite". Necron Warriors being BS3+ S4 T4 made them fairly elite for most of the game imo, my old S3 (+1 on the charge) Orks were certainly envious. Based on the stat deflation of Warriors it would appear GW wants to treat them as a sturdy troop rather than an entirely elite army, which isn't surprising to me considering how much larger their model range got with 9th. More models and wargear should give a lot more options for building an army as long as the points aren't out of whack and the wargear is balanced against each other. Making troops cheaper (and less elite) means more options to field those new sculpts you love and more chances for GW to sell you those new models.

I think Warriors coming down a notch (and most importantly becoming cheaper) is a good thing on the whole, cheaper troops lets you field more of the elite or esoteric Necron units without worrying about losing precious points plus more troops generally trends better with reanimation protocols. Still I can see why people who have played Necrons for decades would dislike it. When you've been playing for so long you have an image in your head built up for how your force should be represented in the rules and no one likes getting the rug pulled out from under them.

Note I'm only referring to the BS 4+. I'm not a fan of the warriors Leadership nerf but I suspect characters joining units will fix that problem.

 Daedalus81 wrote:
You argue in such bad faith it's not even worth my time.

I've often found that those to say that are the ones who don't want or cannot argue back. Nothing I've said is unreasonable but you've just chosen to avoid answering any of it, and instead gone for hyperbolic ad hominem ("... people who think that anything that isn't what they liked 30 years ago is bad... ") rather than actually addressing the points raised. Worse, you claim that others are removing nuance yet think that throwing a block of cold, hard math at the argument will solve it, declaring that the maths is the thing that actually matters - as if it were the only thing that mattered - and that it makes you right. It doesn't. And it never will.

But if you want to run away from the argument, then that's your prerogative. We are not being forced to interact with one another, and do not have to if we do no choose to. Totally up to you. I wish you well. I hope you have fun with 10th. I on the other hand expect a little more from a company who's trying this for the 10th time and hasn't earned my trust that they'll get it right. The past informs the future, and GW's past is full of stumbling and falling. Why do you presume their future will be any brighter?

 Arachnofiend wrote:
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.

It was bad in 8th, but I don't think Necrons will have that problem in 10th, at least based off this sliver of a preview. Nowhere in Reanimation Protocols text does it say the unit has to have any models survive the turn. The points of interest to me are "each unit from your army with this ability activates its Reanimation Protocols and reanimates D3 wounds." and the second bullet point. "If all models in that unit have their starting number of wounds, but that unit is not at its Starting Strength, one destroyed model is returned to that unity with one wound remaining."

Reads to me that destroyed units still reanimate because they aren't at their starting strength and all units have to reanimate at the end of your Command phase.

*edit* for the record, even I an avid Necron player with a gigantic collection and many, many years of playing them thinks this is stupid and needs to be elaborated on to prevent cheese.

EviscerationPlague wrote:

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

Sometimes you have to just sit back and think about what the lore actually says. Necrons in lore do not run and they are never afraid, but they are quite often confused or slow to react to changing situations. Warriors are also a step below anything else that's a necrontyr in these things. They've been high leadership for a long time but that has represented something different each time.

 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.

That's actually a very good point that I'd forgotten about.

Once upon a time Necrons were these unstoppable Terminators (not 40k Terminators, Arnold Terminators) because that's what they were based on (however much GW might claim - on the record! - that all their ideas are original and don't come from outside sources).

But around the time of the Wardian Era that changed, they became Tomb Kings in Space, and the hardy Necron Warrior became more akin to a fantasy Skeleton Warrior. Whether this was a good idea can be debated from many angles, but the fact of the matter is for almost as long as they were the old style, Necrons are now the current way they are. As much as I sympathise with those that feel like the flavour of their army, or the themes it ones inhabited, have been stripped away, I think it's too late to go back to the way it was for Necron Warriors.

I remember when they suddenly weren't Sv3+ anymore. That was a shock to the system. Honestly I think part of it might be because GW wanted to not have quite so many Sv3+ armies in the game. Necrons are the ones who drew the short Ward, unfortunately.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 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.

That's actually a very good point that I'd forgotten about.

Once upon a time Necrons were these unstoppable Terminators (not 40k Terminators, Arnold Terminators) because that's what they were based on (however much GW might claim - on the record! - that all their ideas are original and don't come from outside sources).

I really enjoyed the inscrutable Schwarzenegger running around, destroying everything and teleporting away.

Necrons are the ones who drew the short Ward, unfortunately.

Exalted

 Arachnofiend wrote:
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.

And not the eldar or tau, who have an ability to wipe out multiple squads per turn? Warriors are, from the looks of it, ment to be chaff. More sturdy then an IG basic trooper, but not something that is 1+ better then a marine for fewer points. They will or seem to have a focus on having mass numbers of characters spread around the army as a mechanic too. In the end what ever they will work will boil down to how point efficient they are and how point efficient very killy armies are. If there is enough armies that can burn fast through necron chaff fast, necron will be bad. If not then they will at worse be different. At best, maybe good when they get a new codex.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

novembermike 809431 11529859 wrote:

Sometimes you have to just sit back and think about what the lore actually says. Necrons in lore do not run and they are never afraid, but they are quite often confused or slow to react to changing situations. Warriors are also a step below anything else that's a necrontyr in these things. They've been high leadership for a long time but that has represented something different each time.

Neither are my dudes. They have the part of the brain responsible for fear burned out, and then they are lobotomised on top of that. Yet somehow we ain't running around with 10Ld or higher.

crazysaneman wrote:

 Arachnofiend wrote:
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.

Reads to me that destroyed units still reanimate because they aren't at their starting strength and all units have to reanimate at the end of your Command phase.

This is the worst copium I've ever seen.

Destroyed units are destroyed. They're not on the field TO reanimate. This ain't something that's going to be erratad.

Let's just hope GW also reduces SM scouts to WS/BS 4+ again/ too. It would even the field a bit.
In the scope of 40K a Space Marine is not that special and shouldn't have rules that puts him 1:1 above all comparible elites.

If scouts were troops costed properly, space marine players would run them, even if they had stats like grots.

Plus since when are necron warriors, the skeleton hordes chaff of w40k, the "comperable elite" to space marines. Would be like expecting a blood knight to have similar stats to a ghoul.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

EviscerationPlague 809431 11529868 wrote:
This is the worst copium I've ever seen.

Destroyed units are destroyed. They're not on the field TO reanimate. This ain't something that's going to be erratad.

Maybe it is because of the vehicle rules brought back the unit not on the table can still interact with stuff, when it is in a transport. Can't blame people for having hopes, as long as they aren't longer then 1 edition in to the game. Otherwise the book keeping for necron armies would be crazy ton of token for dead units constantly respawning 1-3 wounds each turn. It would be crazy for both regular and tournament games.

Karol wrote:
Plus since when are necron warriors, the skeleton hordes chaff of w40k, the "comperable elite" to space marines. Would be like expecting a blood knight to have similar stats to a ghoul.

Have you read the other posts in this thread at all

Warriors have historically been MEQ units and it is only recently that their profile has been chipped away at until they're more comparable to the chaff of other factions

Necrons already have a chaff swarm unit, that's what the canoptek scarab swarm is.

Karol wrote:
Plus since when are necron warriors, the skeleton hordes chaff of w40k, the "comperable elite" to space marines.

'When one has no appreciation of the past, one looks a fool in the future'.
- Some old guy, probably.

A lot of this just comes down to marines having too many units and cannibalizing other armys design space.

Marine players smile and laugh while it happens, I hope they like mirror matches.

Boosykes wrote:
Marine players smile and laugh while it happens, I hope they like mirror matches.

HH is apparently pretty popular.

GW has simply learned a lesson over all these editions.

If the troops of a faction are too strong, then it can only be a mini faction. You can only have HQs and support vehicles for your incredibly powerful troops, like Harleys and Custodes.

GW wanted something more from Necrons so they toned down the basic trooper in order to bring layers upon layers of elite units in the faction.

Now one could say "But marines have elite troops and a lot of models!" but is that really true? Their "elite" troops have been a joke since forever, so that they could introduce more kits of "Eliter" models. GW painted itself in a corner with them, since you can't have chaff marines as troops after the way you portray them as poster boys.

Necron faction design has been made hugely better than marine faction design. Yes, they had to detach from the initial idea of the power level of the basic grunt, but honestly it was for the better.

 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.

You could call them a crap unit, but at the same time a Tyranid Warrior was individually superior to a Marine.

 alextroy wrote:
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.

Tell me you don't know how the Necron army functioned without telling me you don't know how the Necron army functioned.

When Necrons were priced at more than Space Marines, they were often seen in greater numbers than Space Marines. How did they do that?

I'll tell you. They did it with very clever design involving Phase Out, which encouraged large numbers of Necrons to be taken even though they had many more elite units available, because if their overall number dropped too low, the army up and left, counting as an automatic loss. Love it or hate it, it was very clever design. You got an elite force that still tended to appear in large numbers because of built in army weaknesses.

So basically I call BS on your assertions, because the past shows that "eliteness with numbers" is totally possible.

Boosykes wrote:
A lot of this just comes down to marines having too many units and cannibalizing other armys design space.

Marine players smile and laugh while it happens, I hope they like mirror matches.

Whilst I'd largely agree, pretty sure marines predate necrons, likewise the modern necron was introduced in 3rd, after marines. So they actually cannibalised the marines design space and hence warriors were bopped down to give more of a spread.

I would add that the "endless hordes of silent silver warriors" trope they've used since 3rd doesn't work when they're outnumbered by anything below custodes level, so a weaker horde of part-functioning warriors makes sense to display that theme imo.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
I think it's too late to go back to the way it was for Necron Warriors.

A lot of people really like the "Tomb Kings in Spaaace". And I don't advocate for taking that away from them, necessarily.

But there's a convenient possibility still around, and that's a Still-C'tan-Empowered-Necron-Army. Leave it open that some of the C'tan are still around, alive and well, and have it that their Necorn Legions are the Oldcrons. Divide the Necrons into the independent Dynasties, self-governing but feeling the effects of age, and then those that are still "C'tan Ascendant", with more of their former power.

Karol wrote:
If scouts were troops costed properly, space marine players would run them, even if they had stats like grots.

Plus since when are necron warriors, the skeleton hordes chaff of w40k, the "comperable elite" to space marines. Would be like expecting a blood knight to have similar stats to a ghoul.

Necron warriors have been ws and BS 4 since 1997 in 2nd ed. They were was and bs 4 right up top 8th when they switched to the fixed value stairs, then they went to ws bs 3+. So they've been that good for their entire existence.

In 2nd Ed they were t5 2+ sv.

From 3-4th they were t4 3+sv. They went down to 4+sv in 5th.

This is just another degredation.

 Insectum7 wrote:
When Necrons were priced at more than Space Marines, they were often seen in greater numbers than Space Marines. How did they do that?

Because they lacked options largely. I'm sorry but "your core trooper costs less but I have more" is a logical impossibility. A chaos marine was 14 pts base, a warrior was 18. There were usually more warriors because they lacked options to sink the points in and they needed the numbers to avoid phase out.

It was a thematic rule, but often resulted in "oh I'm hiding my unit of warriors behind this hill so you mathematically can't kill them to a low enough number".

I'll happily take worse warriors in return for avoiding Marines +1 who have to hide a quarter of their army.

Dudeface wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
When Necrons were priced at more than Space Marines, they were often seen in greater numbers than Space Marines. How did they do that?

Because they lacked options largely. I'm.sorrt but "your core trooper costs less but I have more" is a logical impossibility. A chaos marine was 14 pts base, a warrior was 18. There were usually more warriors because they lacked options to sink the points in and they needed the numbers to avoid phase out.

It was a thematic rule, but often resulted in "oh I'm hiding my unit of warriors behind this hill so you mathematically can't kill them to a low enough number".

I'll happily take worse warriors in return for avoiding Marines +1 who have to hide a quarter of their army.

Well it's not a "logical impossibility" when that's how it often played out, now is it?

 Insectum7 wrote:

 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.

You could call them a crap unit, but at the same time a Tyranid Warrior was individually superior to a Marine.

 alextroy wrote:
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.

Tell me you don't know how the Necron army functioned without telling me you don't know how the Necron army functioned.

When Necrons were priced at more than Space Marines, they were often seen in greater numbers than Space Marines. How did they do that?

I'll tell you. They did it with very clever design involving Phase Out, which encouraged large numbers of Necrons to be taken even though they had many more elite units available, because if their overall number dropped too low, the army up and left, counting as an automatic loss. Love it or hate it, it was very clever design. You got an elite force that still tended to appear in large numbers because of built in army weaknesses.

So basically I call BS on your assertions, because the past shows that "eliteness with numbers" is totally possible.

At a time when Necrons had barely any units, so it wasn't as much of an impact beyond "oh I might not want to spend all my points on Paraihs and Monoliths".
If Phase Out existed now, it would actively discourage use of many new units that wouldn't be true Necrons (vehicles and canopteks) at worst, and make people feel forced to spend more of their points than they'd otherwise want to on big blocks of infantry compared to more elite units like Lychguard, Deathmarks, Tomb Blades, all the diffeent variant Destroyers that exist these days, etc.

 Insectum7 wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
When Necrons were priced at more than Space Marines, they were often seen in greater numbers than Space Marines. How did they do that?

Because they lacked options largely. I'm.sorrt but "your core trooper costs less but I have more" is a logical impossibility. A chaos marine was 14 pts base, a warrior was 18. There were usually more warriors because they lacked options to sink the points in and they needed the numbers to avoid phase out.

It was a thematic rule, but often resulted in "oh I'm hiding my unit of warriors behind this hill so you mathematically can't kill them to a low enough number".

I'll happily take worse warriors in return for avoiding Marines +1 who have to hide a quarter of their army.

Well it's not a "logical impossibility" when that's how it often played out, now is it?

No, you don't "get more of them" you get 14 necrons for every 18 marines, basic maths. What you meant to say is "people were forced to take more warriors and play in a gamey manner".

Edit: my point is you're lauding a lack of options and a gak game mechanic.

 Matt.Kingsley wrote:

At a time when Necrons had barely any units, so it wasn't as much of an impact beyond "oh I might not want to spend all my points on Paraihs and Monoliths".
If Phase Out existed now, it would actively discourage use of many new units that wouldn't be true Necrons (vehicles and canopteks) at worst, and make people feel forced to spend more of their points than they'd otherwise want to on big blocks of infantry compared to more elite units like Lychguard, Deathmarks, Tomb Blades, all the diffeent variant Destroyers that exist these days, etc.

I call BS on this as well, since the Necron keyword could be applied to a greater number of units than it is now. Don't forget that Wraiths used to be Necrons and not Canoptek constructs.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Dudeface wrote:

No, you don't "get more of them" you get 14 necrons for every 18 marines, basic maths. What you meant to say is "people were forced to take more warriors and play in a gamey manner".

Edit: my point is you're lauding a lack of options and a gak game mechanic.

A great mechanic, because it literally encouraged more models even though they were at a more elite status. But also, adding more options doesn't detract from that mechanic either, since you're just looking for Necron bodies. Did you ever consider the idea of adding options that were lesser than Warriors? So rather than just ratcheting down the entire army roster, you just slipped in a new unit/s at the bottom of the totem pole? Such big thinks these are, I guess.

 Insectum7 wrote:
[Did you ever consider the idea of adding options that were lesser than Warriors? So rather than just ratcheting down the entire army roster, you just slipped in a new unit/s at the bottom of the totem pole? Such big thinks these are, I guess.

Nah. That's surely impossible.

^Well well well . . . what have we here.

 Totalwar1402 wrote:
- I am concerned that if they’re bringing stuff like bonus ballistic skill on Heavy weapons if you stand still that somebody might get the bright idea that “oh that means Sisters shooting multi melta and bolters on two plus most of the time. That won’t do.” They might not. But I could see them making that a thing and giving the power armoured infantry the same ballistic skill as a guardsman. Even if they don’t, it’s increasing the lethality across the board.

Just to address this point directly - they're not directly giving a bonus for HEAVY weapons on INFANTRY now, they've just reversed the way the previous penaty worked. Now, rather than get -1 to hit if you move, you get +1 to hit if you don't - but to keep the same to hit values, the base BS for such weapons is being worsened by one.

So, yes, I'd expect INFANTRY Sisters with HEAVY weapons to have a base BS of 4+, but the end result should be the same as it is today - and the same principles should apply across the board (with a possible exception for Guardian HW platforms).

Tyel wrote:
Alpha Legion and Iron Warriors maybe a bit more difficult to justify.

For Alpha Legion the death was all part of the plan... twirls mustache

PenitentJake wrote:
Who knows the game better- the people who invented it, sustained it for 35 years and already have the next decade planned...

You're feeling very optimistic if you think they've got the next decade planned - I'd be surprised if they have the whole of the 10th's edition cycle planned at this point.

 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 suspect it simply ties into how PRECISION weapons work - I can't remember if they've been fully revealed yet or not, but if they allow you to target specific models (or characters) in units, then you could end up with multiple wounded models in multi-wound units.

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

Is it really a worse RP, though? It's certainly a simpler one, with less dice-rolling required, and it seems more useful for multi-wound units than the one in 9th, for example.

+ + +

Completely unrelated question - did we see 40k rules for the new options that turned up in the Necron Kill Team?

Lord Damocles wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
[Did you ever consider the idea of adding options that were lesser than Warriors? So rather than just ratcheting down the entire army roster, you just slipped in a new unit/s at the bottom of the totem pole? Such big thinks these are, I guess.

Nah. That's surely impossible.

Insectum7 wrote:^Well well well . . . what have we here.

What you have there is a card for necron warriors being worse than Marines. They slapped the word "decaying" in front but that's only as relevant as the artwork depicts the warriors in better state than the 40k models.

But yes, you could have immortals as Marines +1, then warriors as Marines and warriors again as Marines -1, such fun, such flavour.

Likewise ironically, you can add in a new shooting unit that is a ranged lychguard equivalent and you'd also regain the same hierarchy.

In reality, it still comes back to phase out was not fun although it was flavourful, the "endless silver tides" being the most expensive core infantry is dumb and like it or not filling the role/statline they have now is more unique than they were before by virtue of not being just another meq army.

Dudeface wrote:

Lord Damocles wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
[Did you ever consider the idea of adding options that were lesser than Warriors? So rather than just ratcheting down the entire army roster, you just slipped in a new unit/s at the bottom of the totem pole? Such big thinks these are, I guess.

Nah. That's surely impossible.

Insectum7 wrote:^Well well well . . . what have we here.

What you have there is a card for necron warriors being worse than Marines. They slapped the word "decaying" in front but that's only as relevant as the artwork depicts the warriors in better state than the 40k models.

But yes, you could have immortals as Marines +1, then warriors as Marines and warriors again as Marines -1, such fun, such flavour.

Like the Marine codex. . with it's Marines, it's Marines +.5, Marines +1, Marines +2 and even Marines -1?

Dudeface wrote:
Likewise ironically, you can add in a new shooting unit that is a ranged lychguard equivalent and you'd also regain the same hierarchy.

Or you could just add more Marines and pump up the extent of the Marine +1 heirarchy without degrading the units below it. . . . Centurions come to mind.

The idea that Necrons had to be degraded to "make room for more options" is completely unfounded.

Dudeface wrote:
In reality, it still comes back to phase out was not fun although it was flavourful, the "endless silver tides" being the most expensive core infantry is dumb and like it or not filling the role/statline they have now is more unique than they were before by virtue of not being just another meq army.

I'd argue that Necrons are less unique now than they were before. They're sorta more like Robot Eldar now. Better-than-Marine-core-troop, with such a unique rule as Phase Out, coupled with their specific strengths and weaknesses, made them far more unique as a faction than they are now.

 Insectum7 wrote:
^Well well well . . . what have we here.

Someone with a brain. One could even call it an impressive opening up of design space, IF handled with care.

Granted IF they don't just replace NW due to being cheaper hypothethical as has happened with CSM and cultists. Granted CSM sucking in all versions, and not just slaanesh, and cultists doing so too but not demanding premium pay in points made it anyways a forgone conclusion.

One could also take a page from HH but that would require a functional force org, and grant them the "support Unit" special rule. Or one could allow reanimation protocol to reanimate at a lower quality for more reanimated bodies.

Alas, just as CSM get dark pacts for everyone and their mother on the middle of the battlefield despite such pacts often requiring a lot of time in it's depicitons, you will not get something sensible either.