PDA

View Full Version : Tau and Necron collectors' guide



DireStrike
13-12-2005, 20:38
http://uk.games-workshop.com/tau/collectorsguide/1/

What a strange product! I guess it exists because a "necron collectors' guide" probably wouldn't do too well on its own. Have there been other paired collectors' guides in the past?

It would be strange to find out there is some fluff connection between the two races, especially after the near-airtight insider info that the dawn blade is not a Necron artifact. Is it more likely that they just paired the two races together because of the similarity of the models(general sleekness and uniformity)? Perhaps they attached the Necrons to the Tau in the hopes of catching some of the Tau popularity?

A redshirt at my local store likes to float the rumor that the Necrons are going to be discontinued because they don't sell well. :rolleyes:

HiveFleetJomama
13-12-2005, 20:49
Why is this a rumor? The thing's been out for months now, if not longer.

It was a combined guide because there isn't much in the Tau or Necron model ranges, especiallythe Necron range.

Bregalad
13-12-2005, 20:53
I have this book. There is no fluff connection between these two races, at least not mentioned here. The obvious reason for pairing them is, that both are new Xeno races with (up to now) very few miniatures, compared to all other races. The best part of the book is not the miniature list, but all those pictures of painted models including Tau and Necron terrain!

Coming back to your rumor part: Necrons are very popular where I live, and if the Dark Eldar survive, so will the Necrons.

wilting_laughter
13-12-2005, 20:54
Indeed, that guide has been out so long I don't remember when it did come are.

Tau ARE Necrons. :angel: ;)

Helicon_One
13-12-2005, 21:01
Yeah, sems most likely that they threw them both together because neither had enough stuff to justify a book to themselves.

As for Necrons being discontinued, well, we can only pray....

Tim

wilting_laughter
13-12-2005, 21:02
As for Necrons being discontinued, well, we can only pray....


:eyebrows: :eyebrows: :eyebrows: :eyebrows:

Grand_Marshal_Kazan
13-12-2005, 21:10
Yeah, sems most likely that they threw them both together because neither had enough stuff to justify a book to themselves.

As for Necrons being discontinued, well, we can only pray....

Tim

Ah Necrons are the new Dark Eldars? Rumours about cancellations? Any proof on this statement?

DireStrike
13-12-2005, 21:18
No proof at all.

Swoo
13-12-2005, 21:30
What has to be hurting the Necrons most of all is lack of overall personality to the army.

The "charachters" are a charachter and two specials. Your HQ has a very limited set of options to toy with, and very little to give the model it's own personality like ..well...any other armies HQ.

The elites and troops suffer from being totally static to a players army list. There's not much to be done with any of them; One players Necron Warriors and Flayed Ones will basically be exactly the same as Player Two's Necron Warriors and Flayed Ones. No special weapon upgrades, no heavy weapon upgrades, no assault upgrades... I understand the idea behind the'Space Undead' with rank after rank of slow, methodical, identical gunmen...but it's boring for a owner. Heavy support and Fast Attack is decent, but could use an extra choice or two in each class, and perhaps some more equipment options.

I think the best thing for the Necrons would for the charachter of the race to be updated quickly. Not restarted mind you, but with so little information given, it would be very easy to slip in entire new tangents on the army and charachters and storylines right into the heart of the army in a new codex.

Make the army a bit like Chaos in the way it is composed. Each star-god obviously has a different way of doing things, reflect that in the lists. Let the Nightbringers Lord be a hulking, close-combat mechana with several wargear options reflecting that (programming and construction options?), the Deceiver could easily have a psyker class unit (or perhaps an upgrade on the Pariah experiment they have going on), and on and on. Give the army like four broad ways to go, and then branch out from there. Armies absorbed by the NB could favor more close assault units..giving extra options to Wraiths, Flayed Ones, ect..while other Star-Gods would obviously follow other compositions; shooting, short-medium ranged firepower, a vanilla list ala Black Legion and Ultramarines...and give the Necron units some damn flexibility. It's not that much of a stretch to say a warrior unit could upgrade one warrior to a Immortal for every ten models, or for destroyers to use something other than just a gauss cannon. Any force in a warzone would adapt to new combatants, I'm sure the Necrons would be the same.

Toppan
13-12-2005, 22:17
agreed, if necrons go chaosy then i will drop all the orks i have and go necrons in an instant. what are the other star gods?

boogle
13-12-2005, 22:28
The Dragon and the Outsider are the only other C'Tan that are known to have survived (the Outsider was supposed to have eaten all of the others, until the Deciever tricked him and the other into hibernating, or so i believe)

Karhedron
13-12-2005, 22:34
Not quite, the Outsider was tricked into consuming other C'tan by the Laughing God and it drove him insane (even the other C'tan now fear him). He retreated to his nice Dyson sphere with soft padded walls. ;)

The Dragon was the most powerful of the C'tan and the most technologically advanced. The Eldar legends of the time suggest he had entire legions of warriors with Lightning fields and superior regenerative capabilities. The Eldar only survived after their forge god Vaul created the first Wraithguard and Wraithlords to fight against the Necrons. Vaul then created the Talismans (Blackstone Fortresses) to try and destroy the Dragon itself but no one knows whether he succeeded.

For full fluff on the C'tan check out the Eldar mythic cycles in WD 272.

Brimstone
13-12-2005, 22:48
Ah Necrons are the new Dark Eldars? Rumours about cancellations? Any proof on this statement?

No because it's utter rubbish.

heretic
13-12-2005, 22:49
Yeah, sems most likely that they threw them both together because neither had enough stuff to justify a book to themselves.

As for Necrons being discontinued, well, we can only pray....

Tim
hahhaah funny guy.

Gazak Blacktoof
13-12-2005, 22:53
I'd hate for necrons to have the exact same organisation as chaos, with some sort of mark system. This is unlikely to happen anyway though as its improbable that we'll see armies for both of the other unreleased C'Tan unless we see models for them or if they remove C'Tan from the table top altogether, which would be my prefered option of the two.

I'd prefer a more character centric list anyway. Lords should be the focal point of lists not C'Tan. For one there are more of them and therefore there is greater potential for players to create individaul armies and personalities. If there were more viable options for characters (wargear) and more HQ choices then you'd get some uniqueness into peoples' lists right away.

With a few upgrades for units (lightning fields have already been mentioned) preferably with modelling possibilities, units can then be tailored to suit play styles and give necrons more personality without introducing squad leaders or special weapons. Individaul model upgrades should be kept out in a similar way to the Tau, who also lack special or heavy weapons troopers as upgrades to squads.

Swoo
13-12-2005, 23:06
Sorry, guess I was unclear. I did not mean for the Necrons to be in any way/shape/form like the Chaos Legions, only that I personally think it would be a good idea if they followed a principle of how the Chaos troopers basically follow the mold of the Power they serve. Hence, a Necron force absorbed and then constructed by a C'Tan like the Nightbringer would be built around the idea of a vicous, slow, intimidating assault force, while another force that was molded by the Deciever would be like nothing of the sort.

No marks, servitude, praising, or the like.

I also believe GW should just scrap the idea of there only being four C'Tans. They dont need to tell how many there are, but the option could easily be put forth that more, lesser powers exist, and they have followers of their own. Space Marines and their Chaos brethren seem to attract alot of followers because of how rock solid the units are, the flexibility of the army lists, and the ability to put a personalized stamp on the army as your own from colors to insignia to history to what have you. The Necrons are basically an empty shell in all aspects of their book.

And even the most basic of Tau units gets more options to their unit than the Necrons. You can have leaders, you get a choice in carbines or rifles, may bond them, and even throw them into a transport that you can kit out and totally change their role on the battlefield. Necron Warriors may have disruption fields and ...disruption fields.

That's all I was trying to say :)

heretic
13-12-2005, 23:11
I'd hate for necrons to have the exact same organisation as chaos, with some sort of mark system. This is unlikely to happen anyway though as its improbable that we'll see armies for both of the other unreleased C'Tan unless we see models for them or if they remove C'Tan from the table top altogether, which would be my prefered option of the two.

I'd prefer a more character centric list anyway. Lords should be the focal point of lists not C'Tan. For one there are more of them and therefore there is greater potential for players to create individaul armies and personalities. If there were more viable options for characters (wargear) and more HQ choices then you'd get some uniqueness into peoples' lists right away.

With a few upgrades for units (lightning fields have already been mentioned) preferably with modelling possibilities, units can then be tailored to suit play styles and give necrons more personality without introducing squad leaders or special weapons. Individaul model upgrades should be kept out in a similar way to the Tau, who also lack special or heavy weapons troopers as upgrades to squads.

I couldn't have said it better myself, ESPECIALLY about removing C'tan altogether. I will never field one in battle, just as I'd never expect a chaos player to actually play a chaos god, or an SM player to field a Primarch.

in addition, remove the C'tan from Imperial history. put the Dragon somewhere else...I feel it was unnecessary to do it in the first place.

heretic
13-12-2005, 23:14
And even the most basic of Tau units gets more options to their unit than the Necrons. You can have leaders, you get a choice in carbines or rifles, may bond them, and even throw them into a transport that you can kit out and totally change their role on the battlefield. Necron Warriors may have disruption fields and ...disruption fields.

That's all I was trying to say :)

Tau are working on thier second codex, expansion is a given. Necrons probably won't get one until the tail end of 4th ed.

I don't complain about the Necron army list, simply for the fact that it's better than what we had before... lord/immortal/warrior/scarab

Ozendorph
14-12-2005, 00:21
Why the C'tan hate? Aren't they simply avatars of the Gods themselves on the battlefield (much the same as Khaine for the Eldar)? And considering how cool the two models are, I wouldn't at all mind seeing their two other siblings sculpted...

As for the other comments, I think the Necrons fill a niche in that they are the only army that doesn't require at least a modicum of conversion and customization in order to fully use the army list. While I'm sure that doesn't sit well with some, I'd bet there are a few gamers who appreciate the simplicity of putting this particular army on the table.

Just my .02 :)

cailus
14-12-2005, 00:42
At my old club, Necrons were one of the most popular armies. At most there was about 15 players, and at least 4 Necron players (to compare there were about 6 Space Marine and 4 Chaos armies). If my club is anything to go by, the army that would be be cancelled would be the Eldar!

I have never even played against the Eldar and I've been playing since the Second Edition.

GodHead
14-12-2005, 00:55
Why the C'tan hate? Aren't they simply avatars of the Gods themselves on the battlefield (much the same as Khaine for the Eldar)? And considering how cool the two models are, I wouldn't at all mind seeing their two other siblings sculpted...


Not according to the background. They are supposed to represent the gods presence in totality. That's why they're so dumb. Too powerful already for the table, too weak to represent star killing super gods.

Gazak Blacktoof
14-12-2005, 20:26
It would be far better to have a necron warmachine which contained part of the essence of a C'Tan that can be unleashed as a weapon. There's already a version of this in Battle Fleet Gothic called the sepulchre.

I've been trying to dream up additional units for necrons and the additional HQ choice I came up with was a Satrap. Originally I'd envisioned a mini-necron lord but felt it wasn't entirely in keeping with the Codex as it stands so I turned the choice into a large walker.

Necron Lords I thought are essentially the brains of the outfit, they have all the techno-magical artifacts. The Lord's Satraps use the larger walker forms (likely equipped with much more impressive weaponry than the lord can muster and certainly better in combat) instead, relying on brute force rather than trickery and sleight of hand to carry the day.

lynchpin667
15-12-2005, 15:45
I've been trying to dream up additional units for necrons and the additional HQ choice I came up with was a Satrap. Originally I'd envisioned a mini-necron lord but felt it wasn't entirely in keeping with the Codex as it stands so I turned the choice into a large walker.

I've been messing with the idea of a basic C'tan HQ choice for some time now. There would be a list of upgrades available and a mandatory number to take (like hard points). That would prevent taking a cheap one just to fill a wraithlord role.

Then GW could sculpt a plastic boxed set with lots of options, like the new carnifex, to represent a variety of upgrades.

Perhaps one of the abilities to upgrade on the Generic C'tan would be aloowing units to fill different slots in the army, or making new options available to existing squads.

I havent worked much on the idea though since I stopped playing 40k in favour of better games.

Ozendorph
15-12-2005, 17:08
Not according to the background. They are supposed to represent the gods presence in totality. That's why they're so dumb. Too powerful already for the table, too weak to represent star killing super gods.

Hmm. I read the fluff a bit last night, and I'd have to say you are correct in saying they represent the gods themselves. However, they do leave plenty of room to explain their (relatively) limited power.

First, they're bound and confined to their necrodermis (somewhat containing their energy). I imagine this would be something like a daemonhost (rather than the daemon itself).

Second, and more importantly, their power is at low-ebb after having not fed for millions of years. There's a bit in the codex talking about how NB barely survived after his food-stock was depleated through the machinations of the Deceiver.

Anyway, it's no big deal either way. I like the minis and think they make for interesting units, but I can understand why others wouldn't like them.

Gazak Blacktoof
15-12-2005, 19:50
The problem with creating generic C'Tan is that they clash with the current Necron background material, if that were to change I'd be all for Do-It-Yourself-Star-Gods. Until then I think other HQ choices are they way to go.