The 5th Faction will be decided by YOU/Founders through voting later on. We will give you a big short list of the faction our licensor allows us to add and yes TAU and Necron are on that list but NO Squat are NOT. Good luck to the Necron players with a vote, but I wouldn't count your chickens yet. Founder vote + 5th faction of no mention how it will be decided + The vote can happen and it still may not get developed for launch but rather consideration for future content. I already see you are blasting this in other thread as your absolute response to anyone who does not want to see Necrons as a Playable faction so be careful to not alienate potential founder voters if you want Necrons to take the lead over Tau. Just saying, play this like a political campaign for your dream faction to win and not like some kind of crusade lol. All considered I will wait to make my decision on which faction to vote for until I see the official poll and purpose of the factions. I would not outright say no to Crons, but I need to see some ideas of how they will be implemented. OH yeah I also forgot to mention Miguel has on occassion made mistakes with terminology, I hope he didn't mix up the 5th sub-faction with 5th race faction...I would be happy if they did both though.
That's exactly the attitude I was talking about. People butting into the discussion. Making statements without supplying any supporting arguments. And then calling any discussion "tedious" when they get called out for it. I don't supply any counter-arguments because I can't see any valid ones. Also, am I now supposed to supply arguments for both sides of an issue? Wow. Talk about a bad attitude. And what is this about "winning the internet"? I am here to have a discussion about Necron lore and to explain how the new lore makes sense. What does that have to do with "winning the internet"? Enlighten us please, how does it work? Oh wait... too tedious I guess... First of all, I never claimed to be perfectly objective. A little hyperbole should always be allowed on the side. What is important is that the points one makes are supported by coherent arguments. And yes, for Necron players, who were trying to make their own individualised Necron army, the old codex provided no lore. All Necron armies were anonymous slave-armies to one of the two known C'tan. That is the context of the quote you used.
Hrm, not being able to make individuals in my Tyranid lists never stopped me from having badass armies that were a blast to play with and against. Newcrons are just another in a long line of Mat Ward lore abortions. Ancient mysterious metal space zombies> boohoo gullible aliens.
I don't necessarily mean individuals (although the old codex didn't have any HQ characters), I mean crafting an individualised backstory for your army and situating it in the context of the 40k universe. And Tyranids at least have the Hive Fleets that can be used to differentiate an army. And also some memorable unique beasts like "Old One-Eye". And then there always are Genestealer Cults.
This really is tedious. You really don't understand what bothers me? You, Cronty, are dismissing the old lore because you apparently don't like it all the while presenting the new lore as the best thing ever, again based on personal preference. The matter is mostly subjective, but can actually be argued objectively. But you're not doing that, as you've now openly admitted. I don't see the point in discussing the relative subjective values of Necron lore. It's like you're trying to tell people that they're wrong for liking something. See, some people apparently liked Necrons as anonymous slaves to some dreadful otherwordly god-like beings. And yes, some of those people were playing them. So, who are you to tell them that they're wrong for liking them the way they used to be or perhaps simply not agreeing with the direction they took while perhaps agreeing that they needed further development? It's pointless. It would certainly have been less pointless if you tried to honestly and objectively discuss the differences between the old and the new lore to point out what each has going for itself and then tried to present a personal judgement based on all the facts and arguments - instead of just hanging on to one side and your personal bias towards the new lore. But you did not try to do that, instead you repeated your opinion multiple times in a way most people would interpret as you trying to shove your personal opinion down their throats. Are you really surprised you got called out on that?
Hey fellas, I don't mean to be rude, but can we rerail the thread please? I appreciate the defense, but it's evident that Cronty isn't going make any concessions. He's going to continue to shout from the rooftops about how the new lore is incontestably better in every way, so let him do it. Giving him an audience is actually shitting the thread up more. Now lets get back to Necrons as PvP characters. Is there anyone else besides me who wants to see warriors be playable or is the general consensus that we should skip them?
Well, statwise there is no reason to skip them. They're full on MEQs. A tiny bit squishier than most MEQs, but their ability to revive and their anti-armor capability more than makes up for that. Lorewise I can see why some people would object, it would probably especially rile some 'nid players to see relatively mindless 'crons be playable but mindless 'nids not, but then again that was far from the only problem with 'nids anyway (for example, the question of how the hell you "crew" a carnifex or what the hell 'nid logistics looks like).
Wow, it's been a while since I've seen so many (wrong) assumptions about what I am thinking and what I am saying in one post. Also: I LOL'd pretty hard. Not exactly the best way start an argument. I admitted what exactly? If you're talking about me admitting to using some hyperbole on the side... Oh my! Touché! Bad me. Right off the bat, you get my main position wrong, making it look like you didn't even bother reading my posts in this thread. All my positions in this thread were supported by arguments. And the positions I put forth on the subject of lore were: That the new lore was better than the old lore and that the introduction of the C'tan was badly done. I never said the old lore was flat out bad and that I didn't like it. I said it had inconsistencies and incoherencies. As a matter of fact, when the old codex came out I was super happy with it. Yes, I saw the inconsistencies, but hey, a flawed codex is still better than no codex. Only when the new one came out and people started hating on it (especially all the Matt Ward haters) did I come out and say that it was better. That the flaws and problems from the old codex were mostly rectified and solved. Also I never said the new codex was perfect. In fact, I listed quite a few points that I didn't like. I don't want to discuss relative subjective values and never did. Just in my previous post I asked for counter-arguments to specific points I raised. Instead of providing some and thus entering an objective discussion, you are accusing me of being biased and tell me I am discussing preferences. Talk about ignoring what others say... LOL. I don't know what thread you've been reading, but I find it hard to believe it was this one. I clearly layed out, several times, the objective problems I saw in the old lore and how they were addressed in the new one. Yet here you are actually accusing me of not doing it! What gives?
