Why does the necron carrier lack bombers or assualt boats?

This ship is brand new and don t even exist in lore so your argument for missing anything is a bit lackluster.
Dominator have Novas in lore so if they miss it is a mistake.
Scourge dont have any real base to compare to so you cannot use any lore to explain what they should or shouldn t have.
Just imagine that they don t have the tools to launch bombers or assaults and it explains why it has only fighters. Or just wait until it is fixed or not and stop make constant posts about Necrons ignoring their current state and not saying anything about other factions.
BTW Orks don t have bombers too and I am sure somewhere in the lore we can find some "real" Orks bombers instead of the chassa bomba DOT.
Tau Mantas are also able to bring combat suit teams in battle so Tau should have assaults boats too

last edited by Beernchips

For f...s sake, cease being a hypocrite.

You say that Necrons have bombers and boats in the lore and therefore their carriers should have them, but you conveniently forget that THE SAME LORE states that Necrons DO NOT use them on any sort of carriers for whatever reason.
Maybe you should just honor your faction's doctrine, as clearly Necrons could use voidcraft in deep space, but just choose not to.

Consider yourself lucky you even got a pretty, non-lore ship in the game that is already more than useful to your faction.
Necrons are NOT supposed to have carriers, period.

I almost exclusively back up Chaos, but even in my hissy fits I take into account other factions when proposing changes like lance buffs.
But seeing your attitude perhaps I should campaign for returning lances to goold old "treat armor as 25", wonder how you'd like that.

@beernchips Its supposed to be a carrier for a faction with void bombers and assault boats so I don't see how it isn't meant to have them. No other factions have carriers with only one kind of strike craft, thus I don't make any comments. Orks possess assault boats in addition to fighter-bombas in game, and the tau have a secondary fighter that reduces enemy armor. But fine, if it bothers you so much I'll stop talking about it.

@Ahriman insulting people isn't a particularly effective way of debating you realize. It is stated a grand total of nowhere that necrons don't use carriers or that their strike craft don't use carriers, and as I already explained to you it is mentioned in every single codex since necrons got fighters that they use them in voidbattles. In fact, tomb blades were originally for void use only, and were only later adapted for atmospheric roles. I in fact, cannot honor my factions doctrine because that is highly maneuverable ships operating independently at high speeds lore wise, and even in TT utilized on their great speed and maneuverability. In this game, they have the maneuverability of a tortoise and speed of a quadriplegic and do not resemble the faction they are in lore or were in TT beyond being highly armored and having the same ship shapes. They don't even have turns, which can make the only maneuver skill they do have extremely frustrating as it often makes it so enemy ships exist your own firing arc.

I wouldn't particularly mind if lances got most of their power back because they are fairly bad at the moment. And I fail to see how stating a carrier should have assault boats and bombers affects other factions though, as I said repeatedly I don't care if the things don't actually do anything I am just stating they should have them.


You're desperately trying to turn the facts on their head.

I'm afraid you are on the wrong side of classic "prove that it exists/prove that it doesn't exist" argument. Lack of counter-proof is not a proof unto itself.
Or, borrowing your words, it is stated a grand total of nowhere that Necrons have anything remotely resembling a carrier. In fact, lack of carriers has been one of unique features that made the Necron fleet, in both TT and lore.

@nemesor-xanxas said in Why does the necron carrier lack bombers or assualt boats?:

And I fail to see how stating a carrier should have assault boats and bombers affects other factions though, as I said repeatedly I don't care if the things don't actually do anything I am just stating they should have them.

Please... just stop. You are humiliating yourself. Let's pretend you did not write this.
But for the record, let's see... how about: it gives a new weapons system to an already powerful faction? Armor and shield piercing weapons system that will be used against guess whom? Other factions perhaps?

last edited by Ahriman

@ahriman you have repeatedly made easily disproven statements. First you claimed that Necrons only use strike craft in planetary assaults, then you claimed to quote you “ THE SAME LORE STATES that they don’t use them on carriers for whatever reason”, and then you claimed they don’t use them in void battles. These were all false, and you responded to my pointing this out with insults. Generally, that’s the kind of behavior one would expect from someone who has been embarrassed, or “humiliated” as you put it. You then used my pointing out no, it doesn’t say Necrons don’t use these craft in carriers anywhere as another reason to attack me. Unless you can, right now, give a page number and book for your assertion, I don’t think it’s me whose trying to “turn facts on their head”. You then claim it was a lack of carriers that made the Necrons unique as a fleet. This is false. What made them unique was their incredible maneuverability, firepower, and speed, none of which are present in this game yet I don’t see you talking about that.

Unless you have already forgotten, you should know that the carrier already has fighter bombers, so it already does that damage you seem so concerned about. Bombers just mean the damage could be burst or over time. It’s something that effects one ship, in one faction, and does not change its play style. Most of its cost comes from the shortish ranged guns it has, so even with the new craft it’s going to have to close in while throwing out strike craft like it already does. Your suggestion on the other hand, reverting Lances, would affect just about half of all ships in every faction and completely change how the game is played. Suddenly, some ships would be hard counters by others, abd the whole meta would shift. That’s why I call that affecting other factions and adding bombers not.

I have no obligation to search through any books for a point about something that literally doesn't exist.
How about you point out a page number and book that states the Necrons use carrier based ordnance in deep space battles?
You keep trying to get around the basic fact of Necrons not using any carriers until this very game, recently.
You want to prove that giving Necrons a full fledged carrier, with full set of ordnance is loreful? You have to prove it.

Until then, your "lore" points are moot. As for your "balance" point about a lance example, the change does not have to be applied to every lance of every faction. But that's besides the point.

Adding full fledged bombers (let alone assault boats) would be a BIG deal, and it WOULD affect other factions, no matter how much you try to sell the opposite idea. For bombers, there is a significant difference between dot and burst, it means for example a difference between enemy escorts keeping you revealed and escorts destroyed.
For assault boats, we're talking about giving a long ranged boarding capability to faction that has "good troop efficiency" and "surgical strike", on top of its standard boarding. Talk about potential to hulk a ship or force out the CTA.

Lastly, I never said lack of carriers was THE thing that made Necrons unique. It's just that you neglected to catch the "one of" and "features" parts.

Lack of proper ordnance prevented the typical carrier tactics and enforced the usage of Necrons' strengths, which you have pointed out absolutely correctly.

Give them full assortment of ordnance, make them faster because apparently with 240 speed cruisers they aren't fast enough to catch anyone who would like to keep distance, and we will get Eldar from the first game, just with a lot more armor and 270 arc firepower.

last edited by Ahriman

@ahriman If you don't have any evidence for something, then maybe you shouldn't try and make statements that claim it. My statement about necron carriers was responding to your claim that it stated in lore that they did not use bombers and assault boats on carriers, and you know the context because my last point was flat out quoting that at you. If you are going to make statements that the lore says something, then yes you are obligated to do so, otherwise don't make claims you know you can't back up.

This is not getting us anywhere, so I am just going to quickly respond to your points and then try to summarize as this is just getting cyclical.

-On the big balance point: I think that makes sense. If you had said this and then "as such something something this would make the ship unbalanced" at the start we wouldn't have needed to have this go on long. Thats why I made the comment about not being very good at balance, because I was hoping someone would post an in depth explanation of why they are saying it would be a big issue instead of insult me or say things that can be summarized as its OP because it is.

On the unique comment, I apologize, you are correct that I missed the one of part.

On strengths, it annoys me that they don't have them in game, but I also understand that trying to balance it would likely be too difficult. I understand that firepower, speed, durability, and so on had to be tuned down for fairness, and as much as I hate what they did with ID it was probably to fast for a game like this, what most irritates me about the necrons in their current state is that they don't have a turn maneuver, as it means they have to ever so slowly reorient themselves. Its the most obvious way the fleet doesn't really resemble its lore/tt self.

On making the eldar, yeah, that's why they couldn't do the above. Its actually about 50/50 with the arcs though. The Cairn, Jackal, Dirge, Reaper, Ruiner and I think shroud have that, while the Kopesh, Cartouche, Harrower, and Harvester have broadsides, while the Sekhern has 90 front. I don't recall what arcs the carrier has. So its 6ish out of 12 that have the 270arc, which annoys me because broadsides feel imperial but that's how its always been so there's not much I can do about it.

Alright, onto the summarizing. The point of this thread was I always wanted to mess around with necron bombers and other such strike craft, but since this isn't empire at war you can't just have them running around without a carrier. So thusly I wanted a necron carrier, and hoped at some point we would get one, and then we did. I became confused when noticing the ship said it had them due to the fact the devs lazily copypasted the imperial tooltip over, and wondered why they lacked them from a lore standpoint as to me it made no sense that all they necron strike craft were missing as my mind believed in necron carriers for a long time as my mind made the following logical pathway:
-Some strike craft seem to have FTL by their description (like night scythes) but tomb blades don't due to their size.
-Tomb blades were designed to fight in void battles originally so they had to get their somehow.
-Necrons cannot just teleport things into various places in space or they woudn't have FTL troubles.
-Tomb blades are not created from some form of autogenesis
-Thus something must bring them
-Thus necrons must have carriers
I honestly would have dropped it if not for two things, one the tooltip left genuinely confused about whether they messed up or not and two I was operating under the assumption at the time that this wasn't the only thing they messed up, as surely they didn't think returning starpulse spam was a good idea and thus the new cruiser missing starpulse and the new light cruiser lacking it was a switch up right? So, due to the fact it seemed to me like this might have been a mistake and the fact it makes sense to me that a carrier the necrons would have made would have all their strike craft as logically it makes sense to me something is needed to carry the craft into battle due to necron FTL messes and the fact they are used in void battles so I made a thread explaining my opinion on the matter and seeking the opinion of others. I also stated my thoughts that it wasn't particularly good either as one of the reasons I believed this might have been a mistake. As you can tell, it didn't go well. I had hoped some other people would chip in with their opinions and eventually a staff member would jump in and explain it was one way or the other so I could go "oh, okay" but instead it became another argument about balance. I brought up lore, as lorewise it made no sense to me that the carrier had no bombers and such due to the above and how much of a waste building a carrier for only fighters seemed to be, and thus we got in an argument. The staff, as usual, never showed up.

I did all this because I prioritize lore over gameplay. Not in the "this unit should be unbalanced because lore" sense but the "this game was great because it had a good story despite bad mechanics" sense. I don't really mind if necrons are bad or not, I just want to be able experience playing with a necron fleet and listening to a necron story. So when I see this new ship and think "to me this makes no sense from a lore perspective" I am not really thinking about it from a balance perspective. I did originally make threads about that as I need the fleet to be playable to complete storymode, but the issues while never resolved were fixed by nerfing other factions. Mostly.

The thing I had hoped the staff would do and would satisfy everyone was pop in and say "we can't add them for balance reasons but can say that it has them lorewise" because lorewise is all I care about in regards to the conundrum for the ship, which is why repeatedly said things like I would be okay if the bombers and assualt craft did literally 0 damage or just self destructed upon activation. Now, I would like a full carrier gamplay wise as necrons are somewhat dull as they are in game due to lacking all the things you could do for fun if they were lore/tt accurate, like using your superspeed for ramming fleets and the addition of a carrier would help with that, but apparently that would be overpowered so I guess that's off the table. I don't play multiplayer very much, being mostly a story mode kind of guy (though now that there are rewards I might have to) so instead of nitpicking about balance I spend my time nitpicking about lore, which again is the thing I actually care about. I am probably one of the only people who paid for the game solely for the story, not that thats unusual given how many important things are in the absurdly expensive supplements.

Or, TL: DR I am a necron fan who came here to talk about necron stuff, and objected to it not having bombers on a lore ground more than anything else. I hope this texblock stack has now fully conveyed my position to you in a way that inspires less anger and more agree to disagree sentiment.

last edited by Nemesor Xanxas


@ahriman said in Why does the necron carrier lack bombers or assualt boats?:

But seeing your attitude perhaps I should campaign for returning lances to goold old "treat armor as 25", wonder how you'd like that.

For real, I kinda miss the way armour worked in the previous game. While not as intuitive at first compared to armour in other games, it allowed lances to work well with their low damage.
*for new players: previously, armor gave a chance to completely ignore a shot. Full damage or no damage.

Well, let's admit that leaning only on TT is stupid in TT Necrons and Eldars were just insanely OP due to curved rules, besides in BL, Necrons did use fighters, though the class didn’t specify but could destroy BB Space Marines
Book World engine . Well, I mean that there is no shout at the necron because the TT is not very. TT died in 2011? Then there were only fan-made horrible rules and ships should not exist at all. Oh, and I do not adhere to the statement that necrons need a buff, they seem to be a very strong and problematic opponent now

In general, I believe that giving fighters to one faction that destroy turrets and cause damage to the hull is strange, given that damage from fighters is more stable than from bombers, the edge of a Tau can be good for their bombers and all others will most likely die before they cause damage. Especially strange about Orcs, that is, they have bombers, and most importantly more types of fighters more charges. And it seems to me that the uselessness of the bombers is related to their low speed and the animation of the attack from them. Any ship can escape to AAF and a small number of models.

last edited by Nikof135