Talk:Necron (Warhammer 40,000)

This article was nominated for deletion on 24 February 2021. The result of the discussion was redirect.

This page was proposed for deletion by TTN (talk · contribs) on 7 November 2020.

I have made some changes or additation, to briefly explain the necrons and their history, if you dont want it you are free to delete it —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.212.158.167 (talk) 18:33, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Needs SPOILER alert

When it speaks about the Void Dragon, it makes a huge spolier on the plot of the book "Mechanicum". Quite careless. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Azathoth77 (talk • contribs) 12:13, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

can people stop referring to the dragon as the 'void dragon', it's a common misconception but there's a vast difference between the c'tan and an eldar warship... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.36.52.160 (talk) 11:21, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Needs to be re-written

I see someone has talked about copyvio below, but even if that is not needed I think the page should be re-written in a more encyclopedic tone. Ie. should have a section on how/when the race was developed in the game (ie. when they were 1st introduced, 1st codex, why GW introduced them.) And distinguish this from the fluff which appears to be to have been ripped straight from a codex. This should be an article about a wargames army

Also this section has massive glaring inconsistencies with the established warhammer 40000 background. For example the first c'tan awakened was the nightbringer, the krork were not created to fight the enslavers. In the section describing the necrons in the 40k universe, it suggests that the pariah gene may have been developed by imperial traitors but then also says it was introduced into the human gene pool millions of years ago, which makes no sense as the imperium has only been in existence for around ten thousand years. Also The first paragraph in the "history" section is complete gibberish, presumably caused by the merging of two articles.

The Krork were createdt o fight the enslavers, per the necron codex. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.226.61.13 (talk) 15:42, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

C'Tan separation

maybe the deceiver and the nightbringer should have there own pages? not unlike how the chaos gods have there own pages. or perhaps the c'tan could have there own page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.48.242.128 (talk) 22:10, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Possible copyvio?

This text is copied from the Games Workshops page entirely. What to do?

anyone care to prove above statement and take action ? — Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ) 23:28, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The entire text from "The Necrons are a mysterious race of skeletal warriors ..." to "... dreaded by all races in the world of Warhammer 40,000" does appear to be copied directly from Who Are The Necrons? Pak21 16:15, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Parts may be but it seems very unlikely GW would refer to their inspirations etc.

Perhaps the dreaded copyvio template should be invoked? Or we just blank the offending sections. GraemeLeggett 13:32, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{copyvio}} is needed only when the entire article is a copyvio (in all revisions). If just part of the article is a copyvio, then the correct procedure is just to remove the offending content. Cheers --Pak21 13:37, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

'Tis done - easy enough. GraemeLeggett 13:51, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Final Fantasy 9?

Okay, while i can vaugly....VAUGLY see the inclusition of the Final fantasy 9 material, i somhow lack the ability to see its usefull ness to the artical in its entirty. Surly, yes, it deserves mabey a mention, but this is no mear mention. The Sup title dealing with the final fantasy 9 refrence is nearly as long as the actull content about the Necrons. As well as its filled with information that seems more suited to a walkthough then a Infromative article about the Necrons of Warhammer 40k.

You mean with the Genomes? Maybe.... Jenaisis 19:21, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Did you mean vaguely? I don't really understand what you mean by vaugly... 172.207.71.46 15:24, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orkish exaggeration?

What's the dispute about the Orkish exaggeration comment? It's now been reverted multiple times without any edit summary or explanation here, which isn't helping me to understand the issue. Anyone? Cheers --Pak21 10:58, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The things is, there is no statement anywhere of sightings or possible existence of a larger Necron capital ship. In the GW Necron Fleet List, it's said that the Orks claim to have seen one, but this "is discarded as typical Orkish exaggeration". I'm for including this part since it will emphasize the apparent unreliability of the rumor. However, I will not take any action and wait for an explanation of those who wish to see that sentence gone. --Xasf 13:56, 27 December 2005 (GMT+2)

Remember that this is an article about a game, and therefore "exaggerated statements" are actually highly likely to come to pass. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.90.165.114 (talk) 00:15, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merger

At the moment, I have to say that I'm tempted to undo the recent merger. It appears to have just be done by copy-and-pasting the two articles into this one, which produces lots of ugly bits, for example multiple instances of "In the fictional Warhammer 40,000 universe", multiple mentions of necrodermis before the section itself, links to the now-merged articles, etc. I think the merger is probably a good idea in the long run, but it needs to be done properly, and unless someone has the time to do the non-trivial amount of work needed to fix up the article as it currently stands, then I think they would be better left separate for now. Any views? Cheers --Pak21 11:35, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looks better now after the last series of revisions.. --Xasf 15:06, 02 March 2006 (GMT+2)

Which have essentially undone the merger :-) Cheers --Pak21 13:10, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am very much in favour of a merge between Necron and Necrontyr. If no-one has any objections, then over the next fortnight I'll re-direct Necrontyr to Necron, transfer all information across and do a full copy-edit to make sure there's no glaring duplications. - Heavens To Betsy 20:00, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds fair to me. GraemeLeggett 09:27, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Same here. I also would point out that we really need to start following WP:WAF and stop writing articles "in universe"- ie articles should be less simply reprints of background from codexes/rulebooks, presenting the fiction as real; and should contain more real world perspective of the subject. It's a major problem for Warhammer articles (both Fantasy and 40k)- I too have been guilty of it. Cheers --DarthBinky 15:38, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We should definitely not be doing "reprints", rewrites is one thing. Ideally we could get it down to a few select quotes to illustrate the colour of GW prose. Although a lot of the GW related stuff is heavy on in-universe style you should see Universal Century Technology. GraemeLeggett 17:06, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Two wrongs don't make a right. ;) Cheers --DarthBinky 13:12, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Robotic Necrons

Codex Necrons clearly states that Necrons are "largely mechanical creatures" and that weapons such as Agonizer work by targeting their internal power systems. So I think they are qualified to be described as "robotic". And as for refuting the EMP-bombing issue, remember that Necron technology is beyond human understanding. They can bend our unbreakable physical laws (like inertialess ship drives) and it is very probable that their inner workings are not our simple electron-based circuits and are therefore unaffected by a common electromagnetic pulse. --Xasf 12:21, 09 March 2006 (GMT+2)

Weapons, Equipment, and Vehicles of the Necrons

I'm thinking about creating a separate article for Necron warfare to standartize with the other race articles. I'll then crop the existing Necron Forces & Weaponary section and provide a link to the new article.

And about the units and fleet info.. Well I suppose I'll leave them where they are for the moment.. Any suggestions / opinions before I start? --Xasf 17:33, 30 June 2006 (GMT+3)

Well, I take it as a "no" :) --Xasf 08:05, 03 July 2006 (GMT+3)

Weapons, Equipment, and Vehicles of the Necrons (Warhammer 40,000) is live. Please see the talk page for details & suggestions. Thanks.. --Xasf 11:09, 03 July 2006 (GMT+3)

Nice, but we still have a "Necron Weapons" section here, and it's full of totally wrong things... Shouldn't it be removed? DracoRPG 16:18, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Side note: the article also need a Ctan Phase Sword item --Bartbarian (talk) 20:30, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Enslavers

I think there may be some confusion about Enslavers. There are a little developed 40k species called enslavers who control others minds, but I think the enslavers here are the Necron reference to Chaos Daemons (or whatever else happens to be reflected in the Warp). Might be worth clarification. - Richard

Hi.. I think you are referring to these Enslavers. Seems like they are the ones we are talking about both in the Necron and the main article, are they not? Take care --Xasf 16:37, 20 July 2006 (GMT+3)

Hey guys, I noticed that the enslaver section is pure bogus, we need to delete it as there is very little (I actually fonud none) true information in that section:

"Then the Enslavers appeared. The increased psychic link that the Old Ones had nurtured mirrored the destructive impulses of the warring races in the warp. Rage, hope and despair took their first steps to sentience, feeding on the raw emotion and mass influx of spirits resulting from the War in Heaven. These entities eventually became the Chaos Gods Khorne, Tzeentch, and Nurgle."

The Chaos gods were created later, the enslavers are actually BAD for the chaos gods, as they use thier followers. The rest is just nonsense.

"Meanwhile, the Enslavers began to dominate the psychic races for their own agendas. They pushed their way into the real world, killing millions and entering the minds of any psychic living creature, which they drove to fight and die for them. The Old Ones' places of power fell to the horrors of their own creations. The Old Ones tried to save themselves by creating new races to defend their strongholds, but it was too late."

This makes no sense as it is a mix of fluff from 2 sources, the first is that the old ones were almost killed by the C'tan and their necrons, the enslavers came after, they might ahve never even "met", the enslavers made the C'tan go into sleep as they decided that it wouldn't be of any use battling enslavers becasue since they are essencially daemons, they will go back to the warp sooner or later, and they will kill all psychers, and the C'tan want then both dead, letting them kill each other is the best thing. Also the galaxy was running out of food for them, so they decided that if they wait a lngo time the galaxy would be even more full of live for them to feed on, which came true. The second part is false because it is a wuote from a book but that is palced in the wrong context. Indeed "The Old Ones tried to save themselves by creating new races to defend their strongholds, but it was too late." but they created the races to fight necrons, not enslavers.

"It should be noted, that the Enslavers are NOT Chaos gods, but are more along the lines of Warp wild-life, animalistic predators. Their tactics are simple. They would find a suitable host an 'commandeer' it's body. Running the host to its limit, the Enslaver will use the host to open a portal to the warp, allowing more Enslavers through, and beginning the cycle anew."

This is true but I do not see the use of the "It should be noted, that the Enslavers are NOT Chaos gods" seems redundant.

"Enslavers are one of the main reasons why warp-travel is so dangerous, and why a psyker puts their mind at risk every time they employ their abilities."

This seems to think that all daemons are enslavers, if you take this text and change every instance of the word enslaver for Daemon, it is exacly right. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.241.24.164 (talk) 20:10, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Necrontyr and Necrodermis Merge

I just think that the necrontyr page being seperate is unnecessary as it could be added into this article and it would then strengthen the necron article as well Lowris 17:48, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've thought the same thing. Should we poll it or something? edit- nevermind, I see that the Necrontyr article has already been flagged for merging. Good job. :)--DarthBinky 20:10, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good. Also applied the merge tag on this end. Take care --Xasf 08:19, 01 August 2006 (GMT+3)

No need for a poll as far as I'm concerned. Be bold! Cheers --Pak21 09:18, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Does the Necrodermis article deserve to be an article on its own right or could it be summarised and included in the main necron article? Lowris 14:30, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say merge it- either to Necrons or to the weapons/equipment article. The existing article is almost entirely written in-universe, and much of it could be cut out. --DarthBinky 14:50, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I remember Necrodermis issue being raised before for merge into the weapons&equipment article, but we couldn't fit it since it was neither a weapon nor an equipment. Still that article is better for merging than the main Necron article imo, so you are welcome to give it a shot. Take care --Xasf 08:26, 11 August 2006 (GMT+3)

Since Necrontyr and Necrodermis are pretty much exclusively terms associated with the Necrons, yes, they should be merged. To me there's no question and I'm surprised are still separate. Prophaniti 17:17, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that instead of putting necron immmortals as the first picture

Couldn't we put something like necron destroyers as pictures? Also, I think that perhaps we can add some necron stats on the site aswell. Necrowarrio0

Destroyers...they look worse than the immortals you need a c'tan, oh and may the blood god feast on your souls --Khrone-The blood god- 11:50, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What's wrong with having Immortals as the first pic? I think it looks fine. As for posting stats, that's a huge no-no. Cheers. --DarthBinky 16:13, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Immortals are really just warriors with bigger guns...and i don't think they make the necrons look terrifying. The necrons need something to grab the attention of the viewer. Khorne the blood god spits on thee immortals and sends them to the depths of the warp --[[User:Khorne-The blood god-|<font colour="Green">Khorne-The blood god-]] 11:41, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well I personally think that a c'tan would be more effective at grabbing peoples attention, Inqusitor bob

The article is called "Necron" not "C'Tan", so I don't think there's much of an argument for replacing the first pic of a Necron to a C'Tan. Prophaniti 17:18, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to try to scan/upload a pic of the Codex cover. IMHO, per WP:WAF, that's the most appropriate pic we can have on the front/article top. Shrumster 20:23, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds fine. Just remember to write some fair use rational, and use a scaled down picture. --Falcorian ^(talk) 00:07, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename

Should this be renamed to Necrons? The Tyranid article was renamed Tyranids. shouldn't the same be done here? Martin23230 12:15, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. The army is more often known as Necrons. I support it. Land raider 17:14, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done! Shrumster 20:21, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Monolith merge

Hi. I'm all for the merge (didn't even know there was a separate article for the Mono), but wouldn't it be more appropriate if we merge it into Weapons, equipment, and vehicles of the Necrons as it already has an entry there..? Take care -- Xasf 23:23, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Stupidity on the part of whoever placed the merge tags, I'd say :-) Cheers --Pak21 08:09, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, stuff happens. Flesh is weak, after all ;) Take care --Xasf 19:19, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Space Crucade

When talking about the origin of the Necrons, is it worth mentioning their similarity to the 'android' monster from the 40k related boardgame 'Space Crusade?' —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 62.8.113.107 (talk) 15:45, August 21, 2007 (UTC)

Good point, though I'm pretty sure the androids in Space Crusade are meant to represent the robots that existed prior to the fall of man and subsquent appearance of the god emporer. Most the missions in space crusade were based on space hulks many if not most of which had been drifting for millenia or more in the immaterium. Still might be worth a passing mention of the similarity.

(For those who havn't seen the board game the androids essentially looked like necrons, being a humanoid skeletal robot, but had a more human shaped "skull", and a bayonetted rifle of some kind rather than a gauss flayer.)--85.62.18.3 01:01, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

More importantly, unless there is a verifiable source for that similarity, it's original research and therefore not suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia. Cheers --Pak21 09:51, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Factually Terrible, do not rely on this article as it is written (04/12/07)

This article is factually terrible and poorly written. For example, in the Enslavers section someone stated that as the enslavers killed the younger races, the c'tan began to starve and had to stasis in order to save themselves. This is poppycock. The necron codex directly quotes the Deceiver as stating that the enslaver plague couldn't hurt them directly, and the necron codex states that the c'tan went into stasis instead of returning to feed on the stars they once had.

This article needs to be rewritten, with citations. There is simply too little cited here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.226.61.13 (talk) 15:46, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Update

I agree with a lot of the talk about making the article more encyclopedic, as well as clearing up a lot of the inconsistencies and contradictory statements. I also think it is important to retain information on the character of the race, as well as when it was first developed for 40k etc.

I added a section on necron construction, which seemed to be lacking from all the info on wiki. feel free to correct any grammar/spelling I might have inadvertantly missed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.59.200.80 (talk) 20:27, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

might want to mention that the stuff on necrons ships in in a starship game, linked to the 40K universe, called battlefleet gothic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.69.73.151 (talk) 06:08, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reviving "Weapons, equipment, and vehicles of the Necrons" ?

Hey all.. It's been a couple of years since I have last contributed to this article (I have done some serious work on it back in 2007), and I was a little sad to see all the clean-up tags right on top of it. It seems to me that the article has grown out of proportion and is simply too complex to neatly trim as it stands. Therefore I propose that we revive Weapons, equipment, and vehicles of the Necrons and move all the relevant stuff over there, while also doing some much needed editing on this one. I can't exactly recall why those two were merged in the first place, but now there is enough content to fill both articles quite easily, and similar examples such as Equipment of the Imperium (Warhammer 40,000) or Vehicles of the Imperial Guard (Warhammer 40,000) warrant it.

Well that's it. If nobody has anything against, I'll start working on the split in a couple of days. But if you have any comments, I'm eager to hear them. Take care! -- Xasf (talk) 19:46, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, deletionism has rendered such a course of action impossible. I propose that we reorganize the forces and weaponry article by function, rather than unit. For example, we could have leaders, infantry, anti-armor, and Armoured support sections, hypothetically. Most of the units have very similar in-universe characteristics which are already covered, so we can focus on the models and their roles. Tealwisp (talk) 08:33, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Borgs and Terminators

I strongly disagree with the list of references to Borgs and terminators:

"The Necron concept draws from Star Trek's Borg aesthetically, and the overall feel as an army that is supposed to be soulless, relentless and unstoppable. The Necron Warriors bear resemblance to the Terminators of the Terminator series." First off, these so called Borgs, though they are most comically referred to as the "Resistance is futile" meme, they take a more human-like appearance and style, ergo Borg, meaning: Cyborg, which is a human form of robotic engineering. Second item of note, the Terminators. Although this reference is more partially correct, it is still off in some aspects. For one, the terminator series, were all originally engineered and created by humans for military combat and training. Even though they bear a small resemblance to the terminators, they have enough dissimilarities to render the reference invalid. On another note, the Necrons were never meant to retain human-like features, nor were they created by humans. Further more, the Necrons were derived from a race known as the "Necrontyr". There is no way to verify whether or not the Necrontyr had human properties or functioned in a similar way at all, as there is no documentation on the species. Please change the subject matter or remove it, because I cannot find any similarities between the Borgs, Terminators and Necrons.

67.49.246.50 (talk) 07:44, 23 July 2010 (UTC) A Really Helpful Person[reply]

Indeed, I should like to see a reference for this. Can anybody prove that the Necrons were based upon the Borg?

I, Englishman (talk) 01:19, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have been searching for some time now, and still haven't come up with anything. Considering that the creation times of the borg and necrons are so close together that I doubt that they are based off eachother. I still stand by what I said earlier: Borg = Cyborg, which literally means half machine, half human. Necrons are far from human in nature, and if you did a side by side comparison, you'd find that necrons are far more ancient than these 'borgs'. I have the feeling that someone who likes startrek has been lurking here, that coupled with the fact that there is no true article (from GW) or any other magazine stating this. I would like some evidence as to where they garnered this idea from as well. (talk) 23:20, 16 August 2010 (UTC) A Really Helpful Person —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.49.246.253 (talk) [reply]

I have placed a {{citation needed}} tag after the assertion. If neither I nor anybody else can find a reference within one week, I shall remove the claim altogether. --I, Englishman ^{Wouldst thou speak?} ^• ^Handiwork 08:53, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the reference.

I,E ^• ^{Wouldst thou speak?} 12:22, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

YO, the info on the Necrons is good, but due to some info from the Dark Crusade, where did the Chaos Gods and the C'tan Gods have their little battles at? Was it before the time of time or later on? --Zhang Liao (talk) 13:47, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Necron and the Chaos Gods never had any battles. Chaos Gods cannot leave the warp. I think you mean when did the Old Ones and the Necron fight. There is an answer to this, but in less than a month the Necron will get a new codex so much of this page will need to be edited most likely.72.199.100.223 (talk) 17:45, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Necron Lord Tobias Bomm.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:23, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]