PDA

View Full Version : Should Necrons receive the Fearless or Stubborn Universal Special Rule?



MALICIOUS LOGIC
26-08-2008, 05:30
Should Necrons receive the Fearless or Stubborn Universal Special Rule?

Fearless: In 40k it represents a cold hard killer that is immune to the effects of morale and pinning on the battle field. From a game-play point of view it ensures that the unit will not fall back, become pinned, or be caught in a sweeping advance. The negative side of this is that it forces armor saves on the unit if is loses in melee (which is still often better than being outright destroyed or run off the table).

Stubborn: In 40k it represents a unit that is headstrong and resolute. They take morale and pinning tests, but with no modifiers. The negative side of this is that they can still fail and fall back or be pinned. They are also able to be caught in a sweeping advance.


Personal thoughts: I like the effects of Fearless and I think it would work better for the Necrons. I am also an advocate of keeping things in-line with the background fiction. I don't like seeing things that are only popular because they are more or less powerful at the moment (there are other ways to balance the game such as points values). And I think rules and/or background contradictions hurt the game as a whole. The only emotion Necrons have is hatred and they are otherwise fearless in all the stories. The idea that they are stubborn or that they are suppressing their emotions does not fit with the fiction at all, IMHO.

Plus Necrons have no reason to flee or make a "tactical retreat". They know that it they're losing the battle, then they'll be teleported out, repaired, and come back in stronger numbers. They do nothing but advance while on the battlefield.

Necrons will be weak in close combat even with Fearless. It does not create a situation where they will be unstoppable. Stubborn might be an attractive deal. But it makes no sense for the Necrons. The idea that they would run off the battlefield or turn their back in close combat to run (then get caught in a sweeping advance) is uncharacteristic of the Necrons.


P.S. This is taken from a post I created on another forum.

~Logic

Lancaster
26-08-2008, 05:34
I'm thinking stubborn. They are not above retreat, but they don't take it lightly

Drogmir
26-08-2008, 05:44
I remember they explained in the codex that Necrons don't suffer fear but use the rules for balance sakes and to represent strategic withdrawal. Otherwise normal Space Marines would be Fearless or Stubborn due to their fluff and misleadingly named ATSKNF rule.

MALICIOUS LOGIC
26-08-2008, 05:53
It’s on page 13 of the codex under “Morale”. The only reason they have the description of "logical or advantageous" reason for them to "retreat" was because it was a weak attempt at justifying not giving them Fearless. At the time, during 3rd edition, giving them Fearless would have made them too powerful (it was discussed in the designers’ notes). Basically this "Morale" statement was made to quiet the fanboys. But the idea that Necrons retreat is never backed up in the fiction. In fact, the fiction (and the intent of the designers) is that Necrons are fearless.

Necrons are always described as being fearless in their fiction. They never retreat or withdraw from a battle on a unit level. If they're losing the battle, then the whole force will be teleported out, repaired, and come back in stronger numbers. They do nothing but relentlessly advance while on the battlefield.

P.S. Since when is running away like a coward in close combat, then being destroyed in a sweeping advance a “logical or advantageous” move? It’s completely uncharacteristic of the Necrons.

~Logic

Aurenian
26-08-2008, 06:21
I think fearless would be an appropriate rule for them to represent the relentless nature of the necrons in battle. perhaps a slight points hike to go with it would be appropriate.

murrytheskull
26-08-2008, 06:31
Necrons undoubtedly need one of these rules because right now as soon as warrior squads lose a combat (which with their horrible initiative is pretty easy to accomplish) they are getting swept.
Much to my chagrin, I have found that sweeping squads makes the phase out counter go up rather quickly.

Personally i would go with stubborn. If you dont look at the names of the two rules i think stubborn is more advantageous and appropriate ruleswise.

Stubborn allows them to obey logic rather than blindly walking into danger because they are fearless. Though my perception might be coloured by the fact that i associate fearless with frothing berserkers rather than dead 'ard robots who don't care if they get hit a few times.


Sorry for any spelling errors i'm hammering this out quickly at work while the boss isn't looking.

Murrytheskull

pinegulf
26-08-2008, 06:54
Hmm. Well only from fluff-perspective: They are now in 5th ed centient and thus don't qualify for either for those perks.
From game-balace-perspective: Well they definately could use some boost. I'd give some troops maybe stubborn rule. Maybe. It would need some playtesting.

Znail
26-08-2008, 07:07
Fearless wouldnt be out of character, but it all depends on what else they are getting in their new codex.

Lord Exander
26-08-2008, 07:48
Personally I feel that Necrons need both fearless and relentless to fit the fluff properly. Unfortunately, that would probably up the cost of warriors to 21 or 22 points per model (with everything else increasing in cost as well). Of course that might be the best way to go all the same.

Arkhar
26-08-2008, 07:54
Necron warriors should stay cheap for fluff purposes, (just look at the pics :p), so I think that neither of those rules would fit. Perhaps considering phase out in these cases like the unofficial rules for epic. If a necron squad fails to past a morale check it phases out and stays in reserve until it is available. It can enter through portals if there are any. Of course the actual phase out would be removed.

Souleater
26-08-2008, 09:25
From background, the Necrontyr were a bunch of jealous, whiny gits who decided to attack the Old Ones rather than finding a better place to live and fixing their own problems.

Given their lack of backbone in life I find fearless a bit of a joke. Stubborn would represent their new and repairable bodies while showing that in the end they will still end up running off shaking their fists at those pesky younger races.

In game terms, Fearless means extra casualties from NR! And frankly we have enough Fearless units in the game.

Lord Cook
26-08-2008, 09:53
And frankly we have enough Fearless units in the game.

I agree. Sometimes rules are introduced not because they fit the fluff, but for game balance. It may not 'fit', but giving them Fearless would force a price rise, if only of a point or two. Now what you really need is some decent anti-tank to replace Gauss now that it's so much less effective against tanks.

Sigzo
26-08-2008, 11:09
I as a Necron player voted none. I feel Necrons are expensive enough as it is, and with either fearless or stubborn, points would go up and I don't think that's a vice move. What I would like to see is FNP instead of WBB. Now I know it's not as good as WBB for most purposes but it will help the Necrons in close combat, as it ignores wounds, as a resault fewer dead Necrons will count for combat resaults and more Necrons will strike back, possibly adding to your own combat score.

Now I have lost a 15 strong warrior unit to 7 charging genestealers so I know how much it hurts us not having either stubborn or Frearless, but I still don't feel those rules are the way to go.

One of necrons strongest abilities is their mobility, staying away from close assault with strongly oriented close combat unites should be your number one priority.

Sekhmet
26-08-2008, 11:11
From background, the Necrontyr were a bunch of jealous, whiny gits who decided to attack the Old Ones rather than finding a better place to live and fixing their own problems.

Given their lack of backbone in life I find fearless a bit of a joke. Stubborn would represent their new and repairable bodies while showing that in the end they will still end up running off shaking their fists at those pesky younger races.

In game terms, Fearless means extra casualties from NR! And frankly we have enough Fearless units in the game.

Lack of backbone in life? Does it take more backbone to simply change yourself, or to go pick a fight with the largest and most advanced galactic power at the time? Do their actions in life really matter one tiny bit when, for the most part, they have absolutely no free will in any way, shape or form?

In game terms, I'd take extra casualties over losing the entire squad with no chance of WBB.


Anyway, I voted neither. I don't want to give people more reasons to complain about Necrons.

Havock
26-08-2008, 11:14
Please, not more fearless armies.

Koryphaus
26-08-2008, 11:18
Since when is running away like a coward in close combat, then being destroyed in a sweeping advance a “logical or advantageous” move? It’s completely uncharacteristic of the Necrons.

I'd've thought that attempting to flee from combat where the outcome is not in your favour would be quite logical and could well prove advantageous. Cowardice has nothing to do with it.

Revlid
26-08-2008, 11:37
I don't think Stubborn would be out of character or require a huge points hike.

Souleater
26-08-2008, 11:49
(Prods Sek with Warscythe) You do realise my comment was somewhat tongue-in-cheek? :)


Does it take more backbone to simply change yourself, or to go pick a fight with the largest and most advanced galactic power at the time?

The former. Going out and starting a ruck with somebody out of anger and jealously isn't a great indicator of character if you have the capacity to change your own situation.

'sides, at 18pts a pop I think they could have Stubborn without an increase in points. Compared to what SM get (especially ATSKNF) I don't think that would be unwarranted.

I admit I'm probably being a little oversenstive to Fearless due to the effect of NR! on gaunt broods. :(

I want to see Stubborn used a little more often than another reason for things to be Fearless.

The Necron do run away - they phase out - if they are Fearless why not fight on to the bitter end just to kill as many enemies as possible? As an effectively immortal being devoid of most emotion but hatred I'd fight onto the bitter end. :D

That's why I think Stubborn is a better fit for Necron - they will fight on against the odds they won't always keep fighting 'come what may'.

Magister
26-08-2008, 11:59
I would love to see a Necron running. T'would be a hilarious sight...

Eryx_UK
26-08-2008, 12:03
From a fluff stand point making them fearless would better represent cold unfeeling machines, but WBB is enough game wise IMO. Making them fearless as well would not be good game balance.

EarlGrey
26-08-2008, 12:16
I think giving them Fearless and/or Stubborn would make them too tough in assaults. I like to think that the best way to deal with Necrons is to get up close and personal with them - but even then it's not exactly easy...

Saying that, out of the two, Fearless would make more sense, however, Slow and Purposeful would be more fitting than either of them. :)

MrBigMr
26-08-2008, 12:29
I think fearless is more fitting for things that have no regard for their own safety, like Chaos and such. Necrons are more calculative. They're not totally brainless. Besides, the fluff is more of an image builder. Like how bullets just glance off loyalist Marines where as traitor ones (even if the "heroes") have to run for dear life when fired at by mere lasguns of the Imperial Guard.

The image of a silent marching army of the undead is an impressive one, but not the truth really. I don't see Necrons as a force that would wade into the enemy time and time again with no regard for their own safety. Sure, the knowledge that they feel no pain, can always repair all the damage, etc. does give extra security, but it doesn't remove the fact that if you're down and out, it's one less body on the field.

I'd still keep them fearful, but maybe give them something along the lines of No Retreat so they won't be run over if they fair their advancement (or something, I just got my 5th edition rulebook today so haven't had much time to get used to all the new thingies). Stubborn feels like a good idea as well.

CthulhuDalek
26-08-2008, 12:37
Should Necrons receive the Fearless or Stubborn Universal Special Rule?

Fearless: In 40k it represents a cold hard killer that is immune to the effects of morale and pinning on the battle field. From a game-play point of view it ensures that the unit will not fall back, become pinned, or be caught in a sweeping advance. The negative side of this is that it forces armor saves on the unit if is loses in melee (which is still often better than being outright destroyed or run off the table).

Stubborn: In 40k it represents a unit that is headstrong and resolute. They take morale and pinning tests, but with no modifiers. The negative side of this is that they can still fail and fall back or be pinned. They are also able to be caught in a sweeping advance.


Personal thoughts: I like the effects of Fearless and I think it would work better for the Necrons. I am also an advocate of keeping things in-line with the background fiction. I don't like seeing things that are only popular because they are more or less powerful at the moment (there are other ways to balance the game such as points values). And I think rules and/or background contradictions hurt the game as a whole. The only emotion Necrons have is hatred and they are otherwise fearless in all the stories. The idea that they are stubborn or that they are suppressing their emotions does not fit with the fiction at all, IMHO.

Plus Necrons have no reason to flee or make a "tactical retreat". They know that it they're losing the battle, then they'll be teleported out, repaired, and come back in stronger numbers. They do nothing but advance while on the battlefield.

Necrons will be weak in close combat even with Fearless. It does not create a situation where they will be unstoppable. Stubborn might be an attractive deal. But it makes no sense for the Necrons. The idea that they would run off the battlefield or turn their back in close combat to run (then get caught in a sweeping advance) is uncharacteristic of the Necrons.


P.S. This is taken from a post I created on another forum.

~Logic

I'd like to see them as Stubborn. Really since... so many armies are blanket fearless!!

It means they'll stick around slightly longer than if they were not stubborn, but once things are too overwhelming off to the tomb for ya! They could be stubborn but a "phaseout" rule could say they suffer double the wounds from NR.

The necron statline could be WS3 BS4 S4 T5 W1 I2 A1 Ld9 Sv. 4+
Get FNP, Stubborn, Rending for Gauss, Slow and Purposeful. They could cost 18-20 points maybe?

Hulkster
26-08-2008, 12:40
This is a tough one.

I am edging towards fearless because they are unthinking machines with no regard for there own lives. He just destroy.

Stubbon would indicate that they care about themselves but they are not scared. That doe not make sense because they have no personality.

So for troops I think I will go Fearless. As for Lords, it becomes trickier and I think Stubborn should be a rule for them.

Does that make sense?

Drongol
26-08-2008, 13:13
Under the current rules? Neither.

Either ability would translate to "Now we're not going to get swept away by people who managed to assault us, so the Lords/Monoliths will just pull us out of close combat so we can shoot at the silly little people who thought they'd have a chance to play this game!" Necrons are already a boring army and this change would just make playing against them even less rewarding.

Now, when the new Codex comes out, perhaps Necrons will actually be interesting and entertaining to play against, and who knows if they might have Stubborn or Fearless. I assume they'll at least be worth playing once in a while.

Drongol

mchmr6677
26-08-2008, 13:29
Necrons should have the following USRs:
A. Stubborn: They shouldn't be as easy to sweep off the board as they are but should still fall back if they make a bad roll.
B. Relentless: They should be able to fire long range weither they move or not.
C. Slow but Purposeful: They move slower to maintain their accurracy at range.
D. Feel No Pain: Because robots don't have nerves... duh. This would be instead of WBB.

Mercer
26-08-2008, 14:11
From a background point of view, fearless.

Though gaming point none. Necrons need a weakness like all armies, giving them fearless or stubborn would make us that bit better in CC. Just leave them how they are and perhaps give ap4 gauss flayer's - if that.

Mercer

Xirathnix
26-08-2008, 16:10
They could be stubborn but a "phaseout" rule could say they suffer double the wounds from NR.

I like this and vote for fearless with this condition


The necron statline could be WS3 BS4 S4 T5 W1 I2 A1 Ld9 Sv. 4+
Get FNP, Stubborn, Rending for Gauss, Slow and Purposeful. They could cost 18-20 points maybe?

with those stats try 25-30, rending and FNP? cmon now...

crouchingotter
26-08-2008, 16:15
I don't think that Phase Out will be in a new codex. GW seem to be moving away from anything as complex as basic maths.

Badger[Fr]
26-08-2008, 16:24
I'd favour a Ld 10 Stubborn unit over a Fearless one any time. You will pass almost all your morale tests, and, unlike Fearless models, you won't suffer any additional wound.

DaFabsta
26-08-2008, 16:44
I like this and vote for fearless with this condition



with those stats try 25-30, rending and FNP? cmon now...

Actually 18-20p would be better considering that they don't really change all that much:

WWB becomes FNP.
T4 3+ save becomes T5 4+ save
WS 4 becomes WS 3
LD10 becomes LD9
semi rending becomes full rending.
Gain SaP.

for 25-30 points they should be having:
magic bolters
ATSKNF
I4
2A
ect.ect.

On Topic: I agree with Badger

IronNerd
26-08-2008, 16:56
I say no, mainly because I don't think fearless should be as prevalent as it is. I'm fine with LD 10, because I've seen many a test fail on that. Especially as a Tau player, I get really annoyed when everyone can just ignore the morale issue. No, they can't have it, they're good enough without it.

Ubermensch Commander
26-08-2008, 17:05
Neither. Necrons weak in assault, eh? *pulls out worlds tiniest violin* Every army has to have weaknesses to balance it out. It is bad enough the Necrons have the Res Orb which negates the WBB weakness against power weapons. As a DE player, i would dearly love to have a shadow field that give any unit within X inches a 2+ invulnerable save to compensate for my troops low surivivability....actually no, no i would not.

Anyway, game balance they should not get it as it would go one of two ways:
1) Necrons never get swept, teleport out of CC ALL THE BLOODY TIME keep coming back and are generally even more annoying to fight against.
2)Points increase is way, way too high and morale doesnt even matter as their are simply too few necrons on the board to do *****. If either rule was introduced it would have to be applied universally to all "Necron" units...that means paying more points to make a Destroyer Fearless or Stubborn. Not exactly the greatest boost to their effectiveness since, if they are in combat, you have done something terribly, terribly, wrong.

Durath
26-08-2008, 18:53
Anyway, I voted neither. I don't want to give people more reasons to complain about Necrons.

Which is baffling... Necrons are probably the weakest army in the game since 5th. Why complain about something that's woefully underwhelming?

Sekhmet
26-08-2008, 20:46
Neither. Necrons weak in assault, eh? *pulls out worlds tiniest violin* Every army has to have weaknesses to balance it out. It is bad enough the Necrons have the Res Orb which negates the WBB weakness against power weapons. As a DE player, i would dearly love to have a shadow field that give any unit within X inches a 2+ invulnerable save to compensate for my troops low surivivability....actually no, no i would not.

Phase out isn't a weakness? Expensive models (thus fewer models on the board) isn't a weakness? Lack of anti-tank in 5th? Lack of low ap weapons? No flamer templates at all? No cheap (less than 200 pt) transports? Almost no assault potential?

What weakness do Chaos Marines have that Necrons don't? Or even regular Space Marines?

What does a 2+ invulnerable save have to do with anything at all in this talk about Necron Fearless/Stubborn rules?


Which is baffling... Necrons are probably the weakest army in the game since 5th. Why complain about something that's woefully underwhelming?
Because if there's one emotion that people hate the most, it's disappointment. Disappointment when they kill Necrons, only to stand back up. Disappointment when they get into close combat, only to see the Necrons teleport out (in 4th at least). Disappointment when all their expensive anti-tank weapons with gimmicks do nothing to the Monolith.

If WBB was always rolled as an additional save, no one would complain about how overpowered it is.. like say.. feel no pain in 4th. I've never seen someone complain to a Nurgle player with Plague Marines on how hard his T4(5) 3+ save 4+ FNP guys were hard to kill in shooting, but I get it ALL THE TIME as a Necron player with lower toughness. I don't even use a rez orb or monolith.

People are just irrational. If I had to choose one or the other, I think Ld10 Stubborn is far superior in game terms to Ld10 Fearless, just as ATSKNF is better than Fearless.

Mitheral
27-08-2008, 04:59
And some people seem to be _really_ hung up on warriors being able to take out tanks. Despite that fact that at best a squad has got the same chance as an upgraded Marine squad. It really seems to drive these people batty that the only weapon we can field in squads has a minuscule chance of eventually destroying a LR. Irrational it is. I didn't realize so many people felt this way until the nerf bat beating gauss got in 5e was seen as totally justified and good by some.

I think it's because they are used to being able to play a "neerer, neerer you can't hurt me" game with certain units and that 1 in 216 chance is a tiny seed of "Ha, Ha, yes we can".

imweasel
27-08-2008, 05:23
Necrons should have been faq'ed to include:

WBB replaced with FNP with res orb allowing FNP under any condition.
Slow and Purposeful.
Autowound/Autoglance replaced with Rending.
Stubborn.

Instead, the idiots at GW decided to change rules via the faq that HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH 5TH ED AND NOT ADDRESS ANYTHING THAT HAD TO DO WITH 5TH ED RULES CHANGES.

Monkeys in a zoo throwing feces at a wall would have wound up with a better faq than what necrons got.

MALICIOUS LOGIC
27-08-2008, 07:44
I donít disagree with the people that say armies should have a weakness. I think it is important that there is some weakness. But there are some things to consider:

1) Even with Fearless or Stubborn, Necrons will be weak in close combat. Those changes do not make them powerful in melee.

2) The idea that an army needs a weakness is more of a theory than a fact. Marines (all of them) and Chaos Marines have no real weakness in their codices. All of them have gone through ups and downs over the years. But they have great shooting, assault, speed, psychics, tanks, etc. etc.

Iím not sure if GW thinks in terms of building a weakness into a codex. It seems to be purely something that the player community thinks of.

What is the weakness of the Space Marines? That they have too many good options?... Granted they are about to come out with a new codex. But from the confirming sources, they are excellent. The only possibility of a ďweaknessĒ is if they are over-costed to field.

~Logic

Souleater
27-08-2008, 09:32
Agreed.

The only 'weakness' that SM have is that they are good all-rounders rather than specialists.

I don't see their lack of numbers as a particular handicap because each marine is still pretty good. A lot of players just don't seem to appreciate that.

Master Stark
27-08-2008, 09:45
What could a toaster possibly have to fear?

Fearless would be a good rule for the Necrons.

Abundance of fearless armies should not be a reason to to give the rule to armies that warrant it.

Vault-Dweller
27-08-2008, 10:16
I donít disagree with the people that say armies should have a weakness. I think it is important that there is some weakness. But there are some things to consider:

1) Even with Fearless or Stubborn, Necrons will be weak in close combat. Those changes do not make them powerful in melee.

2) The idea that an army needs a weakness is more of a theory than a fact. Marines (all of them) and Chaos Marines have no real weakness in their codices. All of them have gone through ups and downs over the years. But they have great shooting, assault, speed, psychics, tanks, etc. etc.


1. At least stuborn will give them a big boost in cc as that is now the best moraleboosting rule. You would not just need to win to have a good chance, you would have to be able to kill them all.
2. So marines dosent have any weakness, Why didnt anyone tell me that before I chose army?

Lord Damocles
27-08-2008, 10:28
I don't think that giving Necrons Fearless would be a good idea simply because people will *moan* about it. As it is, people moan about WBB, the Monolith, Destroyers, Gauss, Scarabs (yes, someone actualy complained to me that Scarabs were 'broken' :eyebrows:). That, and even as a Necron player myself, I really don't think that 40K needs another all fearless race.

Stubborn would be OK, but I still don't think that it's entirely necessary. Against shooting you wouldn't notice the difference in the vast majority of situations, and in combat you could increase the effectiveness of Warriors etc. by...

Giving them FNP. With 50% fewer casualties in combat, the tin men won't be taking leadership tests at -silly modifiers, and won't be run down as soon as an enemy unit makes combat. Plus people might then give the WBB hate a rest :rolleyes:

AlmightyNocturnus
27-08-2008, 10:54
For smoothness and to BETTER simulate their fluff, Necrons all need to be Slow & Purposeful, Feel No Pain, Fearless, BUT with a lower Ld score, so they take more wounds - enough to fail some saves - when they lose an assault. These "disappearing Necrons" will be the new "Phase Out" effect. It should, ideally, work more like the Vampire Counts in Fantasy Battle. If this is still too mighty, they might need a slight point increase as well.

Almighty Nocturnus

CthulhuDalek
28-08-2008, 21:50
For smoothness and to BETTER simulate their fluff, Necrons all need to be Slow & Purposeful, Feel No Pain, Fearless, BUT with a lower Ld score, so they take more wounds - enough to fail some saves - when they lose an assault. These "disappearing Necrons" will be the new "Phase Out" effect. It should, ideally, work more like the Vampire Counts in Fantasy Battle. If this is still too mighty, they might need a slight point increase as well.

Almighty Nocturnus

Okay, this sounds pretty good. Just remember gauss should equal rending now :P

Durath
28-08-2008, 23:55
Lets Mathammer this (as) correctly (as I can)... (rounding to closest whole number when it comes to the LD tests and final wounds taken)

In 5th ed, you don't take extra wounds based on Leadership if you are Fearless. You make a number of Armor Saves = to the number of wounds you lost the combat by.

That being said, lets look at the average damage a 10 strong unit of Warriors takes from a 10 man Marine squad with BP&CCW with PW armed Sgt., right now, with the current WBB rules, and no Morale changes.

WBB & No Morale change(the way they are now)
Space Marines
27 Attacks * 4+ to hit = 13.5 hits
13.5 hits * 4+ to would = 6.75 wounds
6.75 wounds * 3+ armor save = 2.23 unsaved wounds

PLUS

4 Power Weapon Attacks * 4+ to hit = 2 hits
2 hits * 4+ to wound = 1 unsavable wound.

So, 3.23 unsaved wounds on average.

Necrons
7 Attacks * 4+ to hit = 3.5 hits
3.5 hits * 4+ to would = 1.75 wounds
1.75 wounds * 3+ armor save = .58 unsaved wounds

Since Necrons don't get WBB rolls until their next turn, they will suffer, on average a -2.65 modifer on their Leadership roll.

We will have to round this up to 3, so the Necrons will have a 41.64% chance of breaking (8 or better on 2D6), then only a 16% chance of beating the average initiative roll-off to prevent getting wiped out.

So Assault SMs have about a 34.56% chance of wiping out a Necron squad the turn they assault the way Necrons are now in 5th Edition.

WBB & Stubborn
If the Leadership check is unmodified, then the Necrons will have a 8.32% chance of breaking (11 or better on 2D6), and only a 7% chance of getting wiped out.

WBB & Fearless
If they were Fearless, they would take 2.65 additional armor saves. We again have to round this up, so you are probably going to kill 4 Necrons on a charge with the fearless rule and WBB

Now, if Feel no Pain is introduced, this changes things dramatically:
Feel No Pain & No Morale Changes
Space Marines
27 Attacks * 4+ to hit = 13.5 hits
13.5 hits * 4+ to would = 6.75 wounds
6.75 wounds * 3+ armor save = 2.23 unsaved wounds
2.23 unsaved wounds * 4+ FNP save = 1.12 wounds

PLUS

4 Power Weapon Attacks * 4+ to hit = 2 hits
2 hits * 4+ to wound = 1 unsavable wound.

So, 2.12 unsaved wounds on average.

Necrons
8 Attacks * 4+ to hit = 4 hits
4 hits * 4+ to would = 2 wounds
2 wounds * 3+ armor save = .66 unsaved wounds

Since the Necrons got their FNP rolls already, they suffer much less of a modifier, on average a -1.46 on their Leadership roll.

This rounds down to a 1, so the Necrons will have just a 16.65% chance of breaking (10 or better on 2D6), then only a 16% chance of beating the average initiative roll-off to prevent getting wiped out.

Against FNP Necrons, Assault SMs have about a 13.81% chance of wiping out the warriors the turn they assault with No Morale changes. (less than a one in 6 chance!)

FNP & Stubborn
This is the same results as listed with WBB, since the number of wounds the Necrons lost by doesn't affect the outcome.

FNP & Fearless
If they were Fearless, they would take 1.46 additional armor saves. We again have to round this down, so you are probably going to just kill 2 Necrons on a charge with the fearless rule and FNP.

Summary Findings
Right now, Necrons have better than a one in three chance of getting one-shotted in one turn of CC.

This is a poor mechanic for such expensive slow moving troops (they can run faster than the Monolith can transport them). Necrons are supposed to be the uber-resilient army in light of limited offense. Clearly this needs an adjustment.

The biggest change however, is not going to come from Morale... but rather Feel No Pain. Most rumors are pointing toward Necrons getting this in their new book, so brace yourselves for long hard fights regardless of Morale.

Where Morale changes would have the most impact, would be in situations where a single unit of Necrons are greatly out-numbered in CC. Ironically, Fearless vs. Stubborn will be opposed to one another.

Stubborn will allow the Necrons to stay in combat longer without being wiped out, as the unit could take massive casualties and still tarpit the enemy units.

Fearless on the other hand will cause them to take more casualties and die off quicker.

Personally I think Necrons should get FNP and Stubborn. They are supposed to be easy to take down, but tough to keep down, and this would represent this aspect well. Of course, I play Necrons, so I'm a little biased in this ;)




A note on Resurrection Orbs
None of these calculations include the effect of Ressurrection Orbs, or an attached Lord to the Warrior squad. When you do factor these aspects into the calculations, the survivability numbers go up for Necrons dramatically.

However, this is greatly off-set with SM character special rules like Litanies of Hate, additional power weapon attacks, etc. Its a moot point to factor in these calculations, as they more or less cancel each other out.

Furthremore, we don't know how the Res Orb will function in the next codex. It may simply allow the Necron Lord to "summon" D6x a certain number of models from one unit, or allow FNP against anything. Its all speculation at this point, so it would be misleading and incorrect to add that into the calculations now.

Also, Res Orbs aren't ALWAYS around every Warrior squad.

azimaith
29-08-2008, 00:01
I've never taken being run down in a sweeping advance with necrons so much the necrons turning tail, flailing their armors and running away, more that the enemy is just about the fall upon them and they phase out to the tomb world, not able to return in time to rejoin the battle.

I think "Stubborn and Relentless" would fit well, to be honest ATSKNF would fit *infinitely better* as they don't suffer fear and panic in any iteration of the words. I don't see why necrons would suddenly need to shoot up in points when the standard tactical "I don't give a flying crap about morale tests in combat" marine doesn't go up in price.

Currently they are not well suited to 5th ed play, stubborn would make them up to par, with 4th ed necrons, you'd need more changes to put them up to 5th ed power.

solkan
29-08-2008, 02:00
Ah, shucks, if you're going to ask for special rules, ask for ATSKNF.

CthulhuDalek
29-08-2008, 02:32
Looking back howsabout...

WS BS S T W I A LD SV
3 4 4 5 1 2 1 8 4+

Feel No Pain(Will keep them alive longer and able to fight back.)
Slow and Purposeful(Doesn't this confer relentless?)
Stubborn(Keeps them from falling back normally, and in combat keeps them from failing tests as easily)
Phaseout*(Necrons only roll a d3 on their initiative tests when falling back in combat)

*Represents the Necrons phasing out on a squad level, replaces army wide phaseout.

Gauss Weapons:Rng: 24(or 18 to be different) Str. n/a ap:6 type: rapid fire, sniper.

Sniper you ask? Well it always wounds on 4+ and gets rending, what else could a Necron player ask for?

Chem-Dog
29-08-2008, 04:02
Sure, the knowledge that they feel no pain, can always repair all the damage, etc. does give extra security, but it doesn't remove the fact that if you're down and out, it's one less body on the field.

Necrons are like this though, when you're KO'd you teleport back home, get fixed and go out again, each time your mind becomes a little less...you until you are just an automaton with no thoughts of personal safety.

Personally, I'd go for Fearless and Feel no pain, there are virtually no differences between FNP and WBB other than when it's rolled. Discussing this at some length with my gaming pals we happened upon the "Problem" that Necron squads wouldn't "loose" as many models in an assault when using FNP as they would using WBB, I think that, if this does indeed need to be reballanced, Fearless is just the way to do it as the casualties incurred by No Retreat will help grind them down.

Currently Necrons are way to prone to loosing combat by a small margin and then horrifically failing their Morale test and getting chewed up by the enemy in pursuit. I've seen a squad of 20 Necron Warriors loose 1 guy and fail their morale test in the 4th edition and in 5th you only have to knock out 5-6 of them to make a failed morale test almost guaranteed.

Gatsby
29-08-2008, 04:27
I say give them fearless as an army, i know people will complain, but somehow i feel that an emotionless self repairing robotic skeleton is more likely to not faulter in combat than a powered up human who can only take so much before they say "yea we may want to get out of here and regroup". Yea people are going to complain, but just ignore those people and refuse to play them, why would you want to play someones when theres going to be no fun involved.

people all think Necrons are over powered, well if ya want an over powered army, look at marines, everyone plays them so fewer people call them on it but they are FAR more over powered than we or any other army for that matter are, but to be fair, most Marine players i know DON'T overpower their armies. Actually though theres a good reason for marines to be overpowered though, they are marketed to younger kids who just started and need a leg up when playing vets.

Looking back howsabout...

WS BS S T W I A LD SV
3 4 4 5 1 2 1 8 4+

Feel No Pain(Will keep them alive longer and able to fight back.)
Slow and Purposeful(Doesn't this confer relentless?)
Stubborn(Keeps them from falling back normally, and in combat keeps them from failing tests as easily)
Phaseout*(Necrons only roll a d3 on their initiative tests when falling back in combat)

*Represents the Necrons phasing out on a squad level, replaces army wide phaseout.

Gauss Weapons:Rng: 24(or 18 to be different) Str. n/a ap:6 type: rapid fire, sniper.

Sniper you ask? Well it always wounds on 4+ and gets rending, what else could a Necron player ask for?

i personally don't think the warriors need to change at all except for FNP and fearless. Most people who want a change just don't like the similarity to marines, my opinion is why not change the marines then. I can see the warriors at WS3, the flayed ones and other CC oriented though should stay at WS4 though with lords and Wraiths being at least WS5 and changing gauss to rending, but that rumor is already out there.

MALICIOUS LOGIC
29-08-2008, 09:04
Stubborn doesnít make sense as a means of replacing phase-out. Necrons operate on a force wide scale. Not on a unit wide scale. They either all phase out or they donít.

Stubborn wouldnít make sense even if Necrons did phase out on a unit level. Itís too weak in that regard. Imagine that 3 Necrons in a 10 man unit die, then they fail their morale and run or get caught in sweeping advance. How does that represent some sort of phase out? Why would a whole unit phase out just because 3 Necrons went down?

In the black library novels (Caves or Ice, Dawn of War omnibus, etc.) Necrons never behave in a stubborn manner. They behave in a fearless manner. They all relentlessly move forward and kill. Only if they are losing (on a large scale) will they phase out. (Then they come back in larger numbers, but that is purely in the fiction and not represented on a mission level).

~Harbinger

Mullitron
29-08-2008, 09:23
Isnt the phase out rule being removed from the new codex anyway?

colmarekblack
29-08-2008, 09:34
What could a toaster possibly have to fear?


Being unplugged by any chance? :D or been smashed to bits by a mallet ala Red Dwarf

Mullitron
29-08-2008, 09:49
Being unplugged by any chance? :D or been smashed to bits by a mallet ala Red Dwarf

I was watching that episode last night:p "i toast therefore i am"

Kriegschmidt
29-08-2008, 10:28
I think the Warriors should be Fearless and Slow and Purposeful to represent them gradually becoming more and more mindless over time, losing any individuality. But how about making other units in the army simply stubborn.

So the Destroyers, pariahs, etc that are capable of more than "shuffling forwards and shooting" aren't quite as mindless as the warriors, and still have a small capability to think "perhaps we should regroup" *

* "Regroup? Yes of course! Regroup, let them pass us, then when they turn around, we charge them! I love your [resurrection orbs]!" :D

CthulhuDalek
29-08-2008, 11:40
Stubborn doesnít make sense as a means of replacing phase-out. Necrons operate on a force wide scale. Not on a unit wide scale. They either all phase out or they donít.

Stubborn wouldnít make sense even if Necrons did phase out on a unit level. Itís too weak in that regard. Imagine that 3 Necrons in a 10 man unit die, then they fail their morale and run or get caught in sweeping advance. How does that represent some sort of phase out? Why would a whole unit phase out just because 3 Necrons went down?

In the black library novels (Caves or Ice, Dawn of War omnibus, etc.) Necrons never behave in a stubborn manner. They behave in a fearless manner. They all relentlessly move forward and kill. Only if they are losing (on a large scale) will they phase out. (Then they come back in larger numbers, but that is purely in the fiction and not represented on a mission level).

~Harbinger
Individual necrons do phaseout when sufficiently damaged though. If your necrons are in combat and they haven't killed everything in front of them.... they should be phasing out because the enemy is too strong!(aha)

For the record, for some reason I always thought necrons were fearless to begin with... I just hate to say "oh yeah, their army is completely fearless too" I think stubborn but with low-ish leadership would makeup for an army wide phaseout, to represent that they only leave when they realize they need backup. So leadership 8 or so would put them on par with new marines, but make them just as good as fearless except in combat. Where they should be hurting seeing as when being shot at they're plague marines on crack.

Templar Ben
29-08-2008, 11:54
I would like to see the Fearless and with FNP instead of WBB. FNP makes the extra wounds in CC less of an issue.

Are there too many Fearless races? If you say so. That doesn't mean that the race that clearly should be fearless shouldn't get it.

djinn8
29-08-2008, 12:05
Never played against Necrons and I haven't read the rule book so my opinionmight not mean to much, but if it was up to me I'd make them Fearless and Slow and Purposful - like the Terminator.

E-616
29-08-2008, 12:46
Stubborn would suit them more overall I think, they will retreat if the situation requires them to and from a gaming point of view I think Fearless will just result in more of them getting destroyed due to the no retreat rule.

Xirathnix
29-08-2008, 16:40
Durath, you put shootie nercron warriors against specialized CC marines and gave the marines the charge. The result should be rightfully in the marines favor including 1/3 chance of wipe out.

a nurgle marine has 1 better in I and WS and is what 23 points? A Nurgle marine cant even have heavy wps. I dont feel that lowering the save 1 makes up for a T-5 FNP, rending, fearless TROOPS. The low LD is meaningless since your fearless and so is slow and purposeful. Im fine with this as long as these guys cost 25pts a pop minnimum. Otherwise its overpowered. (and nurgle may be also)

Ubermensch Commander
29-08-2008, 17:32
Phase out isn't a weakness? Expensive models (thus fewer models on the board) isn't a weakness? Lack of anti-tank in 5th? Lack of low ap weapons? No flamer templates at all? No cheap (less than 200 pt) transports? Almost no assault potential?

What weakness do Chaos Marines have that Necrons don't? Or even regular Space Marines?

What does a 2+ invulnerable save have to do with anything at all in this talk about Necron Fearless/Stubborn rules?


Because if there's one emotion that people hate the most, it's disappointment. Disappointment when they kill Necrons, only to stand back up. Disappointment when they get into close combat, only to see the Necrons teleport out (in 4th at least). Disappointment when all their expensive anti-tank weapons with gimmicks do nothing to the Monolith.

If WBB was always rolled as an additional save, no one would complain about how overpowered it is.. like say.. feel no pain in 4th. I've never seen someone complain to a Nurgle player with Plague Marines on how hard his T4(5) 3+ save 4+ FNP guys were hard to kill in shooting, but I get it ALL THE TIME as a Necron player with lower toughness. I don't even use a rez orb or monolith.

People are just irrational. If I had to choose one or the other, I think Ld10 Stubborn is far superior in game terms to Ld10 Fearless, just as ATSKNF is better than Fearless.

Yeah yknow the FNP pain roll you mentioned? Well that can be taken away by the same stuff that negates WBB....EXCEPT FOR THE RES ORB. So here we have a built in weakness, a vulnerability....that is then ignored by a piece of wargear.
Lack of Anti Tank? What about Heavy Destroyers? Arent Tomb Spyders Monstrous Creatures? WARSCYTHES? The Monoliths non destructable template weapon? Regular Destroyers are still monstrously good as well. They might not be as effective against Land Raiders and front armor of Leman Russes as they were but Destroyers still eat light vehicles and are fast enough to get to the back armour. There isnt a particular lack of Anti Tank capabilities in the Necron list, its just that now you cant rely solely on light Destroyers and other Gauss to take out Land Raiders and their ilk in one go. Rending got toned down for a similar reason, to try and force people to take other options in their army that were neglected because Rending did it all. Similar situation with Gauss. Just go from all Destroyers, to throwing in some Heavy Destroyers for those pesky armor 13 and 14 vehicles.

Lack of flamer templates is a minor annoyance in the Necron army. Though i Hardly see how that is particularly devastating. TThe sheer volume of shots that can be pumped out by Immortals,who can then be removed from the ensuing combat to shoot again at a close combat unit, seems to make up for any abscence of templates.

That wreteched transport you mention is cheaper than a land raider, immune to most if not all anti tank capabilities such as lance and melta, has an indestructible template weapons system on it, can teleport any number of squads about the place, can resurrect troops, can deep strike without risking death, and has a secondary gun system that shoots all units around....which is also not destroyed with a "weapons destroyed" result but rather has its shooting effectiveness reduced slightly(-1 if i recall correctly)
The Monolith is NOT a weakness. PLEASE do not tout it as such. It is actually underpriced for the pain it can bring and the sheer annoyance factor.

No, Phase Out isnt a Weakness. Rather, it would be save that it is balanced by points cost reduction across the board for Necron models.
Looking at the basic Necrons Warriors stats=Almost a Marine stats with only less intiative and I believe higher leadership, a rough FNP equivalent, and a gun that can potentially damage ANY vehicle in the game. It not longer blows them up in one hit, and that is a good idea for any glancing hit, but with the new wound distribution rules, heavy weapons can be taken out with shooting. have to kill the whole Necron squad to remove threat of glancing.
All this....for 3 points more than a Marine.
And I am sorry but if your army is below 25%, particularly with models that get a 4+ invulnerable esque save, you are unlikely to be a position to win the game.

Your comparison to the WBB roll to the FNP on a Plague Marine is Disengenious to say the least. It is in fact the Res Orb which makes it annoying when tied with fearless potentially overpower. FNP is negated by power weapons and things double the strength of the model. This "weakness" is the same as in WBB....only then ONE PIECE OF WARGEAR completely ignores that. Wow. Great. Wunderbar. And you can say "but i dont take it!" thats lovely. But completely immaterial. The fact of the matter is that it is there and it is almost MANDATORY for many, many, many Necron list builds.
So going back to my 2+ save.....weakness of DE=low toughness and low armor save. Supposed to be a glass cannon. I was pointing out how ABSURD it would be to have an item that NEGATED that weakness for several squads. Yet, here we see that a similar item in a Necron army. It takes a "weakness" of the army and POOF...gone. No more weakness.

So to throw in Fearless with all that or Stubborn would lead, I suspect, to one of the two scenarios I presented in my previous post. Overcosted or Undercosted.

Bloodknight
29-08-2008, 17:55
Because if there's one emotion that people hate the most, it's disappointment. Disappointment when they kill Necrons, only to stand back up. Disappointment when they get into close combat, only to see the Necrons teleport out (in 4th at least). Disappointment when all their expensive anti-tank weapons with gimmicks do nothing to the Monolith.

That's what I would call a really bad piece of games design. An army that is built on annoying and disappointing an opponent - and people wonder why Necrons are so badmouthed?

Their factual strength on the tabletop is allright. It's been better in 4th edition, but vs low save armies they were too good already. That most low save armies rely on close combat to kill Necrons (Orks, Dark Eldar who cannot kill a Monolith at all out of CC, in part Eldar) only made the problem bigger.
You run up, get the hell shot out of you, and once you get into combat, half of the guys you kill get back up and then they just vanish to shoot you another time. That's fun on one side of the table. The other just goes WTF.
If anything, Necrons got a bit more in line with 5th. The lack of AT weapons is mostly a perception error. The standard warrior can still hinder tanks from shooting or blow weapons off to a point that the vehicle dies. The destroyer is still capable of getting penetrating hits vs the side armour of most vehicles in the game. And that Necron players don't want to field their Lascannons on Jetbikes....well, that is their own fault. Oh, and of course a Necron Lord with destroyer body and a warscythe is perfectly able to kill any tank in the game, except an enemy Monolith of course.

Gatsby
29-08-2008, 18:57
Heres i think the base warrior should be:

WS BS S T W I A LD Sv
3 4 4 4 1 2 1 10 3+

Fearless, gauss turned to rending, FNP

I was thinking 20 points a pop, They're even worse in cc witch forces you to rely more on CC units to keep the enemy from locking you in CC but because your fearless, you wont lose the whole unit to failed moral.

Gauss Fearless and FNP should be USR for the Necrons, the stats for the CC units should be improved i.e. flayed ones:

WS BS S T W I A LD Sv
4 4 4 4 1 4 2 10 3+

Fearless, Rending, FNP

20 points a pop, now you can use them to protect your warriors from CC i do feel though that the Wraith deserves the biggest improvement


WS BS S T W I A LD Sv
4 4 6 4 1 2 3 10 3++

Fearless, Power weapons, FNP Unit size up to 5 minimum squad 2

50 points a pop, now they're worthwhile to take in an army

Just my two bits

That's what I would call a really bad piece of games design. An army that is built on annoying and disappointing an opponent - and people wonder why Necrons are so badmouthed?

Their factual strength on the tabletop is allright. It's been better in 4th edition, but vs low save armies they were too good already. That most low save armies rely on close combat to kill Necrons (Orks, Dark Eldar who cannot kill a Monolith at all out of CC, in part Eldar) only made the problem bigger.
You run up, get the hell shot out of you, and once you get into combat, half of the guys you kill get back up and then they just vanish to shoot you another time. That's fun on one side of the table. The other just goes WTF.
If anything, Necrons got a bit more in line with 5th. The lack of AT weapons is mostly a perception error. The standard warrior can still hinder tanks from shooting or blow weapons off to a point that the vehicle dies. The destroyer is still capable of getting penetrating hits vs the side armour of most vehicles in the game. And that Necron players don't want to field their Lascannons on Jetbikes....well, that is their own fault. Oh, and of course a Necron Lord with destroyer body and a warscythe is perfectly able to kill any tank in the game, except an enemy Monolith of course.
That my just be you dude, my friends have NEVER had a problem beating me a good 50% of the time and my buddy who plays DE has never lost to me Seriously people need to just evaluate the enemy first and find a weakness that you can exploit, ALL armies have them and even when they set up, that leaves more weaknesses. There is no OVERpowerd army, just OVERPOWERED lists, if Necrons were that overpowered the powergamers would play them, not Marines.

Bloodknight
29-08-2008, 19:41
Don't get me wrong, I have no problems with Necrons usually. My DE just keep them pinned and shoot the crap out of them (all hail Hypnotoad, err...the terrorfex). I just wanted to make clear that the Necs are far from underpowered with a well-built list. If people don't want to change their list with a new edition although there are viable options, and then whine that their army is too weak, that is weak, though.
That's like saying: my DE suck because the Wych cult isn't as good anymore. True. But the Kabal has become better now, so I use that. The difference is that I now field 8 less wyches and a few Warriors more...

Durath
29-08-2008, 19:51
Durath, you put shootie nercron warriors against specialized CC marines and gave the marines the charge. The result should be rightfully in the marines favor including 1/3 chance of wipe out.

a nurgle marine has 1 better in I and WS and is what 23 points? A Nurgle marine cant even have heavy wps. I dont feel that lowering the save 1 makes up for a T-5 FNP, rending, fearless TROOPS. The low LD is meaningless since your fearless and so is slow and purposeful. Im fine with this as long as these guys cost 25pts a pop minnimum. Otherwise its overpowered. (and nurgle may be also)

Here's the problem with your analysis.... shooting is far less effective as close combat due to the wipe out rule.

If you take the same points value of Necrons, and shoot at the Assault Marines, are you going to be able to "wipe them out"?

Nope. In fact, at range 12"+ the Necron Warriors will produce .95 wounds. Not even a whole wound! They won't get double shots because the ASMs can move 12" and charge 6".

So why is it Necrons, who you admit are "shooty" have a significant chance of not being able to survive just one round of CC with an assault unit, when the same unit can survive their shots almost unscathed?

Re: Plague Marines
Not sure where your argument was going here...

PMs also get Defensive Grenades, Assault Grenades, Krak Grenades, a Bolt Pistol and CC weapon (so they have an additional attack) and they are Fearless. Additionally, they can have an upgrade character with multiple options, and several AP2 or AP1 weapons.

So, yeah, they are a lot better buy than Necron warriors the way they currently stand.

If Warriors ONLY got FNP and Stubborn, I'd say they were a similar value. That's all my comparison was demonstrating.

Sitting Duck
29-08-2008, 20:04
Cron players can cry me a river. I'm tired of hearing about how they have been nerfed in 5th.

Oh are basic weapons can't kill a land raider anymore. BS. They certainly can. It's just harder. The last time I checked weapons destroyed and immobilized results were cummulative. Also, you have access to a anti-tank jet bike. Use it. Adjust your lists. Alot of other players have had to.

Oh we can get wiped out after one turn of hth. Well most everyone else can too. I play a straight sisters army. If my squad of battle sisters gets charged by a marine assault squad I'm pretty sure I'm screwed. Why should crons be different? I would almost agree with you that crons should be somewhat buffed in hth except that they can port out and shoot the crap out of you. I think I would be more sympathetic if it weren't for this. You want to be stubborn. OK. You want to be fearless. OK. You get these things but you can't teleport out of hth.

I'm sick of reading about how bad the poor necrons have it. Get rid of the res orb and I'll listen. Oh I know that not every squad can be covered by the res orb. LOL. That's why they get covered by the monolith rez and/or the tomb spider etc......what a joke.

Gatsby
29-08-2008, 20:11
Oh we can get wiped out after one turn of hth. Well most everyone else can too. I play a straight sisters army. If my squad of battle sisters gets charged by a marine assault squad I'm pretty sure I'm screwed. Why should crons be different? I would almost agree with you that crons should be somewhat buffed in hth except that they can port out and shoot the crap out of you. I think I would be more sympathetic if it weren't for this. You want to be stubborn. OK. You want to be fearless. OK. You get these things but you can't teleport out of hth.

Next time you play your sisters play with the phase out rule. and your transports, tanks, allies ect don't count, so before you so much as TALK its best to know about the other army, read our codex before you post again.

Seriously why do angry players complain about armies just because they cant beat them, learn tactics, we aren't hard to beat. a sisters army SHOULD wipe the table. I expect more from a fellow Inquisition player

Sitting Duck
29-08-2008, 20:52
I know the cron dex as well enough. You know that cron lists can and are built to minimize the risk of phase out. That's a load of crap and doesn't address anything. Sisteres don't have phase out because they have other weaknesses. Toughness 3 strength 3 is exactly an advantage. The point is that all lists have weaknesses and strengths. I just don't think that the crons are bad and they aren't any more or less easy to beat than any other army. So they aren't so great in hth against SOME other lists. Avoid it if you can. The tools to do so are certainly available. Also, the tools to build a pretty good hth combo are in your list. I understand why no one used pariahs in 4ed but now if you use them to support a unit of flayed ones they don't exactly suck.

So why do I have to be angry to disagree. I'm not btw. Also, a sisters army SHOULD NOT

Sitting Duck
29-08-2008, 20:55
I know the cron dex as well enough. You know that cron lists can and are built to minimize the risk of phase out. That's a load of crap and doesn't address anything. Sisteres don't have phase out because they have other weaknesses. Toughness 3 strength 3 is exactly an advantage. The point is that all lists have weaknesses and strengths. I just don't think that the crons are bad and they aren't any more or less easy to beat than any other army. So they aren't so great in hth against SOME other lists. Avoid it if you can. The tools to do so are certainly available. Also, the tools to build a pretty good hth combo are in your list. I understand why no one used pariahs in 4ed but now if you use them to support a unit of flayed ones they don't exactly suck.

So why do I have to be angry to disagree. I'm not btw. Also, a sisters army SHOULD NOT wipe the table with any other list. A competetive game is all I ever look for. You assume a hell of alot Gatsby. Let me ask you this. If I should have to learn tactics to beat a necron list, since you assume that I don't know anything, why shouldn't a necron player learn tactics as well? Seems to me that surely there must be a tactical solution to these perceived hth weaknesses.

Xirathnix
29-08-2008, 20:56
Here's the problem with your analysis.... shooting is far less effective as close combat due to the wipe out rule.

This is an opinion and IMO not a correct one. HtH has wipe out shooting has ordinance and flamers I think GW has gone thru great lengths to balance the two and the lack of consolidating into a new combat is huge.


If you take the same points value of Necrons, and shoot at the Assault Marines, are you going to be able to "wipe them out"?

Nope. In fact, at range 12"+ the Necron Warriors will produce .95 wounds. Not even a whole wound! They won't get double shots because the ASMs can move 12" and charge 6".

So why is it Necrons, who you admit are "shooty" have a significant chance of not being able to survive just one round of CC with an assault unit, when the same unit can survive their shots almost unscathed?

This is once agian comparing apples and oranges. First my 10 man assault squad costs me 320 points. Way more then 10 necrons. Second It is not the warriors job to shoot down the incoming assault marines alone. This is where tactics come into play, put the Cetan(sp) near, hold them up with a squad of wraiths and/or flayed ones, Use more then one unit to shoot them to weaken them, or just teleport out of combat (granted if you survive). heck incoming man of 10 jet pack guys should be one of the highest priority targets for you. Why? Because necrons are not supposed to be great at HtH and the Assault Marines are!


Re: Plague Marines
Not sure where your argument was going here...

PMs also get Defensive Grenades, Assault Grenades, Krak Grenades, a Bolt Pistol and CC weapon (so they have an additional attack) and they are Fearless. Additionally, they can have an upgrade character with multiple options, and several AP2 or AP1 weapons.

So, yeah, they are a lot better buy than Necron warriors the way they currently stand.

If Warriors ONLY got FNP and Stubborn, I'd say they were a similar value. That's all my comparison was demonstrating.

Durath the plague marines statement wasnt really for you, thats my fault, I was responding to an earlier post from CthulhuDalek. his version was 15-20 pts for FNP, fearless, rending, and T5 without sufficient penalties. Yours for 15 point is just fine.

Bloodknight
29-08-2008, 21:02
What I said. Necs are surely beatable, but playing against them isn't fun, it's often annoying and a chore. That's not the players' fault, it's bad design.

Durath
29-08-2008, 21:09
Cron players can cry me a river. I'm tired of hearing about how they have been nerfed in 5th.

Oh are basic weapons can't kill a land raider anymore. BS. They certainly can. It's just harder. The last time I checked weapons destroyed and immobilized results were cummulative. Also, you have access to a anti-tank jet bike. Use it. Adjust your lists. Alot of other players have had to.

Oh we can get wiped out after one turn of hth. Well most everyone else can too. I play a straight sisters army. If my squad of battle sisters gets charged by a marine assault squad I'm pretty sure I'm screwed. Why should crons be different? I would almost agree with you that crons should be somewhat buffed in hth except that they can port out and shoot the crap out of you. I think I would be more sympathetic if it weren't for this. You want to be stubborn. OK. You want to be fearless. OK. You get these things but you can't teleport out of hth.

I'm sick of reading about how bad the poor necrons have it. Get rid of the res orb and I'll listen. Oh I know that not every squad can be covered by the res orb. LOL. That's why they get covered by the monolith rez and/or the tomb spider etc......what a joke.

Your comparison to Sisters is the only joke I've read.

Sure, any unit can be wiped out in CC like a Necron squad.

But tell, me... offensively, can a Necron squad produce as much shooting firepower as the Sisters? Nope.

Can a Necron Squad move for sure 12" a turn in an Armored vehicle? Nope.

Close combat is deadlier in 5th edition, and Necrons have no defensive improvement to offset this, and lack effcient CC ability to benefit from deadler CC in return.

To add insult to injury, as you point out, their offensive capability has been nerfed as it now takes over 3x the firepower to kill vehicles with the Gauss rule.

Walk a mile in a Necron player's shoes before you lamblast people for bringing up the current issues with the army.

Gatsby
29-08-2008, 21:12
So why do I have to be angry to disagree. I'm not btw. Also, a sisters army SHOULD NOT
if you reread your first post ya do come across as an angry child, and in that post your not so much disagreeing as you are complaining that Necrons are over powered.

And we are arguing that with the new 5th ed, we are FAR more prone to phase out so we cant use things that reduce our phase out number. we have always been bad in cc but when you can get your squads destroyed by cheaper units and i mean FAR cheaper its gonna leave ya a little sour. Once we get our new codex, im sure these problems will all be solved, we are just adding our two cents to the problem, we all realize that GW wont pay heed and probably have thought of this, but this is our form of release, so if your going to moan about us being overpowered please take it to a different thread.

and for the record i have a sisters army, believe me, you should, we have DEVASTATING firepower, just need to know how to use it and your faith efficiently and we have the only tank that i feel is great against a monolith and as a necron player FEAR.

Durath
29-08-2008, 23:59
This is an opinion and IMO not a correct one. HtH has wipe out shooting has ordinance and flamers I think GW has gone thru great lengths to balance the two and the lack of consolidating into a new combat is huge.

This isn't opinion. I've done the math in my posts above. Even at range 12", 10 Necrons will only produce on average 2.17 wounds. This isn't even enough to cause a break test. But they wont even get that chance.

OH... and guess what I didn't do... I didn't factor in the Bolt Pistol shots as the unit comes in for assault. Add another wound to my calculations! I'm going to fix the math hammer shortly!

Shooting is a little better in some ways, but has some down sides too(like the re-emergence of abundant covers saves, and true line of sight requirements). It still isn't as decisive as close combat, because when you break from shooting, there's no magical "initiative-unit-auto-destruct" roll.


This is once agian comparing apples and oranges. First my 10 man assault squad costs me 320 points.

10x 22 = 220 + 15 for Term honors, and 10 for a Power Weapon. Thats 245 points. Not sure where you are getting your 75 additional points.

And that equals 13 Necrons.

The results in my calculations would be nearly identical, as it takes TWELVE necrons to produce ONE additional wound against marines in an assault, and 10 to produce one shooting wound.


Second It is not the warriors job to shoot down the incoming assault marines alone.

Here's the problem with this argument...

Necron warriors are only good at shooting, and terrible at CC. Their balance is supposed to be the WBB rule. However, close combat circumvents the WBB rule if you wipe the unit out. So, Necrons suffer double jeopardy in CC.

Now that we have leadership modifers based not on the number of models which you are outnumbered by, but by wound difference, the modifier is more persistent, and Close Combat becomes much more of a threat of wipe out. Now we have a triple threat.



This is where tactics come into play
Lets take a look at your tactics for a sec.

First, realize that # of models is important to prevent phase out in a close game.

Thus, Necron Warriors are manditory, as they are the cheapest 'Necron' unit to prevent phase out. So bringing the more expensive 1-wound Necrons (or models that don't count as Necrons) puts your army in more risk.


Put the Cetan(sp) near
C'tan are extremely powerful, but also the single most expensive units in the game. They are a detriment to Phase Out count.

Additionally, they are slow, and easily tarpited or avoided.

I guess if you wanted to protect ONE Necron warrior squad they might do that well, but only that one squad.

Besides, current rumor has them being removed from the future Necron Codex and placed in Apocalypse (where I feel they belong, they are gods FFS).


hold them up with a squad of wraiths and/or flayed ones
Wraiths are 41 point 1-wound Necrons. They are easily killed with bolter fire as they are only T4.

Flayed ones are two slow, and lack any sort of


Use more then one unit to shoot them to weaken them

Brilliant. But what about the vet squad in the Rhino behind them? Or the Land Raider with Terminators in it?

See what I did there?


or just teleport out of combat (granted if you survive).

Right. And that is what the problem is. The way Necrons are now in 5th, you have a good chance of not surviving.


heck incoming man of 10 jet pack guys should be one of the highest priority targets for you. Why? Because necrons are not supposed to be great at HtH and the Assault Marines are!

See comment on LR and Rhino squads above.

Tactics are fine, but when your units are supposed to be uber-survivable, but aren't so in CC, tactics flies out the window.

Lord_Squinty
30-08-2008, 01:02
Cron players can cry me a river. I'm tired of hearing about how they have been nerfed in 5th.


Perhaps next time you play against necrons, you should play a second game - swapping sides so that you play as the necrons.

then come back and let us know how not-nerfed they are in 5th ed.

MadJackMcJack
30-08-2008, 12:42
Given their lack of backbone in life I find fearless a bit of a joke. Stubborn would represent their new and repairable bodies while showing that in the end they will still end up running off shaking their fists at those pesky younger races.




"We'd have gotten away with it too if it weren't for those pesky Eldar!"

They then pull off the Deciever's face to reveal he's actually Old Man Jones who owns the local mines or something.

Xirathnix
30-08-2008, 16:57
This isn't opinion. I've done the math in my posts above. Even at range 12", 10 Necrons will only produce on average 2.17 wounds. This isn't even enough to cause a break test. But they wont even get that chance.

Like I said nor should they.



Shooting is a little better in some ways, but has some down sides too(like the re-emergence of abundant covers saves, and true line of sight requirements). It still isn't as decisive as close combat, because when you break from shooting, there's no magical "initiative-unit-auto-destruct" roll.

as I said cannon and flamers have wiped out many a squad. Even devourers that all the nids have is a beating. A hive tyrant is like 140 points and could kill how many points of harlies?



C'tan are extremely powerful, but also the single most expensive units in the game. They are a detriment to Phase Out count.

Additionally, they are slow, and easily tarpited or avoided.

I guess if you wanted to protect ONE Necron warrior squad they might do that well, but only that one squad.

First off it sounds like you are using the wrong C'tan(ty) and dont know how to use the right one (Deceiver) but either way this is irrelevant as the C'Tans job in this case is to stop 1 Assault Marine unit who is coming virtually right for him or if it does somehow get around him, to charge it. It needs not worry about either speed nor tarpits. As the AM has to approach the necrons (pnalty of being a CC unit otherwise you have 245 of nothing just sitting around) It would be very easy for the C'tan to intercept by cutting off the angle and you should be deployed for this.

As far as a C'tan being a detriment to phase out, it seems by stopping 1 AM squad he is a very good thing for phase out (+10 at least). Tactics > numbers.


Besides, current rumor has them being removed from the future Necron Codex and placed in Apocalypse (where I feel they belong, they are gods FFS).

We dont know whats going on so lets not talk about rumors.



Wraiths are 41 point 1-wound Necrons. They are easily killed with bolter fire as they are only T4.

Flayed ones are two slow, and lack any sort of

Once again have fought against these and have them seen put to effective use in stopping enemy FA. If they are killed by bolter fire when they ignore all terrain then you are doing something wrong or had poor terrain.


Brilliant. But what about the vet squad in the Rhino behind them? Or the Land Raider with Terminators in it?

See what I did there?

Yes you admitted that there are other things that are involved in a Warhammer battle and didn't give an outcome because it is unsure. Its why I like playing the game:)

Really tho you can stop 2 vehicles with heavy destroyers, destroyers or even warriors. Just stop the LR from moving then when the marines bail out of the rhino shoot the entire army at them.

As a sidenote I use blood angle AM troop squad with PF and 3 PP. At 320 points they were killed to a man by 1 Tzeench demon prince in 1 round. Does the Demon prince need to be nerfed just because I have a squad that he can single handedly destroy just like your C'tan? No, the demon prince was killed by a single lascannon tac squad with PP and PG. Unlike what most FWHB players want to belive, tactics matter.

This is not to say necrons dont need a little help. As you can see in my first post I hope they make them fearless with a rule that inflicts more H2H combat losses. Its just that I find you comparing necron warriors to an assault marine squad and giving the marines the charge very unfair as an example. You should not and rightfully dont have good odds of surviving that. Y

Your calculations are still wrong as even by your numbers you first must calculate for even points and then take the casualties for at least 1 round of cron shooting.

Mathhammer can be a good thing but you are using it wrong. Instead of calculating if this unit can kill that unit you should be calculating how many of those AMs you must kill so the cant just wipe you out. Then shoot it down to the appropriate number so you can teleport out if necessary or send it the C'tan..

azimaith
30-08-2008, 17:38
Like I said nor should they.

But the enemy should?



as I said cannon and flamers have wiped out many a squad. Even devourers that all the nids have is a beating. A hive tyrant is like 140 points and could kill how many points of harlies?

Not very many considering their invulnerable save and veil of tears.



First off it sounds like you are using the wrong C'tan(ty) and dont know how to use the right one (Deceiver) but either way this is irrelevant as the C'Tans job in this case is to stop 1 Assault Marine unit who is coming virtually right for him or if it does somehow get around him, to charge it. It needs not worry about either speed nor tarpits. As the AM has to approach the necrons (pnalty of being a CC unit otherwise you have 245 of nothing just sitting around) It would be very easy for the C'tan to intercept by cutting off the angle and you should be deployed for this.
Are you joking? First off, its rather silly your only solution for stopping 245 points is to throw at least 480 points of models at it. Gee, will that really stop an assault squad? Obviously if you throw 2x the cost in models at it you will probably manage, it does mean however your opponent has tied up twice the number of your resources than his own cost allowing your single C'tan to be cicumvented by other models. Even then the assault squad can deploy how it likes and move 12" allowing it to strike at the outer edges of your army, even better, have 2 of them and strike from two angles at once.
Hell, should I even go into how stupid it is to require an army to take the most expensive special characters in the game to counter a single assault squad in every necron army?



As far as a C'tan being a detriment to phase out, it seems by stopping 1 AM squad he is a very good thing for phase out (+10 at least). Tactics > numbers.

Not really, because at the same time the opponent is using the more resources to destroy other squads while your c'tan plays follow assault squad. A smart SM player will hover within a threat range of your necrons to force your c'tan to abandon them or waste turns hiding near them doing nothing.




Once again have fought against these and have them seen put to effective use in stopping enemy FA. If they are killed by bolter fire when they ignore all terrain then you are doing something wrong or had poor terrain.

No, its very hard to hide anything now unless you've got complete buildings. Nothing blocks LOS due to it having a base anymore like 4th ed LOS. Wraiths are easier than ever to kill.



Yes you admitted that there are other things that are involved in a Warhammer battle and didn't give an outcome because it is unsure. Its why I like playing the game:)

To consciously ignore them and throw a single assault squad vs twice his points seems rather silly as well.



Really tho you can stop 2 vehicles with heavy destroyers, destroyers or even warriors. Just stop the LR from moving then when the marines bail out of the rhino shoot the entire army at them.

No not really. Why? Because the first chance the enemy gets the heavies will be smoking craters. They have no ablative wounds and their toughness is mostly irrelevent to what is shot at them.



[quote]
As a sidenote I use blood angle AM troop squad with PF and 3 PP. At 320 points they were killed to a man by 1 Tzeench demon prince in 1 round. Does the Demon prince need to be nerfed just because I have a squad that he can single handedly destroy just like your C'tan? No, the demon prince was killed by a single lascannon tac squad with PP and PG. Unlike what most FWHB players want to belive, tactics matter.

I don't take singular unlikely events and apply them as likely. You shouldn't either.



This is not to say necrons dont need a little help. As you can see in my first post I hope they make them fearless with a rule that inflicts more H2H combat losses. Its just that I find you comparing necron warriors to an assault marine squad and giving the marines the charge very unfair as an example. You should not and rightfully dont have good odds of surviving that. Y

Giving marines the charge is unfair when they move twice as fast? Its likely. The point is that necrons suffer abnormally severe losses due to phase out and combat resolution in 5th when assaulted. Most armies lose some guys, suck it up, and get on. When the necrons lose guys their squad sizes are minimum, 10, their entire army dissapearrs when theres less than 25% of necron models on the board (majority of them are warriors), they're expensive, far more than a space marine without their essentially "I ignore leadership problems in CC" bonus, and their WBB doesn't help on the most important turns of CC.



Your calculations are still wrong as even by your numbers you first must calculate for even points and then take the casualties for at least 1 round of cron shooting.

An 8man+sgt assault squad + chaplain (very common)
versus a 20 man necron warriors squad. (364 vs 360)
The marines have the 4 point advantage.

Marines move up to range, the necrons shoot, the marines are clear out of rapid range and moving would drop half their models out of shooting range.
20 shots, about 14 hits, 7 wounds, 2 dead marines, taken from assault marines.

Assault marines move up, shoot, 8 (6 assault one sgt+chap) bolt pistols at BS4 from assault marines.5 hits, 3 wounds, 1 dead necron. The chaplain shoots, 1 hit, no dead necrons probably.

They charge:
Chaplain strikes first: 6 attacks (2 weapons, terminator honors), 4 hits+1 hit for the re-roll, 2-3 wounds, we'll go low and say 2. 2 dead necrons.
Assault marines strike, 6 marines left, total attacks=19 due sgts bp attack.
19 attacks, 9 hits (going low)+ 5 hits on re-roll. 14 hits, 7 wounds, 2 dead necrons.
Necrons strike.
(Down 5, bp-1, chap-2, assault-2)
14 attacks, 7 hits, 3 wounds (going low) 1 dead assault marine.
Pfist strikes, 3 attacks (2 base for honors+charge)
1 hit(going low) +1 more hit due to re-roll, both wound, 2 more dead crons.
Total:
7 dead necrons, 1 dead marine. Necrons test at -6.
Necrons of equal value must roll under 4 or be run down and I don't believe i've missed anything.
Now for say, a marine army, they just take no retreat, for guard, they don't care, but for necrons in say, 1500 points, you've just lost about 41% of your total models in one turn. Which is not so bad until you realize that you're 3/4 of the way to phasing.



Mathhammer can be a good thing but you are using it wrong. Instead of calculating if this unit can kill that unit you should be calculating how many of those AMs you must kill so the cant just wipe you out. Then shoot it down to the appropriate number so you can teleport out if necessary or send it the C'tan..The problem is that you just told us if we were getting wraiths killed by bolters (due to their 3+ saves) we are doing something wrong, shouldn't you be applying the same thing to assault marines?

The point is that necrons are just inordinately hurt by losses in combat, not whether they should be lost or not. If we didn't have phase out, that would be a hefty loss but we could still count on the rest of our army (or an army build that packs weapons to destroy that sort of enemy) to still fight them.

Cartographer
30-08-2008, 17:57
Like I said nor should they.
Your calculations are still wrong as even by your numbers you first must calculate for even points and then take the casualties for at least 1 round of cron shooting.

Mathhammer can be a good thing but you are using it wrong. Instead of calculating if this unit can kill that unit you should be calculating how many of those AMs you must kill so the cant just wipe you out. Then shoot it down to the appropriate number so you can teleport out if necessary or send it the C'tan..

I think you're being a bit harsh there, even upping the number to 13 warriors, they would still only average 1 unsaved wound before getting assaulted, which they would then in all likelihood lose by 2. Not quite as bad, but they're still facing annihilation.

I think the point you're missing is quite a fundamental one, the game is, and has been for quite a while, geared towards close combat. In the situation where a unit that relies on shooting faces off against a unit that relies on close combat, the advantage is always with the close combat unit. The example with Necron warriors and assault marines is not unique, and is slightly more extreme than for most other match-ups in 40k.

The fact of the matter is, there is a significant chance of the assault marines wiping out the same number of points worth of Necron warriors in one assault phase even taking into account the Necron's shooting them en route to close combat. There is a significantly lower chance of those same Necron warriors wiping out the assault marines in one shooting phase.
It's a basic part of 40k.

On topic, I voted for neither
I run a 'cron army without C'Tan, with no Monoliths and usually with 2 units of flayed ones and wraiths.

I tend to lose a lot.

Khorne warrior
30-08-2008, 18:37
Well, you must understand that this "Fearless" rule will come at a cost. Sure, it seems good now, but when GW makes them 22 points (just an example) per model or takes out an important special rule to accomodate the fearless rule, then every necron player will be up in arms

Warpcrafter
30-08-2008, 20:08
I think they should be fearless and immune to no retreat, but it should be balanced by nerfing we'll be back. This way it would be a hard slog to rack up enough casualties to push them all into phasing out, but if they self-repaired somewhat slower or in smaller numbers the fight would be worth it. After all, what's the logic in falling back if you know that you'll just phase out and be repaired if you get destroyed?

Xirathnix
30-08-2008, 22:24
I think the point you're missing is quite a fundamental one, the game is, and has been for quite a while, geared towards close combat. In the situation where a unit that relies on shooting faces off against a unit that relies on close combat, the advantage is always with the close combat unit. The example with Necron warriors and assault marines is not unique, and is slightly more extreme than for most other match-ups in 40k.

Tell that to wytches and Genestealers two of the best H2H units. They sure seem to get shot up and killed alot. So much that the enemy needs this TACTICS to hide them to get to you. The problem is the comparison not the rules as said and still not addressed.


The fact of the matter is, there is a significant chance of the assault marines wiping out the same number of points worth of Necron warriors in one assault phase even taking into account the Necron's shooting them en route to close combat. There is a significantly lower chance of those same Necron warriors wiping out the assault marines in one shooting phase.
It's a basic part of 40k.

Correct and it should be that way as I have said. 200 points in this game is not and is not supposed to be a even match. To be clear one 200 point unit can get easily slaughtered by another 200 point unit. I think this is the core that most of you are not understanding. This is why I keep saying you are comparing apples and oranges. 200 points of orcs is going to crush 200 points of IG in H2H. 200 points of incubi are going to crush 200 points of marines(or necrons) in H2H, a 250 point carni is going to turn your landraider into soup in H2H.

Now right now your saying all my examples are in H2H. Well first off thats because in H2H its typically, not always, 1 on 1. Maybe 2 on 1 sometimes. Thats cuz the enemy has to run across the board and charge you. For shooting at 24" virtually the entire enemy force can concentrate on 1 unit. That is an obscene advantage. Lets take some shooting. How many points of DE/orcs/IG/eldar H2H troops could your destroyers take down? A near infinite number. Obviously overpowered. Are you saying they need a nerf? Hellhounds how many could they kill of troops. Fire warriors, dark reapers, oblitorators, MC with devourers list is endless of shooters that will crush people of equal cost.



Not very many considering their invulnerable save.

Hive tyrant- 12 shots 8 hit, reroll misses 2.6 more hit

10.6 hit total 8.8 wound reroll fails to wound basically 10 wounds ill give you 9 to make it easy. 3 outa 9 saves = 6 dead harlies. How many points is that? not to mention the tyrant might be able to assault and kill the rest.



Are you joking? First off, its rather silly your only solution for stopping 245 points is to throw at least 480 points of models at it. Gee, will that really stop an assault squad? Obviously if you throw 2x the cost in models at it you will probably manage, it does mean however your opponent has tied up twice the number of your resources than his own cost allowing your single C'tan to be cicumvented by other models.

I hope you now get the idea that point cost isnt relevant to effectiveness against certain targets.



Even then the assault squad can deploy how it likes and move 12" allowing it to strike at the outer edges of your army, even better, have 2 of them and strike from two angles at once.
Hell, should I even go into how stupid it is to require an army to take the most expensive special characters in the game to counter a single assault squad in every necron army?

He is the easy cure, not the only, and cure alot more then just AM. I use him as an example because he is a very powerful model. If you wanna gimp yourself and not take him thats your choice.; Like it or not he is the easy solution to this problem and he is in your army. If you want use tomb spiders, 2 of them should kill that squad.




Not really, because at the same time the opponent is using the more resources to destroy other squads while your c'tan plays follow assault squad. A smart SM player will hover within a threat range of your necrons to force your c'tan to abandon them or waste turns hiding near them doing nothing.

Bingo! and now the marines have to shoot it out with you instead of assault. (altho the C'tan isnt following anyone hes playing D warding them off)TY this is exactly what you want the enemy to do sit back and have a shoot out. Are you now saying you cant win a shootout?

Gatsby
31-08-2008, 02:23
He is the easy cure, not the only, and cure alot more then just AM. I use him as an example because he is a very powerful model. If you wanna gimp yourself and not take him thats your choice.; Like it or not he is the easy solution to this problem and he is in your army. If you want use tomb spiders, 2 of them should kill that squad.

tomb spyders have WS2 and 2 wounds, they blow as CC goes.

to update necrons to 5th they just need to ignore leadership penalties, easy fix, to further fix them make WBB FNP instead, make gauss rending and there ya go, the 5th ed updated version of the 3rd ed necron warrior and ya dont even need to change their point cost:chrome: now they just need to FAQ that and we'll be good till they redo our codex.

CthulhuDalek
31-08-2008, 03:47
But the enemy should?


Not very many considering their invulnerable save.


Are you joking? First off, its rather silly your only solution for stopping 245 points is to throw at least 480 points of models at it. Gee, will that really stop an assault squad? Obviously if you throw 2x the cost in models at it you will probably manage, it does mean however your opponent has tied up twice the number of your resources than his own cost allowing your single C'tan to be cicumvented by other models. Even then the assault squad can deploy how it likes and move 12" allowing it to strike at the outer edges of your army, even better, have 2 of them and strike from two angles at once.
Hell, should I even go into how stupid it is to require an army to take the most expensive special characters in the game to counter a single assault squad in every necron army?


Not really, because at the same time the opponent is using the more resources to destroy other squads while your c'tan plays follow assault squad. A smart SM player will hover within a threat range of your necrons to force your c'tan to abandon them or waste turns hiding near them doing nothing.



No, its very hard to hide anything now unless you've got complete buildings. Nothing blocks LOS due to it having a base anymore like 4th ed LOS. Wraiths are easier than ever to kill.


To consciously ignore them and throw a single assault squad vs twice his points seems rather silly as well.


No not really. Why? Because the first chance the enemy gets the heavies will be smoking craters. They have no ablative wounds and their toughness is mostly irrelevent to what is shot at them.
[quote]


I don't take singular unlikely events and apply them as likely. You shouldn't either.


Giving marines the charge is unfair when they move twice as fast? Its likely. The point is that necrons suffer abnormally severe losses due to phase out and combat resolution in 5th when assaulted. Most armies lose some guys, suck it up, and get on. When the necrons lose guys their squad sizes are minimum, 10, their entire army dissapearrs when theres less than 25% of necron models on the board (majority of them are warriors), they're expensive, far more than a space marine without their essentially "I ignore leadership problems in CC" bonus, and their WBB doesn't help on the most important turns of CC.


An 8man+sgt assault squad + chaplain (very common)
versus a 20 man necron warriors squad. (364 vs 360)
The marines have the 4 point advantage.

Marines move up to range, the necrons shoot, the marines are clear out of rapid range and moving would drop half their models out of shooting range.
20 shots, about 14 hits, 7 wounds, 2 dead marines, taken from assault marines.

Assault marines move up, shoot, 9 bolt pistols at BS4 from assault marines.6 hits, 3 wounds, 1 dead necron. The chaplain shoots, 1 hit, no dead necrons probably.

They charge:
Chaplain strikes first: 6 attacks (2 weapons, terminator honors), 4 hits+1 hit for the re-roll, 2-3 wounds, we'll go low and say 2. 2 dead necrons.
Assault marines strike, 6 marines left, total attacks=19 due sgts bp attack.
19 attacks, 9 hits (going low)+ 5 hits on re-roll. 14 hits, 7 wounds, 2 dead necrons.
Necrons strike.
(Down 5, bp-1, chap-2, assault-2)
14 attacks, 7 hits, 3 wounds (going low) 1 dead assault marine.
Pfist strikes, 3 attacks (2 base for honors+charge)
1 hit(going low) +1 more hit due to re-roll, both wound, 2 more dead crons.
Total:
7 dead necrons, 1 dead marine. Necrons test at -6.
Necrons of equal value must roll under 4 or be run down and I don't believe i've missed anything.
Now for say, a marine army, they just take no retreat, for guard, they don't care, but for necrons in say, 1500 points, you've just lost about 41% of your total models in one turn. Which is not so bad until you realize that you're 3/4 of the way to phasing.

The problem is that you just told us if we were getting wraiths killed by bolters (due to their 3+ saves) we are doing something wrong, shouldn't you be applying the same thing to assault marines?

The point is that necrons are just inordinately hurt by losses in combat, not whether they should be lost or not. If we didn't have phase out, that would be a hefty loss but we could still count on the rest of our army (or an army build that packs weapons to destroy that sort of enemy) to still fight them.

So one fully fledged chaplain + assault squad(Two FOC chart choices DEDICATED to hand to hand combat) should not be able to wipe out a necron squad?

Not to mention the marines will have a huge chunk of their army in that squad which will now be right in the middle of your deployment, ready to be gaussed, or destroyed by your C'tan.

Not to mention it is even likely that the Assault squad lands somewhere 7-11 inches away from the necrons and will not be able to assault them, though will get bolt pistol shots.

I dislike the phaseout rule... but lots of warriors, a lord and a monolith is still extremely frightening-- and all of these can pretty much ONLT be dealt with in hand to hand effectively.

azimaith
31-08-2008, 06:05
So one fully fledged chaplain + assault squad(Two FOC chart choices DEDICATED to hand to hand combat) should not be able to wipe out a necron squad?
Heres my suggestion.
Actually read the post.
Thanks.


The point is that necrons are just inordinately hurt by losses in combat, not whether they should be lost or not. If we didn't have phase out, that would be a hefty loss but we could still count on the rest of our army (or an army build that packs weapons to destroy that sort of enemy) to still fight them.



Not to mention the marines will have a huge chunk of their army in that squad which will now be right in the middle of your deployment, ready to be gaussed, or destroyed by your C'tan.

Where do I suddenly get a C'tan in 1500 points? Did my army suddenly get free points? You seem to think that bolters count for stupendous amounts here.



Not to mention it is even likely that the Assault squad lands somewhere 7-11 inches away from the necrons and will not be able to assault them, though will get bolt pistol shots.

No its really not likely they'll end up 11-7 away. Unless you just started the hobby odds are, your quite capable of estimating the difference between a foot and a foot and a half.



I dislike the phaseout rule... but lots of warriors, a lord and a monolith is still extremely frightening-- and all of these can pretty much ONLT be dealt with in hand to hand effectively.
No not really. If you break the monolith in a warrior horde army they may as well be any other necron model other than a warrior because their range sucks. No matter what you say, they still are bolters against normal models. Until your bolters (which you'll have more of) start being the bane of things like daemon princes and terminators theres no comparison.

Try it some time, make a marine army with *no special weapons* and face off against an army with no tanks. (Lets say, zilla nids) and see how it works out.

Gatsby
31-08-2008, 07:04
sometimes i think people should be require to play as an army before they're allowed to talk
The 5th ed rules made phase out to easy for the opponent to achieve, something needs to be done to fix the odds a little, read my post 3 before this, that is one solution there are many more, but something needs to be done. what is to be done i don't know but something. Someone saying "oh no you guys are fine don't worry about it" doesn't mean anything so i will say this so everyone who makes these claims that were fine in 5th ed can understand, here we go, now tell me if its not to clear:

WE PLAY AS OUR ARMY YOU DON'T, SO DON'T PRETEND TO KNOW WHATS GOING ON BECAUSE YOU SKIMMED THROUGH OUR CODEX!

ok im hoping this clears some stuff up, anyway back to the thread thank you:chrome:

The Muffin Man
31-08-2008, 11:23
In Warhammer 40k the effects of moral are allready pretty minimal so I'm against giving them fearless or stuborn but then also on the other side of the coin necrons need a boost and I'm pretty sure no-one can picture Necrons legging it crying out "weeze all gonna die!!!". So i thought maybe a special rule to show the necrons love for teleporting. If a moral check is failed in close combat then squad is taken of the table and is entered into the reserves, allowing it to deep strike later in the game.

Dragadile
31-08-2008, 13:43
IMO if you want your models to cost even more points sure go ahead but i just want to say that having very few models on a board is a very bad thing, it will hurt even more when that plasma cannon takes out a quater of a sqaud

Xirathnix
31-08-2008, 15:56
Heres my suggestion.
Actually read the post.
Thanks.


The point is that necrons are just inordinately hurt by losses in combat, not whether they should be lost or not. If we didn't have phase out, that would be a hefty loss but we could still count on the rest of our army (or an army build that packs weapons to destroy that sort of enemy) to still fight them.

You are obviously failing to make that point, highlighting and bold print make it no more true. You are a shooting army, we are saying your penalty in H2H is for the most part deserved. In my first post however I said you should have fearless with some penalty to H2H, so its not like im totally disagreeing with you. I just firmly believe you are shooters not CC guys. Keep in mind you beat tau and IG in CC and can just about out shoot them.

imweasel
31-08-2008, 16:58
You are obviously failing to make that point, highlighting and bold print make it no more true. You are a shooting army, we are saying your penalty in H2H is for the most part deserved. In my first post however I said you should have fearless with some penalty to H2H, so its not like im totally disagreeing with you. I just firmly believe you are shooters not CC guys. Keep in mind you beat tau and IG in CC and can just about out shoot them.

Except that we have no way to compensate for our weaknesses in CC.

Until a new codex comes out for necrons, we need to have serious 5th ed faq updates to compensate for changes made in 5th ed. Which if you have played necrons (not just against them) you would understand.

Almost all the changes made in the necron '5th ed faq' had absolutely zero to do with changes brought about in the 5th ed rules.

azimaith
31-08-2008, 18:52
You are obviously failing to make that point, highlighting and bold print make it no more true.

Makes it no more true? Are you insane? Its a flat out direct quote from the relevant post stating my stance.



You are a shooting army, we are saying your penalty in H2H is for the most part deserved.

And I said "Its not a matter of whether we should lose or not, its that we are *inordinately hurt by losing compared to other armies*.



In my first post however I said you should have fearless with some penalty to H2H, so its not like im totally disagreeing with you. I just firmly believe you are shooters not CC guys. Keep in mind you beat tau and IG in CC and can just about out shoot them.
And my point never said we were CC monsters. It said that we're inordinately hurt by sweeping advance in conjunction with phase out. Of course the chaplain and his assault squad will win, thats just the way it goes, but as long as phase out remains you can't have entire squads of 20 being wiped that fast, especially not when we compare them to models of similar costs who generally are immune to that.

To be honest phase out is a stupid rule shoehorned in to try and balance necrons which either plays no part in the game or is the entire game.

Theres no reason why necrons need it, in the events where necrons phase out you've almost always lost the game already, theres rarely close necron games.

vladsimpaler
31-08-2008, 21:50
You are a shooting army, we are saying your penalty in H2H is for the most part deserved.


What the hell? This should go both ways, then. I always have hated it when CC armies have better shooting then the actual shooting armies. This just doesn't make sense.

If the Necrons' penalty for H2H is so severe, then they should kick some serious ass in shooting. SERIOUS ASS KICKING, not like, "ooh, I killed 2 guys...nice. Now they murder me in CC."

Gatsby
01-09-2008, 00:00
IMO if you want your models to cost even more points sure go ahead but i just want to say that having very few models on a board is a very bad thing, it will hurt even more when that plasma cannon takes out a quater of a sqaud

who said anything about costing more, the posts ive written about (most anyway) all involve ways to convert things to 5th ed relevancy that were our advantages in 4th that no longer effect us. Gauss into rending, rending was nerfed so its not as powerful anymore, in fact its similar (in some ways) to what gauss was before, FNP for WBB, that ones a no brainer, give us a rule that says we take morale checks with no negative modifiers that way our LD10 does what it used to, protect us from sweeping advance and should we fail and be swept then we can't complain its because we were drastically weakened in CC, because thats what we were like in 4th. IMO these changes do not deserve a point increase.

Vault-Dweller
01-09-2008, 01:19
I think stuborn is to powerfull in 5 ed to give to a whole army. especialy necrons that are so hard to kill to start with.

Necrotyr18
01-09-2008, 03:33
You are a shooting army, we are saying your penalty in H2H is for the most part deserved.


See that is just it though, yes out shooting is good. Though pretty much any other gun line army will out perform us, in a shooting aspect only. The thing that gives/gave Necrons their punch was resiliency. Now will combat even more deadly for us then ever before, we lose our resiliency. Now give that back too us, you wouldn't need major changes to make our shooting better. Just make it so even with low model count we can still stay alive without the constant fear of being wiped out or shot to death.

Embalmed
01-09-2008, 10:04
I voted stubborn, but I guess fearless is more in line with fluff. I felt stubborn would keep things most the way they were in terms of how we would play and the occasional fleeing could be explained by a tactical withdrawal.

Anyhow, we need something, Necrons were a challenge to win with before, now it's a bit too challenging IMO. Our special rules may have been annoying and people can say all they want about how good they are but we have never been hard to beat and now it's easier and that's pretty much that.

In terms of how much it should cost? Well how much do maries pay for ATSKNF? 1 point? Well I think we could swing that.

Poseidal
01-09-2008, 11:23
Fearless makes sense fluffwise; if you want to take in the 'tactical retreating' one then they have normal morale, NOT stubborn. Stubborn makes no sense for Necrons at all in the background, but the other two may work.

I think people are choosing 'stubborn' because with Ld10 it is basically the best of the lot - it has the almost the advantages of both fearless and normal morale gameplaywise.

CthulhuDalek
01-09-2008, 12:14
Fearless makes sense fluffwise; if you want to take in the 'tactical retreating' one then they have normal morale, NOT stubborn. Stubborn makes no sense for Necrons at all in the background, but the other two may work.

I think people are choosing 'stubborn' because with Ld10 it is basically the best of the lot - it has the almost the advantages of both fearless and normal morale gameplaywise.

Stubborn is a good way to simulate phaseout on a squad level though. Give them leadership 8 or 9(With stubborn) so they don't --always-- pass their leadership tests, but will still advance under heavy fire etc.

Fearless would still work well but--I see it more like a "cron to cron" phaseout with no retreat, but that is kinda odd. I see them in cc as being more of an everything or nothing.

For the record--I believe the codex needs a lot of changes, including the ousting of phaseout--I've also given several solutions very similar to what everyone else has also said. But I share little pity when destroyers, heavy destroyers, scarabs, and necron warriors do not kill my models--because no matter how much I shoot at them, and how many die, the "poor defenseless" necron lord with the orb basically nullifies an entire turn of shooting.

Necrons do need to be rebalanced, but when you tell me that your indestructible tank of doom and unkillable warriors die too easily... I just kinda laugh. They need changes but to say that they cannot even fight well or deal with marines is just plain silly.

Bloodknight
01-09-2008, 12:19
I'd accept fearless only if they could not teleport out of combat anymore, because that gets silly and old pretty fast.
Imagine: an assault unit gets shot, reaches combat, kills 5 guys, 3 get back up, they teleport out, shoot the assault squad again. Rinse and repeat. So getting assaulted isn't a risk anymore. And Necs are dead shooty no matter what people say. If they weren't, they wouldn't win any games. The Phalanx and Destroyer storm aren't feared for nothing.

d077Z
01-09-2008, 15:14
Because if there's one emotion that people hate the most, it's disappointment. Disappointment when they kill Necrons, only to stand back up. Disappointment when they get into close combat, only to see the Necrons teleport out (in 4th at least). Disappointment when all their expensive anti-tank weapons with gimmicks do nothing to the Monolith.



This, combined with Necrons poor showing prior to 5ed (somewhere between IG and other races), sum up the crux of necron problems; A perception of power where none actually exists. In no way could those USR changes thought to be seriously unbalancing (even if applied blanketly across things like destroyers). As noted previously Necrons need to be either super resilient OR significantly better shooters.

Btw Rending is ~1-1.5 extra shooting wounds (20 rapid firing warriors on 3+ or 4+ sv) and a nerf (vs 4e gaus) against vehicles

FnP is a noticeable Nerf vs everything but CC (ap2/1 shooting , shot wastage ect) { Note I'd rather not go to FnP but due to player perceptions and rule clarity...}

From there is stubborn really that overpowered for an army *this* weak? (re-read p1 above and think if your in the negative)

Note none of the above is going to happen till the 5ed dex.

imweasel
01-09-2008, 15:16
Necrons do need to be rebalanced, but when you tell me that your indestructible tank of doom and unkillable warriors die too easily... I just kinda laugh. They need changes but to say that they cannot even fight well or deal with marines is just plain silly.

Did you even bother to read the replies in this thread?

We can't really deal with marines in CC and our 'unkillable' warriors are easily killed in CC.

You won't see many 'indestructable tanks of doom' anymore either. With the nerf to the monolith teleport and the need for necrons now to take heavier weapons, they have kinda gone to extinction.

azimaith
01-09-2008, 19:08
Did you even bother to read the replies in this thread?

We can't really deal with marines in CC and our 'unkillable' warriors are easily killed in CC.

You won't see many 'indestructable tanks of doom' anymore either. With the nerf to the monolith teleport and the need for necrons now to take heavier weapons, they have kinda gone to extinction.

He's just spouting rhetoric. Its a common thing around necron threads (actually any threads) and spout out bs.

Its like trying to talk to a frothing pundit, nothing changes there mind, least of all reality because they make their own up.

Gatsby
01-09-2008, 22:23
He's just spouting rhetoric. Its a common thing around necron threads (actually any threads) and spout out bs.

Its like trying to talk to a frothing pundit, nothing changes there mind, least of all reality because they make their own up.


Its like trying to talk to terrorists, nothing changes their mind, and then they blow themselves up killing innocent people to prove all they want is peace.

MALICIOUS LOGIC
02-09-2008, 00:08
Stubborn is a good way to simulate phaseout on a squad level though. Give them leadership 8 or 9(With stubborn) so they don't --always-- pass their leadership tests, but will still advance under heavy fire etc.

Fearless would still work well but--I see it more like a "cron to cron" phaseout with no retreat, but that is kinda odd. I see them in cc as being more of an everything or nothing.

Necrons never phase out on a unit level. At least not in the fiction. They only ever phase out if their entire force is being destroyed. Then they just phase out, repair, and come back in stronger numbers. GW didn’t make them fearless because that ability would have been too powerful in 3rd edition when it was written. (It was addressed by the designers). But the idea of Necrons is that they are fearless.

The idea that individual units phase out makes no sense. Necrons are very logical and systematic. They are always described as relentlessly and fearlessly advancing. They have a tier system approach to engaging the enemy and it works on a force wide level, not a unit level. Having a single unit phase out while the rest of the force is still on the battlefield would hurt their approach to warfare. It’s not something they would do. Read the Necron section of the Apocalypse rulebook.

Other good sources are:

Necron Codex
Caves of Ice (plus the preceding short story in the Caiphas Cain omnibus)
Dawn of War omnibus
Nightbringer


P.S. I omitted the last part of the quoted post. Yes Necrons are resilient, they are supposed to be. That’s one of their army strengths and they pay for it in their points cost and lack of special weapons. And no, Scarabs do not receive a We’ll Be Back nor do they benefit from a Res. Orb. But this is off topic.

~Logic

Straha
02-09-2008, 00:39
Phase out isn't a weakness? Expensive models (thus fewer models on the board) isn't a weakness? Lack of anti-tank in 5th? Lack of low ap weapons? No flamer templates at all? No cheap (less than 200 pt) transports? Almost no assault potential?

What weakness do Chaos Marines have that Necrons don't? Or even regular Space Marines?

What does a 2+ invulnerable save have to do with anything at all in this talk about Necron Fearless/Stubborn rules?

Because if there's one emotion that people hate the most, it's disappointment. Disappointment when they kill Necrons, only to stand back up. Disappointment when they get into close combat, only to see the Necrons teleport out (in 4th at least). Disappointment when all their expensive anti-tank weapons with gimmicks do nothing to the Monolith.

If WBB was always rolled as an additional save, no one would complain about how overpowered it is.. like say.. feel no pain in 4th. I've never seen someone complain to a Nurgle player with Plague Marines on how hard his T4(5) 3+ save 4+ FNP guys were hard to kill in shooting, but I get it ALL THE TIME as a Necron player with lower toughness. I don't even use a rez orb or monolith.

People are just irrational. If I had to choose one or the other, I think Ld10 Stubborn is far superior in game terms to Ld10 Fearless, just as ATSKNF is better than Fearless.

The WBB rule coupled with phase out is what makes a Necron Army unique. Granted, it is frustrating to shot something only to have it stand back up, but it also hurts to be on the verge of victory only to phase out

The Nurgle argument is correct. Or how about Thousand Sons in 5th Edition or Eldar tanks or any other blah, blah, blah we can whine about to make the army we play sound disadvantaged?

I choose neither. Leave WBB (and phase out) as is.

The Pink Pansy
02-09-2008, 01:30
As a Necron player, I vote neither. Let's face it, with a leadership of 10, Necrons shouldn't have to worry about morale. The only time they do have to worry is in close combat, and that's easily avoided assuming you have a Monolith or Lord with the VoD nearby. Sure it would be nice, but Necrons cost enough as is, and people already have enough reasons to hate us.

azimaith
02-09-2008, 01:35
I'm sorry but if your easily avoiding close combat your opponents must not play close combat armies.

For one, not everyone is pidgeon holed into using a monolith and VoD. Does a marine army require the use of a land raider and fear the darkness librarians to function satisfactorily? No.

What sort of enemies do you face where no one can move faster than your monolith and that every single percievably chareable squad is always within 18" of a lith and 6" of vod?

CthulhuDalek
02-09-2008, 07:36
Did you even bother to read the replies in this thread?

We can't really deal with marines in CC and our 'unkillable' warriors are easily killed in CC.

You won't see many 'indestructable tanks of doom' anymore either. With the nerf to the monolith teleport and the need for necrons now to take heavier weapons, they have kinda gone to extinction.

What nerf to the monolith teleport exactly?

All I'm trying to say is, when half a person's army shoots a warrior squad and 2 models fall down, and the next turn they stand back up, there is something wrong about complaining about the army's weakness. The "unkillable warriors" still have We'll Be Back.

I'd like to see phaseout removed, but til the next codex that weakness will have to be dealt with the same way as it always has. By not letting your units constantly be assaulted.

I have never seen a monolith that did not earn its points back in a game. Obviously no one reads *my* replies other than their perceived "He just hates necrons for no reason whatsoever..." I think the necrons need to be reconfigured for 5th ed and I have even listed changes to make them more balanced.

@ the dissenters. The fluff actually shows Necrons phasing out on a modular level. A single necron damaged beyond repair phases out. To make it more simple and not have to add in a "phaseout" rule or make them too tough in close combat, a moderate leadership and stubborn would more than make up for it.

Not to mention, necrons are pretty slow but they are still a ws.4 str.4 model, that's kind of offensive(rather than defensive) for a mainly shooting unit which is supposed to be cut down easily in close combat.

Maybe it is because I am mostly using a Chaos Army most frequently vs. Necrons I don;t see the same disadvantages they'd have against say my nids--but most enemies have little advantage against them...

The Monolith negates basically any special rule relevant to tanks, has a powerful amount of fire, deepstrikes with next to no penalty, and has an assortment of excellent abilities for less than a landraider. The Necron warrior has gauss weaponry and MEQ stats. A list with 60 warriors, a monolith and a necron lord at 1500 points is still a force to be reckoned with.

You say "You have to play our army to know our pain!" well, have you fought *against* your own army recently?

I do hate the necrons(Well because my chapter is defending the imperium =P)and I'd really like them to have a unique balanced list that did not involve making them great in close combat AND at shooting AND more resilient than a marine for 2-5 points more.

To me, necrons need a lot of pretty good shooty, a good amount of resilience and mediocre combat skills.

My two cents, but all can keep calling me a terrorist if you like.

CthulhuDalek
02-09-2008, 07:38
I'm sorry but if your easily avoiding close combat your opponents must not play close combat armies.

For one, not everyone is pidgeon holed into using a monolith and VoD. Does a marine army require the use of a land raider and fear the darkness librarians to function satisfactorily? No.

What sort of enemies do you face where no one can move faster than your monolith and that every single percievably chareable squad is always within 18" of a lith and 6" of vod?

I suppose if marines only had a Chaplain as HQ and a deepstriking landraider with a template weapon which came cheaper than a generic landraider then more people would use it.

Gatsby
02-09-2008, 07:59
no marines only get to deep strike entire armies using drop pods that have no deep strike penalty... oh and can transport units to objectives quickly... oh and have EFFECTIVE close combat support... oh and well just about everything else any other army has...

but this thread is about necrons, so i get back to the point, for your statement about individual necrons phasing out, yes they do, thats where our casualties that don't make the WBB save go, but why should the rest of the squad disappear too?

Play as a necron army against a half decent opponent, you will see SO many breaks in your defense that you just pray your opponent wont exploit or let a Necron player use your army and you use his, i assure you the player using your army will know just how to defeat the necrons, and rather simply at that. Its about knowing how the necrons work, and right now if you know how to break the large units you win by default.

CthulhuDalek
02-09-2008, 08:05
no marines only get to deep strike entire armies using drop pods that have no deep strike penalty... oh and can transport units to objectives quickly... oh and have EFFECTIVE close combat support... oh and well just about everything else any other army has...

but this thread is about necrons, so i get back to the point, for your statement about individual necrons phasing out, yes they do, thats where our casualties that don't make the WBB save go, but why should the rest of the squad disappear too?

Play as a necron army against a half decent opponent, you will see SO many breaks in your defense that you just pray your opponent wont exploit or let a Necron player use your army and you use his, i assure you the player using your army will know just how to defeat the necrons, and rather simply at that. Its about knowing how the necrons work, and right now if you know how to break the large units you win by default.

Next time I see my necron playing friend I will use the Necron Army and I will post the results and if I am corrected then I am sorry if I have been seeming like a pain in the ****.

They should disappear the same reason as any other squad should? If the army is at 25 percent of it's necron models it is already very likely to die anyway. (AGAIN however I do not advocate an army wide phaseout rule, I think it should change in the new dex, and I agree it is pretty annoying for players now, but every army has advantages and disadvantages.)

I'll let you know my findings.

Gatsby
02-09-2008, 08:12
The issue we have is the conjunction between the new CC rules and phase out, it just makes forcing phase out far to easy thts the issue, its not about anything else, if they took away phase out (even though i love the rule its very fluffy and even though its screwed me MANY times, it is somthing id rather not lose, i dont know why but im attached to it just as i am to WBB) we would no longer need a stubborn or fearless rule, as CC would not devestate us as much.

the_picto
02-09-2008, 08:25
I think necron should get the no retreat section of ATSKNF. So that if they are beaten in combat (likely) and fail their morale check (wouldn't suprise me) and then get sweeping advanced (is it even worth rolling?) they'll just take extra wounds and not all die.

Sekhmet
02-09-2008, 08:50
People keep quoting me from stuff I wrote on page 2!

Basically, before anyone continues to say Necrons are over/underpowered and you don't actually own a Necron army, play against a Necron player one day, then after the game, switch armies and play the exact same mission with the same lists on the same table side.

I don't care how well you "know" the Necron army/codex, reading and playing against it is very different from playing AS it.

azimaith
03-09-2008, 07:11
I suppose if marines only had a Chaplain as HQ and a deepstriking landraider with a template weapon which came cheaper than a generic landraider then more people would use it.
The monolith isn't a "deep striking land raider" nor does it pack the kind of firepower land raiders pick, much less the variability of firepower. They're different tanks and just as your not forced to buy a land raider or a chaplain to make an effective army necrons should not be forced to utilize a VoD and Monolith.


What nerf to the monolith teleport exactly?

All I'm trying to say is, when half a person's army shoots a warrior squad and 2 models fall down, and the next turn they stand back up, there is something wrong about complaining about the army's weakness. The "unkillable warriors" still have We'll Be Back.

By the same coin then your "space marines are unkillable" because you shoot and wound them and only 33% of them would die and you could just pass (and will likely pass) both armor saves unless denied by a specialized weapon (which works with necrons as well). We'd get one necron warrior back up in general, I don't think losing 1 out of 2 warriors is the equivalent of "unkillable". In fact the idea that you even have warriors being killed makes the idea they're unkillable a ridiculous notion, not even including what happens in assaults or against ordnance weapons. They're entirely killable.



I'd like to see phaseout removed, but til the next codex that weakness will have to be dealt with the same way as it always has. By not letting your units constantly be assaulted.I wasn't under the impression I was playing tau here. The tools we have are there to deal with assault after it happens, not prevent it, unless of course you'd like to make up those magical army lists so quoted where everyones got a c'tan a full squad of wraiths, 10 flayed ones, and a monolith all sitting around in range in a 1500 game while still actually having warriors on the board.



I have never seen a monolith that did not earn its points back in a game. Obviously no one reads *my* replies other than their perceived "He just hates necrons for no reason whatsoever..." I think the necrons need to be reconfigured for 5th ed and I have even listed changes to make them more balanced.

People read your replies and your replies strongly imply (such as "unkillable tanks and warriors") a froting, completely irrational necron hater. If you don't want that perception you may want to stop making ridiculous statements like "Unkillable warriors" because nothing makes players angrier.



@ the dissenters. The fluff actually shows Necrons phasing out on a modular level. A single necron damaged beyond repair phases out. To make it more simple and not have to add in a "phaseout" rule or make them too tough in close combat, a moderate leadership and stubborn would more than make up for it.

Not if a moderate leadership makes them close combat bait still, even LD8 is too low for the cost. It depends on the changes coming to necrons, but Ld10 and fearless is a simpler and much more sensible solution.



Not to mention, necrons are pretty slow but they are still a ws.4 str.4 model, that's kind of offensive(rather than defensive) for a mainly shooting unit which is supposed to be cut down easily in close combat.

Because they're not a primarily shooting unit that is meant to be cut down easily in close combat. Thats a tau firewarrior and their statline makes it obvious. Necron warriors are supposed to be relentless, extremely tough, enemies. They're never written as being wiped out wholesale in close combat, in fact many necron fluff pieces focus on enemies being overwhelmed by a relentless necron warriors, being buried under a mound of hacking necron blades, being eviscerated by skulking flayed ones, or destroyed by wraiths.



Maybe it is because I am mostly using a Chaos Army most frequently vs. Necrons I don;t see the same disadvantages they'd have against say my nids--but most enemies have little advantage against them...

Maybe you should actually *play* necrons before you start telling all us necron players were wrong. I play:
Necrons, Tyranids, Orks, Imperial Guard (with space marines), and more recently, Chaos Daemons, I can tell you on the scale of things necrons certainly do not score above chaos daemons in capabilites in 5th.



The Monolith negates basically any special rule relevant to tanks,

Not really. It dies the same way most tanks die, high powered long ranged fire. It doesn't negate shaken, stunned, immobilized, or even weapon destroyed.



has a powerful amount of fire,

Not really, its either a short ranged battle cannon like shot or a rather dumpy gauss flux arc which generally has little effect on most units. To be honest a monolith is what a land raider *should* be.



deepstrikes with next to no penalty,

Its not destroyed on deep strike, how is that no penalty? I think my max 6" move tank is penalized pretty hard when the enemy moves it to the farthest corner of the board where it can play no part in the battle.



and has an assortment of excellent abilities for less than a landraider.

It has one ability the land raider can't match, and thats quick transport. Its slower, its less able to tank enemy tanks, its can only transpot selected models, and you can't assault out of it. The land raider has abilities the monolith can't match, largest of which is the ability to move full speed and then send a squad (and you can load any squad you want into it that could normally board a transport) into the enemy with an assault.



The Necron warrior has gauss weaponry and MEQ stats. A list with 60 warriors, a monolith and a necron lord at 1500 points is still a force to be reckoned with.
I'm sure that any army thats over 1500 points looks good if you pretend its 1500 points. Better hope your opponent doesn't:
Assault your warriors.
Move faster than your warriors.
Kill your monolith.
Because if he does you've already lost.


You say "You have to play our army to know our pain!" well, have you fought *against* your own army recently?

Yes I have. They can't handle 5th ed. My tyranids ran roughshod over them because they can't effectively handle multiple combats unless those combats last for more than one turn, and that doesn't happen when 200 points of uber hormagaunts and a hive tyrant plow into you. On their own I had a couple squads (2 squads of 20 hormas, a winged talon tyrant) wipe out squad after squad, the hormagaunts holding and whittling necrons and the tyrant jumping in and gutting them to an untenable leadership value. They didn't have heavy destroyers because they were the "I have 60 warriors"
army.

Chaos Daemons is even easier as you've got greater daemons who get into combat on turn 2/4 along with daemon princes.



I do hate the necrons(Well because my chapter is defending the imperium =P)and I'd really like them to have a unique balanced list that did not involve making them great in close combat AND at shooting AND more resilient than a marine for 2-5 points more.
Wow really? Maybe thats why this is happening.

Obviously no one reads *my* replies other than their perceived "He just hates necrons for no reason whatsoever..."
Its painfully obvious to people that you've got a beef about necrons and so far you've seeming based a combat that would turn a 20 man necron unit that shot first into a roll a 4 on 2d6 or lose the entire unit into "great at close combat". Necrons aren't great at close combat or the above events wouldn't have ever happened because they'd just beat their ass in CC. We don't get powerfist upgrades to even the score, we don't get specialist support thats actually worth a damn in CC.



To me, necrons need a lot of pretty good shooty, a good amount of resilience and mediocre combat skills.

My two cents, but all can keep calling me a terrorist if you like.
I'm not calling you a terrorist, i'm saying I see you as having an irrational hatred (faboyism as its called) about necrons with little to not experience playing as them much less how things actually work.

CthulhuDalek
03-09-2008, 08:53
The monolith isn't a "deep striking land raider" nor does it pack the kind of firepower land raiders pick, much less the variability of firepower. They're different tanks and just as your not forced to buy a land raider or a chaplain to make an effective army necrons should not be forced to utilize a VoD and Monolith.



By the same coin then your "space marines are unkillable" because you shoot and wound them and only 33% of them would die and you could just pass (and will likely pass) both armor saves unless denied by a specialized weapon (which works with necrons as well). We'd get one necron warrior back up in general, I don't think losing 1 out of 2 warriors is the equivalent of "unkillable". In fact the idea that you even have warriors being killed makes the idea they're unkillable a ridiculous notion, not even including what happens in assaults or against ordnance weapons. They're entirely killable.

I wasn't under the impression I was playing tau here. The tools we have are there to deal with assault after it happens, not prevent it, unless of course you'd like to make up those magical army lists so quoted where everyones got a c'tan a full squad of wraiths, 10 flayed ones, and a monolith all sitting around in range in a 1500 game while still actually having warriors on the board.


People read your replies and your replies strongly imply (such as "unkillable tanks and warriors") a froting, completely irrational necron hater. If you don't want that perception you may want to stop making ridiculous statements like "Unkillable warriors" because nothing makes players angrier.



Not if a moderate leadership makes them close combat bait still, even LD8 is too low for the cost. It depends on the changes coming to necrons, but Ld10 and fearless is a simpler and much more sensible solution.


Because they're not a primarily shooting unit that is meant to be cut down easily in close combat. Thats a tau firewarrior and their statline makes it obvious. Necron warriors are supposed to be relentless, extremely tough, enemies. They're never written as being wiped out wholesale in close combat, in fact many necron fluff pieces focus on enemies being overwhelmed by a relentless necron warriors, being buried under a mound of hacking necron blades, being eviscerated by skulking flayed ones, or destroyed by wraiths.


Maybe you should actually *play* necrons before you start telling all us necron players were wrong. I play:
Necrons, Tyranids, Orks, Imperial Guard (with space marines), and more recently, Chaos Daemons, I can tell you on the scale of things necrons certainly do not score above chaos daemons in capabilites in 5th.


Not really. It dies the same way most tanks die, high powered long ranged fire. It doesn't negate shaken, stunned, immobilized, or even weapon destroyed.


Not really, its either a short ranged battle cannon like shot or a rather dumpy gauss flux arc which generally has little effect on most units. To be honest a monolith is what a land raider *should* be.


Its not destroyed on deep strike, how is that no penalty? I think my max 6" move tank is penalized pretty hard when the enemy moves it to the farthest corner of the board where it can play no part in the battle.


It has one ability the land raider can't match, and thats quick transport. Its slower, its less able to tank enemy tanks, its can only transpot selected models, and you can't assault out of it. The land raider has abilities the monolith can't match, largest of which is the ability to move full speed and then send a squad (and you can load any squad you want into it that could normally board a transport) into the enemy with an assault.

I'm sure that any army thats over 1500 points looks good if you pretend its 1500 points. Better hope your opponent doesn't:
Assault your warriors.
Move faster than your warriors.
Kill your monolith.
Because if he does you've already lost.

Yes I have. They can't handle 5th ed. My tyranids ran roughshod over them because they can't effectively handle multiple combats unless those combats last for more than one turn, and that doesn't happen when 200 points of uber hormagaunts and a hive tyrant plow into you. On their own I had a couple squads (2 squads of 20 hormas, a winged talon tyrant) wipe out squad after squad, the hormagaunts holding and whittling necrons and the tyrant jumping in and gutting them to an untenable leadership value. They didn't have heavy destroyers because they were the "I have 60 warriors"
army.

Chaos Daemons is even easier as you've got greater daemons who get into combat on turn 2/4 along with daemon princes.


Wow really? Maybe thats why this is happening.

Obviously no one reads *my* replies other than their perceived "He just hates necrons for no reason whatsoever..."
Its painfully obvious to people that you've got a beef about necrons and so far you've seeming based a combat that would turn a 20 man necron unit that shot first into a roll a 4 on 2d6 or lose the entire unit into "great at close combat". Necrons aren't great at close combat or the above events wouldn't have ever happened because they'd just beat their ass in CC. We don't get powerfist upgrades to even the score, we don't get specialist support thats actually worth a damn in CC.


I'm not calling you a terrorist, i'm saying I see you as having an irrational hatred (faboyism as its called) about necrons with little to not experience playing as them much less how things actually work.

Space Marines do not get a 50/50 chance of standing back up.
No, instead of taking a monolith you can take a squad of jetbikes with high str. guns. Even scarabs can rip tanks to shreds.

Interestingly, your army's fluff implies they are unkillable and even have rules that attempt to incorporate that into their lists.

My suggestions for the new necrons would lower their strength and make them the same as a guardsman there, however they'd be slower, but this would be of little consequence because of a high resilience(T.5) ws.3 because they are not super duper in close combat. With feel no pain they would stand up(or not) immediately after failing a save. Their guns could be heavy 2-3 rending and they could be relentless. Another completely fearless army with high leadership? I'd think with their squads they'd be more everything or nothing and would like to disengage as quickly as possible to try and shoot the enemy down.

No, the monolith just negates most antitank weaponry. Pretty much the only way to do it is a lot of high strength weaponry that does not have some form of antitank asset, like meltas or lances. I'm sure if every single missile launcher fired into the monolith at once it would die--but it would have served the purpose of keeping your warriors alive that much longer.

The monolith can deepstrike and the landraider can't, that sort of makes up for the whole not moving quickly. So my landraider can either move 12 inches and let a unit out(wasting it's amazing weaponry you speak of) or sit still and waste its great assault capabilities. A landraider is still pretty balanced, because if it could teleport units out of assault and negate most antitank weapons it'd be 300+ points.

Your monolith can drop into the middle of enemy lines and not be destroyed by landing on enemy models. Perhaps I am hazy on it, but doesn;t the monolith's rule say to move the models so they move out of it's way or some such that would not allow it to be moved across the board?

I do not have the necrons dex with me, but I don't think the list I said was illegal. If anything I may be off by around 100 points and then you may have what 50 instead of 60 warriors.

So instead the army should be able to survive every assault, move extremely quickly, and monolith can die even less than usual? If you use an army of primarily necron warriors you seem to think that the offensive output of necron shooting can do nothing at all, which is kind of interesting. In kill points games a necron army only needs to kill more killpoints than it started with and keep one model alive. In objectives you can sit on your own objectives and when the enemy moves faster than you(as they most likely will) you pull back slightly, shoot them and next turn you will be either able to shoot once or twice more or even assault them to deprive them of their bonuses.

Chaos Daemons and Tyranids are both examples of extreeeemely powerful assault armies and any opponent needs to rethink how they will take them down, not just necrons. Necrons do get weaker against assault armies but like any foe you can adapt.

I will try a game out USING necrons against my friend's mobile ork army and see how they fare.

Sorry for sounding like so much of a "fanboy git."

Gatsby
03-09-2008, 17:01
Space Marines do not get a 50/50 chance of standing back up.
No, instead of taking a monolith you can take a squad of jetbikes with high str. guns. Even scarabs can rip tanks to shreds.

Interestingly, your army's fluff implies they are unkillable and even have rules that attempt to incorporate that into their lists.

My suggestions for the new necrons would lower their strength and make them the same as a guardsman there, however they'd be slower, but this would be of little consequence because of a high resilience(T.5) ws.3 because they are not super duper in close combat. With feel no pain they would stand up(or not) immediately after failing a save. Their guns could be heavy 2-3 rending and they could be relentless. Another completely fearless army with high leadership? I'd think with their squads they'd be more everything or nothing and would like to disengage as quickly as possible to try and shoot the enemy down.

No, the monolith just negates most antitank weaponry. Pretty much the only way to do it is a lot of high strength weaponry that does not have some form of antitank asset, like meltas or lances. I'm sure if every single missile launcher fired into the monolith at once it would die--but it would have served the purpose of keeping your warriors alive that much longer.

The monolith can deepstrike and the landraider can't, that sort of makes up for the whole not moving quickly. So my landraider can either move 12 inches and let a unit out(wasting it's amazing weaponry you speak of) or sit still and waste its great assault capabilities. A landraider is still pretty balanced, because if it could teleport units out of assault and negate most antitank weapons it'd be 300+ points.

Your monolith can drop into the middle of enemy lines and not be destroyed by landing on enemy models. Perhaps I am hazy on it, but doesn;t the monolith's rule say to move the models so they move out of it's way or some such that would not allow it to be moved across the board?

I do not have the necrons dex with me, but I don't think the list I said was illegal. If anything I may be off by around 100 points and then you may have what 50 instead of 60 warriors.

So instead the army should be able to survive every assault, move extremely quickly, and monolith can die even less than usual? If you use an army of primarily necron warriors you seem to think that the offensive output of necron shooting can do nothing at all, which is kind of interesting. In kill points games a necron army only needs to kill more killpoints than it started with and keep one model alive. In objectives you can sit on your own objectives and when the enemy moves faster than you(as they most likely will) you pull back slightly, shoot them and next turn you will be either able to shoot once or twice more or even assault them to deprive them of their bonuses.

Chaos Daemons and Tyranids are both examples of extreeeemely powerful assault armies and any opponent needs to rethink how they will take them down, not just necrons. Necrons do get weaker against assault armies but like any foe you can adapt.

I will try a game out USING necrons against my friend's mobile ork army and see how they fare.

Sorry for sounding like so much of a "fanboy git."

im just gonna dumb down everything into a few sentences rather than answer each one individually, im tired an i want more sleep but here it goes.

you can deep strike ENTIRE ARMIES with drop pods and they ARENT destroyed if they land on a unit they just move to the side.

ya the monolith can deep strike, but after that its not going anywere fast. scarabs CANNOT rip up tanks without spending the entire game targeting one tank.

yea we could take our speeders guys with heavy bolters but they're expensive die quickly and we already dont have varied lists as it is, so are you saying that ALL necron players NEED to take one list and ONLY one list?

Why should necron warriors change, we pay for our stats in point cost marines can hardly say the same, plus we've been around longer than SM's oh and were made of solid metal whereas marines are eggs waiting for the shell to crack. read my sig for a better explanation as to what a necron is.

as opposed to other armies with large lists of things to choose from we only actually have 9 conceivably useful models in our army to make up a list and two of those are C'tan and ones the lord.

If you play as necrons against someone else, you will easily become the most intelligent anti-necron poster here, weather or not you wind up giving honest results of the game, you will have done what none of the others in this thread have done, viewed everything from the other side, and for that i give you credit:chrome:

gorgon
03-09-2008, 17:59
Basically, before anyone continues to say Necrons are over/underpowered and you don't actually own a Necron army, play against a Necron player one day, then after the game, switch armies and play the exact same mission with the same lists on the same table side.

I don't care how well you "know" the Necron army/codex, reading and playing against it is very different from playing AS it.

Armchair generalship of an army you don't play is a common 40K phenomenon. Heard it for years (and still do) with my Tyranids. Ya gotta play an army to know it.

Maybe I'm completely wrong, but I think Necrons are a trickier fix than some think. I don't see a band-aid here or there to be good enough. Unless that's all the studio is striving for. :P I really wish Phil K. would get the job (balancing across units and allowing for varied army builds is his strength), but since we haven't heard anything along those lines, I'm afraid that Alessio will get it. I don't think the Necron army needs to become any more cookie-cutter, and that seems to be his style...

The Orange
03-09-2008, 18:40
Please, not more fearless armies.


Ditto, we don't need another army making a mockery of the Ld rules in 40k (but GW will probably do it anyways :eyebrows:). The Ld system in 40k is already pathetic as is simply because everything and their dog is fearless (or equivilent) just because their fluff makes them out to be badass. Ld in 40k seriously needs a visit from the nerf bat :mad:.

Just because their feerless dosen't mean their stupid, if you've got a titan stomping on a bunch of basic necron troops, what would be better? Shooting it to no effect, getting crushed and spending a lot of time being warped out and repaired? or pulling back and using those troops against other targets? Just because their immortal dosent mean their limitless (yet), or have the resources to throw away troops for no good reason during a battle.

itcamefromthedeep
03-09-2008, 19:04
Full disclosure: I play Tyranids and Eldar, and I've beaten Necrons the half-dozen times I've played them.

Fearless works. It fits the fluff, and frankly I don't expect LD to matter much regardless. Considering the background, getting LD to matter is a lost cause.

Necrons Warriors have an assault problem, but not much more so then a Tactical squad without a power fist. They're okay, but they struggle with assault specialists. They need support to win combats, just like the Hormagaunts in a previous example needed a Hive Tyrant to break Warrior squads for them.

Necrons need viable assault troops or more effective close range shooting. In 5th, they need a way to take an objective from dug-in enemies, something that any force that is allergic to close combat struggles with. I'm suggesting some nifty template weapons, some guns that ignore cover, or something that would let them assault an enemy Troops choice with an advantage. Help for Pariahs would go a long way, giving the army assault specialists that ignore armor. If "Phase Out" bites the bullet, the case for Pariahs becomes much better.

Another vote for Feel No Pain instead of WBB. Another vote for eradicating the "Phase Out" rule. Another vote for Fearless.

CthulhuDalek
03-09-2008, 19:35
im just gonna dumb down everything into a few sentences rather than answer each one individually, im tired an i want more sleep but here it goes.

you can deep strike ENTIRE ARMIES with drop pods and they ARENT destroyed if they land on a unit they just move to the side.

ya the monolith can deep strike, but after that its not going anywere fast. scarabs CANNOT rip up tanks without spending the entire game targeting one tank.

yea we could take our speeders guys with heavy bolters but they're expensive die quickly and we already dont have varied lists as it is, so are you saying that ALL necron players NEED to take one list and ONLY one list?

Why should necron warriors change, we pay for our stats in point cost marines can hardly say the same, plus we've been around longer than SM's oh and were made of solid metal whereas marines are eggs waiting for the shell to crack. read my sig for a better explanation as to what a necron is.

as opposed to other armies with large lists of things to choose from we only actually have 9 conceivably useful models in our army to make up a list and two of those are C'tan and ones the lord.

If you play as necrons against someone else, you will easily become the most intelligent anti-necron poster here, weather or not you wind up giving honest results of the game, you will have done what none of the others in this thread have done, viewed everything from the other side, and for that i give you credit:chrome:

I wasn't saying you *need* to take anything, but that as you pointed out the destroyers just aren't as effective as a monolith. It is unfortunate that certain necron formations work more efficiently than others, and they kinda get forced that way with 5th ed rules(More troops and more warriors to specifically offset phase out).

Yes, entire armies of space marines deepstrike, and you'd better hope you've given them the best shooting weapons possible otherwise your enemy will tear them a new one in hth(Though I will be using 3-4 drop pods because come on, they're pretty cool for 30 bucks!)

Ahaha, the necrons have been around longer--maybe they've gotten rusty after 60 million years :P jk, but who knows whether ceramite and adamantium are physically stronger than the living metal. It seems like living metal would break more easily but mend that much quicker. What does the fluff say in that regard anyway?

All I can say is... let's hope GW does make your new dex and release it soon. (Right before or after Dark Eldar?)

azimaith
03-09-2008, 23:45
Space Marines do not get a 50/50 chance of standing back up.

Well obviously is "50/50" is "unkillable" then the marines 67/33 should be unkillable too. Or are we only allowed to make *asinine assumptions about perfect dice rolls for necrons*.



No, instead of taking a monolith you can take a squad of jetbikes with high str. guns. Even scarabs can rip tanks to shreds.

All of which do what exactly to fill in what VoD and monoliths do? Nothing. Are you sure you're not running for some sort of political office, because it sure reads like you are.



Interestingly, your army's fluff implies they are unkillable and even have rules that attempt to incorporate that into their lists.

If we were unkillable we'd never lose a game and we'd never need to worry about losing close combat, perhaps you don't understand what unkillable means. I certainly hope I don't need to actually explain it to you and why it does not apply.



My suggestions for the new necrons would lower their strength and make them the same as a guardsman there, however they'd be slower, but this would be of little consequence because of a high resilience(T.5) ws.3 because they are not super duper in close combat. With feel no pain they would stand up(or not) immediately after failing a save. Their guns could be heavy 2-3 rending and they could be relentless. Another completely fearless army with high leadership? I'd think with their squads they'd be more everything or nothing and would like to disengage as quickly as possible to try and shoot the enemy down.

Thats great and all but it completely misses the point. They aren't "super duper" in combat *now*. Your base position keeps changing, one minute they shouldn't be surviving against a dedicated assault and that happens, next they're unkillable and unbeatable in close combat. Enough with the flip flopping.



No, the monolith just negates most antitank weaponry. Pretty much the only way to do it is a lot of high strength weaponry that does not have some form of antitank asset, like meltas or lances. I'm sure if every single missile launcher fired into the monolith at once it would die--but it would have served the purpose of keeping your warriors alive that much longer.
Uh what anti-tank weapon does it negate?
Anything from S8+ hurts it. Theres alot of ways to kill it, and its hadly only from melta bonuses (they're still AP1). Essentially it seems your complaining the monolith doens't spontaneously combust the moment someone points a missile at it and that it does its job before it dies. Wow, I suppose your land raider must just explode before you even deploy it if thats what you think of as "unkillable."



The monolith can deepstrike and the landraider can't, that sort of makes up for the whole not moving quickly.

Except for the whole deep strike mishaps, the turn after you deep strike, and rolling for reserves, of course. But those are minor things right.



So my landraider can either move 12 inches and let a unit out(wasting it's amazing weaponry you speak of) or sit still and waste its great assault capabilities.

Gee, ever think about using it to transport models then using its great guns? The land raider is a transport with firepower, the monolith is a utility tank. You're spending alot of time bregrudging tanks for having any sort of weakness.



A landraider is still pretty balanced, because if it could teleport units out of assault and negate most antitank weapons it'd be 300+ points. Enough of the vapid platitudes. For one, if the monolith could move 12" and send out assaulting units like terminators one could argue the same thing. Second your constant blatantly ridiculous claims about the tank being able to negate most anti-tank weapons is tiresome and wholly ridiculous.
Lets see, what anti-tank weapon does it negate (assuming anti-tank is S8+)
What S8 weapon can not hurt the monolith (thus negating it).
None.

Wow, thats a huge list of negated weapons, its so long I can hardly believe it. My fingers hurt due to the sheer quantity of typing I had to do to list the number of S8 weapons that don't hurt the monolith!



Your monolith can drop into the middle of enemy lines and not be destroyed by landing on enemy models. Perhaps I am hazy on it, but doesn;t the monolith's rule say to move the models so they move out of it's way or some such that would not allow it to be moved across the board?

The monolith is not destroyed if it lands witihn 1" of an enemy model, great, you only get your model destroyed on a 5-6 on a mishap roll anyhow (which is not negated) thus your enemy can throw it back into reserve or deploy it anywhere they like on the table. 5th ed rules.



I do not have the necrons dex with me, but I don't think the list I said was illegal. If anything I may be off by around 100 points and then you may have what 50 instead of 60 warriors.

Its 100 points cheaper if you have a lord with nothing on it. You know what necron players call a necron lord with nothing on it?
Worthless.



So instead the army should be able to survive every assault, move extremely quickly, and monolith can die even less than usual?

Wait the monolith does actually die and the necrons aren't "unkillable". Why don't you make up your mind! The monolith is a tough tank, so is a land raider, get over it.
The army is weak in assault, too weak at the moment on the defensive end.

Instead of actually arguing you make insane claims with no evidence hoping only that if you spew the same thing out over and over people will believe you. Maybe if you actually included *evidence* of *some kind*, you might be getting a better response.



If you use an army of primarily necron warriors you seem to think that the offensive output of necron shooting can do nothing at all, which is kind of interesting.

Its an army of bolters with poor anti-tank that has less firepower than far more capable assault armies of its same points value. If you go full warriors your playing a annoying "I can outlast you game".



In kill points games a necron army only needs to kill more killpoints than it started with and keep one model alive.

Which is hard to do when assault wipe you out and you have a hard time killing things due to short range and mediocre weaponry. Full on warriors armies do not work well.



In objectives you can sit on your own objectives and when the enemy moves faster than you(as they most likely will) you pull back slightly, shoot them and next turn you will be either able to shoot once or twice more or even assault them to deprive them of their bonuses.
You do realize if you pull back your stuck at 12" and they're out of range thus you do nothing. Then their turn they jump forward 12", assault you get a full charge bonusl, and end up being right on the objective. Thats not a very good tactic.



Chaos Daemons and Tyranids are both examples of extreeeemely powerful assault armies and any opponent needs to rethink how they will take them down, not just necrons. Necrons do get weaker against assault armies but like any foe you can adapt.
Not really. They're two armies with some units that are great at assaults, but near every army but tau and IG can produce equivalent units to wipe out necrons with.



I will try a game out USING necrons against my friend's mobile ork army and see how they fare.

Sorry for sounding like so much of a "fanboy git."
It would be great if you actually put some evidence into what you were saying and second, if you stopped throwing words like "unkillable" or "negates" where they don't belong. A terminator is a tough model, its not unkillable, just like a necron warrior is a tough model, but not unkillable.

CthulhuDalek
04-09-2008, 01:43
Well obviously is "50/50" is "unkillable" then the marines 67/33 should be unkillable too. Or are we only allowed to make *asinine assumptions about perfect dice rolls for necrons*.


All of which do what exactly to fill in what VoD and monoliths do? Nothing. Are you sure you're not running for some sort of political office, because it sure reads like you are.


If we were unkillable we'd never lose a game and we'd never need to worry about losing close combat, perhaps you don't understand what unkillable means. I certainly hope I don't need to actually explain it to you and why it does not apply.


Thats great and all but it completely misses the point. They aren't "super duper" in combat *now*. Your base position keeps changing, one minute they shouldn't be surviving against a dedicated assault and that happens, next they're unkillable and unbeatable in close combat. Enough with the flip flopping.


Uh what anti-tank weapon does it negate?
Anything from S8+ hurts it. Theres alot of ways to kill it, and its hadly only from melta bonuses (they're still AP1). Essentially it seems your complaining the monolith doens't spontaneously combust the moment someone points a missile at it and that it does its job before it dies. Wow, I suppose your land raider must just explode before you even deploy it if thats what you think of as "unkillable."


Except for the whole deep strike mishaps, the turn after you deep strike, and rolling for reserves, of course. But those are minor things right.


Gee, ever think about using it to transport models then using its great guns? The land raider is a transport with firepower, the monolith is a utility tank. You're spending alot of time bregrudging tanks for having any sort of weakness.

Enough of the vapid platitudes. For one, if the monolith could move 12" and send out assaulting units like terminators one could argue the same thing. Second your constant blatantly ridiculous claims about the tank being able to negate most anti-tank weapons is tiresome and wholly ridiculous.
Lets see, what anti-tank weapon does it negate (assuming anti-tank is S8+)
What S8 weapon can not hurt the monolith (thus negating it).
None.

Wow, thats a huge list of negated weapons, its so long I can hardly believe it. My fingers hurt due to the sheer quantity of typing I had to do to list the number of S8 weapons that don't hurt the monolith!


The monolith is not destroyed if it lands witihn 1" of an enemy model, great, you only get your model destroyed on a 5-6 on a mishap roll anyhow (which is not negated) thus your enemy can throw it back into reserve or deploy it anywhere they like on the table. 5th ed rules.


Its 100 points cheaper if you have a lord with nothing on it. You know what necron players call a necron lord with nothing on it?
Worthless.


Wait the monolith does actually die and the necrons aren't "unkillable". Why don't you make up your mind! The monolith is a tough tank, so is a land raider, get over it.
The army is weak in assault, too weak at the moment on the defensive end.

Instead of actually arguing you make insane claims with no evidence hoping only that if you spew the same thing out over and over people will believe you. Maybe if you actually included *evidence* of *some kind*, you might be getting a better response.


Its an army of bolters with poor anti-tank that has less firepower than far more capable assault armies of its same points value. If you go full warriors your playing a annoying "I can outlast you game".


Which is hard to do when assault wipe you out and you have a hard time killing things due to short range and mediocre weaponry. Full on warriors armies do not work well.


You do realize if you pull back your stuck at 12" and they're out of range thus you do nothing. Then their turn they jump forward 12", assault you get a full charge bonusl, and end up being right on the objective. Thats not a very good tactic.


Not really. They're two armies with some units that are great at assaults, but near every army but tau and IG can produce equivalent units to wipe out necrons with.


It would be great if you actually put some evidence into what you were saying and second, if you stopped throwing words like "unkillable" or "negates" where they don't belong. A terminator is a tough model, its not unkillable, just like a necron warrior is a tough model, but not unkillable.

Living metal on the monolith does in fact negate specific weaponry that gains bonuses vs. tanks.

For example:
-Meltaguns lose the bonus d6 which they PAY points for in their weapon profile.
-monstrous creatures--most of which are strength 6 or 7, which cost a tremendous amount of points are usually tank killing--oh but look your extra d6 is thrown out the window!
-chainfists lose their d6.
-Bright lance's special rules are negated.
-Meltabombs
-TANK HUNTERS!

And I bet there are other armies whose antitank is screwed over by it as well.

NO, the monolith does not ignore ALL effects of weaponry. Instead weapons which have an advantage against every single tank in the game are nullified and made "okay" vs. a tank that is already extremely resilient.

Necrons get We'll Be Back which allows the models which have been killed to stand back up 50% of the time. That is more "unkillable" than a space marine. Especially when the obvious combo to take is with an Orb of Resurrection.

Perhaps "Nigh unstoppable unless using antitank weapons" would be better than unkillable as you seem to not process abstract expressions when applied to models which are not alive to begin with.

Yes, a monolith can die, but it will die less frequently than a landraider--which costs more--you are stepping around my argument--obviously necrons can die, they are just extremely resilient to the point that half the shots that take them down do absolutely nothing.

If you pull back to just at 12 inches and you were in cover with LOS you will be getting shots off at them and they will be forced to move through cover to assault you. You will also be out of assault range of the multiple other units lurking a few inches out of range, I hardly see this as being a flaw when you want to keep your crons alive(or undead?) as long as possible.

No one forces you to take a monolith vs. heavy destroyers, they take out tanks with relative ease. Or did they get nerfed as well?

The necrons may suffer more in 5th ed than in 4th, but it is not all doom and gloom for the 'crons. Do you honestly think it is impossible to win a game with necrons and that you will not be able to compete against a foe because your list is so broken?

They're a fixer upper, agreeably, but not a total loss.

azimaith
04-09-2008, 02:10
Living metal on the monolith does in fact negate specific weaponry that gains bonuses vs. tanks.

For example:
-Meltaguns lose the bonus d6 which they PAY points for in their weapon profile.

A melta gun still kills a monolith on a roll of 6 to damage and can still cause damage on a 6 to penetrate.



-monstrous creatures--most of which are strength 6 or 7, which cost a tremendous amount of points are usually tank killing--oh but look your extra d6 is thrown out the window!

6-7 are not "tank killers" they average around penetration of 12 which is really an apc in 40k terms.



-chainfists lose their d6.
-Bright lance's special rules are negated.
-Meltabombs

And yet they still aren't negated, just not as effective.



-TANK HUNTERS!

Being tank hunters doesn't make you a tank killer in and of itself. If I have a unit of bolters with tank hunters they aren't "tank killers". Give them a S8 weapon (anti-tank) and they aren't negated.



And I bet there are other armies whose antitank is screwed over by it as well.

NO, the monolith does not ignore ALL effects of weaponry. Instead weapons which have an advantage against every single tank in the game are nullified and made "okay" vs. a tank that is already extremely resilient.

Then why say it negates weapons? Theres a reason why tanks were dying horribly in 4th and it wasn't because meltaguns were too weak. They still do alright but its a generally a singular tank in a necron army that provides a vital part thus needs to survive. But this is keeping in that you seem to only think a land raider should survive endless fire but a monolith should split open the moment it gets a wayward glare.



Necrons get We'll Be Back which allows the models which have been killed to stand back up 50% of the time. That is more "unkillable" than a space marine. Especially when the obvious combo to take is with an Orb of Resurrection.

Oh my. I do actually need to explain what "unkillable" means don't I. You don't get "more unkillable." Unkillable is not a value term, your either unkillable or your not. Your never "mostly unkillable" as being such would negate the whole "unkillable" part. Necrons get up 50% of the time because they pay more than marines, much more than 3 points considering how much ATSKNF should be worth.



Perhaps "Nigh unstoppable unless using antitank weapons" would be better than unkillable as you seem to not process abstract expressions when applied to models which are not alive to begin with.
They're nigh unstoppable? They're as stoppable as any 3+ save is. Do you think space marines just explode into tiny bits in heavy bolter fire? Overall they tend to balance out quite well, suffering more fire than marine counter parts but surviving more of it while marines tend to weather less fire due to increased output of fire.



Yes, a monolith can die, but it will die less frequently than a landraider--which costs more--you are stepping around my argument--obviously necrons can die, they are just extremely resilient to the point that half the shots that take them down do absolutely nothing.

The land raider died to often in 4th and its still a pushover against armies that pack melta weaponry. The land raider is just plain overpriced, especially with new defensive weapons. The entire point of a necron army is to be resilient, but in 5th ed thats not the case as assaults and sweeping advances will take a necron army apart in short order.



So now your required to be in cover? You do know that "assault units" tend to move faster than 6" a turn and furthermore, that necrons will be slowed down in the exact same way as the assaulting units making them equally as likely to be assaulted as if not in cover.

[quote]
You will also be out of assault range of the multiple other units lurking a few inches out of range, I hardly see this as being a flaw when you want to keep your crons alive(or undead?) as long as possible.

Its easy to make up a perfect situation and then try to use it as evidence, but its hardly sensible. There are not suddenly other units just out of assault range and your assault units now suddenly plod along at 6" a turn? Didn't you play tyranids? They pull back 6" in cover i'll be free and clear with my hormagaunts, flyrant, and essentially any other assault unit in my army to move forward 6 and gut them with a fleet+charge, leaping charge/ flying move 12 and 6" charge). Same goes with assault marines, transported units, and essentially any other assault unit worth its salt.



No one forces you to take a monolith vs. heavy destroyers, they take out tanks with relative ease. Or did they get nerfed as well?

Wait, so if your a necron and you have a S9 gun, suddenly you can kill tanks with relative ease, but if your say, a space marine with a S9 gun, tanks like the monolith are "impossible to kill". Double standard if you ask me. The necron "lascannon" is not stronger than any other variant.



The necrons may suffer more in 5th ed than in 4th, but it is not all doom and gloom for the 'crons. Do you honestly think it is impossible to win a game with necrons and that you will not be able to compete against a foe because your list is so broken?

They're a fixer upper, agreeably, but not a total loss.
No one said they were a total loss. What we object to is twofold.

One, this silly notion that somehow were this insanely uber army that never loses, never dies, and can't be stopped by any means that so many people feel qualified to judge us as without ever actually playing the necron side. Theres a reason why necrons generally don't show up in the winners slots of grand tournaments. (One guess which army does.)

Two, that necrons are inordinately hurt in 5th ed by sweeping advances and would benefit and not be unduly strengthened by the addition of the stubborn or fearless USR to the entire applicable army.

Hellfury
04-09-2008, 03:44
Necrons shouldn't be fearless.

Fearless is a really retarded rule that needs to go away.

If I had to choose between the two options, I would pick stubborn. I like how it works. While necrons are robots, (or atleast automatons) they are still controlled by something external. That means they should be able to tactically withdraw.

Gatsby
04-09-2008, 04:03
Necrons shouldn't be fearless.

Fearless is a really retarded rule that needs to go away.

If I had to choose between the two options, I would pick stubborn. I like how it works. While necrons are robots, (or atleast automatons) they are still controlled by something external. That means they should be able to tactically withdraw.

i hate the reference to "tactically withdraw" ya FAILED the leadership test, your running away...

azimaith
04-09-2008, 04:15
Necrons shouldn't be fearless.

Fearless is a really retarded rule that needs to go away.

If I had to choose between the two options, I would pick stubborn. I like how it works. While necrons are robots, (or atleast automatons) they are still controlled by something external. That means they should be able to tactically withdraw.
ATSNKF is a tactical withdrawl.

A tactical withdrawl doesn't mean you run the chance of throwing your weapons to the side, flailing your arms, and screaming like a nine year old girl as you book it as fast as possible so you can go hide under a rock until the bad people go away as is inferred in Sweeping Advance.

Unless they're going to get ATSNKF they won't tactically withdraw despite how the rule book decides to picture it.

Gatsby
04-09-2008, 04:21
at which point they'd be marines

Sekhmet
04-09-2008, 04:45
Wait, so if your a necron and you have a S9 gun, suddenly you can kill tanks with relative ease, but if your say, a space marine with a S9 gun, tanks like the monolith are "impossible to kill". Double standard if you ask me. The necron "lascannon" is not stronger than any other variant.

This deserves to be quoted.



Two, that necrons are inordinately hurt in 5th ed by sweeping advances and would benefit and not be unduly strengthened by the addition of the stubborn or fearless USR to the entire applicable army.
Unless Phase Out is removed, in which case I can see not having stubborn nor fearless.

Poseidal
04-09-2008, 08:50
6-7 are not "tank killers" they average around penetration of 12 which is really an apc in 40K terms.
Actually, the median armour in CC for a tank (APC or not) is 10. This is ALL Imperial Guard, Eldar and Tau tanks and all but one class in Space Marines (both flavours). Tyranids don't use tanks and the only other army is Necrons. So for close combat, this evaluation is incorrect; S6-7 +2D6 is the tank killer for all but two armies, one of which doesn't use tanks.

What's more, they have the quality of quantity - MCs are meant to shred vehicles with many attacks, one of them is bound to get a penetration.


And yet they still aren't negated, just not as effective.
They are negated. It is impossible to get a destroyed result on a monolith with any glancing hits; infinite glances will not destroy it. Lances, MeltaBOMBs and Chainfists can only glance it therefore they are negated, or their 'effectiveness' is reduced to 0.

On a side note, Living Armour should never have negated the Brightlance. The Brightlance pays a massive premium for 'Lance' and is a lower strength than a Lascannon (and is comparably more expensive), it is meant to be more effective against armour 14 yet in this case it isn't for no justifiable reason. IMO they should just get rid of the Lance rule and make it S10; better than a Lascannon as it should be.

CthulhuDalek
04-09-2008, 09:15
A melta gun still kills a monolith on a roll of 6 to damage and can still cause damage on a 6 to penetrate.


6-7 are not "tank killers" they average around penetration of 12 which is really an apc in 40k terms.


And yet they still aren't negated, just not as effective.


Being tank hunters doesn't make you a tank killer in and of itself. If I have a unit of bolters with tank hunters they aren't "tank killers". Give them a S8 weapon (anti-tank) and they aren't negated.


Then why say it negates weapons? Theres a reason why tanks were dying horribly in 4th and it wasn't because meltaguns were too weak. They still do alright but its a generally a singular tank in a necron army that provides a vital part thus needs to survive. But this is keeping in that you seem to only think a land raider should survive endless fire but a monolith should split open the moment it gets a wayward glare.


Oh my. I do actually need to explain what "unkillable" means don't I. You don't get "more unkillable." Unkillable is not a value term, your either unkillable or your not. Your never "mostly unkillable" as being such would negate the whole "unkillable" part. Necrons get up 50% of the time because they pay more than marines, much more than 3 points considering how much ATSKNF should be worth.


They're nigh unstoppable? They're as stoppable as any 3+ save is. Do you think space marines just explode into tiny bits in heavy bolter fire? Overall they tend to balance out quite well, suffering more fire than marine counter parts but surviving more of it while marines tend to weather less fire due to increased output of fire.


The land raider died to often in 4th and its still a pushover against armies that pack melta weaponry. The land raider is just plain overpriced, especially with new defensive weapons. The entire point of a necron army is to be resilient, but in 5th ed thats not the case as assaults and sweeping advances will take a necron army apart in short order.

[quote[
If you pull back to just at 12 inches and you were in cover with LOS you will be getting shots off at them and they will be forced to move through cover to assault you.

So now your required to be in cover? You do know that "assault units" tend to move faster than 6" a turn and furthermore, that necrons will be slowed down in the exact same way as the assaulting units making them equally as likely to be assaulted as if not in cover.


Its easy to make up a perfect situation and then try to use it as evidence, but its hardly sensible. There are not suddenly other units just out of assault range and your assault units now suddenly plod along at 6" a turn? Didn't you play tyranids? They pull back 6" in cover i'll be free and clear with my hormagaunts, flyrant, and essentially any other assault unit in my army to move forward 6 and gut them with a fleet+charge, leaping charge/ flying move 12 and 6" charge). Same goes with assault marines, transported units, and essentially any other assault unit worth its salt.


Wait, so if your a necron and you have a S9 gun, suddenly you can kill tanks with relative ease, but if your say, a space marine with a S9 gun, tanks like the monolith are "impossible to kill". Double standard if you ask me. The necron "lascannon" is not stronger than any other variant.


No one said they were a total loss. What we object to is twofold.

One, this silly notion that somehow were this insanely uber army that never loses, never dies, and can't be stopped by any means that so many people feel qualified to judge us as without ever actually playing the necron side. Theres a reason why necrons generally don't show up in the winners slots of grand tournaments. (One guess which army does.)

Two, that necrons are inordinately hurt in 5th ed by sweeping advances and would benefit and not be unduly strengthened by the addition of the stubborn or fearless USR to the entire applicable army.[/QUOTE]

No, the lascanon is not any less effective in marine hands, but a marine cannot move 12 inches over difficult terrain, shoot it's lascanon and have an enemy tank which has virtually no weaknesses other than movement based.

The monolith negates the *effects* of all these specialized anti-tank guns. Being high strength alone makes you pretty good, but the weapon specifically ignores the specialized effects of certain named units.

You are really pushing the limit of being literal, huh? I say they are unkillable and you say "nothing is unkillable..." Now as we know in real life--nothing alive currently can not die--so the fact that we can use unkillable as a word is already an abstraction. I'm using the emotional emphasis on the fact that necrons are extrmely difficult to kill(They *should be* during shooting) but you keep setting up examples for your crons where they are against *overwhelming* odds for a single unit where they are likely to die.

A marine fails a save. It's dead. 1/2(depending) of all necrons stand right back up again.

You can bash me for not having played your army etc etc. But you seem to be under the impression that Necrons are feeble and easily broken--yes maybe in hth but they are as viable as most of the 3rd ed codices... though we might debate on how viable those are...

To reiterate-- if you are a necron, most of the time you are not fighting against necrons. And most tanks, except the landraider and front armor of the russ will pretty much be destroyed "easily" by a str.9 weapon. But the most common antitank weapons that are designed to take out tanks are not always lascanons.

I suppose Necrons will suffer a lot greater against extremely fast, close combat oriented armies, but then they have to waste precious points on antitank instead of cc.

Sekhmet
04-09-2008, 10:00
Actually, the median armour in CC for a tank (APC or not) is 10. This is ALL Imperial Guard, Eldar and Tau tanks and all but one class in Space Marines (both flavours). Tyranids don't use tanks and the only other army is Necrons. So for close combat, this evaluation is incorrect; S6-7 +2D6 is the tank killer for all but two armies, one of which doesn't use tanks.

To be a little annoying, not ALL IG tanks have rear armor 11. And Walkers are always hit on the front armor (I know they aren't tanks, but they're vehicles).



They are negated. It is impossible to get a destroyed result on a monolith with any glancing hits; infinite glances will not destroy it. Lances, MeltaBOMBs and Chainfists can only glance it therefore they are negated, or their 'effectiveness' is reduced to 0.

Yes, infinite glances will destroy it. If you destroy all weapons, immobilize it, then do it one more time, you destroy a vehicle. Read the rule book. But again we see a double-standard being applied here:

Necron Warriors are negated. It is impossible to get a destroyed result against any closed-top vehicle with glancing hits. Gauss Flayers can only glance everything, therefore it is negated, or its 'effectiveness' is reduced to 0.

Therefore, Necrons only have 2 shooting anti-tank options in the entire list: Monoliths (24" range) and Heavy Destroyers (no ablative wounds, very fragile compared to a devastator squad, shorter range too). Some shooty army... you almost have to rely on close combat with a destroyer lord or wraith to kill vehicles now.

CthulhuDalek
04-09-2008, 10:08
To be a little annoying, not ALL IG tanks have rear armor 11. And Walkers are always hit on the front armor (I know they aren't tanks, but they're vehicles).


Yes, infinite glances will destroy it. If you destroy all weapons, immobilize it, then do it one more time, you destroy a vehicle. Read the rule book. But again we see a double-standard being applied here:

Necron Warriors are negated. It is impossible to get a destroyed result against any closed-top vehicle with glancing hits. Gauss Flayers can only glance everything, therefore it is negated, or its 'effectiveness' is reduced to 0.

Therefore, Necrons only have 2 shooting anti-tank options in the entire list: Monoliths (24" range) and Heavy Destroyers (no ablative wounds, very fragile compared to a devastator squad, shorter range too).

The gauss flayer is a cheap troop gun, and enough of them when combined together could take all the weapons off, and immobilize it after concentrated fire.

You know, the other day a similar situation came up. I recall in 4th ed that you could destroy a vehicle in this way, but I am hard pressed to find the page of the rule in the 5th ed book. Do you know?

I think the fact that anything with gauss can harm tanks in some way out of combat despite low strength is a plus.

Think of it this way, ALL weapons that could only glance(due to armour values or special rules) got nerfed similarly. Now your basic gun can still hurt vehicles but not as well.

So no, the effects of Gauss Weapons are not "negated" just nerfed, I guess. They are as effective as they would be with everyone else on the same footing.

I'd really like to see Gauss become rending though as it could allow for more than glancing hits, and could wound marine equivalents.
rng. 18 Str.4 ap.4 heavy 3, rending. That'd make a necron worth something(to the people who think they are not good at shooting currently.)

Heck, I'll write my own new dex and you all dissenters can playtest it?

*EDIT* And I think he was trying to say that one of the Monolith's weapons is intrinsic and cannot be destroyed. Does that mean that since it has no further weapons left, but still has the built in unremovable weapon it survives?

Bloodknight
04-09-2008, 10:25
Yes, infinite glances will destroy it. If you destroy all weapons, immobilize it, then do it one more time, you destroy a vehicle. Read the rule book. But again we see a double-standard being applied here:

No, it won't. The power matrix is indestructible, and therefore it can reach into a negative amount of shots fired. You cannot destroy a Monolith with glancing hits that are not AP1. You can inflict infinite amounts of "immobilized" and "weapon destroyed" results on it without killing it.

Poseidal
04-09-2008, 10:38
To be a little annoying, not ALL IG tanks have rear armor 11. And Walkers are always hit on the front armor (I know they aren't tanks, but they're vehicles).

Correct, not 11 but 10; in the codex, the Leman Russ is the main heavy battle tank? rear armour 10. LR Demolisher may be another exception, I don't remember it's rear armour value.

War walkers and sentinels have front armour 10 anyway. SM Dreads have higher front armour but all three aren't tanks anyway and the last can be tooled for CC anyway so you'd expect it to hold out there.



Yes, infinite glances will destroy it. If you destroy all weapons, immobilize it, then do it one more time, you destroy a vehicle. Read the rule book. But again we see a double-standard being applied here:
As stated before due to the nature of the power matrix, unlimited glances will never result in a destroyed result. The exception is with AP1 weapons, which none of the examples are (MeltaGUNs are AP1, Bombas are not).


Necron Warriors are negated. It is impossible to get a destroyed result against any closed-top vehicle with glancing hits. Gauss Flayers can only glance everything, therefore it is negated, or its 'effectiveness' is reduced to 0.
From the point before, on non monolith vehicles glances can destroy, and all other weapons that only/mostly glance are similarly effected.

No contradiction; no double standed; everything accounted for!

Bloodknight
04-09-2008, 10:40
LRD has AV11 in the back. It's the only IG tank that is not AV10.

gorgon
04-09-2008, 15:56
Necrons need viable assault troops or more effective close range shooting. In 5th, they need a way to take an objective from dug-in enemies, something that any force that is allergic to close combat struggles with. I'm suggesting some nifty template weapons, some guns that ignore cover, or something that would let them assault an enemy Troops choice with an advantage. Help for Pariahs would go a long way, giving the army assault specialists that ignore armor. If "Phase Out" bites the bullet, the case for Pariahs becomes much better.

I know I beat the drum on this a lot, but they need to boost Flayed Ones and Wraiths to be better CC specialists. Pariahs should be reimagined around their pariah gene abilities, IMO.

Still doesn't make sense to take something as valuable as a Pariah only to hand them an axe, bunch 'em together, and send them to the front... :)

Thanatos_elNyx
04-09-2008, 16:57
As stated before due to the nature of the power matrix, unlimited glances will never result in a destroyed result. The exception is with AP1 weapons, which none of the examples are (MeltaGUNs are AP1, Bombas are not).

I don't know any Necron players (including myself) who play it this way. After 6 Weapon Destroyed I will assume the Gauss Flux Arc is gone and move on.

loveless
04-09-2008, 17:48
I know I beat the drum on this a lot, but they need to boost Flayed Ones and Wraiths to be better CC specialists.

Agreed. Wraiths need to be cheaper, get 2 wounds, have some way to ignore armour saves, or some combination of the above.

Flayed Ones are supposed to be slow moving in walking, but preternaturally agile in combat (Their fluff blurb in Codex: Necrons says as much, I think). Higher WS could account for this, as could giving them 2 CCWs, or even both. I don't think it's necessary to give them rending or anything. Getting them into combat is the problem. They could potentially use a "From Below" rule - wherein if they deepstrike ONTO an enemy squad, they count as charging that squad (The Flayed Ones pop up out of the ground and catch the enemy unawares). Of course, that would make Flayed Ones ridiculously expensive, so do ignore me :p


Pariahs should be reimagined around their pariah gene abilities, IMO. Still doesn't make sense to take something as valuable as a Pariah only to hand them an axe, bunch 'em together, and send them to the front... :)

This is pretty much true, but what do you do with Pariahs then? They're a CC unit, which means they'd be wasted as "Squad Upgrades" and the like. Besides, uniformity in units is one of the things that fits Necrons quite well.

gorgon
04-09-2008, 18:41
Agreed. Wraiths need to be cheaper, get 2 wounds, have some way to ignore armour saves, or some combination of the above.

I say give 'em phase blades. They makes more sense on Wraiths than any other unit. They'd have to adjusted and/or repriced, of course.


Flayed Ones are supposed to be slow moving in walking, but preternaturally agile in combat (Their fluff blurb in Codex: Necrons says as much, I think). Higher WS could account for this, as could giving them 2 CCWs, or even both. I don't think it's necessary to give them rending or anything. Getting them into combat is the problem. They could potentially use a "From Below" rule - wherein if they deepstrike ONTO an enemy squad, they count as charging that squad (The Flayed Ones pop up out of the ground and catch the enemy unawares). Of course, that would make Flayed Ones ridiculously expensive, so do ignore me :p

I think the run rule helps them, as does the flank march rule. Maybe they should be Fleet...might get pretty interesting then, although they might still require a slight offensive boost. I like the imagery of them being extremely agile and a whirling, twisting cyclone of blades. I can picture them in all kinds of strange positions and angles, etc...totally unorthodox compared to normal humanoids. The current models make them look as lumbering as Warriors, which they shouldn't be.


This is pretty much true, but what do you do with Pariahs then? They're a CC unit, which means they'd be wasted as "Squad Upgrades" and the like. Besides, uniformity in units is one of the things that fits Necrons quite well.

Well, my idea was originally that they should be Warrior add-ons. Someone else here suggested it'd be better for them to be bought in HQ -- say 1 to 5 of them -- and then allowed to deploy individually throughout the army. I rather like that idea.

loveless
04-09-2008, 20:25
I say give 'em phase blades. They makes more sense on Wraiths than any other unit. They'd have to adjusted and/or repriced, of course.

Oh yeah, I guess an invulnerable save isn't going to help you much if a Ghosted Wraith stabs you and then materializes inside your body. :p




I think the run rule helps them, as does the flank march rule. Maybe they should be Fleet...might get pretty interesting then, although they might still require a slight offensive boost. I like the imagery of them being extremely agile and a whirling, twisting cyclone of blades. I can picture them in all kinds of strange positions and angles, etc...totally unorthodox compared to normal humanoids. The current models make them look as lumbering as Warriors, which they shouldn't be.

Yes and no. I'm pretty sure that the codex mentions Flayed Ones supposed to be lumbering and hunched, but ridiculously agile when they get to work, which the current models fit somewhat. I'd have to say that I don't think they should be fast moving (though if Warriors get S&P, Flayed Ones should not). I like to think of them as the indestructable wall of spikes (well, blades) that pushes ever closer to you, ignoring all your fire from your weapons, before it finally hits you and kills you in the most grisly way possible.

That being said...if any new (plastic) models were released, it'd be awesome to see them be able to be modelled either hunched or in ridiculous, double-jointed, crazed-robotic-acrobat positions. Especially if they changed the explanation to make them quick and deadly.


Well, my idea was originally that they should be Warrior add-ons. Someone else here suggested it'd be better for them to be bought in HQ -- say 1 to 5 of them -- and then allowed to deploy individually throughout the army. I rather like that idea.

I remember hearing the Warrior add-on idea. I suppose the Pariah rule would help screw the enemy over when the Warriors got close, and the Warscythe would give some handy CC support. But it might make the average unit of Warriors TOO good. We'd probably be looking at Pariahs being significantly more expensive if they operated somewhat like Advisors. (Multiple bubbles of Ld 7 for the enemy? Crazy good.)

gorgon
04-09-2008, 21:18
I remember hearing the Warrior add-on idea. I suppose the Pariah rule would help screw the enemy over when the Warriors got close, and the Warscythe would give some handy CC support. But it might make the average unit of Warriors TOO good. We'd probably be looking at Pariahs being significantly more expensive if they operated somewhat like Advisors. (Multiple bubbles of Ld 7 for the enemy? Crazy good.)

I think in my dream codex, they'd mostly be dedicated psych warfare units, with only a little offensive ability. Trying to make Pariahs multipurpose is what got them in trouble in the first place. And I think Soulless could just be tweaked for balance...although I strongly believe psychology should be an important part of how the army operates.

Brim said Pariahs operate differently now, so maybe some of this has a chance. I guess we'll see.

loveless
04-09-2008, 21:49
Well, here's hoping Pariahs become useful...and get models that look less like disproportionate spacemen from a 1950s alien movie.

Back on topic - Stubborn makes more sense than Fearless to me, simply because the Necrons seem only to stay until the job's done or terror is sown. However, they're not beyond being forced to retreat - it's just really hard to get them to do so. Ergo, Stubborn works, Fearless does not (as much at least).

However, as has been said before, eliminating Phase Out would eliminate the need for either rule.

azimaith
04-09-2008, 22:36
No, the lascanon is not any less effective in marine hands, but a marine cannot move 12 inches over difficult terrain, shoot it's lascanon and have an enemy tank which has virtually no weaknesses other than movement based.

Because the marine gun can strike at 12" farther away than the Necron heavy gauss cannon.

Lets see, a tank that has virtually no weakness other than movement based? Wow thats not a disadvantage for a tank whose *prime purpose is to transport units around*. I wasn't aware you automatically got monoliths for having a heavy destroyer as well, since that seems to be your "evidence" that necron gauss cannons are better.



The monolith negates the *effects* of all these specialized anti-tank guns. Being high strength alone makes you pretty good, but the weapon specifically ignores the specialized effects of certain named units.

It doesn't negate them, it lessens their effect. A melta gun has an effect on a monolith no matter how much you try to argue its negated.



You are really pushing the limit of being literal, huh? I say they are unkillable and you say "nothing is unkillable..." Now as we know in real life--nothing alive currently can not die--so the fact that we can use unkillable as a word is already an abstraction. I'm using the emotional emphasis on the fact that necrons are extrmely difficult to kill(They *should be* during shooting) but you keep setting up examples for your crons where they are against *overwhelming* odds for a single unit where they are likely to die.

For emotional effect? See thats the problem, were not debating how you feel. To be honest no one cares how anyone else feels about it, were trying to debate the fact of the matter where feeling has absolutely no place. You can feel all you like, feeling doesn't make an argument.


A marine fails a save. It's dead. 1/2(depending) of all necrons stand right back up again.

The marine costs less thus have more (1 marine extra for every 5 warriors) and the marines put out superior firepower lessening incoming fire on them. You can argue all you want about it but your not saying anything new. Yes, necrons are harder to kill than marines, they should be, they pay for it, no they aren't harder to kill in close combat than marines, they're much much easier. We just pay more overall.



You can bash me for not having played your army etc etc. But you seem to be under the impression that Necrons are feeble and easily broken--yes maybe in hth but they are as viable as most of the 3rd ed codices... though we might debate on how viable those are...

Nice try but you can look over all my posts and you'll see thats a complete falsehood, i've said it before and I'll continue saying it, necrons are inordinately hurt by combat resolution in 5th edition. Thats all I say and thats all i've been saying. Just because I defend the army from false accusations of it being overpowered and unkillable doesn't mean I say they are feeble.



To reiterate-- if you are a necron, most of the time you are not fighting against necrons. And most tanks, except the landraider and front armor of the russ will pretty much be destroyed "easily" by a str.9 weapon. But the most common antitank weapons that are designed to take out tanks are not always lascanons.
You should tell that to other players. In my experience lascannons are the most ubiquitous and common of imperial heavy weapons, imperials being the most common army "side" there is.



I suppose Necrons will suffer a lot greater against extremely fast, close combat oriented armies, but then they have to waste precious points on antitank instead of cc.
And necrons don't have to do the same thing for Anti-tank? You act like its a disadvantage to have high strength weapons floating around. If your a necron player and your still relying on glancing hits to win the day for you in 5th your in for a rude awakening. Glancing is nothing like what it was even the smallest tanks require around 3 5-6's in a row to destroy it.

Ambu
04-09-2008, 22:37
I think Fearless but voted other.

I think theyshould be fearless with the stategic retreat SM are getting because they are cold machines of logic. They are immune to emotions but they would calculate the odds to retreat if needed.

Lord Raneus
04-09-2008, 22:42
I don't think Necrons should be Fearless; Space Marines are every bit as resolute in combat as Necrons are, and they are not Fearless.

Maybe Stubborn, but again, I don't know if essentially handing an army that'll probably end up with something like army-wide T5, FNP and good mobility what is essentially a pass to never get Sweeping Advanced in close combat is a good thing.

I realize it happens too much now, but I think making Necrons Army Wide Always Leadership 10 or Fearless would be a bad, and unbalancing, idea. I'd support giving them a boost to T5 along with FNP; this'll make them more survivable in CC, and thus much less apt to lose combat and uncharacteristically fall back, getting Swept.

Another idea might be that if they get Swept, X Necrons die and the others turn and fight, as their fallback is not working and it is no longer logical. Sort of like Space Marines in that regard.

CthulhuDalek
04-09-2008, 23:12
Because the marine gun can strike at 12" farther away than the Necron heavy gauss cannon.

Lets see, a tank that has virtually no weakness other than movement based? Wow thats not a disadvantage for a tank whose *prime purpose is to transport units around*. I wasn't aware you automatically got monoliths for having a heavy destroyer as well, since that seems to be your "evidence" that necron gauss cannons are better.


It doesn't negate them, it lessens their effect. A melta gun has an effect on a monolith no matter how much you try to argue its negated.


For emotional effect? See thats the problem, were not debating how you feel. To be honest no one cares how anyone else feels about it, were trying to debate the fact of the matter where feeling has absolutely no place. You can feel all you like, feeling doesn't make an argument.

The marine costs less thus have more (1 marine extra for every 5 warriors) and the marines put out superior firepower lessening incoming fire on them. You can argue all you want about it but your not saying anything new. Yes, necrons are harder to kill than marines, they should be, they pay for it, no they aren't harder to kill in close combat than marines, they're much much easier. We just pay more overall.


Nice try but you can look over all my posts and you'll see thats a complete falsehood, i've said it before and I'll continue saying it, necrons are inordinately hurt by combat resolution in 5th edition. Thats all I say and thats all i've been saying. Just because I defend the army from false accusations of it being overpowered and unkillable doesn't mean I say they are feeble.


You should tell that to other players. In my experience lascannons are the most ubiquitous and common of imperial heavy weapons, imperials being the most common army "side" there is.


And necrons don't have to do the same thing for Anti-tank? You act like its a disadvantage to have high strength weapons floating around. If your a necron player and your still relying on glancing hits to win the day for you in 5th your in for a rude awakening. Glancing is nothing like what it was even the smallest tanks require around 3 5-6's in a row to destroy it.

If you are fighting a space marine list where they've invested a buttload into plenty of lascanons you should have much less difficulty in hand to hand. Unless their army is extremely polarized. Why are the necrons not exploiting the enemies weaknesses? Most models carrying lascanons will be in a soft chewy unit, especially against guard. Are you saying you are losing your multitudes of necrons in combat to guardsmen toting lascanons?

READ living metal. Weapons which are designed specifically to be anti-tank weapons for armies like Eldar or close combat armies are almost negligible against the tank. I do not think a landraider should survive less or more than a monolith, but one of them needs to have a different point cost, seeing as how easy/difficult one of them is to destroy.

Okay--my meltagun goes from being able to destroy your monolith to needing 6s on a *glancing* hit. Lances cannot destroy it, meltabombs cannot.

Necrons do not have a huge amount of Anti-tank firepower as you can tell, but their basic guns can affect tanks where similar str. guns cannot.

The basic marine squad cannot outshoot the necron squad--unless they *buy* upgrades. The basic necron does not need those same upgrades *because* of their resilience.

Sekhmet
04-09-2008, 23:50
Necrons do not have a huge amount of Anti-tank firepower as you can tell, but their basic guns can affect tanks where similar str. guns cannot.

Yes, they also pay the points for it and sacrifice the ability to specialize. No one here's saying Gauss Flayers need an upgrade. People ARE saying that Necrons need a nerf because "their basic guns can possibly hurt a vehicle." A Tactical squad with a flamer and lascannon or a melta gun and heavy bolter is better at both anti-tank and anti-infantry, and is cheaper.



The basic marine squad cannot outshoot the necron squad--unless they *buy* upgrades. The basic necron does not need those same upgrades *because* of their resilience.

Basic 10-man Necron squad: 180 pts.
Basic 10-man Marine squad: 150 pts.

The Necron squad will win in shooting because of we'll be back... if you don't take into account phase out. Doing a straight up comparison like this is flawed because you're assuming phase out doesn't matter, but phase out is the whole counter-balance to we'll be back.

So yes, a Necron squad will beat a Marine squad for two reason: 1) no phase out and 2) IT'S TWENTY PERCENT MORE EXPENSIVE. Yes, the marine squad has to *buy* upgrades *because* Necrons are more resilient.

Do you not understand that you're making the argument that Marines should be even with Necrons in shooting when they're 20% cheaper? Do you know how stupid of an argument that is?

loveless
05-09-2008, 01:03
Slightly off topic, but I finally got back to my Codex, and I was slightly wrong on the Flayed Ones issue - they aren't marked as slow, just stooped. So Fleet or some other movement rule could work for them, or the ability to assault after DS, etc. etc. etc.

Now, go back to your power struggle over Necron amazingness :p

CthulhuDalek
05-09-2008, 01:57
Yes, they also pay the points for it and sacrifice the ability to specialize. No one here's saying Gauss Flayers need an upgrade. People ARE saying that Necrons need a nerf because "their basic guns can possibly hurt a vehicle." A Tactical squad with a flamer and lascannon or a melta gun and heavy bolter is better at both anti-tank and anti-infantry, and is cheaper.



Basic 10-man Necron squad: 180 pts.
Basic 10-man Marine squad: 150 pts.

The Necron squad will win in shooting because of we'll be back... if you don't take into account phase out. Doing a straight up comparison like this is flawed because you're assuming phase out doesn't matter, but phase out is the whole counter-balance to we'll be back.

So yes, a Necron squad will beat a Marine squad for two reason: 1) no phase out and 2) IT'S TWENTY PERCENT MORE EXPENSIVE. Yes, the marine squad has to *buy* upgrades *because* Necrons are more resilient.

Do you not understand that you're making the argument that Marines should be even with Necrons in shooting when they're 20% cheaper? Do you know how stupid of an argument that is?

I'm saying a ten man necron squad should be better base, and cannot take upgrades(A full upgraded marine squad will have one out of its two weapons unavailable). They are plain and just as likely to hurt a tank with their gun as they are infantry. That is the trade off. Plus they have leadership ten and other marine like stats. They suffer in hth regarding initiative and Phaseout--but We'll Be Back counters those inadequacies.

At 5-10 points less the marine squad is more versatile(ML and Flamer)because they can handle a greater range of threats, but when doing this they waste some of the points from their upgraded weapons(Shooting bolters or flamer at a landraider or other tank) however necrons will be just as capable no matter how you slice it.

sydbridges
05-09-2008, 02:38
You are obviously failing to make that point, highlighting and bold print make it no more true. You are a shooting army, we are saying your penalty in H2H is for the most part deserved. In my first post however I said you should have fearless with some penalty to H2H, so its not like im totally disagreeing with you. I just firmly believe you are shooters not CC guys. Keep in mind you beat tau and IG in CC and can just about out shoot them.

Uh, Necrons aren't really a shooting or CC army. They're a resilience army - the basic necron warrior's strength is that he's a pain to kill. The teleporting out of CC, WBB, these are meant to supplement the Necron strength at not dying, which is their primary skill.

Shooting armies are either like the IG, which have cheap guys that can do massed fire and rely on the law of large numbers to eliminate their foes, or the Tau, which have strength 5 weapons as their basic weapons. The necron warriors have bolters with the gauss special rule which has two advantages:
Against foes with T8 or greater, it still causes a wound on a 6 for to wound rolls
Automatically causes a glancing hit on a tank with a 6 for penetration rolls, unless the roll would have penetrated (which for a necron warrior, means shooting armor value 9.)

Against the vast majority of foes, who are neither T8 nor tanks, a necron warriors shooting is identical in strength to a marine's shooting, except the marine squad can also have a plasma gun, flamer, or meltagun as well as a missile launcher, heavy bolter, lascannon, etc etc etc, which adds considerable punch to the firepower of said marine squad. Furthermore, the necrons cost more than the marines, so you will have fewer necrons warriors than marines fielded.

All of this goes to my point that Necrons are not an army whose designed strength was shooting, it's resilience. You kill them, they get back up, and teleport away and more of them get back up. They are hard to kill not because they have numbers but because they get shot, take a wound, fail, and then get back up the very next turn. The strength of the necrons is in how difficult it is to kill them.

The new CC rules completely demolish all of their CC resilience. Now, they lose combat, take a huge penalty on leadership, and the whole squad is autodestroyed, circumventing their main strength. Hence why Necron players are, understandably, annoyed.

As to the question at hand, whether or not they should receive fearless or stubborn...

Fluffwise, Fearless is the most obvious choice. The basic warrior has lost their personality according to 5th ed fluff and has nothing to fear. They even describe warriors going into a doomed assault on a Imp Guard base over and over again despite the fact that they always fail. Going into a situation where you've been shot in the face and doing the exact same thing to get shot in the face is fearless... and really, really stupid.

Stubborn might be better for the whole "we don't need more armies that are fearless" thing, even if fluffwise it is a worse fit. It doesn't really fit quite so well, but it would at least bring back some of the resilience that the Necrons have lost with how easy it is to be wiped out by CC now.

Personally, I'd like to see them move to the following for the basic warrior:

WS3 BS4 S3 T5 W1 I2 A1 Ld10 Sv3+ Slow and Purposeful, FNP, Fearless

This would move them a bit further from being another army with the SM stat line while reinforcing the basic idea that the strength of the necrons is not that they put out more wounds than other armies, but that they take hits other units couldn't and keep going. And Fearless is the best, fluffwise, description of the 'Crons. They will walk straight into certain death, I'm not sure you could argue very many armies are more fearless (...or stupid) as that.

CthulhuDalek
05-09-2008, 06:21
Uh, Necrons aren't really a shooting or CC army. They're a resilience army - the basic necron warrior's strength is that he's a pain to kill. The teleporting out of CC, WBB, these are meant to supplement the Necron strength at not dying, which is their primary skill.

Shooting armies are either like the IG, which have cheap guys that can do massed fire and rely on the law of large numbers to eliminate their foes, or the Tau, which have strength 5 weapons as their basic weapons. The necron warriors have bolters with the gauss special rule which has two advantages:
Against foes with T8 or greater, it still causes a wound on a 6 for to wound rolls
Automatically causes a glancing hit on a tank with a 6 for penetration rolls, unless the roll would have penetrated (which for a necron warrior, means shooting armor value 9.)

Against the vast majority of foes, who are neither T8 nor tanks, a necron warriors shooting is identical in strength to a marine's shooting, except the marine squad can also have a plasma gun, flamer, or meltagun as well as a missile launcher, heavy bolter, lascannon, etc etc etc, which adds considerable punch to the firepower of said marine squad. Furthermore, the necrons cost more than the marines, so you will have fewer necrons warriors than marines fielded.

All of this goes to my point that Necrons are not an army whose designed strength was shooting, it's resilience. You kill them, they get back up, and teleport away and more of them get back up. They are hard to kill not because they have numbers but because they get shot, take a wound, fail, and then get back up the very next turn. The strength of the necrons is in how difficult it is to kill them.

The new CC rules completely demolish all of their CC resilience. Now, they lose combat, take a huge penalty on leadership, and the whole squad is autodestroyed, circumventing their main strength. Hence why Necron players are, understandably, annoyed.

As to the question at hand, whether or not they should receive fearless or stubborn...

Fluffwise, Fearless is the most obvious choice. The basic warrior has lost their personality according to 5th ed fluff and has nothing to fear. They even describe warriors going into a doomed assault on a Imp Guard base over and over again despite the fact that they always fail. Going into a situation where you've been shot in the face and doing the exact same thing to get shot in the face is fearless... and really, really stupid.

Stubborn might be better for the whole "we don't need more armies that are fearless" thing, even if fluffwise it is a worse fit. It doesn't really fit quite so well, but it would at least bring back some of the resilience that the Necrons have lost with how easy it is to be wiped out by CC now.

Personally, I'd like to see them move to the following for the basic warrior:

WS3 BS4 S3 T5 W1 I2 A1 Ld10 Sv3+ Slow and Purposeful, FNP, Fearless

This would move them a bit further from being another army with the SM stat line while reinforcing the basic idea that the strength of the necrons is not that they put out more wounds than other armies, but that they take hits other units couldn't and keep going. And Fearless is the best, fluffwise, description of the 'Crons. They will walk straight into certain death, I'm not sure you could argue very many armies are more fearless (...or stupid) as that.

I'll QFT this and shut up.

You're right. That's a good statline. Do you want gauss to be rending though? It would actually cause more wounds but not be as effective against vehicles.

azimaith
05-09-2008, 07:37
If you are fighting a space marine list where they've invested a buttload into plenty of lascanons you should have much less difficulty in hand to hand. Unless their army is extremely polarized. Why are the necrons not exploiting the enemies weaknesses? Most models carrying lascanons will be in a soft chewy unit, especially against guard. Are you saying you are losing your multitudes of necrons in combat to guardsmen toting lascanons?
Perhaps you've never upgraded models to sergeants and given them powerfists or are under the impression that an army with lascannon can not take an assault squad.



READ living metal. Weapons which are designed specifically to be anti-tank weapons for armies like Eldar or close combat armies are almost negligible against the tank. I do not think a landraider should survive less or more than a monolith, but one of them needs to have a different point cost, seeing as how easy/difficult one of them is to destroy.
Then how negligible is the majority of necron anti-tank? Certainly you can't kill their tank because one of your weapons only glances then an entire army based on glancing hits is incapable of harming your tanks. They aren't negligible, they can render a gauss flux near worthless, prevent your tank from shooting the arcs, prevent it from moving making it easy prey the next round.



Okay--my meltagun goes from being able to destroy your monolith to needing 6s on a *glancing* hit.

Its a 10 point gun, what did you expect, if anything the meltagun way outperforms its cost.


Lances cannot destroy it, meltabombs cannot.

Yes they can. A gauss flux arc that has no shots is no longer a weapon, the power matrix is not a weapon.



Necrons do not have a huge amount of Anti-tank firepower as you can tell, but their basic guns can affect tanks where similar str. guns cannot.

Wait, I thought if you glanced you were negligible, which would make all those necrons "negligible" damage. Who cares if they can inflict negligible damage right? Flip flop again perhaps?



The basic marine squad cannot outshoot the necron squad--unless they *buy* upgrades. The basic necron does not need those same upgrades *because* of their resilience.
The basic marine squad can buy upgrades and outshoot a necron squad for the same cost and they can be upgraded to outassault them. Why are you upset that a squad thats 3 points less per model is unable to outshoot a more expensive squad?

Gatsby
05-09-2008, 07:42
Uh, Necrons aren't really a shooting or CC army. They're a resilience army - the basic necron warrior's strength is that he's a pain to kill. The teleporting out of CC, WBB, these are meant to supplement the Necron strength at not dying, which is their primary skill.

Shooting armies are either like the IG, which have cheap guys that can do massed fire and rely on the law of large numbers to eliminate their foes, or the Tau, which have strength 5 weapons as their basic weapons. The necron warriors have bolters with the gauss special rule which has two advantages:
Against foes with T8 or greater, it still causes a wound on a 6 for to wound rolls
Automatically causes a glancing hit on a tank with a 6 for penetration rolls, unless the roll would have penetrated (which for a necron warrior, means shooting armor value 9.)

Against the vast majority of foes, who are neither T8 nor tanks, a necron warriors shooting is identical in strength to a marine's shooting, except the marine squad can also have a plasma gun, flamer, or meltagun as well as a missile launcher, heavy bolter, lascannon, etc etc etc, which adds considerable punch to the firepower of said marine squad. Furthermore, the necrons cost more than the marines, so you will have fewer necrons warriors than marines fielded.

All of this goes to my point that Necrons are not an army whose designed strength was shooting, it's resilience. You kill them, they get back up, and teleport away and more of them get back up. They are hard to kill not because they have numbers but because they get shot, take a wound, fail, and then get back up the very next turn. The strength of the necrons is in how difficult it is to kill them.

The new CC rules completely demolish all of their CC resilience. Now, they lose combat, take a huge penalty on leadership, and the whole squad is autodestroyed, circumventing their main strength. Hence why Necron players are, understandably, annoyed.

As to the question at hand, whether or not they should receive fearless or stubborn...

Fluffwise, Fearless is the most obvious choice. The basic warrior has lost their personality according to 5th ed fluff and has nothing to fear. They even describe warriors going into a doomed assault on a Imp Guard base over and over again despite the fact that they always fail. Going into a situation where you've been shot in the face and doing the exact same thing to get shot in the face is fearless... and really, really stupid.

Stubborn might be better for the whole "we don't need more armies that are fearless" thing, even if fluffwise it is a worse fit. It doesn't really fit quite so well, but it would at least bring back some of the resilience that the Necrons have lost with how easy it is to be wiped out by CC now.

Personally, I'd like to see them move to the following for the basic warrior:

WS3 BS4 S3 T5 W1 I2 A1 Ld10 Sv3+ Slow and Purposeful, FNP, Fearless

This would move them a bit further from being another army with the SM stat line while reinforcing the basic idea that the strength of the necrons is not that they put out more wounds than other armies, but that they take hits other units couldn't and keep going. And Fearless is the best, fluffwise, description of the 'Crons. They will walk straight into certain death, I'm not sure you could argue very many armies are more fearless (...or stupid) as that.

i like this (SNP is a little blah for an army that already moves as slow as we do though) but i like it, were i more intelligent i would have written something along these lines:chrome:

MALICIOUS LOGIC
05-09-2008, 08:44
Well, here's hoping Pariahs become useful...and get models that look less like disproportionate spacemen from a 1950s alien movie.

Back on topic - Stubborn makes more sense than Fearless to me, simply because the Necrons seem only to stay until the job's done or terror is sown. However, they're not beyond being forced to retreat - it's just really hard to get them to do so. Ergo, Stubborn works, Fearless does not (as much at least).

However, as has been said before, eliminating Phase Out would eliminate the need for either rule.

Necrons retreat? That’s an interesting hypothesis. Can you point to your sources?

I’ve never once read of Necrons retreating. Ciaphas Cain omnibus, Nightbringer, Dawn of War omnibus, Necron codex, Apocalypse rulebook, etc. etc. There are a number of sources out there. I don’t recall ever hearing about Necrons retreating. In fact, I don’t think I’ve ever read about the Necrons doing anything other than relentlessly and fearlessly advancing on the enemy. As a matter of fact, there are a number of instances where a Necron will be hacked to pieces and will still be advancing as it’s arms and broken parts are mending back together!

A great description of Necron tactics is in the Apocalypse rulebook in the Necron section. They attack, they either destroy the enemy or phase out and come back with a stronger force. They have a very systematic tier related approach to conducting warfare. They never retreat on a unit level. Doing so would weaken the remaining force and is not something indicative of Necron strategy. They either all attack or they all phase out.

Necrons were supposed to be Fearless. The game designers just couldn’t do it in 3rd edition when they made the codex because it would have been too powerful at the time. It also would have increased the points cost too much (as per their comments in the designer’s notes). But with the new rules and the present state of the 40k game, fearless should not be overpowered for the Necrons. There are plenty of mortal units that are fearless (various inquisition, Eldar, Orks, Marines, etc.). Yet if any army is deserving of being fearless... it’s the Necrons!

The only reason the designers made the brief aside in the codex on “Morale”was to quiet the fanboys. It's just a quick note that is never backed up in the background fiction. It was a weak attempt at justifying why they didn’t have the fearless special rule (which was more powerful relative to the game system in 3rd edition). The game designers said themselves in the designers' notes that they wanted the Necrons to be fearless but it would have greatly increased the cost per model. The idea that Necrons retreat is never backed up in the fiction. In fact, the fiction (and the intent of the designers) is that Necrons are fearless.


~Logic

Poseidal
05-09-2008, 08:56
Yes they can. A gauss flux arc that has no shots is no longer a weapon, the power matrix is not a weapon.

Where does it say this in the rules that it ceases to be a weapon? For example A Range 12" Strengh 9 Heavy 0 gun is a weapon, just not a very useful one; if this was on a troop they would use it in CC though, it just happens to do no good for the vehicle.

RAW (as far as I know) it cannot be destroyed, and RAI over RAW is cheating.


Personally, I'd like to see them move to the following for the basic warrior:

WS3 BS4 S3 T5 W1 I2 A1 Ld10 Sv3+ Slow and Purposeful, FNP, Fearless
That reminds me of my idea a while ago, though I had it a bit differently.
WS2 BS4 S4 T4(6) W1 I2 A1 Ld10 Sv6+, FNP, Fearless
The reason why I shied away from S&P is due to how much I dislike the rule. Why is something that moves Slow and Purposeful moving randomly? they should never have removed the Movement stat.

CthulhuDalek
05-09-2008, 09:03
Perhaps you've never upgraded models to sergeants and given them powerfists or are under the impression that an army with lascannon can not take an assault squad.


Then how negligible is the majority of necron anti-tank? Certainly you can't kill their tank because one of your weapons only glances then an entire army based on glancing hits is incapable of harming your tanks. They aren't negligible, they can render a gauss flux near worthless, prevent your tank from shooting the arcs, prevent it from moving making it easy prey the next round.


Its a 10 point gun, what did you expect, if anything the meltagun way outperforms its cost.

Yes they can. A gauss flux arc that has no shots is no longer a weapon, the power matrix is not a weapon.


Wait, I thought if you glanced you were negligible, which would make all those necrons "negligible" damage. Who cares if they can inflict negligible damage right? Flip flop again perhaps?


The basic marine squad can buy upgrades and outshoot a necron squad for the same cost and they can be upgraded to outassault them. Why are you upset that a squad thats 3 points less per model is unable to outshoot a more expensive squad?


So you agree that Necrons can outshoot marines? Hallelujah! I'm not upset about this, I'm upset that you failed to acknowledge that until now.

I'm under the impression that the power matrix may count as a weapon which can't be destroyed. I'd like to see some wording or ruling on it.

No, a few anti-tank weapons that will have a higher chance of penetration against tanks, that are reduced to glancing are a bigger problem to that army than a weapon which could never penetrate to begin with.

If my chaos army could always glance monoliths and landraiders with bolters I'd be happy :)

The debate now is really whether the power matrix counts as a weapon for vehicle destroyed results. If not, then the monolith can basically only be killed by weapons which punch, or have ap1(or does it get rid of the effect ap 1 has as well?)

Again, an army of glancing bolters is better than an army of bolters that have no effect on vehicles.

Also, if I'm spending points on a lascanon, powerfist, and say plasmagun in a marine squad, I've just wasted points on a powerfist which will not very likely reach combat. On the other hand if you intended on charging the necrons you'd also have to waste points on your upgraded guns.

Dedicated units will do better against crons however. Crons are semi "all purpose" and other armies are easier to specialize. This has always been a fault of the necrons.

A cron costs 3 points more than a marine, gets a ld of ten(we'll counter that with it's low initiative) and a lack of variety(which makes up for their superior gun. However, fully kitted out marine units will cost about as much as a necron squad in regards to shooting) The crons also get WBB which is offset by Phase out. So Necrons are about the same as marines, are slightly overcosted in comparison and suffer more in combat. Compare crons to the marine tactical squad and perhaps not assault squad.

CthulhuDalek
05-09-2008, 09:09
Necrons retreat? Thatís an interesting hypothesis. Can you point to your sources?

Iíve never once read of Necrons retreating. Ciaphas Cain omnibus, Nightbringer, Dawn of War omnibus, Necron codex, Apocalypse rulebook, etc. etc. There are a number of sources out there. I donít recall ever hearing about Necrons retreating. In fact, I donít think Iíve ever read about the Necrons doing anything other than relentlessly and fearlessly advancing on the enemy. As a matter of fact, there are a number of instances where a Necron will be hacked to pieces and will still be advancing as itís arms and broken parts are mending back together!

A great description of Necron tactics is in the Apocalypse rulebook in the Necron section. They attack, they either destroy the enemy or phase out and come back with a stronger force. They have a very systematic tier related approach to conducting warfare. They never retreat on a unit level. Doing so would weaken the remaining force and is not something indicative of Necron strategy. They either all attack or they all phase out.

Necrons were supposed to be Fearless. The game designers just couldnít do it in 3rd edition when they made the codex because it would have been too powerful at the time. It also would have increased the points cost too much (as per their comments in the designerís notes). But with the new rules and the present state of the 40k game, fearless should not be overpowered for the Necrons. There are plenty of mortal units that are fearless (various inquisition, Eldar, Orks, Marines, etc.). Yet if any army is deserving of being fearless... itís the Necrons!

~Logic

I was thinking of it more along the lines of individual necrons phasing out.

But you know what. You've actually convinced me. Maybe it's just the way you've put it, or the fact that you have Patton quoted.

Either way, I guess Necrons should be fearless despite the many fearless units in the game so far.

Angelwing
05-09-2008, 15:43
Necrons retreat? Thatís an interesting hypothesis. Can you point to your sources?


Necron codex p13 under 'Morale'

But that is, as you point out a rules issue from 3rd ed concerning army wide fearless being too good back then.

loveless
05-09-2008, 19:33
[QUOTE=CthulhuDalek;2922482]I was thinking of it more along the lines of individual necrons phasing out.
[QUOTE]

Yeah, that's what I was getting at. Sorry, poor choice of words with "retreat" - I hadn't even thought about it when I typed it. :p Was definitely thinking about them phasing out to avoid actually being obliterated. Essentially, Stubborn was just another way to show just how hard it was to inflict that much damage on a Necron. However, Malicious makes a good point, so Fearless might as well be the choice of tin cans everywhere. *nod*

cuda1179
05-09-2008, 21:38
I actively play every army out there, so I am pretty unbiased. To me, monoliths stink. I NEVER take one in my take-all-comers list. It is a fire magnet. Since you will rarely have more than one all anti tank fire power in the army will be sighting in at it. More Necron models it better.

I have used a monolith 4 times. Only once did it prove to be useful, and only because I was extremely lucky (three twin linked railguns all failed to hit). The other times it died by turn one or two to lascannon fire. (lascannons will kill it 1/18 shots using a BS of 4). If a marine army has 4 lascanons (usually more like 8) they will kill it in four turns. Add to that all the other damage.

If I were a Necron player I would agree to pay more for Monoliths, but only if Marine players agree to loose the game if I kill 75% of their Tactical marines.

In short, if you have to fight against a Monolith, ignore it. Load up on power weapons and 2+ saves and kill warrior squads. Even if one squad is pulled out of combat per turn you will still have two others locked up.

sydbridges
05-09-2008, 22:19
So you agree that Necrons can outshoot marines? Hallelujah! I'm not upset about this, I'm upset that you failed to acknowledge that until now.


Why are you upset that a squad thats 3 points less per model is unable to outshoot a more expensive squad?

Actually, all he agreed was that Marines don't outshoot necrons and are cheaper per model. As I pointed out in my post, in the majority of situations, necron fire and marine fire is equivalent, except the marine squad costs a bit less but can be upgraded to be more expensive and then be able to outshoot the 'crons. For instance, ten marines with one plasma gun is still cheaper than ten basic warriors.

Basic necrons don't outshoot marines. Basic marines don't outshoot necrons. The basic troopers can be treated as wielding identical weapons 90% of the time, with notable exceptions being against tanks and T8+ creatures.

Cuda - the reason I like to take a monolith is that it almost invariably draws a lot of fire to it, and away from my warriors. It is a fire magnet that often will eat a huge amount of said fire, which is great, because if my opponent is busy spraying the monolith with lascannons, my warriors aren't being denied WBB rolls. The monolith isn't there to kick ass and take names, it's to bolster my army's resilience. Well, with the blow to glancing hits, it's now also one of my main anti-tank weapons (my three usually doomed heavy destroyers making up the other part of AT power), but before it was there primarily for my opponents to soak hits and to teleport my 'crons out of CC.

MALICIOUS LOGIC
05-09-2008, 22:22
Necron codex p13 under 'Morale'

But that is, as you point out a rules issue from 3rd ed concerning army wide fearless being too good back then.

I was referring to background stories. That brief little aside on page 13 completely clashes with the background fiction of the Necrons.

As I pointed out on the first page of this thread, that comment in the codex was made to quiet the fanboys. It was a weak justification for why they were not given the fearless special rule. But a more accurate explanation was made in the designers' notes when they said that they wanted them to be fearless but it would have greatly increased the points cost per model (in 3rd edition).

The designers intended for Necrons to be fearless. And that is how they are described in all their story-line sources.

-Harbinger

loveless
06-09-2008, 03:06
In short, if you have to fight against a Monolith, ignore it.


This looks like a job for the Monolith Battlecry!

sydbridges
06-09-2008, 03:18
This looks like a job for the Monolith Battlecry!

No, no, no, the cry of the Monolith is, "I am big and scary! Please ignore the much more fragile guys that surround me, because if you shoot them instead, I go away!" Or, to use the more vulgar, shorter version, "Don't ignore me!"

The particle whip is good for getting attention.

azimaith
06-09-2008, 06:59
So you agree that Necrons can outshoot marines? Hallelujah! I'm not upset about this, I'm upset that you failed to acknowledge that until now.

I said what makes obvious sense. If you have 180 points of necrons they'll outshoot 150 points of marines. Is that suprising? If you have 180 points of marines (which means upgrades) they'll outshoot necrons.



I'm under the impression that the power matrix may count as a weapon which can't be destroyed. I'd like to see some wording or ruling on it.

The power matrix can't be disabled but that doesn't make it a "weapon" the particle whip is unique in its status as not a true weapon because it can't be fired as you choose. You use the power matrix and you may use it as a shooting attack but its not a gun on the tank.



No, a few anti-tank weapons that will have a higher chance of penetration against tanks, that are reduced to glancing are a bigger problem to that army than a weapon which could never penetrate to begin with.

Are you completely mad? An army that relied near completely on glancing hits is massively more impacted by the change to -2 glancing hits than armies that had a few weapons turn glancing. Necrons newer weaknesses against tanks is not the topic and its certainly you don't want to go into.



If my chaos army could always glance monoliths and landraiders with bolters I'd be happy :)

You should be since you can upgrade them to carry special weapons, heavy weapons, and cost less. Anyone would be happy to have the gauss benefit for no cost and no penalty of any sort. That doesn't really *say* anything because you get alot of stuff necrons don't. Necron players wouldn't worry game play wise(but fluff wise probably) if they could cost less and carry special and heavy weapons either.



The debate now is really whether the power matrix counts as a weapon for vehicle destroyed results. If not, then the monolith can basically only be killed by weapons which punch, or have ap1(or does it get rid of the effect ap 1 has as well?)

The power matrix is not a weapon, its an item on a tank that can manifest an weapon like effect under certain conditions.



Again, an army of glancing bolters is better than an army of bolters that have no effect on vehicles.

Yet not as good as a cheaper army of bolters who can swap bolters for much more effective than "glancing bolter" special and heavy weapons. I don't see why you think stripping away every single upgrade from their armies would somehow fool people into thinking it was an equitable comparison.



Also, if I'm spending points on a lascanon, powerfist, and say plasmagun in a marine squad, I've just wasted points on a powerfist which will not very likely reach combat. On the other hand if you intended on charging the necrons you'd also have to waste points on your upgraded guns.

Gee, its terrible you have *so much choice in specialization that makes can make you superior but is in no way mandatory*. As terrible as it is to get the *option* to choose to add in special guns its not going to make a single necron player feel sympathy as its alot like a person with 100k in a fat wad of bills complaining to poor people how *heavy* his money is.



Dedicated units will do better against crons however. Crons are semi "all purpose" and other armies are easier to specialize. This has always been a fault of the necrons.

Semi-all purpose? Don't you think the option to put a lascannon and a plasma gun in a squad makes them "semi-all purpose". What about a heavy bolter and a melta gun. You can make any imperial squad "Semi multi-purpose" and in the case of space marines, generally flat out better than necrons at being multi-purpose.



A cron costs 3 points more than a marine, gets a ld of ten(we'll counter that with it's low initiative) and a lack of variety(which makes up for their superior gun. However, fully kitted out marine units will cost about as much as a necron squad in regards to shooting) The crons also get WBB which is offset by Phase out. So Necrons are about the same as marines, are slightly overcosted in comparison and suffer more in combat. Compare crons to the marine tactical squad and perhaps not assault squad.
You forgot to mention the "We don't give a flying crap about combat results" ATSKNF rule which pushes marines far beyond necrons in undercosting. Furthermore necrons don't just suffer more in combat, the difference is huge. Marines have ATSKNF, they will *never ever no matter what they face no matter what the odds, opposing initiatives or any other thing be run down in close combat.* They rally automatically before their turn even comes back around, always regroup regardless of circumstances.

So lets see: Necrons have LD 10 but suffer all normal modifiers, can be run down, can run off the board, can be denied opportunity to regroup.

The space marines?
Can't be run down, only run off the board if it takes one fall back move, automatically regroup regardless of other circumstances.

ATSKNF makes LD10 a joke if your actually thinking of them as a comparison.

So as a SM you fail slightly more leadership tests, the only time you suffer the penalties are if your off the board in a single fall back or you are pinned. In every other case your better off.

You can't really talk about advantages and disadvantages and completely leave out the flat out best morale ability in the entire game.


I was referring to background stories. That brief little aside on page 13 completely clashes with the background fiction of the Necrons.

As I pointed out on the first page of this thread, that comment in the codex was made to quiet the fanboys. It was a weak justification for why they were not given the fearless special rule. But a more accurate explanation was made in the designers' notes when they said that they wanted them to be fearless but it would have greatly increased the points cost per model (in 3rd edition).

The designers intended for Necrons to be fearless. And that is how they are described in all their story-line sources.

-Harbinger

To be more accurate the new SM codex has necrons activating a "retreat" protocol, but it wasn't squad sized. The most accurate way for necrons to function is "Iron Will".
(Iron Will means they can choose to pass or fail Leadership and Morale tests)

They don't have impulses, they don't feel fear or panic and they literally do what they are told.

A necron who is shot by a sniper rifle doesn't cause the others to dive to the ground unless they are commanded to do so.

A necron who is fighting 2 hive tyrants, a blood thirster, 4 soul grinders, and khorne on his skull toilet himself is no more moved to fear than a necron fighting a 3 year old baby with a lollipop. He'll fight if they say: "Fight" or he'll run if they say "Run". He has no opinion on the matter, about the only models who might suffer fear are ironically, the fearless models in the army (the C'tan) as they actually have something to lose (and granted they damn well won't feel fear often).

If you wanted to be the most accurate (which isn't even the "best for the game") Necrons who fell back would regroup automatically regardless of normal circumstances and not move a random distance. If they got caught the squad would probably be phased away to a tomb world either whole just before the enemy or in pieces just after.

To be honest I'd like to see a necron codex with phase out as *tactical option* not an arbitrary penalty.
Imagine it working somewhat similar to BFG, where you could pick a squad and say: "these guys phase out" and remove them from the board, maybe have them deep strike back in after waiting an entire turn in reserves and forcing the player to roll. Imagine how different the necrons could be.

Altashheth
06-09-2008, 15:29
I think WWB is a bit inconvienient with the lining down of models everywhere and the waiting until the next turn to find out how many you have killed.....I say replace WBB with fearless and Feel no pain.

loveless
06-09-2008, 19:17
I think WWB is a bit inconvenient with the lining down of models everywhere and the waiting until the next turn to find out how many you have killed.....I say replace WBB with fearless and Feel no pain.

That's part of the dread factor of the Necron army, though.

The opponent has no idea how many Necrons s/he's taken down until after the Necron player's started the next turn. FNP, while definitely an easier choice, doesn't facilitate the same feeling as WBB. FNP makes it look like you just failed to wound a Necron model. WBB actually shows them pulling themselves back together and repairing.

Although, I will say that if they create some CC Necron units that are worthwhile (or just improve the current ones (Flayed Ones, Wraiths, etc.)) then FNP is going to be a boon for those units.

FNP lets you strike back in combat if you pass. WBB does not.

Gatsby
06-09-2008, 19:35
I like that Iron Will rule, is it to late to change my vote?

but i say our rules should include us not running from combat unless told to.

Give us Iron Will and we wont have to change WBB. now we just need anti tank and really just more options and we'll be good to go.

Supreme Archon Orlok
10-09-2008, 22:50
if GW put in the fearless or stubborn for necrons they would have to increase the points cost of the necrons and they're expensive as they are.

Gatsby
11-09-2008, 00:07
if GW put in the fearless or stubborn for necrons they would have to increase the points cost of the necrons and they're expensive as they are.

why? we pay to much for our lord as it is, make our lords give the Iron will rule like calgar does then the lords are more fair for the price and that way nothing increases in points.

Lord Raneus
11-09-2008, 00:21
Are you joking? 100pts for a Lord that gives all warriors in an already incredibly tough army the ability to never run from combat and most likely shrug off all the additional hits they take because of No Retreat!?

Necrons have shown a much greater tendency then Space Marines to fall back if they're getting whipped, for whatever reason. To take away this would be to drastically change the Fluff; Necrons will readily fall back and regroup if an attack is not working, while Marines are much more likely to charge in guns blazing to a glorious death, and even Marines aren't fearless.

In short; Necrons don't need fearless. Do they need Stubborn? Probably not. As I've said, I'd rather see them get FNP and maybe T5 then see yet another army become totally immune to morale effects with no drawbacks.

Gatsby
11-09-2008, 00:56
Are you joking? 100pts for a Lord that gives all warriors in an already incredibly tough army the ability to never run from combat and most likely shrug off all the additional hits they take because of No Retreat!?

Necrons have shown a much greater tendency then Space Marines to fall back if they're getting whipped, for whatever reason. To take away this would be to drastically change the Fluff; Necrons will readily fall back and regroup if an attack is not working, while Marines are much more likely to charge in guns blazing to a glorious death, and even Marines aren't fearless.

In short; Necrons don't need fearless. Do they need Stubborn? Probably not. As I've said, I'd rather see them get FNP and maybe T5 then see yet another army become totally immune to morale effects with no drawbacks.

have you read the Fluff? they DO NOT FALL BACK, they phase out, again... THEY DO NOT FALL BACK, they phase out. and no, marines are likely to fall back regroup and charge in again guns blazing. Necrons are more likely to march forward without flinching as everyone falls and rebuilds themselves until they are utterly destroyed where they then phase out only to return with larger numbers, its in the fluff, read it before making false claims, i know the "fluff" you are speaking of and its been addressed multiple times in this thread alone as only being an excuse of developers not as actual fluff (the developers actually say it in the codex), as there are NO records of necrons running away but there are of marines fleeing.

If any one army deserves immunity to morale effects, its necrons, no reason we shouldn't get immunity because some newbie army got it first because they get everything.

Lord Raneus
11-09-2008, 01:29
By all accounts, if a Necron attack is not working and they are sustaining heavy casualties (read: beaten heavily in combat or taking serious fire from shooting) they will make a regroup. Now, this should be teleporting, and is to an extent already (Monolith, Veil) but I also see it represented as plain old Fall Back.

Marines, on the other hand, sometimes (not always) lack the tactical sense that Necrons have.

But if you really want Fearless Necrons, I'd say you're looking at a 4-5 point increase per model. It's simply too unbalancing; close combat is their only weakness as it is and it's hard enough to pin them down in that. If they can always weather a turn of CC (especially if they have FNP) and then just get bailed out by the Monolith or the Veil, it removes almost any risk of getting wiped in CC. Admittedly, Marines don't have to worry about getting wiped in CC by falling back but when you get FNP they'll be much, much easier to kill; Necrons will shrug off almost all close-combat attacks that aren't power weapons.

Furthermore, we already have too many armies that can ignore leadership outright; even Marines have to pay it heed because ATSKNF doesn't keep them from Falling Back way out of position. But Tyranids, large parts of Chaos, Daemons, large parts of Orks, they're all fearless and I for one would rather not see any more degradation to the importance of Leadership in 40k. 5th Edition made it matter more, almost like it does in Fantasy, I don't want to see any more armies be able to always ignore it.

Gatsby
11-09-2008, 01:35
But its ok for marines to be damn near fearless at no point increase?

but whatever we'll see how they fix our new found necron cowardice when they redo our codex.

azimaith
11-09-2008, 02:49
Why is everyone saying how much more expensive necrons would need to be when ATSNKF is many times *better* than fearless and the marine is cheaper by far than any necron.

A stubborn necron wouldn't be any more costly than a current necron as they are now.

To be honest I'd like to see necron phase out function instead where squads instead of being run down "phase out" and get put into reserves for a round then can deep strike back in a turn later.

Example:

The Herald of Dismay's necrons are being badly mauled by a concerted marine counter attack, so he invokes "phase out" on the units in the front.

The units are removed from the board and the marines may consolidate. Next turn the Herald can try to call them back from the tomb world rolling a reserves check. If they succeed they can re-enter the battle either through a monolith portal or by deep striking in.

imweasel
11-09-2008, 04:50
By all accounts, if a Necron attack is not working and they are sustaining heavy casualties (read: beaten heavily in combat or taking serious fire from shooting) they will make a regroup. Now, this should be teleporting, and is to an extent already (Monolith, Veil) but I also see it represented as plain old Fall Back.

Marines, on the other hand, sometimes (not always) lack the tactical sense that Necrons have.

But if you really want Fearless Necrons, I'd say you're looking at a 4-5 point increase per model. It's simply too unbalancing; close combat is their only weakness as it is and it's hard enough to pin them down in that. If they can always weather a turn of CC (especially if they have FNP) and then just get bailed out by the Monolith or the Veil, it removes almost any risk of getting wiped in CC. Admittedly, Marines don't have to worry about getting wiped in CC by falling back but when you get FNP they'll be much, much easier to kill; Necrons will shrug off almost all close-combat attacks that aren't power weapons.

Furthermore, we already have too many armies that can ignore leadership outright; even Marines have to pay it heed because ATSKNF doesn't keep them from Falling Back way out of position. But Tyranids, large parts of Chaos, Daemons, large parts of Orks, they're all fearless and I for one would rather not see any more degradation to the importance of Leadership in 40k. 5th Edition made it matter more, almost like it does in Fantasy, I don't want to see any more armies be able to always ignore it.


Wow. I wonder how much of a point increase marines got for combat tactics coupled with ATSKNF in the new space marine codex.

Wait. None.

Necrons could be given stubborn or fearless with no point cost change.

Gatsby
11-09-2008, 05:52
Furthermore, we already have too many armies that can ignore leadership outright; even Marines have to pay it heed because ATSKNF doesn't keep them from Falling Back way out of position. But Tyranids, large parts of Chaos, Daemons, large parts of Orks, they're all fearless and I for one would rather not see any more degradation to the importance of Leadership in 40k. 5th Edition made it matter more, almost like it does in Fantasy, I don't want to see any more armies be able to always ignore it.

Morale should matter, but not to a race that HAS NO MORALE, they do whatever they're told, and as their commander i say DON'T FALL BACK


seriously though yea it sucks that so many are immune, but why should that mean a race that should be immune should have that taken away from them?

rcm2216
11-09-2008, 06:41
slow and purposeful is good for the T3 effect........ walk and fire thing looks cool and proper for walking androids///

Gatsby
11-09-2008, 07:12
slow and purposeful is good for the T3 effect........ walk and fire thing looks cool and proper for walking androids///

but it would suck for a game where troops need to be mobile, if not for that i agree. (although SaP should leave you at a minimum of 3 inches of movement whole armies moving 1 inch at a time SUCKS)

sydbridges
11-09-2008, 07:39
Marines, on the other hand, sometimes (not always) lack the tactical sense that Necrons have.

I think even Space Marines would question sending their troops into a known killing zone where every previous squad of Space Marines that have been sent in have all been killed to a man while causing no damage at all to the defenders over and over again for so long that the defenders set their watches by the attack.

Necrons apparently don't question making that decision according to the fluff in the 5th ed rulebook. Their troops will go into that killzone and come back the next day every day until their lord finds something more productive to do with them.

That's not tactical sense. That's not even in the same area as tactical sense.

So yeah. Fearless. Anyone willing to walk into a situation with certain failure and no hope of even slightly succeeding, not to mention willing to do so indefinitely, is pretty fearless.

Gatsby
11-09-2008, 08:05
So yeah. Fearless. Anyone willing to walk into a situation with certain failure and no hope of even slightly succeeding, not to mention willing to do so indefinitely, is pretty fearless.

Kinda stupid, but yes fearless.

although Iron Will might be a better rule for them, the lord tells them when to stay or when to fall back.

Pete278
11-09-2008, 10:28
Its not really all too stupid if you acknowledge they probably aren't doing much damage overall to the necrons, post-repairs, and that the necrons probably have nothing else to do than march out, kill some people, get killed, come back, repeat.

Kriegschmidt
12-09-2008, 13:24
They should bring back the Rogue Trader rules for Imperial Robots, where I gather that you had to write a logic programme for each robot before the game and your robot would just follow this programme - that would be good for mindless shooting robots! :D