privateer4hire wrote:Since Mechanized is one of the more popular builds, why aren't Necrons a more popular force?
Is close combat (aided by the very mechanization many folks love) the problem?

Anybody playing reasonably competitive 'Crons?

O'shovah wrote:9(and the one that irks me the most). Very few people start on necrons (not that well known) and after hearing how bad they are from everyone else (who have likely faced necrons only rarely) they probably won't try them as a second army.

Gorskar.da.Lost wrote:Yeah, the Phasing out is the biggest hindrance. Also the fact that 'crons will get murdered in combat with a more assault-oriented army, and so rely heavily on shooting.

Dashofpepper wrote:There's no reason to fire at the monolith; its a 360something point temporary obstacle when the real point is making you phase out. Best to simply ignore it and phase out the necrons.

Aduro wrote:What's this? A thread on Necrons and what makes them not good? Looks like another opportunity to spout my three point plan to make Necrons not suck!

1.) Change We'll Be Back into Feel No Pain. WBB is just an overly complicated rule that in the end has the same general effect as the MUCH simpler FNP. Yes, I'm sure "You" understand exactly how WBB works in all possible circumstances, but So Many people get the rule and all of it's interactions wrong So Often. Yes, FNP is a nerf to a couple unit's (mostly destroyers) durability from enemy shooting, but it's a buff to every unit's melee, as they'll get to make their attacks back after passing their saves, and melee is where we need the help.

2.) To further help Necrons in melee, without simply making them better at it, give all Necrons LD10, and an uber stubborn rule where they are Always and Forever LD10 and NOTHING can override or lower their LD to Anything other than LD10 for Any reason or purpose. OMG so Broken, right?! Keep reading...

3.) Phase Out. It's fluffy, but it really kills the army and the variety of units you can take as you constantly need to watch that Phase Out count. Instead put Phase Out on the Unit level, where if they fail a Moral Check, they Phase Out and the Unit is removed from the table, with no chance of coming back or saving, just gone. With the #2 change it'd be really hard to break `em, but when you do they suffer for it, and who wants to see robots running away in fear anyway?

3b.) A slight variance someone else mentioned that I liked. Since failing a single LD 10 check comes down to mere randomness, it could instead be made such that when you fail the LD check and break, you fall back normally. If on your next turn you fail to rally for any reason, THEN the unit Phases Out and is removed from the table.

Dashofpepper wrote:Phase out inhibits the competitiveness of Necrons.

Mandatory two troop choices, of which warriors (and their mediocrity) are the only selection - at 18 points apiece, that's also an expensive commitment.

Lack of anti-tank. Gauss weapons can glance vehicles, but they're short range - and the only real long range firepower are incredibly expensive heavy destroyers, which can in turn be wiped out by long range firepower since your opponent's anti-tank has nothing to fire at except your heavy destroyers (or destroyers) and a monolith if you have one.

But wait! There's no reason to fire at the monolith; its a 360something point temporary obstacle when the real point is making you phase out. Best to simply ignore it and phase out the necrons. And you're right; they do suck in close combat.

Grey Templar wrote:it is rumored that Guass will be changed to rending in the next Dex. the only real instant fix for crons, but could be OP.

Kevin949 wrote:destroyers ARE fast attack.

Airmaniac wrote:

Grey Templar wrote:it is rumored that Guass will be changed to rending in the next Dex. the only real instant fix for crons, but could be OP.

We have actually tried this (and WBB -> FNP, add Fearless). In our games so far, this hasn't overpowered the Necrons (played against Space Marines, Eldar and Imperial Guard). Obviously, against the Eldar Wave Serpents, the Rending change didn't matter. Against the other Vehicles, this change gave the Necrons the much needed Vehicle Destroying capability. Sure, Destroyers become pretty good Vehicle destructors with this change, but there are units in some of the newer codici that are even better for their points.

Ignoring Feel no Pain with any AP1 or AP2 ranged weaponry (in addition to the regular WBB ignoring weaponry) makes the Necrons less survivable against shooting. Fearless coupled with teleporting through the Monolith could obviously become a problem for armies that are geared towards close combat.

D'Ork wrote:

Kevin949 wrote:destroyers ARE fast attack.

Yes, I know. My post was confusing because I deleted the part of my post where I said that they should get rid of H. Destroyers, and give the Destroyers some heavier weapon options and make that Destroyer/Heavy Destroyer "hybrid" a Fast Attack.

I deleted that part of my post because I have no ideas for what would replace the H. Destroyer in the HS slot. But it would be a good opportunity to come up with a new unit for the Necrons.

Razerous wrote:Lord + orb, gaze of flame x 2

Monolith x 2

Necrons x 30

0-3 Heavy destroyers

0-6 Wraiths

= 1500pts

A bit of variation there but the above is what a friend of mine plays and it is extremely hard to beat. Last time I played I vaporised 3 heavy destroyers first turn (just) but then failed to take down even one monolith. I had no real option to CC his troops and I could not get him to phase out. Objectives were covered. How could you critique that list, besides mentioning its lack of deadly firepower?

Kevin949 wrote:Plasma pistol is Str7 and AP3.

Razerous wrote:Lord + orb, gaze of flame x 2

Monolith x 2

Necrons x 30

0-3 Heavy destroyers

0-6 Wraiths

Gavo wrote:

Kevin949 wrote:Plasma pistol is Str7 and AP3.

Plasma pistol is S7 AP2.

Bio-Merc91207 wrote:well this is all true but in reality, is anything in life really fool proof ? 36, S4, SV 3+, characters with basically feel no pain takes a lot to kill. i would also like to mention that while my opponent is trying to do this i'm bringing the heat with VERY fast destroyers and outflanking flayed ones. i don't know about you but enemies tend to always freak out and start shooting to kill at all costs something that is coming from your flank.

additionally, necron warriors can shoot up to 24 inches so i can afford to veil into the middle of nowhere to make my scatters as safe as possible since scatter is 12 inches at absoloute maximum, i usually only use the veil for if i end up in CC, and if i'm in CC then risking the scatter if FAR better than braving round after round of close combat, which will make my squad useless. it's a win win how i use it anyway.

as for pie plates, they scatter too and although it's not the most pristene strategy i'd like to point out the 36 T4 FNP wounds with 3+ saves to boot not many large blast templates have AP3 in there characteristic (i think IG is the only army i've seen with one). like i said before no army is without it's own issues and nothing is perfect. a level head will realize that and make the best use it.

Ailaros wrote:

Razerous wrote:Lord + orb, gaze of flame x 2

Monolith x 2

Necrons x 30

0-3 Heavy destroyers

0-6 Wraiths

Yeah, see, this is the one list that I see every time with slight variations (usually I see with veil rather than gaze). Every time it phases out after a few ordnance blasts get thrown around or the first serious bout of close combat. The only way you can lose to this is if you forgot to bring anti-MEq, and last I checked, that was the one thing that almost NO list forgets to bring.

If this is clearly the loser list, I'm actually curious to see a real, winning one.

The Grog wrote:Sadly, Ailaros is mostly right.

Necrons depended on high LD and low penalties for losing melee combat to stick around and get WBB/teleports in.

Doesn't work that way anymore.

Necrons depended on good damage from glancing hits on vehicles.

Doesn't work that way anymore.

Necrons depended on the slowness of their troops choices to not matter much.

You know the refrain.

Not like they ever had any units that were actually good at melee besides the Deciever.

Bio-Merc91207 wrote:well this is all true but in reality, is anything in life really fool proof ? 36, S4, SV 3+, characters with basically feel no pain takes a lot to kill. i would also like to mention that while my opponent is trying to do this i'm bringing the heat with VERY fast destroyers and outflanking flayed ones. i don't know about you but enemies tend to always freak out and start shooting to kill at all costs something that is coming from your flank.

additionally, necron warriors can shoot up to 24 inches so i can afford to veil into the middle of nowhere to make my scatters as safe as possible since scatter is 12 inches at absoloute maximum, i usually only use the veil for if i end up in CC, and if i'm in CC then risking the scatter if FAR better than braving round after round of close combat, which will make my squad useless. it's a win win how i use it anyway.

as for pie plates, they scatter too and although it's not the most pristene strategy i'd like to point out the 36 T4 FNP wounds with 3+ saves to boot not many large blast templates have AP3 in there characteristic (i think IG is the only army i've seen with one). like i said before no army is without it's own issues and nothing is perfect. a level head will realize that and make the best use it.

Kevin949 wrote:
The glancing hits on vehicles is still VERY useful in it's current incarnation. Sure we can't blow them up with a lucky 6 but as long as we get one glance that's no shooting for you for one turn. Where's your ordnance now? I'll give you the CC one with how Sweeping Advance and the negatives work now (which is my biggest gripe about this game, but I have only ever known 5th edition) but the necron players just need to be better at not getting into CC if at all possible. There is no shame is a tactical advance to the rear.

The nightbringer is good in melee as well. Flayed ones are pretty much exactly like SM in melee but they don't have power weapons or rending, but against a non HQ/Assault type unit they're handy. Wraiths as well aren't bad, but again with no power weapons/rending there's not real point in taking them against MEQ armies. Unfortunately neither of these units are great choices. While stats-wise they are no worse than marines (quite the contrary, possibly better since they can get back up sometimes) with the lack of armor save ignoring CC options like what marines and pretty much every other army gets, they're a point sink. Taking them in a list against a non-MEQ army though, might prove useful.

Grey Templar wrote:FNP is only negated by, Power weapons, weapons with a Str double the victums T value, AP2 and AP1 weapons.

WBB is the same way.


WBB is different in that you roll at the end of the turn instead of after failed armor saves.

Kevin949 wrote:The glancing hits on vehicles is still VERY useful in it's current incarnation. Sure we can't blow them up with a lucky 6 but as long as we get one glance that's no shooting for you for one turn. Where's your ordnance now? I'll give you the CC one with how Sweeping Advance and the negatives work now (which is my biggest gripe about this game, but I have only ever known 5th edition) but the necron players just need to be better at not getting into CC if at all possible. There is no shame is a tactical advance to the rear.

Kevin949 wrote:The nightbringer is good in melee as well. Flayed ones are pretty much exactly like SM in melee but they don't have power weapons or rending, but against a non HQ/Assault type unit they're handy. Wraiths as well aren't bad, but again with no power weapons/rending there's not real point in taking them against MEQ armies. Unfortunately neither of these units are great choices. While stats-wise they are no worse than marines (quite the contrary, possibly better since they can get back up sometimes) with the lack of armor save ignoring CC options like what marines and pretty much every other army gets, they're a point sink. Taking them in a list against a non-MEQ army though, might prove useful.

Grey Templar wrote:so you are correct.


Why then would you want WBB to be the same as FNP?

true, you roll before combats and tests for shooting are rolled, but AP2 and 1 weapons would increase the number of things that negate the save.(plasma weapons come to mind)

imweasel wrote:

Grey Templar wrote:so you are correct.


Why then would you want WBB to be the same as FNP?

true, you roll before combats and tests for shooting are rolled, but AP2 and 1 weapons would increase the number of things that negate the save.(plasma weapons come to mind)

Plasma is still a rarity. Changing WBB for FNP would allow necrons the ability to at least have a chance in the one area they are greatly hampered at, surviving CC. FNP is triggered immediately, not at the beginning of the next turn. With FNP, at least a necron player can possibly negate a few wounds and not take such a harsh penalty to their leadership.

The trade off/balance for that is it makes necrons a more vulnerable to shooting. It also helps streamline a very poorly written WBB rule with a USR.

Making gauss and disruptor fields rending would be a good change as well.

Kevin949 wrote:Fearless sucks, I don't want that crap on my crons. Also, I presume you mean AP1, AP2, AND AP3 weapons. But this is what I like about WBB, AP1/2/3 weapons don't negate WBB unless they're double the toughness of the model. this is also why I don't want FNP on crons.

The Grog wrote:I wouldn't mind trading WBB for FNP, but I think the trade is for a weaker rule overall. So long as the points reflect this, I'm ok with it and it does shore up the biggest weakness in the codex.

I'm not entirely sure rending will fix the problem. It will make Warriors threatening to AV11 and Immortals threatening to AV12, but heavier armor will still be a problem.

Think of it this way. It takes 9 shots for one rend, so 280 points of immortals will put out 2.2 rends for 12-14.
That resolves to a 50% chance for a kill on AV12, while each BS 4 meltagun gives a 27.7% chance for a kill at 6" and a 11.1% chance for a kill at 12".

250 points of destroyers will put out 1.66 rends for 13-15. 37% chance for a kill on AV13, 18% on AV14. A BS 4 meltagun gets 19.5% at 6" on AV 14 and next to nothing at 12". 24% on AV 13 at 6", and 5.5% at 12".

Good numbers, but also point heavy investments. Grey Hunters cost ~200 compared to the Immortals 280, SM Tacs around ~230, and both are faster but more fragile and shorter ranged. Land Speeders fall along similar comparison lines, but are vastly cheaper.

10 Warriors get 2.2 rends at 12, or 1.1 at 24 for 11-13. This threatens Rhinos and AV10, but little else.

Aside from making HeavyDs mostly worthless, is this enough?

The Grog wrote:Yup. And they are killing that vehicle with meltaguns and then doing something else. You aren't.

Wrong. The Deciever gets a free fallback move during your opponent's assault phase if he's engaged. This increases his mobility substantially, just like every other unit with hit and run. It gives him a 12 + 2d6 threat range once in combat with anything with a WS.

Terrifying Visage is a craps shoot. The list of units that it has both a high chance of kicking in and that you care about it kicking in is very short. Small ork units, and 'gaunts out of synapse. For everything else that matters you have a small chance of them failing their LD 9 or 10 and needing 6's to hit you.

S6 in melee rare aside from those 2-3 powerfist attacks at I1, and it is easy to turboboost scarab units into cover and get a +2 save in the process. The right weapons will still work them over, but their damage/points ratio and mobility are better than flayed ones or spyders, and Wraiths come in units too small to be worth taking.

Disruptor fields have the exact same problem gauss does. It's extremely difficult to actually kill a vehicle with glancing hits, and it makes them quite expensive. A 3 weapon vehicle takes 4 WD/Immo results, which takes 12 glances, which takes 72 attacks.

imweasel wrote:
And what's your answer for land raiders? Not to play a space marine player? Just how do you stop a land raider AND not get in CC 'if at all possible'.

Nightie doesn't suck in CC, but the Deceiver is the clear champ here. None of the necron CC units can stand up to elite CC units of other armies. That's a serious problem. The only CC threat necrons have is a single HQ choice that costs 300pts. That's not very optimal.

Necrons suckage in 5th ed can be summed up with two primary issues:

New CC resolution.

Glancing no longer capable of destroying vehicles, most importantly land raiders. Relying on a handful of lc's to deal with raiders is fool hardy.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Grey Templar wrote:so you are correct.


Why then would you want WBB to be the same as FNP?

true, you roll before combats and tests for shooting are rolled, but AP2 and 1 weapons would increase the number of things that negate the save.(plasma weapons come to mind)

Plasma is still a rarity. Changing WBB for FNP would allow necrons the ability to at least have a chance in the one area they are greatly hampered at, surviving CC. FNP is triggered immediately, not at the beginning of the next turn. With FNP, at least a necron player can possibly negate a few wounds and not take such a harsh penalty to their leadership.

The trade off/balance for that is it makes necrons a more vulnerable to shooting. It also helps streamline a very poorly written WBB rule with a USR.

Making gauss and disruptor fields rending would be a good change as well.

Airmaniac wrote:

First of all: AP3 weapons do not negate FNP, like others have already said.

Second of all: being Fearless sure is a lot better than the way it is now. Remember that No Retreat wounds do not negate Armour Saves and Feel No Pain, so you won't lose that many Necrons to No Retreat wounds. Also remember that both a Monolith and a Necron Lord with a Veil of Darkness can teleport a unit out of close combat, so Fearless will not see your Necrons locked in combat for the rest of the battle.

Kevin949 wrote:"any weapon that would never allow any armor save..."

Airmaniac wrote:

First of all: AP3 weapons do not negate FNP, like others have already said.

Second of all: being Fearless sure is a lot better than the way it is now. Remember that No Retreat wounds do not negate Armour Saves and Feel No Pain, so you won't lose that many Necrons to No Retreat wounds. Also remember that both a Monolith and a Necron Lord with a Veil of Darkness can teleport a unit out of close combat, so Fearless will not see your Necrons locked in combat for the rest of the battle.

Ya, but no one has said WHY it doesn't negate FNP. If a unit with a save of 3 or worse is hit with an AP3 weapon, they don't get an armor and never would get an armor save from that weapon, and FNP states that "any weapon that would never allow an armor save..."

Raxmei wrote:Half-baked idea, what if gauss also treated vehicles as open-topped in addition to their original effect? Under the current rules that would make gauss glances just as effective as they were in the previous edition. As a side-effect that also makes gauss do something beneficial for units that can already land penetrating hits such as heavy destroyers.

Sasori wrote:

Raxmei wrote:Half-baked idea, what if gauss also treated vehicles as open-topped in addition to their original effect? Under the current rules that would make gauss glances just as effective as they were in the previous edition. As a side-effect that also makes gauss do something beneficial for units that can already land penetrating hits such as heavy destroyers.

I think that would be a bit over the top, for every weapon.

However, for the heavier ones, like Heavy Gauss Cannons, that would be pretty neat. A bit of a unique rule for them. I like your thinking!

Kevin949 wrote:
Well, first off I'd like to point out that there is only two times I have every lost a monolith in battle. The very first time was my due to my own deviation onto myself (completely my fault for firing so close but I also at the time didn't know you only got 1/2 str for partial template over a vehicle) and then rolled double 6's for pen and result. The second time was a very lucky shot from my friends nid army. That's it, and I've played against melta heavy armies, railgun/lascannon heavy armies, dreadnought heavy armies, you name it. NOTHING else ever took one down. So, with me, the melta argument doesn't phase me.

The problem with scarabs is they're very easy to take out one base at a time or do massive damage to them, ya the 2+ cover is nice but it doesn't help once you are where you need to be.

Again, I have had 0 problems taking out vehicles with gauss. Either to combat ineffective or completely destroyed.

Kevin949 wrote:I'm not sure I understand what you mean by what is my answer to land raiders. And basically the only people I play against are space marines, or some flavor of. My buddy has tau and nids but he doesn't play them too often. Well, he's getting more into the nids, but anyway. I deal with a land raider the same way I deal with a rhino, shoot it. I have the exact same chance to render a land raider immobile as I do a rhino, seeing as I need to roll a 6 on the penetration for both vehicles. So...what's your point? And you are fundamentally wrong on glancing not capable of destroying vehicles, it's just not as easy now.

Kevin949 wrote:Also, a destroyer lord with a warscythe is a decent CC combatant and less than half the points of the deceiver. But still too expensive if you ask me.

Kevin949 wrote:I wouldn't want WBB to be the same as FNP and I hope it doesn't get turned into it. I don't feel the WBB rule is that difficult to understand, especially if you understand FNP.

Kevin949 wrote:Ya, but no one has said WHY it doesn't negate FNP. If a unit with a save of 3 or worse is hit with an AP3 weapon, they don't get an armor and never would get an armor save from that weapon, and FNP states that "any weapon that would never allow an armor save..."

The Grog wrote:Then you are extremely lucky. Railguns and rupture cannons kill Monoliths easily, since it is nearly impossible to get a cover save on a model of that size and height. Various melee elements that previously couldn't touch a skimmer now hit the Monolith on 4+, rendering you somewhat vulnerable to Nobs and Carnifexes, and fairly vulnerable to Dreadnoughts of all kinds. Plus most people know to go for Phase Out rather than play with the Monolith. Same with glancing vehicles to death. A 3 gun vehicle requires 108 shots to kill (4 damaged results, 1/3 chance, 1/6 glance, 2/3rds hit).

Scarabs have an 18" threat range from cover with no downside. That's amazing, and it takes 3 wounds to remove any attacks. They deal more wounds on the charge than Wraiths or Flayed Ones to almost anything. They are the best you've got, sad though that is.

Kevin949 wrote:Perhaps I have been quite lucky, and you can math hammer all you want, it doesn't mean a thing because out of those 108 shots or whatever, the hit(s) I would need could all come from the first throw of the dice. Besides, I need far fewer hits to make something combat ineffective, it doesn't have to necessarily be destroyed.

imweasel wrote:Fundamentally wrong? 'Just not as easy now' to destroy a land raider from glancing? Assuming that the land raider has a mm, to statistically guarantee it's death with bs4 gauss fire, you would have to shoot at it with approximately 161 guass weapon shots. One-Hundred-Sixty-One. You would hit approximately 108 times, getting you 18 6's for glancing hits, netting you the 6 weapon destroyed or immobilized results to destroy the land raider.

That to you is 'just not as easy now' from 4th ed? We are not even taking cover/obscurement into consideration here.

I would call that statistically not worth it. Bad enough with one raider, let alone two or three.

As far as the rhino goes? Just have your marine player move the rhino 12, get out and assault you with terminators. Wait...he can't do that? That's your answer. Rhinos full of marines are not that big of a threat to necrons. Land Raider(s) full of terminators? With an assault radius of approximately 21"? Death to necrons.

A destroyer lord (that is less than half the points of the Deceiver) has no invul save, is only WS 5 and STR 5 with 3 attacks. He may be less than half the points of the Deceiver, but he sure isn't even close to being half as effective as the Deceiver.

It's one of the most argued about rules on YMDC. In general, it's not to bad. By RAW? It can be a nightmare.

FNP is only negated by a weapon that would never allow an armor save by any unit ever. So as long as there are units in the 40k universe that have a 2+ armor save, FNP will work vs AP3.

imweasel wrote:

Kevin949 wrote:Perhaps I have been quite lucky, and you can math hammer all you want, it doesn't mean a thing because out of those 108 shots or whatever, the hit(s) I would need could all come from the first throw of the dice. Besides, I need far fewer hits to make something combat ineffective, it doesn't have to necessarily be destroyed.

Go ahead and keep counting on luck.

I'll take skill.

Kevin949 wrote:
Perhaps I have been quite lucky, and you can math hammer all you want, it doesn't mean a thing because out of those 108 shots or whatever, the hit(s) I would need could all come from the first throw of the dice. Besides, I need far fewer hits to make something combat ineffective, it doesn't have to necessarily be destroyed.

No downside? They are slow in melee, have a WS2 and a str of 3 so typically are wounding on a 5+, at least against what I play against. Because of their low initiative they will almost always go simultaneously or last. In the rare cases they go first, they're going up against like a terminator with a PF and that will kill one base per unsaved wound. And their will be a lot of wounds. Their toughness of 3 is a huge liability because there are plenty of template weapons that are str6+. Again, yes they get the decent cover from turbo boosting but do you want to risk the dangerous terrain tests for any other type of cover hiding?

I do agree with a few of your thoughts on changes to the army though.

The Grog wrote:Statistics cannot be argued with. You may say that you can somehow maneuver so that you can put those 100 shots in quickly, but the fact remains that on average it takes 100 shots. You might get a lucky kill. You might shoot 200 times and fail to get a kill. And, no you can't shoot far fewer times to make something combat ineffective. Because it's not dead yet. It can still tank shock you, or deliver units, or deny objectives. I've lost more than one game to that last one. The only thing it isn't likely to do is shoot on the next turn, but most of what you have accomplished is stalling for time. You'll have to shoot at it again next turn once the stun wears off, because it is highly likely to still have capability remaining after any particular volley.

I meant no downside to just turboing into cover and then sitting there until it is time to charge out, or hopping from cover to cover. Almost nothing else in the game can both benefit from cover and ignore the downsides like Scarabs and Wraths, as neither takes difficult terrain tests. If they want to shoot their battlecannons at my Scarabs, I'm ok with taking cover saves against them. Despite WS 2 and S 3, they still do more damage to any unit on the charge than other options.

Kevin949 wrote:I don't see how, it's almost identical to FNP and people have no problem understanding that.

Interesting that your wa of doing it in fact means no FNP saves can ever be taken since there is a no armour save FNPer (nurgle daemons) and since even lasguns don't allow their armour saves then since the armour save can't be taken. Read it it says "ANY armour save" so in this case FNP would never apply.

Also there are some big differences between WBB and FNP. They basically fall into time (save failed vs. next turn), affected by range (AP1-2 vs no Ap1-2).

Edit: Hmm somethings gone wrong with my post. Don't know why.

Reply by: D'Ork - click to view full reply 

18754

Why Don't Necrons Rule? @ 2010/05/14 18:29:58

Post by: D'Ork

Kevin949 wrote:I didn't argue with statistics, but you just don't know when those "out of" shots will come up in the line. Heck, you might get every shot you need in every volley to get your "out of" shots for the next 500 shots. You just don't know.

By than logic, a Warrior and (say) a Heavy Destroyer are equal in anti-tank ability. The Warrior fires, and the HD fires, and you "just don't know" what will happen.

The point is that if you actually look at the numbers involved, you can know. You can see, for example, that a Warrior and a Heavy Destroyer are not equal in equal in terms of popping tanks. And based on that knowledge you can make some decisions about what to put in a list.

Or you can throw your hands up, declare the statistics to be unknowable, and lose a lot.

Reply by: Daemon-Archon Ren - click to view full reply 

23332

Why Don't Necrons Rule? @ 2010/05/14 18:57:03

Post by: Daemon-Archon Ren

Easy fix for necrons: Change the "Necron" special rule to be similar to the "Daemon" special rule. Trade "Daemonic Rivalry" for "We'll be back". The Eternal warrior from the new "Necron" keeps the 2x tough from blocking WBB. The Fearless from the new "Necron" keeps them from getting SAed to the void.

Also, all models in the army (Besides Scarab Swarms) count towards Phase Out.

Spyders count as 3 models (for PO only)

Monoliths count as 5 models (for PO only)

C'tan count as 10 models (for PO only)

one thing that does suck is that Gauss used to have a chance at killing vehicles in the edition it came out in... doesnt anymore sadly.

Reply by: Kevin949 - click to view full reply 

26767

Why Don't Necrons Rule? @ 2010/05/14 19:37:23

Post by: Kevin949

O'shovah wrote:Interesting that your wa of doing it in fact means no FNP saves can ever be taken since there is a no armour save FNPer (nurgle daemons) and since even lasguns don't allow their armour saves then since the armour save can't be taken. Read it it says "ANY armour save" so in this case FNP would never apply.

Also there are some big differences between WBB and FNP. They basically fall into time (save failed vs. next turn), affected by range (AP1-2 vs no Ap1-2).

Interesting that you assume I know about something that I clearly don't and you decide to point it out in a snide manner instead of an actual "well what about these guys?" or whatever. *Shrug*

Yes, I know there are big differences between FNP and WBB, which is why I don't want necrons to have FNP.

D'Ork wrote:By than logic, a Warrior and (say) a Heavy Destroyer are equal in anti-tank ability. The Warrior fires, and the HD fires, and you "just don't know" what will happen.

The point is that if you actually look at the numbers involved, you can know. You can see, for example, that a Warrior and a Heavy Destroyer are not equal in equal in terms of popping tanks. And based on that knowledge you can make some decisions about what to put in a list.

Or you can throw your hands up, declare the statistics to be unknowable, and lose a lot.

Well based on, I believe, your last game that was posted up, you or your friend rolled 1's the whole game for the heavy d's. Statistically, no, but like you said you "just don't know". It would be ridiculous to say that they are evenly matched on STRENGTH against tanks. That's just pure fact, you have 5 more to add with a heavy D over a warrior. But I never said they were on equal footing anyway, so where are you getting that I did?

Yes, statistics are a mathematical fact, but it is completely random WHEN those statistical positive outcomes will happen. And I don't think you get that. I don't throw my hands up and say that everything is unknowable. It's only unknowable when you'll get the outcome you want. It's one out of 6 times, but if you only get to make that chance once...do you know if that is your one time of positive results? No. As evidenced by your friends luck with the Heavy D's in that ork game.

Math hammer all you want, it doesn't mean a thing to me and besides it's not like I'd sit there and focus all my firepower on a land raider (or any vehicle) until it was destroyed or whatever, if I see I'm not having any luck I'll change tactics. That's what the game is all about.

Reply by: D'Ork - click to view full reply 

18754

Why Don't Necrons Rule? @ 2010/05/14 19:46:09

Post by: D'Ork

Kevin949 wrote:Well based on, I believe, your last game that was posted up, you or your friend rolled 1's the whole game for the heavy d's. Statistically, no, but like you said you "just don't know". It would be ridiculous to say that they are evenly matched on STRENGTH against tanks. That's just pure fact, you have 5 more to add with a heavy D over a warrior. But I never said they were on equal footing anyway, so where are you getting that I did?

Yes, statistics are a mathematical fact, but it is completely random WHEN those statistical positive outcomes will happen. And I don't think you get that. I don't throw my hands up and say that everything is unknowable. It's only unknowable when you'll get the outcome you want. It's one out of 6 times, but if you only get to make that chance once...do you know if that is your one time of positive results? No. As evidenced by your friends luck with the Heavy D's in that ork game.

Math hammer all you want, it doesn't mean a thing to me and besides it's not like I'd sit there and focus all my firepower on a land raider (or any vehicle) until it was destroyed or whatever, if I see I'm not having any luck I'll change tactics. That's what the game is all about.

I'm going to leave it to this: I believe your understanding of statistics is flawed.

Reply by: The Grog - click to view full reply 

5528

Why Don't Necrons Rule? @ 2010/05/14 20:04:54

Post by: The Grog

Kevin949 wrote:
I didn't argue with statistics, but you just don't know when those "out of" shots will come up in the line. Heck, you might get every shot you need in every volley to get your "out of" shots for the next 500 shots. You just don't know. And you can't tell me that if on turn one I immobilized a vehicle in the enemies starting zone and it doesn't have weapons with a high range that it is still effective. Tank shock is a joke, btw, and only useful for vehicles with high movement against other vehicles, and even then it's not terribly effective.

Scarabs don't take difficult terrain tests for passing through it, but they take DANGEROUS terrain tests for beginning or ending their turn in difficult terrain, just like Destroyers and Heavy Destroyers. I believe it is in the FAQ as well. But you are correct that wraiths take neither and that scarabs and the other "move like jetbikes" infantry don't have to make the 2d6 pick the highest roll for difficult terrain but they treat all difficult as dangerous unfortunately (except wraiths).

Maybe to lower str/toughness units but scarabs have been mostly useless the few times i have fielded them against my friends black templar. There was one game that they were useful but they still all died by turn...2 or 3 I think and it was all from one assault. I think the emperors champion came in, had like str 6, power weapon, 5 attacks on the charge or some crap...well, there went all my scarabs. But, in that game that was the only squad of mine he killed but he was getting very very unlucky that whole game. Would have tabled him if he didn't concede defeat that time. But that type of game is rare between us, it is usually a much much closer game.

Tank Shock is terribly dangerous but has a low chance of working. If you break, 8% chance, you have a major problem because you are highly unlikely to be able to rally. And unlike many other units, I don't much care if there are a bunch of warriors or immortals right next to my vehicle.

You are incorrect about scarabs. I could ramble on about intent and 3rd ed wording, but the FAQ says they are Infantry and Infantry don't treat difficult terrain as dangerous like Jetbikes. They do take Dangerous Terrain tests, but those are the 'this area is lava' kind and not 'this area is forested and you are a bike' kind. Admittedly, I didn't know they were specifically prevented from TB into terrain though. Destroyer bodies are treated like Jetbikes for all movement purposes, Scarabs and Wraiths just 'move like' jetbikes.

So, your Scarabs died because you allowed something you should have known would ID bases engage them. This does not make S6 'common' or Scarabs weak.

Reply by: Kevin949 - click to view full reply 

26767

Why Don't Necrons Rule? @ 2010/05/14 23:23:32

Post by: Kevin949

The Grog wrote:Tank Shock is terribly dangerous but has a low chance of working. If you break, 8% chance, you have a major problem because you are highly unlikely to be able to rally. And unlike many other units, I don't much care if there are a bunch of warriors or immortals right next to my vehicle.

You are incorrect about scarabs. I could ramble on about intent and 3rd ed wording, but the FAQ says they are Infantry and Infantry don't treat difficult terrain as dangerous like Jetbikes. They do take Dangerous Terrain tests, but those are the 'this area is lava' kind and not 'this area is forested and you are a bike' kind. Admittedly, I didn't know they were specifically prevented from TB into terrain though. Destroyer bodies are treated like Jetbikes for all movement purposes, Scarabs and Wraiths just 'move like' jetbikes.

So, your Scarabs died because you allowed something you should have known would ID bases engage them. This does not make S6 'common' or Scarabs weak.

Yes, I probably made a mistake in the game I was playing when I lost the scarabs but it's a little difficult to stay out of CC when you're locked in CC with another unit and a separate one gets ran across the map in a tank or drop podded in right next to me. Str6 is more common than you give it credit for, at least in the armies I play against.

Hm, I guess I misunderstood the FAQ and codex about scarabs movement then, good to know for next time. Thanks.

Tank Shock - Dangerous, yes, but I haven't seen it be highly effective yet. Just my experience with it being used against me.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

D'Ork wrote:

Kevin949 wrote:Well based on, I believe, your last game that was posted up, you or your friend rolled 1's the whole game for the heavy d's. Statistically, no, but like you said you "just don't know". It would be ridiculous to say that they are evenly matched on STRENGTH against tanks. That's just pure fact, you have 5 more to add with a heavy D over a warrior. But I never said they were on equal footing anyway, so where are you getting that I did?

Yes, statistics are a mathematical fact, but it is completely random WHEN those statistical positive outcomes will happen. And I don't think you get that. I don't throw my hands up and say that everything is unknowable. It's only unknowable when you'll get the outcome you want. It's one out of 6 times, but if you only get to make that chance once...do you know if that is your one time of positive results? No. As evidenced by your friends luck with the Heavy D's in that ork game.

Math hammer all you want, it doesn't mean a thing to me and besides it's not like I'd sit there and focus all my firepower on a land raider (or any vehicle) until it was destroyed or whatever, if I see I'm not having any luck I'll change tactics. That's what the game is all about.

I'm going to leave it to this: I believe your understanding of statistics is flawed.

And I believe your understanding of what I'm trying to convey is flawed.

Reply by: imweasel - click to view full reply 

8248

Why Don't Necrons Rule? @ 2010/05/15 04:31:10

Post by: imweasel

Interesting...this

Kevin949 wrote:I don't see how, it's almost identical to FNP and people have no problem understanding that.

Followed by this...

Kevin949 wrote:Yes, I know there are big differences between FNP and WBB, which is why I don't want necrons to have FNP.

Along with several other comments you have made in this thread has led me to the conclusion that you simply don't have a clue on what you are talking about.

Reply by: Aduro - click to view full reply 

1963

Why Don't Necrons Rule? @ 2010/05/15 06:02:58

Post by: Aduro

Replacing WBB with FNP, the Pros and Cons as I see them.

Pros;
Get to make your attacks back in HtH after making the save.
Lose combat by less so you're less likely to get swept.
Can't lose your shot at making the saves because your unit isn't next to another unit.
Your bots don't abandon their original unit to join another before the original is dead.
You get to make your saves before the end of the Shooting Phase so you take less Morale Checks.

Cons;
You don't get FNP vs AP 1/2 and weapons that cause Instant Death despite not being 2x your Toughness.

Reply by: Kevin949 - click to view full reply 

26767

Why Don't Necrons Rule? @ 2010/05/15 06:28:11

Post by: Kevin949

imweasel wrote:Interesting...this

Kevin949 wrote:I don't see how, it's almost identical to FNP and people have no problem understanding that.

Followed by this...

Kevin949 wrote:Yes, I know there are big differences between FNP and WBB, which is why I don't want necrons to have FNP.

Along with several other comments you have made in this thread has led me to the conclusion that you simply don't have a clue on what you are talking about.

big differences doesn't mean they aren't similar. A large difference is that FNP has an AP qualifier and WBB does not. The general outcome of both rules is identical and they both require a 4+ and have almost identical rules to follow by. But WBB is better, and there are key major differences.

So if I don't have a clue, why not enlighten me instead of your vague comments that show nothing but your ability to hit the multi quote button.

Reply by: Airmaniac - click to view full reply 

5215

Why Don't Necrons Rule? @ 2010/05/15 08:17:56

Post by: Airmaniac

Aduro wrote:Replacing WBB with FNP, the Pros and Cons as I see them.

Pros;
Get to make your attacks back in HtH after making the save.
Lose combat by less so you're less likely to get swept.
Can't lose your shot at making the saves because your unit isn't next to another unit.
Your bots don't abandon their original unit to join another before the original is dead.
You get to make your saves before the end of the Shooting Phase so you take less Morale Checks.

Cons;
You don't get FNP vs AP 1/2 and weapons that cause Instant Death despite not being 2x your Toughness.

If your opponent goes second, another advantage of FNP is still being able to take your Feel no Pain saves against wounds suffered in your opponent's last turn.

Reply by: ChocolateGork - click to view full reply 

24150

Why Don't Necrons Rule? @ 2010/05/15 08:44:24

Post by: ChocolateGork

Thats actually a very good point and i hadnt thought of that

Reply by: D'Ork - click to view full reply 

18754

Why Don't Necrons Rule? @ 2010/05/15 11:51:57

Post by: D'Ork

Add to cons:

You can swamp a FNP squad with numerous shots, hitting them until they're gone. WBB squads don't test until after you're done firing, so the effect of massed small arms fire is mitigated.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Kevin949 wrote:
big differences doesn't mean they aren't similar.

You aren't helping yourself here.

Reply by: Monster Rain - click to view full reply 

23223

Why Don't Necrons Rule? @ 2010/05/15 12:25:31

Post by: Monster Rain

I do pretty well with Necrons actually.

The C'Tan is no longer optional for competitive play, and Destroyers are also a must. I like a big old heap of Scarabs with Disruption Fields too, just to tear up those IG tanks.

Reply by: Kevin949 - click to view full reply 

26767

Why Don't Necrons Rule? @ 2010/05/15 14:33:12

Post by: Kevin949

D'Ork wrote:Add to cons:

You can swamp a FNP squad with numerous shots, hitting them until they're gone. WBB squads don't test until after you're done firing, so the effect of massed small arms fire is mitigated.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Kevin949 wrote:
big differences doesn't mean they aren't similar.

You aren't helping yourself here.

Just drop it dude, you just have to poke don't you? I'm sorry you don't grasp the subtleties and complexity of the american english language.

Also, your comment only really applies under the pretense that the squad would be able to get back up as you can still swamp a necron squad with small arms fire and probably to more effect especially if there are no same unit types near by.

Reply by: D'Ork - click to view full reply 

18754

Why Don't Necrons Rule? @ 2010/05/15 21:13:18

Post by: D'Ork

Kevin949 wrote:Also, your comment only really applies under the pretense that the squad would be able to get back up as you can still swamp a necron squad with small arms fire and probably to more effect especially if there are no same unit types near by.

The Necron player I play against is a big fan of Res Orbs, but yes, assuming the squads are separated, there are no res orbs, and there are no other units of the same type nearby, you're right. Part of beating Necrons is finding those isolated units and stomping them, fast.

Reply by: Airmaniac - click to view full reply 

5215

Why Don't Necrons Rule? @ 2010/05/15 21:22:32

Post by: Airmaniac

D'Ork wrote:

Kevin949 wrote:Also, your comment only really applies under the pretense that the squad would be able to get back up as you can still swamp a necron squad with small arms fire and probably to more effect especially if there are no same unit types near by.

The Necron player I play against is a big fan of Res Orbs, but yes, assuming the squads are separated, there are no res orbs, and there are no other units of the same type nearby, you're right. Part of beating Necrons is finding those isolated units and stomping them, fast.

A Resurrection Orb does not allow you to negate the fact that you need a unit of the same type within 6" to be able to take your WBB save. It only allows you to take a WBB save against close combat attacks that ignore armour saves, and attacks (ranged and close combat) that have a Strength value equal to, or higher than, the target's Thoughness value.

D'Ork wrote:Add to cons:

You can swamp a FNP squad with numerous shots, hitting them until they're gone. WBB squads don't test until after you're done firing, so the effect of massed small arms fire is mitigated.

This is only true if there is another Necron unit of the same type within 6" of the models attempting to WBB. Also, your unit will still count as destroyed for Kill Point purposes, as the models that do get to WBB and make it, will be forced to join the other Necron unit.

Reply by: Kevin949 - click to view full reply 

26767

Why Don't Necrons Rule? @ 2010/05/15 21:23:19

Post by: Kevin949

ya, and really only a bad or unlucky necron player would be that far away from a res orb. Or is playing on a tactical advantage (IE boosting wraiths to take out a weaker CC squad with a heavy weapon).

Well, bad or unlucky is more harsh than I mean it to sound. Hopefully you get what I mean.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Airmaniac wrote:
A Resurrection Orb does not allow you to negate the fact that you need a unit of the same type within 6" to be able to take your WBB save. It only allows you to take a WBB save against close combat attacks that ignore armour saves, and attacks (ranged and close combat) that have a Strength value equal to, or higher than, the target's Thoughness value.

You mean double the toughness of the unit. A str6 vs t5 attack will not negate WBB, but a str8 vs t4 will negate WBB w/o orb nearby.

This is only true if there is another Necron unit of the same type within 6" of the models attempting to WBB. Also, your unit will still count as destroyed for Kill Point purposes, as the models that do get to WBB and make it, will be forced to join the other Necron unit.

Only if their original squad has no remaining members standing will they be forced to join the other unit. If 1 model out of 10 is still up, they remain a unit.

Reply by: The Grog - click to view full reply 

5528

Why Don't Necrons Rule? @ 2010/05/15 21:43:27

Post by: The Grog

D'Ork wrote:Add to cons:

You can swamp a FNP squad with numerous shots, hitting them until they're gone. WBB squads don't test until after you're done firing, so the effect of massed small arms fire is mitigated.

This isn't a benefit of WBB in many cases. FNP saves happen regardless, but you can deny WBB with tactics now that most armies depend on (often far flung) Destroyer units and have a minimum of Warriors. It was great when the Phalanx worked, but those days have passed and multiple squads of Warriors near each other just makes a bigger target.

Reply by: Daemon-Archon Ren - click to view full reply 

23332

Why Don't Necrons Rule? @ 2010/05/16 05:15:31

Post by: Daemon-Archon Ren

The Grog wrote:
FNP saves happen regardlesst.

what world do you live in...

FNP is denied by AP1, AP2, Powerweapons, Rending wounds, Winds of Chaos, Sweeping Advances, Dangerous terrain tests, Perils of the Warp, Wounds that cause instant death. The list goes on...

WBB has less restrictions (especially in terms of ranged weaponry) that can't be dealt with by means of tactics.

FNP is not a suitable replacement for WBB. It might be ok to give certain Necrons both WBB and FNP but to remove WBB would be like taking away ATSKNF for space-marines.

Reply by: imweasel - click to view full reply 

8248

Why Don't Necrons Rule? @ 2010/05/16 10:23:44

Post by: imweasel

Kevin949 wrote:big differences doesn't mean they aren't similar.

Wow. I don't know exactly what to say to this, and you say I am being obtuse. I can't save you from yourself. I'm not a miracle worker, but I will try.

Kevin949 wrote:A large difference is that FNP has an AP qualifier and WBB does not. The general outcome of both rules is identical and they both require a 4+ and have almost identical rules to follow by. But WBB is better, and there are key major differences.

Uh...slightly correct. Let's list the differences and the effect it has on necron play to show you the advantage it will give necrons.

1) FNP doesn't work if the str is double toughness or ap 1 or 2 or a wound that doesn't allow an armor save.
2) WBB is similar, except there is no ap requirement, but it REQUIRES a like model to be within 6" for the WBB roll.
3) The outcome at the END is similar, as wounds are 'ignored'. The results are quite different, especially in CC resolution where necrons have a difficult time surviving even against tactical marines.

Numbers 2 and 3 are quite SIGNIFICANT differences, especially in effect when coupled with the following:

1) FNP happens immediately after a failed armor save.
2) WBB happens during the following movement phase.

That is the SIGNIFICANT difference for CC resolution, which necrons are lacking in.

The ramifications are that FNP will help necrons in the area where they are lacking, CC. FNP rolls will make a significant difference in helping them survive from getting swept in CC resolution. Will this hurt them in shooting? Yes, particularly VS plasma weapons. However, necrons never have done bad in shooting it out with an army, except for now in 5th edition vs medium and heavy armor.

How can you not see this?

Kevin949 wrote:So if I don't have a clue, why not enlighten me instead of your vague comments that show nothing but your ability to hit the multi quote button.

People have done so several times in this thread. You yourself have contradicted yourself several times in this thread. When people call you out on this you dig yourself deeper as you have done several times in this thread.

If you do have a clue, please stop inserting your foot in your mouth and I am sure that something constructive can come out of this and you can be 'enlightened'.

My proposed fixes for 5th ed until a new codex came out? It could have been done in an FAQ/Clarification that would have taken a one page PDF.

Give necrons FNP and WBB and simplify it, hopefully negating the need for giving them the Stubborn USR.

1) Necrons have FNP.
2) Res Orb now allows FNP in any circumstance. If a necron unit is withing range of a Res Orb, the models in the unit get a FNP roll, regardless.
3) Simply change WBB to allow a WBB roll for any model that was eligible for a FNP roll, but failed it, in the following movement phase after being teleported through a monolith.

See how that works? It keeps some 'fluff/flavor' for the necrons while getting rid of some of the issues/arguments over the WBB rule. You still get 'two roll's' to bring back your models (assuming at least one model in the unit survives), helps in CC, gives a reason to take a Res Orb and monoliths. I believe these changes would eliminate any need for necrons to get the Stubborn USR.

The last change is simple. Gauss = Rending. Disruptor Field = Rending.

Some of folks biggest gripes (in 4th ed) was that warriors could effectively destroy a heavy vehicle as easily (from a point cost ratio) as units double or triple their cost. Rending would now allow warriors to affect light vehicles, but hardly capable of affecting heavy vehicles. Destroyers and Immortals would gain an appropriate 'effectiveness' vs heavier vehicles as their weapon strength went up and cost per model rose. Now necrons have a chance to affect heavy armor, without taking up heavy foc slots with heavy destroyers instead of monoliths, despite your disconnect with statistics.

Disruptor Fields now granting a model rending might (doubtful, but still might) now make it worth taking on necrons to help them in CC. It would make a significant dent on scarabs vs vehicles, but would make them more efficient vs most troop choices. Crack open a rhino with gauss fire and have the scarabs swarm over the tac squad, or something to that effect.

Reply by: Airmaniac - click to view full reply 

5215

Why Don't Necrons Rule? @ 2010/05/16 13:18:35

Post by: Airmaniac

Kevin949 wrote:

Airmaniac wrote:
A Resurrection Orb does not allow you to negate the fact that you need a unit of the same type within 6" to be able to take your WBB save. It only allows you to take a WBB save against close combat attacks that ignore armour saves, and attacks (ranged and close combat) that have a Strength value equal to, or higher than, the target's Thoughness value.

You mean double the toughness of the unit. A str6 vs t5 attack will not negate WBB, but a str8 vs t4 will negate WBB w/o orb nearby.

Obviously I meant to say double the target's Thoughness value.

Kevin949 wrote:

This is only true if there is another Necron unit of the same type within 6" of the models attempting to WBB. Also, your unit will still count as destroyed for Kill Point purposes, as the models that do get to WBB and make it, will be forced to join the other Necron unit.

Only if their original squad has no remaining members standing will they be forced to join the other unit. If 1 model out of 10 is still up, they remain a unit.

My quote was responding to the original claim D'Ork made, that a disadvantage of FNP is that you can swamp a FNP unit untill it is gone, while a WBB unit will get their WBB rolls at the start of the next turn (if there is another unit of the same type within 6"). Obviously, this only becomes a disadvantage against amounts of fire that will kill more than the entire unit with WBB, otherwise it wouldn't be a disadvantage at all, as both units would just suffer an equal amount of casualties. Since it is only a disadvantage of FNP if the entire WBB unit would be destroyed, you are adding nothing to the discussion by saying: "not if the entire unit isn't destroyed", as WBB wouldn't have the advantage of negating additional shots in that case (there are still models from the unit that are alive!).

Reply by: The Grog - click to view full reply 

5528

Why Don't Necrons Rule? @ 2010/05/17 03:29:06

Post by: The Grog

Daemon-Archon Ren wrote:

The Grog wrote:
FNP saves happen regardlesst.

what world do you live in...

FNP is denied by AP1, AP2, Powerweapons, Rending wounds, Winds of Chaos, Sweeping Advances, Dangerous terrain tests, Perils of the Warp, Wounds that cause instant death. The list goes on...

WBB has less restrictions (especially in terms of ranged weaponry) that can't be dealt with by means of tactics.

FNP is not a suitable replacement for WBB. It might be ok to give certain Necrons both WBB and FNP but to remove WBB would be like taking away ATSKNF for space-marines.

The one where FNP does NOT say 'must have a model of the same type within 6 inches'. FNP avoids such considerations as 'are your units clustered' and 'if not, can the enemy put one of them completely on the ground' and 'did you remove casualties in the right order'. All tactics considerations, while FNP revolves around what you were shot with.

Reply by: Daemon-Archon Ren - click to view full reply 

23332

Why Don't Necrons Rule? @ 2010/05/17 09:57:08

Post by: Daemon-Archon Ren

The Grog wrote: FNP avoids such considerations as 'are your units clustered' and 'if not, can the enemy put one of them completely on the ground' and 'did you remove casualties in the right order'. All tactics considerations, while FNP revolves around what you were shot with.

Sooo... removing a tactical consideration would be beneficial to the Necron list? Again I fail to see the logic as to how something that prevents a single wound, when the wound is dealt, and has about 3X the amount of ways to deny this prevention of a wound is better then an ability that happens at the beginning of the controlling players turn, has methods to prevent its denial (Res orb) loosen restrictions (Tomb Spyders) and Reroll any failures (the monolith) not to mention a smart player will use WBB to quite literally make a 60 man warrior unit with Necron lord attached.

Sadly it sounds like most of the arguments of people who say FNP should replace WBB are by non-Ncron players who have *MAYBE* run into 1 or 2 Ncron lists (especially in 5th edition) that probably saw this thread, checked Scribd for the latest Necron dex and remembered FNP was good from the BA dex...

Reply by: Monster Rain - click to view full reply 

23223

Why Don't Necrons Rule? @ 2010/05/17 13:02:16

Post by: Monster Rain

Daemon-Archon Ren wrote:
Sadly it sounds like most of the arguments of people who say FNP should replace WBB are by non-Ncron players who have *MAYBE* run into 1 or 2 Ncron lists (especially in 5th edition) that probably saw this thread, checked Scribd for the latest Necron dex and remembered FNP was good from the BA dex...

This. WBB is a cool and fluffy game mechanic that should be kept around. Could it use a few tweaks? Sure!

All armies having the same Special Rules gets boring after a while. Do we really need another MEQ with FNP? I say no.

Reply by: Kevin949 - click to view full reply 

26767

Why Don't Necrons Rule? @ 2010/05/17 16:42:22

Post by: Kevin949

if they gave pariahs FNP I'd be ok with that.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

imweasel wrote:I'm not a miracle worker, but I will try.

And you have failed. You haven't said anything that I wasn't already aware of.

So hey, let me ask you this then, if I used a different word, such as KEY instead of BIG, would it have made more sense to you? Such as "there are key differences between the two rules, but the outcome is the same". Key, big, major, drastic...these are all words you CAN use when describing two similar things.

As for CC, quite honestly the reason necrons have such a hard time in CC is because of power weapons or other similar weapons that ignore armour in CC. Most units that get power weapons have so many attacks and such great stats that there is just nothing to defend against it without a lord+orb nearby, but as you said and I agree, sweeping advance is the end of 'em. That coupled with their initiative kills them. And FNP will not resolve this in its current state unless augmented by some wargear given to a lord but since we can't assume there WILL be something like that, let's not. Heck, we don't even know they will get FNP anyway. I've said it before and I'll say it again, I don't want FNP on necrons. (as stated above, pariahs would be ok)

Reply by: The Grog - click to view full reply 

5528

Why Don't Necrons Rule? @ 2010/05/17 21:33:26

Post by: The Grog

Daemon-Archon Ren wrote:

The Grog wrote: FNP avoids such considerations as 'are your units clustered' and 'if not, can the enemy put one of them completely on the ground' and 'did you remove casualties in the right order'. All tactics considerations, while FNP revolves around what you were shot with.

Sooo... removing a tactical consideration would be beneficial to the Necron list? Again I fail to see the logic as to how something that prevents a single wound, when the wound is dealt, and has about 3X the amount of ways to deny this prevention of a wound is better then an ability that happens at the beginning of the controlling players turn, has methods to prevent its denial (Res orb) loosen restrictions (Tomb Spyders) and Reroll any failures (the monolith) not to mention a smart player will use WBB to quite literally make a 60 man warrior unit with Necron lord attached.

Sadly it sounds like most of the arguments of people who say FNP should replace WBB are by non-Ncron players who have *MAYBE* run into 1 or 2 Ncron lists (especially in 5th edition) that probably saw this thread, checked Scribd for the latest Necron dex and remembered FNP was good from the BA dex...

My 2500 points of Necrons imply otherwise. Its even my only painted army.

The point you fail to see is that the current powerful list involves few Warriors and lots of Destroyers/Immortals. The Warriors are often in reserve, and thus likely to be split up to cover objectives or from reserve rolls. The Destroyers are likely to be split up for side shots. This makes both of them vulnerable to the 'knock it all down' focus fire option.

And anybody who fields 60 warriors in 5th is asking for a beating. Does anything scream 'Phase me out, PLEASE' like putting all your Warriors in the same place and even the same squad? I'm also tired of tipping models over, measuring what's closest, and hoping they don't get moved accidentally in the mean time. Denying WBB is about tactical and maneuver restrictions, which either make the Necron player shacked in his movement or vulnerable. Denying FNP is about what you get shot with, and you have very little control over that, especially when everything has it. FNP is also the superior rule for surviving close combat.

It is a weaker rule overall. That's why I said

The Grog wrote:I wouldn't mind trading WBB for FNP, but I think the trade is for a weaker rule overall. So long as the points reflect this, I'm ok with it and it does shore up the biggest weakness in the codex.

You did bother to read the thread before you opened your mouth, right?

Reply by: KingCracker - click to view full reply 

9217

Why Don't Necrons Rule? @ 2010/05/17 22:21:19

Post by: KingCracker

The main problem with the Necrons being a laugh at army, as far as tournament style goes, is the phase out rule is incredibly harsh. It they toned down, or just got rid of it and restructured the army as a whole again with out it, then they are a pretty good army.

When I play my nephew against his Necrons we just get rid of the phase out rule all together and they are instantly harder to play against. Give it a try next time and youll see that the Necrons can very easily be a tougher army to play against.

Reply by: Monster Rain - click to view full reply 

23223

Why Don't Necrons Rule? @ 2010/05/18 00:47:07

Post by: Monster Rain

KingCracker wrote:The main problem with the Necrons being a laugh at army, as far as tournament style goes, is the phase out rule is incredibly harsh. It they toned down, or just got rid of it and restructured the army as a whole again with out it, then they are a pretty good army.

When I play my nephew against his Necrons we just get rid of the phase out rule all together and they are instantly harder to play against. Give it a try next time and youll see that the Necrons can very easily be a tougher army to play against.

It occurred to me that Necrons would also have been at a slight advantage in Scenario 3 at 'Ard Boyz this year... Then again, Phase Out reared it's ugly head and quashed the idea. Back to the shelf, boys.

Reply by: imweasel - click to view full reply 

8248

Why Don't Necrons Rule? @ 2010/05/18 03:51:08

Post by: imweasel

Daemon-Archon Ren wrote:

The Grog wrote: FNP avoids such considerations as 'are your units clustered' and 'if not, can the enemy put one of them completely on the ground' and 'did you remove casualties in the right order'. All tactics considerations, while FNP revolves around what you were shot with.

Sooo... removing a tactical consideration would be beneficial to the Necron list? Again I fail to see the logic as to how something that prevents a single wound, when the wound is dealt, and has about 3X the amount of ways to deny this prevention of a wound is better then an ability that happens at the beginning of the controlling players turn, has methods to prevent its denial (Res orb) loosen restrictions (Tomb Spyders) and Reroll any failures (the monolith) not to mention a smart player will use WBB to quite literally make a 60 man warrior unit with Necron lord attached.

Sadly it sounds like most of the arguments of people who say FNP should replace WBB are by non-Ncron players who have *MAYBE* run into 1 or 2 Ncron lists (especially in 5th edition) that probably saw this thread, checked Scribd for the latest Necron dex and remembered FNP was good from the BA dex...

Two words: Sweeping Advance.

Necrons are terrible in CC and any opponent worth a lick of salt will exploit that to the utmost. You don't get WBB when you get swept. FNP will help you from getting swept, especially if the res orb rule was that it allowed FNP regardless of circumstance.

It's never been a matter of shooting down necrons in 5th ed, it's been a matter of getting repeatedly swept right off the table.

Why don't you 'experienced' necron players not see that?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Kevin949 wrote:So hey, let me ask you this then, if I used a different word, such as KEY instead of BIG, would it have made more sense to you? Such as "there are key differences between the two rules, but the outcome is the same". Key, big, major, drastic...these are all words you CAN use when describing two similar things.

That would be true, if they were similar. The mechanics and rules are different between FNP and WBB, no matter how you try to twist words.

Kevin949 wrote:As for CC, quite honestly the reason necrons have such a hard time in CC is because of power weapons or other similar weapons that ignore armour in CC. Most units that get power weapons have so many attacks and such great stats that there is just nothing to defend against it without a lord+orb nearby, but as you said and I agree, sweeping advance is the end of 'em.

Uh...what? You do realize that even marine troop choices (not elite assault units that you are using as your example) can easily win combat by 2 or 3? You really want your only and core unit that can be taken cheaply enough to raise your phase out number getting wiped out BY A NON ELITE UNIT 1/3 of the time?

Kevin949 wrote:I've said it before and I'll say it again, I don't want FNP on necrons. (as stated above, pariahs would be ok)

So what in the world would your solution be to the CC issue that necrons face?

Reply by: Daemon-Archon Ren - click to view full reply 

23332

Why Don't Necrons Rule? @ 2010/05/18 11:31:30

Post by: Daemon-Archon Ren

imweasel wrote:

Two words: Sweeping Advance.

Necrons are terrible in CC and any opponent worth a lick of salt will exploit that to the utmost. You don't get WBB when you get swept. FNP will help you from getting swept, especially if the res orb rule was that it allowed FNP regardless of circumstance.

It's never been a matter of shooting down necrons in 5th ed, it's been a matter of getting repeatedly swept right off the table.

Why don't you 'experienced' necron players not see that?

Not to be a total D-Bag, but the answer is quite simple really. Us 'experienced' necron players know the weaknesses we face in CC so we don't position ourselves in such a way that we get easily assaulted. It a 6'x4' board, nothing can assault the turn it drops (besides vanny vets) and a monolith makes a very dangerous deathcharge zone. Paraiahs/Lord with Scythe deal with the scariest thing SMs have in melee, Hammer Bros aka Assault Termies (Str 5 attacks that ignore invul gg).

Reply by: Aduro - click to view full reply 

1963

Why Don't Necrons Rule? @ 2010/05/18 17:42:06

Post by: Aduro

Too bad those Hammer Bros are zipping across the field in a Land Raider, while the Pariahs have to walk to where ever they want to go, and then only get one attack each. Not to mention if you're buying Pariahs and Monoliths it's going to be that much easier to Phase Out what few Necrons you have left.

As an "experienced" Necron player I know that anything that gets charged by any half way decent assaulting unit is dead and gone. They don't survive long enough any more to be Monolithed or Veiled out unless it was some piddly couple man unit that meant to tie you up.

Reply by: Monster Rain - click to view full reply 

23223

Why Don't Necrons Rule? @ 2010/05/18 23:46:21

Post by: Monster Rain

Aduro wrote:Too bad those Hammer Bros are zipping across the field in a Land Raider, while the Pariahs have to walk to where ever they want to go, and then only get one attack each. Not to mention if you're buying Pariahs and Monoliths it's going to be that much easier to Phase Out what few Necrons you have left.

As an "experienced" Necron player I know that anything that gets charged by any half way decent assaulting unit is dead and gone. They don't survive long enough any more to be Monolithed or Veiled out unless it was some piddly couple man unit that meant to tie you up.

First of all, Hammer Bros is the only way I will refer to assault Termies from now on.

Secondly, with the number of shots you can put on a LR with Destroyers you can knock the treads off of it from a ways off in my experience. Also, a nice wall of Monoliths and a C'Tan can make it really hard for those CC units to get to your squishy warriors. Unless you play with Necrons a lot, wouldn't it make sense to defer to the reasoning of someone who does on the subject?

Reply by: Aduro - click to view full reply 

1963

Why Don't Necrons Rule? @ 2010/05/19 03:25:29

Post by: Aduro

I've played Necrons since they were released, and they are my most used and favorite army.

Reply by: Daemon-Archon Ren - click to view full reply 

23332

Why Don't Necrons Rule? @ 2010/05/19 03:58:09

Post by: Daemon-Archon Ren

Aduro wrote:I've played Necrons since they were released, and they are my most used and favorite army.

If you have, unless you are doing it wrong (hopefully unlikely) your teammates are cheating (also hopefully unlikely) or the only armies you seem to be facing are... Dark Eldar, Deathwing, Blood Angels, Space Wolves, etc, you should know that while CC is the way to break a Necron list, it is not too difficult to deal with as a Necron player on a standard 6' by 4' board. None-the-less taking WBB and swapping to FNP is NOT the appropriate solution, maybe incorporating something into WBB to prevent SAs from happening. (also its no cheap fact that I forgot to mention that Hammer Bros CANNOT SA EVER) Or maybe the other changes previously listed...

Daemon-Archon Ren wrote:Easy fix for necrons: Change the "Necron" special rule to be similar to the "Daemon" special rule. Trade "Daemonic Rivalry" for "We'll be back". The Eternal warrior from the new "Necron" keeps the 2x tough from blocking WBB. The Fearless from the new "Necron" keeps them from getting SAed to the void.

Also, all models in the army (Besides Scarab Swarms) count towards Phase Out.

Spyders count as 3 models (for PO only)

Monoliths count as 5 models (for PO only)

C'tan count as 10 models (for PO only)

C&P WBB does NOT need to be changed much less exchanged for FNP. FNP is a different rule, the more people think of it as a "knock-off" of WBB the more people will fail to grasp some of the more complex (and tactical) aspects of this game.

Reply by: imweasel - click to view full reply 

8248

Why Don't Necrons Rule? @ 2010/05/19 04:48:39

Post by: imweasel

Daemon-Archon Ren wrote:Not to be a total D-Bag, but the answer is quite simple really. Us 'experienced' necron players know the weaknesses we face in CC so we don't position ourselves in such a way that we get easily assaulted. It a 6'x4' board, nothing can assault the turn it drops (besides vanny vets) and a monolith makes a very dangerous deathcharge zone. Paraiahs/Lord with Scythe deal with the scariest thing SMs have in melee, Hammer Bros aka Assault Termies (Str 5 attacks that ignore invul gg).

Monolith makes a 'dangerous death charge zone'? Sure the pie plate can hurt, but only if I roll a one on my consolidation roll after I killed your squad.

Pariahs a threat? PUHLEEZE. You shoot them. They have a 3+ armor save with no WBB and can't be teleported. Take a turn to shoot them, soften them up and then take your licks and squish them if you have to. However, with them being completely foot slogging with zero mobility I would just prefer to outmaneuver them. At 36pts a pop, they simply are not worth it over immortals. Especially as an assault deterrent.

Blocking off a section of the board to limit the necrons already limited mobility in a mobile, mechanized game? Playing not to lose is not a valid strategy, imho. I prefer to play to win.

As far as shooting a land raider with destroyers to immobilize it, it will take 2 squads of 5 destroyers to have an acceptable chance to immobilize it, assuming no cover.

So how do you stop two reliably? Simply hope someone only takes one in their list?

And just how do you propose to take a fairly poorly written rule (WBB) and 'incorporate' something that prevents sweeping advances from happening?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Daemon-Archon Ren wrote:C&P WBB does NOT need to be changed much less exchanged for FNP. FNP is a different rule, the more people think of it as a "knock-off" of WBB the more people will fail to grasp some of the more complex (and tactical) aspects of this game.

Unless you are suggesting on changing how combat res works in 5th ed, it will be more than difficult to stop the CC slaughter necrons face.

Reply by: The Grog - click to view full reply 

5528

Why Don't Necrons Rule? @ 2010/05/19 05:43:43

Post by: The Grog

Daemon-Archon Ren wrote:

If you have, unless you are doing it wrong (hopefully unlikely) your teammates are cheating (also hopefully unlikely) or the only armies you seem to be facing are... Dark Eldar, Deathwing, Blood Angels, Space Wolves, etc, you should know that while CC is the way to break a Necron list, it is not too difficult to deal with as a Necron player on a standard 6' by 4' board. None-the-less taking WBB and swapping to FNP is NOT the appropriate solution, maybe incorporating something into WBB to prevent SAs from happening. (also its no cheap fact that I forgot to mention that Hammer Bros CANNOT SA EVER) Or maybe the other changes previously listed...

It takes 9 gauss shots to get one damage result. So you have a 25% chance of a full size Destroyer unit immobilizing a vehicle.

Considering that any unit in the SM list can beat Warriors and Destroyers in close combat reliably (even if only by 1-2) if they have a powerfist, you must not play against mech often. Or Orks. Or Tyranids. So, SM, BA, BT, SW, DA, Orks, Tyranids, and DE all threaten close combat. That's what, only 70% of players? Plus IG blobs and Banshees on occasion. All deadly threats if they reach you. What if you have to advance? What if you have objectives into the opposing deployment zone? What if the opponent uses his vastly superior mech maneuverability to simply rush your infantry with transports? If you had made these claims in 4th, you'd have a point. This is 5th.

The assault termis don't have to if they have a non-termi character with them.

Reply by: Grunt_For_Christ - click to view full reply 

11766

Why Don't Necrons Rule? @ 2010/05/19 05:50:40

Post by: Grunt_For_Christ

One of the biggest problems my friends have is that the rules for glancing are much less effective. No there's basically no way you can destroy the vehicle. That has really hurt the effectiveness of gauss weaponry. And do we need to talk about sweeping advance again? With an average I of 2 it's almost impossible to NOT get swept.

Reply by: imweasel - click to view full reply 

8248

Why Don't Necrons Rule? @ 2010/05/19 05:55:46

Post by: imweasel

Grunt_For_Christ wrote:One of the biggest problems my friends have is that the rules for glancing are much less effective. No there's basically no way you can destroy the vehicle. That has really hurt the effectiveness of gauss weaponry. And do we need to talk about sweeping advance again? With an average I of 2 it's almost impossible to NOT get swept.

/sarcasm on

You silly, silly person.

Necrons being swept in CC resolution only happens to 'non-experienced' necron commanders that are playing to win, not the 'experienced' necron commanders who are playing not to lose!

/sarcasm off

I have yet to see any other solution offered other than vague ideas and 'you just can't trade WBB for FNP'.

Reply by: Grunt_For_Christ - click to view full reply 

11766

Why Don't Necrons Rule? @ 2010/05/19 06:03:12

Post by: Grunt_For_Christ

imweasel wrote:

Grunt_For_Christ wrote:One of the biggest problems my friends have is that the rules for glancing are much less effective. No there's basically no way you can destroy the vehicle. That has really hurt the effectiveness of gauss weaponry. And do we need to talk about sweeping advance again? With an average I of 2 it's almost impossible to NOT get swept.

/sarcasm on

You silly, silly person.

Necrons being swept in CC resolution only happens to 'non-experienced' necron commanders that are playing to win, not the 'experienced' necron commanders who are playing not to lose!

/sarcasm off

I have yet to see any other solution offered other than vague ideas and 'you just can't trade WBB for FNP'.

You mean something other than just ignoring the sweeping advance rule altogether or the infinite WBB vs. FNP debate?

Reply by: Daemon-Archon Ren - click to view full reply 

23332

Why Don't Necrons Rule? @ 2010/05/19 06:07:56

Post by: Daemon-Archon Ren

imweasel wrote:

Monolith makes a 'dangerous death charge zone'? Sure the pie plate can hurt, but only if I roll a one on my consolidation roll after I killed your squad.

You put the monolith in front of the troops, and you would need to roll more then a 1 to avoid it.

imweasel wrote:
Pariahs a threat? PUHLEEZE. You shoot them. They have a 3+ armor save with no WBB and can't be teleported. Take a turn to shoot them, soften them up and then take your licks and squish them if you have to. However, with them being completely foot slogging
with zero mobility I would just prefer to outmaneuver them. At 36pts a pop, they simply are not worth it over immortals. Especially as an assault deterrent.

You can't shoot with thunderhammers?

imweasel wrote:
Blocking off a section of the board to limit the necrons already limited mobility in a mobile, mechanized game? Playing not to lose is not a valid strategy, imho. I prefer to play to win.

Sure? Even if you block off a board section, a necron player should be able to properly turtle-march

imweasel wrote:
As far as shooting a land raider with destroyers to immobilize it, it will take 2 squads of 5 destroyers to have an acceptable chance to immobilize it, assuming no cover.

Either the immortals or the Str 9 ap 1 ordinance, either way, that LR isnt too difficult to deal with.

imweasel wrote:
So how do you stop two reliably? Simply hope someone only takes one in their list?

LR = 250 pts (Slightly less for BAs dropping packs and less then that for chaos but the majority will be around 250 pts)

Monolith = 235 pts.

imweasel wrote:
And just how do you propose to take a fairly poorly written rule (WBB) and 'incorporate' something that prevents sweeping advances from happening?

Daemon-Archon Ren wrote:Easy fix for necrons: Change the "Necron" special rule to be similar to the "Daemon" special rule. Trade "Daemonic Rivalry" for "We'll be back". The Eternal warrior from the new "Necron" keeps the 2x tough from blocking WBB. The Fearless from the new "Necron" keeps them from getting SAed to the void.

Also, all models in the army (Besides Scarab Swarms) count towards Phase Out.

Spyders count as 3 models (for PO only)

Monoliths count as 5 models (for PO only)

C'tan count as 10 models (for PO only)

The Grog wrote:

It takes 9 gauss shots to get one damage result. So you have a 25% chance of a full size Destroyer unit immobilizing a vehicle.

Unless that vehicle belongs to an Ork or Dark Eldar player, then they are also probably open topped.

The Grog wrote:
Considering that any unit in the SM list can beat Warriors and Destroyers in close combat reliably (even if only by 1-2) if they have a powerfist, you must not play against mech often. Or Orks. Or Tyranids. So, SM, BA, BT, SW, DA, Orks, Tyranids, and DE all threaten close combat. That's what, only 70% of players? Plus IG blobs and Banshees on occasion. All deadly threats if they reach you. What if you have to advance? What if you have objectives into the opposing deployment zone? What if the opponent uses his vastly superior mech maneuverability to simply rush your infantry with transports? If you had made these claims in 4th, you'd have a point. This is 5th.

I play against mech, often, and while Cron's isnt my favorite list (Recently, I have been playing them extensively, since the rumors that they were due in 2010 proved false, I've been attempting a fandex for our group) current necron's do have some ways of dealing with many of the issues presented , but by no means am I attempting to claim they are 100% 5th edition Viable, and again I will state, repacing WBB with FNP is not the appropriate solution to the problems they do have...

But, just for fun...

Advancing? Let the Monolith lead.

Objectives? Use Wraiths/Destroyers for last turn contesting, Shroud an open one with your lord + warriors.

Mech rush? Start as far back as possible to prevent 1st (and in many cases 2nd) turn assaults. Always choose to go second if you can. Retreat and fire until most melee threats/chargers are dealt with, move accordingly.

Banshee's? A bad day for most lists, even meq lists don't like them too much. Shoot them, shoot them dead!

Guard Blob? Monolith

The assault termis don't have to if they have a non-termi character with them.

This is not how it works as far as RAW. ICs move as slow as their unit. The rules for ICs in assault state they return to normal rules for being in the unit immediatly after combat results (before the moral check) so unless you had a Termi squad, an IC, and a squad that was not termi that the IC was joined, the IC could not SA.

But again, as stated, WBB -> FNP is not as appropriate as say... making Crons Fearless

Reply by: imweasel - click to view full reply 

8248

Why Don't Necrons Rule? @ 2010/05/19 06:09:28

Post by: imweasel

Grunt_For_Christ wrote:You mean something other than just ignoring the sweeping advance rule altogether or the infinite WBB vs. FNP debate?

I suppose you could simply give necrons stubborn and call it good.

However, I think it would be more expensive than fnp, especially on L10 models.

Personally, I like my suggestion (made earlier in this thread) just fine, which was a combination of FNP and WBB. Meh.

Reply by: Grunt_For_Christ - click to view full reply 

11766

Why Don't Necrons Rule? @ 2010/05/19 06:13:35

Post by: Grunt_For_Christ

Well I guess we'll be seeing pretty soon which it is, right?

Reply by: imweasel - click to view full reply 

8248

Why Don't Necrons Rule? @ 2010/05/19 06:32:30

Post by: imweasel

Daemon-Archon Ren wrote:You put the monolith in front of the troops, and you would need to roll more then a 1 to avoid it.

There you go again, placing even more limitation on the necrons mobility and playing not to lose.

Daemon-Archon Ren wrote:You can't shoot with thunderhammers?

Yes. And you sound like that's the only unit a space marine army takes at 2000 points.

Daemon-Archon Ren wrote:Sure? Even if you block off a board section, a necron player should be able to properly turtle-march

This is a joke, right? Turtle march across a board? What do you do in a DoW scenario or more than 2 objectives? Just give up?

Daemon-Archon Ren wrote:Either the immortals or the Str 9 ap 1 ordinance, either way, that LR isnt too difficult to deal with.

Yes, because templates are such an accurate anti-tank weapon. And I believe that unless you are like another poster in this thread, we have already gone over the odds of using glances to deal with land raiders.

Daemon-Archon Ren wrote:LR = 250 pts (Slightly less for BAs dropping packs and less then that for chaos but the majority will be around 250 pts)

Monolith = 235 pts.

So? I know the points cost for the units involved. Is there some point to this?

Daemon-Archon Ren wrote:Easy fix for necrons: Change the "Necron" special rule to be similar to the "Daemon" special rule. Trade "Daemonic Rivalry" for "We'll be back". The Eternal warrior from the new "Necron" keeps the 2x tough from blocking WBB. The Fearless from the new "Necron" keeps them from getting SAed to the void.

Also, all models in the army (Besides Scarab Swarms) count towards Phase Out.

Spyders count as 3 models (for PO only)

Monoliths count as 5 models (for PO only)

C'tan count as 10 models (for PO only)

So your proposal is to make a necron warrior somewhere north of a grey knight on points? Ummm...ok...I suppose

Daemon-Archon Ren wrote:Unless that vehicle belongs to an Ork or Dark Eldar player, then they are also probably open topped.

Ummm...I don't think necrons will want to be facing multiple av14 armor with d6 str10 ramming attacks with 4+ cover saves or multiple str9 pf attacks hitting on a 4+. I suppose you could at least make the 3+ dodge roll from the deff rollas...

DE would simply ignore the monoliths and shoot their way to phase out.

Daemon-Archon Ren wrote:I play against mech, often, and while Cron's isnt my favorite list (Recently, I have been playing them extensively, since the rumors that they were due in 2010 proved false, I've been attempting a fandex for our group) current necron's do have some ways of dealing with many of the issues presented , but by no means am I attempting to claim they are 100% 5th edition Viable, and again I will state, repacing WBB with FNP is not the appropriate solution to the problems they do have...

No, your idea is to make them cost somewhere in the vicinity of 25-30pts for a warrior.

Daemon-Archon Ren wrote:But, just for fun...

Advancing? Let the Monolith lead.

Objectives? Use Wraiths/Destroyers for last turn contesting, Shroud an open one with your lord + warriors.

Mech rush? Start as far back as possible to prevent 1st (and in many cases 2nd) turn assaults. Always choose to go second if you can. Retreat and fire until most melee threats/chargers are dealt with, move accordingly.

Banshee's? A bad day for most lists, even meq lists don't like them too much. Shoot them, shoot them dead!

Guard Blob? Monolith

You can use the monolith lead for certain armies, but vs others it's just death for the monolith.

Your 'contest' idea is assuming that you get to go second without the repercussions of going second.

Mech rush? I suppose there really is no better solution for necrons.

Banshees's? Bad day for most lists? Uhhh...not really.

Daemon-Archon Ren wrote:But again, as stated, WBB -> FNP is not as appropriate as say... making Crons Fearless

And that's where necrons would be left with, either fearless or stubborn if the flawed WBB rule is left in place. I suppose that might be the cheapest way to go.

Reply by: Daemon-Archon Ren - click to view full reply 

23332

Why Don't Necrons Rule? @ 2010/05/19 06:43:19

Post by: Daemon-Archon Ren

I don't get where the 25-30 points per model is coming from by taking the Daemon special rule... the Daemons troops have all those same things (fearless, eternal warrior) and cost Significantly less then 25-30 points (in some ways, their invul save is better then the armor. And Plague-bearers are T5 FNP with EW and Fearless for 15 points each, and they wound on a 4+ regardless of Toughness.

Adding the "model count" to the other units just simply makes Phase out more difficult.

Reply by: Krellnus - click to view full reply 

11194

Why Don't Necrons Rule? @ 2010/05/19 11:20:52

Post by: Krellnus

...is this really the time and place for this discussion? No, the OP only wanted to know why necrons aren't an overly feasible army. If you want to continue this little 'discussion' you two are having, I recommend starting a new discussion, before the admins get involved.

Reply by: Aduro - click to view full reply 

1963

Why Don't Necrons Rule? @ 2010/05/19 16:42:21

Post by: Aduro

If you block off the front of your army with Monoliths, how are you killing the enemy army as you are now not able to shoot at them?

Reply by: Monster Rain - click to view full reply 

23223

Why Don't Necrons Rule? @ 2010/05/19 21:38:38

Post by: Monster Rain

Aduro wrote:If you block off the front of your army with Monoliths, how are you killing the enemy army as you are now not able to shoot at them?

The Monoliths have pretty nasty guns on them, and the Destroyers don't really need to be blocked since they can move pretty fast and get WBB from the vast majority of shooting. Also, the C'Tan shouldn't be hiding!

Warriors are really for holding objectives in my games. The killing is done by the rest of the army, unless an opportunity arises for the Warriors to pick on really weak units like Fire Warriors or Guardsmen without power weapons.

Reply by: imweasel - click to view full reply 

8248

Why Don't Necrons Rule? @ 2010/05/20 03:25:56

Post by: imweasel

Daemon-Archon Ren wrote:I don't get where the 25-30 points per model is coming from by taking the Daemon special rule... the Daemons troops have all those same things (fearless, eternal warrior) and cost Significantly less then 25-30 points (in some ways, their invul save is better then the armor. And Plague-bearers are T5 FNP with EW and Fearless for 15 points each, and they wound on a 4+ regardless of Toughness.

Adding the "model count" to the other units just simply makes Phase out more difficult.

I'm guessing that fearless on troop units probably would not be on the cheap side. Demon troopers have numerous things to help offset that cost.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Krellnus wrote:...is this really the time and place for this discussion? No, the OP only wanted to know why necrons aren't an overly feasible army. If you want to continue this little 'discussion' you two are having, I recommend starting a new discussion, before the admins get involved.

We are discussing the reasons behind why some folks think necrons are 'ok' and why some 'don't'.

It's key to the discussion.

Reply by: dancingcricket - click to view full reply 

8193

Why Don't Necrons Rule? @ 2010/05/22 06:03:24

Post by: dancingcricket

So, stepping away from the sweeping advance and FNP vs WBB issues, what do you propose for dealing with large amounts of heavy firepower. For instance, facing a manticore, a couple units of medusas, 2 psycher battle squads, 2 masters of ordnance, valks and vendettas with lascannons and rocket pods, and squads full of guys with melta weapons, flamers, and demo charges. Or when 3 squads of flamers of tzeentch DS in and wipe out 3 squads. Yeah, lots of people are having troubles with them right now, but without transports to at least take the first hit, necrons are a bit more vulnerable than other MEQs, and just about anyone else with a transport for that matter. And neither FNP or WBB, res orb or not, helps much when none of your squads are still standing.

Reply by: Kevin949 - click to view full reply 

26767

Why Don't Necrons Rule? @ 2010/05/22 07:07:37

Post by: Kevin949

Man, imweasel you're a major hater.

Fine, give necrons atsknf or something similar so they can't be sa (like every sm). Or stubborn. No fearless.

As for whether they're a good army or not, there are plenty of people doing well with them. You can't accept or believe that? Or you're just better tban the opponents they play against?

Just go play the game and enjoy it and let others do the same. I believe that is actually raw as well.

Reply by: Aduro - click to view full reply 

1963

Why Don't Necrons Rule? @ 2010/05/22 14:21:25

Post by: Aduro

I do good with Necrons because my sheer awesomeness is almost enough to override the suckyness of the Codex!

...

...

More seriously, the book needs an update something fierce. Playing Necrons is handicapping yourself if for no other reason than Phase Out. You can debate the warrants of FNP vs WBB all day, but regardless of which rule is in it, they need a new book. As I mentioned somewhere else, I would love it even if all we got was a PDF Codex with nothing new in it, just to update the rules/points costs to something more in line with current books.

Reply by: Monster Rain - click to view full reply 

23223

Why Don't Necrons Rule? @ 2010/05/22 14:50:52

Post by: Monster Rain

Aduro wrote:I do good with Necrons because my sheer awesomeness is almost enough to override the suckyness of the Codex!

It works for Eldar players. They've been saying that since 4th Edition, God Falcons and all.

The Codex isn't that bad. Internet Theoryhammer is really the main reason you don't see them played as much.

Reply by: ChocolateGork - click to view full reply 

24150

Why Don't Necrons Rule? @ 2010/05/22 15:16:24

Post by: ChocolateGork

Its also becuase there is hardly any choice in the code

WHAT DO YOU MEAN I CAN TAKE WARRIORS

WHAT DO YOU MEAN I CAN TAKE DESTROYERS

OMG A MONOLITH

A NECRON LORD

A CTAN

A SCARAB

AND AND and and...............

Reply by: willydstyle - click to view full reply 

11452

Why Don't Necrons Rule? @ 2010/05/22 15:21:00

Post by: willydstyle

Monster Rain wrote:

Aduro wrote:I do good with Necrons because my sheer awesomeness is almost enough to override the suckyness of the Codex!

It works for Eldar players. They've been saying that since 4th Edition, God Falcons and all.

The Codex isn't that bad. Internet Theoryhammer is really the main reason you don't see them played as much.

And the reason that all the gamers I know who don't peruse internet forums are allowing their necrons to rot away on the shelves...

It's easy to draw a conclusion from a correlation (internet users say necrons suck==> people don't play necrons) however that conclusion is probably not true in this case. People don't play Necrons for many different reasons, and one of those reasons is that it's very hard to win with Necrons against a decent player with a decent list.

Reply by: Kurgash - click to view full reply 

22761

Why Don't Necrons Rule? @ 2010/05/22 21:04:17

Post by: Kurgash

It's possible to win with Necrons, as with any other army. It just is an uphill climb through thorn bushes, rabid cats and listening to your little cousin explain why Twilight is such an amaaaaaazing boooook.

Reply by: Chuggy G - click to view full reply 

29538

Why Don't Necrons Rule? @ 2010/05/22 21:09:12

Post by: Chuggy G

Kurgash wrote:It's possible to win with Necrons, as with any other army. It just is an uphill climb through thorn bushes, rabid cats and listening to your little cousin explain why Twilight is such an amaaaaaazing boooook.

Suddenly, I feel like nothing I could possibly add to this thread could be put into a more cohesive summary. QFT.

Reply by: Krellnus - click to view full reply 

11194

Why Don't Necrons Rule? @ 2010/05/23 00:18:19

Post by: Krellnus

ChocolateGork wrote:Its also becuase there is hardly any choice in the code

WHAT DO YOU MEAN I CAN TAKE WARRIORS

WHAT DO YOU MEAN I CAN TAKE DESTROYERS

OMG A MONOLITH

A NECRON LORD

A CTAN

A SCARAB

AND AND and and...............

You forgot the PARIAHS and FLAYED ONES, oh wait, they aren't too good anyway, mainly that pariahs are not "necrons". Continue...

Reply by: Aduro - click to view full reply 

1963

Why Don't Necrons Rule? @ 2010/05/23 02:18:56

Post by: Aduro

Necrons as a whole don't "suck", they're just not on an even playing field as most the rest of the book.

Reply by: Phase - click to view full reply 

29105

Why Don't Necrons Rule? @ 2010/05/24 21:16:15

Post by: Phase

Monolith is a good model to have, 235 points and it beats the land raider at 250

Reply by: phantommaster - click to view full reply 

13625

Why Don't Necrons Rule? @ 2010/05/24 21:26:13

Post by: phantommaster

Phase wrote:Monolith is a good model to have, 235 points and it beats the land raider at 250

That will likely change with the new codex but it will probably have new rules as well.

Reply by: Daemon-Archon Ren - click to view full reply 

23332

Why Don't Necrons Rule? @ 2010/05/24 21:29:30

Post by: Daemon-Archon Ren

phantommaster wrote:That will likely change with the new codex ...

Last I heard, Dark Eldar were next in line for a Codex Update, which of course means GW will never be updating any of the codexes ever again. (As per track record)