SaintHazard wrote:I disagree. If you were talking about modern appliances, absolutely - but here are legions of eternal warriors made of living nonsynthetic material and programmed by beings beyond the comprehension of a mortal man.

Even after a couple million years, they'd be fresh.

Would they be slow, though? Probably. So I see no problem with I1 and a low WS, maybe 2 or 3 but not 1.

BS4 should remain though.

Okay, 1 is a bit low. I'd be okay with 3 as long as the BS was 3 too. 6 million years is a long time and these are still constructed beings made mobile by code, however advanced..

Mostly I think I want it to differentiate them from Marines. I'm super happy that scouts are only WS and BS 3 now. It fits them.

First off I would like to state that i love necrons as well. I do not play them but i have a buddy who does and i think their pretty awesome. With that said, I think that if the Crons were giving a T5 they would be damn near impossible to kill. Has anyone ever played against a mass Warrior/2Monolith list? If so then you already know how annoying it is to take out those warriors when their given 2 WBB rolls on top of their 3+ armor save...its kind of insane. So take that and give them a T5...thats just sick...but i think they should get it =)

Inquisitor_Syphonious wrote:I've never heard of those arguments, ever.

ditto

Nothing remains 'fresh' over time.

This thing all things devours:
Birds, beasts, trees, flowers;
Gnaws iron, bites steel;
Grinds hard stones to meal;
Slays king, ruins town
And beats high mountain down.

>Nurgle<

I hate the spiders....

The Power Cosmic wrote:

SaintHazard wrote:I disagree. If you were talking about modern appliances, absolutely - but here are legions of eternal warriors made of living nonsynthetic material and programmed by beings beyond the comprehension of a mortal man.

Even after a couple million years, they'd be fresh.

Would they be slow, though? Probably. So I see no problem with I1 and a low WS, maybe 2 or 3 but not 1.

BS4 should remain though.

Okay, 1 is a bit low. I'd be okay with 3 as long as the BS was 3 too. 6 million years is a long time and these are still constructed beings made mobile by code, however advanced..

Mostly I think I want it to differentiate them from Marines. I'm super happy that scouts are only WS and BS 3 now. It fits them.

Again you are assuming that they just sat there and collected dust. The C'Tan knew that they would be in stasis for a long time and built the necrons to last forever (forever is alot longer than 60,000,000 years). besides while in stasis they were constantly being maintained by the scarabs and tomb spiders and other serviceing devices

That's how I've interpreted the stuff I've read about them. Take that egyptian theme and go with it. Everything Necron was sitting and waiting. If you have a different interpretation, that's cool. I just don't imagine underground lairs being maintained Matrix-style. I see a tomb and that's all.

Certainly explains the differences, though.

We'll have to leave it at that.

lowmanjason wrote:

The Power Cosmic wrote:

SaintHazard wrote:I disagree. If you were talking about modern appliances, absolutely - but here are legions of eternal warriors made of living nonsynthetic material and programmed by beings beyond the comprehension of a mortal man.

Even after a couple million years, they'd be fresh.

Would they be slow, though? Probably. So I see no problem with I1 and a low WS, maybe 2 or 3 but not 1.

BS4 should remain though.

Okay, 1 is a bit low. I'd be okay with 3 as long as the BS was 3 too. 6 million years is a long time and these are still constructed beings made mobile by code, however advanced..

Mostly I think I want it to differentiate them from Marines. I'm super happy that scouts are only WS and BS 3 now. It fits them.

Again you are assuming that they just sat there and collected dust. The C'Tan knew that they would be in stasis for a long time and built the necrons to last forever (forever is alot longer than 60,000,000 years). besides while in stasis they were constantly being maintained by the scarabs and tomb spiders and other serviceing devices

I seem to recall fluff that stated everytime they "died" (Became unusable in combat, and then teleported back to home base/tomb/whatever) they came back slightly wrong, slower, dumber, etc. A Necron who had never died would still have the mind of a Necrontyr, but that 60,000,000,000 year old Necron whose died more times than you could count, is about as smart as a Dog who has been hit in the head with a club a few times. Is this still the case?

I've read that too but it was fan fiction i dont know how official it was

lowmanjason wrote:I've read that too but it was fan fiction i dont know how official it was

Think you answered your own question there.

As for soldiers being more accurate than 2/3rds .... you greatly overestimate their accuracy, modern armies are 20% or less in combat situations.

That may be true but this is and army that doesnt have to worry about adriniline, nerves or fear.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

The Power Cosmic wrote:

lowmanjason wrote:I've read that too but it was fan fiction i dont know how official it was

Think you answered your own question there.

I said i read it in fan fiction not that it was only fan fiction. just because i havet read its "offical fluff" doesnt mean that it isnt official. like i said, i dont know.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

KamikazeCanuck wrote:

Inquisitor_Syphonious wrote:I've never heard of those arguments, ever.

ditto

see above posts!

Actually, I think Necron Warriors could do with WS and BS of 3 or less, and an initiative of 2. But! Immortals and other more "elites" should have BS/WS/I of 4 or better.

The reasoning behind this is simple-- the warriors have been allowed to degrade more than the leaders and elites.

Not sure why people are picking on there troop choice. That is actually there strong point. Its there total lack of options across the board that makes them weak. Fix there point cost a bit and give everything some equal options as all the other armies have and issue solved.

My opinion?
Ws 2 Bs 4 St 4 To 5 In 1 At 1 Ld 10 Sv 3+

Slow and Purposeful

Feel no Pain

Relentless

Gauss Rifle:
Range: 18, St 3, AP 5, Heavy 1, Rending.

20~25pts a model.

Ktulhut wrote:My opinion?
Ws 2 Bs 4 St 4 To 5 In 1 At 1 Ld 10 Sv 3+

Slow and Purposeful

Feel no Pain

Relentless

Gauss Rifle:
Range: 18, St 3, AP 5, Heavy 1, Rending.

20~25pts a model.

str 3 no way, ap 3 lasguns with st3 get about 3 kills in 20 shots, ap 5 str 3 heavy 1 is epic fail for 25 points. str 4 at LEAST

Um, rending+relentless? When shooting with large units, one tends to roll enough sixes. I play necrons and I'm still of this opinion. I suppose I'm not used to fielding them against MEQ though, so I probably have a skewed perspective.

I’m a little puzzled by the need in this thread to reduce the effectiveness of the Necrons. In all the games I’ve played against necrons I never thought “these things would be more interesting to play against if their stats were worse.” Every time I’ve played them they’ve wandered about for a bit, doing a bit of shooting damage, before I’ve piled into assault, broken the warriors and either run them down or chased them off the board.

I think Necron stats are fine as they are, and what they really need is a boost to damage output of their basic troops and to be a bit more resilient in combat. I think ‘stubborn’ would solve the latter quite nicely, I’m not sure what would fix the former.

kill dem stunties wrote:As for soldiers being more accurate than 2/3rds .... you greatly overestimate their accuracy, modern armies are 20% or less in combat situations.

The 2/3 hit ratio of BS 4 doesn’t actually mean 2/3 of all shots fired hit the target. If that was the case then we’d be looking at a universe where human vs humans (IG vs IG) would hit half the time, but only half of those hits would have any effect on the target. Which makes no damn sense. BS 4 just means the guy is more effective at shooting than a BS 3 guy, the actual dice rolled and successes scored don’t mean anything in and of themselves.

Are necrons great? Sure. Do I play them? Absolutely. Collect them? Yes. Like asking and then answering my own questions? Absolutely.

Ktulhut wrote:My opinion?
Ws 2 Bs 4 St 4 To 5 In 1 At 1 Ld 10 Sv 3+

Slow and Purposeful

Feel no Pain

Relentless

Gauss Rifle:
Range: 18, St 3, AP 5, Heavy 1, Rending.

20~25pts a model.

I agree with this.

However.... why both Slow and Purposeful AND Relentless? Those two rules do the same thing, with the exception of Slow and Purposeful forcing them to take a difficult terrain test every time they move.

Nix Relentless, it doesn't add anything, just give them Slow and Purposeful.

Make it Heavy 2 or S4 and as Saint says Relentless is included with S&P, and I'd say 18/20 pts going by current Marine standards, otherwise you're getiing towards GK style rapid fire rapings even with T5

E: IMHO of course

Ktulhut wrote:My opinion?
Ws 2 Bs 4 St 4 To 5 In 1 At 1 Ld 10 Sv 3+

Slow and Purposeful

Feel no Pain

Relentless

Gauss Rifle:
Range: 18, St 3, AP 5, Heavy 1, Rending.

20~25pts a model.

Well, the pt cost would be too high for a basic model in the troop section.
WBB should be replaced by FNP.
The rest is debatable.

No T5 as it renders a large amount of small arms useless and means only S10 weapons instant kill, i think their stats are good enough they just need more variety

BenManicom wrote:No T5 as it renders a large amount of small arms useless and means only S10 weapons instant kill, i think their stats are good enough they just need more variety

It does make sense that only exceptionally powerful weapons can instakill them, what with being made of living metal and all. The only thing I can think of not making much sense would be power fists, which for SM hit at S8. I can see a power fist instakilling just about any infantry.

And I wouldn't say it renders small arms useless. Think about it this way. If they had T5, bolters would wound on a 5+ (33%), pulse rifles would wound on a 4+ (50%), and lasguns would wound on a 6+. Given the general uselessness of lasguns (sorry, but it's true), that makes sense to me.

Given that a single Guard platoon might have fifty lasguns pointed at you, though, I don't think it'll hurt Guard players too much.

If they made them T5 it wouldn't make small arms useless, bc there will be less of them so it'd still even out, and I think it would reinforce the whole unkillable robot theme, I mean tau would still have to 4+ with the basic weapons to wound. Ok Flashlights would need 6's but at 20+ points per model you could put a lot of shots onto each model.

Well a battle cannon is Sr8 and I can see them vapourising any Necrons instantly as well

BenManicom wrote:Well a battle cannon is Sr8 and I can see them vapourising any Necrons instantly as well

And Lascannons are S9, and could conceivably vaporize a Cron. Yes. There are certain weapons that won't make as much sense against T5 Crons.

I'd say it's debatable, but T5 still fits the fluff better, and that's what makes 40k armies make sense to me.

I don't see BC vapourising anything personally, shattering PA maybe but vapourising a living metal? You have to heat steel to about 1400 deg C if I remember rightly and I don't see a standard tank explosive shell being that hot over such a large blast. But maybe thats just me, and anyway I know I'm getting into real world science and I hate it when my brain makes me do that

SaintHazard wrote:

I agree with this.

However.... why both Slow and Purposeful AND Relentless? Those two rules do the same thing, with the exception of Slow and Purposeful forcing them to take a difficult terrain test every time they move.

Nix Relentless, it doesn't add anything, just give them Slow and Purposeful.

Does Slow and Purposeful automatically grant Relentless? My bad. I thought they were two seperate rules now.

Ktulhut wrote:

SaintHazard wrote:

I agree with this.

However.... why both Slow and Purposeful AND Relentless? Those two rules do the same thing, with the exception of Slow and Purposeful forcing them to take a difficult terrain test every time they move.

Nix Relentless, it doesn't add anything, just give them Slow and Purposeful.

Does Slow and Purposeful automatically grant Relentless? My bad. I thought they were two seperate rules now.

They are two separate rules.

Relentless lets you fire heavy and rapid fire weapons as if stationary, even after having moved.

S&P lets you fire heavy and rapid fire weapons as if stationary, even after having moved, and you have to take a difficult terrain test every time you move.

So the difference is just whether or not you roll for difficult terrain before moving. The shooting effect is identical.

Personaly.. necrons are just about right stat wise... The only thing that seriously ruins them is the phase out rule.

Think about it.... wouldn't they just phase out at the end of the game? Makes more sense.

And the whole possibility of them running away, tad silly if you ask me.

And so we're clear P76 of the mini BRB says under S&P:

"models with this rule are relentless" so yeah it automatically grants relentless.

DEATH89 wrote:And the whole possibility of them running away, tad silly if you ask me.

And so we're clear P76 of the mini BRB says under S&P:

"models with this rule are relentless" so yeah it automatically grants relentless.

I originally thought that giving them LD10 across the board did this nicely, but now that I think about it, Fearless makes more sense...

And taking that extra wound instead of running away might balance out T5 nicely.

Edit: Maybe give them Fearless if they're within 12" of a Lord, or something similar, and otherwise let LD10 take care of it?

Crons should be fearless. They are in effect, walking robots bent on killing - what do they have to fear?

S&P certainly makes sense. Just look at the Dawn of War intro video that has the crons - they look S&P to me.

Rending also makes sense for gauss weapons in this edition. It makes them strong and scary without over-powering the crons too much.

FNP is a good alternative to WBB. It elimates a special rule and streamliens the rules into this edition - just like making gauss weapons rending.

Increasing the toughness of the standard warriors seems a little much. T4 with a 3+ save and FNP is plenty.

Vrakk wrote:Crons should be fearless. They are in effect, walking robots bent on killing - what do they have to fear?

S&P certainly makes sense. Just look at the Dawn of War intro video that has the crons - they look S&P to me.

Rending also makes sense for gauss weapons in this edition. It makes them strong and scary without over-powering the crons too much.

FNP is a good alternative to WBB. It elimates a special rule and streamliens the rules into this edition - just like making gauss weapons rending.

Increasing the toughness of the standard warriors seems a little much. T4 with a 3+ save and FNP is plenty.

They're not exactly numerous, so I guess my point was increase to T5 and increase model cost to 25 points or so. Fewer tougher models also makes sense for Crons, since they're not exactly numerous, and they're not exactly made of plywood, or even ceramite. Something much harder, in fact. Living metal.

By making them higher poitns costs and T5 aren't you making metal plague marines?

By keeping their toughness down you can keep their poitns down. This means you would have to buy more minatures to fill an army. What route do you think GW will go?

Vrakk wrote:By making them higher poitns costs and T5 aren't you making metal plague marines?

By keeping their toughness down you can keep their poitns down. This means you would have to buy more minatures to fill an army. What route do you think GW will go?

Saying Crons at T5 will be metal plague marines is like saying Crons right now are just metal nilla marines. They're marine equivalents, not marines.

Anyway, yes, more models directly translates into more money for GW, so that's probably the route they'll take, but we're talking fluff and army balance here, not "what will GW logically do?"

In the end, the answer to that one will always be "whatever makes them the most money."

I've never heard those arguments, but I have the same opinion as you about Necrons, lowmanjason. Necrons were one of the armies I thought on while choosing my first (and probably last) w40k army, with Chaos Space Marines and Tyranids, but I finally took CSM (as you can see on my avatar ). Necrons are one of my favourite w40k races, and they should be as strong as possible. Again, I'm with you in this.

Well, after reading through the topic a bit thought I would comment. I tried to base my arguments in relevance to how awesome crap is in the 40k universe, rationalizing things from a perspective of a human on a xeno is completely insane... but hey we all try.

In regards to Necron statline, I think the warriors are as they should be. Living metal justifies their armor value, WBB and toughness. MEQs are mushy in the middle, they only get their save from some armor plating, but inside nice and chewy, whereas the 'crons are all metal all the time. Equal balance there. Same argument for T4 on the warriors. One would think in a 40k environment that the Necrons after sleeping for 60mil years they might be a little less awesome than they were. Whose to say they weren't all ballistic skill 5 or 6 before they began to hibernate?. I mean if I were a star god deciding to transform an entire race into a shooty death army, I would make sure they can shoot crap allllll day. So in the 40k universe with all the tech that is available it is completely believeable that a marine might shoot just as well as a cron, but a cron would shoot better than a standard guardsmen. BS4 justified.

FNP vs WBB.
One of my friends and I had this debate a while back. And I went for the FNP just for game mechanics as I, as a necron player, get all sorts of questions on WBB. But the WBB is really the flavor of the army. FNP makes sense sure, soul less robots wouldn't feel pain, both could be justified, but the fluff wise them reassembling just fits better. Game mechanics wise, removing models to keep out of assualt, and standing up on my turn rather than just liking getting hit, I personally like it better. Bane of my existence is Pariahs, I love them, expensive as hell but armor sucks for something so expensive and not necron. As that were, I would love to see them have FNP, fits fluff wise too. Newest Necron unit, not all living metal bodies yet, wouldnt feel pain as they would be at least a little wired in the head, and makes them a tad more survivable than they are at the current point cost making them rediculous expensive, and they'd still die to fast initiative power weapons in CC and ap2 weapons like they do now.

Slow and purpseful
In a word, no. Have you played a 'cron army? they are about as slow as it gets minus a few options. The range on the warriors guns makes them useless 1 to 2 game turns for anything that sits back and shoots. Lets make that 3 turns because of slow and purposeful? reduce the point value on them and we'll talk, but I think it would nerf them too much. Robots should be able to multitask, walk and shoot, I agree so relentless makes sense, but slow and purposeful would only nerf them. It always seems to me that SAP is a game mechanic that is used to slow down something that gets there too fast. Crons aren't that by any means. I could understand it added to Pariahs if they had an invuln save or cheaper or possibly even a 2+ armor. But in the rest of the army it only nerfs a non tier 1 army.

Fluff argues that Necrons are beatable. So they should not be uber awesome. They should be MEQs for the fact that you can beat them, and they can beat you. Leave it up to a general's tactics and choices in army roster to decide the fate of the universe, not nerfing an army or rediculous statlines. There is a trade off for Necrons and their WBB over MEQ's, theyre more expensive! 18pts a troop is not cheap. Only elite armies like death wing, black templar, GK are higher in pt cost. Which makes sense, as man to man 'crons will lose.

How good should 'crons be?
Better than they are. I'm a believer that all armies should be able to be fielded to an effective extent against all other armies, destroy that Tier 1 army list by making them all competive. But, for 'crons I dont think that needs to happen by altering what's out there. But by adding choices and fun tricks to play. I mean Demons have skulltaker 140pts, instant death on a 4+ , I can t even have a troop choice at 140 pts! That point is made to say I want more variety in the army. Allowing different builds, allows more combinations, more nastiness and overall more fun to the game. Take tyranids for example, how many different special characters do they have? more than I can list off by memory, I have two and everyone knows who they are, and both are at least 300pts. I think that adding variety to the 'crons can be made to fit in the fluff, after all it states that no one knows how many tomb worlds there are, so whose to say what hasn't awaked.

Oh we need wraith lords. oh that was taken? um super wraiths? ok fine i ll stop naming them, just grive my 41 pt 1 wound model a power weapon please?

How about no SnP and just not the ability to run? Static advance seems more machine like than random steps and long strides.

WBB as normal but at the end of every phase instead of start of the turn, adds a sense of rethought to moves when you spent a turn shooting down a large unit only for it to rise again that turn.

Gauss grants rending. Why would they be able to blow open a land raider on both end and yet a Marine still gets an armor save?

Keep the statline but a lower WS.

sebster wrote:I’m a little puzzled by the need in this thread to reduce the effectiveness of the Necrons.

I'm not suggesting this at all. What I'm wanting, rather, is that there is a much more noticeable difference between Warriors and the more elite choices such as Immortals. Immortals are allowed to keep a portion of their personality and intelligence, whereas Warriors aren't. Warriors are the cheap hordes of unrelenting undead machines. Immortals are the elites they bring in to crack hard targets and wipe out the enemy's elites.

Melissia wrote:

sebster wrote:I’m a little puzzled by the need in this thread to reduce the effectiveness of the Necrons.

I'm not suggesting this at all. What I'm wanting, rather, is that there is a much more noticeable difference between Warriors and the more elite choices such as Immortals. Immortals are allowed to keep a portion of their personality and intelligence, whereas Warriors aren't. Warriors are the cheap hordes of unrelenting undead machines. Immortals are the elites they bring in to crack hard targets and wipe out the enemy's elites.

Maybe immortals should be leaders for squads of warriors, like a seargent. Use that extra bit of self awareness to direct and command. Same for heavy destroyers, let them be an upgrade fro destroyers. Let them confer a USR like stubborn for the warriors. Give the Necrons a little bit extra variety to force org in the process. Same choices new builds. You're elites get to lead a squad, or stand alone. Fits the rest of the 40k universe and fluff I think.

themrsleepy wrote:

Melissia wrote:

sebster wrote:I’m a little puzzled by the need in this thread to reduce the effectiveness of the Necrons.

I'm not suggesting this at all. What I'm wanting, rather, is that there is a much more noticeable difference between Warriors and the more elite choices such as Immortals. Immortals are allowed to keep a portion of their personality and intelligence, whereas Warriors aren't. Warriors are the cheap hordes of unrelenting undead machines. Immortals are the elites they bring in to crack hard targets and wipe out the enemy's elites.

Maybe immortals should be leaders for squads of warriors, like a seargent. Use that extra bit of self awareness to direct and command. Same for heavy destroyers, let them be an upgrade fro destroyers. Let them confer a USR like stubborn for the warriors. Give the Necrons a little bit extra variety to force org in the process. Same choices new builds. You're elites get to lead a squad, or stand alone. Fits the rest of the 40k universe and fluff I think.

Ignore this post, apparently I didn't read that second to last sentence before I responded.

Sainthazard, congrats on ninjaing your own post before I could read it lol

So here is my final thought on this section.

Warriors should stay the same. I don’t like the idea of changing any stats. Slow and Purposeful… no, I don’t want my slow army to be any slower and the real punch of my warriors is within rapid fire range not 24 inches.

Feel no pain… I prefer We’ll be Back. FnP may be streamlined but WbB is just a Necron thing. Try taking ATSKNF from Marines and see how they like it. Tweak it but keep it We’ll be Back.

Phase Out… get rid of it. I already have one of the most expensive armies out there. Phase Out makes me spend more then takes away 25% of my army after I field it. Not fair.

Stay tuned for the next set of ideas later today!

If you remove phase out, you should also make monoliths vulnerable to melta.

The only thing I can say about ditching phase out, is its nigh impossible to be tabled if it s not there. It s how Necrons are allowed such an awesome monolith. I mean, take three in a three objective game and call it a draw, deep strike all three and tada draw! Phase out isn't the huge downfall imho, its just our lack of builds for the army. although i have been toying with rather odd builds (combat necs) as of late out of boredom. Just min warriors lots of wraiths dp lords and pariahs. just for giggles. Against most armies it s generally a tie. Phase out only happens against black templar land raider spams, cause my ctan misses every time.

lowmanjason wrote:I've read that too but it was fan fiction i dont know how official it was

its in official fluff.

from the 40k 4th ed rulebook:

"Should irreparable damage occur, the Necron 'phases out'. Body and consciousness are teleported to the nearest tomb complex, where they remain in storage until such time as repairs can be effected or a new form can be forged. such seeming inviolability is not without its limitations, and each act of transference exacerbates any weakness in the Necron's engrams. A necron that has 'died' several times will often be little more than a shambling automaton, with no memory of the creature it once was."

Ok this next set will cover some questions about some other units and concerns had with them.

1. Nercon lords, should they have tiers?

a. Hmm. I don’t know. I think I would rather just have some more wargear options or even specific lords with a purpose i.e. this lord is for combat, this lord is for shooting, this lord is for support, those type of things. I would like some named lords, it says in the codex that they are able retain their old personalities and what not. Plus it would probably give us some new models. People talk about this wraithlord all the time but you can make one now with the current wargear using the destroyer body and phase shifter and then using the “counts as” rule. And you can model it however you want.



2. Wraiths should have power weapons or rending.

a. I can go with or without either of these. S6 already hits pretty hard, it’s not a critical point for me. My concern is…


3. Wraith squad size should be upped.

a. Agreed 100%. Minimum of 3 and max of 6 sounds about right to me. It just makes an expensive unit a little more survivable without making them harder to kill. Leave the points the same with no other changes and its fine with me.



4. Flayed Ones as troops?

a. Why not? Really, why not. For a troops choice they make perfect sense (same cost, same stats besides attacks) and are pretty lame for an elite choice. Move through cover isn’t that great especially when they need help from a pariah or lord to support them for their other special rule terrifying visage.[/color]


So that’s the next set. Have at it!

Obsidian Raven wrote:

lowmanjason wrote:I've read that too but it was fan fiction i dont know how official it was

its in official fluff.

from the 40k 4th ed rulebook:

"Should irreparable damage occur, the Necron 'phases out'. Body and consciousness are teleported to the nearest tomb complex, where they remain in storage until such time as repairs can be effected or a new form can be forged. such seeming inviolability is not without its limitations, and each act of transference exacerbates any weakness in the Necron's engrams. A necron that has 'died' several times will often be little more than a shambling automaton, with no memory of the creature it once was."

That's kinda what I was thinking about for Warriors. Thus WS/BS/I of 3 or worse, and no running (But they can always fire their weapons regardless of movement or other variables such as going to ground, including whatever heavy weapons they're given as squad support weapons). Add FNP alongside WBB, too.

kill dem stunties wrote:Because of game balance? If they improve necrons in any significant way without addressing either their toughness, save, or double wbb'ing through monos, crons would be ridiculously op

You do realize that Warriors can no longer kill vehicles right off the bat any more, right?

My thoughts,
Lord tiers. Yes. I would love to have more options for lords. I really like the way that they show up in apocolypse with random abilities. Although those are apocolypse formations, I would like toned down versions for regular 40k. Many people run wraithwing or destroyer spam, so how bout a lord that has a few more attacks to run with that wraith wing or one that can shoot at range attached to destroyers. Would it drastically change the army? Not that I know of, but moving a few extra shots around on DP and having the destroyers augmented by the Lord, yea I'd pay a few extra points.

Wraiths, for 41 points I think they should have something. I mean, sure theyre really fast, and always strike at I6 regardless of terrain, but unless you're assualting IG or EQ its just a tar pit squad unless you attach a lord and that changes your 123 pt fast attack to a minimum of 253. Squad size would be a fair adjustement, 5 would be acceptable, but then again, Necrons are 'supposed' to be a shooty army, so should the assualt squads get the revamp? That low model count in the unit really is a downfall when considering WBB, maybe they should be traded to the elite slot and given rending, the flayed ones would go fast attack and gain fleet. Now that may make a little sense.

Flayed ones as troops. I really never field them. Too slow to get there and their number is always too low to make a difference. Giving them dfields and outflanking against an ig player to tag a bassalisk is useful, but I'd rather just shoot with destroyers or a lith or take scarab bases. Oh, one thought, I think the terrifying visage should effect shooting at them under 24". I mean if I saw something coming at me wearing the skins of my comrades I may not have the ballz to shoot. But it could be added that if they pass leadership by so much, they get a righteous zeal and get an extra shot or hit on one better BS. Something to balance it I guess.

To address Melissa's comment on warrior BS. I agree that it is possible to see warriors as lower than BS4. It s why Im a big advocate of having Immortals as an upgrade for a squad. Then they could justify that the more well taken care of immortals would direct the fire. Necrons function on synergy with each other and I dont think it would be to far fetched to think an Immortal would be able to help lead a squad to more success. This also helps with the suvivability of a squad, take one of those lascannon pot shots on the immortal and he can get back up if out of rez range, whereas a warrior could not... even if it makes sense for him to come back only as a warrior, as he was destroyed a little too much to retain his former glory.

Warriors and vehicle killing.
AFAIK, land raiders and walkers are about the toughest for warriors to kill. Reasons being stunned and shaked results are for the most part not cared about, and numerous weapons prevent the stun to death. Other than that, its completely believable to stun out a small transport like a chimera rhino or on a good day a russ. It will take more than equivalent point value of fire, but that s not always a bad thing as they can make up that point sink later. I am not a fan of changing guass to rending. Rt now a warrior squad has a chance of damaging a land raider, change guass to rending, not a chance at all. Necrons do not have enough high strength weapons to justify taking that cut. Our only options are the Ctan's pocket las, a mobile las (heavy d) for 65 points or a direct hit from a lith. Think about how much a las cannon costs in a marine squad... we pay 65 points, same armor save, +1T and WBB is generally negated as theyre just arent enough to have that actually happen? sounds too expensive. Back to my squad upgrade idea, adding a HD to a destroyer squad where it can hide and try to survive a little... now that would be worth it. 15 pts for an upgrade from a 6 4 H3 to a 9 2 H1, that's pretty standard across the board. I mean how many points is a melta and it gets ap1 and 2d6 armor pen on most things.

Well, Im talking about costs... so I will admit there is one thing in the army that is undercosted. Warscythe for the lord. Maybe not though. He is 100pts base, comes with a shooty power weapon. So to break it down some, you figure 80pts for a 3w t5 model, 20 for a shooty power weapon, and ten more to change that out for a WS that has no shooting. so 30 pts in reality that WS, Force weapons cost what 25 ish? so a few extra points and you are very limited on number you can field, sounds ok to me.

IHOP

Some of the arguments here talk about the fluff being directly related to the game. Any army can make that argument and thus make them probably super over-powered. The two things that I'm agreeing with here are that phase-out is a problem and the lack of choice in a necron army. Of course, taking out phase-out completely would probably just have people run a ton of monoliths which some armies have a huge problem taking out. It needs to be reworked though. I'll agree with that. More choice would be a wonderful thing to add to the necrons too. No matter what, I feel like the goal of any game is to get the necrons to phase out and thus cause a victory. So, any game with necrons basically turns into annihilation. Maybe adding more choice to the necron army would possibly change what phasing out would be. Have some variation of phase-out depending on the army type. I don't know, maybe?

Fluff is not directly related to the game, but it is still related.

Well that's the beauty of 40k. If you relate the fluff to the gaming (which I do) then yes, every army can be super-overpowered. But when every army is super-overpowered, there's no such thing as overpowered. Overpowered is now normal.

Two overpowered armies duking it out is the same as two underpowered armies. No advantage is given by the excess power.

the flayed ones would go fast attack and gain fleet. Now that may make a little sense.

i dont knoow about fast attack but i think fleet would be better than move through cover, good idea

They should be as "good" as their points value. If you want super-mega-kill-all robots be prepared to pay the points.

Shas'O Dorian wrote:They should be as "good" as their points value. If you want super-mega-kill-all robots be prepared to pay the points.

I think your kinda missing the point of this thread, its kinda a cross between wishlisting and debating ideas of what the necrons SHOULD be in relation to fluff and competitiveness with the newer armies. Please be a little more specific with any ideas!

Necrons should be Squatted.

They were a lame army for entry-level players: small number unit types, few options, simple to build a list, easy to paint, etc.

The suggestions here follow the likely direction GW would take to make them harmonious with the new codices. That is, make them plague marines with different models.

Blech!

Small number of unit types with few options and a simple build just means they have more room for expansion.

Besides, all third edition codices were like that.

I'm actually a bit worried about something else that I don't really see others talking about much. Lack of mechanization. There are 3 armies in 40K that don't have the option to be mechanized, daemons, Nids, and Necrons. Everyone else has the option of armor for protecting their troops (at least somewhat) from both small arms and ordnance, and for mobility. My two armies are Necrons and Daemons, and I know the daemons can have a bit of an issue against a fully mechanized list, particularly when the ordnance flies. Just too difficult to pop the cans to get the guys out (something necrons share as of now), and no protection from the hail of ordnance, another shared trait. So I'm of the opinion that they need a significant boost.

Possibilities :
1) Instead of, or more hopefully in addition to armor saves, invulnerable saves across the board. Maybe 4+/4++ for warriors, 3+/3++ for immortals, destroyers.

2) WBB - Combine it with a diff version of phase out. When a necron unit is reduced to 25% strength, the player has the option of phasing the unit out, giving up a KP, and having a 'replacement' unit identical to the original at full strength, deepstrike near any res orb, spider, or monolith on the board and functioning at the beginning of their next turn.

Just thoughts for increasing the durability of the army, which seems to be the theme behind them.

As for flayed ones. Sigh, I've heard "Make them troops!" for quite some time. I counter with, 'Make them usefull." Elites, no shooting, meh CC. Deepstrike and infilltrate, well DS is about pointless if they can't assault that round, and can't weather the shooting or CC specialists that are now right in front of them. Infiltrate is nice but not something thats reliable enough that you can depend on it. And terrifying visage. Really needs to be reworked. Completely useless. You have 2 kinds of opponents, those that are decent in CC, and those that aren't. The ones who aren't, you don't need it against them, it doesn't significantly add anything. The ones who are good in CC, it doesn't help against, they tend to have a high enough leadership, or are fearless in some way, so pretty much ignore it. I'd hardly call them Elites, even in 4th they weren't all that good. So I guess troops is fine, but as is, shouldn't be more than 14-15 pts. Now, give them a 3+/4++, and terrifying visage do something useful, like turn off fearless and/or furious charge in opponents, and act as defensive grenades, then I'd say that they were more worth it. Give them rending on top of it, and I'd say you have a case for making them elites again.

utan wrote:Necrons should be Squatted.

They were a lame army for entry-level players: small number unit types, few options, simple to build a list, easy to paint, etc.

The suggestions here follow the likely direction GW would take to make them harmonious with the new codices. That is, make them plague marines with different models.

Blech!

Sounds like someone hate the Monolith triforce.

I am amazed at so many people seeking nerfed Necrons. Currently, they are virtually pointless on the table with 5th Ed. changes. They need more than just a couple of things like Feel No Pain, gauss weapons only having a minus 1 on glancing hits, Stubborn (as they used to really stick around in CC), new units, get SOME options, and increase the numbers in their smaller units (wraiths, etc.) to make them survivable. Slow and Purposeful could work with some units; sort of the whole implacable advance idea. However, their stats are fine as they were always balanced by their initiative, lack of army options, being the only army that auto-loses if people focus solely on your infantry, AND their general lack of AP. People always cursed them as a 'shooty army' until Tau came out.

Why do you think we're wanting to NERF necrons?

When I made my suggestions, I had a decreased price in mind along with it. The endless zombie hordes.

Here's a thought I've had for a while that is both interesting and fits Necron fluff: Since Necron engrams degrade over time, players should be able to field different tiers of Necron Warriors, much like how IG can use conscripts and veterans for their troops. Same models, but different points costs and statlines. So you could take a Warrior Horde army with lots of uber-degraded Warriors with crappy stats, or an elite force of "fresh" Warriors and Immortals with better stats.

Also, new Troops options would be nice. I liked the idea of "assault warriors" that is, standard Warriors that exchange guass flayers for a pistol/CCW combo, Storm Guardian style, with perhaps better Initiative to reflect enhanced close combat programs.

They also could use a dedicated transport of some kind.

FNP is fine too

Also, Lords need more options and more personality. ie Vanilla Lord, Shooty Lord, Support Lord, or Melee Lord

Also, either make guass weapons rending or make Destroyers/Heavy Destroyers more survivable.

with these changes alone, Necrons would have more options allowing for different builds, and could be geared towards different roles without becoming Blood Angel-level OP

Melissia wrote:
When I made my suggestions, I had a decreased price in mind along with it. The endless zombie hordes.

I like this idea, but you have to remember that there are only 6 Troops slots. Other horde armies like IG have managed to get around this with Platoons, Tyranids with Tervigons, and Orks with Boyz Squads. So we're going to need to see an increase in the max squad number for Necrons. They're currently 10 per squad now, right? Either way, I think that Warriors should be put somewhere between the Ork/SM region as a unit. The OP seems to be thinking that these guys are just as good as they were at the beggining, which just honestly is not true. The newer editions such as Pariahs should be better, and some of the more well kept Immortals, but the Warriors aren't as fantastic in the fluff as the OP makes them out to be.

I'm also in favour of replacing the WBB rule with a *better* FNP, rather than a combo of the two. A 3+ FNP, maybe?

Personally I think the Necron Warrior unit needs to basically become two units. The Necrons need more than one troop choice anyways. In the fluff, the necrons are super durable, but often come as a huge unstoppable horde as well. There needs to be a Necron warrior unit priced in the 16-20 point range with stats to match. I think there should also be a weaker, Necron slave/zombie unit priced at around 9-11 points a model. Maybe these are the broken down Necrons who degraded in their tombs, and I think this would play up the "Space Undead" side of their fluff.

I feel that all Necrons should have slow and purposeful, but have ways to deepstrike during the game. Why would Necrons walk when they could just teleport? This would help to make up for their lack of transports.

My idea for WBB and phase out is thus. In each game phase any Necron models lost by a unit are tipped over. If that unit fails a morale test and falls back before the end of the phase, those tipped over models "phase out". If the unit holds, then you get to make your 4+ WBB roll at the end of the phase or remove models. Remove the 25% phase out rule entirely.

Right sorry kurgash.

I did put some thought into how gauss would work better vs vehicles without making it OP (ala rending across the board)

Gauss - Weapons with the "Gauss" special rule gain D3 to armor penetration rolls on a roll of 6 to penetrate. (I.E. they can only rend vehicles)

This way they get a boost against vehicles that doesn't harm troops. Much like they have now.

How about Pariahs as a squad upgrade? They are supposed to be the next wave of necron, and it would be nice to have that phase weapon to get a little more punch in CC.

Also, have pariahs negate psyker spells that are targeted at the squad they are leading on a 4+ similar to a rune priest. It is quite sad that the army that hates the warp so much has no psychic defense. . .

Ok so I think that’s enough for that batch of subject, I think my final opinion on this one is as follows:

1. Necron Lords-

I would like some named lords, and some more wargear

2. Wraiths-

up the squad size and I’m good. No big changes here

3. Wraiths-

power weapons or rending, I can go with or without them… whatever as long as they stay at 41 points or less.

4. Flayed Ones-

I like the idea of giving them “Fleet”! That was a great suggestion. I would take that over “Move Through Cover” any day. And I would like to see a special rule being added that they can charge after Deep Striking. Make both of these changes and I think it justifies them being an Elite. Without them I think they should be a troops choice.
Ok so that about does that. I will add the next subjects very shortly and we can get started on them soon. Also after all the units and discussion has been covered I will compile a summary of all the suggestions and post them so we can all look back one day and see how far off we were from the actual developments!

Emperors Faithful wrote:

Melissia wrote:
When I made my suggestions, I had a decreased price in mind along with it. The endless zombie hordes.

I like this idea, but you have to remember that there are only 6 Troops slots.

Yes, so let them take larger numbers of these metal zombies. Necrons can already take up to 20 per squad, so increasing that to 30 doesn't seem so bad with reduced cost on degraded warriors.

Melissia wrote:

Emperors Faithful wrote:

Melissia wrote:
When I made my suggestions, I had a decreased price in mind along with it. The endless zombie hordes.

I like this idea, but you have to remember that there are only 6 Troops slots.

Yes, so let them take larger numbers of these metal zombies. Necrons can already take up to 20 per squad, so increasing that to 30 doesn't seem so bad with reduced cost on degraded warriors.

They're really just Shoota Boyz, the Dok just got a little too enthusiastic.

Then 20 and have the degraded warriors have a strengthened WBB roll (after all they don't care if they die) like re-rolls or add another d6 and pick the best.

I'm kidding. Your original idea was good.

Ok so here is the next list.

1. Immortals-

There have been suggestions of making them squad leaders or upgrades to warrior squads somehow. I say no. If anything I would rather see them as some sort of body guard/honor guard for lords. This fits, I think, as they were among the first of the Necrotyr to give up their bodies and such. It just adds a little flavor to them. Leave them elites, but can be taken as a retinue of a lord (up to 5) without a slot from the FOC. Also, if there was any unit in the Necron army that SHOULD have a 2+ save it would be these guys. I think that would be my best change to them above any other. Give them the 2+ SAVE.

2. Pariahs-

These guys are one of my favorite units. Unfortunately they are hard to get to the fight and expensive. So people again have said make them upgrades to warriors as squad leaders, give them invul saves, give them FNP… I DON’T KNOW WHAT TO DO WITH THESE GUYS. In fluff, these guys are awesome. On paper they are pretty good too. Firepower and toughness of the immortals, strength and weapons of the lords, and some neat special rules. Put them on the field though and suddenly every gun on the table that’s not pointed at the monolith or C’tan is pointed at these guys. I guess my best suggestion would be give Deep Strike capability and leave them alone. If they aren’t Necrons they aren’t Necrons. WBB is out but FNP makes sense for these guys though. So give these guys FNP. So FNP or Deep Strike but not both, they are already too pricey.

3. Scarab Swarms-

These little bastards are not to be underestimated! Even in 5th Edition, these things kill Land Raiders dead. But I kinda think the “option” to take disruption fields with them is kinda pointless. They are not nearly as useful without them. Also, I think they should be a troop choice. They even come packaged with the troops choice. In fluff they are the most numerous of Necron units, who ever heard of being overrun but millions of fast attack choices? I say put these guys in the troops category and leave them alone!

4. Tomb Spiders-

LAME… both the model and the rules. Artificer… that just turns my T6 MC to a T3 MC. Take that away and maybe make a “War Spider” or something. Give the model a makeover, add a gauss cannon or something and a BS/WS better than 2 and we might have a viable MC in our army. I guess you can keep the old types for the support role.

So there is the next batch. Let’s get started!

1. Immortals. We'll have to disagree on the squad upgrade option But definately a no as a 5 man retinue for the lord. Really isn't that much of a difference between joining him in a squad and making them a retinue, IMO. 2+ save, eh maybe, I could understand it if I could give the Lord a piece of wargear that would upgrade his save to a 2+ otherwise why would they be able to have a better save than their leader? They are already expensive as is, I wouldnt want to pay more for them I think. I am overall pretty content with this unit, squad size could be higher, but not necessary I think.

2. Pariahs, 'the new breed' 2+ FNP, I d field them allllllllllllllll day Id even take them with their normal save if they had FNP. Makes sense, the model is pretty beefy looking and FNP may allow them to actually get there once in a while. All of a sudden their points value is undercosted if nothing else was changed. I would argue there is more reason to have immortals lead a squad than these guys, but that's arguable I guess. I would say the necron restriction on VOD should be removed, then you could deep strike these guys and make them a viable threat. I'd even settle for a larger LD modifying bubble. I think currently because their initiative is so low, they need some upgrade that either makes them get where they need to be faster, or somethign to make them tougher in H2H, at least at the 36pts they cost. BTW, one of my favorite units too, they may be overcosted currently, but I still field them for fun!

3. Scarabs. I love these guys too! There are lists I take that screw them out of their d-fields because i need those extra few points, but if they were a turbo boosting troop choice, I'd totally field 60 haha. Someone wanted horde necrons? up the squad size on these buggers to 15 or 20 and make them troops.

4. Tomb spyder. He only becomes a T3 if you create two scarab bases. Second cheapest MC in the game IIRC. I think his ballistic skill is too low to justify a Staff of light, but then fluff wise they are only supposed to be caretakers of tomb worlds, so they didnt get the shooty program the rest the army did. Maybe, just maybe before combat they spent a few minutes to upload the new shooty engram? Now they can't start on the table but they get to outflank. All of a sudden this unit is viable and exciting. Or something I just thought of maybe he can use his artificier skill to aid necrons more effectively than just joining another squad on the table, forgo a turn and make a destroyer by absorbing necrons that failed a WBB or instead of taking a WBB on say three or four. Merging a few bits together to create something new, or maybe something random. Takes 4 downed warriors eligible for WBB within six inches, roll a d6 and see what you get. Add some serious variety to it. Of course a 1 you get nothing, 2-3 warrior, 4-5 immortal, 6 Destroyer.

Just some spitballing:

Make certain necrons T4(5), makes them resistant to small arms fire, but still IDed from the bigger weapons.

Give them a cyborg type of Troop Choice (Like Husks from Mass Effect. I.E. people who are just starting to transform into necrons) that are worse than warriors but alot cheaper too.

Move Flayed Ones to Troops (giving them 3 troop choices)

bout all I can suggest without my book.

Actually the point of making the Immortals into a retinue is that a unit with retinue loses independent character until that retinue is destroyed.

Which means they can't be singled out in close combat.

Melissia wrote:Actually the point of making the Immortals into a retinue is that a unit with retinue loses independent character until that retinue is destroyed.

Which means they can't be singled out in close combat.

yea, but I'm in trouble if they are in close combat already. Especially with such a small squad size for a retinue. If i could differently equip the immortals and more than one wound i think it could be viable, but as is, no real bonus as I see it. No bonus to survivability to the group retinue versus squad joining, only to the lord if with a retinue, and I'd rather join him to a larger squad of immortals for WBB opportunities.

Speaking of someone who regularly uses Celestian retinues, I don't agree with you for an instant. Even just 5-person retinues can make a mediocre to okay HQ choice a damned bit stronger.

I guess i just can't wrap my head around it for the necrons. Maybe i ll talk to my friends about some playtesting until then you get a smiley and an if you say so (non sarcastic btw) lol

Well Necrons are tougher than Celestians, and Immortals in particular hit harder, too (T5, S4, WBB) even if their initiative is lower.

Melissia wrote:Speaking of someone who regularly uses Celestian retinues, I don't agree with you for an instant. Even just 5-person retinues can make a mediocre to okay HQ choice a damned bit stronger.

100% truth, though I view it as "Adding a hero makes this 5 man unit stronger," not "Adding 5 men to this hero makes him stronger."

I'm beggining to take a shine to this 'Immortal = Squad Leader' role. Makes sense from both a gaming, bigger better faster stronger, and fluff point of view, being the first to undergo the changes they should have leadership roles of some form.

Scarabs as a troops choice don't sound too bad.

Eh IMHO making the Immortal a squad leader wastes his potential. In my experience, Immortals are at their best when used in 8-10 man groups where they can maximize their firepower.

I suppose a compromise would be to allow them to do both, perhaps have an Immortal Squad Leader with different wargear and appearance who could lead Necron infantry (both Warriors and regular Immortals) in battle.

I don't thinkt hey suggested removing Immortals as a squad...

They didn't.

Personally I am all for scarabs as a troops choice. As someone who runs a Destroyer-heavy list, my troops are basically 360 (absolute minimum) points of dead weight. They're there to soak up wounds and keep my army from phasing out.

However, I will have to insist that if Scarabs become a Troops choice, they MUST have the Necron special rule. Just make them 18 points each instead of 12 (keep the squad capped at 9 bases), let them determine phase out (by bases, not wounds), and let them WBB. Keep in mind WBB is always with only one wound, so even though they have three wounds each, it wouldn't overpower them.

It's interesting to check back in on a thread and be referred to as a they! lol. Scarabs moving to troops as necrons, now that s something I certainly did not consider. Interesting idea though. Just for clarification on my idea of movement for immortals, I was suggesting it to be a squad of warriors with so many options for the upgrade. Say up to three warriors pay ten points to be upgraded to immortals per squad of warriors. You get all the advantages of upgrading like you do every other army in 40k, adds a few new ways to resolve ID wounds to the squad, and let s the army be a little more competitive without changing much for the 5th edition. Fun thought there, if you add a lord on a DB, to a ten man squad where three are immortals, and three warriors get killed, all of a sudden that squad is now toughness 6 to shoot at! hmmmm.

I think Scarabs as troops is fine. I also think Rippers and Squigs should be troops choices that are worth taking, too... the latter is sadly missing, and the former isn't really worth taking.