Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

JohnHWang:

Yeah, that seems to be the best, I dunno how it would actually play out...

OH, what I can do actually, tomorrow I am getting together with the friend I often play against, we'll try using the rules you suggested, and see how it goes

WBB is better in resisting ranged fire (downed models can't be 'hit again') and FNP is better for resisting CC losses (denies successful wounds)
CC and morale rules make WBB far to counter-intuitive
the WBB does not fit into the Wh40k rule set stylistically, either

2cents on FNP:
I'm hoping for FNP to become variable like Poison
ie bionics could be FNP 5+ or 6+, standard could be 4+, enhanced 3+, and so forth

It would give Necron wargear the ability to modify the three aspects of the FNP rule
Re-roll / reduction, increase / removal of denial through AP and PW
(though it would be great if the general rules just gave CC weapons AP levels and rule PWs as AP2)

JohnHwangDD wrote:Rending was basically about twice as good as it is now, so the nerf hit many Nids especially hard..

Point for point the standard 'stealer build is 93% as effective at taking out MEQs on the charge, so the nids were not nerfed nearly as hard as everyone thinks by rending.

When you're hitting with 8/9ths of your attacks it means Rending is 8/9ths as good as it was, not half

I'll agree that FNP would be simpler. Not that I'm an advocate of switching to it from WBB because of that reason, but I can see it.

My main hesitation on doing it, actually, has to do with plague marines. Both warriors and plague marines essentially have bolters. The Plague marines though, for only 5 points more, get a higher toughness, higher initiative, 3 kinds of grenades, 2 attacks in CC (pistol and CCW), and fearless. This is before upgrades and options. Switch WBB to FNP and you'll essentially be making slowed plague marines out of warriors. Immortals will be Plague marines with better shooting and worse CC. How do you keep Necrons different, in both function and flavor?

Feel No Pain is already an anomaly in the design principle of models only having one saving throw.

In another thread I suggested that We'll Be Back worked like Without Number, with units returning to the board via various deep strike (Veil of Darkness, Resurrection Orb), and portal methods (Monolith, Tomb Spyders, etc).

Rather than having a Phase Out number, phasing out would be intrinsic to whether the opposing player had managed to destroy the units that would allow Necron players to return units to the board (Lords, Tomb Spyders, Monoliths, etc).

Eight Ball wrote:JohnHWang:

OH, what I can do actually, tomorrow I am getting together with the friend I often play against, we'll try using the rules you suggested, and see how it goes

You know, of course that current Necrons aren't pointed against FNP and other revised effects, so you'll have some distortion in effectiveness / efficiency because the costs and such haven't caught up with the proposed rules.

I'm not 100% certain that there is a point/cost system in place for how much each USR, Special Rule, Stat, save, etc.. Partly because there's too much variety in what they should cost. FNP's usefullness and value change quite a bit as toughness goes up, and armor goes down. On a T3 model with a 5+ save, it's a lifesaver and will see frequent use, put it on a T5 with a 3+, and it won't come up as often. Taking into account things like that, with the full range of stats and such would require a table that GW doesn't give me the impression that they're operating with. It seems more like they make a unit, play a couple games, like 2-3, using it, and say something close to - "Well, it's an elite version of the troop, so it needs to cost more, it's got some better stats and a better gun, it was pretty nasty, but we don't want to price it out of existence. 28 seems about right. Can't have too many of them that way."

But if you change it to feel no pain then ap 1 and 2 weapons can't be saved against. Also if you kill off the whole unit then they can't unless the tomb spider or monolith are there. Really it's not that hard if you really just read the rules but I mean come. O yeah the guy that said if you have FNP or WBB then you should have a phase out. What about other armys that also have that like ork's?

WBB isn't that complicated, and the other question becomes when to calculate phase-out...

If you make it FNP, do you calculate at the end of the turn, or at the beginning of the next turn? As is, you take your count at the start of the turn, after you've taken your WBB rolls, and, in the late game, this can mean the difference between a solid victory and defeat for either player, especially in an objective-based game.

I think that when (if) we see a new Necron Codex it is indeed likely to be replaced with FNP.

As to why it might be disliked, I'm no fan of all the "exceptions to the exceptions" (good turn of phrase that) that make up the current Necron Codex.

WBB, the Monolith, Ressurrection Orb, etc...

Personally I dislike the Monolith's special rules more, I don't think its good game design to negate other rules (that exceptions thing again), give it an invulnerable save or something simple and be done with it.

Jack

Dronze wrote:If you make it FNP, do you calculate at the end of the turn, or at the beginning of the next turn?

I'd suggest to calculate Phase-Out end of each player's turn, that way, each turn ends "cleanly", and phase-out is also "clean".

Right now, it's at the start of the turn, after WBB, because WBB isn't completely resolved.
____

Jackmojo wrote:I'm no fan of all the "exceptions to the exceptions" (good turn of phrase that) that make up the current Necron Codex.

Personally I dislike the Monolith's special rules more, I don't think its good game design to negate other rules (that exceptions thing again), give it an invulnerable save or something simple and be done with it.

QFT. The Monolith (and the C'Tan) are really irritating because they really make things messy. It'd be far better and clearer to simply give the Monolith an Invulnerable save of some sort.

JohnHwangDD wrote:

Dronze wrote:If you make it FNP, do you calculate at the end of the turn, or at the beginning of the next turn?

I'd suggest to calculate Phase-Out end of each player's turn, that way, each turn ends "cleanly", and phase-out is also "clean".

Right now, it's at the start of the turn, after WBB, because WBB isn't completely resolved.

The latter part of that I already know, I've played against Necrons enough to know the mechanic almost like the back of my hand... But, just a thought on the idea of taking count at the end of the turn: You'd break the army. Taking the check at the end of each turn effectively makes a Necron player MORE likely to flat out lose a game due to phase out. Instead of taking the phase-out check once per turn (not to be confused with player turn...), you're having this mechanic run through and take headcount twice per turn, meaning that, come turns 5/6/7, when phase-out becomes less of a liability, it's actually MORE of one...

I suspect Necrons will see a shift away from WBB to FNP simply because it really is easier to deal with.

I would also suspect that, in line with what we've already seen, a huge slimming down in terms of wargear down to just a few options listed in the various entries in their rulebook. The WBB rule will likely be applied to specialist units with a very short little entry under Tomb Spyders or a Lord or Monolith.

Why? Because the weight of special rules is now on universal rather than cranking out a wash of new special rules with each new army book.

I'd also not be surprised that, in exchange for a simplification of WBB, we'd see a tweaking to Phase Out rules, if not removal of it all together.

Who knows what GW has in store for these guys.

Note: I always hated fighting these because the one consistent player was a beast with em.

JohnHwangDD wrote:

Jackmojo wrote:I'm no fan of all the "exceptions to the exceptions" (good turn of phrase that) that make up the current Necron Codex.

Personally I dislike the Monolith's special rules more, I don't think its good game design to negate other rules (that exceptions thing again), give it an invulnerable save or something simple and be done with it.

QFT. The Monolith (and the C'Tan) are really irritating because they really make things messy. It'd be far better and clearer to simply give the Monolith an Invulnerable save of some sort.

WAIT WAIT WAIT...what's wrong with the Monolith and C'Tan??

Also, an invulnerable save would be crap....people would just start looking for anti-invuln save weapons..and plus, that makes the Monolith WAY easier to kill, which I don't think should be changed

Eight Ball wrote:WAIT WAIT WAIT...what's wrong with the Monolith and C'Tan??

Also, an invulnerable save would be crap....people would just start looking for anti-invuln save weapons..and plus, that makes the Monolith WAY easier to kill, which I don't think should be changed

Very few things ignore invulnerable saves and the ones that can scratch the paint on AV14 are even rarer. The only ones I can think of off the top of my head are in the Necron codex. Replacing Living Metal with an invulnerable save would make it twice as hard to hurt a Monolith with lascannons and ordnance. It just evens out the difficulty so you don't have some armies with nothing that works and others that don't notice the rule exists.

Eight Ball wrote:

Jackmojo wrote:I'm no fan of all the "exceptions to the exceptions" (good turn of phrase that) that make up the current Necron Codex.

WAIT WAIT WAIT...what's wrong with the Monolith and C'Tan??

Also, an invulnerable save would be crap....people would just start looking for anti-invuln save weapons..and plus, that makes the Monolith WAY easier to kill, which I don't think should be changed

What Jackmojo is pointing out is the problem with the Necron codex having rules that override special rules. A chainfist is an exception to the Armor Penetration rule that rolls 2d6. Living Metal is a rule that counters the chainfist. Melta weapons, monstrous creatures, all have rules that allow them to do a special thing. And the monolith's rule says "no you don't." That's more irritating than a rule that messes up everything relatively equally, such as an invulnerable save.

And as to anti-invulnerable save weapons? I play GK. We ARE the anti-invulnerable save army. And I've got nothing that could override an invuln, AND roll 14 or more on Armor pen. As another poster noted, the only thing that could really do it is in the Necron codex. They're named the Nightbringer and the Deceiver.

And as to the C'tan...read the column of special rules they both have. A third of the text there is, in one form or another, "cancel that upgrade your opponent paid for". "Bionics don't work." "C'tan phase swords don't work" "wraithcannons don't work". Hell, even "invulnerable saves don't work" is technically in this category.

AllWillFall2Me wrote:

Eight Ball wrote:

Jackmojo wrote:I'm no fan of all the "exceptions to the exceptions" (good turn of phrase that) that make up the current Necron Codex.

WAIT WAIT WAIT...what's wrong with the Monolith and C'Tan??

Also, an invulnerable save would be crap....people would just start looking for anti-invuln save weapons..and plus, that makes the Monolith WAY easier to kill, which I don't think should be changed

What Jackmojo is pointing out is the problem with the Necron codex having rules that override special rules. A chainfist is an exception to the Armor Penetration rule that rolls 2d6. Living Metal is a rule that counters the chainfist. Melta weapons, monstrous creatures, all have rules that allow them to do a special thing. And the monolith's rule says "no you don't." That's more irritating than a rule that messes up everything relatively equally, such as an invulnerable save.

And as to anti-invulnerable save weapons? I play GK. We ARE the anti-invulnerable save army. And I've got nothing that could override an invuln, AND roll 14 or more on Armor pen. As another poster noted, the only thing that could really do it is in the Necron codex. They're named the Nightbringer and the Deceiver.

And as to the C'tan...read the column of special rules they both have. A third of the text there is, in one form or another, "cancel that upgrade your opponent paid for". "Bionics don't work." "C'tan phase swords don't work" "wraithcannons don't work". Hell, even "invulnerable saves don't work" is technically in this category.

Actually, Living metal isn't as broken as it would lead you to believe... it doesn't kill of all extra AP dice, only bonus ones, so instead of meltaguns rolling 2d6 at half range, they only roll 1. as far as I can tell, Chainfists, which get 2d6 base for AP, as well as Vanquisher Anti-Tank rounds, which also get 2d6 for their base AP rolls aren't affected by this, as it specifies "bonus" dice for AP... Implying that it woldn't normally get an extra dice without first meeting other criteria.

@ Dronze: Except that the rule uses chainfists, and monstrous creatures in its example of the sort of thing that doesn't roll more dice.

I'll have to check that out, then.

I find livinig metal more annoying then WBB (unless i'm playing my tau). I would rather see Living Metal changed to some form of obscurity perhaps 5+ at no points, 4+ (which is standard for wargear) as some sort of upgrade that can be given. OR, something along the lines of eldar halo field (roll 2d6 on chart choose lowest)...however eldar energy fields (on WS) have a similar rule allowing only 1d6 ap from ranged attacks on the front and side armour (rear and cc are uneffected).

A key difference is that Living metal works against all attacks, even those in CC, which is where a vehicle is weakest.

WBB is neither difficult to understand nor overpowered. Many other special rules are much more complicated to resolve, working differently in different scenarios. WBB works exactly as stated, and is unmodified by any conditions not explained in the Necron codex. It is supposed to be frustrating and demoralizing to the opponent. It's an army of the dead, get it?

Seeing a GK player complain about special rules that supercede other special rules is hilarious. Let me tell you a little story about a pot and a kettle...

Complaining about this rule (or Living Metal) is like complaining about how fast a Special Olympics sprinter can turn his wheels. If you want to fix Necrons, fix (or simply remove) phase-out. Phase-Out cripples Necron army building, and is the reason you never see many of the most interesting Necron units played. Lords, Monoliths, Warriors, Destroyers are everywhere. Pariahs? No thanks. Wraiths? I don't think so. These units ought to be adding fun and complexity to the codex, but instead there is no room for them in a competetive players list, since he is required instead to bring as many necron models per point as he can in order to stave off automatic game loss.

There was an unstated "simplifying the special rules in question would come at the same time as various other changes that in the end would result in a functional army at a competitive power level, but are beyond the scope of this post" in my post.

Raxmei wrote:There was an unstated "simplifying the special rules in question would come at the same time as various other changes that in the end would result in a functional army at a competitive power level, but are beyond the scope of this post" in my post.

It is incredibly difficult to infer that from your post, if not impossible. Something to remember when you're posting on a forum. We can't read your tone.


However, I'm with Lochias on this one... besides, if you've cracked the Necron codex, you'll notice that they are SEVERELY lacking in specialist options. Yea, you've got a gak-ton of Gauss weaponry, but that took a massive nerf with the advent of 5th, where it takes a whole lot more to break a rhino, let alone a land raider...

If you want to talk about "fixing" the necrons and nerfing WBB and Living Metal, what are you offering in return? How about giving Gauss weaponry AP1 against vehicles in return, or maybe allowing it to pen on a 4+ after determining if it qualified to glance (i.e. roll a 6 for your AP test, and then rolling another set of dice for each 6 to upgrade)? at 180 pts per 10 model squad with no upgrades, necron players are paying through the nose for their units, so if there's gonna be that much take, where's the give?

Personnally I prefer WBB but if FNP was to be brought in then there are easy ways to modify the stuff that interacts with it.

Like give Tomb Spyders the old ResOrb ability. This means people might actually start taking them and it frees up the Lord to do something else.

As for the Monolith, either have it give +1 to FNP within 12" or give it a special ability to beam guys out during opponents assault phase.

Necrons are definately one of those armies I feel should be about mutuable support like Slivers in MtG.

[For those who don't get the reference, Slivers used to give all other Slivers on the table some ability, so if you had a lot of them they would all gain each others ability. Madness once it got going but they were pretty weak to start off]

Lochias wrote:WBB is neither difficult to understand nor overpowered. Many other special rules are much more complicated to resolve, working differently in different scenarios. WBB works exactly as stated, and is unmodified by any conditions not explained in the Necron codex. It is supposed to be frustrating and demoralizing to the opponent. It's an army of the dead, get it?

Seeing a GK player complain about special rules that supercede other special rules is hilarious. Let me tell you a little story about a pot and a kettle...

Which army-wide special rules are harder? Mob Rule, where you count the orks in a unit? Combat Tactics, where Marines can fail any morale test? Even the Shrouding, where you have to roll dice to see if you can see a unit?
Yes, no doubt there are rules more confusing than WBB, but I can't think of many that are defining rules of their army. And while yes the theme supports it being a demoralizing effect, I'm typically just irritated.

as to your second point, I was explaining Jackmojo's point about the C'tan and monolith. I don't personally care about them, except in that I've fought them, I've watched others fight them, and no one has fun fighting them. That's why you need so many necrons, I'm going to do my best to get that irritating stuff off the board ASAP. Which means not shooting your impenetrable tank, or trying and fighting your god. It means slaughtering your troops.

I think the real reason there's so much hatred toward the C'tan and monolith is that the rules they have don't supercede other rules, they countermand them. Bought bionics? Won't work. Got a chainfist? Not any more. Being told, "hey, my guy hits really hard" is one thing being told "my guy turns off your stuff" is another.

As a sidenote, what exactly is your kettle/pot story? I checked my codex, and I don't have anything that says 'that rule doesn't work'. I've got a couple rules close to it, like my not-quite Night Fighting that gets superceded by actual Night Fighting, or...my Vindicare's ability to assign wounds? My mini-psychic hood? I'll be the first to admit GK's got a bunch of weird rules, but we don't have a lot that overwrite other people's special rules.

Dronze wrote:If you want to talk about "fixing" the necrons and nerfing WBB and Living Metal, what are you offering in return? How about giving Gauss weaponry AP1 against vehicles in return, or maybe allowing it to pen on a 4+ after determining if it qualified to glance (i.e. roll a 6 for your AP test, and then rolling another set of dice for each 6 to upgrade)? at 180 pts per 10 model squad with no upgrades, necron players are paying through the nose for their units, so if there's gonna be that much take, where's the give?

I'd ditch Phase Out and make the gauss guns Rending instead of whatever special rule they have now as my first steps. Perhaps stubborn for the infantry.

Beyond that I think the codex needs fattening up with more units and choices, a smaller vehicle for example.

Jack

Dronze wrote:
If you want to talk about "fixing" the necrons and nerfing WBB and Living Metal, what are you offering in return? How about giving Gauss weaponry AP1 against vehicles in return, or maybe allowing it to pen on a 4+ after determining if it qualified to glance (i.e. roll a 6 for your AP test, and then rolling another set of dice for each 6 to upgrade)? at 180 pts per 10 model squad with no upgrades, necron players are paying through the nose for their units, so if there's gonna be that much take, where's the give?

Well first off, that would op the standard necron. Here is what I would suggest:
1) Rending for all gause wep
2) Monolith's living metal changed to 4+ obscurity at any range
3) FNP for WBB
4) New HQ gives army more flexibility
5) something new...

Dronze wrote:

JohnHwangDD wrote:
I'd suggest to calculate Phase-Out end of each player's turn, that way, each turn ends "cleanly", and phase-out is also "clean".

But, just a thought on the idea of taking count at the end of the turn: You'd break the army. Taking the check at the end of each turn effectively makes a Necron player MORE likely to flat out lose a game due to phase out.

What are you talking about? If the Necron player is going to phase, he phases. If it's at the end of his turn (due to HtH losses), what's wrong with that? He still go to do his movement and shooting. If it's at the end of his opponent's turn, then that's not really different from testing WBB then Phase Out at the start of his own turn.
____

Eight Ball wrote:

JohnHwangDD wrote:

Jackmojo wrote:I'm no fan of all the "exceptions to the exceptions" (good turn of phrase that) that make up the current Necron Codex.

QFT. The Monolith (and the C'Tan) are really irritating because they really make things messy.

WAIT WAIT WAIT...what's wrong with the Monolith and C'Tan??

That would be the exceptions to the exceptions, like:
- (Dark) Eldar Lances make an exception to reduce AV14 to 12, except against the Monolith, which says they can't do that.
- Chainfists and Meltas make an exception to roll an extra die for AP, except against the Monolith, which says they can't do that.

THe C'tan is a total disaster, ignoring all of the special rules and creating niggling rules for even rare things like a Callidus / Cypher's phase weapons.

Quite simply, neither the Monolith nor the CTan are much fun to play against, because they don't let players field the toys that they bought and paid for. They are the very essence of "un-fun".

Lochias wrote:If you want to fix Necrons, fix (or simply remove) phase-out. Phase-Out cripples Necron army building,

Phase Out actually does a good job of balancing Necron special rules, and it's the most characterful thing in the army.

Personally, GW ought to go farther with the Necron Undead theme, like making units "crumble" if the Lord dies...