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.

I laid out a straight 10 warriors vs 15 gaurdians scenario. Both basic troop choice.

My point is that 10 warriors are far more valuable that 120 points because they have a marine stat line with 24" range and rapid fire.

Plus shurikens only get one -3ap per every six wounds on average.

vaurapung wrote:
I laid out a straight 10 warriors vs 15 gaurdians scenario. Both basic troop choice.

But by doing it that way you're missing the reasons why RP doesn't work well in practise.

Yes, RPs can let Necrons beat many other troops 1v1. However, once you start factoring in other units, the lack of mobility on Necron Warriors and the lack of range on Necron Warriors, the odds quickly turn against them.

Worth noting though that even in that scenario, those Guardians can beat the Necron Warriors over a few turns. It's a little dicey but if they shoot first then average rolls would see them kill the Necrons.

vaurapung wrote:
My point is that 10 warriors are far more valuable that 120 points because they have a marine stat line with 24" range and rapid fire.

I agree that Warriors are better than Guardians. However, I believe that this is an issue with Guardians, not Necrons or RPs.

vaurapung wrote:
Plus shurikens only get one -3ap per every six wounds on average.

Indeed - but even ignoring the Necron save some of the time, the Necron's armour save is going to be preventing fewer than 50% of casualties to that unit.

So should reanimations (both necrons and nids) cost reinforcement points.

Those who play against those armies get drowned in a horde that they cant kill fast enough but those who play with the reans seem to have issues keeping their units alive long enough to benifit from the free models.

So is the problem more or less just in the points cost of armies all together then.

If reanimation cost reinforcement points necrons would have to drop in point so value to a point where they were so cheap they would be the most broken army in the game. We already DO pay for reanimation, it's why are army costs so much to field and everything we have is incredibly expensive. Make RP cost RP and we could field a couple of warrior squads and that would be 2k of necrons, and our RP would be negated all the time.

The points drop would have to be to near conscript levels for basic troops, something not viable for a marine chassis. I'm all for it, it would make necrons literally the most broken army in the game by a long shot, as I just wouldn't roll for RP when stuff dies


Automatically Appended Next Post:
And looking at all results, both competitively and casual, you'll notice necrons and Tyranids are not doing so hot. Which is an indication that the army is not too strong as is. Nerfing a bottom teir army makes no sense, RP and a teervigon are very easy to deal with. If your having problems beating a bottom teir army the problem isn't with the armies.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I know you guys wont like this, but Necrons actually need a substantial buff, currently most of our index isn't viable, we have very low mobility, wonky transport options that dont fix the mobility issue, low damage output and as much as you dont like it, we aren't durable at all, with RP completely negated by any half decent army.

Its like paying for Power From Pain, Chapter tactics, orders etc, but not actually getting to use them in the game.

If Tyranids did not have to pay for gaunts you woul see a lot more Tervigons. Impossible to kill with 3+ T8 14 wouns. Clock inn at around 250 points.

Now if you do not kill them they will make 40 points of gaunts. Over 5 turns that is 200 points of units. Not only can they shoot charge and tie up things in combat. If you are in synapse they are fearless to. Also execelent at making a big footprint denying deepstrike, and few units increases you chances of going first.

Now take an all HQ detachement for 1000 points, netting you 4 if them. That sounds fear.

Or at least it would be completely bonkers if all the gaints are free.

As for weather it is a good rule or not: Yes it is a good rule to reign in effects that make free units. If you make a to big of a loope hole balance will shift to even more chaotic.

The other question is why create a game system mechanic that only a small portion of some armies can use.

Why cant we just set our units to the side as mid game reinforcements, maybe even make it a game type.

It gives the flexibility of changing it in the future so other armies can also use it, and primarily it fixes 7th demon summoning, which was one of the worst examples of free stuff in 7th. Free drop pods, war convo's, demon summoning all were not fun to play against, were hard to beat and all examples of a bad mechanic.

 Klowny wrote:
Demon summoning was cancer in 7th, they addressed it by bringing in reinforcement points. They got rid of all the free stuff, as bringing a 1850pt army and fighting a 2k+ army wasnt fair. This way its fair for both parties.

Totally agree.

 Klowny wrote:

Hilarious overstatement. RP is weak, ive yet to roll for it more than 3 times in my games, and you dont get all back, you get (at buffed best) 50% back, and usually only 1/3 (if you roll well). Can you credibly say that RP is stronger than brimstones/conscripts/guilliman? Not realistically.

1/3 or 1/2 is the average not a good roll. And you get it every turn as long a one model of the unit remains.
While you seem to roll below average, sadly our Necron player rolls above and sometimes way above average. But of course individual results don´t count.

 Klowny wrote:

Have you rolled for 3 units of scarabs from a spyder? very likely to have to blow CP to not kill it. Its not like it a broken mechanic, you get 1 base back per turn. The spyder is T6 4W. Dies to a stiff breeze.....

At least they have a mechnic to get hurt but it is still only at a 1 and, as long as they are undamged, they don´t blow up instantly.
If you call T6 4W 3+ as dying to a stiff breeze, than your expectations are way beyond anything.

 Klowny wrote:

For armies with healing abilities, the points are included in their base cost. So RP is included in warriors etc and the canoptek stuff that doesnt get RP has it included in their base cost. This is why Necrons are an incredibly expensive army to field. Everything is ridiculously costed due to the perceived strength of an underwhelming mechanic. Does any army that uses reinforcement points have these costs included in their prices? No, hence why reinforcement points exist.

You are saying that a 12 points necron warrior, that has the same statline as a 13 points space marine, except for 1M and 4+ instead of a 3+ but gains -1AP on their weapon, has also included points for RP?
Might i quote you? "Hilarious overstatement."
Necron Warrior are at least as good as a standard marine.

Spoletta wrote:IMHO 60 or 70 for the Tervigon. That's the average number of points of termagants you will get to spawn before you lose the Tervigon or the termagants. Sometimes you will get 3 full spawns (120 points), sometimes none.

For Canoptek i have no idea, i don't play Necrons, but i'm sure that any Necron player can easily tell you.

What i'm surprised is that you asked about those two that are by far the easiest to assess, and you didn't ask for the apothecary which is a real challenge.

Horrors on the other hand are extremely easy to assign an RP cost, but that would bring them to 24 points each. Do you really want to play with 24 point pink horrors? No? Then the solution implemented by GW is way better.

As i have no tailored list and are usually spread out, i see Tervigon spawn at least 2 full rounds and often also a 3rd round. Guess i have to include more LasCans.

I didn´t asked for the apothecary because i experienced hordes are a way larger threat than elite armies.
And he can only revive a model in a unit on 4+. But you are right, valuing his ability is more challenging as reviving a centurion is a lot more worth than reviving a tac marine.
He does the most back at devs and cent dev. But other than that space marine lack the numbers to screen all chars.
And i rate his ability to heal chars very low, because if i can shoot at a space marine character, i´m usually able to kill that char directly.
Gladly our gaming group is chaos free and i´m lacking knowledge how horrors work so i just stick to my general statement: no free units.

Firefox1 wrote:

You are saying that a 12 points necron warrior, that has the same statline as a 13 points space marine, except for 1M and 4+ instead of a 3+ but gains -1AP on their weapon, has also included points for RP?

You mean those Warriors with:
- M5"
- No ATSKNF
- No Combat Squads
- No greandes
- No sergeants
- No access to melee weapons
- No access to special weapons
- No access to heavy weapons

Yeah, I can't imagine why they cost less than Marines.

 vipoid wrote:

Firefox1 wrote:

You are saying that a 12 points necron warrior, that has the same statline as a 13 points space marine, except for 1M and 4+ instead of a 3+ but gains -1AP on their weapon, has also included points for RP?

You mean those Warriors with:
- M5"
- No ATSKNF
- No Combat Squads
- No greandes
- No sergeants
- No access to melee weapons
- No access to special weapons
- No access to heavy weapons

Yeah, I can't imagine why they cost less than Marines.

Really? You demand point costs just be able to pay for other weapons?

Firefox1 wrote:

 Klowny wrote:
Demon summoning was cancer in 7th, they addressed it by bringing in reinforcement points. They got rid of all the free stuff, as bringing a 1850pt army and fighting a 2k+ army wasnt fair. This way its fair for both parties.

Totally agree.

 Klowny wrote:

Hilarious overstatement. RP is weak, ive yet to roll for it more than 3 times in my games, and you dont get all back, you get (at buffed best) 50% back, and usually only 1/3 (if you roll well). Can you credibly say that RP is stronger than brimstones/conscripts/guilliman? Not realistically.

1/3 or 1/2 is the average not a good roll. And you get it every turn as long a one model of the unit remains.
While you seem to roll below average, sadly our Necron player rolls above and sometimes way above average. But of course individual results don´t count.
Sometimes I roll hot, and get alot back, sometimes I dont get many back at all, and the majority of the time I never roll for it because my opponent knows how to play against Necrons

 Klowny wrote:

Have you rolled for 3 units of scarabs from a spyder? very likely to have to blow CP to not kill it. Its not like it a broken mechanic, you get 1 base back per turn. The spyder is T6 4W. Dies to a stiff breeze.....

At least they have a mechnic to get hurt but it is still only at a 1 and, as long as they are undamged, they don´t blow up instantly.
If you call T6 4W 3+ as dying to a stiff breeze, than your expectations are way beyond anything.
A single lascannon shot that connects can kill a spyder.......

 Klowny wrote:

For armies with healing abilities, the points are included in their base cost. So RP is included in warriors etc and the canoptek stuff that doesnt get RP has it included in their base cost. This is why Necrons are an incredibly expensive army to field. Everything is ridiculously costed due to the perceived strength of an underwhelming mechanic. Does any army that uses reinforcement points have these costs included in their prices? No, hence why reinforcement points exist.

You are saying that a 12 points necron warrior, that has the same statline as a 13 points space marine, except for 1M and 4+ instead of a 3+ but gains -1AP on their weapon, has also included points for RP?
Might i quote you? "Hilarious overstatement."
Necron Warrior are at least as good as a standard marine.

See vipoid's response, but we are at best as good as a standard marine, and guess whos also not fairing well this edition, space marines

Spoletta wrote:IMHO 60 or 70 for the Tervigon. That's the average number of points of termagants you will get to spawn before you lose the Tervigon or the termagants. Sometimes you will get 3 full spawns (120 points), sometimes none.

For Canoptek i have no idea, i don't play Necrons, but i'm sure that any Necron player can easily tell you.

What i'm surprised is that you asked about those two that are by far the easiest to assess, and you didn't ask for the apothecary which is a real challenge.

Horrors on the other hand are extremely easy to assign an RP cost, but that would bring them to 24 points each. Do you really want to play with 24 point pink horrors? No? Then the solution implemented by GW is way better.

As i have no tailored list and are usually spread out, i see Tervigon spawn at least 2 full rounds and often also a 3rd round. Guess i have to include more LasCans.

I didn´t asked for the apothecary because i experienced hordes are a way larger threat than elite armies.
And he can only revive a model in a unit on 4+. But you are right, valuing his ability is more challenging as reviving a centurion is a lot more worth than reviving a tac marine.
He does the most back at devs and cent dev. But other than that space marine lack the numbers to screen all chars.
And i rate his ability to heal chars very low, because if i can shoot at a space marine character, i´m usually able to kill that char directly.
Gladly our gaming group is chaos free and i´m lacking knowledge how horrors work so i just stick to my general statement: no free units.

I agree, no free units. But necrons and tervigons aren't free, you pay points for them before the game begins, you know, when your building your army. Therefore you've paid for them. I dont understand how your not getting this. REANIMATION PROTOCOLS ARE BAKED INTO EACH AND EVERY NECRON UNITS POINTS COST.

Look at it a different way. If it went back to the old FNP style, would this make you happy? Same roll, except taken BEFORE the model dies? RP now is the same as previous RP, except its taken AFTER the model dies. Both keep it alive if the dice is rolled, however its now WEAKER than before as it can be negated (quite easily I may add, if you know what your doing). Im happy for it to go back to 7th ed, but 99.9% of everyone wont want that as its an unfun mechanic with 0 opponent interaction/counterplay. The difference is it can be rolled for every round, but 7th ed RP could be rolled for every damage that was taken, so its actually not that much different, except its weaker now. If your leaving a 4/5's dead warrior squad around for another round to roll RP again, well then its just poor generalship on your part.

Not trying to be rude but saying one of the worst faction specific rules in the game is OMFGWTFBROKENOP!!!!! is laughable at best.

Necrons are solidly bottom tier, in no small part due to how expensive we are because of RP, and RP is very underwhelming in its current state.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I have a 100% winrate currently with my 8th ed necrons, and I build lists explicitly to avoid RP in my list as much as possible due to how bad it is currently.

Firefox1 wrote:
Really? You demand point costs just be able to pay for other weapons?

Do you seriously think that flexibility and specialisation are worth nothing?

The big difference between replenishing a unit that already exists and adding a new unit is your opponent can stop you from replenishing a unit by killing it off. If you could add new units without cost it would be endless.

Im an eldar player that plays gaurdians and lords as the core of my list. I cant kill a unit of warriors before they kill me. 24" range is the primary cause of my destruction. At 2000 pts 80 warriors cant be dealt with fast enough to stop their rean and if i do focus on the warriors the monolith will end me one unit at a time. So in casual games reans are op. I cant feild enough shots with my army and my army has no defensive measures. Eldar have some great list but those arnt my list. And not being able to use a psychic power more than once really hurts eldar.

Our necron player seems to roll unusually well woth any dice for his reans and then like to rub it in how many hundreds of points he brought back to the board one game against wolves netted him 400pts of revived necrons.

Klowny wrote:
But necrons and tervigons aren't free, you pay points for them before the game begins, you know, when your building your army. Therefore you've paid for them. I dont understand how your not getting this. REANIMATION PROTOCOLS ARE BAKED INTO EACH AND EVERY NECRON UNITS POINTS COST.

I read you. To a certain point i can agree with tervigons and spyders, but really how much of e. g. the warriors points belong to the RP?

Klowny wrote:
Look at it a different way. If it went back to the old FNP style, would this make you happy? Same roll, except taken BEFORE the model dies? RP now is the same as previous RP, except its taken AFTER the model dies. Both keep it alive if the dice is rolled, however its now WEAKER than before as it can be negated (quite easily I may add, if you know what your doing). Im happy for it to go back to 7th ed, but 99.9% of everyone wont want that as its an unfun mechanic with 0 opponent interaction/counterplay. The difference is it can be rolled for every round, but 7th ed RP could be rolled for every damage that was taken, so its actually not that much different, except its weaker now. If your leaving a 4/5's dead warrior squad around for another round to roll RP again, well then its just poor generalship on your part.

I definately don´t want any save after save.

vipoid wrote:Do you seriously think that flexibility and specialisation are worth nothing?

If the pure option to take a weapon would cost points, then a unit not taking that weapon would be penalized. That must not happen. You pay only for what you take.
So the Sergeant has an additional attack and raises the Leadership by 1. That´s an advantage and worth what? 1 Point? That is indeed unaccounted.

Except to lower the kill points, i fail to see the use of combat squads. How many mission are there where troops count as kill points?
At least now you never use that because you are out of troop slots.
So you can just take squads of 5 of them without any penalties.
Taking 2 squads of 5 over 1 squad of 10 give you for each of them a sergeant and the choice of 2 heavy weapons or 2 special weapons.
Squads of 5 with a LD of 8 are very resilient moral-wise. Only with 3 losses there is only a 1 in 6 chance that one marine runs away (not counting ATSKNF). With 4 losses it´s 1 in 3.
And you need to loose those amount in one round. Ultramarines care even less.

With that ATSKNF looses it´s worth. And yes i find it worse than RP.

With their very short range grenades they get always forgotten, worth a point per model?


Setting 10 space marines vs. 10 necron warriors. Both having S4 rapid fire 1 and T4. The -1 from the gauss results in all having 4+ save.
On average even with when the marines have the first shot and 2 Marines equipped with Plasma guns, the marines won´t win a duel against 10 necrons.
And that´s a reason necron warriors with RP are better than marines.

Yes i know on the battlefield there is rarely a one on one situation and necrons will receive focused fire and won´t be able to do a RP roll.
But to kill 10 necron warriors at once it takes about 60 S4 shots at BS 3+ or 22,5 plasma shots at BS 3+. The opponent has to concentrate several units on one unit.
So i am really surprised that Klowny can´t get RP that often.

My opponents do concentrate several units into one unit. RP is the only faction mechanic that it's possible to not be able to use. Orders, canticles, mob rule, ere we go, ATSKNF, etc etc. all do not get negated by the opponent.

RP punishes people who do not focus down units individually. It's like people who do focus down ynnari units get severely punished. The trick with them is to whittle down each unit until the soul bursts are lessened. Seriously, how is getting back up (remember our army lacks stopping power as a whole) better than aeldari units shooting/attacking twice? Regardless, it's just how you need to fight necrons. My opponents know how to negate my durability, therefore I hardly get my durability. Sure I've had entire armies put everything into 40 warriors in cover, but it did do the job. After that I just had elite units left, which wilt to focused fire. I know it's a disproportionate amount of firepower you need to kill them. But it's nowhere near as bad as brimstones, or conscripts etc. You wanna talk broken......

Firefox1 wrote:

If the pure option to take a weapon would cost points, then a unit not taking that weapon would be penalized. That must not happen. You pay only for what you take.

But what you're saying is that a unit with the ability to take specialist weapons (special, heavy, pistols, combi-, and melee) should have the same base cost as an identical squad without any of those options.

That doesn't work at all because the squads are paying the same price, yet one has all the advantages. Yes, it still has to pay for those weapons, but both have the same opportunity cost, yet only one is allowed to pay extra to make the best possible use of it.

Firefox1 wrote:

Except to lower the kill points, i fail to see the use of combat squads. How many mission are there where troops count as kill points?

I'd have thought another advantage would be in terms of drops.

In effect, you can tailor your list before deployment towards MSU, without exceeding your opponent's drops, if you see what I mean.

It's not amazing or anything, but it's still something they can do that other armies can't.

Firefox1 wrote:

Setting 10 space marines vs. 10 necron warriors. Both having S4 rapid fire 1 and T4. The -1 from the gauss results in all having 4+ save.
On average even with when the marines have the first shot and 2 Marines equipped with Plasma guns, the marines won´t win a duel against 10 necrons.

But again, this happens because you ignore all the advantages of the Marines and play fully to the strength of Necrons.

Yeah, if you do a 1v1 and give up your range advantage over a n army that has very few weapons with more than 24" range, then naturally you're going to suffer.

That said, if you are intent on a 1v1 scenario like this, would it not make more sense to give the sergeant a plasma pistol and melee weapon and have the marines assault the Necrons? I haven't done the math but I believe this could easily reverse their fortunes:
- Suddenly the Necrons's offensive output is halved and lacks the -1AP.
- The Marine sergeant can swing with his Power Axe (or whatever is good these days).
- Perhaps most notably, the marines can still shoot their pistols in their turn, meaning their offensive output has stayed largely the same.
- If the Necrons fall back, then they can neither attack nor shoot you that turn and you can simply rapid-fire into them and then assault them again.

Firefox1 wrote:

Yes i know on the battlefield there is rarely a one on one situation and necrons will receive focused fire and won´t be able to do a RP roll.
But to kill 10 necron warriors at once it takes about 60 S4 shots at BS 3+ or 22,5 plasma shots at BS 3+. The opponent has to concentrate several units on one unit.
So i am really surprised that Klowny can´t get RP that often.

Something else to bear in mind here - Warriors (when backed up by ~250pts of Cryptek + Ghost Ark) probably represent the peak of Necron survivability. Most other Necron units are not going to survive nearly as much firepower (either in terms of basic weapons or from more specialised guns) as a full unit of Warriors with support. So the fact that some armies may struggle to remove a single unit of Warriors in one turn doesn't really help the many other Necron units from being annihilated in one turn.

(I mention this because I don't know which Necron units Klowny is seeing wiped out.)

I've had Praetorians explode to ork shooting for gods same

Everything dying to mortars and wyverns. Just in general, 20 warriors, cryptek, lord and GA are the toughest infantry that we have, and every army has tools to crack it.

Necrons take firepower to kill, but our current strategy is to outlast other armies, as we don't have the damage to kill them reliably. With an easily bypassable mechanic, it drops our durability substantially.

Completely off topic by now, but necrons do pay for our 'reinforcements'

Wheres the math for though. No one has proven even close to that healing units pay up front in their cost for their healing.

A necron warrior state line is 150%of my gaurdian defender, oh he cost 50% more points, wheres his reans cost then?

The goal of reinforcments points is to pay for every model that hits the table so why not include healing units as well.

vaurapung wrote:
The other question is why create a game system mechanic that only a small portion of some armies can use.

Why cant we just set our units to the side as mid game reinforcements, maybe even make it a game type.

This sounds like a very badly thought out argument. Here are a list of some rules that only apear in a few armies but not:

Vehicles
Transport Vehicles
Open Topped Vehicles
Flying Vehicles
Psykers
Characters with more then 10 wounds.
Reinaimation Protocol

The list could go on. I would rather sugest that having rules for all the models in the game is better then to ignore them and never speak of them again. (Rip Squats.)

vaurapung wrote:
Wheres the math for though. No one has proven even close to that healing units pay up front in their cost for their healing.

A necron warrior state line is 150%of my gaurdian defender, oh he cost 50% more points, wheres his reans cost then?

The goal of reinforcments points is to pay for every model that hits the table so why not include healing units as well.

You have battle focus, do you not think you pay for that in your stat line? It's a qualitative thing, necrons are a very, very expensive army to field, as a whole RP is included in the army due to the limiting amount of models we can bring. The 50% more points probably is mostly RP, remember it's not like it's something we can get all the time. Imagine if you couldn't use battle focus 60-80% of the time, would you still like to pay for it?

Like I said if necrons had to pay for RP in reinforcement points our base cost would have to be significantly lower. Otherwise if we had to pay the points we are now, then pay it again to reanimate, it's basically means we would field 50% of the army we do now, so you may as well squat the faction if that's the case. And if they were that cheap, where they would be fieldable, we would be broken because we could field a ridiculous amount of models. We'd become a horde army overnight, but a horde army with space marine stat-lines. I just wouldn't never roll for RP and bring 2k of my horde crons every time.

vipoid wrote:But what you're saying is that a unit with the ability to take specialist weapons (special, heavy, pistols, combi-, and melee) should have the same base cost as an identical squad without any of those options.

That is correct otherwise it would be unbalanced, as the pure options gives you nothing until you acutally equip your unit with that weapon.

vipoid wrote:That doesn't work at all because the squads are paying the same price, yet one has all the advantages. Yes, it still has to pay for those weapons, but both have the same opportunity cost, yet only one is allowed to pay extra to make the best possible use of it.

It does work the "opportunity costs" just have to be included in the weapon costs. Imagine in the weapon cost is e. g. 1 point just to take it and the other points are what the weapon is actually worth.
As it is the points calculation GW has done, don´t know such "opportunity costs". Take a look at the IG, Infantry Squads and Special Weapon Squads have the same statline and are just paying for that. Granted the inf squads gets a free sergeant.Or even a better example: Space Marine Tacticals, Devastators and Assaults (without Jump-Pack) all are 13 Points and have very different weapon options.

vipoid wrote:
I'd have thought another advantage would be in terms of drops.

In effect, you can tailor your list before deployment towards MSU, without exceeding your opponent's drops, if you see what I mean.

It's not amazing or anything, but it's still something they can do that other armies can't.

You are right. But Space Marines in general would have a low drop count and how many tactical squads of 10 are actually taken in a 2000 point army? 4?
When chapter approved is released you the worth will drop further, as the lower drop count won´t autostart but receives just a +1 to a roll off.

vipoid wrote:

Firefox1 wrote:

Setting 10 space marines vs. 10 necron warriors. Both having S4 rapid fire 1 and T4. The -1 from the gauss results in all having 4+ save.
On average even with when the marines have the first shot and 2 Marines equipped with Plasma guns, the marines won´t win a duel against 10 necrons.

But again, this happens because you ignore all the advantages of the Marines and play fully to the strength of Necrons.

What are all the advantages of the Marines?

vipoid wrote:Yeah, if you do a 1v1 and give up your range advantage over a n army that has very few weapons with more than 24" range, then naturally you're going to suffer.

In a normal game unless the necron player only takes very few warrior units, i can´t see that all warrior units are a lot more than 24" away from all tactical marines.

vipoid wrote:That said, if you are intent on a 1v1 scenario like this, would it not make more sense to give the sergeant a plasma pistol and melee weapon and have the marines assault the Necrons? I haven't done the math but I believe this could easily reverse their fortunes:
- Suddenly the Necrons's offensive output is halved and lacks the -1AP.
- The Marine sergeant can swing with his Power Axe (or whatever is good these days).
- Perhaps most notably, the marines can still shoot their pistols in their turn, meaning their offensive output has stayed largely the same.
- If the Necrons fall back, then they can neither attack nor shoot you that turn and you can simply rapid-fire into them and then assault them again.

I guess the marines could do that. For that scenario you have to add how fast they can reach CC.
Wall of text: Marines charging Warriors

vipoid wrote:

Firefox1 wrote:

Yes i know on the battlefield there is rarely a one on one situation and necrons will receive focused fire and won´t be able to do a RP roll.
But to kill 10 necron warriors at once it takes about 60 S4 shots at BS 3+ or 22,5 plasma shots at BS 3+. The opponent has to concentrate several units on one unit.
So i am really surprised that Klowny can´t get RP that often.

Something else to bear in mind here - Warriors (when backed up by ~250pts of Cryptek + Ghost Ark) probably represent the peak of Necron survivability. Most other Necron units are not going to survive nearly as much firepower (either in terms of basic weapons or from more specialised guns) as a full unit of Warriors with support. So the fact that some armies may struggle to remove a single unit of Warriors in one turn doesn't really help the many other Necron units from being annihilated in one turn.

(I mention this because I don't know which Necron units Klowny is seeing wiped out.)

I do agree that the Warriors are at least one of the most survivable Necron units.
But to bring down them down it just takes multiple times their worth in points.
And with units being spread out on the battlefield i can´t see that there is always enough firepower to bring such units down in one turn. In some cases yes, on average no.
I just can agree that large units benefit more of that RP than low count units.

But my inital point was that necron warriors are way from being overcosted and i used the tactical marine as comparison. As he is also taking more fire than dealing out.
I have yet to see that RP is paid for with their base costs and if so why they cost even less than marines. Or saying it the other way round, if 12 points are fine for warriors then marines are way overcosted.
And by those comparisons i would take necron warriors every time over tactical marines. Actually i rate them very high and worth more than the marine.
Who is, as it was said by several persons, might be far away from being a top choice. And i also don´t count the marines in the top troop choice list. But with 8th no marine player is forced to take them anymore.
Yet the necron warriors would be in my personal top troop choice list, if i had such.

Comparing a necron warrior to a marine in a vacumm is meaningless.

The factions architectures are completely different, SM are a faction based around powerful aura abilities, reason why the single SM units seem weaker compared to other equivalents.

Firefox1 wrote:

That is correct otherwise it would be unbalanced, as the pure options gives you nothing until you acutally equip your unit with that weapon.

That's a ridiculous premise though. A unit without special weapons is simply not going to be as viable as one with special weapons. The assumption has to be that you are going to take at least one special weapon, and I believe they are costed with that in mind.

Firefox1 wrote:

It does work the "opportunity costs" just have to be included in the weapon costs.

I don't think 'opportunity costs' is the phrase you're looking for, otherwise this would be impossible and would go against the whole definition of an opportunity cost.

However, opportunity costs are a good reason as to why your premise is flawed. Put simply, the entire cost of a squad is the opportunity cost, and compared to that the cost of a special weapon just isn't significant. Hence, you are going to take a special weapon, otherwise you are just wasting the opportunity cost of the squad itself.

Firefox1 wrote:
Imagine in the weapon cost is e. g. 1 point just to take it and the other points are what the weapon is actually worth.

That doesn't work though. Because once you start adding those options - especially for stuff like combi-weapons, plasmaguns and plasma pistols (which are straight upgrades over the base weapons), then there just isn't a reason not to take them. If you are already paying for the squad then there is simply no reason to not also invest in one of those weapons.

Firefox1 wrote:

As it is the points calculation GW has done, don´t know such "opportunity costs". Take a look at the IG, Infantry Squads and Special Weapon Squads have the same statline and are just paying for that.

Special Weapon Squads are elites though. They also can't take any Heavy Weapons (i.e. it's not a straight gain in options).

Firefox1 wrote:
Or even a better example: Space Marine Tacticals, Devastators and Assaults (without Jump-Pack) all are 13 Points and have very different weapon options.

I'm not sure what you're trying to prove here. All those squads have options[. They might not have the same options (although I believe the sergeants are), but they still have options.

In contrast, you're trying to compare a squad with several options (Tactical Marines) to a squad with no options whatsoever (Necron Warriors).

Firefox1 wrote:

You are right. But Space Marines in general would have a low drop count and how many tactical squads of 10 are actually taken in a 2000 point army? 4?
When chapter approved is released you the worth will drop further, as the lower drop count won´t autostart but receives just a +1 to a roll off.

Bear in mind that part of the reason why it isn't as useful is because Marines got a free buff in that they can now take a Heavy Weapon in a 5-man squad.

I appreciate that this isn't a Necron comparison, but I can tell you that I'd absolutely love it if my IG Infantry Squads or DE Kabalite Warriors had the Combat Squads rule.

Firefox1 wrote:
What are all the advantages of the Marines?

This isn't an exhaustive list by any means, but to name just a few:
- Far more long-range weapons.
- Better mobility.
- More and superior buffs/auras
- Access to psychic powers
- Vastly superior melee ability
- Pistols even on basic squads
- Options for MSU
- Cheap(er) transports
(You've also got Stratagems and Chapter Tactcs, to which Necrons currently have no equivalent.)

A Warrior-focused Necron army will have to move in unwieldy blocks, will have to largely stick together (clustering around buffs), will have a maximum range of 24" for the vast majority of its weapons and a mere 12" optimum range for those weapons.

Firefox1 wrote:

I guess the marines could do that. For that scenario you have to add how fast they can reach CC.
Wall of text: Marines charging Warriors

Spoiler:

So points-wise 10 marines, 1 with PG and the Sarge with PP and power axe (155 points) facing 12,92 necron warriors. I know with fractions it looks hilarious, but it is just the average.

Turn 1
Let´s say the marines are the first to move starting 24.1" away. Wanting to CC they advance let´s say 10".
Now the Necrons wouldn´t close but move away 5" so distance is 19.1" and their non RF-shooting takes 1,67 Marines down.

Turn 2
The Marines have to advance again 10" (as with 6" they wouldn´t be in assault range) after the necrons move another 5" away the distance is 14.1", again taking down 1,67 Marines.

Turn 3
Now the Marines move 6" closing to 8.1" range. Of the remaining 6,67 4,67 RFing their bolter killing 1,56 necrons, 1 RFing his PG killing 0,67 and the Sarge killing 0,44. Then let´s assume they made their charge roll and charge.The remaining 10,25 Necrons are overwatching and kill 0,85 marines. The remaining 4,82 marines attack in CC with that number, killing 0,8 warriors and the Sarge kills 0,74, leaving 8,71 warriors. The warriors are defending and killing 0,97 marines, leaving 3,85+Sarge.
On their turn of the 4,21 killed warriors 1,4 are reanimated, numbering now 10,11. Hitting the marines in CC and killing 1,12. 2,73+Sarge remaining.
Anyone who can see the marines winning might continue. I can´t.
And if the Necrons move in Turn 2 toward the Marines instead of away from them. Could have rapid-fired and then charged and denied the turn 3 RF the Marines had. But yes they would have received overwatch fire.

The thing is though, this assumes that the Necrons will be able to endlessly evade the Marines. I mean, sure, they can evade them for a couple of turns, but imagine how much distance that will cost them in an actual game. Even if the Necrons beat those marines in combat it will be a Pyrrhic victory at best - because the squad will be stuck basically at their deployment line, miles from anything else.

Assuming you're not just playing kill points, the Necrons are going to have to walk forward to try and take your objectives off you (since they lack the long-range firepower to just blast you off them), so they really can't rely on evading combat in the manner you're suggesting.

Firefox1 wrote:

I do agree that the Warriors are at least one of the most survivable Necron units.
But to bring down them down it just takes multiple times their worth in points.

Is that not the case for virtually all units though?

As the adage goes, you don't kill 250pts of your opponent's army with 250pts of your army - you kill 250pts of your opponents army with 500pts of your army.

What's more, durability is the core of Necrons - you'd expect them to be the best at it.

If you want a different tactic, have you considered charging Rhinos or other cheap vehicles into them? Necrons actually have relatively few anti-vehicle weapons now and while Warriors have decent anti-infantry shooting they're really not good against vehicles anymore. And of course they're even worse in combat. It seems like a few vehicles could keep those warrior blocks tied up for some time (and, naturally, you can shoot them with other units before charging your vehicles in).

Firefox1 wrote:

But my inital point was that necron warriors are way from being overcosted and i used the tactical marine as comparison.

I Never said that Necron Warriors were overcosted though.

I think that some Necron units are definitely overcosted, but Warriors aren't among them.

Firefox1 wrote:

I have yet to see that RP is paid for with their base costs and if so why they cost even less than marines.

But you also refuse to accept that Marines should pay for any of the myriad of advantages they get to which Warriors don't have access. What's more, you don't seem to grasp that just because you think option costs should be included in the weapons, that doesn't mean GW actually did that. You are asking others to prove that RP is included in the cost of Warriors, yet you have not yet proved that the option costs for Marines is included in their weapons.

All I can suggest at this point is that you consider playing Necrons instead of Marines.

Too many people are arguing that Necrons would be weaker if they had to pay RP to use RP...

Everyone who is arguing this is... MISSING THE POINT

No one cares about Balance at this moment! It's not about nerfing or buffing. It's just a straight question as to why does Horrors pay RP and Necrons or Apothecaries don't?

Why design a CORE RULE BOOK RULE if only half of an army is even using it? (and maybe a scratch or 2 in a different army)

They either need to go ALL IN on the RP Rule and implement it into Several Armies or Call it for what it is in the Daemon Book only.

 Talamare wrote:
No one cares about Balance at this moment! It's not about nerfing or buffing. It's just a straight question as to why does Horrors pay RP and Necrons or Apothecaries don't?
.

One is creating new units, one is replenishing units. Two different mechanics.

Counter point to some of the loudest yelling:

You have to bring a character to summon who can't move in the same turn. Saying there is no cost associated to summoning is plain wrong. You have to bring a tervigon to spawn, we have to bring heralds lords etc. While the cost might not be identical, there is still cost.

Not everyone that has every used demon summoning has tried to be a jerk about it. Demons are notoriously weak, summoning reinforcements was a mechanic to keep us in games, that unfortunately could be over used.

Khorne daemonkin had to be completely scrapped due to adding this rule. That army's entire focus was to lose units, and create new units to try to stay in the game. On its own, KDK was never a dominating faction, but it got the axe due to players hating on free units.

I'm sad that people are so close minded about this. Demons flat out suck aside from 1 list concept and the community still wants to yell harder at them.

From an average chaos demons player who just wants to have fun who can't now.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
First suggestion would be that no list ever can ever go over its starting points. if I want to summon 150 points of bloodletters, I need to have either lost 150 points already or saved 150 for them.

vladicov wrote:
Counter point to some of the loudest yelling:

You have to bring a character to summon who can't move in the same turn. Saying there is no cost associated to summoning is plain wrong. You have to bring a tervigon to spawn, we have to bring heralds lords etc. While the cost might not be identical, there is still cost.

Not everyone that has every used demon summoning has tried to be a jerk about it. Demons are notoriously weak, summoning reinforcements was a mechanic to keep us in games, that unfortunately could be over used.

Khorne daemonkin had to be completely scrapped due to adding this rule. That army's entire focus was to lose units, and create new units to try to stay in the game. On its own, KDK was never a dominating faction, but it got the axe due to players hating on free units.

I'm sad that people are so close minded about this. Demons flat out suck aside from 1 list concept and the community still wants to yell harder at them.

From an average chaos demons player who just wants to have fun who can't now.

Personally, I think a solution to Summoning Daemons was needed, but I don't think Reinforcement Points was a good solution. Summoning units can be powerful but making people pay full price for units summoned during the game during the list-building stage would seem to make it niche at best.

What if instead, daemon armies had some sort of reserve pool, based on the point level of the game? So they could have 125pts in a 500pt game, 250pts in a 1000pt game etc. These points would be used in the same way as the current system, but don't come out of your starting total (so a 1000pt army would have 1000pts plus 250pts of reserve points). Any unspent points are automatically added to the reserve pool.

This would put a hard-cap on the number of daemons that can be summoned during a game , but without handicapping the army itself.

Any thoughts?

My suggestion is that demons can attempt to summon back any unit they've already lost without paying the points. If you lose your thirster, he can come back on a 17+ on 3D6 which isn't amazing anyways. maybe you auto take 1mw if you summon this way instead or just on doubles.

 vipoid wrote:

vladicov wrote:
Counter point to some of the loudest yelling:

You have to bring a character to summon who can't move in the same turn. Saying there is no cost associated to summoning is plain wrong. You have to bring a tervigon to spawn, we have to bring heralds lords etc. While the cost might not be identical, there is still cost.

Not everyone that has every used demon summoning has tried to be a jerk about it. Demons are notoriously weak, summoning reinforcements was a mechanic to keep us in games, that unfortunately could be over used.

Khorne daemonkin had to be completely scrapped due to adding this rule. That army's entire focus was to lose units, and create new units to try to stay in the game. On its own, KDK was never a dominating faction, but it got the axe due to players hating on free units.

I'm sad that people are so close minded about this. Demons flat out suck aside from 1 list concept and the community still wants to yell harder at them.

From an average chaos demons player who just wants to have fun who can't now.

Personally, I think a solution to Summoning Daemons was needed, but I don't think Reinforcement Points was a good solution. Summoning units can be powerful but making people pay full price for units summoned during the game during the list-building stage would seem to make it niche at best.

What if instead, daemon armies had some sort of reserve pool, based on the point level of the game? So they could have 125pts in a 500pt game, 250pts in a 1000pt game etc. These points would be used in the same way as the current system, but don't come out of your starting total (so a 1000pt army would have 1000pts plus 250pts of reserve points). Any unspent points are automatically added to the reserve pool.

This would put a hard-cap on the number of daemons that can be summoned during a game , but without handicapping the army itself.

Any thoughts?

I really like this idea. If anyone playtests it, let us know how it goes.