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.

Hey folks!

My Necrons are coming along, and I'm squaring away the last details.

There are two Necron C'Tans. Here are pictures from GW of the Deceiver and of the Nightbringer.

I plan on using the Deceiver in my list. However, the Nightbringer model is WAAAAAY better looking. The Deceiver can change his shape to look like anything or anyone - so from a fluff perspective, using the Nightbringer as "counts as" Deceiver is well within his abilities; he's taken the shape of the Nightbringer to terrify enemies!

One part of me thinks that no one will know the difference because hardly anyone plays necrons competitively, and out of those that do, even fewer take a C'Tan.

The other part doesn't want to get in trouble for having a "Counts as" GOD on the table.

Before I go out and buy the Nightbringer, I thought I'd see what you had to say.

That's a tough one because most players do know the difference between the two C'tans at a glance. Nightbringer does look so much cooler though, the Deceiver looks like he has some kind of deformity.

That would be a really confusing counts as. You would be better off making a custom model than swapping one for the other, IMO. I personally would be fine with it, but I could very easily see how others would not be.

That's not a counts-as. It's a proxy. To be honest most people in tournaments are familiar with the Nightbringer/Deciever imagery so it could throw them off during the game. I'd say use the Deciever model or another large, non-necron army MC to represent him. But don't just use the Nightbringer and say he's the Deciever.

lol, Reece beat me to it!

You'll have to differintiate between them. Fluff wise the Deciever can do that but you still have to differintiate them that way you coulden't put your deviever into an assault and in all the confusion of the game say "That one isn't my Deciever it's my Nightbringer, my Deciever is over here". Not that you would say that or do that but as an example.

I would paint your counts as Deciever in the Decievers colors or at least differantly then your Nightbringer.

Take Nightbringer
Modify slightly
Paint brown (or any non black)
Tada! Converted deceiver.


@warboss
I think (hope) he is only planning on using the deceiver and not both.

I don't plan on using the Nightbringer, only the Deceiver.

I figure if my list says, "Deceiver" and I point to the model and say, "That's the deceiver. He's in disguise."

I think it's a slippery slope.

By you wanting to play it, it opens the door to when the opponent forgets which is which.
The issue with WYSIWYG is that it's all there on the board and for all to see.

I see Nightbringer, I could yell in my head it's Deceiver but that doesn't always happen and react as if it's Nightbringer. Sure it's the fault of the opponent potentially forgetting, but you are making that a possibility.

Friendly games: sure, what ev'.
Tourney, it'll be hard unless it's converted a bit more and enough to distinguish because there's definitely no take-backs then and you having that advantedge of ADDITIONAL human error is in someways unfair.

As others said, I would not really mind and doubt many really would.

BUT if anyone does, you are sort of. . .out.
I mean you can kind of claim WYSIWYG as all of the options are represented, but the model itself isn't.

/shrug

I'd find it annoying. I have no problem with inventive WYSIWYG, but that's not what this is.

Are you restricting yourself to GW models? If not then there are literally hundreds of awesome, imposing models that would still fit your "he can look like anything" bit and not literally be the most confusing possible proxy.

Sanctjud wrote:I think it's a slippery slope.

I see Nightbringer, I could yell in my head it's Deceiver but that doesn't always happen and react as if it's Nightbringer. Sure it's the fault of the opponent potentially forgetting, but you are making that a possibility.

You know, I can keep track of squads that have "lascannons" (missile launchers), and squads that have "plasma cannons" (missile launchers) in the same game without difficulties. I'm not really sure why this is that big of a deal. He's using the Deciever with the Nightbringer model. He's not using both at once. I've only seen Necrons played once, and that player had neither. Worst case, my recommendation would be to get both and if your opponent complained, swap out the models and made a mental note when considering sportsmanship.

daedalus wrote:

Sanctjud wrote:I think it's a slippery slope.

I see Nightbringer, I could yell in my head it's Deceiver but that doesn't always happen and react as if it's Nightbringer. Sure it's the fault of the opponent potentially forgetting, but you are making that a possibility.

You know, I can keep track of squads that have "lascannons" (missile launchers), and squads that have "plasma cannons" (missile launchers) in the same game without difficulties. I'm not really sure why this is that big of a deal. He's using the Deciever with the Nightbringer model. He's not using both at once. I've only seen Necrons played once, and that player had neither. Worst case, my recommendation would be to get both and if your opponent complained, swap out the models and made a mental note when considering sportsmanship.

In tournaments? If I have to put up with my opponents barely painted crap it better not be proxied barely painted crap.

You'd take a clearly confusing model proxy and then ding your opponent in sportsmanship if he stated that it was confusing? Another example of why sportsmanship scores don't work I guess.

daedalus wrote:

Sanctjud wrote:I think it's a slippery slope.

I see Nightbringer, I could yell in my head it's Deceiver but that doesn't always happen and react as if it's Nightbringer. Sure it's the fault of the opponent potentially forgetting, but you are making that a possibility.

You know, I can keep track of squads that have "lascannons" (missile launchers), and squads that have "plasma cannons" (missile launchers) in the same game without difficulties. I'm not really sure why this is that big of a deal. He's using the Deciever with the Nightbringer model. He's not using both at once. I've only seen Necrons played once, and that player had neither. Worst case, my recommendation would be to get both and if your opponent complained, swap out the models and made a mental note when considering sportsmanship.

You miss my point. The point was that it opens that door of the possibility of more human error on the opponent's side. It takes two to tango...their forgetfulness is as much a disruption to the game as the player making that occurance a possibility, IMO.

As said, a friendly environment, whatever.
In a tourney it's up to the TO...and I'm saying that IMO, it's disruptive.

And I agree with plastictrees...down with comp. in general.

As Hulk and Reecius (and others) said, this is a no-fly in a tournament. It's not counts-as. It's a straight proxy. Everyone who's ever seen a Necron army knows what the Deceiver looks like and knows what the Nightbringer looks like, and swapping one for the other is a recipe for confusion.

Plastictrees also brings up an excellent point that there is a whole world of other models out there you could sub for an actual counts-as. There's no need to go with the most confusing possible proxy.

Oh I thought you were taking both in your army.

You can't have both in the same army IIRC, outside Apoc.

Well, I do hate the Deceiver model. I'd love to entertain suggestions for "counts as" Deceivers that are imposing, terrifying, C'Tan-ish, and don't look like a cross between a ram and a squid-man. A homosexual ram-squig-man. He also has a creepy, pedophile smile.

I know both models are metal. Would it be possible to cut both models at the abs and do a body/head swap? That way the model is 50% the Deceiver?

I personally would be fine with it in any game. But then again I don't play in tournaments all that often.

Hulksmash wrote:That's not a counts-as. It's a proxy. To be honest most people in tournaments are familiar with the Nightbringer/Deciever imagery so it could throw them off during the game. I'd say use the Deciever model or another large, non-necron army MC to represent him. But don't just use the Nightbringer and say he's the Deciever.

lol, Reece beat me to it!

I have to agree with this sentiment 100%. It's not a conversion or anything of the sort, it's you taking one model that you could legally field and saying it's actually another model that you could legally field. That definitely has a good deal of potential confusion to it. If you don't want to use the Deceiver model because you hate it, then by all means I have no problem with that, but I'd say you have to use something unique for your army in its stead.

Dash, the easiest way to go might be just to do a head swap. What if you gave him a daemon prince head, or a robot head? Maybe use one of the "masks" for the head you get with the Defiler kit?

This head:
http://www.dakkadakka.com/gallery/128943-Defiler%202.html

...would fit in pretty well with the Necrons, I think.

I'd have to say no. As stated before you might be screaming in your head "deceiver" but when the game is on the line you might not react that way.

However with a bit of conversion on the deceiver I'd probably be ok with it.

Head swap it with the eldar avatar, filing off the runes and GS-ing any gaps. Add a nice necron rune to the chest in GS and use the deceiver's pointing hand to replace the wailing doom. Sure, it would take some work, but there's folks that have used the avatar bits on a deceiver model for their eldar armies and it works okay...


I wouldn't have any problem with you using the Nightbringer in place of big D in a tourney, but I would make sure it's okay with the TO first. I've played rhinos as razorbacks with no problem, which is about the same as what you want to do. However, I'm not likely to be the only guy you'll play against and others are less likely to be as considerate as I would be.

As long as you made it a point to let me know "Hey, just FYI this is Deceiver NOT NIGHTBRINGER"....hell I wouldn't care.

Take a white fine art pen and write "Deceiver" on the base.

I wouldn't have a problem. I think it's an achingly small minority of players that would be confused, but, as stated above, it's a straight up proxy.

On the other hand, it's a staggeringly common proxy. People use special character models for regular characters all the time. I don't know how many SW players used Logan as the base for their lord models in 3rd and 4th ed.

The nature of the model, with no distinguishable weapons or wargear, means that a conversion is pretty tough. Ironically, if the models weren't wysisyg to each other (for example, the Nightbringer had a staff of terror while the Deceiver had the gem of tiamat), then you could simply include those iconic items. I mean, I can take the khan, add a plasma pistol, and call him Sciarius. I can build a Lucious out of Kharn if I convert it right. The rule is that as long as you convert the weapons to be WYSIWYG, nobody cares. Here, there's nothing to convert...

There is, btw, precedent for using models in the same range but for different units as one another. People use Catachan snipers for Ratlings, and ratlings as sniper rifle troopers in line squads all the time, and nobody complains. I've never seen anybody care if I take AoBR marines, paint the helmets white and call them Sternguard. The only difference between most Tervigons and Carnifexes at this point is pose and base size.

On solution is to build the nightrbringer, and paint it to match your army. Also have a Deceiver in a seperate case, holding a banner that reads "My opponent is a buffoon and has small genitalia." If anybody questions the use of the model, simply insert the "proper" model.

I'll second Polonius because that would be hilarious!

A buddy of mine was in a similar position. He wanted deceiver but hated the model. He did a pretty basic, but effective, conversion out of avatar, deceiver, and nightbrining. Created no confusion and worked for him.

Dashofpepper wrote:Well, I do hate the Deceiver model. I'd love to entertain suggestions for "counts as" Deceivers that are imposing, terrifying, C'Tan-ish, and don't look like a cross between a ram and a squid-man. A homosexual ram-squig-man. He also has a creepy, pedophile smile.

I'll post some alternatives tomorrow.

How about just buying the plastic daemon princes and converting it a bit?

I like to think of my Necrons as following the Dragon, and it was my plan to pick up a LoTR Nazgul to use for a counts-as C`Tan.

With varying degrees of silliness:








k, this guy is terrible, but if you want to push the vague egyptian theme, there are likely much better options available...

The Deciever model is actually pretty cool except for the head. Just do a headswap and you're golden.