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

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

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

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

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

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

Aside from making HeavyDs mostly worthless, is this enough?

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

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

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


Automatically Appended Next Post:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Aside from making HeavyDs mostly worthless, is this enough?

Obviously, making Gauss weapons Rending does not mean the units with Gauss weaponry should be the Necron's main Vehicle killing capability. Heavy Destroyers for example, should get AP1 (+1 on the Vehicle Damage Tables).

Also, you should not compare the Necron's longer ranged weaponry to Melta weaponry. First of all, Necrons need to take out Vehicles (especially Transports) from a longer range, as they aren't as good in close combat. Second of all, the Necron's weaponry will fire a lot more often in a game than Melta weaponry will, as they both have more range, and the Necrons are more survivable, so will last longer.

Rending would be cool and would make them more effective against nearly anything (NOT DEMONS HOWEVER) at range.

Also it would show that THEY FREAKING STRIP MOLECULES and make them different than a damn BOLTER

well deamons have lame saves anyway.

@the grog: Rending wouldn't make Heavy destroyers worthless. it doesn't help them, but it doesn't hurt them.


prehaps heavy Gauss cannons should be made Str10?

I came up with a little idea for Necrons to make them a bit more interesting, which might attract a few more players. Add in a C'tan influence on the army, much like chapters. A C'tan has his own special force that he alone controls and therefore confers some special rules onto that army.

Maybe make it so that the C'tan must be in the army list, which might also make them a bit more worth their points.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ya, terrifying visage is a crap shoot, now that I know what you meant earlier. I almost never field flayed ones anyway because power weapon (or similar) attacks are so prevalent in the armies I play against that if I wanted to keep the flayed ones alive I'd have to have a second lord attached with them, and with no ranged ability on the squad they're a liability for sure.

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

I never ever take disruptor fields, waste of points.

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

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

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

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

New CC resolution.

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


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Grey Templar wrote:so you are correct.


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



Automatically Appended Next Post:

Airmaniac wrote:

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

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

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

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

Bolded the misread (Ap3 allows 2+ saves).

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Airmaniac wrote:

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

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

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

If I make a suggestion, it may be down to the fact that it specifically mentions close combat weapons when referring to armour saves. That is why FNP is still granted for units who are hit by such a ranged weapon. Correct me if I'm wrong, by all means, but I believe this to be the case. It's all in the wording.

EDIT: Just saw the post above. There's your answer.

Hm, I'll get back to this.

i would personally be happy with some extra wounds to go around to my more expensive units w/o increasing the price they already are, 2 wound destroyers, 3 wound heavy destroyers, 2 wounds on immortals would really pump up the FNP, i would also like to see a 2+ save on the lord and heavy destroyers but such a thing would obviously warrant a points increase. i would really help set the lord apart from the regular troops and help the heavy destroyer feel much more "heavy" in the game, maybe making them only move 6 inches and increasing the range to 48 while giving them slow and purposeful or something. idk just a thought.

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

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

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

Sasori wrote:

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

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

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

Not really that over the top...this would bring gauss weapons to the point they were at before the new rules set came out...

If you make Gauss weapons rending, thus making it so the light guns no longer threaten the heavy tanks, then you can justify giving the army the better actual anti-tank guns. I want to see the Heavy Gauss Cannon either made Str10 AP1 to reflect it's fluff of putting exit wounds in Land Raiders, or just making it a Lance weapon would work.

One of these days I need to write down my wishlist for all the different Necron units... I'm supposed to be painting up all my Immortals today so maybe that will make a nice project to use to procrastinate on the painting.

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

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

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

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

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

As for rending making HeavyDs worse, I meant by comparison. If they all had rending, I'd be even harder pressed to justify HeavyDs than I am now when you can at least hope to smack Predators on the side armor or snipe Speeders and Attack Bikes.

As for my preferences for changes:

Rending for Gauss and D. fields. FNP for WBB. I think that would balance on points. Some form of 'we don't get run down' change, could be Fearless or Stubborn or something stranger.

Pariahs go to A2, and get a points cut.

Immortals and Warriors likely won't need a change beyond the army-wide ones.

Flayed Ones changing to be faster and/or better at melee with probably a points reduction on top and troops. I mean, look at modern Assault Marines and how poorly Skyclaws compare. Flayed Ones are even worse than Skyclaws! Could be fleet, could be cav, could be built in D. fields. Slapping rending on everything in the codex seems unimaginative, but it works.

Wraiths getting a max unit size of at least 6, or else substantial improvements. You have to be able to field enough power in a single slot to be useful, and 3 Wraiths aren't enough.

Scarabs and Destroyers also probably don't need changes.

HeavyDs get an improvement of some kind, perhaps AP1, S10, Lance, or some combo thereof.

Spyders need a points cut, an improvement to the Particle Cannon, and a change to their rule with no more WBB strangeness.

Tempted to leave the Monolith as is, but I'm sure people complain.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Go ahead and keep counting on luck.

I'll take skill.

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

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

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

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

I never said it wasn't a great idea to try to take them down with glancing 6's, I just said you were wrong that it couldn't be done.
Meh, I've never been worried about land raiders and I probably never will be unless I'm playing on a totally open, no terrain board.

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

WS4 and for 30 points more he could have a 4+ invul and a 3+ armor, making him better than the deceiver in that respect. Ok so lets look here...a regular lord, 100 points, add in a phase shifter and a res orb, 170 points, +10 for warscythe. So, with that being put in there, he may not have all the special abilities and a lower stat line, but the deceiver doesn't have the 3+ save, doesn't get to come back from the dead (indefinitely as long as the roll is made) and doesn't augment the ability of every other necron in the army to be able to come back from the dead from otherwise deadly wounds.

They both have their benefits and their downsides. I'd say the 120 pt difference between the two is appropriate.

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

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

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

Personally, with the way it is written I disagree with that. But I'd play it however the person using FNP models would normally play it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

imweasel wrote:

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

Go ahead and keep counting on luck.

I'll take skill.

Who says my skill doesn't come into play with my luck? Talk all you want really, it's unfortunate we couldn't play a game to test things out.

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

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

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

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

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

nevermind.

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

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

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

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

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

What would be fun is if the orb acted like a 6 inch version of a blood angels chalice and gave any unit within 6 FNP.

That way you get 3+ then a 4+ and then a 4+

Considered mixing priests with the warriors in apocalypse.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Spyders count as 3 models (for PO only)

Monoliths count as 5 models (for PO only)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



Automatically Appended Next Post:

D'Ork wrote:

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

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

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

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

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