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.

To preface, I've played Necrons several times before, even being my go-to tourney army in 5th. But I've long since sold my armies to better focus on my Eldar

But I do have about 1Kpts of Marines, 1K Chaos Marines and almost 1K Necrons for fun games with my kids at home.
Since these are for games at home, I know we can basically do what we want, but I'd like some feedback anyway.
When I started Necrons, Warriors were to only Troop available and Immortals were Elites. Warriors also has a 3+ Armour, like Marines, and came on 25mm bases

Now that Immortals are Troops and Warriors come on 32mm bases, Would it be too much to count Warriors as Immortals as the only Troops as a "callback" to those days?
There would be no actually Warriors used in the game, and each unit would contain at least 1 actual Immortal model to reflect the correct gun (so Telsa Warriors would have 1 "squad leader" Immortal with a Tesla carbine, while Gauss blaster Warriors would have 1 "squad leader" Immortal with Gauss blaster).

This works great for our games as it looks good on the table to have Warriors as the main Troops, and since our games are small, "beefing" them up to Immortals makes the scale "feel" more like the old days of 'skirmish' 40K.
But how would you feel if someone brought this to you LGS? No Warrior datasheets used, all Immortals, but Warrior models?

-

@OP:

Agreeing to such terms always opens up a can of worms in my experience as the person in question will usually press the issue to proxy even more stuff the next time. Therefore the only sensible solution would be a clear NO. Proxying stuff is best reserved for noobs who want to try out the game.

At a FLGS, I'd be OK with it up to a point. As a stop-gap measure I think it's fine, but as a constant "I can't be bothered to get the correct models" sort of thing? Not so much. The problem is the potential for confusion since Warriors are also Troops and a single model with the right gun might not be enough for some people. As with all these things though, your own local group are the only ones who can answer the question, and the only ones whose answers matter.

At home with your kids? Anything goes. Do whatever's the most fun for them!

I wouldn't care so long as you are consistent and either ALL your Warriors are Immortals, or the Warriors that are actually Immortals are clearly marked out in some way.

If you're only running immortals and using them as a stand in for a game or two...i'd allow it as long as you let me ask questions to make sure i get it right, and clear it with me before the game.

For example. All my warriors and half my immortals are still on 25mm bases. They were shipped with them, so its legal. So. (Shrug)

Yeah, back in 5th, these were my "Immortals":


They were always taken in 5-bot squads with a Crytek, so there was never any confusion that they were Warriors (because even then Warriors were 10-bot minimum)
They were embarking in my Night Scythes:

And I had a whole "Eldar Craftworld infected with a Wraith virus" backstory and army:
http://glennsgwmodels.blogspot.com/2012/08/eldar-wraithcrons.html

Even in bigger tourney involving player outside my LGS, I never had to explain what they were as:
A) I had 0 Warriors in the list
B) It was obvious due to unit size and the meta at the time
C) There was obvious conversion effort involved, which I've found tends to go a LOOONG way to appease opponents

Anyway, thanx for all the feedback. Currently, these are the models I'm working with:

Going to be adding some Tesla Immortal "squad leaders" soon

-

I wouldn't object to you using Warriors as Immortals, however, I'm really not a fan of the 'squad-leader' idea. I think it would be too easy for the squad-leaders to be overlooked or confused with actual leaders, leading to confusion and mistakes as to what weapon a given "Immortal" squad is actually armed with.

My preference would be that you either:
- Use Warriors only as Gauss Immortals, and then actual Immortal models if you want Tesla ones (I mean, if you're doing a callback, the Immortals should all have Gauss anyway. )
Or
- Modify the Tesla-Warriors so that they're visually distinct from the Gauss ones. Even something as simple as not including the green Gauss rod in their guns would be fine.


EDIT: Just as an example, if you wanted to say that your regular Warriors were Guass-Immortals, whilst your converted immortals (i.e. Warriors with Splinter Rifles) were using Tesla, I'd have no issue with that.

 TheFleshIsWeak wrote:
I wouldn't object to you using Warriors as Immortals, however, I'm really not a fan of the 'squad-leader' idea. I think it would be too easy for the squad-leaders to be overlooked or confused with actual leaders, leading to confusion and mistakes as to what weapon a given "Immortal" squad is actually armed with.

My preference would be that you either:
- Use Warriors only as Gauss Immortals, and then actual Immortal models if you want Tesla ones (I mean, if you're doing a callback, the Immortals should all have Gauss anyway. )
Or
- Modify the Tesla-Warriors so that they're visually distinct from the Gauss ones. Even something as simple as not including the green Gauss rod in their guns would be fine.


EDIT: Just as an example, if you wanted to say that your regular Warriors were Guass-Immortals, whilst your converted immortals (i.e. Warriors with Splinter Rifles) were using Tesla, I'd have no issue with that.

That's fair. I'm thinking of using the Deathmark guns (I've got about 8 in my bitz box) on "Tesla Warriors" and keep the Guass Flayers as-is for Gauss Immortals. But we'll see

-

I'd be fine with it-though as others say, you'll want to get the actual Immortals before TOO long.

As a note, though, I'm only cool with it because you're not fielding any actual Warriors. If you were to say "These Warriors are Warriors, but these are Immortals," I'd politely ask you to have it be all one or the other.

As a second note, love the painting!

Thanx. The only thing the sparked this for me is that I wanted to have an actual Battalion for my Necrons.
Up until recently, our games at home only used Power Levels and BRB strats. But my boys now have 1500pts each of Salamanders and UM respectively. They also bought the SM codex so they can use their Strats.

A Necron Outrider (which was what we were using before) just doesn't cut the mustard against Marine Battalions, especially since I'm also using a Monolith to fill points. So I need to add more Troops. A Warrior box can get me 2x 6 "Immortals", plus the 10 I already have forms a good enough set of Troops for 1000-1500pts against Codex Marines

-

 Galef wrote:
Thanx. The only thing the sparked this for me is that I wanted to have an actual Battalion for my Necrons.
Up until recently, our games at home only used Power Levels and BRB strats. But my boys now have 1500pts each of Salamanders and UM respectively. They also bought the SM codex so they can use their Strats.

A Necron Outrider (which was what we were using before) just doesn't cut the mustard against Marine Battalions, especially since I'm also using a Monolith to fill points. So I need to add more Troops. A Warrior box can get me 2x 6 "Immortals", plus the 10 I already have forms a good enough set of Troops for 1000-1500pts against Codex Marines

-

If you plan on gaming with other folk, I'd recommend getting Immortals instead of Warriors.

If you're just gaming with the kids, though, whatever works.

What about Warrior models with Immortal guns?

 Galef wrote:
To preface, I've played Necrons several times before, even being my go-to tourney army in 5th. But I've long since sold my armies to better focus on my Eldar

But I do have about 1Kpts of Marines, 1K Chaos Marines and almost 1K Necrons for fun games with my kids at home.
Since these are for games at home, I know we can basically do what we want, but I'd like some feedback anyway.
When I started Necrons, Warriors were to only Troop available and Immortals were Elites. Warriors also has a 3+ Armour, like Marines, and came on 25mm bases

Now that Immortals are Troops and Warriors come on 32mm bases, Would it be too much to count Warriors as Immortals as the only Troops as a "callback" to those days?
There would be no actually Warriors used in the game, and each unit would contain at least 1 actual Immortal model to reflect the correct gun (so Telsa Warriors would have 1 "squad leader" Immortal with a Tesla carbine, while Gauss blaster Warriors would have 1 "squad leader" Immortal with Gauss blaster).

This works great for our games as it looks good on the table to have Warriors as the main Troops, and since our games are small, "beefing" them up to Immortals makes the scale "feel" more like the old days of 'skirmish' 40K.
But how would you feel if someone brought this to you LGS? No Warrior datasheets used, all Immortals, but Warrior models?

-

I'd be fine with that, as I also miss the days when Warriors were essentially Marines+1. . . and Immortals were arguably some of the best infantry in the game.

Them current Immortal models look the nutz though, even if they are a bit pricey.

I do have a few Warriors converted to Immortals using Tesla carbines and Deathmark torso backs, but not enough for whole units (hence the "squad leader" idea).
There's also tons I could do if I wanted to take actual Warriors.

For example, I could base Warriors on 25mm as they were before and cut their Flayers down (remove the green rod middle section almost entirely to make "stub" flayers), while "Immortals" would be on 32mm bases with full barrel flayers, Maybe even paint white faces on the "Immortals"
But I have no desire to do Warriors atm since you need so friggin many of them to work.

I certainly do like the look of the plastic Immortal though. I just can't justify the nearly double cost over Warriors when I KNOW I can make them into Immortals with minimal effort

-

 Galef wrote:

But I have no desire to do Warriors atm since you need so friggin many of them to work.

Yeah. . . that stinks.

Although I do recall some "terror armies" of huge Warrior swarms when they first came out. The old Res Orb was sooo juicy back then.

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Galef wrote:

But I have no desire to do Warriors atm since you need so friggin many of them to work.

Yeah. . . that stinks.

Although I do recall some "terror armies" of huge Warrior swarms when they first came out. The old Res Orb was sooo juicy back then.

Well, that and warriors were the only Troops choice in a necron army.
Immortals were T5 elites back then. Their gauss blasters were also assault 2.
I miss T5 immortals :(

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

Immortals were T5 elites back then. Their gauss blasters were also assault 2.
I miss T5 immortals :(

They were amaaaaazzziiing back then.

Yeah, easily the best elite choice. If you don't have a squad of immortals you aren't building your 3rd necron army right.
Though with a choice of 3 elite choices, that's probably not saying much.
I mean, I love pariahs and I think they were a cool concept, but their actual battlefield efficacy was questionable.

 Galef wrote:

But I have no desire to do Warriors atm since you need so friggin many of them to work.

Yeah, I'm the same. It's not just that you need a ton of Warriors, it's that you also need a ton of support for them.

They're like a black hole that sucks more and more points out of my list.

I'm really not a fan of proxying models with other models from the same army. Mostly because I have had it used against me, because I didn't completely memorize the opponents army list during his 45 second overview of the army. (oh, the sentinels are armored sentinels now that they're in combat, eh?)

Not really a fan of teaching kids bad habits in this regard, either.

But how would you feel if someone brought this to you LGS? No Warrior datasheets used, all Immortals, but Warrior models?

Well, in friendly games this should not be a problem, also not in our gaming group.
But Immortals look more martial than Warriors. I'd prefer the Immortal models counting as Immortals at all cost.

Voss wrote:
I'm really not a fan of proxying models with other models from the same army. Mostly because I have had it used against me, because I didn't completely memorize the opponents army list during his 45 second overview of the army. (oh, the sentinels are armored sentinels now that they're in combat, eh?)

I mean, you say that but half the time I can't tell what my opponent's models are even when they're completely WYSIWYG.

Hell, I play Imperial Guard and I guarantee I would not be able to visually differentiate between Scout Sentinels and Armoured Sentinels.

Throughout the years, though, I've mastered a strange and disturbing talent for confirming the identity of my opponent's models. My trick goes something like this:

Me - 'Did you say those were Armoured Sentinels or Scout Sentinels?'
Opponent - 'Armoured.'

Thus far, this Jedi Mind Trick has baffled even the greatest of my adversaries.

 TheFleshIsWeak wrote:

Voss wrote:
I'm really not a fan of proxying models with other models from the same army. Mostly because I have had it used against me, because I didn't completely memorize the opponents army list during his 45 second overview of the army. (oh, the sentinels are armored sentinels now that they're in combat, eh?)

I mean, you say that but half the time I can't tell what my opponent's models are even when they're completely WYSIWYG.

Hell, I play Imperial Guard and I guarantee I would not be able to visually differentiate between Scout Sentinels and Armoured Sentinels.

Throughout the years, though, I've mastered a strange and disturbing talent for confirming the identity of my opponent's models. My trick goes something like this:

Me - 'Did you say those were Armoured Sentinels or Scout Sentinels?'
Opponent - 'Armoured.'

Thus far, this Jedi Mind Trick has baffled even the greatest of my adversaries.

Yeah, I feel the same about certain armies. With so, so many options of Codices, units and wargear, it's hard to keep up with what is what outside of my own army.
That's why you make an army list and have it ready if something questionable occurs.

In the earlier example with the Sentinel/Armoured Sentinel, it would take 2 seconds to show it is an Armoured Sentinel in their army roster. If they have several Sentinels, some armoured, some not, then there's an issue, but if ALL Sents in the list are armoured? Good enough for me.

There's just way too much going on in this game now to completely avoid having to go over what unit has what mid-game. So if you are doing this already, "counts-as" *IF DONE RIGHT*, shouldn't ever be an issue.

In my case, I like how Warriors look and I like that they are cheaper (in real money). Since Warriors cannot have "unit leaders" and no HQ have a big honkin gun, it should immediately trigger "Hey, that's right, those are Immortals. His Roster doesn't include Warriors at all"

-

I've proxied warriors as immortals regularly as I own no immortals.
No one ever batted an eyelid to it.
YMMV yadda yadda.

A warrior with a gauss blaster or tesla carbine is clearly being used as an immortal as the weapons are so distinctive from the only weapon a warrior can carry I have no problem with it.