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.

Interesting...this

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

Followed by this...

Kevin949 wrote:Yes, I know there are big differences between FNP and WBB, which is why I don't want necrons to have FNP.

Along with several other comments you have made in this thread has led me to the conclusion that you simply don't have a clue on what you are talking about.

Replacing WBB with FNP, the Pros and Cons as I see them.

Pros;
Get to make your attacks back in HtH after making the save.
Lose combat by less so you're less likely to get swept.
Can't lose your shot at making the saves because your unit isn't next to another unit.
Your bots don't abandon their original unit to join another before the original is dead.
You get to make your saves before the end of the Shooting Phase so you take less Morale Checks.

Cons;
You don't get FNP vs AP 1/2 and weapons that cause Instant Death despite not being 2x your Toughness.

imweasel wrote:Interesting...this

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

Followed by this...

Kevin949 wrote:Yes, I know there are big differences between FNP and WBB, which is why I don't want necrons to have FNP.

Along with several other comments you have made in this thread has led me to the conclusion that you simply don't have a clue on what you are talking about.

big differences doesn't mean they aren't similar. A large difference is that FNP has an AP qualifier and WBB does not. The general outcome of both rules is identical and they both require a 4+ and have almost identical rules to follow by. But WBB is better, and there are key major differences.

So if I don't have a clue, why not enlighten me instead of your vague comments that show nothing but your ability to hit the multi quote button.

Aduro wrote:Replacing WBB with FNP, the Pros and Cons as I see them.

Pros;
Get to make your attacks back in HtH after making the save.
Lose combat by less so you're less likely to get swept.
Can't lose your shot at making the saves because your unit isn't next to another unit.
Your bots don't abandon their original unit to join another before the original is dead.
You get to make your saves before the end of the Shooting Phase so you take less Morale Checks.

Cons;
You don't get FNP vs AP 1/2 and weapons that cause Instant Death despite not being 2x your Toughness.

If your opponent goes second, another advantage of FNP is still being able to take your Feel no Pain saves against wounds suffered in your opponent's last turn.

Thats actually a very good point and i hadnt thought of that

Add to cons:

You can swamp a FNP squad with numerous shots, hitting them until they're gone. WBB squads don't test until after you're done firing, so the effect of massed small arms fire is mitigated.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Kevin949 wrote:
big differences doesn't mean they aren't similar.

You aren't helping yourself here.

I do pretty well with Necrons actually.

The C'Tan is no longer optional for competitive play, and Destroyers are also a must. I like a big old heap of Scarabs with Disruption Fields too, just to tear up those IG tanks.

D'Ork wrote:Add to cons:

You can swamp a FNP squad with numerous shots, hitting them until they're gone. WBB squads don't test until after you're done firing, so the effect of massed small arms fire is mitigated.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Kevin949 wrote:
big differences doesn't mean they aren't similar.

You aren't helping yourself here.

Just drop it dude, you just have to poke don't you? I'm sorry you don't grasp the subtleties and complexity of the american english language.

Also, your comment only really applies under the pretense that the squad would be able to get back up as you can still swamp a necron squad with small arms fire and probably to more effect especially if there are no same unit types near by.

Kevin949 wrote:Also, your comment only really applies under the pretense that the squad would be able to get back up as you can still swamp a necron squad with small arms fire and probably to more effect especially if there are no same unit types near by.

The Necron player I play against is a big fan of Res Orbs, but yes, assuming the squads are separated, there are no res orbs, and there are no other units of the same type nearby, you're right. Part of beating Necrons is finding those isolated units and stomping them, fast.

D'Ork wrote:

Kevin949 wrote:Also, your comment only really applies under the pretense that the squad would be able to get back up as you can still swamp a necron squad with small arms fire and probably to more effect especially if there are no same unit types near by.

The Necron player I play against is a big fan of Res Orbs, but yes, assuming the squads are separated, there are no res orbs, and there are no other units of the same type nearby, you're right. Part of beating Necrons is finding those isolated units and stomping them, fast.

A Resurrection Orb does not allow you to negate the fact that you need a unit of the same type within 6" to be able to take your WBB save. It only allows you to take a WBB save against close combat attacks that ignore armour saves, and attacks (ranged and close combat) that have a Strength value equal to, or higher than, the target's Thoughness value.

D'Ork wrote:Add to cons:

You can swamp a FNP squad with numerous shots, hitting them until they're gone. WBB squads don't test until after you're done firing, so the effect of massed small arms fire is mitigated.

This is only true if there is another Necron unit of the same type within 6" of the models attempting to WBB. Also, your unit will still count as destroyed for Kill Point purposes, as the models that do get to WBB and make it, will be forced to join the other Necron unit.

ya, and really only a bad or unlucky necron player would be that far away from a res orb. Or is playing on a tactical advantage (IE boosting wraiths to take out a weaker CC squad with a heavy weapon).

Well, bad or unlucky is more harsh than I mean it to sound. Hopefully you get what I mean.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Airmaniac wrote:
A Resurrection Orb does not allow you to negate the fact that you need a unit of the same type within 6" to be able to take your WBB save. It only allows you to take a WBB save against close combat attacks that ignore armour saves, and attacks (ranged and close combat) that have a Strength value equal to, or higher than, the target's Thoughness value.

You mean double the toughness of the unit. A str6 vs t5 attack will not negate WBB, but a str8 vs t4 will negate WBB w/o orb nearby.

This is only true if there is another Necron unit of the same type within 6" of the models attempting to WBB. Also, your unit will still count as destroyed for Kill Point purposes, as the models that do get to WBB and make it, will be forced to join the other Necron unit.

Only if their original squad has no remaining members standing will they be forced to join the other unit. If 1 model out of 10 is still up, they remain a unit.

D'Ork wrote:Add to cons:

You can swamp a FNP squad with numerous shots, hitting them until they're gone. WBB squads don't test until after you're done firing, so the effect of massed small arms fire is mitigated.

This isn't a benefit of WBB in many cases. FNP saves happen regardless, but you can deny WBB with tactics now that most armies depend on (often far flung) Destroyer units and have a minimum of Warriors. It was great when the Phalanx worked, but those days have passed and multiple squads of Warriors near each other just makes a bigger target.

The Grog wrote:
FNP saves happen regardlesst.

what world do you live in...

FNP is denied by AP1, AP2, Powerweapons, Rending wounds, Winds of Chaos, Sweeping Advances, Dangerous terrain tests, Perils of the Warp, Wounds that cause instant death. The list goes on...

WBB has less restrictions (especially in terms of ranged weaponry) that can't be dealt with by means of tactics.

FNP is not a suitable replacement for WBB. It might be ok to give certain Necrons both WBB and FNP but to remove WBB would be like taking away ATSKNF for space-marines.

Kevin949 wrote:big differences doesn't mean they aren't similar.

Wow. I don't know exactly what to say to this, and you say I am being obtuse. I can't save you from yourself. I'm not a miracle worker, but I will try.

Kevin949 wrote:A large difference is that FNP has an AP qualifier and WBB does not. The general outcome of both rules is identical and they both require a 4+ and have almost identical rules to follow by. But WBB is better, and there are key major differences.

Uh...slightly correct. Let's list the differences and the effect it has on necron play to show you the advantage it will give necrons.

1) FNP doesn't work if the str is double toughness or ap 1 or 2 or a wound that doesn't allow an armor save.
2) WBB is similar, except there is no ap requirement, but it REQUIRES a like model to be within 6" for the WBB roll.
3) The outcome at the END is similar, as wounds are 'ignored'. The results are quite different, especially in CC resolution where necrons have a difficult time surviving even against tactical marines.

Numbers 2 and 3 are quite SIGNIFICANT differences, especially in effect when coupled with the following:

1) FNP happens immediately after a failed armor save.
2) WBB happens during the following movement phase.

That is the SIGNIFICANT difference for CC resolution, which necrons are lacking in.

The ramifications are that FNP will help necrons in the area where they are lacking, CC. FNP rolls will make a significant difference in helping them survive from getting swept in CC resolution. Will this hurt them in shooting? Yes, particularly VS plasma weapons. However, necrons never have done bad in shooting it out with an army, except for now in 5th edition vs medium and heavy armor.

How can you not see this?

Kevin949 wrote:So if I don't have a clue, why not enlighten me instead of your vague comments that show nothing but your ability to hit the multi quote button.

People have done so several times in this thread. You yourself have contradicted yourself several times in this thread. When people call you out on this you dig yourself deeper as you have done several times in this thread.

If you do have a clue, please stop inserting your foot in your mouth and I am sure that something constructive can come out of this and you can be 'enlightened'.

My proposed fixes for 5th ed until a new codex came out? It could have been done in an FAQ/Clarification that would have taken a one page PDF.

Give necrons FNP and WBB and simplify it, hopefully negating the need for giving them the Stubborn USR.

1) Necrons have FNP.
2) Res Orb now allows FNP in any circumstance. If a necron unit is withing range of a Res Orb, the models in the unit get a FNP roll, regardless.
3) Simply change WBB to allow a WBB roll for any model that was eligible for a FNP roll, but failed it, in the following movement phase after being teleported through a monolith.

See how that works? It keeps some 'fluff/flavor' for the necrons while getting rid of some of the issues/arguments over the WBB rule. You still get 'two roll's' to bring back your models (assuming at least one model in the unit survives), helps in CC, gives a reason to take a Res Orb and monoliths. I believe these changes would eliminate any need for necrons to get the Stubborn USR.

The last change is simple. Gauss = Rending. Disruptor Field = Rending.

Some of folks biggest gripes (in 4th ed) was that warriors could effectively destroy a heavy vehicle as easily (from a point cost ratio) as units double or triple their cost. Rending would now allow warriors to affect light vehicles, but hardly capable of affecting heavy vehicles. Destroyers and Immortals would gain an appropriate 'effectiveness' vs heavier vehicles as their weapon strength went up and cost per model rose. Now necrons have a chance to affect heavy armor, without taking up heavy foc slots with heavy destroyers instead of monoliths, despite your disconnect with statistics.

Disruptor Fields now granting a model rending might (doubtful, but still might) now make it worth taking on necrons to help them in CC. It would make a significant dent on scarabs vs vehicles, but would make them more efficient vs most troop choices. Crack open a rhino with gauss fire and have the scarabs swarm over the tac squad, or something to that effect.

Kevin949 wrote:

Airmaniac wrote:
A Resurrection Orb does not allow you to negate the fact that you need a unit of the same type within 6" to be able to take your WBB save. It only allows you to take a WBB save against close combat attacks that ignore armour saves, and attacks (ranged and close combat) that have a Strength value equal to, or higher than, the target's Thoughness value.

You mean double the toughness of the unit. A str6 vs t5 attack will not negate WBB, but a str8 vs t4 will negate WBB w/o orb nearby.

Obviously I meant to say double the target's Thoughness value.

Kevin949 wrote:

This is only true if there is another Necron unit of the same type within 6" of the models attempting to WBB. Also, your unit will still count as destroyed for Kill Point purposes, as the models that do get to WBB and make it, will be forced to join the other Necron unit.

Only if their original squad has no remaining members standing will they be forced to join the other unit. If 1 model out of 10 is still up, they remain a unit.

My quote was responding to the original claim D'Ork made, that a disadvantage of FNP is that you can swamp a FNP unit untill it is gone, while a WBB unit will get their WBB rolls at the start of the next turn (if there is another unit of the same type within 6"). Obviously, this only becomes a disadvantage against amounts of fire that will kill more than the entire unit with WBB, otherwise it wouldn't be a disadvantage at all, as both units would just suffer an equal amount of casualties. Since it is only a disadvantage of FNP if the entire WBB unit would be destroyed, you are adding nothing to the discussion by saying: "not if the entire unit isn't destroyed", as WBB wouldn't have the advantage of negating additional shots in that case (there are still models from the unit that are alive!).

Daemon-Archon Ren wrote:

The Grog wrote:
FNP saves happen regardlesst.

what world do you live in...

FNP is denied by AP1, AP2, Powerweapons, Rending wounds, Winds of Chaos, Sweeping Advances, Dangerous terrain tests, Perils of the Warp, Wounds that cause instant death. The list goes on...

WBB has less restrictions (especially in terms of ranged weaponry) that can't be dealt with by means of tactics.

FNP is not a suitable replacement for WBB. It might be ok to give certain Necrons both WBB and FNP but to remove WBB would be like taking away ATSKNF for space-marines.

The one where FNP does NOT say 'must have a model of the same type within 6 inches'. FNP avoids such considerations as 'are your units clustered' and 'if not, can the enemy put one of them completely on the ground' and 'did you remove casualties in the right order'. All tactics considerations, while FNP revolves around what you were shot with.

The Grog wrote: FNP avoids such considerations as 'are your units clustered' and 'if not, can the enemy put one of them completely on the ground' and 'did you remove casualties in the right order'. All tactics considerations, while FNP revolves around what you were shot with.

Sooo... removing a tactical consideration would be beneficial to the Necron list? Again I fail to see the logic as to how something that prevents a single wound, when the wound is dealt, and has about 3X the amount of ways to deny this prevention of a wound is better then an ability that happens at the beginning of the controlling players turn, has methods to prevent its denial (Res orb) loosen restrictions (Tomb Spyders) and Reroll any failures (the monolith) not to mention a smart player will use WBB to quite literally make a 60 man warrior unit with Necron lord attached.

Sadly it sounds like most of the arguments of people who say FNP should replace WBB are by non-Ncron players who have *MAYBE* run into 1 or 2 Ncron lists (especially in 5th edition) that probably saw this thread, checked Scribd for the latest Necron dex and remembered FNP was good from the BA dex...

Daemon-Archon Ren wrote:
Sadly it sounds like most of the arguments of people who say FNP should replace WBB are by non-Ncron players who have *MAYBE* run into 1 or 2 Ncron lists (especially in 5th edition) that probably saw this thread, checked Scribd for the latest Necron dex and remembered FNP was good from the BA dex...

This. WBB is a cool and fluffy game mechanic that should be kept around. Could it use a few tweaks? Sure!

All armies having the same Special Rules gets boring after a while. Do we really need another MEQ with FNP? I say no.

if they gave pariahs FNP I'd be ok with that.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

imweasel wrote:I'm not a miracle worker, but I will try.

And you have failed. You haven't said anything that I wasn't already aware of.

So hey, let me ask you this then, if I used a different word, such as KEY instead of BIG, would it have made more sense to you? Such as "there are key differences between the two rules, but the outcome is the same". Key, big, major, drastic...these are all words you CAN use when describing two similar things.

As for CC, quite honestly the reason necrons have such a hard time in CC is because of power weapons or other similar weapons that ignore armour in CC. Most units that get power weapons have so many attacks and such great stats that there is just nothing to defend against it without a lord+orb nearby, but as you said and I agree, sweeping advance is the end of 'em. That coupled with their initiative kills them. And FNP will not resolve this in its current state unless augmented by some wargear given to a lord but since we can't assume there WILL be something like that, let's not. Heck, we don't even know they will get FNP anyway. I've said it before and I'll say it again, I don't want FNP on necrons. (as stated above, pariahs would be ok)

Daemon-Archon Ren wrote:

The Grog wrote: FNP avoids such considerations as 'are your units clustered' and 'if not, can the enemy put one of them completely on the ground' and 'did you remove casualties in the right order'. All tactics considerations, while FNP revolves around what you were shot with.

Sooo... removing a tactical consideration would be beneficial to the Necron list? Again I fail to see the logic as to how something that prevents a single wound, when the wound is dealt, and has about 3X the amount of ways to deny this prevention of a wound is better then an ability that happens at the beginning of the controlling players turn, has methods to prevent its denial (Res orb) loosen restrictions (Tomb Spyders) and Reroll any failures (the monolith) not to mention a smart player will use WBB to quite literally make a 60 man warrior unit with Necron lord attached.

Sadly it sounds like most of the arguments of people who say FNP should replace WBB are by non-Ncron players who have *MAYBE* run into 1 or 2 Ncron lists (especially in 5th edition) that probably saw this thread, checked Scribd for the latest Necron dex and remembered FNP was good from the BA dex...

My 2500 points of Necrons imply otherwise. Its even my only painted army.

The point you fail to see is that the current powerful list involves few Warriors and lots of Destroyers/Immortals. The Warriors are often in reserve, and thus likely to be split up to cover objectives or from reserve rolls. The Destroyers are likely to be split up for side shots. This makes both of them vulnerable to the 'knock it all down' focus fire option.

And anybody who fields 60 warriors in 5th is asking for a beating. Does anything scream 'Phase me out, PLEASE' like putting all your Warriors in the same place and even the same squad? I'm also tired of tipping models over, measuring what's closest, and hoping they don't get moved accidentally in the mean time. Denying WBB is about tactical and maneuver restrictions, which either make the Necron player shacked in his movement or vulnerable. Denying FNP is about what you get shot with, and you have very little control over that, especially when everything has it. FNP is also the superior rule for surviving close combat.

It is a weaker rule overall. That's why I said

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.

You did bother to read the thread before you opened your mouth, right?

The main problem with the Necrons being a laugh at army, as far as tournament style goes, is the phase out rule is incredibly harsh. It they toned down, or just got rid of it and restructured the army as a whole again with out it, then they are a pretty good army.

When I play my nephew against his Necrons we just get rid of the phase out rule all together and they are instantly harder to play against. Give it a try next time and youll see that the Necrons can very easily be a tougher army to play against.

KingCracker wrote:The main problem with the Necrons being a laugh at army, as far as tournament style goes, is the phase out rule is incredibly harsh. It they toned down, or just got rid of it and restructured the army as a whole again with out it, then they are a pretty good army.

When I play my nephew against his Necrons we just get rid of the phase out rule all together and they are instantly harder to play against. Give it a try next time and youll see that the Necrons can very easily be a tougher army to play against.

It occurred to me that Necrons would also have been at a slight advantage in Scenario 3 at 'Ard Boyz this year... Then again, Phase Out reared it's ugly head and quashed the idea. Back to the shelf, boys.

Daemon-Archon Ren wrote:

The Grog wrote: FNP avoids such considerations as 'are your units clustered' and 'if not, can the enemy put one of them completely on the ground' and 'did you remove casualties in the right order'. All tactics considerations, while FNP revolves around what you were shot with.

Sooo... removing a tactical consideration would be beneficial to the Necron list? Again I fail to see the logic as to how something that prevents a single wound, when the wound is dealt, and has about 3X the amount of ways to deny this prevention of a wound is better then an ability that happens at the beginning of the controlling players turn, has methods to prevent its denial (Res orb) loosen restrictions (Tomb Spyders) and Reroll any failures (the monolith) not to mention a smart player will use WBB to quite literally make a 60 man warrior unit with Necron lord attached.

Sadly it sounds like most of the arguments of people who say FNP should replace WBB are by non-Ncron players who have *MAYBE* run into 1 or 2 Ncron lists (especially in 5th edition) that probably saw this thread, checked Scribd for the latest Necron dex and remembered FNP was good from the BA dex...

Two words: Sweeping Advance.

Necrons are terrible in CC and any opponent worth a lick of salt will exploit that to the utmost. You don't get WBB when you get swept. FNP will help you from getting swept, especially if the res orb rule was that it allowed FNP regardless of circumstance.

It's never been a matter of shooting down necrons in 5th ed, it's been a matter of getting repeatedly swept right off the table.

Why don't you 'experienced' necron players not see that?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Kevin949 wrote:So hey, let me ask you this then, if I used a different word, such as KEY instead of BIG, would it have made more sense to you? Such as "there are key differences between the two rules, but the outcome is the same". Key, big, major, drastic...these are all words you CAN use when describing two similar things.

That would be true, if they were similar. The mechanics and rules are different between FNP and WBB, no matter how you try to twist words.

Kevin949 wrote:As for CC, quite honestly the reason necrons have such a hard time in CC is because of power weapons or other similar weapons that ignore armour in CC. Most units that get power weapons have so many attacks and such great stats that there is just nothing to defend against it without a lord+orb nearby, but as you said and I agree, sweeping advance is the end of 'em.

Uh...what? You do realize that even marine troop choices (not elite assault units that you are using as your example) can easily win combat by 2 or 3? You really want your only and core unit that can be taken cheaply enough to raise your phase out number getting wiped out BY A NON ELITE UNIT 1/3 of the time?

Kevin949 wrote:I've said it before and I'll say it again, I don't want FNP on necrons. (as stated above, pariahs would be ok)

So what in the world would your solution be to the CC issue that necrons face?

imweasel wrote:

Two words: Sweeping Advance.

Necrons are terrible in CC and any opponent worth a lick of salt will exploit that to the utmost. You don't get WBB when you get swept. FNP will help you from getting swept, especially if the res orb rule was that it allowed FNP regardless of circumstance.

It's never been a matter of shooting down necrons in 5th ed, it's been a matter of getting repeatedly swept right off the table.

Why don't you 'experienced' necron players not see that?

Not to be a total D-Bag, but the answer is quite simple really. Us 'experienced' necron players know the weaknesses we face in CC so we don't position ourselves in such a way that we get easily assaulted. It a 6'x4' board, nothing can assault the turn it drops (besides vanny vets) and a monolith makes a very dangerous deathcharge zone. Paraiahs/Lord with Scythe deal with the scariest thing SMs have in melee, Hammer Bros aka Assault Termies (Str 5 attacks that ignore invul gg).

Too bad those Hammer Bros are zipping across the field in a Land Raider, while the Pariahs have to walk to where ever they want to go, and then only get one attack each. Not to mention if you're buying Pariahs and Monoliths it's going to be that much easier to Phase Out what few Necrons you have left.

As an "experienced" Necron player I know that anything that gets charged by any half way decent assaulting unit is dead and gone. They don't survive long enough any more to be Monolithed or Veiled out unless it was some piddly couple man unit that meant to tie you up.

Aduro wrote:Too bad those Hammer Bros are zipping across the field in a Land Raider, while the Pariahs have to walk to where ever they want to go, and then only get one attack each. Not to mention if you're buying Pariahs and Monoliths it's going to be that much easier to Phase Out what few Necrons you have left.

As an "experienced" Necron player I know that anything that gets charged by any half way decent assaulting unit is dead and gone. They don't survive long enough any more to be Monolithed or Veiled out unless it was some piddly couple man unit that meant to tie you up.

First of all, Hammer Bros is the only way I will refer to assault Termies from now on.

Secondly, with the number of shots you can put on a LR with Destroyers you can knock the treads off of it from a ways off in my experience. Also, a nice wall of Monoliths and a C'Tan can make it really hard for those CC units to get to your squishy warriors. Unless you play with Necrons a lot, wouldn't it make sense to defer to the reasoning of someone who does on the subject?

I've played Necrons since they were released, and they are my most used and favorite army.

Aduro wrote:I've played Necrons since they were released, and they are my most used and favorite army.

If you have, unless you are doing it wrong (hopefully unlikely) your teammates are cheating (also hopefully unlikely) or the only armies you seem to be facing are... Dark Eldar, Deathwing, Blood Angels, Space Wolves, etc, you should know that while CC is the way to break a Necron list, it is not too difficult to deal with as a Necron player on a standard 6' by 4' board. None-the-less taking WBB and swapping to FNP is NOT the appropriate solution, maybe incorporating something into WBB to prevent SAs from happening. (also its no cheap fact that I forgot to mention that Hammer Bros CANNOT SA EVER) Or maybe the other changes previously listed...

Daemon-Archon Ren wrote: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)

C&P WBB does NOT need to be changed much less exchanged for FNP. FNP is a different rule, the more people think of it as a "knock-off" of WBB the more people will fail to grasp some of the more complex (and tactical) aspects of this game.

Daemon-Archon Ren wrote:Not to be a total D-Bag, but the answer is quite simple really. Us 'experienced' necron players know the weaknesses we face in CC so we don't position ourselves in such a way that we get easily assaulted. It a 6'x4' board, nothing can assault the turn it drops (besides vanny vets) and a monolith makes a very dangerous deathcharge zone. Paraiahs/Lord with Scythe deal with the scariest thing SMs have in melee, Hammer Bros aka Assault Termies (Str 5 attacks that ignore invul gg).

Monolith makes a 'dangerous death charge zone'? Sure the pie plate can hurt, but only if I roll a one on my consolidation roll after I killed your squad.

Pariahs a threat? PUHLEEZE. You shoot them. They have a 3+ armor save with no WBB and can't be teleported. Take a turn to shoot them, soften them up and then take your licks and squish them if you have to. However, with them being completely foot slogging with zero mobility I would just prefer to outmaneuver them. At 36pts a pop, they simply are not worth it over immortals. Especially as an assault deterrent.

Blocking off a section of the board to limit the necrons already limited mobility in a mobile, mechanized game? Playing not to lose is not a valid strategy, imho. I prefer to play to win.

As far as shooting a land raider with destroyers to immobilize it, it will take 2 squads of 5 destroyers to have an acceptable chance to immobilize it, assuming no cover.

So how do you stop two reliably? Simply hope someone only takes one in their list?

And just how do you propose to take a fairly poorly written rule (WBB) and 'incorporate' something that prevents sweeping advances from happening?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Daemon-Archon Ren wrote:C&P WBB does NOT need to be changed much less exchanged for FNP. FNP is a different rule, the more people think of it as a "knock-off" of WBB the more people will fail to grasp some of the more complex (and tactical) aspects of this game.

Unless you are suggesting on changing how combat res works in 5th ed, it will be more than difficult to stop the CC slaughter necrons face.

Daemon-Archon Ren wrote:

If you have, unless you are doing it wrong (hopefully unlikely) your teammates are cheating (also hopefully unlikely) or the only armies you seem to be facing are... Dark Eldar, Deathwing, Blood Angels, Space Wolves, etc, you should know that while CC is the way to break a Necron list, it is not too difficult to deal with as a Necron player on a standard 6' by 4' board. None-the-less taking WBB and swapping to FNP is NOT the appropriate solution, maybe incorporating something into WBB to prevent SAs from happening. (also its no cheap fact that I forgot to mention that Hammer Bros CANNOT SA EVER) Or maybe the other changes previously listed...

It takes 9 gauss shots to get one damage result. So you have a 25% chance of a full size Destroyer unit immobilizing a vehicle.

Considering that any unit in the SM list can beat Warriors and Destroyers in close combat reliably (even if only by 1-2) if they have a powerfist, you must not play against mech often. Or Orks. Or Tyranids. So, SM, BA, BT, SW, DA, Orks, Tyranids, and DE all threaten close combat. That's what, only 70% of players? Plus IG blobs and Banshees on occasion. All deadly threats if they reach you. What if you have to advance? What if you have objectives into the opposing deployment zone? What if the opponent uses his vastly superior mech maneuverability to simply rush your infantry with transports? If you had made these claims in 4th, you'd have a point. This is 5th.

The assault termis don't have to if they have a non-termi character with them.