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.

Speaking of someone who regularly uses Celestian retinues, I don't agree with you for an instant. Even just 5-person retinues can make a mediocre to okay HQ choice a damned bit stronger.

I guess i just can't wrap my head around it for the necrons. Maybe i ll talk to my friends about some playtesting until then you get a smiley and an if you say so (non sarcastic btw) lol

Well Necrons are tougher than Celestians, and Immortals in particular hit harder, too (T5, S4, WBB) even if their initiative is lower.

Melissia wrote:Speaking of someone who regularly uses Celestian retinues, I don't agree with you for an instant. Even just 5-person retinues can make a mediocre to okay HQ choice a damned bit stronger.

100% truth, though I view it as "Adding a hero makes this 5 man unit stronger," not "Adding 5 men to this hero makes him stronger."

I'm beggining to take a shine to this 'Immortal = Squad Leader' role. Makes sense from both a gaming, bigger better faster stronger, and fluff point of view, being the first to undergo the changes they should have leadership roles of some form.

Scarabs as a troops choice don't sound too bad.

Eh IMHO making the Immortal a squad leader wastes his potential. In my experience, Immortals are at their best when used in 8-10 man groups where they can maximize their firepower.

I suppose a compromise would be to allow them to do both, perhaps have an Immortal Squad Leader with different wargear and appearance who could lead Necron infantry (both Warriors and regular Immortals) in battle.

I don't thinkt hey suggested removing Immortals as a squad...

They didn't.

Personally I am all for scarabs as a troops choice. As someone who runs a Destroyer-heavy list, my troops are basically 360 (absolute minimum) points of dead weight. They're there to soak up wounds and keep my army from phasing out.

However, I will have to insist that if Scarabs become a Troops choice, they MUST have the Necron special rule. Just make them 18 points each instead of 12 (keep the squad capped at 9 bases), let them determine phase out (by bases, not wounds), and let them WBB. Keep in mind WBB is always with only one wound, so even though they have three wounds each, it wouldn't overpower them.

It's interesting to check back in on a thread and be referred to as a they! lol. Scarabs moving to troops as necrons, now that s something I certainly did not consider. Interesting idea though. Just for clarification on my idea of movement for immortals, I was suggesting it to be a squad of warriors with so many options for the upgrade. Say up to three warriors pay ten points to be upgraded to immortals per squad of warriors. You get all the advantages of upgrading like you do every other army in 40k, adds a few new ways to resolve ID wounds to the squad, and let s the army be a little more competitive without changing much for the 5th edition. Fun thought there, if you add a lord on a DB, to a ten man squad where three are immortals, and three warriors get killed, all of a sudden that squad is now toughness 6 to shoot at! hmmmm.

I think Scarabs as troops is fine. I also think Rippers and Squigs should be troops choices that are worth taking, too... the latter is sadly missing, and the former isn't really worth taking.