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.

torblind wrote:
Making RP less dependent on having at least one model left seems like something that could improve things

I think we agree on that front, but what form does that take?

What if maybe, RP rolls are made right before morale? That way, if the squad isn't wiped out, we have a chance to recoup dudes before determining how many "died" that phase.

So, I have a 20 man squad of warriors near a cryptek. 10 die this phase. I roll RP, 5 get back up. Now I roll morale, having lost 5 dudes, and maybe a lose a few more, but I don't lose the whole squad.

Thoughts on that?

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Bharring wrote:
Slayer,
Is it materially different to say:

"You can turn off Fieldcraft stacking on a native -1 to a -2 by moving within 12 inches"? Isn't that a subset of turning off Fieldcraft by moving within 12"?

Regardless, isn't that a ability that is easily denied, yet still very impactful?

Not everyone has that -2 to hit, and honestly I'm fine with anything below -3 to hit, which is when modifiers become pretty silly in a D6 system.

And yeah it IS easily denied. Just like RP. The difference here is you can deny RP in the Psychic, Shooting, and Assault Phases. Fieldcraft, Shadowmasters, Hidden In Plain Sight, and Shroud Protocols can really only be denied in the movement phase (assuming they aren't really closely deployed).

Clearly one of those weaknesses is worse than the other, yes?

Eeer, what?
Psychic and assault straight up don't care about them. They can't be "countered" in these phases, technically, as they don't work to begin with.

Is only defense against shooting that is countered by movement. And considering how many people complain that "assault is dead and only shooting matters" I find it amusing the most moaned about abilities are the ones who weaken shooting and had zero effect on assault.

 iGuy91 wrote:

torblind wrote:
Making RP less dependent on having at least one model left seems like something that could improve things

I think we agree on that front, but what form does that take?

What if maybe, RP rolls are made right before morale? That way, if the squad isn't wiped out, we have a chance to recoup dudes before determining how many "died" that phase.

So, I have a 20 man squad of warriors near a cryptek. 10 die this phase. I roll RP, 5 get back up. Now I roll morale, having lost 5 dudes, and maybe a lose a few more, but I don't lose the whole squad.

Thoughts on that?

I keep coming back to somehow allowing RP even if a unit is wiped. Models dying this turn could have an end of turn RP on 6+ for example, and then possibly normal 5+ start of your next imediate turn.

Then suddenly your enemy wouldn't want to wipe a large unit in one go. If you wipe lets say 20 warriors as a result of enemies shooting, psychic and fight phase, then you would have an imediate 6+ end-of-turn RP for 20 models lost that round (getting you back 3), and then 5+ for the remaining 17, getting you back another 6.

Much better then to stop when its withered down to perhaps 2-3, even letting me pay 2CP to pass morale. Then next time, when they are back up to only 7-8, he could wipe them all, perhaps without me rolling any end-of-turn 6s for those that died that turn.

Perhaps allow this only once per game, but then you have to keep track which is a burden.

Warriors could even remain priced the same way as their RP is now way more potent. RP units would be a pain to wipe out, as Necron should be.

I doubt this will be the way, but somehow some way take the edge off the situation where you are left with one model left or none. As the outcome of that last meager wound is so catastrophic or euphoric, depending on point of view.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Or an emergency end-of-phase RP roll for 2CP, also allowed for units wiped that phase

As far as changes I think the Necron codex absolutely needs:

-Allow a CHARACTER with the INFANTRY keyword to "disembark" from a Night Scythe or Monolith in addition to the normal unit. This would allow for you to drop off, say, a unit of Immortals or Lychguard with an Overlord or Cryptek. I would also make it a bit more clear that the unit is not allowed to move in the movement phase after "disembarking" in such a way. I've seen quite a few players who treat it like any other transport and forget it doesn't have the TRANSPORT keyword.

-Make some serious changes with the Annihilation Barge. It's currently entertainingly overpriced for both its firepower and its survivability. Either increase the number of shots it makes from its Twin Tesla Annihilator to 12 (from 8), or reduce its point cost. It's currently not even close to effective as an anti-infantry weapon. I'm fine with it being bad against armour. But it should be excellent against hordes or low-armour high-volume infantry. There is also merit to making Tesla work on an unmodified roll of a 6 to hit, which removes the bonus from Overlords buffing Immortals, and allows for Tesla to still be effective against the -1 to hit penalties that are common in high-volume low-armour infantry lists.

-Stratagems for Reanimation Protocols related to the Resurrection Orb. This might be to allow a unit to roll RP out of action, such as after a shooting attack by spending command points and the one use of the Resurrection Orb. It would allow the problem of RP being easy to mitigate being solved by use of CPs and a currently unused addition to the HQs.

-Warriors need to do more. They need to have more general damage, or they should be able to survive more damage.If not, then at the least reduce their points cost to 11. Immortals are going to be more of a go-to unit over Warriors even if they introduce a new Guass rule or anything else. They just get more done.

These are points I'm pretty heavily in favour of, and convinced are necessary changes to the current rendition of the codex without being completely overkill. As far as other changes I'm not sold on that I've been thinking about:

-Necrons should have some sort of unit with a 2+ save.

-Monolith needs a serious points cost reduction. Don't know how the change above would increase the effectiveness of Monoliths, but I'm pretty headstrong in my thoughts that it's pretty heavily overcosted.

-Flayed Ones should have their +1 attack returned from the index. I don't run them often, but that's because they've simply never been an enticing choice.

-Praetorians need some sort of buffs. Not sure what exactly though, so I'm listing here. Although their rods should probably be able to be shot as a pistol in combat, but I'm not so sure about that since there is the alternative loadout with the blade and pistol. Don't wanna tread on the toes of that loadout option.

-Destroyers have a greater damage potential against a heavy target such as a tank or monster than the Heavy Destroyers. Seems weird to me. Just an observation there though.

Against T7-T8 /3+ Heavy destroyers are still better

torblind wrote:
Against T7-T8 /3+ Heavy destroyers are still better

They're not necessarily better against targets with Invulns or lower sv or toughness, Such as Knights, Dark Eldar, Wraithknights etc. Though that's not as relevant as the point as I'm trying to make. Destroyers each have the potential to do 9 damage to a single model, while Heavy Destroyers only have the potential to do 6. Not that it's necessarily a problem, but it's a weird disconnect for me.

Oh wow, you're right. In terms of damage a gauss cannon is actually better. Maybe heavy gauss should be 2 shots or something. Or maybe flat damage instead of variable, as then you will always deal a certain amount of damage instead of rolling for it. It has to be at least 3 though.

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
Oh wow, you're right. In terms of damage a gauss cannon is actually better. Maybe heavy gauss should be 2 shots or something. Or maybe flat damage instead of variable, as then you will always deal a certain amount of damage instead of rolling for it. It has to be at least 3 though.

It's probably better to drop the regular Gauss Cannon to 2 shots. It's only carried by Destroyers and underslung by the two Arks, AFAIK, so wouldn't affect many units--and as overpriced as the Arks are, I'd never consider a Gauss Cannon over saving 7pts and going with a Tesla Cannon on them instead. Probably give the GC a small price decrease, too, but Heavy 2 would still be pretty good.

If you raise the efficiency of the Heavy Gauss, I'd say you're looking at adding at least another 15-25pts to their cost, considering they'll effectively be twin lascannons with 12" less range but -4 instead of -3. The weapon itself is already costed reasonably well; maybe a point too expensive considering the cut range and the fact they're only ever used in groups of 3 at most so it's not like you're able to stack them particularly easily, but not really enough to worth mentioning. Heavy Destroyers already suffer from being too few in number to really survive much punishment, and increasing their cost further just compounds the issue and makes them even more glass cannon-y. An increase to 28-30ppw but a change to 2D3 damage might be alright; you're paying 3-5pts more than an SM lascannon, and keep the shorter range and extra AP, but also get at least 2 damage out of it, and an average of 4.

It might also make taking a Triarch Stalker with a twin HGC worth a bit more of a damn if it could deal 4-12 damage with an average of 8 instead of the 2-12 with an average of 6. The Stalker would still need one hell of a price drop, but in the meantime it becomes a little less of an unreasonably expensive markerlight.

But I like having gauss cannons with 3 shots. It reminds me of third ed necrons. Reducing them to 1 damage might be a good idea, but then you'd have to give other weapons multiple damage, because at the moment gauss cannons are our only common source of multiple damage. Common as in "more than 1 shot at a time or is not only found on extremely expensive models"

I'd actually like to see more particle weapons available. They tend to have multiple damage and high strength at the cost of pathetic AP, so seeing particle shredders on more units than the triarch stalker might be interesting.
Hell, if anything the annihilation barge should have the option to take either twin shredder, twin destructor or twin heavy gauss. It makes no sense that a weapons platform would be limited to a single primary weapon configuration.
The twin destructor should have more shots. 8 shots isn't enough, not at that AP.

D2 Damage might be a fair compromise; still got a decent average, and can put a few dents in multi-wound models with less of an ability to drown anything shy of a knight in damage dice.

That said, the point that Destroyers are better at dealing damage than Heavy Destroyers might not be helped by the fact that you can only get 3 HDs in a single unit at a time, and it's not like paying 300pts for 6 Destroyers is exactly cheap. Sure, they can take out some things more reliably than HDs, but when I'm paying 300pts, I'd kinda expect them to outperform a unit that costs half as much and has half as many models, even if they are a little over-efficient.

Tweaking Destroyer performance at the same time as boosting that of Heavy Destroyers might be the way forward; just altering the Destroyers leaves an issue where Heavy Destroyers are still a bit sub-par. Boosting their unit size maximum might help, or a minor alteration to the HGC that doesn't also massively boost their cost--and make DDAs even more of an auto-take than they already are--could work, but IMO they do need a bit of extra *something*.

Please for the love of god. Don't nerf destroyers. 3 shots is appropriate. They really aren't good anti-armor unless using extermination protocols.

Buff the overpriced garbage that is heavy destroyers.
Make the heavy destroyers either heavy 2, or make them be d3+3 damage, and thus more reliable.

 iGuy91 wrote:
Please for the love of god. Don't nerf destroyers. 3 shots is appropriate. They really aren't good anti-armor unless using extermination protocols.

Buff the overpriced garbage that is heavy destroyers.
Make the heavy destroyers either heavy 2, or make them be d3+3 damage, and thus more reliable.

Having more reliable multi-damage weapons might be an interesting faction trait. You'd think an advanced race obsessed with efficiency and reputed to have dangerous weapons would have weapons with less widely variable damage output.
I mean, necron heavy weapons should really deal at least 2 damage, guaranteed.

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
Having more reliable multi-damage weapons might be an interesting faction trait. You'd think an advanced race obsessed with efficiency and reputed to have dangerous weapons would have weapons with less widely variable damage output.
I mean, necron heavy weapons should really deal at least 2 damage, guaranteed.

And I think that comment really points to a lot of my issues with how the Necrons feel right now. We're supposed to be advanced, and we can do some neat deployment tricks that other factions can't, and we have unparalleled healing ability (when our units aren't completely wiped out)... but none of it feels very useful, and it comes at the expense of fielding an effective and efficient army.

Necrons badly need a points decrease. If you wanted to have fun and take 30 Lychguard in a Vanguard that's basically a 1000 point detachment, more if you're using shields and depending on your HQs.
No max strength unit of infantry should cost more than 280 in my opinion.

But here are some other suggestions

Annihilation Barges: Increase range on the Tesla Destructor to 48", increase shots to 12, increase damage to 2. At least two of those things needs to happen. I'm fine with it being AP0 that's Tesla's thing.

Deathmarks: make them S6 AP0... or S5 AP-1. They're too weak currently.

The Monolith: this is the big one. First of all, it can afford to drop about 80 points. Give it a 2+ Save and T10. But most importantly, the wording on the Eternity Gate rule needs to change as currently, per the current Beta rules units on the tomb world cannot come out of the Monolith till Turn 3 outside your Deployment Zone. That's nuts. It should read: "after the Monolith has moved in the Movement Phase, a single unit that was set up on their tomb world be transported onto the battlefield by the Monolith." This rewording would also apply to the Night Scythe.

I sincerely believe that this one wording change could affect our whole Faction Meta. If you can drop the Monolith 12" away from the enemy Turn 2, AND then disembark unit(s) who can move, advance, shoot or charge the same turn, it would make units like Lychguard so much more attractive, and make more diverse lists a possibility.

An alternative specific to the Night Scythe... it's an invasion beam, make it long range so you can do it up to 9" away from the model.

Ghost Arks: should have a transport capacity of 12. Warriors take one space, all other infantry units take 2 spaces. That way the transport can take one HQ and a 5 man squad of anything.

For Gauss weapons: you could have them get +1 to wound against vehicles or models with 10+ Wounds.

I worry about the Deathmark change. Seems... A little much.

Rest of it seems cool.

T10 is quite unprecedented too


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Rest is big yay.

torblind wrote:
T10 is quite unprecedented too


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Rest is big yay.

Honestly, all that really means is Heavy Bolters and their equivalents wound on 6s.

And Lascannons on 5s... Maybe T9 would be better.

Looking at the BAO results (i know im late) and the invitational tournament (only 1x necrons and the final being IK soup vs IK soup) I really hope for some drastic changes by now... If not by buffing the necron units themself then nerfing the s..t out of CP battery, IK, just the current meta as this might indirectly buff necrons too.

Seeing as FLG being a playtester and they (Reece) dont think CP Battery is OP im expecting just minor to none tweaks

I mean.. T10/2+ I'd take it almost every time, just for an unkillable gun blob that does teleport shenanigans. Always comes in handy.

Seems they are only doing point adjustments though


Automatically Appended Next Post:

ImPhaeronWeasel wrote:
Looking at the BAO results (i know im late) and the invitational tournament (only 1x necrons and the final being IK soup vs IK soup) I really hope for some drastic changes by now... If not by buffing the necron units themself then nerfing the s..t out of CP battery, IK, just the current meta as this might indirectly buff necrons too.

Seeing as FLG being a playtester and they (Reece) dont think CP Battery is OP im expecting just minor to none tweaks

Yeah I can't quite wrap my mind around FLG, for someone who seems that serious and devotes that much time and effort, I mean just count the number of necron appearances and their results by now and compared to what they said about them.. obvious disconnect.

torblind wrote:


Automatically Appended Next Post:

ImPhaeronWeasel wrote:
Looking at the BAO results (i know im late) and the invitational tournament (only 1x necrons and the final being IK soup vs IK soup) I really hope for some drastic changes by now... If not by buffing the necron units themself then nerfing the s..t out of CP battery, IK, just the current meta as this might indirectly buff necrons too.

Seeing as FLG being a playtester and they (Reece) dont think CP Battery is OP im expecting just minor to none tweaks

Yeah I can't quite wrap my mind around FLG, for someone who seems that serious and devotes that much time and effort, I mean just count the number of necron appearances and their results by now and compared to what they said about them.. obvious disconnect.

Just this. The meta just changed to (Dark)Eldar vs AM soup (BA/Custodes plus IK). Especially him (Reece) being fully serious „I played a bad demon list once at GT and went 4 1 so this means demons sre good“ , the same with a space marines list. This is just delusional.
Changing the meta to even less models, why even release Adeptus Titanicus? CP Battery is broken. Only a handful of armies are viable and this CP thing is boosting already strong codexies even more breaking the game mechanic and balance.

Sorry for OT...

Change Necron points somehow but even with point changes I dont see how to make necrons a GOOD codex (with fun diverse builds etc) WITHOUT changing their rules.
More and more I dont feel so good about the FAQ/CA

So what kind of adjustment is appropriate for our most expensive troops?

At the moment Lychguard with shields are 34, Lychguard with scythes and Praetorians are 30. RP favours max strength units and spending 300+ a pop on a single unit is eye watering. So what would be reasonable to expect?

And for our vehicles? Night Scythes and Doom Scythes are worse than Wave Serpents in just about every way but are more expensive. The Annihilation Barge performs very poorly for it's cost; it's problems go way beyond the mere cost of it, but a points drop would be welcome nonetheless.

None. They need buffs and synergies, not mere points drops. "Just make a cheaper" is a terrible way to solve a problem.
Remember that Lychguard and Praets have 2 wounds each. They can actually get away with being in units of 5.

Tesla Destructors need to be stronger. Either double the shots or D2, but not both.

Flyers in general need to have that stupid minimum movement rule removed. Its a port over from 7th, and its gak.

Guard are actually pretty good, they are just so slow. Necron mobility options are too limited this edition. Monoliths can't bring in units from the tomb world when they arrive, Scythes are flyers, ergo crap, and the Veil of Darkness is once a game. All of these need rectifying, and maybe a ground based night scythe equivalent.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

dapperbandit wrote:


Annihilation Barges: Increase range on the Tesla Destructor to 48", increase shots to 12, increase damage to 2. At least two of those things needs to happen. I'm fine with it being AP0 that's Tesla's thing.

No. That's insane. Destructors don't need to be that long ranged because they are already on a mobile platform. If you can't get into range with the annihilation barge, you are doing something wrong.
It goes against the necron identity too; necrons are supposed to have limited range weapons on average. Anything more than that are the exceptions, not the rule.
12 shots at 2 damage each seems excessive to me. I don't think there's a unit in the game that can deal that many S7+auto hit shots at 2 damage for ~150 points.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

dapperbandit wrote:



Deathmarks: make them S6 AP0... or S5 AP-1. They're too weak currently.

Eh, probably S5. They already deal mortal wounds, so AP-1 might be overkill. Remember that they can take the Mephrit trait, which means that -1 can become -2. That's pretty nasty in conjunction with mortal wounds.
They could probably drop a point or two as they are only T4 3+ save models, and I would like to see their marking ability return from 5th ed. I mean, they are called Deathmarks. Their name doesn't make sense anymore. I have no idea why they dropped it. Then again, a lot of their decisions for necrons are questionable.

dapperbandit wrote:


The Monolith: this is the big one. First of all, it can afford to drop about 80 points. Give it a 2+ Save and T10. But most importantly, the wording on the Eternity Gate rule needs to change as currently, per the current Beta rules units on the tomb world cannot come out of the Monolith till Turn 3 outside your Deployment Zone. That's nuts. It should read: "after the Monolith has moved in the Movement Phase, a single unit that was set up on their tomb world be transported onto the battlefield by the Monolith." This rewording would also apply to the Night Scythe.

Eh, not sure about the T10. Seems to be too excessive, especially when combined the 2+ save and Living Metal. The 2+ save byitself is probably fine, but I think the 80 points drop might be too much if we go that route. Maybe 40 points.
Agreed with the wording on the Eternity Gate. As is it doesn't work and the monolith has to stay on the table for a turn. During which time your opponent could surround it and stop it from deploying units.

if we're just spitballing here, seeing as GW will never implement any changes apart from point cost changes.

this would be my wish list

NightScythe and Monolith to get the ability to deploy troops at the END of movement phase.

all D6 damage weapons become D3+3

Gauss flayers+1 to wound vs vehicles ... AP-2 or D2 on 6's to wound.

C'tan Nightbringer gets to regain lost wounds on "Gaze of death"

Allow charges from Deceiver re-deploy.

Heavy Tesla weapons D2 or exploding on 5+

Change majority of stratagems either lower CP cost and/or make them affect more than just infantry. and let Praetorians use the Advance and charge stratagem

Wraiths whipcoils cost = 0 or give them reroll wounds

Canoptek Spyders need more wounds, better save and the ability to add to scarab swarms greater than their original size.

Flayed ones Attacks back to 4

Necron Character with a TRIARCH keyword, even if it's just a cryptek.

Make the stratagem that ignores invuln saves work on the whole number of attacks .... our characters have most 4 attacks, specialising into Novokh with the blood scythe and the WL trait should provide some decent means of CC

also Make it apply to C'Tan ... Nightbringer Scythe should ignore invulns .. full stop!

and lastly

evverything should cost half as much as it does now

CA 2019 might bring a few rules changes, but not the new FAQ, that one only point drops.

I think we can all agree points alone aren't going to fix necrons, so the best bet is to work out what changes give them the tools they need, and then point that.

Necrons should be good at taking out armour. Converting to wound rolls of 6 into MW for Gauss weapons against vehicles only, seems thematic to me, but I can see that it would be disliked.

Coming up with something good to get that core necron Gauss theme is tough. Perhaps Gauss weapons always wound vehicles on no worse than 5+?

Living metal sucks. Models with more than 5 wounds need living metal d3, and more than 10 wounds need d6. Then Spyder and cloaks can add d3 to this roll.

All non-named characters could do with an extra attack.

All deny the witch attempts need a +1/+2/+3. Necrons waged a war against a pyshic for, and should be proficient at disrupting psyhic attacks. Currently no one takes gloom prisims because they just don't do anything. Immortal pride could become too good if this gets the same buff. Perhaps pride should get a +2 and prisims +3?


Heavy Gauss cannons being heavy 2 (twins heavy 4) would help make stalkers worth while, and heavy destroyers better. (H.destroyers might need a price bump for this).


Reainimation protocols needs a buff. I think nerfing it to only let you reanimate models lost in your opponents last turn, but buffing it so you can roll for units that got removed would be thematic and balanced.

Ghost arks are ambulances for warriors. Letting them carry any infantry just isn't right. Instead, necrons need access to their core method of teleportation. I suggest changing the tomb world deployment via night scythe or monolith to ignor the reserves deployment rule. It's very different for the intended restriction to reserves, and necrons have no transports for all but one unit, so it makes perfect sense. The monolith might need a change so units can exit the turn it deep strikes though. Both could just gain the transport 20 rule, and then tombworld units can fill that space if another unit isn't there.

Monoliths need QS. Quantum sheilding is a really nice rule that makes necrons standout in this edition. Monoliths are THE poster child unit for necrons. It's a massive oversight these haven't been merged.

I think everyone is agreed Tesla destructors should be dmg 2

Triach units not getting dynasty traits is fine, if they can act alone. Stalkers should get a scout rule like eldar walkers so their fluff actually makes sense. Praetorian's getting assult 2 on their rods would make rods an option. Then both need a point drop.

Since scarabs are in warrior kits, and they are in the hotly contested fast attack slot, having a unit of scarabs as troops for each warrior unit in that detachment would be good.

Barges need the option to take twin heavy Gauss cannons.

Doomsday arks need their heavy d6 changed to either heavy 3 or heavy 4.

Scythes need a rule to not suffer a -1 to hit with heavy weapons.

The obelisk need gravity pulse turned into a weapon: pick a point at the range given away from the obelisk, each unit the line passes through suffers d3 hits for every 5 models in the unit, at str 6(?) AP 3(?). If the unit is a flyer, each hit causes a MW instead of normal damage. The fluff says it's an all purpose invasion defense, let's make it so! Possibly it should do more lower str hits, but ignor armour?



I think that covers all the changes needed to give necrons the tools to put up a fight. Making those changes without point changes first seems like the best bet. Then adjust points as needed. My guess is all infantry still need to lose 1-4 points (imortals 1, warriors 2, praetorian's 3, lytch 2, flayed 4). Barges and stalkers could probably lose 20pts. The monolith might be about right with those changes. It should be slow and unstoppable. It should be delt with by moving away from it and ignoring it, not destroying it the turn it arrives.

MrPieChee wrote:
I think we can all agree points alone aren't going to fix necrons, so the best bet is to work out what changes give them the tools they need, and then point that.

Necrons should be good at taking out armour. Converting to wound rolls of 6 into MW for Gauss weapons against vehicles only, seems thematic to me, but I can see that it would be disliked.

Coming up with something good to get that core necron Gauss theme is tough. Perhaps Gauss weapons always wound vehicles on no worse than 5+?

Living metal sucks. Models with more than 5 wounds need living metal d3, and more than 10 wounds need d6. Then Spyder and cloaks can add d3 to this roll.

All non-named characters could do with an extra attack.

All deny the witch attempts need a +1/+2/+3. Necrons waged a war against a pyshic for, and should be proficient at disrupting psyhic attacks. Currently no one takes gloom prisims because they just don't do anything. Immortal pride could become too good if this gets the same buff. Perhaps pride should get a +2 and prisims +3?


Heavy Gauss cannons being heavy 2 (twins heavy 4) would help make stalkers worth while, and heavy destroyers better. (H.destroyers might need a price bump for this).


Reainimation protocols needs a buff. I think nerfing it to only let you reanimate models lost in your opponents last turn, but buffing it so you can roll for units that got removed would be thematic and balanced.

Ghost arks are ambulances for warriors. Letting them carry any infantry just isn't right. Instead, necrons need access to their core method of teleportation. I suggest changing the tomb world deployment via night scythe or monolith to ignor the reserves deployment rule. It's very different for the intended restriction to reserves, and necrons have no transports for all but one unit, so it makes perfect sense. The monolith might need a change so units can exit the turn it deep strikes though. Both could just gain the transport 20 rule, and then tombworld units can fill that space if another unit isn't there.

Monoliths need QS. Quantum sheilding is a really nice rule that makes necrons standout in this edition. Monoliths are THE poster child unit for necrons. It's a massive oversight these haven't been merged.

I think everyone is agreed Tesla destructors should be dmg 2

Triach units not getting dynasty traits is fine, if they can act alone. Stalkers should get a scout rule like eldar walkers so their fluff actually makes sense. Praetorian's getting assult 2 on their rods would make rods an option. Then both need a point drop.

Since scarabs are in warrior kits, and they are in the hotly contested fast attack slot, having a unit of scarabs as troops for each warrior unit in that detachment would be good.

Barges need the option to take twin heavy Gauss cannons.

Doomsday arks need their heavy d6 changed to either heavy 3 or heavy 4.

Scythes need a rule to not suffer a -1 to hit with heavy weapons.

The obelisk need gravity pulse turned into a weapon: pick a point at the range given away from the obelisk, each unit the line passes through suffers d3 hits for every 5 models in the unit, at str 6(?) AP 3(?). If the unit is a flyer, each hit causes a MW instead of normal damage. The fluff says it's an all purpose invasion defense, let's make it so! Possibly it should do more lower str hits, but ignor armour?



I think that covers all the changes needed to give necrons the tools to put up a fight. Making those changes without point changes first seems like the best bet. Then adjust points as needed. My guess is all infantry still need to lose 1-4 points (imortals 1, warriors 2, praetorian's 3, lytch 2, flayed 4). Barges and stalkers could probably lose 20pts. The monolith might be about right with those changes. It should be slow and unstoppable. It should be delt with by moving away from it and ignoring it, not destroying it the turn it arrives.

Good post, exalted.

The Anni-barge is clearly modeled with a single gauss cannon, is there any precedence from other models in the GW universe where rule changes has contradicted physical models like this? (I'm not opposed to the change as such, just suspect that they hardly will create new molds for this if their level of perfection is that high.)

Also - wouldn't this make the Obelisk reach damage outputs close to that of the T Vault? I believe they would like to maintain some distinction between the two.

torblind wrote:

Good post, exalted.

The Anni-barge is clearly modeled with a single gauss cannon, is there any precedence from other models in the GW universe where rule changes has contradicted physical models like this? (I'm not opposed to the change as such, just suspect that they hardly will create new molds for this if their level of perfection is that high.)

Also - wouldn't this make the Obelisk reach damage outputs close to that of the T Vault? I believe they would like to maintain some distinction between the two.

For the barge I mean replace the twin Tesla destructors with twin heavy Gauss cannons. GW used to have loads of rules for kits that didn't exist, but I don't think it's a thing anymore. However, it would simply be a case of taking a stalker twin heavy Gauss cannon and mounting it on a barge.

Necrons have three big non-FW tanks - vault, obelisk, monolith. At the moment the vault focuses hard as nails models, the monolith focuses vehicles (badly?) and the obelisk flyers. All have limited horde clearing ability with their secondary weapons. The t-vault is in an ok place, the monolith has potential as a transport of sorts, but the obelisk is just limited by it's primary function. There is potential to just drastically reduce it's points (and keep it's rules the same), but I feel making the gravity pulse a weapon in it's own right would give it more utility. Boosting horde clearing would give a nudge to fluff and keep it distinct from the other two fortresses.

Interesting about the gloom prisms. If it were up to me, rather than simply enabling Deny the Witch, I'd just have them flat out subtract 2 or 3 from enemy psychic rolls. They're supposed to shut down access to the warp after all.

Also if Cryptek's could take them that'd be good.

That seems like a good idea - psychic rolls within 24" suffer a -2, and within 12" suffer a -3....

I really like the idea of an extra point of damage on a 6.
It's a good translation of the old gauss rule, and unlike the old gauss rule it actually benefits the heavier weapons.
The gauss rule Heavy Gauss Cannon was useless as you were always going to pen on a 6, but it was "add 1 point of damage on a 6", then the HCG now deals D6+1 damage, giving it 2-7 damage.