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 address lethality....i had a crackpot idea.

Make warriors have a 3+ save.
Give immortals 2 wounds.

 iGuy91 wrote:
To address lethality....i had a crackpot idea.

Make warriors have a 3+ save.
Give immortals 2 wounds.

Or give immortals T5. Like they were in the olden days.
Then again, with GW handing out extra wounds left and right nowadays might as well give immortals 2 wounds and lychguard 3.

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

 iGuy91 wrote:
To address lethality....i had a crackpot idea.

Make warriors have a 3+ save.
Give immortals 2 wounds.

Or give immortals T5. Like they were in the olden days.
Then again, with GW handing out extra wounds left and right nowadays might as well give immortals 2 wounds and lychguard 3.

I'm actually fully on board with this...

 IHateNids wrote:

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

 iGuy91 wrote:
To address lethality....i had a crackpot idea.

Make warriors have a 3+ save.
Give immortals 2 wounds.

Or give immortals T5. Like they were in the olden days.
Then again, with GW handing out extra wounds left and right nowadays might as well give immortals 2 wounds and lychguard 3.

I'm actually fully on board with this...

Don't forget Flayed Ones now y'all.

Flayers are on Warrior bodies, so they go to 3+ save as well

Immortals & Deathmarks go to 2 Wounds, and the Lychguard/Praetorians can go to 3 (IMHO only)

giving pretty much all of our infantry +1 wound (bar Warrior Bods who get 3+ save instead [Cryptek included in my opinion])



I have also got to state for the record that I would also increase saves on our Vehicles, but that is pretty much always a bad idea from general consensus

Yep, i think thats a good start, agreed on all points IHateNids

Oookay, Immortals CANNOT have 2 wounds as a resurrecting model, while also being a very point efficient troop choice.

Yes, they are now worse in comparison to a vanilla marine in almost every way, but this is not the buff route we want to go down.

Think before you suggest unfun suggestions for your opponents. In 4th and 5th Necrons were a hated army to play against for obvious reasons.

ANYWAY make changes that are fun and unique, not frustrating and drab.
Things that enhance the necrons lore and tabletop power. ie:
- Having a monolith on the table lets it do "Reanimate" rolls for a wiped out squad, once a turn.
- Phase Out is a stratagem, usable when a unit takes damage but is not wiped out. Prevent all damage that unit would have taken and remove that unit from the table. At the end of your next movement phase redeploy that unit within 9" of your Warlord (If you have no warlord this has no effect).
- Bring back 5th Cryptek rules (They were bloody fun)

 Eonfuzz wrote:
Oookay, Immortals CANNOT have 2 wounds as a resurrecting model, while also being a very point efficient troop choice.

Yes, they are now worse in comparison to a vanilla marine in almost every way, but this is not the buff route we want to go down.

Think before you suggest unfun suggestions for your opponents. In 4th and 5th Necrons were a hated army to play against for obvious reasons.

ANYWAY make changes that are fun and unique, not frustrating and drab.
Things that enhance the necrons lore and tabletop power. ie:
- Having a monolith on the table lets it do "Reanimate" rolls for a wiped out squad, once a turn.
- Phase Out is a stratagem, usable when a unit takes damage but is not wiped out. Prevent all damage that unit would have taken and remove that unit from the table. At the end of your next movement phase redeploy that unit within 9" of your Warlord (If you have no warlord this has no effect).
- Bring back 5th Cryptek rules (They were bloody fun)

4th and 5th didn't have the amount of damage output that we have nowadays though. There were no D2+ weapons, for starters.
I would really just be happy with T5 W1 immortals though. 3rd ed statlines were great. Its just an extra wound would be nice as an answer to this push towards primaris.

As long as we get 3+ Warriors/Flayed Ones/Crypteks, I think I'll be ok with Immortals being T5 1W.

I'd say Deathmarks should be too, but im not sure how popular that ide is.

I'm of the mind that the Res Orb and Enhanced Reanimation Protocols strat need to be swapped. Let Res Orbs grant reroll 1's for RP and the strat roll RP again.

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

 iGuy91 wrote:
To address lethality....i had a crackpot idea.

Make warriors have a 3+ save.
Give immortals 2 wounds.

Or give immortals T5. Like they were in the olden days.
Then again, with GW handing out extra wounds left and right nowadays might as well give immortals 2 wounds and lychguard 3.

And where might these Free wounds be?
I certainly did not see any.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 IHateNids wrote:
As long as we get 3+ Warriors/Flayed Ones/Crypteks, I think I'll be ok with Immortals being T5 1W.

I'd say Deathmarks should be too, but im not sure how popular that ide is.

Never understood the loss of the 3+ in the first place.

Not Online!!! wrote:

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

 iGuy91 wrote:
To address lethality....i had a crackpot idea.

Make warriors have a 3+ save.
Give immortals 2 wounds.

Or give immortals T5. Like they were in the olden days.
Then again, with GW handing out extra wounds left and right nowadays might as well give immortals 2 wounds and lychguard 3.

And where might these Free wounds be?
I certainly did not see any.

Gravis units all getting an extra wound, for starters.
The new marine units also get 2W each as they are primaris, iirc.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Not Online!!! wrote:


Never understood the loss of the 3+ in the first place.

I suspect its because immortals were moved to troops, so they felt the need to nerf warrior armor saves to 4+. Idk why they just didn't let the immortals stay at T5.

Because T5 troops would mean their new Golden Boys wouldnt be special

Immortals are already the preferred Troops choice why make them better? I'd rather see better stratagems and Dynasty Codes. Living Metal could be D3 wounds back ALWAYS and just tack on +1 with Phylactery and Cloak, otherwise all of our vehicles need to have T7 3+ Sv.

v0iddrgn wrote:
Immortals are already the preferred Troops choice why make them better? I'd rather see better stratagems and Dynasty Codes. Living Metal could be D3 wounds back ALWAYS and just tack on +1 with Phylactery and Cloak, otherwise all of our vehicles need to have T7 3+ Sv.

Because for the 'durable' faction, it is contemptuously easy to wipe out our squads. Preventing us from ever making use of RP.
Even full 20 man warrior squads. Not that hard to wipe with focused fire.

 iGuy91 wrote:

v0iddrgn wrote:
Immortals are already the preferred Troops choice why make them better? I'd rather see better stratagems and Dynasty Codes. Living Metal could be D3 wounds back ALWAYS and just tack on +1 with Phylactery and Cloak, otherwise all of our vehicles need to have T7 3+ Sv.

Because for the 'durable' faction, it is contemptuously easy to wipe out our squads. Preventing us from ever making use of RP.
Even full 20 man warrior squads. Not that hard to wipe with focused fire.

It has been my experience that if my opponent focuses enough fire power enough to erase a full unit of Necrons they won't have much left to meaningfully do anything else leaving the rest of my army alone.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
*Side note, it would be nice to go back to the 5th edition RP where it happens at the end of each phase but only one chance or removed permanently. That way you have a much better opportunity to get to use our main gimmick.

I'd rather we had more ways to improve their suvivability on the fly with HQ abilities than a straight buff to their core stats. Like, make our HQs better and our Troops better by proxy

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

 iGuy91 wrote:
To address lethality....i had a crackpot idea.

Make warriors have a 3+ save.
Give immortals 2 wounds.

Or give immortals T5. Like they were in the olden days.
Then again, with GW handing out extra wounds left and right nowadays might as well give immortals 2 wounds and lychguard 3.

And where might these Free wounds be?
I certainly did not see any.

Gravis units all getting an extra wound, for starters.
The new marine units also get 2W each as they are primaris, iirc.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Not Online!!! wrote:


Never understood the loss of the 3+ in the first place.

I suspect its because immortals were moved to troops, so they felt the need to nerf warrior armor saves to 4+. Idk why they just didn't let the immortals stay at T5.

If that goes on i have to pull a turncoat from the turncoats.

Toughness represents the difficulty with which an armour piercing object has of causing significant damage.

Sv represents the difficulty with which a non-armour piercing object has of causing significant damage.

Now should Necrons be difficult to kill with armour piercing objects or with non-armour piercing objects? I think the latter. That's why Necrons' main defensive trait should be their Sv rather than T. Especially poison sticks out like a sore thumb for units like Lychguard or Triarch Praetorians, now you can fix that very easily by giving all Necrons the vehicle keyword and that fixes most of that problem, but it still doesn't make armour piercing weapons a great counter for Necrons and non-armour piercing weapons a poor solution for Necrons, something I'd argue would make a lot of sense.

Warriors should be 1W T3 3+ Sv, same for Immortals, except 2W. HQ, Lychguard and Praetorians should be T3 as well, I'm not sure how vulnerable I'd want them to be vs AP vs non-AP weapons so either 2+ or 3+ Sv and either a lot of wounds or a giant amount of wounds. That's if you wanted things to make sense in terms of how the models look, you don't look at Lychguard and think, "those are probably relatively easy to kill with poison weaponry".

Making all Necrons Vehicles would create a lot of feels-bads for Drukhari, while with my suggestion it wouldn't be worse than playing against Sisters of Battle. On some level, I would still like to see all Necrons getting the vehicle keyword, except for the small C'tan, those I'd want to give a 2+ Sv to.

All we need is a stratagem that lets us reanimate a unit that has just been destroyed. Lets say its 2CP, for infantry only, and allows you to make a RP roll at the end of the phase. No need to change anything else. And enhanced reanimation protocols needs to be +1 to the RP roll, instead of re-rolling 1s. I have never ever used that stratagem, because i rarely roll more than 6 or 7 dice for RP. Even with 20 warriors, and rolling 18 RP dice, you will, on average, only get to re-roll 3 dice.

v0iddrgn wrote:

 iGuy91 wrote:

v0iddrgn wrote:
Immortals are already the preferred Troops choice why make them better? I'd rather see better stratagems and Dynasty Codes. Living Metal could be D3 wounds back ALWAYS and just tack on +1 with Phylactery and Cloak, otherwise all of our vehicles need to have T7 3+ Sv.

Because for the 'durable' faction, it is contemptuously easy to wipe out our squads. Preventing us from ever making use of RP.
Even full 20 man warrior squads. Not that hard to wipe with focused fire.

It has been my experience that if my opponent focuses enough fire power enough to erase a full unit of Necrons they won't have much left to meaningfully do anything else leaving the rest of my army alone.

That's not my experience at all. My experience has been that killing units of Necron infantry is laughably easy for most armies. Ironically, I've found that QS makes our more durable non-vehicles actually less durable because every lascannon, missile launcher, bright lance and melta weapon tends to get shot at Tomb Blades and Destroyers rather than our vehicles, so they often get one-shotted by anti-tank weapons. That wouldn't be a real problem if our QS vehicles were any good, but outside of the extremely random DDA our QS vehicles aren't really a threat to most armies. A fairly common first turn for me is usually losing 1 unit of Immortals and one unit of whatever tougher unit I have that I was unable to hide. At that point RP doesn't work and I've often lost a big chunk of my effective firepower.

With how lethal 40k is right now I think upping the Immortals to T5 seems reasonable. Frankly, I don't really care about what distinctions you want to make between Toughness and Save and what they represent. Both are defensive stats that can be tweaked to alter survivability and I think changing Toughness on Immortals would give the correct "feel" for the unit and make them much less vulnerable to small arms fire.

Slipspace wrote:
With how lethal 40k is right now I think upping the Immortals to T5 seems reasonable. Frankly, I don't really care about what distinctions you want to make between Toughness and Save and what they represent. Both are defensive stats that can be tweaked to alter survivability and I think changing Toughness on Immortals would give the correct "feel" for the unit and make them much less vulnerable to small arms fire.

It wouldn't make any difference vs s3, s4 is popular and about to get more popular, but should S4 be more or equally efficient as s3 vs Immortals? Should poison be more effecient against heavily armoured humans or robots? I don't think it makes sense for you to say that Immortals feel too squishy, so the feel is wrong, but neglect the feeling that the change you wish to implement would have. That of a unit that is very hard to kill, but relatively much easier to kill if you have poison, or a large amount of low-S AP0 shots.

 vict0988 wrote:
Toughness represents the difficulty with which an armour piercing object has of causing significant damage.

Sv represents the difficulty with which a non-armour piercing object has of causing significant damage.

Now should Necrons be difficult to kill with armour piercing objects or with non-armour piercing objects? I think the latter. That's why Necrons' main defensive trait should be their Sv rather than T. Especially poison sticks out like a sore thumb for units like Lychguard or Triarch Praetorians, now you can fix that very easily by giving all Necrons the vehicle keyword and that fixes most of that problem, but it still doesn't make armour piercing weapons a great counter for Necrons and non-armour piercing weapons a poor solution for Necrons, something I'd argue would make a lot of sense.

Warriors should be 1W T3 3+ Sv, same for Immortals, except 2W. HQ, Lychguard and Praetorians should be T3 as well, I'm not sure how vulnerable I'd want them to be vs AP vs non-AP weapons so either 2+ or 3+ Sv and either a lot of wounds or a giant amount of wounds. That's if you wanted things to make sense in terms of how the models look, you don't look at Lychguard and think, "those are probably relatively easy to kill with poison weaponry".

Making all Necrons Vehicles would create a lot of feels-bads for Drukhari, while with my suggestion it wouldn't be worse than playing against Sisters of Battle. On some level, I would still like to see all Necrons getting the vehicle keyword, except for the small C'tan, those I'd want to give a 2+ Sv to.

I have a hard time taking a request for T3 Necron Infantry seriously. In no way is a Necron warrior as squishy as a guardsman.

Yeah, T3 is pretty ridiculous.
T4 for grunts and T5 for anything higher just seems right.

To be fair, I can understand T3 *if* we also had like 3 wounds each, even on basic infantry.

And then got another global-rule-override where we can have multiple damaged models in a unit

That way you can have Reanimation be just flat "every model in this unit regains X wounds at the start of your turn"

Characters could then get their own versions upsized, like everyone gets d3, and the wargear that you used to get d3 can be auto-max 3 of whatever

But characters aside, a blob of 20 T3 3+ Save 3 Wound dudes that each heal for, lets say d3 wounds per turn would be way more reminiscent of an unstoppable grinding force

That means we have the "guard" equivalent in Warriors/Flayers, the "marine" equivalent in immortals/Deathmarks, and then on top of that we have T5 elites & characters

I can see it that way round, but I feel like thats a little too ridiculous

 vict0988 wrote:

Slipspace wrote:
With how lethal 40k is right now I think upping the Immortals to T5 seems reasonable. Frankly, I don't really care about what distinctions you want to make between Toughness and Save and what they represent. Both are defensive stats that can be tweaked to alter survivability and I think changing Toughness on Immortals would give the correct "feel" for the unit and make them much less vulnerable to small arms fire.

It wouldn't make any difference vs s3, s4 is popular and about to get more popular, but should S4 be more or equally efficient as s3 vs Immortals? Should poison be more effecient against heavily armoured humans or robots? I don't think it makes sense for you to say that Immortals feel too squishy, so the feel is wrong, but neglect the feeling that the change you wish to implement would have. That of a unit that is very hard to kill, but relatively much easier to kill if you have poison, or a large amount of low-S AP0 shots.

You seem very fixated on poison for some reason. Making an entire army immune to another entire army's basic weapons is a terrible idea so I don't think we'll see poison-immune Necrons any time soon. Making Immortals T5, on the other hand, has an instant effect on survivability. S4 and S5 are both very common, in shooting and close combat, and there's a benefit against S8/S9 shooting too. Yes, massed S3 shooting is unaffected, but it's overall still an upgrade for Immortals.

Yeah, making an entire army of infantry immune to poison is a surefire way to get Dark Eldar players to really hate you. I don't see how that's healthy for the game.

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
Yeah, making an entire army of infantry immune to poison is a surefire way to get Dark Eldar players to really hate you. I don't see how that's healthy for the game.

I don't see how a whole army ignoring wounding and T charachteristics is healthy for the game either. since you pay PREEETY high for T values.

TBH, and sarcasm aside, both things are, yet only one of them exists.

dapperbandit wrote:
I have a hard time taking a request for T3 Necron Infantry seriously. In no way is a Necron warrior as squishy as a guardsman.

A 3+ Sv yields 2x as durable unit as a 5+ Sv against AP0 weapons, I did not argue for Necron Warriors to be as squishy as guardsmen.

Slipspace wrote:
You seem very fixated on poison for some reason. Making an entire army immune to another entire army's basic weapons is a terrible idea so I don't think we'll see poison-immune Necrons any time soon. Making Immortals T5, on the other hand, has an instant effect on survivability. S4 and S5 are both very common, in shooting and close combat, and there's a benefit against S8/S9 shooting too. Yes, massed S3 shooting is unaffected, but it's overall still an upgrade for Immortals.

No more immune than Knights or a mechanised list. T5 doesn't make sense though, in terms of what it has an effect on and what it does not have an effect on. I've been obsessed with things that can and cannot be poisoned since I started playing Warhammer Fantasy battles more than a decade ago when I was told that Skinks had magical poisons that magically worked against undead and other magical poisons that worked against Daemons, it was a lousy copout IMO. When I started playing 40k more and went from playing Eldar to Necrons, guess what my main enemy was? Dark Eldar, welcome to poison city and goodbye C'tan. When star gods forged bodies of living metal were perfectly countered by poisonus weapons, yes I care about poison, my whole gaming life revolves around poison and if I could get one thing done in terms of fixing board games it would be to rectify the representation of poison in board games, screw the balance, give me verisimilitude or give me death!

 IHateNids wrote:
To be fair, I can understand T3 *if* we also had like 3 wounds each, even on basic infantry.

That's not really necessary. T3 3+ Sv is not much different that T4 4+ Sv, in general it would be a buff.
*VS S3 AP0 you are 150% tough.
*VS S3 AP-3 you are 80% tough.
*VS S4 AP0 you are 113% tough.
*VS S4 AP-1 you are 100% tough.
*VS S5 AP-1 you are 133% tough.
So with this buff of changing Warriors from 4+ Sv T4 to 3+ Sv T3, you would need less of a pts reduction to make them balanced, than if you let them stay 4+ Sv T4. How many pts are you willing to pay for Warriors? 18? We can pack a lot more upgrades on Warriors if you want to pay more than 15 pts/model, but if you want to stay in the 8-11 pts range, then that's not possible. It's totally fair to want to have Necrons be super-SM, be like DA TERMINATOR, but that's not conducive to placing a legion of Warriors on the table, something I find rewarding and fun.

It was more so that our Reanimation turned us into the robot horde we were in earlier editions, than trying to become unkillable super marines