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.

No pal, that wasn't an answer. It was dancing around the question whilst saying nothing. It also came from a poster who has hilariously bad takes on practically everything and has therefore been on my ignore list for a long time - not a very reliable ally in this event. So why don't you tell everyone why CP's are fine.

Same answer he gave.

Low cost, low benefit.

Necrons don't give almost anything to get the protocols. The opportunity cost of not taking a second dinasty is infinitely small compared to not souping in something like Imperium.

Doctrines are balanced with the opportunity cost they have to offset. The protocols are weaker than other doctrines because the cost is lower.

There is nothing hard to understand.

None of that answers why you think CP's are fine. Accepted wisdom within the competitive community is that CP's are bad and could use a complete rework.

Necrons don't soup anyway, so comparing the opportunity cost like that to an army that can is a false equivalent and arguing in bad faith. As pointed out already in this thread, Necrons get nothing for staying within faction because it's not a choice. Marines are choosing between two different but viable options.

The actual crux of the issue however is the that CP's are needlessly obtuse to obtain for very little benefit. Marines just 'get' their super doctrine (and regular doctrines) provided list building requirements are satisfied. Necron players have to make sure several different variables - in game - are just right to even be able to use theirs. If Necrons just 'got' CP's without having to satisfy in-game requirements they would be better, but still underwhelming. But... they don't

So, tell me why they are fine.

Cynista wrote:
None of that answers why you think CP's are fine. Accepted wisdom within the competitive community is that CP's are bad and could use a complete rework.

Necrons don't soup anyway, so comparing the opportunity cost like that to an army that can is a false equivalent and arguing in bad faith. As pointed out already in this thread, Necrons get nothing for staying within faction because it's not a choice. Marines are choosing between two different but viable options.

The actual crux of the issue however is the that CP's are needlessly obtuse to obtain for very little benefit. Marines just 'get' their super doctrine (and regular doctrines) provided list building requirements are satisfied. Necron players have to make sure several different variables - in game - are just right to even be able to use theirs. If Necrons just 'got' CP's without having to satisfy in-game requirements they would be better, but still underwhelming. But... they don't

So, tell me why they are fine.

I actually did already. Twice.

You are free to disagree with the answer

Cynista wrote:
Accepted wisdom within the competitive community is that CP's are bad and could use a complete rework.

The competitive community doesn't want balance, they want OP. Look at the milk toast criticism most have for busted rules and how many in the competitive community white knight for GW.

Necrons don't soup anyway, so comparing the opportunity cost like that to an army that can is a false equivalent and arguing in bad faith. As pointed out already in this thread, Necrons get nothing for staying within faction because it's not a choice. Marines are choosing between two different but viable options.

The actual crux of the issue however is the that CP's are needlessly obtuse to obtain for very little benefit. Marines just 'get' their super doctrine (and regular doctrines) provided list building requirements are satisfied. Necron players have to make sure several different variables - in game - are just right to even be able to use theirs. If Necrons just 'got' CP's without having to satisfy in-game requirements they would be better, but still underwhelming. But... they don't

Then compare them to super doctrines, which you get for staying within one sub-faction, you can either take multiple different Marine chapters or stick with one to get your super doctrine, Necrons can do the same. Some Marine chapters, like IF get very little from their super doctrine, I'd say that a list like my Flayed One spam list would benefit more from protocols than IF benefit from their super doctrine. What I have said is that all combat doctrines should be removed because it's too much bloat, I have also suggested changes to protocols in the suggested rules section of the forum to make them simpler and remove the need for a Noble on the table such that you can have your nobles in deep strike or transports and still benefit. But yeah, they could be worse, like if they were extremely OP such that multi-dynasty armies were garbage in comparison to armies with them and making choosing the right protocol for the right turn more important than every other choice in the game if protocols gave something like:
*melee attacks auto-hit
*always wound vehicles on 4+ with shooting
*everyone gets a 2+ sv
*free resurrection orb effect on every unit
*fall back, shoot without penalty and charge
*Move! Move! Move!

Spoletta wrote:
Same answer he gave.

Low cost, low benefit.

Necrons don't give almost anything to get the protocols. The opportunity cost of not taking a second dinasty is infinitely small compared to not souping in something like Imperium.

Doctrines are balanced with the opportunity cost they have to offset. The protocols are weaker than other doctrines because the cost is lower.

There is nothing hard to understand.

I don't think people is complaining about protocols being weak, but about them being so hard and mentally taxing to use.

I mean, Sacred Rites for SOB aren't that list defining but at least they are easy to use.

Command Protocols should be just 6 buffs, at the start of the game you pick in what order they are gonna activate and thats it. Or even better. 6 "orders" (Like IG) your nobles can use, each one can only be used once per battle by any of your nobles to a necron unit in your Command Phase. And give each dinasty a special Command Protocol if you are playing mono dinasty.

The Ork "doctrine" is the Waaagh ability.
Much like how the equivalent for Death Guard is the minus 1 Toughness aura. In the same spirit the DE equivalent is clearly -1 AP on 6s to hit in melee rather than power from pain, even if they've tweaked it so rules wise it is.

The Necron bonus is just massively over engineered. New books would never have "you can't include multiple dynasties" or "you must have a character in 6" for the effect to apply". This is an example of fluff stepping on crunch - books/factions are usually stronger when this is not a consideration.

I don't believe it has anything to do with the fact Marines *could* soup up with Imperium while Necrons can't soup with anyone. Its just bad/different rules writing.

Spoletta wrote:


I actually did already. Twice.

You are free to disagree with the answer

So you have nothing to back up your foolish assertions and can only fall back on "that's just like, my opinion man", gotcha.

Cynista wrote:

Spoletta wrote:


I actually did already. Twice.

You are free to disagree with the answer

So you have nothing to back up your foolish assertions and can only fall back on "that's just like, my opinion man", gotcha.

Chill down man, you are getting a bit too worked up on this.

Spoletta wrote:

Cynista wrote:

Spoletta wrote:


I actually did already. Twice.

You are free to disagree with the answer

So you have nothing to back up your foolish assertions and can only fall back on "that's just like, my opinion man", gotcha.

Chill down man, you are getting a bit too worked up on this.

Lol the old dakka classic. I'm as cool as a cucumber, simply holding you to account because you were talking rubbish and now want to de-escalate because you know it. That's quite funny. Just admit you were wrong and/or walk away

Cynista wrote:

Spoletta wrote:

Cynista wrote:

Spoletta wrote:


I actually did already. Twice.

You are free to disagree with the answer

So you have nothing to back up your foolish assertions and can only fall back on "that's just like, my opinion man", gotcha.

Chill down man, you are getting a bit too worked up on this.

Lol the old dakka classic. I'm as cool as a cucumber, simply holding you to account because you were talking rubbish and now want to de-escalate because you know it. That's quite funny. Just admit you were wrong and/or walk away

Ok, I was trying to give you an easy way out, but you didn't catch it. Too bad.

Do you understand how are you sounding like now?

Your point was "Necron doctrines are weak and hard to use".
You got answered "Necron doctrines are weak by design".
Up to you, that was not an answer, because you wanted someone to defend the doctrines and tell you how they are good compared to the other one. Sorry, no one fell for it. Necron doctrines are objectively harder to use and weaker than the other ones. There is no argument to be made there.
You are refusing an answer because it doesn't go in the direction you want. That's not very mature of you. Actually, calling it "Foolish assertion" is very much toxic of you.
You have so far failed to offer any counterpoint to my argument. Because you have none.
Just admit that you didn't expect that point to be made, and walk away