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.

So, since I don't expect GW to release a better model range for the Necrons...how do you make the Necrons better?

(Oh before I start, I should add in Necrons are boring and aren't very competitive.)

To me, I want them to be more competitive.

First off, phase out should be eliminated. It's a silly rule and in many cases, that's all anyone plays at. That said, every unit (except the monolith and c'tans) should be a Necron.

Second, 'We'll Be Back' should just be FNP but to keep the flavor it should read something like: "We'll Be Back". All necron units have the FNP universal special ability.

Third, in following with GW's precepts about removing codex special rules in favor of universal ones...Gauss weapons should lose their auto-wound on a 6. Gaining rending wouldn't be a obvious choice, because it would change the army significantly and in my honest opinion would give them too much power. Play against a few ranger lists in 5th and you'll see just how powerful it is. An entire army? I don't think so...

For me, that's the basics.

Flayed ones should have rending. Flayed ones units should also have fleet.

Immortals should be able to take Pariahs as unit leaders. I'd also give them the ability to deep strike if they want to when they have a Pariah. I'd drop them to 26 points.

The Pariah entry needs a rework entirely, as they are currently just immortals with S5 and some rules tacked on.

First off, I'd make them a deep strike only unit. They should be able to deep strike off of any HQ or unit leader without scattering. I'd also allow them to enter off a monolith, even in the same turn. While they'd still have the immortals weapon, the pariahs version should have rending and a 18" range. I'd give them a 2+ save, but change the unit size to 4-7. This makes the unit more competitive with the immortals, but with a points bump to 40 points and the deep strike only moniker, they aren't a sure thing.

Warriors should be able to field flayed ones as unit leaders, and infiltrate as an upgrade option off the flayed one if they do. They should drop to 17 points. As most players don't run these guys except as punching bags, I think giving them a weapon upgrade would make them more viable. So instead of a rapid fire bolter with gauss, how about a assault 1 weapon that's S4 AP3 12" range? It's not like you'll be missing much, and the warriors would be very dangerous to anyone at close range. With the flayed one leader, while they won't be perfect in CC they at least have a chance to do something. Combine with the power fist change and the assault changes in 5th, and they won't just be a pos.

A new troops choice would be nice. Even if it's just more warriors with different weapon outfits. Give necron players more troops choices, because they're required in 5th edition. The one I suggest is a flamer unit. Give a warrior unit S4 Ap5 flamer template weapons and a deep striking monolith, and the ability to deploy out of a monolith instead of placing via deep strike (in the same turn), and oh boy. Why would this unit be better than the S4 Ap3 assault weapons? Hordes could care less if you kill 10 of them. They will care if you put down 8 templates and get to roll 40 dice. Same cost as the regular warriors. I'd give them a pariah as an upgrade option, so if you don't field monoliths you could still deep strike safely and template people.

I think destroyers and heavy destroyers should all be base toughness 6. While it won't do much versus heavy weapons fire from across the board (thinking lascannons and ML) since they won't just 'poof' once all the models in the unit are down...meaning they can be shot repeatedly until dead, it will make them more difficult to kill via higher rate of fire weapons (like AC and HB). I'd adjust their points slightly, probably to 45 and 55. Not because I think they are bad deals, but that they're slightly overcosted. The weapons they have are fine, but if the Gauss rule goes away; the heavy destroyers should be upgraded to AP1 weapons. Primarily to focus the heavy destroyers as the necrons premier tank destroyer unit. The regular destroyers can still attrit away light vehicles, and don't really lose much when Gauss goes away due to their high strength.

Tomb Spyders in a revamped Codex like this would compete for heavy support slots. Since we don't want to make the heavy D or monoliths or the spyders a totally mindless choice...and as their main function would be removed, they need a new one. What would their role be? Well, I'd give them the ability to allow a FNP re-roll to all necron units within 6". So you'd only need a few per army, so restricting them to a 1-3 for 1 heavy slot seems like a good idea. I'd also boost their wounds to 3, since it's not like they are going to be hiding and they would be a priority target for alot of players.

I don't think Scarabs need much changing, they do a good job. I think the disruption field should be limited to this unit alone, most people don't put it on anything else anyway.

Wraiths, however, need a rework. They should move like regular jump troops. They should have rending. Then, drop the invulnerable save. Then drop the points cost to 26. Now it's a dangerous unit, and it competes well with the destroyers for the slot.

Now for a new Star God, I think it should be pretty simple--add one with a new twist. Every necron in the army can get a invulnerable save for 5 points, but if any do, they all have to. It does add up, after all, points wise. Since the other two have their own roles, I'd say having the third able to inflict curses on machines seems like a good concept. Pick a target, roll to hit, if hit then roll 2-5 it's a glance, 6 it's a pen. With AP1, so it isn't just the shaker. Being dangerous to vehicles but not autokilling them is the goal. I see vehicles making a comeback in 5th edition, so this wouldn't be a waste. It should still be able to make a shooting attack, which in my mind would best be served with a ordnance weapon, like a S4 AP2 shot at 24". I'd make it significantly less killy in CC, with say WS5, S7, and 3 attacks base.

I don't think Necron lords need much changing, other than alot of their wargear needs a revamp. Given the lack of it in recent codices, I don't think that will be a serious issue for the studio. BAM! 2 pieces of wargear. 1 weapon change. Done!

Last, the Monolith. I think vehicles are tough enough as it is in 5th edition, so the living metal rule should be amended to 'ignores lances'. That being said, I think you also need to change the power matrix. Sure, it can ignore stuns. It should however have 4 secondary weapons (the fluxes) and the primary weapon. The fluxes should reduce to S4, so they're proper anti-infantry weapons. That's about all I'd change really. The portal could still be used, and it should grant a necron unit the ability to re-roll all FNP rolls on the NEXT turn. Seems easy enough to track. It also makes the monolith still worth taking.

Some changes are subtle, others not. I'd buy an army like this. GW can still keep the options simple. The army isn't completely boring, and has different ways to play.

Thoughts/comments?

Actually I agree with most of this. I still think necron can be competitive, but only in cases where composition isn't a factor. I think that simply making immortals a troop choice would solve alot of problems. I really like the idea of giving the CC units rending, it makes units that nobody cares about right now particularly dangerous, (especially if WBB were turned to FNP) like having multiple death company units.

Flayed Ones as troops to start with. Pariahs to T5(6) W2 Sv2+/4+(FNP).

I've had lots of other ideas too...

BYE

GRRR! I had a huge post typed out and the computer ate it when I tried to copy it. FFS!

Short and sweet:

- Drop Phase out
- WBB = FNP (as Stelek said)
- Gauss = Rending.
- Disruption Fields = Rending.

Warriors a big shakeup.
WS3 BS4 S4 T4 A1 I2 LD10 3+ 18-19 points.
-FNP
- Slow and Purposeful (move as if DT and relentless)
Gauss Flayer ST4 AP5 Rapidfire 18", Rending.

Necron Lord, lots of buff wargear.
- Same Statline
- Stubborn, confers this ability to any unit he joins.

Optionable Wargear:
- Indominatable Command: confers stubborn to all units within 12". Activated at the start of and lasts to the end of one player's Assault Phase. One use only.
- Phase Shifter: Same as codex
- Destroyer body: Same
- Solar Pulse: Same
- Gaze of Flame: Confers Offensive and Defensive Grenades on the Necron Lord and any attached unit.
- Null field: Lord and any attached unit are immune to the effects of all psychic powers.
- Chronometron: Lord and any attached unit always count as rolling a 6 for any Difficult Terrain checks (including those for S&P)
- Veil of Darkness: Lord and any attached unit may make a Turboboost move for the turn as though they were a Jetbike. One use only.
- Warscythe: Same, but confers +1A.

Pariahs get changed up because they suck, anti-psyker/daemon like they should be.
WS5 BS4 S5 T5 A1 I3 LD10 3+ save. ~30 points.

-No Gauss Blasters
-FNP
-Fearless
-Warscythe same, but confers +1A
-Defensive Grenades.
-Soulless: All Psykers and Daemons halve WS and I (round down) when in combat with Pariahs. Pariahs are immune to the effect of all Psychic powers.
-Abomination: Enemy Ld7 if within 12"

Immortals: Same, but S&P

Flayed Ones: The same. Not S&P (still have move through cover)

Wraiths: Same, but WS6

Destroyers: Same

Scarabs: Jump Infantry in all respects, do not take Dangerous Terrain tests. Otherwise the same.

Tomb Spyders: Fixed Articifier. Does not wound Spyder, and all created Swarm bases must join any existing unit of swarms within 12". Models with FNP may make the roll vs Str2xT weapons and armour save ignoring CC attacks if within 6" of Spyder.

Heavy Destroyers: Points Break, increased unit size allowance.

Monolith. Drop the anti-lance part of living metal, otherwise the same. Can teleport any unit, but doesn't confer any kind of re-roll.


I'm against these changes:

- Vet Sergeant upgrades
- Additional Troops choices.

They rub against fluff, and take away from the flavour of the Necron army that makes it different to other options.

I agree woth most everything you have said here. I just Hope GW releases a Necron codex within the next few years, but they probably won't. The only thing I disagree with is the Current Necron Army. Yes, it is boring, but I do think it CAN be competetive. Anyway, I would love to see a codex like the one you have proposed.

Meh, I like the idea of Vet Sgt upgrades. Think of them as a kind of special weapon, not so much a squad leader. If you think not having unit leaders adds to the Necron fluff, well, don't take any!

tegeus-Cromis wrote:Meh, I like the idea of Vet Sgt upgrades. Think of them as a kind of special weapon, not so much a squad leader. If you think not having unit leaders adds to the Necron fluff, well, don't take any!

The 'choices over fluff restriction' argument is in vogue these days it seems, but I'm such a purist I would hate even the option being there and allowed to me.

Excuse the , but for me it would be like putting in the Chaos Space Marine Codex the choice of ATSKNF for X points per model. Chaos Marines not having ATSKNF is not only a big part of the fluff for them (consequence of them renouncing their Vows to the Emperor) but in game terms it's part of the fundamental that sets the army apart from Codex Marines. Sure, it's just an option and you can choose not to have any ATSKNF Chaos Marines, but the fact you could and the fact that option is there and the fact Joe Warhammer player is using them in his army...well it's essentially one step towards not having a seperate Chaos Marine Codex at all and in practice just having the 'loyalist' one with Chaos as a 'Counts as' option.

Additionally, from a pure gameplay mechanics viewpoint, what is the point of having 'special weapons' in a Necron Warrior squad? The function they would play is already covered by the addition of the 5th ed Rending. Yeah I know Rending becoming/being super common where once it was rare is pissing people off some, but the mechanic fits here. The ignore armour on a 6/ability to hurt some vehicles is the Necron version of carrying a couple of Plasma/Melta special weapons in every squad, just the potential game effect is spread across every member of the squad rather than massively concentrated in 2 or 3 members, with subsequent drawbacks and advantages. (Anti AP and AT ability drops with every casualty in a Necron squad while in a Marine squad you can save your max spec weapon potential to the end via abalative wounds. However you run a small risk of them being 'sniped'. Additionally, the max wounds you can cause with 2 Plasma guns is 4, while with a Necron squad there is always the possibilty you can 'get really lucky' and say, roll a massive amount of 6's to wound out of whatever amount of hits you scored.)

Take a couple of Plasma guns compared to the rending output of a 10 strong Necron squad.

Rapidfiring = 4 shots, you'll cause on average 2.222 AP2 wounds with the Plasma against <T5 and 1.777 against T6, 1.333 against T7, and so on decreasing as T goes up.
10 Necrons rapidfiring flayers with 40k5 rending will cause 2.222 AP2 wounds regardless of T.

A Plasma shot has a 1/9 chance of glancing AV10 and 1/3 chance of penetrating.
Rending Flayer shot has a straight 1/9 chance of penetrating.
But weight of numbers is huge here, 20 Flayer shots will average 2.2 penetrating hits on AV10, so were this to exist lesson would = keep light vehicles away from RFing warriors! The output vs light vehicles is as though they were rapidfiring a couple of Meltaguns at them, but like Plasma they would be ineffectual against AV13/14 whereas normal Melta is not (esp within 6" and having AP1 bonus)

So shooty rending Necron Warriors overpowered? Not really given these numbers IMO. They basically have a couple of Plasmaguns that always wound on a 2+, fittingly explainable in fluff as Gauss > Toughness regardless. Gameplay wise, the tradeoff is if you take out half a Warrior squad you've taken out half the 'Plasmaguns', while if you take out 5 guys in a 10-strong squad with 2 Plasma guns, you still have 2 Plasma guns.

The same theories apply to the 'Vet sarge effect' on a CC. Building the shooty special weapon effect into a Necron Warrior is fine as it is basically an auto-choice, in the way that special weapons are for Marines (no one really takes ten-strong Tactical squads with all Bolters).
However the Vet Sarge with special CC weapon effect is good as an optional choice for Tactical equivalents and in very simple terms basically amounts to paying X points for Y extra armour save ignoring wounds in various combat situations.

In 5th, it seems likely you will be paying 30 points for a powerweapon sarge (Marines and Chaos) who averages
1.3 wounds on WS3 T3
1 wound on WS4 T3
1 wound on WS3 T4
.75 of a wound on WS4 T4.

or 40 for a powerfist
1.1 wounds on WS3 T3
0.83 wounds on WS4 T3
1.1 wounds on WS3 T4
0.83 of a wound on WS4 T4
+ X amount of anti-walker insurance.

Now if Disruption fields (2 points each or 20 total on a ten man NW squad) as an upgrade conferred Rending, then WS3 Warriors would be causing
.83 wounds on WS3-6 and .55 wounds on WS7 (DPrinces, some Chaos HQs, Phoenix Lords, etc, assuming ten models could engage the IC, unlikely?)
and a small amount of anti-walker insurance.

So 20 points for Rending in HTH warriors seems pretty balanced, your 10-20 points discount compared to a Champion reflects the fact that Warriors are a poor CC unit who don't really want to be there, and again halve the squad and halve the ability, while the Champ can stay in till the end (and a powerfist champ is so much more threatening to ICs).
It's actually something I'd really think about if I needed it before paying for it, and thus it's probably pretty balanced as an option.

Disruption fields in the Necron codex are currently 2 points for Warriors and Immortals, 3 for Flayed Ones and 4 for Scarabs. The current ability it confers is currently is worthless, but if they were changed to confer Rending (5th ed version) instead, it would probably make for a decent do-I-or-don't-I option for all those units at that given points value.

So I'm going to expand some more now on my earlier post.

Necron Warriors as a sole troops choice makes sense to me in tying how the list works together as a collective. If 'one Troops choice is boring', then by all means play one of the other 10 army choices avaliable that offer multiple Troops! and let us have our fluffy and game mechanic point of difference that we want.

In general each 40k army has it's own set of tactical strengths and problems in a one-eyed sort of way.
Dark Eldar - You're fast, but soft
SM: Jack of all trades, master of none
Tau: Shootier but terrible CC.

Necrons get a Troop unit that can almost shoot anything in the game to death effectively at short range, and shrug off all but the most potent firepower (effective 2+ save vs non AP3 non Str8 firepower!) but part of the trade off to that is the inflexibility of having to take only them.
Moreover the three areas they are weak in (CC, Speed, and Range) must then be covered by specialists in your HQ, Elite, FA and HS choices.

So how does the rest of the list help out the Warriors where they suck. Well CC is a really broad game catergory so a lot of units manifest as different types of CC specialists to counter the Warrior's terrible weakness in that area.

Lord - CC (Morale) and/or Speed
C'tan - CC (Big scary MC)

Flayed Ones - CC (Closest to all-around CC Troop with slight emphasis on anti-horde) + have lots of deployment options in the form of Deepstrike, infiltrate and flanking
Pariahs - CC (Shock troops, specialising in anti-psyker+Daemon)
Wraiths - CC (Combat Res) + are speedy
Scarabs - CC (Tarpit) + are speedy
Tomb Spyders - CC (Low-end Fearless MC) + Helps resilience (boosts Scarab units and should possibly act a bit like a Res Orb for FNP)

Immortals - Ranged shooty, are true Elites in that they are basically scaled up Necron Warriors, but don't score.
Destroyers - Ranged Shooty and fast
Heavy Destroyers - Ranged Shooty and fast

Monolith - Helps movement or Pieplate.

Phase out is dropped because 5th ed makes it irrelevant. 5th ed's Troops only scoring basically is a form of 'Phase Out', if you lose all your Necron Warriors you don't score objectives and lose. So rather than the Phase out rule trying to get you to take more than minimum Necron Warriors, you should do anyway to stand a decent chance of scoring important objectives in 5th ed missions.

Then, when players are designing their Necron armies they basically have their core of ~40% Warriors, give or take 10%, and whichever selection combos (given you can't take everything due to points restriction) they make from the non-Troops choices will shape how the army plays in relation to it's approach to countering the base weaknesses of the Warriors Troops choice.

ie.
Warriors + Flayed Ones, Scarabs, Tomb Spyders.
= Grinding, Nurglesk army, short ranged and uber resilient

Dfield Warriors, Dfield Immortals, Destroyers.
= Firepower army with a bit of zip to shore up the CC weakness in the shooty units.

Warriors, Pariahs + Wraiths + Heavy Ds
= Non Fearless enemies get killed via Combat resolution in the CC phase, Heavy D's provide some covering fire.

Or whatever synergy you want to make, and that's not including the mix-up effects Monoliths, C'tan and Lord Wargear can have.

I prefer Stelek's proposal, though it could certainly use refinement. Personally, troops which always move as if in DT armed with a weapon that has an 18" range are essentially useless. Without lucky rolls you'll never actually get to fire. I understand that limiting their fire is necessary due to giving them rending, but really it seems the army would be more effective and fun to play if that choice simply wasn't made.

Necrons need to be more dynamic and versatile. To that end I would make flayed ones and scarabs troops while adding additional fast attack and elite choices to increase variety.

It's hardly a useless concept for a troops choice, given

A: If you're actually in terrain or have to cross it anyway, there is no net penalty.
B: Monolith, either Deepstriking with Warriors inside as reserves, or just plopping down and slinging the Warriors through it, gets them to a needed spot.
C: Lord Wargear, perhaps the new C'tan as well can allievate it.
D: I'm assuming S&P doesn't cancel out run, and 2D6-take-the-highest + D6 run can be pretty damn quick and probably averages out to a better speed than they have now.
E: It's an 18 point MEq with (buffable) FNP!

6" + Assault 2 18" is too powerful
6" + 12" Rapidfire is too weak?

And 12" S4 AP3 Assault 1 is a pretty terrible idea for a gun TBH. Reference Vespid. A expensive unit of ten with a gun with stats indicating MEqs are it's best target that gets maybe one round of shooting off on MEqs and wounds 3 before Cover/Invul saves, then gets Assaulted? Really? Give me the current trashbag Warriors thanks.

Not to say Stelek didn't have some good ideas, the FNP, Spyders, Destroyers, Flayed Ones, and C'tan ideas were pretty workable, and the Monolith changes make sense in a way but aren't what I'd do. However, put together his proposals are somewhat lacking in flavour, and pretty much make Crons into a (Chaos)Space Marine army, and probably not as competitive as either of those lists.

Stelek's 'crons in his original post.


Destroyers = Oblits
Pariahs = Terminators
Warriors = some kind of gimped Plague/Rubric Marine lovechild.
Monolith = Landraider
Unit leaders = Chaos Champs + icons for the Pariahs.

Sure, a +1 or -1 a few toughness values, adjust a few points values here or there, but the mechanics, or way the armies plays on the tabletop are too similar and lacking a point of originality or difference.

2d6 take the highest + d6 CAN be as fast as any other standard unit, but most of the time won't be. Moreover, it really just doesn't feel very Necron like. I imagine 'crons being slow, but consistent in their pace. If you really want to slow them down relative to everyone else simply deny them the ability to make a run move.

As for the gauss weapons, having an entire army which rends is pretty absurd, unless you're operating under the rumored 5th ed. rending rule. Personally, I'm not sure what to do in order to improve the weapons. I could 18" being reasonable with the movement changes outline above. But, on the other hand, it also seems interesting to give warriors something like the current immortal weapon. However, that would only be viable if you could include within the S&P rule some provision which only permitted shooting OR assaulting.

dogma wrote:2d6 take the highest + d6 CAN be as fast as any other standard unit, but most of the time won't be. Moreover, it really just doesn't feel very Necron like. I imagine 'crons being slow, but consistent in their pace. If you really want to slow them down relative to everyone else simply deny them the ability to make a run move.

As for the gauss weapons, having an entire army which rends is pretty absurd, unless you're operating under the rumored 5th ed. rending rule. Personally, I'm not sure what to do in order to improve the weapons. I could 18" being reasonable with the movement changes outline above. But, on the other hand, it also seems interesting to give warriors something like the current immortal weapon. However, that would only be viable if you could include within the S&P rule some provision which only permitted shooting OR assaulting.

Hmm, you've got some points. Perhaps don't use S&P for squads, but give Warriors Relentless, in exchange for not being able to Run. Then should flayers be RF 18" or back to the 24"..

And yeah it is 5th ed Rending (The 'suck' Rending).