Wouldn't Necrons be more interesting if... - Warhammer 40K Fantasy
 

Welcome to Librarium Online!

Join our community of 80,000+ members and take part in the number one resource for Warhammer and Warhammer 40K discussion!

Registering gives you full access to take part in discussions, upload pictures, contact other members and search everything!


Register Now!

User Tag List

+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 25
  1. #1
    Bas
    Bas is offline
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Age
    31
    Posts
    40
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Reputation
    1 (x1)

    Wouldn't Necrons be more interesting if...

    All models counted towards phase out? We'd finally be able to wield Pariahs, and other units that don't count towards phaseout. I'm sick of seeing Immortals, Warriors and Lords. Armies would still be small, as all expensive units are still expensive, but we wouldn't have to create army lists with the thought "Does this count towards PO? No? PASS."

    Just a thought.

    Last edited by Bas; April 26th, 2008 at 09:31.

  2. Remove Advertisements
    Librarium-Online.com
    Advertisements
     

  3. #2
    LO Zealot gauss_storm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    1,552
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    ReputationReputationReputationReputationReputation
    103 (x5)

    Not really, apart from making Necrons even idiot proof like GW wants them, it would eliminate a MAJOR weakness that balances the army as a whole. Pariahs are still very much useable it just takes alittle more thinking about they're true strengths + weaknesses.

  4. #3
    Set Sail and Conquer! Cadaver Junkie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Melbourne
    Age
    34
    Posts
    1,633
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    ReputationReputationReputationReputationReputationReputationReputationReputationReputation
    301 (x7)

    You could do it if you lowered the percentage of casualties required in order to phase out though. Maybe.
    "Pickles, the drummer, doodily doo. (Ding-dong, doodily, doodily, doo.)"

    Also, you should google "garfield minus garfield". Awesome.

  5. #4
    LO Zealot gauss_storm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    1,552
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    ReputationReputationReputationReputationReputation
    103 (x5)

    Quote Originally Posted by Cadaver Junkie View Post
    You could do it if you lowered the percentage of casualties required in order to phase out though. Maybe.

    hmmmm.... good point never thought about it like that.


    Thanks.

  6. #5
    Member cooliox's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Memphis, TN
    Age
    24
    Posts
    230
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Reputation
    17 (x1)

    Quote Originally Posted by Cadaver Junkie View Post
    You could do it if you lowered the percentage of casualties required in order to phase out though. Maybe.
    I boo your innocent ponderings!

    On a serious note, I'd have to agree with Gauss_Storm.

    So... if I gave some daemons a matte paint-job, would they be "Matte Daemons?"
    Necron Tactica: Flying Circus

  7. #6
    for good and for awesome! kore's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Riverside, CA
    Age
    39
    Posts
    1,492
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    ReputationReputationReputationReputationReputationReputation
    134 (x4)

    In my opinion, Phase Out is a horrible rule from a design perspective. I understand that the claim is that PO balances the other strengths of Necrons, but before anyone defends this assertion, consider these questions:

    Is it honestly being used for balance? If so, what strength is it balancing against? We'll Be Back? Then why does PO become more powerful when fewer WBB models are in play? It would seem that having fewer WBB models would be detrimental enough. Perhaps it's suppose to keep players from stacking their lists with Monoliths and a C'tan. If this is the case, then PO seems to serve as a means to work Necrons into a corner.

    Something else to consider is that WBB is just a form of FNP with a couple of nuances. Consider a CSM army made up of mostly Plague Marines. Before pointing out cost, also consider the variety of other rules/stats that make them tough a nails. In comparison, PO seems like a harsh penalty for the benefit of WBB.

    A better solution, in my opinion, would be some form of "disruption effect" to occur when the percentage of "Necrons" reaches the prescribed percentage. Simply, it would prevent all WBB for the remainder of the game. This type of rule would offset WBB without making armies with fewer "Necrons" suffer.

    The main point of my arguement against PO is that it really penalizes armies for not composing them of the "right type" of units.
    Karmoon: "well.. any kore = good kore" 12:35pm PST 23 May 2007


  8. #7
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Age
    33
    Posts
    14
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Reputation
    1 (x1)

    Something else to consider is that WBB is just a form of FNP with a couple of nuances.
    The rumor is the Necron WBB special rule will be replaced by FNP in 5th. I'm not sure how that will effect res orb and monolith WBB rolls if WBB isn't a rule anymore.

  9. #8
    LO Zealot gauss_storm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    1,552
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    ReputationReputationReputationReputationReputation
    103 (x5)

    Quote Originally Posted by kore View Post
    In my opinion, Phase Out is a horrible rule from a design perspective. I understand that the claim is that PO balances the other strengths of Necrons, but before anyone defends this assertion, consider these questions:

    Is it honestly being used for balance? If so, what strength is it balancing against? We'll Be Back? Then why does PO become more powerful when fewer WBB models are in play? It would seem that having fewer WBB models would be detrimental enough. Perhaps it's suppose to keep players from stacking their lists with Monoliths and a C'tan. If this is the case, then PO seems to serve as a means to work Necrons into a corner.

    Something else to consider is that WBB is just a form of FNP with a couple of nuances. Consider a CSM army made up of mostly Plague Marines. Before pointing out cost, also consider the variety of other rules/stats that make them tough a nails. In comparison, PO seems like a harsh penalty for the benefit of WBB.

    A better solution, in my opinion, would be some form of "disruption effect" to occur when the percentage of "Necrons" reaches the prescribed percentage. Simply, it would prevent all WBB for the remainder of the game. This type of rule would offset WBB without making armies with fewer "Necrons" suffer.

    The main point of my arguement against PO is that it really penalizes armies for not composing them of the "right type" of units.

    You've got it completely right there Kore, WBB is indeed a actually weaker form of FNP; ok we get punished a bit for that its ok. Our model price is insanely high and plus that we're forced to buy models purely based on our weaker form of FNP thus preventing us from using choices that will strengthen the army.

    I'm currently reading through the new Chaos codex, and it's disgusting how under priced and over powered they are.

    Take the new thousand sons for example. For 5 less points then our medium class shooter the Immortal they get atleast 15 - 20 points more in benifit.

    Thousand sons - 5 less points , 4+ invulnerable save, inferno bolters, can always move and fire, and they can even make a list to ignore they're slow movement, access to psychic powers, a force weapon in each squad, much much larger squad sizes, higher (I), don't have to worry about leadership tests, transports.

    They do not have to worry about phase out, and the 4+ save is probably twice as good as WBB seeing as how little can ignore the save.

    Now lets look at the Immortal: 5 more points, WBB, 1 more toughness, 2 less (I), 1 better leadership but no fearless, a much weaker weapon, assault weapons and a higher rate of fire, no squad leader, useless in CC, small squad size, Phase out, no psychic powers, gauss special rule (I'd rather be chalked full of anti tank like other armies anyday)

    Just as it stands now the Phase Out rule is'nt very well thought out and leaves us in the dust of many of the other armies.

  10. #9
    for good and for awesome! kore's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Riverside, CA
    Age
    39
    Posts
    1,492
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    ReputationReputationReputationReputationReputationReputation
    134 (x4)

    Quote Originally Posted by gauss_storm View Post
    You've got it completely right there Kore, WBB is indeed a actually weaker form of FNP; ok we get punished a bit for that its ok.
    I wouldn't go as far as to say WBB is a weaker form of FNP, though I acknowledge some validity in the arguement. I would classify WBB as a form of protection. Whereas the FNP models of a squad may have to take 2-3 FNP rolls in a given turn, WBB models get knocked down and cannot be targeted for the remainder of the turn. The obvious trade-off is that FNP models remain in play and get to get their Attacks in CC if it occurs.

    Consider, also, that Sweeping Advance affects both types of models, but since rolling takes place at prescribed phases, FNP models get to roll FNP in combat and only once they've been "swept" are they prevented from rolling. Conversely, if models are in a squad and fall during combat and the rest of the squad is subsequently "swept", those first models don't get their WBB rolls either.

    These things considered, I'd say FNP is slightly better than WBB. But then there is the RO and Monolith Portal which enhance WBB. All (I hope) things considered, FNP and WBB are virtually on equal footing.

    This begs the question, why such a huge penalty in the form of Phase Out?

    The Gauss rule was mentioned and I considered that, perhaps, this was the reason for PO. But Gauss doesn't balance against the weakness of PO. Necrons pay for the Gauss rule by not having true tactical units with hidden "this and that".

    Tangent: I really need to finish my wish-list 5th Edition Codex Necrons that I've been working on for a couple of months and present it for critique. PO doesn't exist in it but a new rule I've called Phase Distruption (PD) does. As I've argued, PO is bunk. PD is an offset rule to the "Necron" rule where I've added that all "Necrons" are Stubborn. If you've seen the 5th Edition leak, you know that Stubborn (supposedly) is nothing like it is in 4th Edition. All it does, supposedly, is make units immune to negative Leadership modifiers.
    Last edited by kore; April 29th, 2008 at 21:47.
    Karmoon: "well.. any kore = good kore" 12:35pm PST 23 May 2007


  11. #10
    Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    148
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    ReputationReputation
    37 (x1)

    My idea was that Phase Out would be unit specific, any units that failed morale would phase out rather than becoming broken. Still a penalty, but less atrocious and handled without messing with the victory rules. It also sort of sorts out the whole what's to be done with models from units that fall back issue, which the FAQ makes such a hash of.

+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts