# Necs new codex



## damnation321 (Jul 18, 2009)

I hear that they are going t be coming out with a new necron codex too and they will get rid of the C'tans.


----------



## WarlordKaptainGrishnak (Dec 23, 2008)

where and from whom did you hear this

not that i really care but it takes a huge chunk out of the connection between Necron and Necrontyr (necrons as humanoid) fluff wise


----------



## spudboy (Jun 13, 2008)

Similar rumors floating around DakkaDakka. Not getting rid of them, though, just toning them down.


----------



## Imperial Dragon (Dec 22, 2007)

This has often been said about the Necrons, and same with the Ctan, they would more likely tone them down...


----------



## Djinn24 (Jan 12, 2008)

I have heard this one for months now, but what I had heard was they were making the C'tans apoc only, though I like the idea of toning them down as well for normal games. I will post some other rumors that in this I have heard as well:

We'll be back is gone, replaced by Feel No Pain

Phase Out is gone

More Troop choices, unknown if it is new models (would not suprise me) or if it is their Force Org being changed around

More HQ choices and more and unique Lord choices

Named characters other then the C'tans

That is all I have heard of at this point, though it would not shock me if the monolith gets toned down a little as well since it is better then the Land Raider and we can not have a race having something better then the Space Marines (that is a joke, though I do think it will get toned down some).


----------



## admiraldick (Sep 9, 2008)

i don't believe that the Necron's are currently being worked on by the design studio, so any changes are no more than conceptual at this stage (certainly not specific rules, because that would require playtesting).

it wouldn't surprise me if C'tan were to be dropped from the codex; they are currently the weak link in the background (so the Necron's hate everyone? but love the C'tan? WTF?) i suspect that this rumour simply extends from the current rule book, which doesn't talk much about the C'tan at all, other than they are so elusive that there are Necron Lords who believe themselves to be a C'tan.


----------



## darklove (May 7, 2008)

The Necrons don't love the C'tan, but the only way they could save themselves from extinction at the hands of the C'tan was to offer themselves as slaves to help them feed on the rest of the galaxy. The C'tan are the whole reason that the Necrons exist rather than Necrontyr, and it was their power that drove the Old Ones out of the galaxy. I think their place in the background is pretty solid and gives a lot of character to it; a doomed race led by totally insane energy beings that want to consume all life because it tastes so nice. A very simple motivation, emotions affect the taste of soul energy and C'tan encourage the emotion they like the taste of best. The Nightbringer loves fear and despair, so it seeded those emotions in every race it found, for example. Other C'tan wanted to be worshipped and adored. The C'tan are so few now though that there will be few variations in taste... only 2 in the game atm.
Anyway I like the Necron fluff, the they should keep the C'tan in it


----------



## MaidenManiac (Oct 2, 2008)

The C'Tan part is existant in more then the Necron Codex. There is a quite juicy part of the Lieber Chaotica: Slaanesh book that talks about the Necron+C'Tan/Eldar+Old Ones war, and I really assume that the Eldar Codex tells some of them too. Removing them from the game will feel very weird indeed!

Regarding what will happen to them "ingame" in the next Codex only time will tell:wink:


----------



## Creon (Mar 5, 2009)

From the rumours I've heard, in several places, the run down above is correct:

C'tan: Apok only. 
Necron Lords: Customisable to resemble C'tan-like abilities (allowing use of C'tan models in normal games)
FNP replaces WBB
Pariahs as troops (?)
Living metal brough to 5th edition wording, so the grey areas are defined.


----------



## Shadowvast (Jun 11, 2008)

What Djinn 21 said...

And no they are not being worked on because they are already done...have been for some time if my sources are correct. They just need the finals on minis and the book back from the printers.


----------



## Syph (Aug 3, 2008)

I'm convinced all the Necron rumours are little more than wishlisting; only thing 'concrete' is they're being worked on: http://www.heresy-online.net/forums/showthread.php?t=38061

The rumours djinn posted are all I've heard and have been floating around much longer than Robin Cruddace's confirmation.


----------



## Ferrus Manus (Apr 28, 2008)

Im not sure if this is true, but i heard they want to add another C'tan


----------



## Sebi (Mar 3, 2009)

FNP instead of WBB would be a step back.... the WBB is imho the most funny part of the Necrons.

anyway.. rumors... we'll see waht will come


----------



## admiraldick (Sep 9, 2008)

darklove said:


> The Necrons don't love the C'tan, but the only way they could save themselves from extinction at the hands of the C'tan was to offer themselves as slaves to help them feed on the rest of the galaxy.


that is possibly the situation now, but it has not always been that way.

the Nercontyr where a truely xenocidal race, bent on wiping all other life from the universe. particularly the Old Ones and their snivelling pet projects. sadly the Necrontyr, in spite of their superior technology, didn't have the muscle to back up their strong words and had their arses handed to them.

weirdly though this didn't drive them deeper into loathing hatred, but in a stunning reversal of characteristic made them reach out to other another race for help. wooed by the C'tan's bat-utility-belt-like, deus ex machina power the Necrontyr kept on giving into their demands. eventually, for some as of yet unexplained reason, the C'tan then wanted the Nercontyr to move into bodies which meant that they could no longer be harvested as food, but actually helped the Necrontyr in their now defunct quest to topple the universe. thus the Necrons were born out of confusion and contrived motives.

don't get me wrong, Necrons are cool. but nothing about them requires the C'tan to exist. they could have been beaten by the Old Ones, then skulked off and come up with the whole metal bodies thing on their own! no need to break character and ask for help.

i don't even dislike the C'tan; i'm cool with the 'master race' whose plans for world domination are eternally frustrated by their own masters, who are simply in it for a good time. its just how and why they got together in the first place that doesn't make any sense.



Syph said:


> only thing 'concrete' is they're being worked on


now that is interesting.


----------



## Widowmaker666 (Jul 30, 2008)

i have mixed feelings on the C'tan in 40k. In a way i feel they are underpowered because basically they are gods and even the eldar gods couldnt kill them and made them play off each other. I dont think they should be in games of regular 40k maybe in Apocalypse as like a Necron version of a bio-titan.


----------



## Hachiroku (Jul 12, 2009)

I've been playing Warhammer for a month or so but when my buddy mentioned warhammer..I asked him what was it about and lended me necron, eldar,Ig,tryanids and ork codexs and I felt the necrons had a great back story...I love the c'tan..The necrontyr got hammered by the old ones and they went to a higher power to fullfill there wants...and in return c'tan wanted them to enslave them to destroy everything in existance...That's some good ole butt kicking to me lol and I have never played with nightbringer nor deciever..and I don't understand y they would apoc be only so enlightin me plz..but as for FNP rule instead of WBB I can see it to get rid of phase out but I never really phase out..due the fact that I run a lot warriors to counter act that but never played a tourney or anything like that just friendly game with friends...So what I've read space wolfs are next and theirs talk of dark eldar r after that so we have atleast 6 or 8 months or so be4 necrons get redone


----------



## spike12225 (Aug 21, 2008)

i'd say they'll make them apoc units that night bringer is a nasty bitch right now

there's ways to handle it but in a random friendly can suck balls


----------



## KhainiteAssassin (Mar 18, 2009)

admiraldick said:


> that is possibly the situation now, but it has not always been that way.
> 
> the Nercontyr where a truely xenocidal race, bent on wiping all other life from the universe. particularly the Old Ones and their snivelling pet projects. sadly the Necrontyr, in spite of their superior technology, didn't have the muscle to back up their strong words and had their arses handed to them.
> 
> ...


you my friend, are VERY wrong, the Necrons only exist to serve the C'tan.

The Necron'tyr only hated the old ones for the fact that their own life span was so short and the old ones life span was so long. hence the hatred. the C'tan came to the necron'tyr homewold and offered them immortality, in which is the one thing they truly desired. in which they took with open arms, building their own doom and their own transformation into the necrons from the necron'tyr. Infact, the epidermis that the c'tan wear was made BY the necron'tyr.

the necron'tyr have never been known to hate everything, but for hating anything to do with the old ones, who were their most hated of enemies.

The fact is, you are wrong. the Necron'tyr would not end up becoming the soulless atomitons that they are without the c'tan. The Necon'tyr race was driven by petty jealousy at life spans, and the ammount of suffering they endured on their homeworld.


----------



## SirShibby (Jan 7, 2009)

Widowmaker666 said:


> i have mixed feelings on the C'tan in 40k. In a way i feel they are underpowered because basically they are gods and even the eldar gods couldnt kill them and made them play off each other. I dont think they should be in games of regular 40k maybe in Apocalypse as like a Necron version of a bio-titan.


would you say the same for the Avatar of Khain or any of the Greater Daemons of Chaos?


----------



## Talos (Aug 4, 2008)

Its trickey, in fluff the avatar and greater daemons are very powerful but they are still no where near the level of power of a C'tan or even a titan (well its debateable for greater daemons) so I think they are fine in normal 40k.

Well it seems that the Necron codex is a very long way off, GW said it would come out after the DE codex.
I dont really mind as Necrons is one race in 40k I will never play no matter how good there next codex is.


----------



## WarlordKaptainGrishnak (Dec 23, 2008)

think about C'tan's were gods

the Avatar is, like Daemons, an enitiy to represent their God

The Avatar can be beaten by a Chapter Master (SM Codex; Marneus Calgar kills Avatar, though it nearly kills him as well)

It is said (fluff from 4th Ed. Chaos Codex) that only the Primarches of old could best a Greater Daemon in battle

this probably will always justify the Avatar and Greater Daemons to be played in standard games.

As for the C'tan is they could only be killed by each other and other gods then I don't know where they stand in this?


----------



## Gul Torgo (Mar 31, 2008)

WarlordKaptainGrishnak said:


> As for the C'tan is they could only be killed by each other and other gods then I don't know where they stand in this?


The C'Tan are in a bit of a different boat because their natural state is a kind of energy being (think _Star Trek). Their tabletop manifestations are when they inhabit living metal bodies made for them by the Necrons. Thus they are only as strong as those constructs allow them to be, and when it is "killed" on the table the energy being is fine. It is that the shell that has been destroyed, but the C'Tan itself just has to wait for another shell to be made._


----------



## WarlordKaptainGrishnak (Dec 23, 2008)

so instead of being moved to Apoc. it should be thought of as only a representation like the Avatar and Greater Daemons?

they all are there for as long as their shells, mortal forms, hosts allow


----------



## darklove (May 7, 2008)

Exactly so. When the shell is destroyed there is an explosion as the C'tan's energy is released, this is what causes the damage to nearby units (High S hit with no armour save allowed = kill the C'tan from a safe distance).


----------



## titan11 (Jul 24, 2009)

I have just started playing 40k and I have been hearing a huge number of rumors about the necrons which happens to be the army I first started to play. I hear that instead of automatically getting a glancing hit with a gauss weapon that they are just going to get rending instead. is there any truth to this?


----------



## titan11 (Jul 24, 2009)

Sorry I wanted to add if this is in fact just a rumour I would like to know of a more reliable source of information.


----------



## 123birds (May 17, 2009)

Ok, i will clear up a bit of the fluff issues. The necrothyr were a race like humans, but were frail beings, and it did not help that they were under the influence of a huge sun being so close (Like living on Venus heat) This inevitably lead to their even shorter life spans (say 18-25 years i think. Now, in this same galaxy, the old ones were creating planets, and races that far outlived their own and they were putting them under easy life, where they could get food easily. The necrothyr hated the old ones, and their long lives, and how they had to power to create races in easy enviroments, yet neglected to try at all to help the necrothyr. The necrothyr then vowed that they would destroy the old ones, and all their races. To begin, they decided to put their sun that killed them into a shell, no one knows how they managed this except they had technology that far outstrips our own (Gauss, living metal, ect.) and thus, the nightbringer was born. But, the nightbringer, instead of serving them, wreaked havoc on the necrothyr, until he agreed to stop when the necrothyr told him about the wrest of the universe, and the races that were more full and happy then them, and so the necrothyr became their servants, and thus a reign of terror fell over the univers as the necrothyr contiunued to create more ctan, and destroy all the other races, who were not developed enough yet to be used as warriors, thus in their desperation the old ones created the Eldar, in a rush, they didn't put as much time into them, and as a result had weakness's. So the war between the eldar and the ctan began. right after this, the necrothyr created a special ctan, the deceiver, from a sun. The creation of him proved the doom of the necrothyr race, and eventualy the destruction of most of the ctan. So the deceiver tricked the necrothyr into letting the ctan eat their bodies, saying it would make them all powerful, and immortal, but neglected to say that they would be eternal slaves to the ctan with no memories. And so the necron were born, and the universe trembled at their wake. Soon after, the deceiver, who was in fact weaker then most other ctan, tricked the night bringer into eating the other ctan, saying that they were the greatest delicacy. So the ctan began to devour each other, and so only four were left, 3 were powerful, the nightbringer, the dragon, and the outsider, and one who was just an average ctan, the deceiver who managed to hide while they ate the other ones. And so they all wreaked havoc across the universe with the necrons for thousands of years, wiping out man races in the process, but then they saw that they would soon run out of races. So they began to create the tomb worlds, where the ctan went to rest for millions of years while they waited for the universe to flourish again, and provide them more food. But, right before the tombs with the ctan were closed, and the ctan were in a weakened stasis like state, the deceiver appeared to the eldar, showing them the loaction of the nightbringers tomb, and so an assault occured on his tomb, killing most of the necrons, but almost destroying the nightbringer, the tomb closed, and the necrons still defending the tomb destroyed the assault force that was left. And so ends the reign of the ctan and the necrons until up to date.

Hope that helps. Also the rumors include:
-Customizable necron lords
-FNP instead of WBB
-Wraiths with PW/Rending
-gauss either changed to rending or AP1 against vehicles in addition to glancing on 6s
-Ctan changed to 2k-3k point apoc models, along with the release of the outside and dragon
-Flayed ones as troop
-Removal of Phase Out
-necrons go from a scouting party who dissapears after they assess the power of the enemies (So they have phase out) to a full blown assault force where the tombs deepest necron creatures are awakened
-Obelisks (non mobile liths that deep strike and have AV 12 all side living metal)
-Get something like And they shall know no fear, or they will get stubborn and reduced to LD 9 or changed to stubborn
-named special characters (no no personalities just stuff like Harbringer of awakening, harbringer of the storm, harbringer of death)


----------



## darklove (May 7, 2008)

Colour graded Lords are also very likely (Bronze, Silver, Gold, Platinum) of increasing power - this is already stated pretty much as fact in the BRB so it would be a back-track to take it out of the codex.


----------



## Taggerung (Jun 5, 2008)

123birds said:


> Hope that helps. Also the rumors include:
> -Customizable necron lords
> 
> -- very cool
> ...



Those are my thoughts.


----------



## darklove (May 7, 2008)

@Taggerung: Stubborn would be more like Necrons, rather than Fearless.
Making Gauss weapons AP1 vs vehicles only makes them as strong as they were in 4th ed. - without it Necrons only have 2 anti-vehicle ranged weapons: Heavy Gauss Cannon and Particle Whip. It also means that the basic Warrior is now over priced because it is less functional than before.
I think WBB will stay, it is the only way to really keep the feel of self-repair. FNP is more about being so tough that you don't feel the damage, but WBB is supposed to be different.


----------



## Pirate Metal Troy (Jun 2, 2008)

FNP replacing WBB is fine. I understand it. However, there will probably still be a res orb, allowing a FNP roll for any unit with a model within 6", just like the old one. It just saves time.

ap1 gauss weapons? sweet. Now we can kill tanks again. Hopefully disruption fields will get upgraded as well.

Now, on to the C'tan. You should all try to remember, the C'tan only ever had a 4+ invul, and drop to a single round of sternguard fire. Any poisoned weapon will drop them like a bad habit. Snipers? sternguard? DE agonizers? the nurgle daemon weapon or typhus? 

I don't think I've seen a game in any recent memory where a C'tan actually made it into combat. Even then, that 4+ invul is pitiful, even if he HAS 4 or 5 wounds. They're too slow, and as a chaos, and necron player, i would just laugh at a necron opponent with a C'tan. 

I would gladly see them made at a smaller points cost, with stats on par with the chaos daemon princes. Points cost was the main deterrent for the C'tan. 320 points for a model that will never see combat. If i could have 4 different C'tan at around 200-275 points, I could be happy. Hell, C'tan with options?

I also love the idea of more troops. 500 point necron lists are fail...I've never won a 500 point game with them...ever. I'd really like a way to make pariahs a viable choice again. Making them FNP would definitely do that. I love the pariahs, but they're too expensive and die too easily to justify their use. Necrons are too slow to afford being defensively weak. 

anyways, i have to shower

/rant


----------



## PoweredbyCoffee (Oct 31, 2008)

Creon said:


> From the rumours I've heard, in several places, the run down above is correct:
> 
> C'tan: Apok only.
> Necron Lords: Customisable to resemble C'tan-like abilities (allowing use of C'tan models in normal games)
> ...


If this is all true I will sell my army on Craigslist and stop all purchases for Warhammer... period. I'm sure I can find something more useful to do.

I've invested thousands of dollars on this game and I'm not interested in "simplifying" the Necrons or taking away the C-Tan. What I would like GW to do is focus on game balance rather than simplification. Personally I think the Necrons just need some general updating to 5th edition. A simple point reduction of the models would be something. They also need to "fix" the Necron CC ability. It's borked in 5th edition because of sweeping advance. I really like WBB. Why? Because it makes the Necron's unique. That's a good thing.

Finally, getting rid of the C-Tan just isn't fun for me. I never play Apocalypse... To me it is just a way for GW to get me to spend more money.


----------



## Azkaellon (Jun 23, 2009)

PoweredbyCoffee said:


> If this is all true I will sell my army on Craigslist and stop all purchases for Warhammer... period. I'm sure I can find something more useful to do.
> 
> I've invested thousands of dollars on this game and I'm not interested in "simplifying" the Necrons or taking away the C-Tan. What I would like GW to do is focus on game balance rather than simplification. Personally I think the Necrons just need some general updating to 5th edition. A simple point reduction of the models would be something. They also need to "fix" the Necron CC ability. It's borked in 5th edition because of sweeping advance. I really like WBB. Why? Because it makes the Necron's unique. That's a good thing.
> 
> Finally, getting rid of the C-Tan just isn't fun for me. I never play Apocalypse... To me it is just a way for GW to get me to spend more money.


Few things on this...

1)Do 95% of people even use C'tans??? And wouldn't a giant FW c'tan be sweet?

2)Necron's should have FnP just for the fact it makes more sense!! if you damage one it will eather shrug off the damage or Explode and warp its self back to the tomb world not just wait on the ground....

3)Warriors are GREAT in 5th ed...they have a str 4 rapid fire weapons that can gland titans on a 6........And they look cool!

4)This Codex will not be out for a 1.5 - 2 years. So i wouldn't really count on any rumors to be true.


----------



## darklove (May 7, 2008)

I use C'tan in almost every game.

They always make it to CC.

They always make more than their points back.

I think it would be a shame to have them as Apoc only because not everyone plays Apoc games, either becuase they are too poor or because they don't have enough friends with big armies.


----------



## Silb (Jan 28, 2008)

Witch King of Angmar said:


> Few things on this...
> 
> 1)Do 95% of people even use C'tans??? And wouldn't a giant FW c'tan be sweet?
> 
> ...



1) Personally, I don't use C'tans, but that's just because I haven't even modelled the minimum troop requirement yet. I'm planning on getting a C'Tan once I hit 1500-2000 pts, and there's NO WAY I'm bringing my 'cron army up to 3000 pts just to have them. Also, a giant FW C'tan might end up looking sweet, but I honestly don't care. The current models look pretty sweet to me.

2) Not really. A Necron's ability to withstand damage is accurately portrayed by their SM level toughness. WBB represents how the Necrons are temporarily disabled, only to repair themselves shortly afterwards, and then rise from the ground in order to continue their war against the living. If they fail their roll, then their damage is to great for them to repair with their current power supply, and they are forced to shut down until they're teleported back to their tomb world. I think it's much more unique and fluffy than FNP.

3) I agree completely

4) Same as 3)


----------



## Concrete Hero (Jun 9, 2008)

Witch King of Angmar said:


> 3)Warriors are GREAT in 5th ed...they have a str 4 rapid fire weapons that can gland titans on a 6........And they look cool!


Not great. Just as Vulnerable as Marines in the open, which in this day and age, is very vulnerable. A Permanent transport would be nice.

And Necrons loose in assault, terribly.


----------



## ninja skills (Aug 4, 2009)

i've thought since 5th ed came out that necrons need to be stubbon, thats why they were given ld10 in the first place. but thats just wishlisting

has anyone else noticed the mention of a gauss seige cannon in the new marine codex? sounds interesting.


----------



## Creon (Mar 5, 2009)

Maybe Fearless instead. After all, what do you care if your hardware is damaged. They'll just load you up another body, and on you go!


----------



## Son of mortarion (Apr 24, 2008)

Concrete Hero said:


> Not great. Just as Vulnerable as Marines in the open, which in this day and age, is very vulnerable. A Permanent transport would be nice.
> 
> And Necrons loose in assault, terribly.


However, this is a one-dimensional argument, it assumes that the assault phase is the only phase of the game. There is a reason many players respons with "then stay out of close sombat, stupid" to this aargument, it is that simple. Necrons are a shooting army, not a close sombat army, and they have many tricks to stay out of close combat.

Necrons are a good army, many players simply don't like to take anything from the "troops" section, regardless of how good it is, or how reasonably priced it is, and that seems to be the list's greatest weakness, their best unit, point for point, is their troops.


----------



## Silb (Jan 28, 2008)

Creon said:


> Maybe Fearless instead. After all, what do you care if your hardware is damaged. They'll just load you up another body, and on you go!


Well according to the current Necron codex, the reason that they're not fearless is that they logically survey a situation and will retreat if they feel that it would be advantageous to do so.


----------



## Katie Drake (Nov 28, 2007)

Silb said:


> 2) Necron's ability to withstand damage is accurately portrayed by their SM level toughness. WBB represents how the Necrons are temporarily disabled, only to repair themselves shortly afterwards, and then rise from the ground in order to continue their war against the living. If they fail their roll, then their damage is to great for them to repair with their current power supply, and they are forced to shut down until they're teleported back to their tomb world. I think it's much more unique and fluffy than FNP.


Just... no.

The main difference between Feel No Pain and We'll Be Back is that Necron players get to lay their models down when damaged and then pick them back up when they pass their repair roll. That's pretty much it. Sure, it might feel kinda cool and have its own unique appeal, but there's absolutely no good reason why Feel No Pain can't represent the same thing.

Example: Necron Warrior gets shot, fails its save and rolls for Feel No Pain. It passes, meaning that the shot either blew a hole in its body which was then stitched back together by a cloud of microscopic Scarabs or the Warrior's own self-repair systems, or that the Warrior was knocked to the ground before it again rose to its feet, ready to continue the fight.

This entire "But We'll Be Back is cooler!" argument is just lame.


----------



## Silb (Jan 28, 2008)

Katie Drake said:


> Just... no.
> 
> The main difference between Feel No Pain and We'll Be Back is that Necron players get to lay their models down when damaged and then pick them back up when they pass their repair roll. That's pretty much it. Sure, it might feel kinda cool and have its own unique appeal, but there's absolutely no good reason why Feel No Pain can't represent the same thing.
> 
> ...


Now here's the thing. Why shouldn't there be We'll Be Back? You've just stated that feel no pain can represent the same thing. You haven't shown anything that suggests that Feel No Pain should be used instead. Now, it's true that there are a few small differences between the rules:

1) Feel No Pain is rolled for every wound. This would greatly increase the survivability of the Necron Lord. If the future codex's Necron Lord has the same stats as the current one, then your Destroyer Lord ends up with Toughness 6, 3 wounds, and half a chance to survive every wound that he fails with his 3+ save. Not to mention the bonuses from 1 or 2 other pieces of wargear from the Necron Armoury. Who needs a C'tan when you've got that?

2) Feel No Pain is rolled directly after the wound is taken, while We'll be Back rolls are made during the next turn. There are a lot of small changes that this makes to gameplay, mostly affecting what an opponent does with their other units during the rest of the shooting/assault phases after they inflict a wound on the Necron model (Feel No pain means the crons die or live immediately, while we'll be back means that they might still live, but the opponent can't attack them). From what I can see this barely affects gameplay in a way that would give a significant advantage or disadvantage to the Necron player.

So...the only thing that Feel No Pain can do is give the Necron Lord a boost to his chances of surviving the battle, and cause very small changes in your opponent's tactics. Oh, and the model doesn't have to lay on it's side for half a turn.

Could someone please explain to me the problem of We'll be Back? Why do people want to use Feel No Pain instead?


----------



## Katie Drake (Nov 28, 2007)

Silb said:


> Could someone please explain to me the problem of We'll be Back? Why do people want to use Feel No Pain instead?


It's just needless. I don't see how Necron players find that it provides such flavor and coolness... to me, it's lying a model down on its side for half a turn and then getting to giggle about it when you're allowed to stand it back up. Maybe it's because Necron armies are so boring that players will take cheap thrills where they can get them... 

It also complicates things, especially for newer players. Personally I don't find the list of things that deny We'll Be Back to be all that confusing or difficult to remember, but there seems to be an endless legion of new players that seem unable to grasp that when a Necron Warrior gets hit in the face with a krak missile, he doesn't get We'll Be Back. Then we have people who "forget" that Necrons can only stand back up if they're within 6" of another model of the same type, or within 12" of a Tomb Spyder. Lastly, we have those Necron players who claim to forget the various exceptions to their special rule(s) and such, which makes things even harder on less experienced gamers.

I think that a simple switch to We'll Be Back will make the Necron army a lot easier to play with and against. Sure, you have to pass on your chance to stand your plastic model back up onto its feet after it "dies", but considering all the other goodies that are likely in store for the Necrons, I think it'll be a more than fair tradeoff.


----------



## spudboy (Jun 13, 2008)

Maybe it's just the association with Nurgle...?

Honestly, the only way this could affect gameplay is if, for some reason, the surviving Necrons in a unit moved beyond the ability of any reviving Necrons to rejoin the unit the following turn. I seem to recall that they become their own unit then. This adds a little flavor in this sort of odd-ball situation, I suppose, but enough?

The rule could be reworded simply enough, though, to please everyone:
We'll Be Back: Necrons are subject to the Feel No Pain rule, as described in the Warhammer 40,000 rulebook, with the following acceptions. Roles to determin whether a model has survived a wound are taken at the start of the next Necron player turn, rather than immediately after saves are made. This is to represent the time it takes for the Necron to repair the damage it takes. It may be helpful to place a model on its side or use a marker to represent the damage. If the model(s) revive, and if they are outside coherency for their original unit, they form a new unit of their own, or with any like models of another unit within 2".

Actually, now that I look at this, it doesn't look that much different... (BTW, I'm writing this from memory. No longer have my NecDex.)


----------



## Silb (Jan 28, 2008)

> It also complicates things, especially for newer players. Personally I don't find the list of things that deny We'll Be Back to be all that confusing or difficult to remember, but there seems to be an endless legion of new players that seem unable to grasp that when a Necron Warrior gets hit in the face with a krak missile, he doesn't get We'll Be Back. Then we have people who "forget" that Necrons can only stand back up if they're within 6" of another model of the same type, or within 12" of a Tomb Spyder. Lastly, we have those Necron players who claim to forget the various exceptions to their special rule(s) and such, which makes things even harder on less experienced gamers.


While I haven't ever seen a situation like the ones you just described (But that's because I've only seen one game with necrons in my entire life), I do know that there are plenty of rules which new players mess up on, or that people "forget" a part of. I mean, my first couple games used so many rules incorrectly that it's not even funny.



> I think that a simple switch to We'll Be Back will make the Necron army a lot easier to play with and against. Sure, you have to pass on your chance to stand your plastic model back up onto its feet after it "dies", but considering all the other goodies that are likely in store for the Necrons, I think it'll be a more than fair tradeoff.


If the necrons really do end up with some cool stuff, like a transport vehicle, human worshipper units, or some unique wargear for their current units, then I'm fine with a switch to Feel No Pain. I wouldn't care if they switch 1 rule if, overall, the codex ends up a lot better than the 60-page piece of crap we have right now.



spudboy said:


> Maybe it's just the association with Nurgle...?
> 
> Honestly, the only way this could affect gameplay is if, for some reason, the surviving Necrons in a unit moved beyond the ability of any reviving Necrons to rejoin the unit the following turn. I seem to recall that they become their own unit then. This adds a little flavor in this sort of odd-ball situation, I suppose, but enough?
> 
> ...


This version would indeed be pretty much the same (and if they do use feel no pain instead, then they might as well not do the "put the model on its side until the next turn" thing.), except that, like I said before, the Necron Lord would be tough enough to absorb tons of fire, since Feel No Pain applies to every wound.


----------



## titan11 (Jul 24, 2009)

I am a new 40k player and my first army happens to be necrons.The first 2 MONTHS before buying that large necron battleforce which I think is sold out now I just sat on a bus reading the basic rulebook.Personally I think fnp is better than wbb(if applicable,no new codex YET).Now if a green rookie like me can see the improvement and practically BROADCAST on this message on this site I am either a very arrogant and cocky player or it is so obvious that this is a good improvement that anyone with half a brain should be able to figure this out and KNOW that changing wbb to fnp without even thinking about it.Allegedly there are those who might not like this statement and I want to make it clear that by know means am I making even a IMPLIED insult to anyone it just seems to me maybe this is a VERY good change for the necrons whenever their next codex comes out.


----------



## Unanything (Jul 21, 2009)

Katie Drake said:


> The main difference between Feel No Pain and We'll Be Back is that Necron players get to lay their models down when damaged and then pick them back up when they pass their repair roll. That's pretty much it. Sure, it might feel kinda cool and have its own unique appeal, but there's absolutely no good reason why Feel No Pain can't represent the same thing.
> 
> This entire "But We'll Be Back is cooler!" argument is just lame.


One argument for "We'll be Back" though is that a model or unit is safe from having to take more tests in the same turn if it goes down. This especially applies to more valuable units such as Immortals or Wraiths, or just whatever is spearheading your strategy.


----------



## Katie Drake (Nov 28, 2007)

Unanything said:


> One argument for "We'll be Back" though is that a model or unit is safe from having to take more tests in the same turn if it goes down. This especially applies to more valuable units such as Immortals or Wraiths, or just whatever is spearheading your strategy.


Sure, there's that. But is that really "fair"? I mean... obviously it's not a broken ability as I can't remember the last time Necrons placed well in a GT, but it's still unprecedented and sorta weird. Feel No Pain is just an easier, more logical and intuitive rule.


----------



## njfed (Jan 28, 2008)

Katie Drake said:


> The main difference between Feel No Pain and We'll Be Back is that Necron players get to lay their models down when damaged and then pick them back up when they pass their repair roll. That's pretty much it.


Not quite.

Example: Squad of 10 warriors takes five unsaved wounds from shooting.
FNP: Three make the FNP save so 8 remain for CC phase.
WBB: Five remain for CC and squad must take leadership test!

CC phase SM squad of eight charges the remaining Necrons.
FNP:SM cause four wounds. One necron fails a save, but has 50/50 chance to make FNP. Seven necrons attack back, assuming he failed. SM must make two saves. If one fails, the combat is a tie and the squads have seven models each.
WBB:SM cause four wounds and one necron fails and drops. Four necrons attack back and cause one wound. Odds are that the SM passes the save. SM wins combat and forces a leadership test! Next necron turn three warriors make their WBB and get back up, so the battle is 8-7 in favor of the SM.



These two scenarios seem different to me as the necrons have to pass two leadership tests.


----------



## Creon (Mar 5, 2009)

GW is moving towards "Universal Special Rules apply to all armies" 

WBB will almost definately be FNP in the next 'dex. It's simpler, and uses an already existing rule. They like that.


----------



## H0RRIDF0RM (Mar 6, 2008)

I read alot of these threads in the Rumors section and usually refrian from posting on them. I want to gently remind all of you that absolutely nothing posted here is confirmed regarding the Necrons.

The Necrons could easily become the next Dark Eldar. I'm pretty sure I remember reading non sense rumours about the Upcoming Dark Eldar Codex like 9 years ago and we all know that it hasn't happened yet.

So why not just keep this as the actual Rumours thread so people who want to be informed dont have to scan through the debates and arguements to find out something useful?


----------



## darklove (May 7, 2008)

Silb said:


> Well according to the current Necron codex, the reason that they're not fearless is that they logically survey a situation and will retreat if they feel that it would be advantageous to do so.


Except that there is never an advantage to retreating with I2 because everybody and their grandparents is able to sweeping advance them... So quite flawed logic really.


----------



## darklove (May 7, 2008)

Side effects of replacing WBB with FNP:

1. No more need to double up on units, you don't need similar models around for FNP to work.

2. No reason for non-Necrons not to have it: C'tan, Pariahs, Scarabs should all have it too.

2. Delete the Tomb Spider from the codex.


----------



## Katie Drake (Nov 28, 2007)

darklove said:


> 1. No more need to double up on units, you don't need similar models around for FNP to work.


Indeed. This encourages more variety in Necron armies instead of a bunch of Warriors, maybe some Immortals and then a bunch of Destroyers.



> 2. No reason for non-Necrons not to have it: C'tan, Pariahs, Scarabs should all have it too.


I really don't think that C'tan need FNP. They're tough enough as it is what with having a higher Toughness than some Gargantuan Creatures, lots of Wounds and a 4+ Invulnerable save. Pariahs could definitely use it. FNP Swarms just doesn't sit right with me, especially when those Swarms are able to harm vehicles of any AV, move like jetbikes _and_ get increased cover saves for being Small Targets!



> *3*. Delete the Tomb Spider from the codex.


I don't really see any need for this. The Tomb Spyders can certainly still exist and maybe even serve a similar function that they do now - allowing a reroll of FNP for any models within 6" of it? I dunno. Maybe they could beef up its combat stats so that it's not so abysmal at fighting anymore.


----------



## Silb (Jan 28, 2008)

darklove said:


> Side effects of replacing WBB with FNP:
> 
> 1. No more need to double up on units, you don't need similar models around for FNP to work.
> 
> ...


1. Good point, although you could just change the way that We'll Be Back works instead of replacing it with Feel No Pain.

2. Personally, I'm against giving FNP to any of these units even if the other necrons get FNP. It would unbalance scarabs and C'tan, and as for pariahs, I think they should just be given slightly improved stats, so that people are willing to take them even though they're more fragile than the other troops.

3. Why? They are still monstrous creatures and can still create scarabs. Just give them better stats, better weapon options, or give them a new bonus that they can provide to other necron units (Perhaps the ability to repair immobilised Monoliths?)


----------



## Iron Angel (Aug 2, 2009)

Well, I think non-Necron units that arent the Monolith should have FNP (Monolith is basically indestructible anyway and being a vehicle cant take FNP anyway I dont think), and the remaining units should keep WBB. This sticks with lore and its pretty much the same thing, except the power weapons thing.


----------



## darklove (May 7, 2008)

Well without WBB the Tomb Spider is pointless. In CC it is rubbish and if you make more than 1 Scarab Swarm you drop the majority T. Maybe it is better to remove this unit anyway because they are supposed to be in the tombs doing the repairs, rather than fighting. If the codex is supposed to advance the Necron faction then the TS can go back inside the tomb and better units come out.


----------



## Azwraith (Apr 23, 2009)

i would say for the tomb spyder it should just run something like all models within 12" get +1 to their saves (be it invul/cover/armour) and/or the FNP roll is 1-2 dead 3-6 survive.

or something.


----------



## Iron Angel (Aug 2, 2009)

Also, I forgot, with FNP you cant reroll losses by teleporting them through the Monolith. Tehre are a lot of key Necron strategies that rely on this ability (Steamroller, Destroyer wings, Hammer and Anvil, etc). With FNP this cant be done. Thats why I say units without WBB currently (Pariahs and Tomb Spyders, for instance) should gain it- The FNP attached to Tomb Spyders would double their efficiency in combat and would provide a reason to take them that doesn't involve just holding them in the back for WBB, and FNP on Pariahs would grant them enough toughness to be usable, slogging through all but the heaviest enemy fire to close in with their deadly CC stats, able to rip up teq units even easier. They would still probably be Anti-Rush units however (As most people fail to realize thats what they were always supposed to be).

But seriously, FNP on tomb spyders would make them non-ass in CC. Even with low ws they have the equivalent of double wounds.

I would NOT say replace WBB with FNP. Just add FNP to non-WBB units. WBB is critical to any Necron strategy that is more complicated than "DS Lith into enemy army, warp in 20 Warriors, blow up everything".


----------



## Katie Drake (Nov 28, 2007)

darklove said:


> Well without WBB the Tomb Spider is pointless. In CC it is rubbish and if you make more than 1 Scarab Swarm you drop the majority T. Maybe it is better to remove this unit anyway because they are supposed to be in the tombs doing the repairs, rather than fighting. If the codex is supposed to advance the Necron faction then the TS can go back inside the tomb and better units come out.


Assuming that the Tomb Spyder remains exactly as it is now in the current Codex, then yeah, obviously it'd be pointless. I would imagine that when We'll Be Back takes its leave, the Tomb Spyder will be adjusted.

There's absolutely no good reason for them to completely remove Tomb Spyders from the Codex and put all the models that people have bought to waste. Just need to think outside the box a bit is all.



> Also, I forgot, with FNP you cant reroll losses by teleporting them through the Monolith. Tehre are a lot of key Necron strategies that rely on this ability (Steamroller, Destroyer wings, Hammer and Anvil, etc). With FNP this cant be done. Thats why I say units without WBB currently (Pariahs and Tomb Spyders, for instance) should gain it- The FNP attached to Tomb Spyders would double their efficiency in combat and would provide a reason to take them that doesn't involve just holding them in the back for WBB
> 
> ...
> 
> But seriously, FNP on tomb spyders would make them non-ass in CC. Even with low ws they have the equivalent of double wounds.


This is true. A lot of the current Necron Tactics would be either invalidated or changed. One would hope that because they're practically building the Necrons from the ground up that some new, equally effective tactics would become available.

Tomb Spyders _really_ don't need Feel No Pain. I don't know about you, but when I go Monstrous Creature hunting, I do it with weapons that are at least S7 and ignore armor saves. Since a Tomb Spyder's Toughness is so high, the chances of it being wounded by anything that isn't AP1/2 or a power weapon are slim to none. If anything, the Tomb Spyder could use another Wound so that it doesn't become too vulnerable to things like krak missiles.

To make Spyders better in close combat, they should just increase its Weapon Skill and number of Attacks. Those contribute directly to a model's effectiveness in close combat, after all.


----------



## Iron Angel (Aug 2, 2009)

Well, maybe not Attacks. Most people keep them with both claws to get the three attacks, and four attacks with a higher WS might cheese them for their comparatively low points. Plus even with low BS, you take PP, three shots with that particle projector might be a little devastating for a bargain cost unit. I say one or the other really, or if both, slightly higher cost. Definitely one more Wound either way. They ARE MCs, after all, and need to be able to lay down a proper beating like other MCs without getting whacked to bits by some Terminator squad in one round.

I think we CAN agree, however, that Pariahs definitely deserve WBB. They need SOMETHING to make them worth using and FNP would double their already considerable power enough to make them worth their exorbitant cost.


----------



## Blue Liger (Apr 25, 2008)

Tomb Spiders just need a toughness that doesnt decrease when making scarabs,it's a mC so that's all good give it FNP and make it's save invulnerable after all it repairs things it should have a decent save itself.

Flayed ones - troops and 2 Attacks

Warriors - WS of 2, S3 save of 4+ as they are a standard Necron and make them 15 points as they upgraded necrons such as destroyers should reflect better saves toughness etc.

Piraiahs given 2 wounds and a 2+ Save - NO FNP but allow to be a retinue for the lord and of course lastly be mounted in a hover platform like transport that is open topped doesn't shoot but can move 12"


----------



## Iron Angel (Aug 2, 2009)

1: Warriors are just fine. They're SUPPOSED to be tough but expensive. Plus the 3+ save is to exemplify the fact that all the units have the same armor- Living Metal shells. 

2: 2 wounds is the same thing as 1 wound with FNP, with one difference- FNP is much more luck based, which would represent the enemy's chance to hit one of the few remaining organs. Plus FNP is a single dice roll whereas a second wound is an entire new set of dice rolls. So both lore and function promote FNP for Pariahs. As for "hover platform", you're equating Pariahs to Meganobz or something similar- CC juggernauts meant to disrupt enemy rears and flanks. Pariahs are, at their essential level, powerful guard units meant to shred any unit brave or stupid enough to attack their charges. While there is no dispute as to the fact that they are absolutely terrifying in CC, each of their strikes ignoring both Invuln and Armor saves (Each successful hit means a dead model, and with a good WS that means a lot of dead models), they are situational, which means their cost is super-exorbitant for a unit that is a master at what it does, but wont get the opportunity to use its potential often. As for transport units, I could see the capacity, but the thing about the Necron is their teleporter technology, which far outstrips anything the other races have, which makes manual transports all but obsolete with the exception of Pariahs. Having an entire new unit made for a single type of unit (Everything with the Necron rule worth moving is either capable of getting there on its own, or is an Immortal unit which you are going to VoD into a flank). This was done I believe purposely with the direct intention of relegating the Pariahs to your Lord's squad, tasked with escorting your CC-vulnerable warriors around the battlefield. Lore also doesn't support manual transport- Since everything worth moving quickly can be VoD'd except Pariahs, and Pariahs are very new creations, it doesn't make sense that the Necrons would even have transports at all.

EDIT: I just noticed you gave a 2+ armor save to Pariahs. Giving them that + FNP/2W means they'll certainly be worth their points, and I also support the Retinue idea.


----------



## Brother Selacious (Jul 12, 2009)

Blue Liger said:


> Piraiahs given 2 wounds and a 2+ Save - NO FNP but allow to be a retinue for the lord and of course lastly be mounted in a hover platform like transport that is open topped doesn't shoot but can move 12"


Adding any sort of transport would change up necron play style a lot. I do like pariahs having two wounds and they definitely need to be an option for a retinue. maybe a 0-1 elites choice and then 1 for every lord.


----------



## Iron Angel (Aug 2, 2009)

Katie Drake said:


> Just... no.
> 
> The main difference between Feel No Pain and We'll Be Back is that Necron players get to lay their models down when damaged and then pick them back up when they pass their repair roll. That's pretty much it. Sure, it might feel kinda cool and have its own unique appeal, but *there's absolutely no good reason why Feel No Pain can't represent the same thing*.
> 
> ...


One word:

Monolith.

I already touched on this, but WBB lets units that have had its units fail WBB rolls re-roll. This is a critical difference that cannot be overstated.
Example:
FNP:
4 warriors receive wounds. 2 roll above 3 on FNP roll, and you have 8/10 units.
WBB:
4 warriors recieve wounds. 2 roll above 3 on WBB roll. 2 are removed, but next turn, you cycle them through the monolith, and move them back into position. 1 rolls over 3 on its redon WBB roll. You now have 9/10 units.

Basically, all monolith tactics revolve around its ability to be used as a troop recycler, keeping your units at max force. With FNP, you cant roll to regain units if you cycle them through the lith. They're gone forever.

SO, both in function and in fluff, FNP is inferior on every level for Necrons.


----------



## betrayer01 (Mar 21, 2009)

You have really just explained the main reason that WBB should be disposed of, there is too much messing about with 'dead' models and re-rolls in diffrent phases of the turn sequence. Its just too easy to loose track about what is happening, who failed their rolls, whos going to portal next etc etc


----------



## darklove (May 7, 2008)

betrayer01 said:


> You have really just explained the main reason that WBB should be disposed of, there is too much messing about with 'dead' models and re-rolls in diffrent phases of the turn sequence. Its just too easy to loose track about what is happening, who failed their rolls, whos going to portal next etc etc


That never happens, you can only ever portal 1 unit per portal, so max 3 units - I think most 40k players can count to 3 right?


----------



## TheKingElessar (Mar 31, 2009)

@ Blue liger: 

The second thing you said is exactly correct.

The Necron Dex is finished, out next year, after Nids (who should really have had a thread first, no?)

Hopefully ending the WBB vs FnP debate, WBB on a T5 model is rubbish, FnP on T5 (base) is great...even better if you're T6 with 2 Wounds and a Heavy Gauss... 

For further info, check my blog - I know plenty, and only half of it's up. One little extra bonus though, just for you guys:

Concrete Hero, your stated wish, is now the case. 

Oh, actually, an extra one: Obelisk/Pylon rumours? GW didn't want to make the models, so they're not in the Dex...


----------



## Silb (Jan 28, 2008)

betrayer01 said:


> You have really just explained the main reason that WBB should be disposed of, there is too much messing about with 'dead' models and re-rolls in diffrent phases of the turn sequence. Its just too easy to loose track about what is happening, who failed their rolls, whos going to portal next etc etc


I see. So there's a single truly complicated rule in the Necron codex, so it needs to be simplified. Fine. Ignore the dozens of different rules that are usually applied simultaneously to entire armies from every other codex, that no one has ever complained about. In my opinion, remembering all the different special abilities of every different unit in my SM army is a lot harder than keeping track of which models "died" in a Necron army. I can understand how it would be really difficult in an Apocalypse size game, or in an extremely Warrior-heavy 2500 pt army, but then again, almost every rule is hard to keep track of in Apocalypse. And if it's too hard for you, make some sort of marker to identify the models that are going into the portal. 

We'll be Back is the only rule that you really need to keep track of in the army, and I think that it should stay that way. It keeps the Necrons from being too easy to play.


----------



## Iron Angel (Aug 2, 2009)

darklove said:


> You have really just explained the main reason that WBB should be disposed of, there is too much messing about with 'dead' models and re-rolls in diffrent phases of the turn sequence. Its just too easy to loose track about what is happening, who failed their rolls, whos going to portal next etc etc


Its not hard. On your roster sheet, just mark down how many models in a unit were struck down with a power weapon or other WBB-denying effect while outside effect of a Res Orb. Whenever you cycle through the monolith, just reroll for all units lost minus the amount of units tallied. Pretty simple stuff. You can only use the portal once per turn anyway, so you don't have to keep track of "whos going to portal next".

FNP would be an oversimplification of an already very straightforward army list, and I don't support it for a moment on anything except Pariahs. If it happens, I'll lose all hope, because my Necrons are my favorite army, and doing that will just make it too simple. The Necrons dont have a lot going for them in special rules except WBB/Monolith recycling, and if they take that away then necrons will be vanilla to the extreme.


----------



## LordWaffles (Jan 15, 2008)

darklove said:


> Except that there is never an advantage to retreating with I2 because everybody and their grandparents is able to sweeping advance them... So quite flawed logic really.


Of course the necrons view everybody and their grandparents as 'beasts to be collected' so it's not surprising they have some flaws in the AI.

And wbb is awful. It was awful when they wrote it, and it's awful now. I've been playing since I was nine. I still have no fucking idea what in the blue flying hell WBB does. I've chalked it up to letting the necron player occasionally pick back up models while mumbling an apologetic "we'll be back..." as the only viable explanation.


----------



## Iron Angel (Aug 2, 2009)

If a Necron model is killed in combat by anything other than instant death or a power weapon, you lay it on its side. At the end of the turn, you roll a d6 for every unit on its side. For every roll of 4+ a model on its side reenters the fight healed, for every roll of 3- a model on its side is removed as "dead".

Its not that complicated.


----------



## LukeValantine (Dec 2, 2008)

Wow the necron fan boys are back at the flame furnace. Long story short they are changing most of the rules to make it simpler, and to make necrons a army, and not a retarded rule heavy mess. Just like what happened with Chaos Necrons are being stream lined to encourage playing the game rather than wasting hours trying to find how to abuse army specific rules/units as much as possible.


----------



## Weirdboyz (Apr 12, 2009)

LukeValantine said:


> wasting hours trying to find how to *abuse army specific rules/units as much as possible*.


I thought that was the point of the game...:biggrin:


----------



## Iron Angel (Aug 2, 2009)

LukeValantine said:


> wasting hours trying to find how to abuse army specific rules/units as much as possible.


And here I was thinking that was exclusive to Nids/Orks.

Necrons are anything but rule heavy. They really only have one Necron-specific rule, and thats Necron Special Rule (Go figure). It allows WBB and teleporting with Lith/VoD. Thats it. Why dont we take a look at Adeptas Sororitas or even Space Marines. If Necron is rule heavy, then these guys must have codices the size of three or four bibles stacked on top of one another.


----------



## Wachaza (Mar 20, 2008)

WBB is wat amkes necrons special. The lay down and stand up agian is the most atmospheric rule in 40k. Pour fire into the Necs and they go down. Suddenly they stand up again. It's what makes Necrons differnet. The rule just needs writing properly (wishful thinking) to make it clear what it works against, what overides it and when it take s effect. Simples. :victory:


----------



## titan11 (Jul 24, 2009)

Please forgive me I do not want people to think that I am being rude so I am going to suggest that people read the necrons codex and compare it honestly to other armies so you can understand them better.I am new to the game and I can easily say that necrons are the SIMPLEST AND EASIEST army in the game to play.I have read most of the codex's for the armies in the game and I KNOW beyond ANY doubt that the rules for necrons are easy to learn.Now if someone wants say that necrons are hard to understand then I recommend you buy the codex or borrow someone elses for a single day and read it then come back here and say that necrons are confusing.Chances are anyone who could say that wbb is hard to understand never even read a necron codex before. I chose to read as many codex's as I could get my hands on (mostly by temporarily borrowing them from friends) and I know how insanely easy it is to play necrons right now, that is the reason why my first army happens to be necrons so I can make fewer mistakes as I learn the game. I understand that some people might get angry at me for saying this and I want to state that by no means did I intend to insult anyone this is just a bold statement on my part and I hope to have CONSTRUCTIVE conversation with anyone who feels that I am wrong about saying this. I am only stating a opinion very strongly and I would LIKE to be proven wrong because I am very good listener.


----------



## Galahad (Dec 21, 2006)

To be in the news and rumors section we generally require that a thread have actual news or credible rumors, not just 'I heard there's gonna be a new codex' followed by eight pages of debating whether or not necrons are overpowered.

Moved to general


----------



## Azkaellon (Jun 23, 2009)

i would of just locked the thread since its about something that doesn't exist and is off topic(im not a mod for a reason =P)

but on topic i can honestly say necrons are in no way over powered.


----------



## 123birds (May 17, 2009)

@titan: Elaborate what you mean by easy to play. If you mean its an easy army to field, as in their are no complicated rules, or customizations you have to remember then i aggree with you, but if you mean they are an easy army to win with when you start then i strongly disagree with you as they are a 2nd (or is it 3rd?) edition codex. Even dark eldar have viable builds that can destroy anything. 

Anyway, a wishlist thing would be to make upgrades in warrior squads. AKA: +20 points, 1 member becomes a paraih equipped with a staff of light, which can be upgraded to a warscythe with built in gauss blaster for +15 points. I also saw an interesting codex concept. All gauss have a stregnth but would on a set number regardless of if they would wound on a better number, but would reroll if their str was higher or equal to target. Warriors were 5+S4, immortals 4+ S5, Destroyer 3+ S6, Heavy destroyers were 2+ S9 and BS2/twin-linked (WTF are those multilensed honing things they have on their shoulers for? Display???)


----------



## Iron Angel (Aug 2, 2009)

They're for calculating firing heavy weapons while moving- Remember both Destroyers have Heavy type weapons, but can move their full distance and still shoot.

Could you please elaborate on the whole "All gauss have a stregnth but would on a set number regardless of if they would wound on a better number, but would reroll if their str was higher or equal to target" thing? I didn't quite understand.


----------



## Katie Drake (Nov 28, 2007)

Iron Angel said:


> Could you please elaborate on the whole "All gauss have a stregnth but would on a set number regardless of if they would wound on a better number, but would reroll if their str was higher or equal to target" thing? I didn't quite understand.


I'll see if I can translate. Keep in mind that I'm currently so drunk that I have the spins, so if this is completely wrong don't be surprised.

I believe that he's proposing a mechanic similar to the Poison rule, where you always wound on a fixed die roll regardless of the attacker's Strength and the defender's Toughness, unless the attacker's Strength would allow him to wound the defender on the same roll or better without the poison rule. In such a case, he rerolls any failed To-Wound rolls instead.

Example: Plaguebearer fighting an Ogryn in close combat. Plaguebearers have poisoned weapons (4+). The Plaguebearer's Strength is such that without his Poison rule, he'd be wounding the Ogryn on a 5+ in close combat. However, since he has poison, he wounds on a 4+.

If however, the Plaguebearer was fighting, say, a Battle Sister, his Strength would be high enough to allow him to wound as easily or better without the poison rule. Since the Plaguebearer needs a 3+ to wound in this case, which is a better chance than poison would give him, poison instead allows him to reroll if he fails on his roll to wound.

Hopefully that's understandable and I haven't made any horrible grammatical errors. I'm going to bed now.

Katie D


----------



## TheKingElessar (Mar 31, 2009)

123birds said:


> Anyway, a wishlist thing would be to make upgrades in warrior squads. AKA: +20 points, 1 member becomes a paraih equipped with a staff of light, which can be upgraded to a warscythe with built in gauss blaster for +15 points. I also saw an interesting codex concept.


This is close...but not quite right.

Did anyone even bother to read my post?

Stop moaning about whether or not you want FnP or WBB - We'll Be Back will NOT be in the new Codex, unless it's under Special Rules like:

*We'll Be Back*: The Unit has the Feel No Pain Universal Special Rule.

Get over it. Sheesh...

Also, Gal, this thread is only _mostly_ nonsense - I've given facts regarding the new Dex.


----------



## H0RRIDF0RM (Mar 6, 2008)

TheKingElessar said:


> This is close...but not quite right.
> 
> Did anyone even bother to read my post?
> 
> ...


Have you really given facts, because most of the things you stated have been the common rumours for 2 years now.


----------



## TheKingElessar (Mar 31, 2009)

I don't think that T6 2W Heavy Destroyers have been a rumour for two+ years... 

Also, I clearly said I wasn't posting rumours, per se. When someone's seen the Codex, is what they say rumour anymore?

I'd call it hearsay.


----------



## Iron Angel (Aug 2, 2009)

Either way, we cannot actually _prove_ anything- such is the nature of a rumor. We'll all just have to wait and see the new Codex, and see if Necron players will be slashing their wrists and screaming WHY!? at the heavens or not.


----------



## TheKingElessar (Mar 31, 2009)

Well, that depends on whether or not they like being auto-fail as they are at the minute, or is, uh, 'suffering' the 'loss' of the C'Tan in order to have a chance at winning a game worth it?


----------



## Iron Angel (Aug 2, 2009)

Honestly I rarely see people use them in a game anyway. The C'tan removal hasn't been a major topic in this discussion, WBB is. I've already stated its usefulness, but if what you say is true and the codex is done, then there's nothing left to do but wait.


----------



## darklove (May 7, 2008)

I use C'tan in 90% of games - both in club and tourney games - FYI.


----------



## Iron Angel (Aug 2, 2009)

Like I said in my tactica, if you can find a good way to use them, by all means do so, tnhey are very powerful. But if you dont have anything particular up your sleeve, you may want to steer clear. If you're using them in tourneys then you obviously know what you're doing, but the point is most people avoid them because they can be unwieldy to less experienced players.


----------



## darklove (May 7, 2008)

The Deceiver is probably one of the most Destructive CC models in the game, for the main reason that it can mess with a different unit every turn if it wants to and can never be assaulted or locked if it does not want to be. It takes very little practise to make this guy kill at least his own points value, plus the added value of all the chaos and fire it draws away from the rest of the army. 
I played The Deceiver a few days ago, the enemy spent 2 turns of shooting every gun they had at him. They did kill him eventually, but he was already in the middle of their units and almost all the enemy infantry died with him as he exploded (S6 auto-hit, no armour saves). This left the enemy with no troops and the rest of my army not even touched. C'tan are pure gold - they really will be missed if they are taken away from us.


----------

