Codex Necrons Questions

[tturen]

Take 6 with a 1 to 5 match and its 1500 points of just warriors and scarabs. Thats a huge number of points in a 2000 point force. Enough that I think it would be hard to win against another army useing standard 2nd rules. GW may not have missed the victory point issue though and may have had it in mind as a balance factor for the unit.

The one thing that strikes me as odd is the toughness value of a scarab. It makes sense I think only if an army is made up of scarabs and warriors with a commander. Once GW added all the other units to the Necron list though 3rd Ed was out and the little scarabs got reworked and with good reason. I think that needs to happen with the 2nd Ed version of the rules as well. Make scarabs less tough but cheaper.

[El Capitan]

Just a -1 to Scarab Toughness would upset their very intentions. Everything in the Necron army can be taken down with small arms fire (granted it it difficult), and Scarabs end up being the biggest draw for heavier weapons which gives the rest of the Necrons some time off. In our expereince when the Scarabs die the necrons go down, but too many scarabs upsets the game immensely.

I dont think you should harm the scarabs themselves, but ill be intersted to see how your idea comes along, if it works we may give it a whirl, (we have changed our own rules thanks to some of the new input on these pages ) + if you are going to have them scored under the VP system does that mean theyd have a coherency value just like a normal unit?

[tturen]

The heavy weapon target in the Necron list is the Monolith. Necrons are now a fully kitted army and the scarabs roll should reflect this change. I'm not advocating 3ed scarabs though as those look pretty worthless and violate the basic 2nd rules for necrons (IE disruption) and scarabs as metal eaters should be retained as well.

In any case toughness 6 and 2+ save would still make then tough targets that would require heavy or special weapons to give a reasonable assurance of a kill. This way basic weapons could still kill them but it would be unlikely and more scarabs could be taken as the original rules intended but additional new units could be used in a more balanced manner with them. As it stands a Monolith and max scarabs with toughness 8 would be rather nasty and something I dont think the designers intended. The real problem after all with all those scarabs is the darn toughness stat that forces a player to use heavy weapons against them.

As for victory points for scarabs I think we will use the Tomb Spider style unit rules for them as seen in 3ed. They are purchased as a unit but operate as independent models with no coherency limits. For victory points purposes they will count as a unit as well. I think this would work well with the reduced toughness stat, still allow VP's, and assist game balance with the expanded Necron list.

[LukeG]

A note in defence of the Monolith;

They aren't part of the fast raiding force, they're part of the Necron battleline since more of them are awakened. They pretty much would represent the Necron battleline, as they move forwards teleporting in more troops. You could build scenarios around them where the defender has to try and destroy the Monolith before it gets across the table and expands Necron territory.

[James 40K Champ ***]

We dont use the monolith because it doesnt fit into 2nd ed rules for how necrons work.

They are fast, hard and an elite force.

[LukeG]

That was as they awakened. That kind of force will still exist but there will also be the Necron territories by now. Worlds destroyed by the C'Tan. Think of it in strategy game terms, the monolith would represent a divide, the territory expanding like Zerg creep in Starcraft. Everything behind the lines would be doomed.

[James 40K Champ ***]

Not denying the existance of monoliths, but as far as 2nd ed goes, they dont fit into 2000 point battles, espech with necrons.

[tturen]

They dont fit the original Necron concept simply because GW developed that concept to compensate for the incomplete army list. Thats all changed and with a fully kitted codex these monsters fit in pretty well in terms of fluff and army lists even at 2000 points. They may be tough and expensive but they are huge, slow, and short ranged. Our guy built one but hasn't payed the points to play it yet. As we have been doing 500 point games of late I don't expect to see it soon either except as terrian of course on his new Necron home world set.

[James 40K Champ ***]

maybe i would consider gettin one to give it a whirl in combat. silly thou

[Adoni-Zedek]

In current (4th Ed) rules, only Necron Warriors, Immortals, Destroyers, and Lords count as “Necrons” for the “Phase Out” rule. (if you lose 3/4 of your Necrons, your entire force phases out and you lose). How does the OGC handle this rule?

[James 40K Champ ***]

The origional rule in the White Dwarf that released necrons states that if you lose 3/4 of the necrons from the START OF THAT TURN, then they phase out.

So you need to do more than just reduce the army to 25%.

[Adoni-Zedek]

Ouch! I'm guessing you've never been forced to phase out. Anyway, do you guys count all Necron models, or just Warriors, Immortals, Lords, and Destroyers for the phase-out rule?

[James 40K Champ ***]

No actually I have been phased out several times, but that was a few years ago and I

[Adoni-Zedek]

And you . . . ?

I think we lost the last of that post, James

[El Capitan]

Anything that constitutes a Necron torso essentially to represent the spirit stones, so that would count as one for Destroyers, 2 for Reavers and 1 for a Stalker as well as one for all the new infantry models.

And the phase out is 25% of the models on the board at the beginning of the last Necron turn.

[Adoni-Zedek]

Just to clarify:

If the Necrons are reduced from 20 standing models to 5 standing models, they will phase out? Models that are down, but not out are not counted in either tally, right? And Flayer Ones, and Pariahs do count towards those numbers. Wraiths as well? Tomb Spiders and Scarabs and monoliths do NOT count towards those numbers. Right?

[James 40K Champ ***]

lol sorry

and I.... was a really rubbish player back then!

Id agree with everything you said above

[ortron]

G'day

Just my 2 cents, but i think you should endevor to include all the new Necron models into a 2nd ed list. Having a wider range of models doesn't mean the idea/style of play has to change, it just gives more options.

By having those options you allow people to theme their army the way they would like to, and would help encourage new players or any lurking 3rd/4th ed players to make the change back and see what they are missing out on.

I see no reason why old rules can't accomodate the new fluff, some may be a little dodgy, but in general I think a lot of people just don't like the new rules, but are accepting of new models and associated background.

By playtesting and costing the new kit, you shouldn't break you rules/system.

Finally i know this forum is mainly for OGC members, but there are a number of external people who are keen to use this sight and its material and i think co-developing rules for the 2nd ed system is only going to help keep 2nd ed alive. Of course no one has to use someone elses rules if they think they suck.

Cheers

[Adoni-Zedek]

Aren't they all there? Lords, Immortals, Warriors, Pariahs, Flayed Ones, Destroyers, Hvy Destroyers, Wraiths, Scarabs, Scarab Swarms, Tomb Spyders, Monoliths. Anything else?
edit: Oops! I forgot the C'Tan. They're there too!

[James 40K Champ ***]

As far as Im aware weve developed rules for all the Necron stuff? Including the ridiculous Monolith which we dont use anyway.

Have there been any new Necron releases in the past few years that Ive not noticed?