Jump to content

Welcome to The Bolter and Chainsword
Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to create topics, post replies to existing threads, give reputation to your fellow members, get your own private messenger, post status updates, manage your profile and so much more. If you already have an account, login here - otherwise create an account for free today!
Photo

Fixing Reanimation Protocols


  • Please log in to reply
73 replies to this topic

#1
Captain Idaho

Captain Idaho

    ++ ARGENTARIUS IRACUNDUS ++

  • ++ MODERATI ++
  • 17,664 posts
  • Location:Hampshire, England
  • Faction: Ultramarines
People who have played the new Codex are surely happy with it for the most part. I know I enjoy all the little nuances such as the Mortal Wounds of a Plasmancer, Skorpekh Destroyers (choppy Necrons? What a world!) and the C'tan being dangerous again.

There are some contentious issues, however. Command Protocols are a clumsy mechanic that some folk don't care for and don't really do much most of the time. They're very restrictive and not powerful enough for that restriction.

I don't think many people are particularly upset about Command Protocols though. They're new, so giving new optional rules that are poor doesn't feel like a reduction in flavour. We never had them before so it doesn't matter now.

What does seem very bland and pointless is Reanimation Protocols. It works okay for Necron Warriors, but if you have literally any other unit outside Troops they do almost nothing outside hot rolling.

One of the draws of Necrons and part of their character since their inception was their ability to come back. It was baked into the army; you gun down your foes only to see then reanimate before your eyes and come back even stronger.

So I propose we brain storm some ideas to see what fixes we can come up with.

My thoughts are we keep what we have right now, with an additional element:

• At the end of your Command Phase, pick a <Dynasty> unit on the table and roll a D6 for each model lost as a Casualty that up to that point. For each 6 rolled, bring a single model back on full wounds.

What I feel this does is provide a relentless regeneration aspect to the Necrons, but it is quite unreliable so as not to be too overwhelming. It does grant Canoptek Reanimators some use again, which is a big positive.

Does anyone else have alternatives they'd like to suggest?
I've started up a new YouTube channel! Please support me as I attempt to grow it.

Serious Geeks

#2
Shas Oh Dear

Shas Oh Dear

    +FRATER DOMUS+

  • + FRATER DOMUS +
  • 193 posts
Might be an unpopular opinion but I actually think the core mechanic is really well done. It just needs more stratagem support if it had something like a 1/2cp strat that doubled your dice pool for reanimation that would fix a lot of the issues. For such a fundamental part of the codex to have such a mediocre selection of related strats is mind boggling.
  • Arbiter7 likes this

#3
Captain Idaho

Captain Idaho

    ++ ARGENTARIUS IRACUNDUS ++

  • ++ MODERATI ++
  • 17,664 posts
  • Location:Hampshire, England
  • Faction: Ultramarines
See I don't see that as a fix. As an example, you'd spend 1 CP when one unit kills 1 Skorpekh Destroyer, another CP when the next unit kills 2, then another 1 CP in the assault phase when you lose another Skorpekh to a power fists attacks.

What about your Canoptek Spyders? Trying to bring back any of these from the dead is next to impossible.

It's the flavour of the army and it's been removed for 90% of it.
I've started up a new YouTube channel! Please support me as I attempt to grow it.

Serious Geeks

#4
Ahzek451

Ahzek451

    +FRATER DOMUS+

  • + FRATER DOMUS +
  • 534 posts
  • Faction: Necrons, Thousand Sons

This is a rough one. The new rules gave us an overhaul and so the question is, does one overhaul the whole system or do you tweek what we have? And this is truly a daunting task in the sense that we are dealing with a rule that has to be treated very delicately. You have to support the narrative while at the same time not make it overpowered to the point that it breaks the game. AND not make it so much as to constantly piss off the opponent. 

 

Personally my head is in two camps. The first is to introduce a couple big changes. The second is to tweek what we have.

 

I can see what they were going for. Units with 1 wound such as warriors rely solely on the RP to repair. MW units have this rule AND living metal. So I think in GW's mind, MW units shouldn't have as easy of a time as single wound models since MW models have living metal. But....living metal =/= the same defensive feel as RP. 

 

At this point it is unlikely GW will do anything major, at least for a long time. So I lean more toward the camp of adjusting what we have. 

 

I think looking at rites of reanimation and the reanimator would be big ones. 

 

Rites of reanimation is strangely limited to core. We have a relic that allows this ability to be used ONCE on anything but core. My first instict is to remove the restriction altogether, but also wonder if it would be better to remove the limit on the relic. I think the limits were put in place so as to prevent a technomancer to be the consistent popular choice over the other crypteks. That's why I think removing the once per battle limit would be better. 

 

Tweeking the reanimator is a thing it's own rite. There are so many ways to approach this. What if it remained the same, but in addition, added a single model back in the same manner as rites? You could fix a lot just by tweeking what this guy does. And...it would fix the undeniable and pretty well universally accepted (this unit is crap) thought.

 

I think a lot of the command protocols need some tweeks here and there to be a more valuable option. For one, I would see the effect be table wide. Not just in range of a character. But I would keep the effect that you lose all Command P. if there are no nobles on the table. BUT the reason I bring up command protocols is because I think another opportunity to enhance RP lies here. The undying legion one, the second directive to re-roll  one RP dice. This is extremely lackluster. Since this would only last 1 turn (3 if you have the king and his army), I don't think it would be bad if instead of a re-roll, simply treat one dice as being an automatic 6. Pretty much a free pass on a dice. And in my experience with the new rules, this would be awesome. I have rolled so many times where I could have saved a MW model but I was off by just 1 5+.

 

These would be some of my suggestions. Tweek a few of the existing things instead of an overall army rule change. 


  • Lord Raven 19 likes this

#5
Seahawk

Seahawk

    ++ OSSIFRAGUS PRAECURSORIS ++

  • ++ MODERATI ++
  • 9,324 posts
  • Faction: Ultramarines

Might be an unpopular opinion but I actually think the core mechanic is really well done. It just needs more stratagem support.

If a rule needs stratagem support to be good, it's a bad rule in the first place and needs to be replaced.

I think if it was a single 5+ brings back a model of any kind, that would be enough to fix it. The repair routines should be equal across the board, as they all have the same repair subroutines. However, the rules as is have it so that the dumpiest Necrons (warriors) have the by far best chance to reanimate. That makes so less than zero sense it boggles the mind. They tried to turn necrons into true undead, animated and directed by their leaders, but thats not AT ALL how the Necron race is. Warriors can have the RP they're at (flayed ones get it too), but then everything else should be better. All Non-canoptek models get the reroll 1s. Immortals and Deathmarks reroll 1s and 2s. Triarchs and praetorians start on a 4+ because they have the best gleaming bodies. Canoptek can't get better than a 5+ (due to their limited AI programing and whatnot). Characters always can get back up on a 4+, not requiring strats for it.

Since going to the stratagem system, GW's rules writing has gone to absolute crap. IMO the rules should be able to totally stand on their own, and strats should be the curveball, not bloody necessary to have your basic army functions.

Edited by Seahawk, 31 October 2020 - 06:13 PM.

Fluff: Naval Operations of Ultramar. Also includes all known named ships for all chapters, as well as ship sizes and assorted information.

Personal: The Renegade Hobbyist. This is where I do things! Also, follow me on Twitter at @Atomic_Hamsters.

Post link for all the instances in which Reanimation Protocols doesn't activate, but should. 


#6
Captain Idaho

Captain Idaho

    ++ ARGENTARIUS IRACUNDUS ++

  • ++ MODERATI ++
  • 17,664 posts
  • Location:Hampshire, England
  • Faction: Ultramarines
I'd be a little more conservative to my brother mod here, going for something like I suggested above - stick the same and add to it with a Command Phase go again.

I'd even accept a minor change like stick the same rules with just an adjustment that you apply the wounds to damaged models first and can reanimate with just 1 wound, but this is far far from preferable.

I totally agree with Seahawk. Necrons are supposed to have advanced Reanimation Protocols as they go up in rank. It's not thematic at all right now. Especially if you take anything other than Warriors, Flayed Ones and Immortals.
I've started up a new YouTube channel! Please support me as I attempt to grow it.

Serious Geeks

#7
Get Thokt

Get Thokt

    +FRATER DOMUS+

  • + FRATER DOMUS +
  • 188 posts
  • Faction: Necrons, Dark Angels
I feel having more options outside the Reanimater to get to 4+ RP would be helpful. Also perhaps a stratagem or protocols to re-roll 1s for RP (maybe for particular units like Canoptek/Destroyer Cult) would help.

#8
Captain Idaho

Captain Idaho

    ++ ARGENTARIUS IRACUNDUS ++

  • ++ MODERATI ++
  • 17,664 posts
  • Location:Hampshire, England
  • Faction: Ultramarines
Still won't help with bringing back models with multiple wounds sufficiently, really. You still need 3 4+ just bring back a single Skorpekh Destroyer.

I honestly think GW haven't playtested these rules. If they had, they wouldn't have bothered giving it to Canoptek models too. Rolling 6 4+ out of 6 is just not going to happen enough to even be a statistics!
I've started up a new YouTube channel! Please support me as I attempt to grow it.

Serious Geeks

#9
Kaldoth

Kaldoth

    +FRATER DOMUS+

  • + FRATER DOMUS +
  • 1,932 posts
  • Location:Jacksonville, NC
I get the gripes about RP. I'm not a fan of the current rules myself, but it's definitely a tricky balancing act. Being able to bring back destroyed models is an incredibly powerful ability, especially on multi wound models. Personally, I'm in the camp of stratagem support. While, no, it doesn't make sense fluff wise that warriors have the best chance of coming back and our multi wound models don't, for game balance I feel like it's a necessary evil. If our destroyers and such were constantly standing back up alongside the rest of our troops, I wouldn't want to play against me.

I'm all for a stratagem that would double the dice pool for RP rolls. That seems like it would work pretty well :) Target a single unit for two CP and call it good. Either that, or just give the reanimator some extra range and a native invuln. Those are my two biggest gripes with the unit personally. It's so squishy and short ranged that there's no way to keep it on the board and get use out of it. If that beam was 12" and it had a 5++ I'd put one in every list.

#10
Bloody Legionnaire

Bloody Legionnaire

    +FRATER DOMUS+

  • + FRATER DOMUS +
  • 1,502 posts
  • Location:Bodt Training Grounds
  • Faction: World Eaters
I just finished watching a tabletop tactics game that features Necrons vs Daemons. The necrons player had 2x20 blobs of warriors and a reanimator sticking with them. Granted, Daemons don’t have a lot of long range shooty to take care of the reanimator early on, but, the 4+ to reanimate was no joke on the warriors. It doesn’t take very long for the reanimator to make its points back in how many units it saves..

#11
Captain Idaho

Captain Idaho

    ++ ARGENTARIUS IRACUNDUS ++

  • ++ MODERATI ++
  • 17,664 posts
  • Location:Hampshire, England
  • Faction: Ultramarines
Yeah, it's great with Warriors, especially if you have other units as saturation.

But us Destroyer Cult and Canoptek fans, or those who like Triarch and Lychguard themes, don't see the same flavour.

Maybe the best solution is a 2 tier system for Reanimation Protocols?

Keep it as is for 1 wound models.

2+ wound models get something different.

Sure I agree balance needs to be carefully maintained, but considering what Marines get (Doctrines, super Doctrines, Bolter Discipline, Shock Assault...) and then we look at our rules and I don't think balance has much to do with it.
I've started up a new YouTube channel! Please support me as I attempt to grow it.

Serious Geeks

#12
Shas Oh Dear

Shas Oh Dear

    +FRATER DOMUS+

  • + FRATER DOMUS +
  • 193 posts

Yeah, it's great with Warriors, especially if you have other units as saturation.

But us Destroyer Cult and Canoptek fans, or those who like Triarch and Lychguard themes, don't see the same flavour.

Maybe the best solution is a 2 tier system for Reanimation Protocols?

Keep it as is for 1 wound models.

2+ wound models get something different.

Sure I agree balance needs to be carefully maintained, but considering what Marines get (Doctrines, super Doctrines, Bolter Discipline, Shock Assault...) and then we look at our rules and I don't think balance has much to do with it.


Speaking of marines and continuing on the idea that I think reanimation is fine and it's everything else that is a problem. If more than 4 units in our army were core then the cryptek reanimating would suddenly balance things out far better.
  • Lord Raven 19 likes this

#13
Mr4Minutes

Mr4Minutes

    +FRATER DOMUS+

  • + FRATER DOMUS +
  • 663 posts
So, a little controversial, but I think RP is fine and needs no change.

It’s perfect for single wound models, as I think most every so far agrees.

The complaint is in MW models. Because, as is, your rarely bringing any back. I’m ok with this. Why? Because right now units like Skorpekh Destroyers and Canoptek Wraiths are very well pointed. Almost to the point of being cheap. If you increased the odds of reanimating them beyond essentially 1 in 3 GW would increase their points its exponentially.

As it is now we can effectively spam them making up for the lack of reanimate. And, they still have the chance of a good dice roll bringing more back then expected.
  • Get Thokt likes this

#14
Captain Idaho

Captain Idaho

    ++ ARGENTARIUS IRACUNDUS ++

  • ++ MODERATI ++
  • 17,664 posts
  • Location:Hampshire, England
  • Faction: Ultramarines
If you compare a Skorpekh Destroyer with a Terminator, the Skorpekh Destroyer is more offensive in melee and faster, but can't teleport or be transported, can't shoot, dies easier, doesn't have as many characters that can support them and doesn't have an army rule which can boost them.

(The Terminator has Shock Assault, Doctrines and access to additional Doctrines for Chapters)

Yet the Terminator is only 3pts more expensive. Skorpekh Destroyers are good but they're broken or even cheap.

With Reanimation Protocols, I'd say the 1 wound models are almost undercosted but work out fine because everything else is weak (army rules etc) and all other units cost too much.

By the way, this is a thought exercise and it's a friendly exchange of ideas, so just because we might now agree, thanks for posting and contributing to the discussion. :)
I've started up a new YouTube channel! Please support me as I attempt to grow it.

Serious Geeks

#15
Get Thokt

Get Thokt

    +FRATER DOMUS+

  • + FRATER DOMUS +
  • 188 posts
  • Faction: Necrons, Dark Angels

Still won't help with bringing back models with multiple wounds sufficiently, really. You still need 3 4+ just bring back a single Skorpekh Destroyer.

I honestly think GW haven't playtested these rules. If they had, they wouldn't have bothered giving it to Canoptek models too. Rolling 6 4+ out of 6 is just not going to happen enough to even be a statistics!



With how cheap our 3 wound models are, I find it reasonable that they would come back with difficulty, as of now. Of course we need to see where the line is drawn in terms of how powerful the other factions will be.

Completely agree with Mr4minutes post.

Edited by Get Thokt, 02 November 2020 - 08:37 AM.


#16
Captain Idaho

Captain Idaho

    ++ ARGENTARIUS IRACUNDUS ++

  • ++ MODERATI ++
  • 17,664 posts
  • Location:Hampshire, England
  • Faction: Ultramarines
Aggressors are 40pts and Heavy Intercessors 28pts per model. They get much more benefits from their army rules and Strategums. Our 3 wound models are not cheap. They are "about right" at best.
I've started up a new YouTube channel! Please support me as I attempt to grow it.

Serious Geeks

#17
MegaVolt87

MegaVolt87

    +FRATER DOMUS+

  • + FRATER DOMUS +
  • 2,663 posts
  • Faction: Iron Warriors
Same RP, but what about FNP 4+ for big stuff, 5+ for more elite multi wound infantry? Also the book really needs what SM's got with it's supplements- variety. Also command protocols leave me scratching my head on how best to time them. Games go 5 turns and Only 6 to pick, not much choice IMO. Each main dynasty should have 2 unique ones as options.
gallery_154982_15362_23624.jpg

My Iron Warriors Project   Guns for the guns god!, Bullets for the Brass throne!


#18
Mr4Minutes

Mr4Minutes

    +FRATER DOMUS+

  • + FRATER DOMUS +
  • 663 posts
Completely agree with the thought experiment /exchanging of ideas Captain Idaho. I think most of us are thinking along similar lines, but are adjusting to it differently.

I was trying not to go into my opinions on comparing C:SM with Necrons, but as you’ve correctly pointed out some disparities between the two, I’ll give my 2 cents.

I think as a self contained codex, the Necron book is really good. It has great synergies and strong combos. And it seems contained enough that you need to alter your play style or army composition to take advantage of it all. IE. Limited core units, separation of buffs for Skorpekh vs Cryptek. The more powerful strats only buffing a specific unit, -1 to wound Skorpekh,+1 strength core, etc. I felt this lead to a more balanced army that can be very strong competitively, but doesn’t jump into the OP/broken bracket.

Until I compared it to Codex: Space Marines and the supplements. Especially DeathWatch just coming out. Once I looked over at C:SM, all the things I thought were intended for balance I now believe are only in place to limit the power of Necrons. With C:SM we see almost everything receiving the Core rule. Including things that fluff wise chapters should only have a sparing amount. Strats that buff a broad range of units. It seems they have a strat or a rule that does anything and everything unique to the other armies.

Quick example is Technomancer to Apothecary. Apothecary can full heal any model(my opponent has brought a captain from 1 wound to 6) Techno gets d3. Master Apothecary can bring back any model from any unit all game. Technomancer can bring back 1 core model. With arkana, once per game, he can bring back one non core model.

I can rant for a while on the disparity between the 2 codexes. My opinion now is that the Necron codex was written with specific limitations. So many abilities SM get general access to, Necrons have tucked behind an access wall. Command Protocols are pre game and need a specific unit in your army and a specific unit in range. Lots of strong relics or strats are tucked behind specific dynasty selections.

Sorry, I’ve lost my train of thought in the rant lol.

Back to RP. Maybe returning the +1 to RP on all crypteks would work? Or may just the technos? Technos w/ cloaks can keep up with the faster units. And the others are usually hanging out with the infantry anyway. A 4+ is more likely to bring back 1 model for every 2-3 lost. Which feels a more balanced and intended. I’ve played and seen games where your losing 3 MW models at a time and bring zero back, which always stinks.
  • Captain Idaho likes this

#19
Ahzek451

Ahzek451

    +FRATER DOMUS+

  • + FRATER DOMUS +
  • 534 posts
  • Faction: Necrons, Thousand Sons

I still say, command protocols army-wide until all nobles are gone.

Buff undying legion.

 

Some other thoughts:

Remove core limitation on technomancers. Change relic to allow you to use RoR again in the same turn once per game. (maybe even RoR only works on a 4+ for non core units).

Reanimators cheaper, maybe models targeted with multi-wound require one less wound to re-animate. 


  • Mr4Minutes likes this

#20
Lord Raven 19

Lord Raven 19

    +FRATER DOMUS+

  • + FRATER DOMUS +
  • 418 posts

Same as above with protocols? Maybe more dice (+1 per model?) as the buff.

 

No more once per game limit on technomancer relic. 

 

Reanimators allow the unit they pick to reanimate like a res orb when picked.

 

Maybe some kind of reroll strat to help mw models?

 

Res orb removes once per game limit (not sure if this is against the fluff or not?)


  • Mr4Minutes likes this

Lord Raven19

Lord of Deliverence; Scion of Albion; Baron of Camelot; Champion of Mortarion; Lord under Abaddon; Emissary of Szarekh.

Victorus aut Mortis


#21
Emicus

Emicus

    +FRATER DOMUS+

  • + FRATER DOMUS +
  • 1,634 posts
  • Location:Kristiansand, Norway
Easiest fix would be reanmimate however many wounds you get OR have the dice carry forward

#22
Get Thokt

Get Thokt

    +FRATER DOMUS+

  • + FRATER DOMUS +
  • 188 posts
  • Faction: Necrons, Dark Angels
Please list out all the benefits those two specific units get. If you want to drop statements like that then best back it up.

Edited by Get Thokt, 03 November 2020 - 07:29 AM.


#23
Captain Idaho

Captain Idaho

    ++ ARGENTARIUS IRACUNDUS ++

  • ++ MODERATI ++
  • 17,664 posts
  • Location:Hampshire, England
  • Faction: Ultramarines

Easiest fix would be reanmimate however many wounds you get OR have the dice carry forward


That would help. Though oddly enough it would create a situation where getting more than 1 Destroyer back would be very unlikely, though if only 1 was Destroyered a turn it would be likley.

I'd prefer a more substantial change.

Please list out all the benefits those two specific units get. If you want to drop statements like that then best back it up.


Which 2 units? Not sure what statements?
I've started up a new YouTube channel! Please support me as I attempt to grow it.

Serious Geeks

#24
Captain Idaho

Captain Idaho

    ++ ARGENTARIUS IRACUNDUS ++

  • ++ MODERATI ++
  • 17,664 posts
  • Location:Hampshire, England
  • Faction: Ultramarines
I had another socially distanced game last night (to be fair, that's easy if you're on your side of the table) and I can honestly say RP was great on the 1 wound models. Really strong. Combined with Technomancers and Ghost Arks returning models it's a real pain for the opponent.

It did literally nothing for all other models in my arm. I wasn't even close to returning a Destroyer or Scarab!

For that reason, there needs to be something done/amended.
  • Atrus likes this
I've started up a new YouTube channel! Please support me as I attempt to grow it.

Serious Geeks

#25
Link2edition

Link2edition

    +FRATER DOMUS+

  • + FRATER DOMUS +
  • 856 posts
  • Location:Alabama
  • Faction: Black Templar

RP is great this edition. It doesn't need fixing.


  • tychobi likes this




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users