Fixing Reanimation Protocols

[Ahzek451]

Honestly I've always felt the rolls should have been reversed....or someone on GW screwed up and reversed them on accident hah! Let the technomancers add a +1 to any unit. Let the reanimators....you know...actually reanimate and do what the lore suggests by healing and bringing back models. And not tied to core. 

 

OOF! if they dropped them in points by a touch and did the above...everyone would have 1-3 reanimators. 

Edited November 19, 2020 by Ahzek451

[Dread]

They should just have a 5+ feel no pain. See done and done. Edited November 19, 2020 by Dread

[BaconCouch]

They should just have a 5+ feel no pain. See done and done.

Nah. Makes it less reliable against multi-damage weapons.

But generally speaking, the Protocol that allows rerolls to RP helps in a big way for multi-wound models i guess.

Just wish that methods to buff RP were easier to come by. (Or that the reanimator was worthwhile)

[Atrus]

I'm yet to see how the protocol to reroll a single die when rolling RP is worth taking over living metal getting an additional wound back.

[VoceNoctum]

The Reanimator would be considered worthwhile if it worked like the Technomancer but on any unit - heals D3 Warriors a turn or 1 model from another unit.

 

I'd even give it "heal D3+1 Warriors or 1 model to full wounds and any wounded models to full wounds of another unit".

 

Just limit it to as "no Canoptek units".

Even letting it give a bonus that stuck with the unit after it ran off to shoot at things might help, rather than staying in sight within range with a big glowing target on it. Or just give the bonus to all units within range. Or a lot of things, I guess.

Such a neat model, but just a giant target on stilts.

[Daimyo-Phaeron Lenoch]

I'm yet to see how the protocol to reroll a single die when rolling RP is worth taking over living metal getting an additional wound back.

In a vehicle heavy list I would agree with you, however, in a list of mostly infantry (Which i tend to run) where most of my living metal is on untargetable characters, being able to reroll a D6 for a chance at getting another warrior back, or another immortal, or popping my Res Orb on a squad of MW models, I think it is worth it.

[Get Thokt]

Agree there. Especially if you've managed to get your RP going off on 4+

[Lord Raven 19]

I'm yet to see how the protocol to reroll a single die when rolling RP is worth taking over living metal getting an additional wound back.

I run Szarekhan so don't have that problem

[Kaldoth]

Had an idea myself about this... Why not just assign individual RP values by unit? A lot of armies are getting their own special mechanics, and some of them require additional tracking of resources or number counting (SoB Miracle dice comes to mind). Why not just add a reanimation stat to the stat line on Necron units? Warriors, immortals, deathmarks, and other basic line infantry types could have an RP rating of 6. Lychguard, tomb blades, destroyers, etc would be a 5. HQs would be a 4. Roll that number on the die or higher, model stands up with one wound remaining, not a full compliment (living metal is for the regen IMO). Keep it the way it is currently as far as being at the end of every attack sequence, and can still be modified by res orbs and the like. I wouldn't mind tracking an additional stat if it meant RP was more balanced. Edited November 20, 2020 by Kaldoth

[Tyriks]

 

They should just have a 5+ feel no pain. See done and done.

Nah. Makes it less reliable against multi-damage weapons.

But generally speaking, the Protocol that allows rerolls to RP helps in a big way for multi-wound models i guess.

Just wish that methods to buff RP were easier to come by. (Or that the reanimator was worthwhile)

 

A feel no pain is actually more reliable against multi-damage weapons for multi-wound models than the current system.  Instead of having to make 3 5+ rolls to save a Destroyer, you could make one and still survive.

 

The problem, as I see it, is that GW wants something more thematically like standing back up, and wants to differentiate us from DG and IH mechanically.  But by actually removing a model and putting it back, it creates a "feel bad" moment for your opponent (the old QS did this too by punishing you for rolling well, part of why I always hoped they'd revamp it).  Feel no Pain rolls do, too, but on a smaller scale each time it happens, since the act of removing the model feels more final.  So if RP is actually strong, or even just decent, people will still complain about it, even if the army overall can't win a game (see: all of 8th edition).  So if the army itself works, I'm essentially fine with RP being a bit underwhelming, because we are less likely to be unreasonably nerfed for that.

[Captain Idaho]

Had an idea myself about this... Why not just assign individual RP values by unit? A lot of armies are getting their own special mechanics, and some of them require additional tracking of resources or number counting (SoB Miracle dice comes to mind). Why not just add a reanimation stat to the stat line on Necron units? Warriors, immortals, deathmarks, and other basic line infantry types could have an RP rating of 6. Lychguard, tomb blades, destroyers, etc would be a 5. HQs would be a 4. Roll that number on the die or higher, model stands up with one wound remaining, not a full compliment (living metal is for the regen IMO). Keep it the way it is currently as far as being at the end of every attack sequence, and can still be modified by res orbs and the like. I wouldn't mind tracking an additional stat if it meant RP was more balanced.

I actually love this idea!

 

An extra number of dice as a minimum added. Perhaps only for the larger, more advanced Necrons so it doesn't make 1 wound models unkillable?

 

So:

 

• Warriors get a RP stat of 0.

• Immortals RP1

• Lychguard RP2

• Praetorians RP2

• Skorpekh Destroyers RP4

 

Canoptek units can all be zero.

 

My thinking is these extra dice will give a reasonable chance of helping bringing models back from the dead. Losing 1 Skorpekh means you need to roll 3×5+ which at present is very unlikely. Instead, rolling 5-6 dice for that 1 model grants a decent chance.

 

And to stop it being really unbalanced or increasing the book keeping you can treat it as an army RP pool based on how many Crypteks and Reanimators you have on top of a base level. You can take from them to add to your rolls to increase your odds.

[Dread]

Ill stick to my guns on this. We tried it in a friendly game and worked pretty good. But thats just me. Feel no pain just works quick.

[Ahzek451]

It's clear that there are a dozen+ ways to improve or change the RP rules. And it's fun seeing the different ideas. But is anyone on this thread shipping an email to GW? We can, for the most part, unanimously agree on the parts that don't work. And I hope the people that want GW to acknowledge are at least sending in thoughts on what doesn't work.

[Atrus]

Perhaps we can compile a list thus far of things A) we like, B) we think could be adjusted and C) ideas for said adjustments.

 

I'm thinking if we can come to a consensus on the majority of things, then writing into GW with these points could be more easily heard.

Many voices crying out as one is more easily heard than many voices crying different things.

[Ahzek451]

I agree. It might be more difficult to come to a consensus on what we want as a end result. But easier to agree on what doesn't work and send that in as something.

 

Not saying its impossible. But if it becomes too difficult to agree on a fix, at least we can unify behind what needs fixing.

 

At first glance bare bones(and correct me here if I'm off base)

 

-We dont like the reanimator (cost, lack in defense, lackluster repair)

 

-RP for multiwound units, the more wounds, the less likely a repair. Somewhat of a timewaster.

 

-so many 1 use and/or limited lackluster repair options. I'm speaking less on orbs and more on the arcana that let's you bring back 1 model once per game and the limit on core options. And I mean like how a technomancer can only target core.

 

The following seems minor in comparison to the above, but it's a small gripe personally. What do others think? With the current set of rules, we are STILL incentivised to take units in max numbers so as to retain the ability to use RP. I feel that somehow a mechanic or strat could be worked in so as we don't have to factor in losing out on a chance to use RP because I wanted a unit of 5 immortals instead of 10. *shrugs*

 

As much as I want to, I'll refrain from adding in anything else NOT RP related as much as I would like to. *hushed voice* command protocols and hexmark.

Edited November 21, 2020 by Ahzek451

[Captain Idaho]

I'm all for providing feedback. Should it be a group letter, with our usernames signed at the bottom, or everyone send in a single email (copy and paste)?

 

I'm inclined for former.

[Miek]

I'd go for the single email, but why use usernames instead of real names?

 

Should we try to gather people from other forums?

[Captain Idaho]

I guess I wanted to start from a position where people could retain their anonymity since folk come from all walks of life on the forum.

 

Maybe I'll look into this shortly...

Edited November 21, 2020 by Captain Idaho

[Miek]

No worries, just curious. I'm fine either way.

[Lord Raven 19]

Could have everyone who agrees follow the post, and treat the follow count like a petition?

[Captain Idaho]

We probably need names, but I think a mix of names and user names works well enough.

[Ahzek451]

Sounds good. We should probably collaborate on an official letter.

 

Would it be much if we include command protocols? We have a lot of gripes in the other thread, and these 2 issues seem to be the biggest. Maybe best just to focus on one or both instead of a laundry list of other issues.

Edited November 21, 2020 by Ahzek451

[Daimyo-Phaeron Lenoch]

=][= It would be best to do a list of usernames/names without naming the board or the subforum. The board cannot endorse such a letter, if one were to be sent, and I will not see 'Necrontyr subforum' included on that list of names, for neutrality's sake. You can organize here, if you wish, but do not take that as an endorsement by the subforum.=][=

 

Personally, other than multi-wound models being hard to ressurect, I don't really have a lot of issues with the codex. We've never been S-tier, as far as I can recall, and for the most part the codex feels thematic.

 

I'm happy with it (though the reanimator could stand to have an invulnerable save, methinks, to make it a tad more survivable).

[Atrus]

The reanimator breaks my heart. It does need an invo or something or at the very least no less than a 30pt drop in points.

 

The closest comparison I can think of it is the sisters penitent engine which has a near identical stat line (1 less wound than the reanimator), put out 2d6 auto hitting s5 ap-1 shots, rerolls hits in combat, can have 15 s6 combat attacks or 5 s8 attacks and has a 5+++FNP on top of it....for 50pts. Or the Mortifier that can spit out 6 heavy bolter shots every turn for only 60pts.

 

I could understand it's cost if it didn't die to a nasty glare and it got a chance to do its job and give units a better chance to reanimate- but it doesn't.

I've tried having the technomancer slap the Light Cover bonus on it to help out, but nope.

 

Sigh, but that's off topic.