yea, very close. unfortunately it was about a year ago so it was the older version of the list. i think i've played 5 or 6 games with the changes. 1 crushing win, which shouldn't be counted (smaller table so FFs were very unkind to opponent), 1 loss and the rest were fairly close wins.
if moscovian and corey (i'm assuming) would side with choice #3 then lets go with that for now. honestly it's not a major difference btwn them. if it doesn't work and we need to change it hopefully we won't need raiders 3.0 but just a sticker to put over this rule.

I'd actually go with the option that changes things the least. Small changes are less likely to have major consequences. That seems like it's #1 to me.

_________________
Dave

Blog

NetEA Tournament Pack Website

Squats 2019-10-17

Under normal circumstances I'd agree with you, Dave, but in this case I think labeling #1 as the most conservative choice is a misnomer.  #1 actually is very new as well and we have no idea what the long term implications are at all.  Corey might actually be right in which case we've just overpowered the Necrons which were overpowered to begin with.  

The problem is #1 is as different from the old Necron rule as apples are to oranges.  IMO if we are going to err, it should be on the side of making the Necrons less capable, not more.  



I know that I came off as snippy and that wasn't the intention.  Let's put this in the proper context and put an a-politically correct spin on it.  The list hasn't been championed consistently and these ideas are all relatively new.  What does that mean?  It means that we're having to play a lot of catch-up in order to make a certain timeframe for publishing.  Had these discussions been pushed through earlier (and we're talking the commitment to do the review was May 2009) we would have probably had this all ironed out.  That didn't happen.  It's nine months later and you can see that not much as changed.

_________________
author of Syncing Forward and other stories...

It's a dog-eat-dog world, and I've got my Milkbone underwear on.

Do me a favor:  Try #3 and give it a shot.  Here are the DRAFT revisions from Raiders 2.0.



Here are the FAQ's in the back of Raiders 2.0 that are associated with it.

_________________
author of Syncing Forward and other stories...

It's a dog-eat-dog world, and I've got my Milkbone underwear on.

I am definitely NOT in favour of only having regrouping offboard. Either all regrouping can bring them back or just onboard, either is fine with me. All would be my personal choice, as it's how it's always worked till now.

I won't be playing that they can just do it offboard.

Mosc: I know Raiders 2.0 has to be done sometime, but you can't impose it on us as a timeframe for the finalising the list. If the list isn't ready then it will be developed more in the future, whether or not Raiders follows suit.

_________________
http://www.troublemakergames.co.uk/
Epic: Hive Development Thread

Well, if you are unwilling to playtest that option then playtesting ANY option would be helpful.  Reporting games, the regeneration effects of those games, how it affected the outcome, etc., is essential.  Still waiting for the throngs of Necron players to actually report things.

As for me imposing, I can't impose anything.  But given that it is my capital, my time, and my energy, I am well within my rights to ask people to put forth a little extra effort and think a bit outside the box.  You can always say no.  My decision to push Raiders 2.0 forward 9 months late is hardly me rushing things.  I suppose I could hold off printing R2.0 but that would mean holding off on Siege too.  And then what?  How many more months do we wait?  How many times do we put things off, theoryhammer, and then put off again?  I want to get the list done and if that can't be done as close to done as it can be.

I am curious as to what your strong opposition is to even attempting this idea.  It certainly can't be fluff based and based on your own observations you win with the Necrons 90-100% of the time (I can't remember the exact number but I recall it being extraordinarily one sided).  With those numbers in mind, how do you justify not imposing a nerf?
EDIT Zombocom, if you can't bring yourself to try this idea, at least play a game where regrouping can regenerate anywhere and then take some special note of "WHAT IF" you could not have done it (theoryhammer mid-game).  That's the type of thing that helps considerably rather than simply boycotting the idea.

_________________
author of Syncing Forward and other stories...

It's a dog-eat-dog world, and I've got my Milkbone underwear on.

After playing against Necrons, my preference would be rallying on and off board, yet Marshall actions for units on the board only.

Purely for game mechanic reasons only.

I do not see a problem with units taking a Marshall action while coming through the teleport. It means that they cannot assault, and their shooting is effected also.

I do not know whether that opinion will change as I come up against them more.  

_________________
Frogbear is responsible for...
Previous World Eaters
Previous Emperor's Children
Previous Death Guard
Previous Imperial Fists
Previous Chaos Squats

My reasons for being against offboard-only regrouping it are threefold; 1x fluff and 2x mechanics.

Fluff: the image of the broken necrons rising from the floor to rejoin the battle is a powerful one. In 40k a full 50% of all killed necrons rise up again from the battlefield, and only around 25% of the dead come back through the portals. Bringing one unit back per turn does not have anywhere near that level of "rising from the battlefield" imagery.

Mechanics 1: It makes things that should be a disadvantage into an advantage. Phasing out should be a generally bad thing, or neutral at best. Failing an activation offboard should certainly not be better than failing an activation onboard.

The main reason for changing the necron rule was so that we could get rid of the "lose all BMs when rallying offboard" thing, which I brought up in my summary thread a while back. All this change does is once again make being offboard better than being onboard, and that invalidates the whole point of the necron rule change.

Finally on this point, consistency is everything; I see no reasons that necrons offboard need to act in any way different to necrons onboard, other than the standard stipulation of not activating unless coming onto the board.

Mechanics 2: This is a major nerf that completely changes the way the list works, and it's being pushed at the last minute before publication. It's much like the wraith change before the first edition of raiders, except this one effects the whole army in a HUGE way.

Such a fundamental change to the way the army works will require years of playtesting, as it effectively throws out all playtests that have happened up till now.

Post Script:

My record with necrons stood at around 80%. Since the "no single monoltihs" change my win-record has been cut dramatically to around 50%, though admittedly from only a half-dozen games. I actually have a better record with my Dark Eldar recently  

I am perfectly happy to playtest regrouping both on and offboard, and that is by far my favourite option.

_________________
http://www.troublemakergames.co.uk/
Epic: Hive Development Thread

I think it was really just for a general simplification and reduction in special rule oddness.  "Lose all BMs" was just one aspect of that.

_________________
Neal

To be accurate, this is the situation no matter what we do.  Option #1, #2, and #3 all are fundamentally different, so #3 is no less radical an idea than #1 or #2.  Obviously each has their pro and con arguments.  As MNB pointed out earlier, #3 forces the Necron player to make hard choices between building forces offboard and actually being on board.  

Your concern that this somehow turns a disadvantage into an advantage doesn't make any sense since #1 would allow building formations up off board as well.  To take your opinion to a logical conclusion, you would support only the #2 option.

_________________
author of Syncing Forward and other stories...

It's a dog-eat-dog world, and I've got my Milkbone underwear on.

Allowing offboard regrouping isn't an advantage as long as you can regroup onboard as well. There's no advantage there, just no specific disadvantage.

As Neal says, part of the reason for this change was to simplify and reduce the difference between offboard and onboard, hence the change to identical rallying rules. This would just be another unneeded advantage for being offboard.

What prompts this change? Has marshalling onboard been shown to be overpowered?

_________________
http://www.troublemakergames.co.uk/
Epic: Hive Development Thread

The problem is we don't have enough evidence one way or the other.  The limited games that people have reported back show the Necron winning the majority of the time.  Now that might be indicative of a problem, or it might mean they had a good day for those games, or they are just outplaying their opponents.  We don't know.

Corey already indicated he wanted to limit things in the manner prescribed under option #2.  I offered #3 as an alternative idea that IMO seems more realistic and provide some unique challenges to the Necron player that would counter the many benefits they have.  Option #1 would simply be us doing nothing in which case the Necron can do effectively everything.



It is still has its advantages and disadvantages (regrouping in safety vs not being on the board).  The problem herein is whether the former outweighs the latter and that means we need data.  If #1 proves to be overpowered then #2 or #3 are the best options.  

With all that said, this problem is holding up the publication of two books and there is more going on than just these two.  I have money tied up in an account that expires in three more years and that means we could lose the option to print three other supplements.  Every time I am working on R2.0 or Siege, I am not working on the other books.  Plus there is shipping considerations, available capital, etc., that make my interest in this considerably higher than anyone else's. None of this would have been a problem had the list been actually attended to for the last nine months.    Understand now?

So, we need to rapid fire playtest or I am left with publishing something untested (and make no mistake, these are all untested).  #3 is the least powerful and my default choice because it means the least problems.  #2 is okay if playtesting shows it works and if it matches the fluff, but I'd like some confirmation from more than one player on that.  #1 is the most powerful choice of the three and -even though it might not be overpowered- I can't choose it with such little data to go on.

_________________
author of Syncing Forward and other stories...

It's a dog-eat-dog world, and I've got my Milkbone underwear on.

#1 is how it has always been up till now. Without any playtest evidence you need to stick with what it's been up till now, not make the huge call of a major nerf at the last minute. We've seen before what last minute changes lead to.

It's not your call to make to change it, so if you have to go to print, you go to print with what it is now, not what you think is the least powerful.

I'm completely in agreement with you on the neglect the list has recieved, but that doesn't change anything. Again, if the list isn't finished by the time Raiders 2 is released, then it will continue to develop, even if Raiders doesn't follow suit.

I personally don't think Raiders neccessarily needs to follow suit, at least in printed form. A Living Rule Book Style online document would suffice, and if you don't want to do that then the list will simply be developed anyway separately.

Raiders 2.0 will not mark the end of Necron development. The list just isn't there yet.

_________________
http://www.troublemakergames.co.uk/
Epic: Hive Development Thread

zombo, i don't quite follow your reasoning? if a formation rallies off board.. it is still off board. it can't take objectives and it counts as points for your opponent. the only way it would be an advantage is in turn 2 getting all units back w/ no BMs and coming back on turn 3. if it still had at least 1 BM there is a chance that the formation could not come on board. i'm not saying i'm a huge fan of any of the 3 rules, i'm just saying i don't understand your reasoning.
moscovian, why the need to get the book done now? if your going to be publishing another book in a year or so, why not wait till then?