Dark Eldar have their floating portal of death as well (Executor WE).  Changing something like this has broad implications for multiple armies.

_________________
author of Syncing Forward and other stories...

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

Well I see this one went without comment.

Would such a rulew really have that big an impact on other forces?  It appears to be a fair compromise.

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

well it does seem odd that a broken portal containing unit can double towards the enemy, to allow a formation to engage out of it. I'm sure that could be justified by some fluff somewhere (gazes at navel), just seems odd. The extra BM for using a broken portal doesn't superficially seem to be a bad idea, though a) it's an extra rule (which may or may not be an issue) and b) it gives an odd mechanic of whatever affected a broken fm affecting another fm which was not around at the time.

_________________
numquam culum es

OK, the reasons for the initial suggestion were threefold.

First, it seems strange that breaking a formation can actually be something BAD to do. You break that Monolith formation, it double moves forward (Fearless solves most of the problems), and disgorges a squad of untarnished Necron Warriors into your forces. Granted, any support firefight is lost, but that's not really a penalty, it's just lack of advantage.

Second, it didn't break 'reality' that a broken transport would cause some form of issue to the unit being transported. Not being familiar with Monoliths (or Storm Serpents), I'm unsure of where the portal is, within the structure. But given the disorientation that Teleporters often suffer, I didn't see it as that big a reach.

Third, it seemed a small enough tweak that it allowed the two concerns above, without being a complete shutdown (like not allowing broken Portal usage), and allowing at least some minor brake on the ability of Necrons to assault 'fresh'. As discussed with others, assuming the target formation has been suitably 'prepped', this penalty would typically be a 1 point swing (up to 3pts if the Necrons were acting irresponsibly).

I don't see it as having much bearing on Eldar/DEldar, because Eldar Storm Serpents aren't Fearless, and are likely to not be put into that postion, and the Executor is a singular situational model. So this could be applied to Necrons or Portals as a whole, without any signifcant disruptions, IMO.

Morgan Vening

The thing here is that neither the SS or monolith has the unit actually inside of it. On the monolith, the unit basically walks out a huge door on the side. Also, near as I can tell, neither the monolith portal or the SS webway gate interface with the Warp directly like teleportation does on the imperial side of things. Basically barring some damage that shuts a portal or WW gate down, they are active.

_________________
-Vaaish

Realistically, since the porpose of the Monolith is to provide a portal, it is safe to assume the portal mechanisms are buried deep within the heart of the hull, where incoming fire would have little effect without a crippling hit.

Necrons are, fluffwise, guided [commanded] by complex decision trees. The "reasoning" behind a move such as the one described might go like this:
Overwhelming fire [broken]? (yes)
If yes, then:
Available portal? (yes)
If yes, then:
Available counterassault unit? (yes)
If yes then:
Probability of counterassault success? (>80%)
If >80%, then:
Rush enemy unit; summon counterassault unit. Engage.

Of course, the failure of any one of these comditions would probably mean that the action taken would be "Evade fire, regroup."

I see it as entirely fluffy that Monoliths under heavy fire would seek to eliminate the source of fire if at all possible. They are not bound by the fears of squishier races.

_________________
SG

Ghost's Paint Blog, where everything goes that isn't something else.

If you want the Army Champion to look at that suggestion, I'd suggest posting it to the Necron boards.

_________________
"EPIC: Total War" Lead Developer

Now living in Boston... any EPIC players want to meet up?

All the people that play Necrons are responding here, so I did not think it was necessary.

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

I think it is appropriate to discuss it in a more general thread or here.  This isn't just a Necron issue.  

IMO for every scenario where a doubling broken Monolith can abuse a situation, I can think of two where it would be a terrible idea.  Even if you had the intention of disgorging another formation from a broken Monolith, that means you need to retain and that is never guaranteed.  It also means that the prized Monolith is possibly closer to other formations that will -even if the portal is used- will undoubtedly do what they can to eliminate it.  

Most Necron players will look at that situation as an act of utter desperation.  Try it early in the game and you could be losing your way onto the board.  Try it later in the game and your formation counts as destroyed when broken off board. And that isn't even for something that is guaranteed.

Take this example where the Necrons are the most powerful of the portal touting lists and try it out on another list.  Eldar?  Dark Eldar?  Lose your portable portals and your enemy blockades your wraithgate (if it isn't already) with something that prevents you from making a successful assault onto the board.

Lastly, this flies in the face of other special abilities.  Supreme Commanders aren't affected by broken status, neither is farsight, and so on.  This slippery slope takes us to modifying a lot of stuff that simply doesn't need it.

_________________
author of Syncing Forward and other stories...

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

@Mosc:
Why would you have to retain to do it?

Doesn't the move go: Opponent breaks monoliths in their activation, as their retreat move they zoom up into the face of a formation you'd like to assault, in your activation necrons pour out of broken monolith formation, beat face, go back into monolith?

I can see why this move could be a really bad thing to be able to do in the list. And I think the gaining a BM on using the portal would be a really really really good change, as it means the assaulting necrons wouldn't have the +1 for no BM and perhaps not the +1 for less BMs as well.

From the sounds of it the Eldar and DE lists probably wouldn't be that affected by the change because they don't have fearless portals that would be able to pull off this move. They can still retreat their broken portals to a safe place and make a safe move onto the board, they just gain a BM for doing it. Probably a realistic change and one that doesn't make for that much effect on the list overall as they aren't using portals as widely as necrons.

Abuse of Fearless units has been an issue before.  And it IS the combination of portal and Fearless that causes this issue.

As I understand it one of the reasons for changing the regeneration rule was because it was considered wrong that having BMs on a formation should be a good thing.

In the same way it really shouldn't be an advantage when one of your formations is broken.  And in some cases the Necron player can clearly take advantage of a monolith formation being broken.

That said I am not sure that +1 BM for formations coming out a broken portal is enough of a disadvantage to offset the advantages gained*.

(* The advantages gained being an extra 40cm move with a formation whose position determines where the Necrons can asaualt. AND then the chance to rally off table to teleport back on in the best position the following turn.)

The bm idea is very good for me, maybe is the correct solution for broken portal withdraving problem.

Just another random thought... Maybe an alternate solution could be removing the formation due to phase out immediately rather then in the end phase?

No.  Immediate phase out means no hackdown kills.  For Fearless units that's not an issue but when it comes to whittling down Phalanxes and such immediate phase out would be a huge boost.

_________________
Neal

So how about make it that they make a withdraw move and then phase out if they manage to get outside of whatever the auto-hackdown range is (i forget... it never comes up... 15cm?)

Or are you after aircraft BM snipes and stuff... which I can understand would be a concern.