If both players have roughly the same formations on and of the board there's nothing wrong or unfair.

It's when one player has multiple formations to set up of board and the other doesn't that it becomes a problem.

You then get big advantages to the player with off board formations especially Air assault/webway heavy lists (Marine,Eldar,Necron etc).

The Reserve heavy lists have a great advantage as to where to place their own ground formations (especially their AA suppression hunters if they're a Marine player) as the opponent has already had to place most of their own ground forces first.

It gets a bit like allowing a player to do their drop podding co-ordinates after the opponent has placed most of their ground forces (although not quite that bad).

If players are happy doing it the other way then go for it,thats fine, don't forget that the rule is only for the Tournament scenario so unless you're at a tourney it doesn't matter if both player's want to play any other way.

Dptdexys sums it up pretty well. But here's some of my thoughts.

Either way you do it, someone gets screwed. Theoretical game, one player (A) has 10 activations, the other player (B) has 10 activations, but 5 are off board.

Under the official rules, Player B gets screwed, because Player A gets to set up 5-6 formations after he has played his last.

Under the perceived rules, Player A gets screwed, because Player B essentially forces Player A to play 5-6 formations before Player B has to place any.

Given that Player B, by nature of the reserves, tends to have a more flexible capacity (He's teleporting/portalling/airtranspoting etc), compared to the more static Player A (He has to footslog it to where he needs to go), given the choice, screw Player B IMO.

And just for the record, I tend to be Player B. So my opinion in this area is contrary to what's best for my chances.

Morgan Vening

I just view it as a trade off between the pre-game deployment disadvantages vs. the in-game deployment and tactical advantages of a reserve heavy force. Otherwise the reserve heavy army would have both a pre-game AND an in-game deployment advantage.

Just a nudge, but would it be worth steering this back to the original topic, sorry for knocking it off course in the first place

_________________
numquam culum es

To get us back on track, the subject of regeneration needs to be handled.

I see one of three options for the Necron if you assume that regrouping can take place off board (which is a strong possibility that the NetERC decides on).  

1. That the Necron ability be allowed to regenerate off board.  This would certainly make a lot of sense and be the easiest to manage rules wise (no exceptions needed).  

2. That the Necron ability be restricted to on board activity.  If the concerns about the Necrons rebuilding their formations off board are valid, this would make the most sense mechanically.  The problem IMO is that it makes no sense at all.  You have Necrons regenerating in the middle of battle when they regroup but not off board in their tombs when they are safest.  

3. That the Necron ability be restricted to OFF board activity.  This would still allow formations to regenerate a single unit on the board, regroup off board, and marshal coming onto the board.  This would make the most sense fluff wise although it might pose some problems for the Necrons strategically.  I have no idea.

No matter what we've got to make a decision soon. The Necrons are holding up the Raiders 2.0 run and we need resolution.

My personal feeling is #1 or #3 are the best way to go about it.

_________________
author of Syncing Forward and other stories...

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

My personal feeling has always been that there is no problem with on and off board regroupng, but I don't play with or against Necrons enough to make a certain determination.

SG

_________________
SG

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

so to recap: in an attempt to downgrade the necrons a bit we've allowed necrons to bring units back off board and added the "void shield" rule to automatically get a unit back at the end of the turn.

We haven't allowed anything to happen so far.  It's just been a giant Charlie Foxtrot of ideas, absent decisions, limited playtesting, and zero focus.

The original Necron rule was wiped out NOT to nerf the army but because it was complicated and the army benefited from having BMs, something that is counter to how armies behave.  The same way that the Necrons used to benefit from breaking and then automatically rally off board.  

The nerf to the Necrons was allowing BMs to remain on broken formations that rallied.  That is a nerf.  The rest of this is mechanics.  What works the best for the army?

Sadly there hasn't been any playtesting that I know of other than MNB's games and every single one of them have been wins.  So if we use that as a benchmark, they are still overpowered.  Personally I think we need more players playing more armies.

But to answer your rhetorical question, I agree the nerf isn't much of a nerf.  That's why I suggested option #3 above.  That would force the Necron player to make serious decisions about regenerating, marshaling, and placement.

_________________
author of Syncing Forward and other stories...

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

i suppose #3 does look the best. it might cause the necron player to use up more portals after assaults to move off board (something i'm sure most players do already). which would of course allow more shots on your portals, since less formations will be on board. then trouble bringing them back on board due to lack of portals
this might cause more opponents frustration since more formations will be coming back relatively fresh. so not sure how well it will be recieved.
but again, i'd vote for #3. if still too powerful we could always drop the void shield rule.

a little bit of feedback (frogbear is typing up the batrep as I write) - played with Necrons against World Eaters, using the "void shield" rule. The new Necron rule seemed fine by me (can't remember off the top of my head what the old one was!   ) and was easily explained. Didn't seem overpowering, I usually got back a unit each turn on each of my warrior (3) fms, and it didn't make much difference - I was either near full strength or hanging on by a thread (2 or 3 stands left). I did have the option of regrouping 1 warrior fm (3 or 4 left out of off board but in the end decided to bring it on and use it. In that sense I believe there's an inherent balance to regrouping off board in this case.

only 1 game though Was a lot of fun and a great opponent too. Check out the batrep forum for more details (don't think it's posted yet).

_________________
numquam culum es

I say lets go with 1 for the time being. See how that tests out before complicating the rules to attempt the others. If that fails them think about 3, but I can see issues with explanation in the warmup.

_________________
-Vaaish

actually, now that i read moscovian's post again i think i would go with #1. unless i'm missing something, #3 only negates a formaion that is already on board from marshalling, staying on board, and returning units. am i reading this correctly? if that is the case, by all means, go w/ #1. the marshalling i just mentioned is not something i tend to do unless late in the game and the formation is just sitting on an objective.

Actually #3 would negate any Necron regeneration at all on the board that comes from regrouping.  In other words, if it was turn 3 and you failed to activate your formation that was sitting on your objective, you could not regenerate units - only remove BMs as normal.

I suppose it all comes down to whether or not #1 is deemed overpowered.  Corey seems to think it is and so far the limited playtesting there has been have the Necrons winning every game.

I have finished Raiders 2.0 and will post a draft version out here.  I had to choose something and I already typed it up with option #3 in it.  This doesn't mean it can't be changed.  But what it does mean is this: somebody has to make a command decision and -unless somebody can get some playtesting done then I'll leave it as #3.  Somebody show me it nerfs the Necrons too much and I'll change it to #1.



No offense but this treats my time like a luxury which it isn't.  Getting these supplements out is difficult and I don't feel like dodging another twelve months of complaints about the Necrons being overpowered.  My goal: never to have to print Raiders 3.0.

_________________
author of Syncing Forward and other stories...

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

So if the only difference between #1 and #3 is that #3 explicitly states that regeneration can only happen off-board, I don't the major issue. Would fit with fluff AND force the kind of tactical choices that would help balance it out.

_________________
numquam culum es

Sorry, I didn't think that there was such a short timeframe between picking one and raiders 2.0. I thought we were picking a playtest direction for the rough release of raiders and then make a final decision after a test period.

_________________
-Vaaish

He may be winning them all, but how many have been decisive victories? If mnb is winning all of his games by a close margin, then that might be an indication that the list is fairly balanced. The one game I played against him was close, and it was the first time I had played against Necrons.

_________________
"I don't believe in destiny or the guiding hand of fate." N. Peart