Yep.  Minor change, and simplifies things.


We'll need a lot of games to see how this affects things, but I think something this radical is necessary to streamline the overall mechanic.


Editorial:  I'd separate the flavor text and the mechanics into separate paragraphs (even though it's only one sentence).  Later in the text, "coherency" is not a term used in the rules.  I'd stick with the phrase "out of formation" and reference 1.7.4.


Yep.  While theoretically big, I think this will be minor based on the army lists people normally post.


Yep.  Should be minor.


No opinion.  Looking forward to batreps.


Eventually, I'd prefer this were trimmed down to a single option.


No opinion.  Looking forward to batreps.


No opinion.  Looking forward to batreps.


No opinion.  Looking forward to batreps.

_________________
Neal

Change doc has been updated (see top of the thread).

_________________
author of Syncing Forward and other stories...

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

My thoughts on the language (or wording   )

You need to explicitly state that you return units with the Necron ability in the second sentence of the Necron rule. Also, the main rules refer to units as being destroyed not killed. I also inserted a missing 'to' and a missing comma in the last sentence.



I think you can reduce the language in Phase Out since we're now using the stock rally method.

_________________
Dave

Blog

NetEA Tournament Pack Website

Squats 2019-10-17

Hmmm ... I liked the Obelisk Phalanx ... kind'a like a Necron Panzer unit ?  But the new Monolith with 2 Obelisks Maniple may work fine for "Necron Panzers" too ...    

_________________
Legion 4 "Cry Havoc, and let slip the Dogs of War !" ... "People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf."

necrons do phase out first. i thought it was written in there, but obviously not.
and necrons can only marshal if they use there move action to come on board.
any opinions on any of the changes?

It is well established that the only actions an off board formation can take, are those that will result in bringing them onto the board.

So yes, you can do a Marshal action, as long as you take the move/regroup variant.  If you have no availible portals, you cannot activate that formation.

Works pretty much the way Eldar portals do.

_________________
Necron Army Champion
"Do not come whining to me because you are weaker than your enemy." - Alexander Corvinus

Then lets say a formation fails to activate and does not want to come on the board with the free move.  Can it regroup and shed BMs off board?  I said yes during the last game.

_________________
author of Syncing Forward and other stories...

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

huh? i don't remember that.
i would think no, cannot remove blast markers unless they come on the board.

I agree with this interpretation of context.

There should be as little difference on basic mechanics as possible between Eldar Portals and Necron ones. The unique stuff (return/transfer) is fine, but the other stuff should be as similar as possible.

Morgan Vening

Well, you had no BMs since it was turn 1 but you said, "So if I don't want to come on the board I can just do a regroup, right?"  To which I replied, "Sure."

Had you BMs at the time though, they would have been removed.  I am not sure why we wouldn't allow this to take place.  I mean, if a player wants to purposefully keep a formation off board, presumably in their tomb, how can we say they aren't able to shed BMs through a normal rally process?  That makes no sense to me. Time is of the essence in a game and while that formation is not on the board, his opponent's formations ARE on the board.

_________________
author of Syncing Forward and other stories...

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

It hasn't come up much before now since they lost BMs when offboard previously. The only way it could come up before was when failing an action when retaining and deciding to stay off board.

I see no reason why they shouldn't be treated as normal when off board, so allowed to lose BMs when regrouping.

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

If you fail an activation roll for an off-board formation, you have 2 choices:  Move onto the board, or forfeit your activation.

If you have no availble portals, you cannot activate off-board formations at all.

There are a few of reasons why.

1.) Jervis himself said that the only actions that a formation off board can take, is one that ultimately results in them being on the board.  So, if you have no way to get on the board, you can't do anything.

2.) If you can do other actions, you can then justify using off board formations to soak off actions, and there isn't much your opponent can do about it.

3.)  Keeping the basics of the rule as close to existing rules for portals as possible.

_________________
Necron Army Champion
"Do not come whining to me because you are weaker than your enemy." - Alexander Corvinus

How does the Eldar Portal work in this regard? I was of the impression if a Guardian unit failed (or any unit on retain), they weren't allowed to do the Regroup aspect of Hold?

Morgan Vening

Well technically you have to do some action.  If you fail with whatever, you are forced to either move, shoot, or regroup.  Planes that are off board that fail to activate stand down.

I think we need a ruling on this from the NetERC folk as this would apply apply to things other than Necrons.

_________________
author of Syncing Forward and other stories...

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