Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I've posted this list (and arguement) on the GW forum before.  However, the thread always got drowned out with cries of 'cheese!' or 'not the developer's intent!'.  So I thought I would post this here and see how those who used RAW took it.

An example list. (Not asking for a judge of the list's merit)

Nightbringer

2 units of 10 warriors, 1 unit of 11 warriors

5 destroyers

2 units of 10 scarab swarms w/disruption fields

2 units of 3 heavy destroyers

Tomb Spyder

Necron Count: 42, Phase out at 10 Necrons left.

The unit of 11 warriors would be held in reserves, as per the warriors rule.  Because there is no monolith, it cannot enter the game.  Because it cannot enter the game and get destroyed, the necron count in the army will always be 11 or above.  Immune to phase out.

Can anyone, by RAW, see a flaw in this tactic? 

I think it will, work, but remember your opponent gets the VP for that squad in reserve. Also, you are taking quite the handicap just to avoid a phase out. I would rather have the 200 points on the table.

Yeah, he would get the victory points, unless it is an alpha level mission.

I'm not sure that you could make an army list in this manner that would be competitive with 200 points missing, but is is an option for those would like the idea of a necron army that includes pariahs, c'tan, scarabs, and tomb spyders.

Well yet another example of how you can get around the weaknesses of an army if you hunt through the RAW long enough. Although I question the morality of adding a unit to your list which cannot be deployed.

As a future tournament organizer, and current Necron player I WILL state that if this comes up in any tournament we host, that unit of 11 warriors will have to be deployed per the scenario.

I agree with the ability to do this. Ha, don't worry about cheese here man! You've come to the right place. I do have a question though. Honkey Bro just read me a passage from the Necron Codex about the third troop (the reserve one). Doe it say they "may" be held in reserve or they "must" be held in reserve? This question may actually belong in the escalation thread.  You probably see where i'm going with this.

As a future tournament organizer, and current Necron player I WILL state that if this comes up in any tournament we host, that unit of 11 warriors will have to be deployed per the scenario.

Heh.

I agree with the above. Ha, don't worry about cheese here man! You've come to the right place. I do have a question though. Honkey Bro just read me a passage from the Necron Codex about the third troop (the reserve one). Doe it say they "may" be held in reserve or they "must" be held in reserve? This question may actually belong in the escalation thread.

Yes, it says '...may be held in reserves...', but I don't see a issue with the escalation rules. The warrior's ability to be held in reserves states that warriors in reserves must deploy via the monolith.

I'm sorry. I should have stated that better. It looks like the escalation thread is debating the use of the word "may." Sort of parallel arguments, but unrelated to each other other than the use of the word.

I don't even really see a reason why this would be 'outlawed' in a tournament setting.

You are basically playing a 1650pt army against a 1850pt army and if victory points are used, you are giving away around 200 to start with. I would think this would about equal out the avantage of not having phase out. Especially when you consider that the phase out rule is in place to balance out the necron's ability of WWB, which is relatively absent in an army of this type.

I know it doesn't hold up to a RAW standard but the Necron FAQ says if a unit is in Reserve all available Monoliths are destroyed then the unit counts as destroyed for phase-out purposes.

Obviously, this doesn't fully apply (since no Monoliths were present from the start), but I'd think its enough to get a fair amount of players angry at you if you tried it and perhaps ruled against by a tournie judge.

After reading the monolith and warrior rules together "I" believe you can't do it. The wording is wierd but this is what I get out of it.

You have to have a monolith to even put a unit in reserve. You just dont' put warrors in reserve w/o a monolith. They are using the monolith as a transport vehicle this way. Plus if the warriors never come out you still lose the points. No matter what you do not get those points.

2 monoliths allows 4 units on the table and 2 units in reserve
1 monolith allows 5 units on the table and 1 unit in reserve
0 monolith allows 6 units on the table

You have to have a monolith to even put a unit in reserve. You just dont' put warrors in reserve w/o a monolith. They are using the monolith as a transport vehicle this way. Plus if the warriors never come out you still lose the points. No matter what you do not get those points.

What are you talking about?

The ability to hold warriors in reserve is not a monolith ability, but rather a warrior ability. Nothing says the monolith must be present to do so.

Victory points are awarded at the end of the game for the warriors not deployed, but they would prevent your army from phasing out.

2 monoliths allows 4 units on the table and 2 units in reserve
1 monolith allows 5 units on the table and 1 unit in reserve
0 monolith allows 6 units on the table

I have no idea where this came from.

I'm not really sure what benefit this trick would do, as incredbile as making you 'immune' to phase out sounds. You're going to be missing a unit for the entire game, and your oppenent is going to get VP for them in most games you play. If your fighting force is reduced to nothing more than A Tomb Spider, Scarabs, and the Nightbringer, you will no longer phase out, but I'd say you're going to probably be in imminent danger of losing anyway. In the end, I'd say that you're better off using the 'hide some warriors behind terrain all game' tactic, because then at least you'll have them on the table in case of emergencies.

I don't see a problem with it, and in fact, I would encourage all Necron players to use this tactic.

To win a game against this list, not oly do I have to kill one less necron than I would if the warriors were on the table, but you get 11 less shots (or whatever the warrior's weapons do) a turn against me.

I'm a Necron player myself. I cannot imagine a scenario where I would rather have 11 rapid-firing models off the table. My current list is limited by the models I currently own and therefore it is not an "optimal" list, though in general I prefer that type of list. I use:
1 Lord, res orb and veil
1 Destroyer Lord, res orb
16 Warriors
16 Warriors
8 Scarab Swarms
1 Tomb Spyder
2 Wraiths
6 Flayed Ones
3 Destroyers
2 Heavy Destroyers
1 Monolith
and I can throw in the Nightbringer if playing higher points.

I've used my Necrons in 6 games now, 4 wins, 1 loss, 1 draw. In my opinion the two most valuable pieces of the army are the Wraiths (I know I'll get a lot of grief for that but they absolutely rock imo) and rapid-firing Warriors. Losing a quarter of them off the table on purpose would be devastating to me.  Personally, I do find it pretty crappy as well, and I probably wouldn't play someone that used "tactics" like that.

Oh wow no phase out!

This means all we need to do is treat you like a normal army, but only 200 pts less.

This is extremely unsportsmanlike, if not outright cheating.  The Necron army list has phase out as one of the army's special rules, you can't just take it away somehow.  A Necron army is built so that a savvy opponent can cause a phase out and get full victory points for the army.  You're trying to take that away from them. 

I believe that C'tan are so powerful because you can get victory points from them without having to destroy them by using phase out.  Now you're trying to make it so that I have to kill that C'tan rather than going after Necrons to force a phase out if I want full victory points.  That should always be possible as per the army's special rules.

I don't have a Necron codex so I'm not sure how it is worded exactly- but anyone should be able to make a good case that warriors in reserve do not count as being on the table, so when you count how many Necrons are left on the table, they wouldn't count anyway.

- Oaka

Oaka

"If a necron army is reduced to 25% of less of its original number of models (in other words, 75% of its models, rounding fractions up, are destroyed), it will disappear in an errie fashon, leaving behind nothing of its presence."

So it is not models on the table. I agree that this sucks, but it is not against the rules, and is definately not cheating. Until GW fixes it, that is the way it is. I do not think this makes the Necron unbeatable. You just need to adjust accordingly. It is possible to win without an entire army's VP.

Ok then, it isn't cheating, the rule clearly says that 75% of the models must be destroyed to cause a phase out.  However, even if those scarabs, C'tan, and tomb spyders are all still alive and well at the end of the game, I think that the warriors would then count as destroyed at the end of the game, triggering a phase out and giving up all the victory points regardless.

If you agree that is how it would be played, then I would have no problem with it.  It means you don't get 200 points worth of models for the game, but you get to stay around the whole game unless all your models are destroyed.  However, your opponent will still get victory points for that C'tan even if he survives.

- Oaka

The warriors are count as destroyed for VP purposes, but they are not actually destroyed. And since you calculate VP after the game ends, it is too late for a phase out.

Bleh... you're right, it looks like you check for phase out during the Necron player's turn.  Ok, rank, by RAW it looks to me like you can do this.  Obviously, though, my attempts to claw and scratch my way out of this should let you know that it may not be looked upon favorably by others.

I hate Necrons.

- Oaka

Overall, sounds like a good way to get DQed from a tournament... or at least lose all your regular gaming opponents.

Wow Oaka, you almost pulled a Capt.Anderton there.

Its kinda funny how necrons can do that.

Shadow_Strike makes a good point.....

Let the necron player field an army 200 points less than yours. Even if he has the nightbringer, he cant be everywhere on the table at once. You have given up one of your most powerful and sometimes troublesome units (the monolith)...and are missing 11 warriors with potential to soak up a lot of firepower and dish out 22 rapid fire shots a turn....

How often would you win a cleanse with this army??

I would be very interested to see how this army would do against the new tau......

I'm confused. Didn't Yak provide a quote that pretty much says that you can't do this?

from the Necron FAQ:

If they are using this rule and all available Monoliths are destroyed, they count as destroyed and may therefore trigger the phase-out...

If you have no Monoliths, then all available Monoliths are destroyed. I really don't see how that's arguable. I can easily prove that it is impossible for you to have an undestroyed Monolith.

Actually, I think they could potentially be "destrotyed" earlier. If you hold a squad, any squad, in reserve you have to roll for them to come in starting on turn 2. Now since the rule says that warrior squads held in reserve must enter through a monolith or be destroyed, if they where to become available, in this scenario, they would imediately be destroyed since there is no monolith for them to enter through. Now I know that the full wording of the rule deals with what happens if the monolith is destroyed but it could be argues that the mechanic is the same reguardless ie 1)you have to roll for reserves 2)warriors in reserve must enter through a monolith 3) when no monolith is available the warriors are destroyed.

But there's no rule that says if you don't start with a Monolith they are destroyed, only that if the Monolith is destroyed then the reserves units are as well. 

I still don't like the tactic or even think it would be strategically smart, but that's the rules.

That's the beauty of 'all' statements, though. You can claim whatever you want about 'all' of a set, and if that set is empty, you're perfectly correct in doing so.

In this case, it's true that all available monoliths are destroyed.

Likewise, it's true that all are not destroyed, or that all available Monoliths are actually small, green frogs.

Ahhh logic based arround the concept of zero. gotta love it in a practical game situation.

Well think of it like this. IF there were a monolith waiting to deepstrike AND there were a unit of Necron warriors waiting too, if the Warriors become available before the monolith then they have to wait...

The other thought is of corse that if there had been a lith avaliable but it was destroyed then they count as dead.

The trouble is that the situation in question lets both ideas happen at once.