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.

Hi guys,
I've watched the two first episode of Paria Nexus and couldn't help but notice that the dead / destroyed necron corpses were still laying on the ground, contrary to what I read in old codices and pieces of background about the necrons. However I haven't read the newest lore about them since they got diluted to basically being just imperials in metal, so, is this just an overlook or have the necron stopped being described as teleporting their deads ?

I thought it was always variable depending on how functional the local Necron infrastructure was.

I thought that happened at the end of a given conflict.
Can't resurrect a machine if there is no machine after all.

My impression is that it varies based on the situation.

First you have to consider the local Necron infrastructure as Gert says. If the local setup isn't functioning or isn't even there (eg attacking a world which hasn't got a Tomb on it); then it might be that the function just isn't there or can only operate in a limited capacity.

Then there's the rank of the Necron. It might well be that higher ranking Necrons get whisked away instantly, whilst lower ranking ones might be left for longer on the battlefield before being recovered

There might also be resurrection limits, so they can only remove X number of bodies in Y amount of time and anything over that just has to lay there and wait for recovery.

They might also tone it down if they are diverting power to other operations at the time. They might even use some manual retrieval methods at times.

Then there might be the threat level. If the battleground has a super low threat level, they might well focus on other repairs/functions and leave bodies waiting to be teleported back later.

Finally there might be local conditions which inhibit the functional use of the teleporting. Some local warp storm; pylon or other tech/psy elements that make the process impossible; more resource intensive; dangerous or such to perform.




Like a lot of things its important to note that Codex present an idealised standard for a faction's behaviour and attitude. When you drill down into specific battles and situations a faction can (and often will) deviate from the codex for local reasons.

Seem that Phase Out was *clears throat* phased out!

Pretty sure it's still there but if Szeras is busy doing mad science in Pariah, getting fallen Necrons recalled or reanimated isn't on his priority list.

I always thought it was an automatic function built into their bodies, not something that had to be triggered manually, though I could be wrong.

Necrons either phase out or not depending on whatever the plot calls for. Necron writing isn't very good.

They should phase out almost immediately upon 'death' (when they can no longer block the recall signal), but then not phasing out allows for them to be captured/show how killy the protagonists are etc.

There have been depictions of them not phasing out en-masse for a long time - for example the Dawn of War games, Damnation Crusade etc..

I see ! Indeed, I. The Dawn of War dark crusade opening, there are plenty of necrons laying around. Hmm, interesting

I think that's mostly because in the game they have resurrection Orbs and such so having the bodies laying around works for bringing them back through that.

I thought the book series The Twice Dead King did a half decent job of trying to demonstrate the limits of Necron repair technology (as well as explore the lore of the Destroyer and Flayer cults). Long story short, resources and infrastructure are indeed finite even for the Necrons, especially if the damage exceeds some undefined (and seemingly random) threshold that probably varies based on locale, the power of the controlling dynasty, number of crypteks, etc. That said, phase out was GW's old and notoriously bad way of balancing reanimation protocols in game, and by notorious, it became almost meme that whenever playing Necrons all you or your opponent cared about was what the phase out number was for the Necrons.

 Lord of Deeds wrote:
I thought the book series The Twice Dead King did a half decent job of trying to demonstrate the limits of Necron repair technology (as well as explore the lore of the Destroyer and Flayer cults). Long story short, resources and infrastructure are indeed finite even for the Necrons, especially if the damage exceeds some undefined (and seemingly random) threshold that probably varies based on locale, the power of the controlling dynasty, number of crypteks, etc. That said, phase out was GW's old and notoriously bad way of balancing reanimation protocols in game, and by notorious, it became almost meme that whenever playing Necrons all you or your opponent cared about was what the phase out number was for the Necrons.

Exactly. Tombs have been in stasis for eons, it stands to reason that their ability to phase out corpses is going to be variable depending on how well they have survived the long sleep. An unlucky world could find all their teleporters out of commision on waking or something.

For example, the Dawn of War tomb was only just reawakening (which is why it was still vulnerable), it may well have not been able to activate good repair facilities yet.

I kind of like how this is depicted in the game mechanicus: while they usually phase out rapidly, plenty of events show how the process can malfunction and leave the necron to phase far slowlier.

This has the considerably frustrating sideeffect that if ever the exploration team actually lays its greedy hand on a necron warrior, it will in the end phase out anyway.

There was also instancies of the necron warrior suicide bombing himslef if you tried to get him, as another saftey mechanism triggered. Iirc from the original lore the,n both of these were built into the necrons.

It's just not 100% effective at once.

If I recall correctly, if the phase out thing didn't work, they used to self destroy which was looking exactly like a phase out. The enemy couldn't really say if the necron was destroyed for good or coming back later. That was a good idea, a safe put into the circuit just for cases like the ones that are presented in this thread, but it looks it got forgotten too ?
Anyway, thanks guys for the inputs !

To be fair, i'm such a heathen as I never really bothered with anything from gathering storm onwards that I wouldn't really notice... Mchanicus is not that old though is it? Really have to launch another run with that hardcore heretek DLC by the way

Well, we need to consider the timescale of a game and how the rules work, and then what that might mean for the timescale involved.

Individual Necrons are described as phasing out when the damage sustained is so catastrophic, their self repair systems just can’t cope. So it’s back to the Tomb World for some Canoptek assistance.

But on the board, we’re talking a game taking place over a surprisingly short and intense period of time. So just as no particular in-game casualty represents a death, a Necron being removed doesn’t mean it’s frame has suffered said catastrophic damage, so much as the damage is extensive enough to take a longer period to repair.

Likewise in media, we see Necron Warriors dropped due to relatively light damage. So it may simply be they’re taking longer than the game has taught us to expect to get back on their feet?

I didn't really considered this but that may just be yes, they could be in between the points where they can't be repaired quickly but are not so damaged as to phase out yet

 Lord of Deeds wrote:
That said, phase out was GW's old and notoriously bad way of balancing reanimation protocols in game, and by notorious, it became almost meme that whenever playing Necrons all you or your opponent cared about was what the phase out number was for the Necrons.

Hard disagree. Phase Out was an amazingly cool rule. It functioned as a balancing mechanism so that the opponent always had an alternate potential "out" againt the stronger builds Necrons could make, and served as a disincentive against the Necron player taking only expensive, high powered units when designing their army. There was no rule taking three Monoliths and a Ctan, but it was a risky move to have a low model count. It was the Necron version of Synapse, an army-wide rule that provided an alternative engagement option for the opponent.

God I miss using that codex.

On paper should makes the game only care about killing instead of objective play. For that alone seems a bad rule.

After seeing the final episode, it seems that Szeras doesn't want to use the reanimation protocols, because he sees it a waste to use that power for failures.

We do see regeneration happening, quite quickly even.

 Tyran wrote:
On paper should makes the game only care about killing instead of objective play. For that alone seems a bad rule.

But sometimes it meant that if all was lost, you had a final, desperate chance to pull out a victory too.

Besides, what's a more satisfying win? Holding an objective even though you're getting slaughtered? Or pulling some final charges and causing Phase Out? The latter in my experience.

In terms of early Necron gaming and background?

That can be reconciled quite neatly.

See, when Necrons first arrived, they had Warriors, Lords and Scarabs for certain. Whilst I’m not as sure as I’d like to be, Destroyers and Immortals came hot on the heels, but still after.

In background terms, I see their presence as an army, and their behaviour, as the first mass awakening of Tomb Worlds, and the first tentative “what’s all this then, step in time” explorations. Small, scouts skirmish sensory forces to gauge who’s who, what’s what, and just general intelligence gathering. Hence the phase out.

Scouting, recon and intelligence all being of absolutely bugger all value if you’re not only caught buggering about, but get all smashed up/whatever passes for ded, in the process.

And so it wasn’t until the 4th Ed Codex that the Dynasties started putting out more powerful forces, to check and balance the early reports, and reduce the margin for error.

The..erm….was it 6th or 7th Ed, Codex was the Dynasties going full Ham, finally confident they had enough raw data to tailor task forces to the various manky organics ruining it all. And being on a Proper War Footing, mass phase out just didn’t serve the same purpose anymore.

I could further strengthen this hypothesis by further speculating the earliest encounters and incursions were largely Canoptek Controlled. Whatever it is at the heart of the Tomb World gathering and analysing data before politely chapping on the Phaerons tomb to explain “well…the plan mostly worked….but”. As such, the Phase Out was a preset “yep, that’s plenty” salvaging safety protocol.

^Necron Destroyers appeared in 2nd. Immortals and their first real Codex came in 3rd. There was no 4th ed Codex, and the Ward-nuCron codex came veeeery late 5th.

Not all Necrons can be recovered. Once they are killed beyond repair, they are just dead for good.

 Insectum7 wrote:
^Necron Destroyers appeared in 2nd. Immortals and their first real Codex came in 3rd. There was no 4th ed Codex, and the Ward-nuCron codex came veeeery late 5th.

I’m sure Necrons got their Codex early 4th? But memory is addled and hazy, so I am probably wrong on timings

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
^Necron Destroyers appeared in 2nd. Immortals and their first real Codex came in 3rd. There was no 4th ed Codex, and the Ward-nuCron codex came veeeery late 5th.

I’m sure Necrons got their Codex early 4th? But memory is addled and hazy, so I am probably wrong on timings

Mid 3rd- 2002.

https://wh40k.lexicanum.com/wiki/Codex:_Necrons_(3rd_Edition)

Ah close enough

Off on precise details, but I still think my overall theory holds up of increasing and escalating from small scouting parties to full war footing.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Ah close enough

Off on precise details, but I still think my overall theory holds up of increasing and escalating from small scouting parties to full war footing.

I think that the shift from scout-to-invasion forces is a reasonable rationalisation of changing Necron forces over time, yes.

The edition is mainly relevant for the mindset of the Codices. The 3rd edition ones were much more lore-orientated in my opinion (with the exception of the 4th edition Space Marine and Imperial Guard Armoured company lists, which felt like the last of the 3rd edition paradigm).

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Tyran wrote:
On paper should makes the game only care about killing instead of objective play. For that alone seems a bad rule.

But sometimes it meant that if all was lost, you had a final, desperate chance to pull out a victory too.

Besides, what's a more satisfying win? Holding an objective even though you're getting slaughtered? Or pulling some final charges and causing Phase Out? The latter in my experience.

While I wasn't playing all the way to back then, I do remember the old instinctive behaviour rule for nids.

In my experience, army rules designed to make the game more satisfying for your oponnent instead of for their own army are usually a mess.

I mean, with such rules Necrons need to win both objective play while also winning the killing game, sounds like an impossible balance to me.

 Tyran wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Tyran wrote:
On paper should makes the game only care about killing instead of objective play. For that alone seems a bad rule.

But sometimes it meant that if all was lost, you had a final, desperate chance to pull out a victory too.

Besides, what's a more satisfying win? Holding an objective even though you're getting slaughtered? Or pulling some final charges and causing Phase Out? The latter in my experience.

While I wasn't playing all the way to back then, I do remember the old instinctive behaviour rule for nids.

In my experience, army rules designed to make the game more satisfying for your oponnent instead of for their own army are usually a mess.

I mean, with such rules Necrons need to win both objective play while also winning the killing game, sounds like an impossible balance to me.

Well, there was a simple trade-off, which was the power level of units. Necrons had some very strong abilities and units which, without Phase Out, could have easily been considered OP.