Don't forget the fixed Strategy Rating. This is the most important point in my opinion.


The Wraith formation probably needs a work-over too, but I just can't base anything on experience with them.  I'd need more time with them / against them to make a better call.

[...]

2. Move the Obelisks to a Support role.  I don't like the Obelisks in the Core list section but I haven't seen them broken or even tried.  If we could show some games like this (Vassal or otherwise) it would be great to confirm or deny this as a problem.

Food for thought about the ZOMG ORBIT range of Pylons.

Imperator Titan's defense laser range is 90cm.

I'm just adding my voice so that it's not percived as all Necron players think there are problems with the list.

I own a Necron army and have used it.

- I don't have a problem with the variable Strategy rating at all.
- I don't have a problem with the Pylon as it is now at all (although I wouldn't have a problem with it if it was changed to 90cm TK(1) either).
- I don't want to be forced to take Monoliths in groups of 3.
- I don't want to be forced to take Monoliths with 2 Obelisks (I usually only add 1 Obelisk to each Monolith).

Like I said, just another voice in the discussion.

_________________
Just call me Steve.

NetEA Rules Chair
NetEA FAQ

Want to play Iron Warriors in Epic Armageddon? Click HERE
Some of my Armies.
My Hobby site.

The Pylons fine, Marines need to be taken down a peg, they're the most powerful Epic army out the....oh wait.

The Marine list (official) is Air Assault, it doesn't work any other way. The Pylon means only suicidal people will fly out their 200pts Thunderhawk, with oh, let's say 175pts plus 225pts Assault detachments inside.
600pts shot down easily, no save..how much is this Pylon again?

What has been the experience for Necron players against Marines? Do they just not bother flying in?

Has a Fixed Forward Arc been considered for the Pylon?

While I don't normally agree with Jeridian, I'm forced to do so now. It's not overly fair to say "oh, Marines will manage" when you gimp their single seriously viable playstyle. Lists should make an effort to accommodate playstyles of other lists, especially those basically set in stone by now as Marine list is.

I've seen a Warhound & a Marine Scout detachment (with no AT weapons) break a Pylon before the Necrons had an activation. How many Marine armies have a Scout detachment and a Warhound? My guess is quite a few.

There are far more tactics for the Marines to use than just Thunderhawks. If that's your only tactic then your missing out on many other enjoyable ways to play Marines.

_________________
Just call me Steve.

NetEA Rules Chair
NetEA FAQ

Want to play Iron Warriors in Epic Armageddon? Click HERE
Some of my Armies.
My Hobby site.

Yet another push to make Warhounds mandatory in a Marine list, sigh.

Though I'm highly dubious of the Scouts- the Necron player did deploy the Pylon behind cover right? And the Necron player does have other formations to protect it right?

I'd prefer the Necrons to have access to a 'mini-Pylon' as well, i.e. a Hydra/Hunter/Firestorm/Flakwagon equivalent, with the Pylon an expensive WE.

Moscovian: I'm against obligatory monoliths + obelisks because players shouldn't be forced to used non-canon units if they don't want to. That's another reason I'm against them as a core formation too.

_________________
author of Syncing Forward and other stories...

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

Well, aside from the canon issue (which is a real one, especially when trying to convince players to switch from 40k), 1 mono + 2 obos isn't particularly optimum. It still breaks after one kill, and a single obo provides the required teleport BM insurance (the main reason to take them as an upgtade), meaning the second one isn't really needed. Personally I'd rarely currently use that formation.

It's not awful, and it's probably better than allowing single monoliths, but it's awkward.

What about having 2 formations, one of 3 monos and one of 1 mono and 2 obos. This solves the canon issue at least.

EDIT: E&C put it more clearly than me below. I have no issue with their being non-canon units in the list, just with making them basically obligitory.

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

Three Monoliths is prefereable, because it's simply more Necron-y than one Monolith and two Obelisks.

As Zombocom points out, it keeps the game much more approachable for 40k players to say 'Monoliths are a formation, and there's also this new optional formation called Obelisks', instead of 'This is a new unit called an Obelisk, and you're gonna be forced to take boatloads of them'.

We have to stay congnisant of practical reality here.

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter

E&C, it is to you, but not necessarily to others.  

Z, I agree the 3 units doesn't keep the Monolith from breaking any less, but that isn't the reason for putting in the change.  Hoyjn -correct me if I am wrong- & I both made the recommendation because currently one Monolith and two Obelisks costs 195 points.  Making it a core formation for 200 points reduces the ability to field 'popcorn' armies.  But it does several other things as well:
1. It provides added protection for the Monoliths (kind of like mandating seatbelt use)
2. It creates a nice round number for army construction (200 points)
3. It adds a nominal cost increase which should be easy to deal with
4. It reaches the 3-unit minimum that you were saying was so important about three pages ago.

What about having 2 formations, one of 3 monos and one of 1 mono and 2 obos. This solves the canon issue at least.

_________________
author of Syncing Forward and other stories...

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

Interesting, I think this applies to all Epic armies, but Necrons is the obvious example here.

Are 40k players really so trapped in a tournament mentality that anything outside or on top of the narrow range of units available in 40k is a turn off?

Point one is that I'd be thrilled if my favourite army got 'fleshed out' with the whole plethora of things not seen in 40k- i.e Titans, War Engines, Flyers, etc. So from this POV, just having a 40k mirror game with smaller models would be a turn off not a turn on.

Point two is practicality, 40k doesn't have these exotic units because they are too big, too powerful or too unusual (flyers) to fit into that 28mm game. So inevitably they are going to have to be created for new armies to Epic, where none existed before.

Why not one formation:

One Monolith and two Obelisks - Each Obelisk may be replaced with a Monolith for +xx points

_________________
"EPIC: Total War" Lead Developer

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

Mosc: I do agree with most of those points, but having the option for a 3 Monolith formation as well would solve the canon issue on top of all the other issues you mention.

3 Monoliths currently is what, 255 points, say 250 for neatness. It's a currently available formation, and just retaining the option of it would mean you aren't forced to take obelisks.

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

The obelisk is pretty unique in that it's a non-canon AV. Several lists have non-canon WE and flyers, but few have AV. The Desecrator (or whatever it's called) is the only other one I can think of.

But again, I have no issue with the Obelisk, I just think it shouldn't be mandatory.

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