Tactical Command | View topic - Necron 4.2

Page 9 of 17

[ 248 posts ]

Go to page Previous 1 ... 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 ... 17 Next

View unanswered posts | View active topics View unread posts | View new posts | View your posts

Necron 4.2 - comments

corey3750

Post subject: Necron 4.2 - comments

Posted: Tue Aug 28, 2007 10:45 pm

Brood Brother

Joined: Tue Nov 08, 2005 5:02 pm
Posts: 525
Location: Baltimore MD

ok.

1.) Monoliths aren't WE for exactly the same reason Land Raiders are not WE.... because they ARE NOT War Engines.

2.) The limit on Monoliths was done before. It was also eliminated because it was too clunky. It went to including all the supporting formations into a 3/phalanx limit as someone suggested oh so long ago. And for the record, limiting 1 Monolith to Phalanx not only crushes your ability to deploy without purchasing large numbers of essentially "throw away" phalanxes, it basically pushes you into the very "popcorn" army everyone so bemoans.

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

Top

Chroma

Post subject: Necron 4.2 - comments

Posted: Tue Aug 28, 2007 10:56 pm

Brood Brother

Joined: Fri Jun 24, 2005 3:06 pm
Posts: 9684
Location: Montréal, QC, Canada

First off, I think the cap on Gauss Flux Arc is going to make a huge difference, and I don't think there's been enough playtesting to see the effect yet.

Second, we have to make sure people are actually playing it right.

If a couple of Monoliths appear at the flank of an enemy formation and then a Phalanx comes out to clip that formation, getting, say four, enemy units in range, if they happen to kill those four units, the Monoliths don't get any support attacks: there's no "involved" enemy units left! If one of those four units actually survives, well then the Monoliths do get attacks... 2 each, all on that one unit, there's no "overflow" into the rest of the formation. Supporting fire hits can only be allocated to units that are "involved" in the assault, i.e., within 15cm of the attack Phalanx.

I know *I* used to do this wrong and it made Necrons absolutely *murderous*! I have since been corrected and it's made the Necrons much more playable.

Thoughts?

_________________
"EPIC: Total War" Lead Developer

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

Top

Moscovian

Post subject: Necron 4.2 - comments

Posted: Wed Aug 29, 2007 3:10 am

Brood Brother

Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2005 6:32 pm
Posts: 6414
Location: Allentown, Pennsylvania USA

My thoughts are that we stick with the recommendations Corey made for 4.2+. After going over all of the the thread's comments I see a lot of theory and not a lot of playtest. I'm going to stick with the plan, Corey. Playtest playtest playtest.

Neal, you may be right but I'd rather know it is a problem than guess at it.

Hena, I actually do think having the Necron portals act differently from the Eldar would be a big mistake. Not only would it make no sense to me but the inconsistency in the game would eventually lead to confusion on one list or the other or both.

_________________
author of Syncing Forward and other stories...

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

Top

thurse

Post subject: Necron 4.2 - comments

Posted: Wed Aug 29, 2007 9:46 am

Brood Brother

Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2006 3:13 pm
Posts: 185
Location: Dundee, Scotland

I know *I* used to do this wrong and it made Necrons absolutely *murderous*! I have since been corrected and it's made the Necrons much more playable.

I'm going to say it again : it depends of the rules you use...
I f you use the core rules, supporting fire is resolved at the same time as other hits.

When reading battle reports, you can see that some people stick to the core rules...

Top

Crabowl

Post subject: Necron 4.2 - comments

Posted: Wed Aug 29, 2007 2:10 pm

Brood Brother

Joined: Fri Aug 17, 2007 12:44 pm
Posts: 123
Location: Finland

Damn this thread is long..

So about those broken monoliths, portals, cheese and stuff. Why not reword the Phase Out rule so that the blast markers aren't removed at the end phase but instead when the units try to teleport on the table or use a portal. It would fit the normal rules nicely and units with blast markers would have -1 and broken units -2 to their activation roll. If a unit fails to activate it still loses the blast markers just like aircrafts. This wouldn't affect any other armies since portals work the same and other armies can't have broken units or units with blast markers in reserve (I think?). Oh and those numbers are easy to remember since the -1 is from having blast markers and the -2 for trying to rally when broken (two separate rules in the rulebook but everyone knows them after a game or two).

This would make the entire necron army slightly more orky and random but failing to activate doesn't mean the necrons are afraid or something like that, they're just making system checks to make sure they're delivering optimum performance when they do go back.

_________________
Gief more guns for less points!

Top

nealhunt

Post subject: Necron 4.2 - comments

Posted: Wed Aug 29, 2007 2:16 pm

Purestrain

Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2003 10:52 pm
Posts: 9617
Location: Nashville, TN, USA

Even the core rules do not allow you to apply hits to units not in range/LoS of the assaulting formation. Basically, if the unit doesn't get to fire at the enemy in an assault, it cannot be allocated hits.

===

Mosc: I don't know that it's a problem. It looks like it could be, even that it's likely, so I asked if it had been tested. The responses I received explaining why it's not a problem don't make sense to me, so I asked for clarification. The responses about why multiple Monolith formations are a problem also don't make sense to me, so I asked for clarification on those as well.

What makes me nervous is that the form of the answers are "well, you just do X, Y, or Z" without any explanation of how to do them (and in some cases, no apparent reason for doing them). That's exactly the same kind of responses people were giving to questions about the Tyranids. The tactics made sense and looked good on paper. Many of them even worked until the Nid list was tooled up to stop the countertactics.

_________________
Neal

Top

nealhunt

Post subject: Necron 4.2 - comments

Posted: Wed Aug 29, 2007 2:25 pm

Purestrain

Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2003 10:52 pm
Posts: 9617
Location: Nashville, TN, USA

BTW, why are Pariahs and Immortals the same price in the list?

Regardless of the numerical limitations, units should still be pointed according to their abilities. Pariahs have better CC, +1 EA MWCC, Fearless and Inspiring. Immortals only have Necron. I realize Necron is a pretty good ability but that hardly seems like an even trade. Pariahs look like they ought to be a good 20 points more expensive.

_________________
Neal

Top

Chroma

Post subject: Necron 4.2 - comments

Posted: Wed Aug 29, 2007 2:41 pm

Brood Brother

Joined: Fri Jun 24, 2005 3:06 pm
Posts: 9684
Location: Montréal, QC, Canada

(nealhunt @ Aug. 29 2007,14:25)

QUOTE

BTW, why are Pariahs and Immortals the same price in the list?

I feel that Immortals should be 50 points and Pariahs a *least* 75 points... in my experience, I have yet to see a Necron army where the majority of Phalanxes didn't have Pariahs... but I've rarely seen Immortals.

The inspiring and fearless usually mean that they kick butt in an assault, though even if they lose, the Pariah with tend to survive and be able to bring back the formation next turn.

_________________
"EPIC: Total War" Lead Developer

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

Top

thurse

Post subject: Necron 4.2 - comments

Posted: Thu Aug 30, 2007 10:07 am

Brood Brother

Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2006 3:13 pm
Posts: 185
Location: Dundee, Scotland

Yes, but I wanted to point out the following difference. Say you have a phalanx that engaged a formation, supported by a monolith. 4 units are in range of the monolith
-With the core rules, monoliths get 4 attacks
- With the experimental rules, it depends of the kills made by the phalanx, as supporting fire is resolved later.

Sorry to be a bit out of the subject

Top

woodelf_dave

Post subject: Necron 4.2 - comments

Posted: Sun Sep 02, 2007 5:47 pm

Brood Brother

Joined: Thu Aug 25, 2005 12:27 pm
Posts: 72
Location: Edinburgh

Not played against Necrons for ages (and our groups Necron player doesn`t use many Monoliths).

Being able to keep loads of troops of the table at the start of the game and then simply pick a juicy target, appear and destroy the chosen target seems way too cheesy.

To stop this initial punch of the Necrons, could the army not have a Grand Tournament rule (in the form of the Eldars may not garrison rule) that simply prohibits the Monoliths from starting the game off table.

Top

Moscovian

Post subject: Necron 4.2 - comments

Posted: Thu Sep 20, 2007 12:08 pm

Brood Brother

Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2005 6:32 pm
Posts: 6414
Location: Allentown, Pennsylvania USA

I think forcing the Monoliths to be on the table would never work. Once there you would be required to field your army with them to protect them or risk losing everything. Then you have your entire army sitting on the back unable to reach past the 1/2 way point of the table. Hardly fair.

Check out this link for two playtests. Here is a recap:

1. Destroyers are obviously broken. In one game the destroyers wiped out (nothing left!) three formations in three turns. Cut their firepower in half, drop points to 300 and they are still a bargain. The one game I have ever played where the Necrons lost was the one game that didn't field the Destroyers. Coincidence perhaps, but I doubt it.

2. Orb firepower changed to 8 or 9BP. It would only reduce the number of blast markers generated and that wouldn't be a bad thing.

3. Variable SR... Keep it.

4. Nix the changes to initiatives. It did absolutely nothing to put it on the vehicles (Monoliths, Obelisks, Pylons). Their primary usefulness is in tactical teleporting and the initiative has no effect on this whatsoever.

IMO all of the above changes need to take place. Other suggestions to balance the list are below, but I don't think we need all of them.

1. Change initiatives on INFANTRY formations to 2+. They are automatons, the walking dead. While they may have tremendous ability to take orders, intelligence-wise these guys aren't setting the world on fire. This will encourage the use of the Marshall (which was used once in the last four games of mine).

2. Radically change the way Necron play by allowing teleporting and removal from the board only when un-broken. (Would require some crazy playtesting but it would get rid of the backward nature of helping the Necron when you punish them...)

3. Increase the cost of Monoliths to 85-90 points. I know, heaven forbid you have to do math outside the 25/50/75/100 numbers but it might help the list out. 100 points is too expensive IMO.

4. Pariahs cost increased to 75. They really are a no-brainer at the current point cost.

I think one or two of these changes plus the Destroyer and Orb changes will be key.

I am curious to hear if anyone has ever fielded the Necrons without Destroyers? If so, how was the game? More difficult? No change? My personal experience is I lacked range and mobility that -combined with my too aggressive tactics- spelled my doom. I think it is possible to win without them but I would need to be more conservative in my deployment. With them as is, however, I don't think I could ever lose just fielding 1 formation.

_________________
author of Syncing Forward and other stories...

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

Top

Evil and Chaos

Post subject: Necron 4.2 - comments

Posted: Thu Sep 20, 2007 12:39 pm

Brood Brother

Joined: Fri May 05, 2006 2:57 am
Posts: 20887
Location: Harrogate, Yorkshire

My bro doesn't leave the tomb without them.

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter

Top

Chroma

Post subject: Necron 4.2 - comments

Posted: Thu Sep 20, 2007 12:46 pm

Brood Brother

Joined: Fri Jun 24, 2005 3:06 pm
Posts: 9684
Location: Montréal, QC, Canada

(Evil and Chaos @ Sep. 20 2007,12:39)

QUOTE

My bro doesn't leave the tomb without them.

It's usually two formations of *Heavy* Destroyers that are the staple of Necron lists around here... they just erase armoured formations.

_________________
"EPIC: Total War" Lead Developer

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

Top

woodelf_dave

Post subject: Necron 4.2 - comments

Posted: Sun Sep 23, 2007 11:42 am

Brood Brother

Joined: Thu Aug 25, 2005 12:27 pm
Posts: 72
Location: Edinburgh

Looking for comments from Necron players (or Necron opponents). ?I have been thinking about trying to put together a Necron force for some time now but am concerned about the diverse opinions on the current list and how the army plays.

If I am reading the threads correctly it seems a Monolith heavy army is pretty much unbeatable, appearing, wiping out a formation, breaking, reappearing and destroying another etc. ?This is somewhat similar to the old Woodelf tactics in Warhammer with their hit and run tactics ?which no-one enjoyed playing against. Conversely a Monolith light army seems to struggle. ?

If this is a true picture then I`m afraid I`ll abandon the project and concentrate on another army. While the monoliths should be crucial to the Necron army, the army list should be flexible enough to allow success in their absence. Besides I`d never get opponent because none of my gaming circle would enjoy being on the receiving end of such tactics. A player should not be wanting his own units broken because it gives him a tactical advantage to do so. That`s just wrong.

Could the "phase-out" rule be written in a way that doesn`t encourage such tactics ? Of the top of my head something along the lines of Monoliths disappear at the start of their move and only reappear when they want to stop moving, preventing them from being shot at during their move on overwatch? Perhaps even a -1 to shoot at them on overwatch when they eventually reappear to represent them arriving "as if from nowhere".

I`m sure Necron experts could come up with something better that doesn`t encourage these "hit & run" tactics.

Top

Print view

Previous topic | Next topic

Page 9 of 17

[ 248 posts ]

Go to page Previous 1 ... 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 ... 17 Next

Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Jump to:

Necron 4.2 - comments

Who is online