Except that Obelisks are smaller, and if they were so common in Epic (As a mandatory accompaniment to Monoliths) we'd expect to see them all over the 40k tabletops, as Monoliths are very common there.

The fact that they aren't there (In 40k) means we'd be going down the path of inventing our own game, rather than representing the 40k background with appropriate additions... and that's why I'm against having 1 Monolith + 2 Obelisks as the only way to put Monoliths in your Epic army list.

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter

This thread is the second time the "if you weaken it, people will just take more" argument has come up with respect to the Necrons.

Yes, people will have to take more for the same effect.  That is the goal, not a counter argument.  The problem is not simply the appearance of unit X on the board, but the game effect they create for the points they cost.  Whether it's more points or reduced ability on a per-unit basis or some combination, the overall achievement is the same - more points for the same on-ground effect.

So, just to pick on Mosc because I know he can take it, it doesn't matter if reducing the range of Pylons to 90cm would cause players to take 3 instead of 2.  The goal was not "fewer pylons on board" but to reduce the Pylons' effective power-per-point.

Ditto for the various anti-popcorn Monolith formation changes.  The goal is to balance the extreme flexibility they create in their current potential configurations, not to reduce the number of Monoliths Necron players field.  That reduction might be done by reducing the numbers of Monoliths or portals directly, but that's just one possible method and, again, not the actual goal.  If a 3-Monolith formation increases the sheer number of Monoliths on the board because people take more to get the same level of teleport flexibility available with mono-Monos, that doesn't matter.  The costs would be higher for that flexibility, so the end goal of less capability per-point is achieved.

If the complaint is that there should be fewer of unit X for flavor or background reasons, the number appearing on the board would be a valid point, but not for concerns of balance.

_________________
Neal

Jeridian, I'm not quite sure what you mean by "highly dubious"?

The Pylon was deployed where it needed to be.
The Pylon was broken. It happened. Mark_Logue was the other player in the game.

If it hadn't been a Warhound, a detachment of Predators would also have done the same job in these circumstances.

The Scouts had garrisoned and had an easy Double move & shoot to place the Blast Marker needed to break the Pylon. These are facts. Pylons are generally, easy to neutralise (even for a Marine list). Making it hard for a Marine player to use his favourite tactic of an air assault with the 1st activation of the game, does not make the Pylon broken.

_________________
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.

Neal: With respect to pylons I disagree. I feel the aim should be to make single pylons reasonable (they're currently underpowered), but make multiple pylons too expensive to take. The aim should be to see less pylons on the table if we want balance.

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

I'm dubious of the worth of Scouts (and since you mention it Predators) in the Air Assault SM list, taking them purely to sacrifice in order to neutralise a Pylon (as the Necron player should have brought a world of hurt on them afterwards) doesn't seem a game winning and reliable act- when considering a 'take on all-comers' list, rather than tailored to Necrons.

Against anyone else they are dead wood on the ground.

I'm sure your situation occured, as I hope the Necron player learned from it.

On the Obelisks, I can't really access the Necron army list at work, I will have to skim through again later. Can you not take Monoliths as an upgrade for other formations?
I can see it being iffy if you must take Obelisks if you want Monoliths.

AA5+ & TK1 on the AA shot.

Suddenly two or even three pylons aren't a heinous scary thing anymore, they're just a normal unit with counter-tactics available.

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter

I am only referring to questions of game mechanics-based  balance.

That might be achieved by single, more powerful Pylons.  That might be achieved by multiple, weaker Pylons.  That might be achieved by point cost adjustments.  In the absence of a game-mechanic argument and evidence that one of those approaches is superior or inferior for the purposes of balance it's not valid to dismiss any of them.

If you think lone, powerful Pylons are going to be innately more balanced, then explain your position in detail.  Don't just assert that your approach is the only mechanically valid one.


Arguments about whether one of them is superior or inferior for the purposes of background and feel is a separate matter.

_________________
Neal

Neal: I've proposed both single, better, more expensive pylons (DC3 250 points) and multiple cheaper, worse pylons (TK1 90cm 150 points) in this thread.

I'm not enormously bothered which way we go, but I feel that single pylons should be viable, if only due to their alleged rarity.

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

Okay, so this is boiling down to three main issues it would appear, and I think we should be aiming to balance some of these internal issues while also dealing with the Necron needing a small nerf.

Monolith formation change-up suggestion
Remove the Monolith formation as is-
Add the 3 Monoliths for 250
Add the 1 Monolith plus two Obelisks for 200
Leave upgrades as they are
(On a related note, does anyone look at this and think that the there should be a larger point disparity between these two formations?  Or is it just me second guessing myself?)

Pylon change
Change range to 90cm and/or reduce to TK(1) and/or AA5+ (some combination of two of these)
(Are we changing the price?  I would say IF we change the price it be 175, no less)

C'tan critical change
Suggestion - "Critical Hit: All units within 5cm take a Macro-weapon hit on a roll of 4+."

Corey has already killed the SR change idea and to be honest I don't know if it would be needed with the above changes.

How does everybody feel about this list of compromises for a battery of playtesting?  More importantly, how does the Army Champ feel about it?

_________________
author of Syncing Forward and other stories...

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

I know my wife would love TK(1) on the Pylon -- last time we played, she sent in a Landing Craft with 2 Dev formations against my Necron BTS to go for the win, and the Pylon managed to hit the Landing Craft, rolled a 6 for the "D3", and snagged a critical hit, her jaw just dropped.  

With TK(1), smaller aircraft will get plinked out of the sky, but the larger warmachine aircraft (especially transport aircraft) will only have to worry about losing 1 DC.

Same goes for dropping the Deceiver from 6BP to 4BP -- last time I took the Deceiver just to try something new (I usually take the Nightbringer because I have a model for him), and we both agreed he hit way too well and often at 6BP.

thank god the sight is working again
moscovian- as for your suggestions (monoliths/obelisks) i'm assuming this would take the place of the armored phalanx? is there any reason why we couldn't have both (3 monoliths/1 monolith and 2 obelisks)? if we had to pick one or the other i would go w/ 1 mon and 2 ob, only because we would have no use for obelisks otherwise.
pylons- no problem w/ 90 cm and tk1, but they cannot get lowered to AA5+. they simply would not get enough hits to justify the cost (and i think they wouldn't be percieved as a threat anymore)
wraiths- can we add this to the list of changes. i realize that no one is mentioning them... could this be because no one uses them? basically same stats as the flayed ones but half as many units? i realize other army lists have units that just aren't used.... but that was games workshop's fault. give them one more attack and they would be perfect.

Pylons: why not AA4+ (TK1)? The kind of shot a Pylon discharges at an agile aircraft might be quite different to that which is able to discharge at the more telegraphed flight of a spacecraft.

Obelisks: for me Jervis's approval does not really constitute the model becoming canon, and while I like the idea of new units, I don't want to be forced to field something that is non-canon.

Monoliths: I don't like single Monoliths either though. Too bity, doesn't feel like Epic. I'd be happy seeing them in 3s as a base.

SR: I like fixed SR2.

C'tan: Why do they explode? I suppose it's different. Hit on a 5+ armour saves apply would be just as different though and more fun. I've never had my C'tan explode, but if he did then I would not inflict those MW hits on my opponent.

My thoughts. I don't get to play much though.

well, I'm sorry you did get a chance to see me at Game's day.  I had the flu, and spent the latter part of last week in bed, freezing.

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

I'd say in general most people are roughly on the same page with regards to the changes we'd like to see.

I think the following changes are pretty uncontrovercial:

Monolith formations:  3 for 250,  1 + 2 Obs for 200.
Reduced C'tan criticals
Wraiths CC4+ EA+1 (keeping First Strike)

The following are reasonably accepted, but with some reservations

Fixed SR 2 (popular but Corey doesn't like it)
Pylon 90cm TK(1) for the AA shot (again popular but Corey doesn't like it)
Armoured Phalanx moves back to a support slot (my personal bugbear, but perhaps not enough playtest evidence yet)


I had another thought with regards to the Pylon range. I think it's perfectly possible to obey the fluff and still have a 90cm range. All you have to do is take the curvature of the planet and Epic's elastic range into consideration. While it may be able to shoot 100 miles upwards at a space ship, the curvature of the planet means that firing more than a few miles along the ground (or at a slight angle into the air) will be impossible due to targets being beyond the horizon.

This is how lasers work in the real world; it's perfectly possible to bounce one off the moon, but not to shoot from London to Paris.

Also, if there's a vice-champion role up for grabs consider me interested  

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

a few quick things:

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.

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