I'm not in favour of too radical changes at this stage, I think most of the suggestions agreed upon are probably sufficient for the next development stage of the list, though they may prove to be insufficient evenually. Softly softly catchy monkey.

However, I'd definately list the removal of the variable strategy rating as strongly supported. I think it's only Mosc and Corey who've been against the removal, and everyone else is for it. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

I have played the abattoir extensively, though mostly in earlier versions of the list. For about a year it was a staple of my army, not because it was any good but because I took it as an intentional nerf to balance the list downwards. Frankly it compares unfavourably to the Orb, and even less favourably to a supreme commander. I understand the argument that it's supposed to be a world harvester only seen in huge games, but does DC 6 really reflect that? It's currently a Reaver titan equivilent in DC and cost, but much less in power. If it's meant to be a huge beast for 5000 point games make it better, bigger and cost more, else make it viable for 3000 point games.

Again I'm against the deceiver change purely from the standpoint of being an unneeded special rule and there being no precident for this sort of "special attack" in epic. If it's overpowered make it a lower BP. I have no problem with the "kills" caused by it representing units running for the hills in fear etc. Many kills in epic are supposed to represent this sort of thing anyway, such as the hackdown hits after assaults, and the "kills" by BMs when broken.

I still recommend an increase to 250 points for the basic infantry phalanx, as a cost increase on the portaling mechanic.

I think 200 is fine as a cost for 1 monolith and 2 obelisks. I fully expect this to be more popular than the 3 monoliths for 250 (or 275).

So, my suggested list of changes for the next version is as follows:

Fixed Strategy Rating: 2 (or possibly 1)
Wraiths: CC4+ EA+1 First Strike. Reintroduce as a formation upgrade.
Monoliths: 250 for 3, 200 for 1 + 2 obelisks.
Pylon: 90cm TK1 for 175 points seems a reasonable compromise.
Abbatoir: DC 8 (or 25cm movement?)
Infantry Phalanx: 250 points.
C'tan criticals: 5cm MW4+ seems fine.
Deceiver: BP4
Obelisks: The armoured phalanx returns to being a support formation.

I'd be happy with something along those lines for the next iteration.

It seems most people are mostly in agreement in most areas on this, which is a good thing, though the devil, as usual, is in the details.

Also, I'd probably lose the +1 to marshall, because it rarely comes up in-game, is frequently forgotten, has very little effect and is an unneeded special rule in a list with more than enough already.

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

Go with the increased speed on the Abbatoir rather than the increased DC.

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter

zombocom, interesting suggestion w/ the abbatoir. the 25 cm movement would be nice.
also are you saying that we should decide on the changes that moscovian suggested, keeping other ones for next year?  if so i could live w/ that (would be better if we could get the wraiths changed).
if we are narrowing down the changes the only thing seemed up in the air was the point cost for the monolith formations. i think the 200 for 1 monolith/2 obelisks and 250 for 3 monoliths seemed good (could always be changed next year if needed)
BTW if these changes were made, would we need a whole year w/ them? most of them aren't major changes. then again maybe i should stick w/ the present.

If you can convince Corey to drop the SR, go for it.  
---
As for the prices on the Monolith formations, what do y'all think?  200 and 275 or 175 and 250?  I could go either way as there are good arguments for both directions.  I suppose we could try 182 and 262 but that might send Hena into a rage.  
---
Abattoir.  If I HAD to choose between a bump in DC or speed, I would say DC all the way.  The DC really represents how much damage the unit can take before it is non-operational, not necessarily destroyed.  That's why I don't have a problem with it being DC6.  If you add 5cm to the speed you are increasing its infiltrate assault radius by 10cm which is a LOT.  Stick that in the middle of your deployment zone and you can assault most of the board by turn 2.  That is also the speed of a Warlock titan which strikes me as really weird.  Maybe an extra Scarab swarm attack (for a total of 4 x AP5+/AT5+) or the extra portal or both.  That would be a nudge.  ---
The Deceiver change probably won't happen anyway although I think it is more than appropriate.  Anyone who likes the idea should say something, anyone who hates it should voice their opinion too.  Corey wasn't fond of it at the time so...

_________________
author of Syncing Forward and other stories...

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

I think 200 and 250 is fine for the monolith formations, at least for now. If playtesting shows a definite skew in favour of one or the other than obviously we can nudge at a later stage.

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

i don't believe anyones come right out and said it, but the armored phalanx (6 obelisks) would be going away correct? replaced by the monolith formations?
if this is true and the obelisk can only be taken as an upgrade to the monolith could the stats be changed to only 15 cm movement. honestly i don't really care i only bring it up because there was question earlier about how much an obelisk should cost (35 or 50 pts)

Thanks for reminding me. The obelisk formation needs to not be core, it's fine as a support formation though.

Personally I think it was fine when the infantry phalanx was the only core formation.

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

has that been a suggestion, moving the obelisks to a support formation? would be a cheaper option to the destroyers.

That was my original suggestion when we started this. The obelisk formation was a support formation until the very latest version of the list. Corey changed it at the last minute just before Raiders was released.

The destroyer formation and the obelisks don't really have the same role; the obelisks teleport but have less firepower and engagement ability, though better armour. They coexisted fine together as support formations until the latest version.

As a core formation they allow an entirely obelisk army, which is hardly a fluffy necron list, even before you consider the balance implications of an army of nothing but teleporting, fearless skimmers with reinforced armour.

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

As for the prices on the Monolith formations, what do y'all think?  200 and 275 or 175 and 250?

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter

However, I'd definately list the removal of the variable strategy rating as strongly supported. I think it's only Mosc and Corey who've been against the removal, and everyone else is for it. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

_________________
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.

While the 10cm idea has merit, I think it was batted about sufficiently before.

I agree that the Obelisk move to a core formation was not the best idea as it was completely untested.  With that said, nobody has shown it to be overpowered at all ever.  Not to my knowledge anyway.  It would be easy enough to playtest on Vassal if anyone wants to make a go of it with me, I will gladly play with it or shoot at it.  In the end, if it ain't broke, don't fix it.

_________________
author of Syncing Forward and other stories...

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

moscovian- so i was wrong w/ the armored phalanx? we will go from 2 core formations to 4 of them?
for some reason this doesn't seem right. when people think of necrons they think warriors and monoliths. these seem right for core formations. i agree w/ the whole "if it's not broke don't fix it" but putting them back in the support formations worked before (i'm assuming since i wasn't around then).

The two proposed Monolith formations would still be support formations, so those would stay put.

As for the Obelisks - you are preaching to the choir.  I didn't like the move to a core formation but I also respect Corey's decisions as the Army Champ.  Until he steps down, I will work to support his decisions rather than b!tch about them.  

That doesn't mean we should blindly do what the champ says, but I'd rather have something to support a claim that his idea is broken rather than a bunch of theory-hammering.  Anyone who thinks the Obelisk-as-a-core is broke is more than capable of testing it and posting a batrep.  The more the better.  I will throw in for a Vassal game for you folks that aren't in my area.  If it bends you that much out of shape to see them as a core, then lets get it resolved now.

_________________
author of Syncing Forward and other stories...

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

sorry i thought the monolith formations were being bumped to the core formations, don't know where i got that. still seems backwards w/ obelisks as core and monoliths as support, but like you said no one has proven it is broken.