Here's a link to one of my Murder of Monolith battle reports, mnb, to see something like that in action.

_________________
"EPIC: Total War" Lead Developer

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

chroma- thanks for the link. thought i read most of the necron stuff on here but must of missed that one. seeing as that game didn't work out all that well did you try any variations to the list? if so was it successful? because zombocoms version looks like it would be pretty tough, at least on paper (like the pylons)

Murder of Monoliths Redux, Battle 2

_________________
"EPIC: Total War" Lead Developer

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

Well, after 7 pages nobody said "special rule X or unit Y is broken (Pylon excepted)" so it doesn't look that bad. Apparently, all the list needs are some adjustments here and there, namely:

- A fixed Strategy Rating of 2 ;

- 2 support formations per Phalanx;

- No more solo Monoliths (minimum formation 1 Monolith + 2 Obelisks for 200 pts?);

- downgraded Pylon (ground shot stays the same, only AA shot is reduced - 75cm, AA5+ TK(1) is fine by me);

- downgraded C'tan (no more "nuclear bomb" critical and/or always counts as BTS objective when present).

If this fixes all or most problems of the list, then it wasn't that overpowered in the first place.

EDIT: and as Zombocom pointed out: where is Corey?

I want to emphasize that I wasn't at any of the games.  However, what they said is similar to what Zombo says.

They felt castling up was pointless.  Cramming formations together like that was just begging for death.  It effectively allowed the Necrons to take control of the pace of battle and just peel the onion layers one at a time, on their terms.  If you have a guaranteed run of activations, it's easy to plan assaults 2 or 3 deep.  With the enemy crammed together in a castle defense, it allows the slow Necrons to do the equivalent of an Eldar style rolling assault.

It was something like...

* Various move/shoot or stall actions until the enemy runs out of activations.

* Clipping assault.  Get one of the "second target" formation units in range so they pick up a blast marker when the first target loses.  Everything else is as close as possible without triggering additional support fire.

* Necrons consolidate forward so to support the next assault.

* Clipping assault 2.  Repeat until you're out of activations or portals.

Phalanxes were used for assaults close to portals, with Eques formations to extend the range and flexibility for the follow on assaults.

Overwatch helps some but it has limitations.  If you shoot at Necrons during the move/shoot/stall phase as those formations expose themselves you do not have anything left for the wave of assaults.  If you wait for the assaults on OW the move/shoot formations degrade you and Necrons pick targets that minimize the number of OW units that can fire (or they don't come on at all, leaving you sitting on OW at the end of the turn with nothing to show for it).  To put it another way, it's a choice between being a target for rolling assaults or dying a death by a thousand cuts.

_________________
Neal

thanks hojyn for trying to keep the discussion on track. it doesn't do any good to keep making complaints if there's no solution.
i think having both monolith + obelisks and 2 support formations per phalanx are 2 cures for the same problem (popcorn monolith armies). wouldn't one or the other be good?
ctan bomb? yes it could be harmful to your own units..... once. i don't see anyone making the mistake again. having a unit that you want to die (especially a god) is just plain stupid. if c'tan were made to be BTS i think that it would keep people from using them. i vote for downgrading the critical (less range/ hits on a 4+).
pylon- i personally think it is fine the way it is (actually a litte weak in the DC). but since everyone hates the AA portion, i would vote TK1. if the range is reduced keep it the TK the same.
otherwise i agree w/ everything else w/ one more addtion- wraiths. stats about the same as flayed ones but only half the units for the same point cost. 1 more attack and i think they would be fine.

I had a long post but the forum shutting down this morning killed it.  Grrrr!  
You have all been spared.

I think two of these are good solid recommendations that I could get behind:
1. Change the C'tan criticals to something less - my suggestion is a MW hit on a 4+ on all units within a 5cm radius.
2. Change the Monolith formations to one Monolith + 2 Obelisks for 200.  I actually thought of this when I woke this morning and was pleased to see somebody else thinking the same thing.

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.

I think there are some other possible changes that could be done but I don't believe they all need to be done.  It is indeed possible that none of them have to be done.
1. Change to 2 support formations - I think this is redundant as MNB suggested.  One or the other but certainly not both. If I had to choose between the two I would choose the Monolith + 2 Obelisk formation because it kills the popcorn problem (real or perceived).
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.
3. Pylon change of some small degree.  Point bump or TK reduction, but nothing past that.  

My argument against changing the Pylon
I disagree with Hena that function trumps all.  The fluff defines the unit and we need to adhere to that a closely as we dare.  Obviously shooting spacecraft out of the sky would be unnecessary, but this is a monster of a weapon with a tremendous range.

I also disagree that rock-paper-scissors units break the game.  Case in point...
The Deathstrike Missile formation
It can cause 2-12 DC in damage (enough to take out an 850 point titan)
It hits on a 2+.
You get two hits.
It can move.
It can hit anything.
It costs 150 points.

If you are playing opposite of a set of Deathstrikes, kiss any two war engines goodbye.  That is around 500 points that will never get to move and possibly two formations (depending on the army you are playing with).  Against an Eldar titan, it could mean the end of 850 points without you even moving.  Same with the IG, Space Marines, Orks, etc., once you factor shield stripping from artillery.

The Pylon hits once per turn on a 3+ (sustained) and on a 4+ for AA.  
It does half the damage of a single Deathstrike missile.
It can't move.
It still must get LOS on land-based targets.
Against air formations it can only destroy one unit per formation.
It's main function (AA) is greatly reduced in value if the enemy is missing aircraft.  If they are missing WE's then it is near worthless.
It has a 30% of getting a BM just by appearing on the board (teleporting).  Either that or get stuck in the deployment zone where LOS will interfere even more.
It is the only AA for the entire army so it is the #1 target whether or not it is a threat to big landing WEs.
It faces two restrictions (WE and Support slots) which -despite being 'inelegant'- works to curb their numbers.

This is just one comparison.  The Shadowsword is another rock-paper-scissors unit.  And there are more I am sure.

Reduce their stats in range or accuracy and you are almost guaranteeing to compel the Necron player to bring two or more per game.  As I see it, the only formations that are at terrible risk from the Pylons are 2DC flying war engines (Vampires, Thunderhawks, Orcas, are there any more?).  The rest of them are in good shape.  Eldar and Ork flying formations will easily break -and probably destroy- a Pylon.  IG and SMs can bring very cheap flying formations to combat and strike Pylons.  And this is before you can even factor in what garrisons and fast-attack formations can do.  Add that to potential BMs from teleporting and you are looking at the Pylon being the biggest paper tiger in Epic.

Even Zombocom's summaries (who so far on this thread is the only person who has an overwhelming win ratio with the Necrons) don't show multiple Pylons.

In summary, I think the only people who really have a complaint against the Necrons are people who field lots of aircraft or who bring Thunderhawks and -to a lesser extent- Landing Craft regularly.
I also feel if you take care of the top two points (and perhaps one or two of the possibles), you will eliminate almost all of the worries for the Necron list.
---

I'll call the Tech Priests and see if they can wake the Dragon (a.k.a. Corey) for us.

_________________
author of Syncing Forward and other stories...

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

nealhunt: Yep, that's very close to the sort of tactics I've found effective. "Onion peeling" is precisely the name for it. See this thread for where I've mentioned this metaphor before: http://www.tacticalwargames.net/forums....;st=15#

If you spread your forces out, the necrons instantly leap in and wipe out half your army.

If you castle up, the necrons sit back and peel you away layer by layer, with rolling assaults once you're out of activations.

The only real change I make to those tactics is that instead of consolidating to support, I generally consolidate though a second portal to offboard to ensurethe opponent gets no chance to attack my infantry for a couple of turns.

The basic premise of the list is the teleport/portal/assault/phase-out set of mechanics, and even with the alteration requiring rallying off-board, this is still a more powerful set-up that most armies have access to. It is in this basic tenet of the list that I feel the main problem still lies, causing the overpowering of the list.

There are several possible solutions. Firstly, I recommend raising the price of the basic warrior phalanx, as this is the formation most able to utilise these tactics. Secondly, perhaps formations shouldn't lose all BMs when rallying offboard; perhaps they should rally and lose half BMs as normal, though obviously be specified that they can't bring bases back to life offboard. This would stop phase-out being such an advantage, which it currently still is.

More extreme suggestions could include some kind of "portal capacity", whereby each monolith could only transport 6 units per turn, requiring bigger formations to come out of larger, multi-monolith formations, thus limiting the number of portals available in the turn and making single monoliths less viable. Warbarques, Abbatoirs and the Tomb Complex would obviously have a larger portal capacity.

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

Moscovian: The more I think about it, the more it seems the solution to the Pylon is to up the DC to 3, and raise the points to 250 or even 300. Single pylons become more viable, but multiples become too expensive to take.

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

zombocom- is raising the cost of infantry really needed? to rally off board it would cost an extra 190 points (one monolith to bring them on and 65 points for the one taking them off). over 400 points is pretty expensive.
moscovian- you don't think the change to SR 2 would be a good idea? otherwise agree w/ the comments

I really think the infantry need to go up in points, yes. The monoliths get their own activation, which allows them to draw out almost all the opponent's activations before the infantry are commited, which isn't taken into account in their points costs.

You don't always need a second portal to get them offboard, they just break and tada, losing all BMs in the process at the moment. Phase-out is still a definate advantage for the necrons.

The infantry might not need to go up in points if something else is done about the phase-out/portal etc mechanic, such as not automatically losing all BMs when offboard.

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

No, the effective range of the Shadowsword is 105cm and it can move throughout the game, has a higher DC and in general more utility.  Really the only thing the Pylon does that is superior is FF.

Okay, Hena, let's talk about AA.  What is more effective?  Four Hydras or one Pylon?  I would assert the Hydras are more effective as AA units despite the range being a fraction of the Pylon's.  Compare it against four Firestorms?  Firestorms will win hands down.

The AA weapon is only brutal against a very specific type of air unit, which I find ironic since there are so many complaints about the game of Epic needing to stay focused on non-air units.  But anyways-

(This is not a dig on Zombocom) Outside of Zombocom, I really haven't seen these Pylons doing what people are afraid of them doing.
--
I submitted the first set of drawings to Dezartfox over at Vassal for his review and hopefully he'll approve.  If not it is back to the drawing board (literally).  Soon though I think we can get Necrons (and Dark Eldar) on VASSAL and many of these disagreements can become grudge matches for us to try out.

_________________
author of Syncing Forward and other stories...

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

I think just the opposite - raising it to DC3 will take away the main weakness of the unit - the ability to easily break it.  I don't want them more viable!  The point cost change will help some, but not enough.  Somebody out there will drop two DC3 WE's on the two highest hills in the direct center of the board.  At best you are looking at 2 BMs total for the both of them and probably only 1.

If a 2DC Pylon has a BM, you just need to shoot at it and it breaks.  You are obligated to cause a point of damage or fire with two formations to break a 3DC Pylon.

If a 2DC Pylon has no BMs, you can break it with a single point of damage from one volley.  A DC3 Pylon will need to be shot at twice at a minimum.  

Rallying will put 3DC Pylons in a better position.

FF attacks will be that much better on 3DC Pylons and God help anyone if you put them right next to each other to mutually support each other.

At the same time their offensive utility hasn't changed so I will be more inclined to move them closer to the enemy and hope for a critical or at a minimum hold enemy objectives with them.  As of now, Pylons typically teleport to well defendable objectives on the defending side or deploy by the Tomb Complex.  Anything outside of those two areas and they are doomed to destruction by fast attack or garrisoned forces.

Of course you'll get some people who won't play them at all, citing that the cost is too high.  Now you've just killed a unit from the list (not good).

_________________
author of Syncing Forward and other stories...

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

I still have yet to see anyone provide a reason why you would ever want to teleport a Pylon.  Why risk the BM?  They can guard the entire board (with respect to aircraft) from the deployment zone.  If you want to hide them for protection, they can easily be out of LoS.  If you want them to have a lane of fire, you can usually do that instead and they can still reach the other side of the board.

The only reason I can think of to teleport them is if you want them to hold an advanced objective.  However, I'm hesitant to think that a virtually universally teleporting army needs to use Pylons to grab objectives so I'm not sure the downsides wouldn't still outweigh the advantage.

_________________
Neal