atension wrote:
I'm ambivalent to the Warbarque and Abbatoir being in or not. Dropping them means for less portal options which im fine with.
i always thought these units as very "shoehorned" in the lists out of the necessity to have more WE options (especially in the early das of Necrons when the GW range wasn't that big). less Portals would also make them more "stationary" which i think is probalbly a good thing to make them play and feel different from the other lists.
atension wrote:
Noticed that the monolith points total needs to be updated.
good spot!
atension wrote:
Pylon is in every list also, figured I'd open up room for the other AA options
yeah right but seeing this as immobile it gets a more "garrisonesque" feel and it is visiually mor iconic
atension wrote:
MW on the Lychguard would be much too powerful and not in line with the fluff. They have shields that gives them the 3+ save and they have Necron which is really potent.
point taken, i am pondering ifgiving them "inspiring" is too harsh... makes them really good in CC but without overpowering the attacks. probably need to adjust the points then tough.
atension wrote:
Not sure what you mean by "stalkers from the arc phalanx to these guys" you mean the triarch stalkers to be listed as an upgrade to the lychguard formation? Have no issues with this. My thematic knowledge most is from 7th edition 40k. Interested to hear more though.
yes that's what i meant. The stalkers in the fluff are piloted by triarch preatorians, they explicitly travel from tombworld to tombworld to reunite the nercon empire... might be worth including them too because of this, maybe as a 0-1 support formation.
Sourceatension wrote:
No C'tan is intensional. Are they thematically present for an awakening tomb world?
cool with that. I don't think one is needed!