Login |  Register |  FAQ
   
Post new topic This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 329 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 ... 22  Next

Necrons v4.4 thoughts

 Post subject: Necrons v4.4 thoughts
PostPosted: Wed Jan 30, 2008 2:50 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Fri Apr 20, 2007 1:49 am
Posts: 5569
Nicodemus: As to your point about strength D weapons instakilling monoliths, the Apocolypse rules are an abomination which should be ignored at all costs.

Pylons also get 3 shots under the apocalypse rules. Would you like that implemented as well to make it more in line? No? I wonder why.





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


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Necrons v4.4 thoughts
PostPosted: Wed Jan 30, 2008 3:02 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 08, 2006 10:08 pm
Posts: 148
Location: Cleveland, OH, USA

(Nicodemus @ Jan. 30 2008,01:31)
QUOTE
You invented that on yourself, or do you have that pagenumber from codex I have been looking for?



If necron-fanboys dont want to hear/listen to other opinions, it is their own shame. When army champion does the same, it is shame to whole game.

P.S. I have feeling that somepeople thinks that I just whine about Pylons and have never played against them. But I have.

Boy, you're a ton of fun, aren't you?  

You might want to stop slinging insults without all the facts of the list development.

And this thread is going waaaaaaay off topic from the initial post...  can we get a seperate thread about Pylons?


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Necrons v4.4 thoughts
PostPosted: Wed Jan 30, 2008 3:44 pm 
Purestrain
Purestrain

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

(Nicodemus @ Jan. 30 2008,11:53)
QUOTE
[quote="Moscovian,Jan. 30 2008,11:19"]
This was only questioned: "5.) As for phase out:  an entire game of 40k is only the time equivilent of one single assault in Epic.  So like 40k, when the Necron lose that assault and get broken (they are 'defeated') they phase out, returning to the Tomb Complex on some Tomb World to be re-organized and sent out once more.  And sometimes those units are too badly disorganized to be sent back quickly, and may never be ready until the battle is over... i.e. they don't rally."

Is that made up or does it have some proofs.

Which part?  A 40K game as a single assault in Epic is well-established canon.  It's been a design principal since the very first iteration of the playtest rules.

I'll let someone else comment on the finer points of the Necron background if needed, but to my lesser knowledge, everything stated was in keeping with my understanding of their intended feel and flavor.  Necrons phase out.  They repair rapidly.  They teleport in combat.  It's entirely reasonable that on a larger scale like an Epic battle, those abilities would cause successful return to the same conflict while still in progress.

What if somebody could explain to me why exactly ork nob is so weenie in epic (4 save, should be RA, 2 normal CC attack, other should be macro etc) when necron pet-monolith is better than in 40K (D weapons makes the monoliths go boom). Every nob in my 40K army is tooled like that.


Epic stats are not based on a particular set of upgrades in 40K.  They are based on the overall level of ability of the particular unit.  The idea is to simulate a mix of different gear in a proportion based on the background material, rather than what people take in min-maxed 40K armies.  You might note that not every Devastator squad in 40K is armed with just missile launchers.  However, they are all given MLs in Epic because it is a middle-of-the-road ability that is best for representing an overall mix of lascannons, heavy bolters, etc..

Apocalypse rules are at odds with Epic in several ways.  The scales and rule systems of the respective games prohibit direct map-over of abilities.  The goal is to make stats that are representative of the background material and reflect the proportional power in the 40K stats, not to convert them directly.

Why is that no-one have found me that little part of fluff from any Necron Book/Codex which justifies that pop out, pop back phase-out redeployment? Is it because it does not exist? So, drop that phase-out redebloyment and make them stay out if they phase-out.

If you're looking for something explicit, you're not going to find it.  The background material is written with an emphasis on 40K scale battles.  For Epic it is frequently necessary to extrapolate.

If you disagree with the method in which the background was expanded to include Epic scale, then you need to make the case the expansion is at odds with official sources, not just point out that it was an expansion.  Lack of direct "permission" (for lack of a better term) to include an ability is not repudiation of the concept, nor is a description of something at 40K scale justification for including the ability in Epic.

_________________
Neal


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Necrons v4.4 thoughts
PostPosted: Wed Jan 30, 2008 4:39 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

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

(Nicodemus @ Jan. 31 2008,05:24)
QUOTE

(Hena @ Jan. 30 2008,09:28)
QUOTE
Whaa, I like that part of Necrons :). With no autorally it should be workable. Besides 40k rules only makes phase out to work on small scale.

I would have nothing against it, if somebody would bother to prove that that is what necrons do. So far I have only learned that when things go bad for necrons, they pick their bones and leave. Maybe they try again some other day, but definedly not right away.

You could start with some of the novels that involve the Necron.

While they phase out when defeated on the small scale, they continue to return.

Such books as, Black Apostle, the Caves of Ice, Dawn of War Ascension show such things.


I'm not shutting out ideas, opinions or suggestions, but I have to base the work on actual test data.  There are plenty of things that look good on paper, but don't actually perform as expected on the field.

Take Dreadnaughts for example.  Stat-wise they are a great unit, but are rarely ever used.  That's because in actual games they pin down the Marine formations they are attatched to, much like Wraithlord and Wraithguard do to Guardians.

As to the Nobs, what I have always seen in Epic is that they take the base unit to translate over without upgrades (I'd have starcannon on Eldar tanks if I could).  It probably would have been a good idea for them to do a variant nob with the power armor.

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


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Necrons v4.4 thoughts
PostPosted: Wed Jan 30, 2008 4:41 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

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

(zombocom @ Jan. 31 2008,06:27)
QUOTE
With regard to the Heavy Destroyer AA issue, it seems that I have become the only one left campaigning for it, so I will remove my suggestion, bowing the to obvious desires of the community.

My proposed stats now change to 1xAT3+.

actually reducing their over all hitting power but improving it's accuracy is a pretty good idea.

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


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Necrons v4.4 thoughts
PostPosted: Wed Jan 30, 2008 4:48 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Sat Nov 05, 2005 12:13 am
Posts: 8711
Location: Leipzig, Germany, Europe, Sol III, Orion Arm, Milky Way, Local Group, Virgo Supercluster, Universe
Chroma is right. The Nobz in Epic are NOT Nobz in Megaarmour.

And for translating Wh40k weapon stats directly into Epic...i have invented a system which exactly does this. And the values i came up with are to a great percentage identical to the weapon stats used in official and experimental weapon stats.

_________________
We are returned!
http://www.epic-wargaming.de/


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Necrons v4.4 thoughts
PostPosted: Wed Jan 30, 2008 5:05 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jul 26, 2005 8:27 pm
Posts: 451
Location: Finland

(nealhunt @ Jan. 30 2008,14:44)
QUOTE
I'll let someone else comment on the finer points of the Necron background if needed, but to my lesser knowledge, everything stated was in keeping with my understanding of their intended feel and flavor. ?Necrons phase out. ?They repair rapidly. ?They teleport in combat. ?It's entirely reasonable that on a larger scale like an Epic battle, those abilities would cause successful return to the same conflict while still in progress.

Ok, the general consensus is "we just desided that they do it". It is entirely reasonable too that they cant return to same conflict. But if backround does not find ANY mention of necrons that actually return after been phased out I still think that way epic is handling it is wrong. So I do stand behind my opinion: No phase-out redeployment.


Epic stats are not based on a particular set of upgrades in 40K.


2 assault cannons on termies, anyone?

Apocalypse rules are at odds with Epic in several ways. ?The scales and rule systems of the respective games prohibit direct map-over of abilities. ?The goal is to make stats that are representative of the background material and reflect the proportional power in the 40K stats, not to convert them directly.

Yeah, Apocalypse is quite strange. BUT it is _official_. GW:s aswer to "can monolith take hit by Volcano Cannon and shug it off like it was missile?" is "No, it blews apart".

I dont like living metal because it is unneeded special rule. Other armies pay premium for ability to wipe lone tank to oblivion, necrons just laugh and shrug the hit away.


@tv1013: Hard to be sporty chap when Army Champions reaction to my opinions is: I dont care, go playtest. If something works in theory, it brobably works in practice too and vice versa. If I would try to develope something, I would be delighted if others would share their opinion, even, and exspecially, if it would be different/against mine.

I must be masochist. I know that talking/writing in these forums dont matter and still I try.





_________________
Eradication of Earth's
Population loves Polaris


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Necrons v4.4 thoughts
PostPosted: Wed Jan 30, 2008 5:10 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jul 26, 2005 8:27 pm
Posts: 451
Location: Finland

(corey3750 @ Jan. 30 2008,15:39)
QUOTE
You could start with some of the novels that involve the Necron.

While they phase out when defeated on the small scale, they continue to return.

Such books as, Black Apostle, the Caves of Ice, Dawn of War Ascension show such things.

Ok, cool! So there IS justification in fluff to that kind of action.

Then that leaves just Pylon and living metal.

Take Dreadnaughts for example. ?Stat-wise they are a great unit, but are rarely ever used. ?That's because in actual games they pin down the Marine formations they are attatched to, much like Wraithlord and Wraithguard do to Guardians.


Heh, actually I dont take them because _they look bad in the paper_, and had not missed them. I had theory: Bad unit, slows down formatio. Just like it happens in game. I did not need to playtest that to see it.

EDIT: Just when I had posted my upper post I found that Corey had aswered...





_________________
Eradication of Earth's
Population loves Polaris


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Necrons v4.4 thoughts
PostPosted: Wed Jan 30, 2008 5:20 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Sat Nov 05, 2005 12:13 am
Posts: 8711
Location: Leipzig, Germany, Europe, Sol III, Orion Arm, Milky Way, Local Group, Virgo Supercluster, Universe
@Nicodemus: With your proposal a Necon formation which looses an assault would be completely removed and never come back. Thus a Necron army would be more fragile than Eldar and pop easier in assaults than Tau.




_________________
We are returned!
http://www.epic-wargaming.de/


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Necrons v4.4 thoughts
PostPosted: Wed Jan 30, 2008 5:26 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Fri Apr 20, 2007 1:49 am
Posts: 5569
What precicely is your problem with the pylon? It's an exact conversion from the 40k rules, which is exactly what you are campaigning for on the other issues.

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


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Necrons v4.4 thoughts
PostPosted: Wed Jan 30, 2008 5:30 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Fri Apr 20, 2007 1:49 am
Posts: 5569
Corey: Destroyers have a multiple shot weapon in 40k whereas the heavy destroyer is single shot. It seems reasonable to me to have the heavy destroyer only have a single shot, though a more accurate one. At AT3+ I think they're roughly equal in power to the standard destroyers, when you take the firefight difference into account. Therefore there would be no need for a price increase for heavys, and a standard price could be kept. I'd suggest 375 and a possible speed decrease.

That should neatly bring them into ballance while keeping their role as a heavy shooting platform formation.

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


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Necrons v4.4 thoughts
PostPosted: Wed Jan 30, 2008 5:32 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jul 26, 2005 8:27 pm
Posts: 451
Location: Finland

(rpr @ Jan. 29 2008,07:11)
QUOTE
My main concern with Pylon is that it changes the game setting too much. Remove it from main list and use it in scenarios and all is fine. But as a "random opponent", it changes game field too much. It is not about that it cannot be countered - it is about that an army must use considerable force to counter it before any normal battle can occur. And that, IMNSHO, is what is against GT balanced armies list idea.

zombocom: That sums it up quite nicely (about Pylons).

@BlackLegion: Hopefully you noticed my previous post in where I (when given proofs) dropped "no-phase-out redeployment" from my "little list". Unfortunately I dont have time to read through some Black Library crap, so I just have to take Coreys word for (from?) it.

Little List is:

1) Drop Pylon. (And give them some AA-Obelisk)
2) Drop Living Armour. (And give them INV save and RA. There are already "necron" special rule and phase-out, no need to others)





_________________
Eradication of Earth's
Population loves Polaris


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Necrons v4.4 thoughts
PostPosted: Wed Jan 30, 2008 5:37 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Sat Nov 05, 2005 12:13 am
Posts: 8711
Location: Leipzig, Germany, Europe, Sol III, Orion Arm, Milky Way, Local Group, Virgo Supercluster, Universe
Ok thenyouhave proof now :)

1) Don't know. Quite like the unit. Don't know if it is really needed. We have to wait 1 year or so until the new Necron Codex appears :)
2) As i posted previoulsy: Living Armour should be like ReinforcedArmour but should ignore the effects of MW and Lance but TK works as usual.

_________________
We are returned!
http://www.epic-wargaming.de/


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Necrons v4.4 thoughts
PostPosted: Wed Jan 30, 2008 5:39 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Fri Apr 20, 2007 1:49 am
Posts: 5569
It seems hypocritical that your argument against living metal and your prior argument against phase out redeployment was that they work differently in 40k and the background.

The pylon really is officially in the background, and the rules are a direct conversion from 40k. Is it potentially powerful? Certainly, but so are a lot of other things. Titans are potentially very powerful and difficult for some lists to deal with. Aircraft are potentially very powerful and VERY difficult for some lists to deal with.

You don't need a tailored army list to beat the pylon, just anything capable of laying 2 blast markers.

Pylons are also not cheap. They cost the same as a shadowsword, which has a much better main gun against anything but aircraft, an extra DC and is mobile. If the opponent doesn't have any planes the pylon is a real waste of points.

It's really, really not that bad.





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


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Necrons v4.4 thoughts
PostPosted: Wed Jan 30, 2008 5:39 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jul 26, 2005 8:27 pm
Posts: 451
Location: Finland

(BlackLegion @ Jan. 30 2008,16:37)
QUOTE
2) As i posted previoulsy: Living Armour should be like ReinforcedArmour but should ignore the effects of MW and Lance but TK works as usual.

I would go for pure RA (for the sake of KIS) and INV. But that would be a step to right direction... Nah, still too complicated. :)



@zombocom: Yeah, maybe. Making list to Epic is weird compilation of fluff, 40K and previous Epic. I just think that Living metal could be made to work much easier with RA and INV. But then again, re-deployment seemed to be against backround and Living metal is just unneeded and annoying. RA and INV is just other, easier, way to represent something from fluff/40K in Epic, so sorry if I cant see it as hypocrite.





_________________
Eradication of Earth's
Population loves Polaris


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 329 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 ... 22  Next


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 11 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

Search for:
Jump to:  


Powered by phpBB ® Forum Software © phpBB Group
CoDFaction Style by Daniel St. Jules of Gamexe.net