Now THAT is a good point.

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

And hypothetically just up-pointing the C'tan wouldn't really fix this,  because the advantage of having a C'tan in a 5,000 point game would proportionally be worth much more than in a 2,000 point game say.

Your background argument for having it is perfectly reasonable though.

Thanks, zombocom ! I've tried to say that several times in one form or another, but you've summed it up perfectly.  

I'm not 100% sure, but I think Ulthwe (or was it the Chaos list?) set a precedent for rejecting a variable SR because points cost can never be adjusted properly.

So, Corey, is there a list of changes that you recommend playtesting before we make any decisions?

_________________
author of Syncing Forward and other stories...

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

Then make a C'Tan cost a fixed amount, plus a percentage of the force limit.

Too awkward IMHO, and it'd have to be a pretty big percentage (maybe as much as 15%-20%).

I'd just fix the Necrons at SR1, where they're more balanced anyway.

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter

Personally, I think the C'tan/Supreme Commander, if included in an army, should always be a "Break Their Spirit" formation, in addition to the most expensive formation; this would help as a "cost" for the higher Strategy Rating they bring as well.

_________________
"EPIC: Total War" Lead Developer

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

Nah, BTS is easy to win against necrons already, thanks to phase out.

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

So, perhaps that can be one of the army's significant weaknesses.  Also deters C'tan bombs and such.

_________________
"EPIC: Total War" Lead Developer

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

I think Zombo's point is that it already is a weakness of the Necron army, adding it to the C'tan will change little.

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter

I rather like that idea, it represents just how rare and precious they are. Other armies might field important units/formations but if the enemy kills your God on the battlefield, that's gota hurt and be a big downer no matter how well the rest of the battle goes (in an OT that is unlikely to mean much to anyone this remind me of a moment in a Faction Paradox audio where the all-powerful Sutekh mentally flays an agent of the Time Lord Great Houses and corrects her in a voice dripping with arrogance, power and callous menace that 'No, he is not the attacking army's general, he is their God').

While we're at it, can we get rid of the +1 to marshall in the name of cleaning out special rules? Does anyone really think this is needed, given the large number of special rules in the list?

It almost never comes up ingame, and when it does, failing a marshall rarely matters since you can hold anyway...

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

Since we're regurgitating arguments for things, might I remind all of you that the BTS goal is only for the tournament scenario.  That means using that as a way of mitigating the C'tan means it will be out of whack for all other scenarios.

_________________
author of Syncing Forward and other stories...

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

Good point.

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter

The BTS thing strikes me as adding one special rule to fix another, whereas the better solution is just to lose the variable strategy rating.

The list has more than enough special rules already

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