Failing a roll to Martial isn't going to do you much good if you are trying to come onto the board.

However, the points balance comment is a telling argument.  It's enough to convince me to go with a fixed SR.

I believe you'd already put together a list to try earlier Moscovian.

***Edit - corrected my intended statement about the SR.

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

Lower SR (1 or 2) will make a teleport army very hard to run (bordering on pointless against most Epic armies).

If you want a fixed SR (and I understand the arguments for it) then fix it a 3 so that the Necrons at least have a 50% chance of activating first against most armies (only Guard are worse - EVERY other army is equal or better).

Just my 2 cents on this (and my last plea for keeping a playable SR for the Necrons).

_________________
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.

Onyx: I've played a teleport army at SR1 a lot, and it's fine.

SR 2 is a good compromise however.

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

The Necrons can throw down half a dozen Monolith formations around your lines, if you win the Strategy Rating you can still only escape from so many of them (remember that Monoliths can use their portals even if broken, so just breaking them isn't good enough, you have to flee or destroy them).

Two activations only allows you to mitigate so much of the Necron's initial thrust... but if the Necrons win the Strategy roll, generally you've handed the game to them, the synergy with mass teleports is that important.

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter

Good for you zombo.
I'm not sold on your argument.

3 is a good (playable) compromise. At 3 you only go 1st at best 50% of the time (against all but Guard). That is not broken.

Moscovian mentioned elsewhere that he believed the Necrons should be SR5 (but that was unplayable and I agree). If the list is changed, I'll just stick with the book list and keep playing fun games instead of Necron suicide games.

_________________
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.

Necrons need a low Strategy Rating to compensate for their frankly massive strengths in other areas.

I've seen what a skilfully handled SR3 Necron army can do, and it's ugly.

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter

Well, a SR1 is viable and I've played it as such when I wanted to bring a larger harvester engine.  

SR2 fixed will just be less interesting - IMO it won't affect the play other than giving me free reign to throw my C'tan around.  I'm fine with it mechanically, just finding it vanilla (much like the Eldar's loss of pulse weapons   ).

_________________
author of Syncing Forward and other stories...

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

you guys are forgetting one thing, monoliths won't be as plentiful now. w/ the new monolith formations we will be fielding less of them. i think SR2 won't be as vanilla as you think. BTW what number would be un-vanilla? SR6?  

Bingo...

There is also the continued mention of SR1 being ok but it seems like it's been played with the Harvesters (Orb/Abattoir) which would generally reduce the the number of Teleport attacks and their importance (when compared to an all teleporting army). Not really constructive to this discussion.

We're not talking about Terminators with a virtual guarantee of 1st action. We are talking about setting up a teleport attack with (generally) at best a 50/50 chance of actually  getting it to work (with SR3).

At some point playability is going to have to be remembered in this debate.

_________________
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.

Well, my understanding is Corey will be doing this the right way: suggesting some changes, asking people to play those changes, report them, THEN making a change to the list.  A little effort from everyone for the next 4 weeks means that we can get a solid set of list changes instituted and be able to stand by them.

_________________
author of Syncing Forward and other stories...

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

I don't like making a lot of changes at once if I can help it.  After all, frequenly one small thing will radically change an army.

A fixed SR 2 would be a good place to start.  It's a fundamental change of the army.

Also reducing the crit on C'tan.

Critical Hit: All units within 5cm take a Macro-weapon hit on a roll of 4+.

It's not a fundamental change, and it's a good one.

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

so what are your suggestions for change?

Could you post an actual "change doc", corey?

_________________
"EPIC: Total War" Lead Developer

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

Good lord... I'd have to rebuild it from scratch...

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

The core Obelisk formation has got to go to Support.

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter