Indeed, space marines are so vital to anything GW related that the space marine constant must always be taken into account when making the smallest changes to anything that may ever relate to marines. Based on the proportionality of the number of marine players within the blast radius and the adjustment of the marine win/loss ratio, I believe this fundamental space marine constant is equivalent to 6.626068 × 10-³âÂ

_________________
AFK with real life, still checking PMs

Well, at least we will all be satisfied

_________________
If using E-Bay use this link to support Tac Com!
'Abolish red trousers?! Never! Red trousers are France!' – Eugene Etienne, War Minister, 1913
"Gentlemen, we may not make history tomorrow, but we shall certainly change the geography."
General Plumer, 191x

"During the harsh winter they were forced to eat Sir Robin's minstrels... And there was much rejoicing."

"Yea!"

_________________
author of Syncing Forward and other stories...

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

Harsh winter was part of my problem.

My car was buried, and I had no means with which to dig it out.

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

I agree on most of the changes, bar the ones to the Pylon which I think should stay as it is currently.

Good to see you back Corey and shame about the car!

ooh, Minstrels, one of my favourites!

_________________
numquam culum es

i find the best tool to dig out a snow buried car is... SPRING! but then again i grew up in chicago.

_________________
"god help me, i do love it so" - Patton

is there something i'm missing w/ the "leaving the blast markers while off board" thing. sure you get to bring units back but they aren't doing anything more then maybe taking an objective. i know that might sound silly but when you add 2 immobile (and probably broken) pylons, no real threat from ranged attacks, you will need those infantry formations to assault.
by leaving blast markers on you will leaving about half your formations from provding any offense (approx 3 inf formations and the perpetually broken pylons)

I can't really agree here. In total these changes make little difference to the average power level of the list, they just fix individual problems. Several of the changes are upgrades; the wraith and abbatoir changes being the most obvious examples.

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

So it's still the Pylon change you have the most problem with?

I understand your point, and personally I think the pylon is practically useless due to DC2, but the change to TK(1) on the AA shot makes almost no difference to the list, yet makes it a lot more acceptable to the outside world.

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

agreed and it's not like TK1 is horrible

Is the issue that TK d3 averages to 2 and thus blows a T-Hawk out of the air? Has a slight downgrade of TK d2 been considered before TK 1 was proposed?

_________________
Dave

Blog

NetEA Tournament Pack Website

Squats 2019-10-17

Matt, you are right about the BMs.  What it does is force the Necron player to Marshall vigorously throughout the game, since there is no good upside to any other activation.  If you have BMs off board, you activate on a 2+ instead of a 1+.  Rather than risk the non-activation the Necron player will Marshall at a +1 to the initiative, move onto the board, then add troops / remove BMs / both to strengthen his position, and then hope that the formation doesn't come under heavy fire and force it to break again.  It places the Necrons in a somewhat defensive position - odd for the army but not out of the scope of imagination.

From the opponent's perspective, he will see the same formations that he shot at and broke come back time and time again, often gaining back many (all?) of the losses it took between the Marshall and the rally phase.  But these formations will be less effectual since they will be simply absorbing fire and not firing back.  

How will this affect the Necron play?  I am guessing significantly, but I'd like to see what that looks like.

_________________
author of Syncing Forward and other stories...

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

Keeping blast markers will make Spyders much more useful.

In fact, you'd be crazy not to take them.  After all, any formation with them would become the next best thing to indestructible.

I'm sure people will regard with great satisfaction, seeing mostly dead formations return to the board and un-do ALL the damage done on the previous turn, rather than seeing a reduced size unit come back into play with no BM.  Far more entertaining to spend the entire game shooting a single formation that you can never seem to kill rather than weakening them to the point you can finish them off later.

As for the Pylons, if there's an insistance in changing their stats away from what GW says their stats are, then they might as well be made useful by making it a 3 Pylon formation for 200-300 points.   Then change the AA to a 3+ and the attack against ground targets to 5+.

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

Why go to this extreme, and with consequences that are largely untested to boot?  The small change being proposed would have negligible effects on the game.  As far as I know the only aircraft affected would be Thunderhawks, Landas, Vampires, and Marauder Destroyers.  Everything else is either bigger than DC3 or smaller than DC2.  One of the reasons I support the change is because it won't impact most Epic play at all but levels the playing field for four aircraft.

_________________
author of Syncing Forward and other stories...

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