Login |  Register |  FAQ
   
Post new topic This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 248 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 17  Next

Necron 4.2 - comments

 Post subject: Necron 4.2 - comments
PostPosted: Mon May 14, 2007 9:23 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Tue Sep 27, 2005 9:52 am
Posts: 876
Location: Brest - France
Hena posted Corey's latest version of the list HERE.

Very few modifications, probably due to a) Corey losing most of his notes and b) the list being in its final stages anyway.

My comments:

*** Gauss Flux Arc capped at +6 attacks

Not much to say, I think this is an excellent and much needed change.

*** Warbarque

Well... I can't say I'm thrilled about this new unit. I don't really like the concept or the stats, and it doesn't add anything new to the list.
Plus it seems to be coming out of the blue... Is there any reference to a "warbarque" somewhere in the fluff?
And finally, do we really need yet another model that players will have to scratch-build?

*** Others

- Obelisks are still overpowered, in my opinion. Dropping their armour to 5+RA would be a step in the right direction.

- Phase out : I love it but I think it's open to some abuses and/or strange situations. For example, more often than not, a Necron player wants his Monoliths to phase out in order to redeploy his army the following turn. So he will do his utmost to break them, while a clever opponent will avoid even shooting at them. How about this :

?* Necron units may always phase out at the end of a turn.
?* Broken Necron units must phase out, no choice.
?* Units that Phase out may not come back the following turn.


This would solve many problems AND make the whole army more balanced (I think it is slightly overpowered at the moment), while giving more tactical flexibility to the Necron player.






Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Necron 4.2 - comments
PostPosted: Mon May 14, 2007 10:17 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Tue Apr 04, 2006 7:45 am
Posts: 232
Location: Lyon, France

(Hojyn @ May 14 2007,09:23)
QUOTE
*** Warbarque

Well... I can't say I'm thrilled about this new unit. I don't really like the concept or the stats, and it doesn't add anything new to the list.
Plus it seems to be coming out of the blue... Is there any reference to a "warbarque" somewhere in the fluff?
And finally, do we really need yet another model that players will have to scratch-build?

I agree with Hojyn on that point. The Necron army doesn't need that unit. In addition I think that "Gauss Flux Arc" units should not be too numerous as it can be a very powerfull weapon.

- Obelisks are still overpowered, in my opinion. Dropping their armour to 5+RA would be a step in the right direction.


I agree.


?* Necron units may always phase out at the end of a turn.
?* Broken Necron units must phase out, no choice.
?* Units that Phase out may not come back the following turn.


This would solve many problems AND make the whole army more balanced (I think it is slightly overpowered at the moment), while giving more tactical flexibility to the Necron player.

If broken units may not come back the following turn, Necron players will never be able to win a tournament scenario as most of the Necrons units will phase out at the end of the second turn.

I disagree when you say that Necron players want their Monolith to phase out. No, I need some of them to phase out but I need the others to stay in order to support my troops (even in defensive positions).

If the main "phase out" problem is about Monoliths, I think that increasing their cost (75 to 85 or 90 points perhaps) is enough.

_________________
François Bruntz,
La Tribune de Laïtus Prime


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Necron 4.2 - comments
PostPosted: Mon May 14, 2007 12:22 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 24, 2005 3:06 pm
Posts: 9684
Location: Montréal, QC, Canada
I like this and it's nice to see an update.

I still think Immortals and Pariahs should be 50 points each, *especially* the Pariah (Maybe even +75 points for them) as 40 points is annoying.

_________________
"EPIC: Total War" Lead Developer

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


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Necron 4.2 - comments
PostPosted: Mon May 14, 2007 1:18 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Tue Sep 27, 2005 9:52 am
Posts: 876
Location: Brest - France

(fbruntz @ May 14 2007,10:17)
QUOTE

?* Necron units may always phase out at the end of a turn.
?* Broken Necron units must phase out, no choice.
?* Units that Phase out may not come back the following turn.


This would solve many problems AND make the whole army more balanced (I think it is slightly overpowered at the moment), while giving more tactical flexibility to the Necron player.


If broken units may not come back the following turn, Necron players will never be able to win a tournament scenario as most of the Necrons units will phase out at the end of the second turn.

Well, there would be several ways around the "may not come back the following turn" restriction :

- Keep formations in reserve
- Concentrate less on assaults (to avoid casualties) and more on terrain occupation/objective control
- Phase out damaged formations at the end of turn 1 instead of waiting for them to be broken on turn 2

I still think this could be at least worth a try, and it would certainly help to reduce the feeling of frustration of unprepared players or new players facing Necrons for the first time, while at the same time giving the Necron players more "tactical weapons" to use against experienced players (i.e. the Necron army would not always play the same).

I still think Immortals and Pariahs should be 50 points each, *especially* the Pariah (Maybe even +75 points for them) as 40 points is annoying.

I forgot to mention, but I agree with Chroma here. +50 each would be better. +75 might be a tad too much, but the Pariah is such a must-have that it might be OK.






Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Necron 4.2 - comments
PostPosted: Mon May 14, 2007 3:08 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2005 6:32 pm
Posts: 6414
Location: Allentown, Pennsylvania USA
I had posted these comments somewhere awhile ago about the Obelisks (maybe it was an email? I don't know now since I just saved them in a txt file). ?I had to do some digging to find them, but here they are...

On a separate note, I wanted to discuss the Necrons. ?The scout function on the Obelisks needs to go, amigo. ?It's too powerful. ?I understand the desire to keep it there, but it is really a doozy combined with the fearless.

The Flayed Ones are good enough as scouts and can be fielded just fine with their teleport.

Even broken units exert a ZoC, which is what makes {the Obelisks} so powerful in their current form. ?They teleport in and automatically force an opponent into an assault (or a retreat). ?If a nearby formation manages to break the Mon/Ob formation, they still are forcing the first formation into an assault or retreat. ?It is an ugly situation.


IMO this is the biggest problem with the Necron list. ?Obelisks are certainly powerful, but their armor isn't the culprit. ?Necrons have tremendous flexibility (too much?) so by removing the scout function from Obelisks you make the Necron player think twice about being "up in somebody's grill" and restore balance to the list.

+1 to Marshall Actions has never really been needed IMO.  Corey disagrees, but I thought I'd regurgitate that thought.

Phase Out I believe works just fine.  There are some things that are bent on the list, but this is not one of them.

As for the Warbarque, I'm obviously for it :;): , although I can understand other people's reservations. ?My only recommendation is to give it a crack. ?The list is sorely lacking a variety of unit types, not to mention something in the SHT-equivalent range. ?There isn't anything in the fluff that I know of, but I don't believe the Abbatoir was in the fluff either (and that certainly met with Jervis' approval back in the day).  And as for it being yet another model you "have to scratch build", I was able to build mine with relative ease compared to a Pylon or Monolith. :)

_________________
author of Syncing Forward and other stories...

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


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Necron 4.2 - comments
PostPosted: Mon May 14, 2007 3:46 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Tue Apr 04, 2006 7:45 am
Posts: 232
Location: Lyon, France

(Moscovian @ May 14 2007,15:08)
QUOTE
There isn't anything in the fluff that I know of, but I don't believe the Abbatoir was in the fluff either (and that certainly met with Jervis' approval back in the day).

Touch?.  :laugh:

_________________
François Bruntz,
La Tribune de Laïtus Prime


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Necron 4.2 - comments
PostPosted: Mon May 14, 2007 3:59 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 08, 2006 10:08 pm
Posts: 148
Location: Cleveland, OH, USA
The Warbarque definitely looks interesting... it seems like a Destroyer/Heavy Destroyer/Monolith all rolled into one.

The concept drawings of the Warbarque are pretty interesting as well:

Warbarque images

Should be fun to make one :D


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Necron 4.2 - comments
PostPosted: Mon May 14, 2007 4:30 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2005 6:32 pm
Posts: 6414
Location: Allentown, Pennsylvania USA
Warbarque pics if anyone is interested here on this thread (page 9 & page 10).

I have plans to make the 'gaping skull' warbarque as well, but after my current project is completed.





_________________
author of Syncing Forward and other stories...

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


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Necron 4.2 - comments
PostPosted: Tue May 15, 2007 12:41 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Tue Nov 08, 2005 5:02 pm
Posts: 525
Location: Baltimore MD
While there isn't any "fluff" for the Warbarque, there isn't for 3 other units either.  The Warbarque at least had the advantage of being at least a concept.

New things are needed because the concept for the Epic Necron army is that of a more fully awakened foe.  Most of the "fluff" in 40k is based off an Imperial point of view, and they don't know everything that went on in the past, so surprises are bound to crop up from time to time. :)

But it DOES add something to the list.  It adds:

1.)  The option of having a Supreme Commander without having to field a C'Tan
2.)  A long range fire unit.
3.)  A tougher mobile portal that doesn't phase out, and doesn't cost a fortune.

_________________
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: Necron 4.2 - comments
PostPosted: Tue May 15, 2007 12:43 am 
Purestrain
Purestrain

Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2003 10:52 pm
Posts: 9617
Location: Nashville, TN, USA
Out of curiosity, has anyone tried maxing out the Obelisks?  On paper they look pretty obscene.  Just for comparison, versus a Chaos Pred (also 50 points each), they have:

cons:
Roughly 1/2 the firepower, depending on the target formation and range, more against many targets.
Slightly lower strategy rating.
Less formation flexibility.

same speed and assault ability

pros:
RA
Thick Rear Armor
Scout
Skimmer
Teleport
Phase out (aka auto-rally)

The RA alone almost makes up for the firepower.  1-2 of the other abilities makes up for the rest, leaving the remaining abilities as pure bonus.

2325 would get:
Tomb complex
2 phalanxes (garrison in cover on DFT objectives)
6 formations of Obelisks

2700 leaves plenty for another portal formation or backup phalanx, with a few points still left over for upgrades.  Garrison the Phalanxes in terrain.  Teleport the Obelisks in behind them to do popups against anything that threatens the Phalanxes.  OW or Marshall the Phalanxes almost indefinitely.

That seems awfully wicked to me.

====

Warbarque:  Is that supposed to be 0-2 formations, or 0-1 formation of 1-2 Warbarques?

_________________
Neal


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Necron 4.2 - comments
PostPosted: Tue May 15, 2007 10:15 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Tue Apr 04, 2006 7:45 am
Posts: 232
Location: Lyon, France

(corey3750 @ May 15 2007,00:41)
QUOTE
But it DOES add something to the list. ?It adds:

1.) ?The option of having a Supreme Commander without having to field a C'Tan
2.) ?A long range fire unit.
3.) ?A tougher mobile portal that doesn't phase out, and doesn't cost a fortune.

I don't see any good point here.  :)

1) A C'tan is an expensive Supreme Commander, the Warbarke is also an expensive Supreme Commander

2) Necrons are a very good assault army and lack of long range units. This must not be changed or Necrons could become far too overpowered!

3) Necrons have enough portals : some are not so expensive but phase out, the other is very expensive but will stay in play longer and the last one can't be destroyed and protect the HQ. I don't think that Necrons need another kind of portal.

Adding super heavy units to the army could be an interesting idea but in this case we need to update the biggest war engines in order to keep the army balanced.

My opinion is that the Warbake is not needed. The converted miniature is beautifull but should be played as a count as of C'tan.

_________________
François Bruntz,
La Tribune de Laïtus Prime


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Necron 4.2 - comments
PostPosted: Tue May 15, 2007 11:35 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Mon Apr 23, 2007 11:30 am
Posts: 114
Location: Fife, Scotland
Hey, excellent work on the Necron army. I have one myself, and have long been wrestling with new vdr creations for them and what to build. Your stuff is an inspiration - I particularly like the look of the aeonic orb, how did you build it? Also, what kind of stats would you give the obelisks and orb in 40k?

_________________
L'enfer c'est les autres


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Necron 4.2 - comments
PostPosted: Tue May 15, 2007 12:53 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2005 6:32 pm
Posts: 6414
Location: Allentown, Pennsylvania USA
Recidivist - come, lets chat over here so we don't hijack the thread.

Fbruntz - you might be right on with your comments, but I think it would be impossible to say without playtesting it out.  I will promise to be as objective as possible when I report back on the Warbarque in combat this week.

Neal - I have to say you don't need to max out the Obelisks in order to wipe out your opponent.  I played a game where I used one formation, plus 3 obelisks with one Monolith, 2 with a second monolith, and 1 with a third.  The result of the game was I destroyed the Space Marines down to the man.  

ePilgrim and I played several games of Necron vs. IG, SM, and Squats.  Every game under the 4.1 rules resulted in a win, with the Obelisks being the clear cause of it.  

I'm going back almost a year so my memory might be fuzzy, but....  I believe both of us felt the scout ability was what needed to be removed, in addition to a bump in price.  I was pushing for 350 for the Obelisk formation with no change in the Monolith upgrades.  Steve wanted it to be 400 for the Obelisks plus 65 per Obelisk upgrade, plus limit the Monoliths to 2 Obelisk upgrades instead of 3.

We played a game with these changes and it was a decidely closer game.  Athough the Necrons won this game as well, we both agreed it was a result of 'fortunate die rolls'.  I won it on points with both of us claiming 2 victory conditions.

_________________
author of Syncing Forward and other stories...

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


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Necron 4.2 - comments
PostPosted: Tue May 15, 2007 1:38 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2006 3:13 pm
Posts: 185
Location: Dundee, Scotland
Hi!

A few comments :
1) Warbarque
I don't think a C'tan should  command every epic-scale  battle. So another supreme commander unit is IMHO welcome.
By the way, the wording should be changed so that one can't have 2 supreme commander.  On my behalf, I was thinking of an upgrade that gives SC to a necron lord.
I can't say anything more with no test!

For the other points I'm with Moscocian
* Obelisks : no scout
* No +1 to Marshall


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Necron 4.2 - comments
PostPosted: Thu May 17, 2007 12:34 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Tue Nov 08, 2005 5:02 pm
Posts: 525
Location: Baltimore MD
You can only have one "supreme Commander" in an army anyway.  But it is noted in the design notes at the bottom.

And you can have 2 formations of 1 Warbarque each.

There's a good reason for there being 4 units in a monolith formation.  3 units in a formation is an automatic break with the loss of a single unit.

as to the Obelisks, Even though I put in there that I'd adjusted their stats to what I thought I had long ago, I just noticed that I, in fact had NOT done that.

So, if you have a copy, change the Armor to 5+, and remove scout.

Now, I was willing to try out the Warbarque because frankly, it was a better option than the Aeonic Orb for a ranged fighter, or Abbattoir as a portal.

In a 2700-3000 point game (tournament standard), you can choose between having 1 Harvester Engine (plus a Pylon if you play 3000pts), a C'tan and 2 Warbarques, or 2 Warbarques and 1-2 Pylon(s).

In the first case, you have a big bad unit... which is a huge target.  If you are playing a big game, you might actually have some AA cover

In the second case, you get two tough portals and a nasty supreme commander.  Of course, it's basically open season for Aircraft.

the third option gives you some variety.


Now, sure, the Necron have great assault capability... but then so do the Eldar and Space Marines.  

I don't know if you've ever seen a clipping attack performed by Warp Spiders, but it is a thing of beauty.
You could build a Space Marine army built of all Terminators if you wanted, or Terminators and Assault Marines.

Or you can mix the brutal assault abilities these two armies posses, with the VASTLY superior ranged firepower ability they posses compared to the Necron, even with the Warbarque.  A formation of Predator Annihilators put out twice the firepower of an Obelisk formation for about the same cost... Falcons can put out almost three times the firepower.

Remember, as you look at all their advantages, the Necron have NO Air, No Artillery.  They can be shut down easily with Disrupt weapons, combined with putting down their Monoliths.  You don't even have to kill them, you just have to concentrate on breaking them on Turn 3 to sweep the board.

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


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.  [ 248 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 17  Next


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 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