Login |  Register |  FAQ
   
Post new topic This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 204 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14  Next

NetEA Sautekh Legion (Newcrons) 0.4 [Experimental]

 Post subject: Re: NetEA Sautekh Legion (Newcrons) 0.3 [Experimental]
PostPosted: Sun Oct 26, 2014 2:07 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Tue Oct 24, 2006 10:34 am
Posts: 137
Location: Sweden
I have some questions regarding the the army list.
Necron characters - A warrior phalanx consists of "Six Sautekh Warrior units and one Lord character". English is not my first language but the way I read this is that a phalanx consist of 6+1=7 stands. But neither the Necron Lord nor the Canoptek (is that a typo? the "lieutenant" type character is called Cryptek in the codex.) has a full stat bar, suggests they should be upgrades and not stands on their own.

I also wonder what happens with a Warrior stand that has a "Necron Lord" upgrade. I assume it will still have the "Necron" stat from the warrior as well as "Leaader, Invulnerable save" (note typo of leader in the list).
That would mean that the Necron Lord always would be the first choice to resurrect, is that the way it was designed?

Ghost Arks - I'm contemplating building a non teleporting Necron army, using Ghost Arks as transports for a more conventional army. Is there a special reason why the upgrade is capped at 3 Arks? I would like to take the warrior upgrade and 5 arks.

Sentry Pylons and regular pylons have the upgrade option "Pylon Network", but the rules never specify what that is.

In the vehicle list there is a "Tesseract Ark" listed (a really stupid name seeing as it looks more like a cross between a Tomb Blade and a Annihilation Barge, and pretty far from both "Tesseract Vault" and "Ghost Ark"). But in the army list it doesn't show up as either a support formation nor as an upgrade. Either get rid of it (my preferred method, there are enough vehicles to scratchbuild anyway), or have them "count as" Annihilation Barges, or if you really want them in the list make them an upgrade to the Annihilation Barge (they are practically the same anyway, except the Tesseract Ark is really tough to kill 3+ RA and invulnerable save, might be a little to much).

Tomb Blades, Annihilation Barge, Tesseract Ark - Shouldn't at least some of these be classified as light vehicles?
(I would prefer tomb blades as they are counted as infantry requires minimum 2x the number of models having to be manufactured :-)

"Tesseract Vault", points cost wise they are the same as "Warhounds" and close to "Engines of Vaul". Why wouldn't you be allowed to take a unit of 2? Is there a fluff reason why it's restricted to 0-1?


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: NetEA Sautekh Legion (Newcrons) 0.3 [Experimental]
PostPosted: Sun Oct 26, 2014 2:17 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2008 9:15 am
Posts: 1832
Location: Oslo, Norway
Shoel wrote:
I have some questions regarding the the army list.
Necron characters - A warrior phalanx consists of "Six Sautekh Warrior units and one Lord character". English is not my first language but the way I read this is that a phalanx consist of 6+1=7 stands. But neither the Necron Lord nor the Canoptek (is that a typo? the "lieutenant" type character is called Cryptek in the codex.) has a full stat bar, suggests they should be upgrades and not stands on their own.

I also wonder what happens with a Warrior stand that has a "Necron Lord" upgrade. I assume it will still have the "Necron" stat from the warrior as well as "Leaader, Invulnerable save" (note typo of leader in the list).
That would mean that the Necron Lord always would be the first choice to resurrect, is that the way it was designed?


Necron Lords are Characters, which are, as you've guessed, an upgrade to a unit. Full rules are in the rulebook, but basically:

- A character has only a partial statline, because it is not a unit in itself
- A character is added to another unit before the game. For infantry this is generally represented by replacing one of the models on the stand with a character model, but you can also do other stuff like modeling the stand as a full command squad for the character or making a marker that you put next to the unit.
- A character that is added to a unit adds his weapons and any special rules to the unit. So a warrior unit with a Necron Lord would keep its statline (move 15cm, armour/cc/ff 5+/5+/4+), have Gauss Flayers and Staff of Light as weapons (giving it 1 shooting attack and 2 attacks in assaults) and Necron, Leader and Invulnerable Save as special rules


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: NetEA Sautekh Legion (Newcrons) 0.3 [Experimental]
PostPosted: Sun Oct 26, 2014 3:11 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Tue Oct 24, 2006 10:34 am
Posts: 137
Location: Sweden
:-) I'm fully aware of the rules for characters, my point was that the wording in the army list is open for interpretation. It should be something like "Six Sautekh Warrior units and one Lord
character upgrade".
Interesting note, when I look through the lists, i find that all the original lists had stats for compulsory commanders (colonels in IG and Farseers in Eldar), and upgrade for chosen characters (commissar. exarch Marine captain).

But most of the new ones use the same wording as this (My army lists might be out of date, i noticed for instance that my old squat list had hearthguard commander and my latest has full statline for the hearthguard).
Notice that they use the same wording in the army list "Nine Warrior units and one Hearthguard unit". Hence the confusion.

The same with the necron ability. The point was that since all phalanxes are guaranteed to repair one stand every turn. The warlord will be impossible to kill unless the phalanx is wiped. Which in my mind feels fluffy (seeing as he has som extra resurrection abilities in the codex), but also kind of silly in Epic scale.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: NetEA Sautekh Legion (Newcrons) 0.3 [Experimental]
PostPosted: Sun Oct 26, 2014 3:29 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2008 9:15 am
Posts: 1832
Location: Oslo, Norway
Necron Lords do not have to go with Warriors, they can also go in Immortal units (at least in the original Raiders list). And they do not use confusing wording, the wording is quite clear - 6 warrior *units* and 1 Lord *character*.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: NetEA Sautekh Legion (Newcrons) 0.3 [Experimental]
PostPosted: Sun Oct 26, 2014 7:08 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Tue Oct 24, 2006 10:34 am
Posts: 137
Location: Sweden
Another thing I found reading the army list but now I'm really nit picky :-)

The Monolith has a "Gauss Flux Arc" (15cm) Extra attack +1
Pylon and Warbarque have "Gauss Flux Ark" (15cm) Extra attack +2

http://www.gingersoftware.com/english-online/spelling-book/confusing-words/arc-ark

I assume it should say Arc on all three. And perhaps Pylon and Warbarque should have "2x Gauss Flux Arc (15cm) Extra attack +1"?


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: NetEA Sautekh Legion (Newcrons) 0.3 [Experimental]
PostPosted: Sun Oct 26, 2014 8:46 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 08, 2007 7:30 am
Posts: 1480
Location: Örebro, Sweden
Shoel wrote:
"Necron Lord" upgrade.

I'm not trying to be rude, but I don't see the problem though. It says "Six Sautekh Warrior units and one Lord character". The basic rules tells us what a character is. Isn't that clear enough?

Shoel wrote:
Ghost Arks - I'm contemplating building a non teleporting Necron army, using Ghost Arks as transports for a more conventional army. Is there a special reason why the upgrade is capped at 3 Arks? I would like to take the warrior upgrade and 5 arks.

A formation with 5 arks, 6 times leader (with the lord), skimmer arks with 5+ RA and a total of 15 units combined with the Necron rule would be silly hard to destroy for the opponent. They would be very hard to break being so many units. The crucial leader units are hard to kill. The formation would most of the time be able to take marshal actions and bring everyone back. So basically the reason I/we saw for capping it at three were fear of it being overpowered.

Shoel wrote:
Sentry Pylons and regular pylons have the upgrade option "Pylon Network", but the rules never specify what that is.
Yeah your right I think I pointed that out earlier. It's a typo in the upgrade list, it should read "Pylon Network" were it says Sentry Pylons.

Shoel wrote:
In the vehicle list there is a "Tesseract Ark" listed (a really stupid name seeing as it looks more like a cross between a Tomb Blade and a Annihilation Barge, and pretty far from both "Tesseract Vault" and "Ghost Ark"). But in the army list it doesn't show up as either a support formation nor as an upgrade. Either get rid of it (my preferred method, there are enough vehicles to scratchbuild anyway), or have them "count as" Annihilation Barges, or if you really want them in the list make them an upgrade to the Annihilation Barge (they are practically the same anyway, except the Tesseract Ark is really tough to kill 3+ RA and invulnerable save, might be a little to much).

Yeah we felt the same that there was no need of the unit in the list. It's basically not suppost to be there. Should have been removed.

Shoel wrote:
Tomb Blades, Annihilation Barge, Tesseract Ark - Shouldn't at least some of these be classified as light vehicles?
(I would prefer tomb blades as they are counted as infantry requires minimum 2x the number of models having to be manufactured :-)

I see your point and it was discussed. It could also be said about the arks perhaps and the triarch stalker with being opened topped in 40k and all. We decided that all units with Quantom shielding would be treated as AV instead as a way of representing that shield.

Shoel wrote:
"Tesseract Vault", points cost wise they are the same as "Warhounds" and close to "Engines of Vaul". Why wouldn't you be allowed to take a unit of 2? Is there a fluff reason why it's restricted to 0-1?

Yeah for fluff reasons. It didn't seem plausible that an army would have more than one C'tan shard trapped like that.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: NetEA Sautekh Legion (Newcrons) 0.3 [Experimental]
PostPosted: Mon Oct 27, 2014 3:32 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Wed Feb 29, 2012 9:49 pm
Posts: 462
Location: Berlin
Thinking about Portals.

If somebody proposed the following already I support him, otherwise food for thought.

I do not like that Portals can be used when broken.
Nonetheless it is the same with other portals. So for game-mechanic-reasons I would not change it (or change every list accordingly, what I would prefer, but don't expect :))
The same is true for the blast marker idea. You usually do not get blast markers by using any kind of "transport". So it would be a new concept.

The portals would not be as bad, if you could destroy them more easily when broken - this would force the Necron player to decide whether it is worth the higher risk to expose the portals when broken and would reduce the exploitation of broken portals.
I understand that the fluff leads to making them resilient against psychological effect.
But instead of making them fearless they could get "They shall know no fear". This "Necron courage" could/should replace fearless for all units that are fearless, but not warmachines. It would make them more steady and on the other hand would "potentially" reduce the exploits, because they will impose a higher risk, when placed near the enemy (losses by combat result) or when already broken. Also they would have to withdraw at least 15cm from the enemy (which can make a big difference).


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: NetEA Sautekh Legion (Newcrons) 0.3 [Experimental]
PostPosted: Sun Nov 02, 2014 10:23 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Mon Nov 04, 2013 7:26 am
Posts: 19
Hi
Newish Necron player here.
Just wanted to add my 2 cents regarding the portal. I believe the portal as current in raiders is fine. The only Change I support is if the portal is broken then units using it receive a blast marker. As someone has already said it is very very easy to break a formation of 4 and this happens most often to me before I get to use it.

The problem with necrons is, once your opponent is wise to the way they work they become very hard to weld. Pretty much all my games are going to a 4th turn and come down to points. Now that my opponents are aware that That broken formations phase out end of turn, they simply just break all my formations turn 4 and smash on points.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: NetEA Sautekh Legion (Newcrons) 0.3 [Experimental]
PostPosted: Mon Nov 03, 2014 9:47 am 
Hybrid
Hybrid

Joined: Tue Jul 05, 2005 1:32 pm
Posts: 4793
Location: North Yorkshire
Hazza31B wrote:
The problem with necrons is, once your opponent is wise to the way they work they become very hard to weld. Pretty much all my games are going to a 4th turn and come down to points. Now that my opponents are aware that That broken formations phase out end of turn, they simply just break all my formations turn 4 and smash on points.

And that is so very true, but my opponents have evolved this to winning games in turn 3 by breaking units and claiming objectives after they have phased out.

_________________
_________________
www.epic-uk.co.uk - home of the UK Epic tournament scene
NetEA NetERC Xenos Lists Chair
NetEA Ork + Feral Ork + Speed Freak Champion


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: NetEA Sautekh Legion (Newcrons) 0.3 [Experimental]
PostPosted: Mon Nov 03, 2014 11:51 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Tue Feb 22, 2011 11:43 pm
Posts: 2429
Location: UK
Um, Sautekh don't phase out so if that's how you're losing then a) it's not relevant here and b) isn't that a reason to want a less 1 dimensional list?

_________________
Kyrt's Battle Result Tracker (forum post is here)
Kyrt's trade list


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: NetEA Sautekh Legion (Newcrons) 0.3 [Experimental]
PostPosted: Mon Nov 03, 2014 12:03 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 08, 2007 7:30 am
Posts: 1480
Location: Örebro, Sweden
Kyrt wrote:
Um, Sautekh don't phase out so if that's how you're losing then a) it's not relevant here and b) isn't that a reason to want a less 1 dimensional list?

What Kyrt says. This list (Sautekh) is a try to change the dynamics of the list and phase out is gone.

And just to be clear I have no intention of changing how portals work in the raiders list. It's a list that I think is balanced within it's own merits.

thanks for your feedback


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: NetEA Sautekh Legion (Newcrons) 0.3 [Experimental]
PostPosted: Mon Nov 03, 2014 12:43 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 08, 2007 7:30 am
Posts: 1480
Location: Örebro, Sweden
Somehow missed this post. Must be because of the second one you wrote

Shoel wrote:
Hi I'm new to the Necrons in Epic and I'm just wondering what the general aim towards the feel of the army is concerned.
When I see lists of Necrons, they feel really Popcorny to me, and hit and run. Is this what you guys are aiming for?

Cause when i envision Necrons its a slow advance with large infantry formations that gets up again if shot. Destroyers and flyers harassing the enemy up until the point where the necron infantry is in range and lets loose. Almost a Napoleonesq feel, rather than the fluid battleline of Helicopter borne infantry of Vietnam.

This is true and also a way that I see them, but at the same time they're also a lot about teleporting. Taking away phase out and no moving out of a portal in Sautekh, is a try to enforce this. Basically when you commit a phalanx it has to stay there until it's next activation.

Shoel wrote:
Here are some thoughts I had on the list:
I would have thought regeneration on the SH's would have been a given, scarabs crawling around repairing stuff on the go.

Yeah I still think it's an interesting idea. But it would be moving the two necron lists even further appart. I will not add it in the next update, but might do so at a later stage.

Shoel wrote:
Here's a fluffy thought on living metal and gauss weaponry. The way Gauss weapons work in 40k is to make even the lowliest gun capable of penetrating armour. My thought was that instead of giving Necrons better AP/AT values, why not give them - save? For instance a MW type weapon would instead reduce armour by -1 (a Land raider would get 5+ RA instead of a single 4+ save, a slight reduction in power). A TK weapon would make it -2 save (the same Land Raider would get 6+ RA instead of none, also an improvement for the land raider). The same idea could be applied to living metal. Changing the way MW and TK interact with necron vehicles. Anyway it would be a way to make Necrons unique without breaking the game.

I'd rather keep gaussweapon as is then introduce a new special rule. I think the addition of AT6+ on warriors and immortals is fair enough.

Shoel wrote:
Pondorous - squats have the same kind of rule they also may only make one withdrawal move (but for Squats this is also capped at 15cm regardless of actual move value). Seeing as all the vehicles having ponderous also have fearless, I see no problem making ponderous mean 0 withdrawal move.

I think a single move is still warranted. It's not always that you want to move closer to the enemy. Sometimes you want to flee behind terrain. I think that should be possible for the necrons. Making them 1 move takes away the excesses.

Shoel wrote:
Portals - Seems to be the crux of what makes Necrons disliked. I would have tried to make the infantry part of the same formation as the portal. this would give both monolith formations and infantry a bit more staying power but without the possibilities of shenanigans. And just like transport (X) decides how many could be transported, a portal (X) could denote the the number of units that could exit through a portal? (depending upon the direction you would like to go, a formation that lost all it's transports would either not be able to enter the game at all, or use some sort of communal portal, either on some SH or the tomb complex.
This is a very interesting idea, I like it especially for the night scythes.

Shoel wrote:
Wraiths/praetorians/archantrites - Seem really similar to me, are all infantry types needed? Feels repetitive.
Wraiths are in the old list so should stay. Preatorians are a nice addition of some elite infantry focused on CC unlike the warriors and immortals which are FF-focused. The archantrites aren't all that necessary though. They were addded because thay add a nice ancient-egypt-mummie-movie-feel to them. Something scarabs can't really do at this scale.

Shoel wrote:
Commanders - Some formations are allowerd to take both types of formations, seems over the top for (for instance) 4 deathmarks to also have 2 commanders.
I'm not sure I follow. I will have to check the list again when I'm home. they shouldn't have the canoptek even the lord upgrade is debatable with them being first and formost a kind of stealth sniper formation.

Shoel wrote:
Triarch maniple - almost seem more like a phalanx the way it's allowed a plethora of upgrades. Either make it a phalanx or remove some upgrades?
Making them a phalanx would make them enabling support choices. Something I don't want. The basics of the list should be warriors and immortals.

Shoel wrote:
There will most likely be more thoughts from me. But thats the first impressions do with them what you like.
Thanks for your feedback.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: NetEA Sautekh Legion (Newcrons) 0.3 [Experimental]
PostPosted: Wed Nov 05, 2014 9:17 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 4:45 pm
Posts: 8139
Location: London
Why ponderous, why not just can't use broken units portals?


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: NetEA Sautekh Legion (Newcrons) 0.3 [Experimental]
PostPosted: Thu Nov 06, 2014 8:33 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Wed May 26, 2010 9:03 am
Posts: 172
If you wanted to add the restriction that you can't use a broken formation's portals I think you'd need to bump the Monolith phalanx size up to 4.
Living metal is tough, but not invulnerable, and with a unit size of 3 only 1 kill is needed to break the formation. This is especially troublesome if you want to include Obelisks, which are nowhere near as tough as Monoliths. Even with no kills scored it's not too hard to put 3BM's on the formation, and you can bet that'll happen if breaking it is that important.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: NetEA Sautekh Legion (Newcrons) 0.3 [Experimental]
PostPosted: Thu Nov 06, 2014 11:44 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 4:45 pm
Posts: 8139
Location: London
I see nothing wrong with the chain of command saying 'they are coming out of the funny pyramids, light them up'. Seems sensible :)


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.  [ 204 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14  Next


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


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