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 Lord" upgrade.

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?

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Wraiths/praetorians/archantrites - Seem really similar to me, are all infantry types needed? Feels repetitive.

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.

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?

There will most likely be more thoughts from me. But thats the first impressions do with them what you like.