Just want to get an overview here. I don't think any of these are critical, and I'm inclined to not change anything. But I think they should get looked at, at least

- Monolith saves. EUK changed them vs MWs, so I think they deserve a look in NetEA too. I don't agree that Living Metal needs simplification, but maybe they are too tough vs MW? (I haven't seen it, but others may have.)

- Nightbringer - very hard to get into CC. Solutions could be Infiltrate, or he could stay as he is and be an intimidation piece and/or flank formation hunter.

- Pylons counting towards both the War Engine allowance and support slots. I think it's clunky, but putting them in the Harvester section would be a straight upgrade. Maybe if something else gets nerfed.

Recent changes that I'll keep an eye on:

- C'tan got walker

- Destroyers down to 350pts

I can't imagine the C'tan change being of any concern. Destroyers might be, to see if 25pts is not enough (or too much). An alternative solution would be to drop Destroyers to 5 units to remove them from BTS considerations (5 for 300-325 pts).


Any other concerns?

Destroyers MIGHT be 25 points off. They used to be priced very low, a long time ago when Corey was the AC. At that time the Destroyers dominated the games. The solutions were to up the price and lower the Heavy Destoyer shot from 2 x AT4+ to 1 x AT3+.

Along the way some things changed... Specifically the Monolith formations changed and the Necron rule was modified. Could that latter rule change have nerfed the Destroyers? Sure. I scoffed at the EUK price on them and anticipate they will have the little fellers running rampant over their tournaments in no time.

Personally I would no like to see the formation size change only because 6 seems to be a prevalent number for the whole army - modifying that one formation would stand out.

As for the other changes, I think I'd like to see some games with those before instituting them. The infiltrator option sounds downright terrifying. But hey, what's another special rule? He is already a Living Metal, Fearless, Inspiring, Supreme Commander, Skimmer, Teleport, Walker War Engine.

_________________
author of Syncing Forward and other stories...

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

Zombo already changed the Destroyers to 350, I put it up here mainly as a reminder to see if it's the right price.



One the one hand, he can already pretty much go wherever he wants with barging, so infiltrator only gives him a half-decent threat range (30cm) instead of an abysmal one (15cm). On the other hand the combo of barging and infiltrator may open up shenanigans where he runs in, grabs some units and runs out of range of the rest of the formation. The Abattoir can already do this, but it doesn't have Teleport. War Engines have notes out the wazoo anyway, so I'm not really worried about special rules bloat

None of these changes are stuff I'm planning on changing ASAP, but it's more things to look at. I'll run some test games with Nightbringer to see what the effect is. The other stuff will likely not change.

An option to halfway house between the current and the EUK living metal would be to give Monoliths (and the Harvesters) 5+RA save with a 5+ inv like the Tau manta. That would actually be a slight increase vs normal fire, a slight decrease vs lance and macro (which now have a slight but noticeable effect) and more of a decrease vs TK shots.

While it's a good suggestion for streamlining Living Metal and keeping the normal scaling between normal, MW/lance and TK, the math is a bit off. 3 tries on 5+ works out to a 70% chance of passing the save, vs 75% for 4+RA(Living Metal). It's a bigger nerf against MW/Lance, with a 55% chance of passing vs the current 75%, and even worse than EUK against TK (5+ vs 4+).

It's not a bad idea, but the numbers work against it, unfortunatly.

OK then, 5+RA with a 4+ inv then. I'm slightly too lazy to do the math (sorry! I just got my drozone commander rulebook!) but I think the idea itself is worth exploring, if only to not piss off Lance/MW havers.

That may be workable. 78% chance of saving vs normal hits, 67% vs MW/Lance and the old 50% vs TK. The downside would be that you rolled up to 3 dice per hit, compared to the current 2, which isn't that bad but does become noticable over a game where the monoliths get focus fired (ie all of them). The change vs normal hits isn't big, but it would mean that you'd require an extra 10% hits to kill a monolith on average (4.5 vs 4). That is probably lost in the noise in any given game.

I'm still not convinced that stuff needs changing, but at least some people (EUK designers) disagree with me. Is it because it feels unfair towards MW, or is it an actual imbalance? MW weapons are extra good vs Necron infantry, so it's not like MW attacks are useless against Necrons.

My two cents - currently playing with the EUK list



I think it was more a case that they were proving nigh on unkillable - I know the guys in my group thought they were a bit OTT, so the living metal change gave an opponent a better chance of killing one or two. I don't think we were alone in this - not that I suggested (or to be honest was particularly happy with ) the change, but they seem to be holding up ok in most games.



I don't think it's too bad if you're dropping the number of support fm to 2 per Warriors at the same time, as the WE section is your only way to get access to a Supreme Commander and imho all the decent BTS formations you've still got to give up a lot to spam them.

On the other points, I don't run C'tan - after some early expiriments I didn't thnk they suited my playstyle, although if Nightbringer got a bit of a boost I might look at him again.I also think the points drop on the Destroyerss was reasoned out by comparing them to Obelisk formations, and not seeing a great deal to choose on balance, havng said that personally I would much rather have the Destoyers.

Has anyone taken Necrons to an EUK tournament yet?

I've only seen them played once - from that limited experience of the list/playstyle I reckoned as it'd be a fair bit easier to beat than the NetEA list. Then again I have a lot of experience fighting against Necrons as I was heavily involved in the Raiders playtesting... like Eldar they start off tough to face, but once you have your tactics adjusted their power level drops significantly.

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter

No the list has only been available for one tournament so far, Britcon, which being 6 games of 4k would be have been a bit of a risk for a new army to be taken along too. Although Necrons might have worried Richard a little.

The Necron army lives and dies by its Monoliths. An opponent who knows what he's doing will throw everything he has at them, and at the current stats they will lose quite a few. I'm worried that if the stats are downgraded that they will be too easy to wipe out, crippling the army. My opinion is that they're fine against opponents who know Necrons, even if they can be overwhelming to somebody who hasn't seen the army before.

Having thought about this I think the way to go is to let the EUK test out nerfed monoliths. And not in a couple of tournaments either, I want to see how they do when they're no longer "new", so to speak. I don't agree with the other reasons for changing it (simplicity, making MW more effective against them).

Like E&C says, Necrons have a steep learning curve. In my experience that applies to playing both with them and against them.



Not a bad suggestion. It goes a little bit further the other way and restricts the list more than the current model (at least, I usually don't take a Pylon for every Phalanx). I'll fiddle with some list on traitor-legion and see how it works out.

Having done a lot of playtesting of EUK Necrons I was one of the voices arguing for a downgrade to LM. I think the new version works really well and doesn't overly cripple marines (Who pay a fair old premium for their MWs), especially since Necrons seem to be the bad match-up for marines. Monoliths are still the hardest none war engine vehicle in the game to kill but now they are actually killable and it forces the Necron player to have to think about his placement a bit more.

All the monoliths rarely die. In a 4000pt game last night vs Black Templars I managed to kill 1 monolith all game and critical the portal on the Abbatoir, leaving 6 portals still in play at the end of the game.

Although I'm unlikely to play NetEA Necrons,, I do have some experience with EUK ones and am am happy to share the experiences I've had with them, in the hope that it might help this project. If I may be so bold as to venture an opinion, I don't like 3 save units. It strikes me as being a bit clunky and from the opposite side of the table it's a bit WTF? How many saves?

I'm actually very tempted to try and make the Manchester Mangle with a borrowed Necron army.

I would also argue that destroyers are over-costed quite a bit at 350 pts. While their offensive capabilities are impressive, they're still relatively easy to kill and to break.

While I can agree that Marines aren't the best matchup against Necrons, I wouldn't have thought the new LM favored them? Ranged MW isn't exactly a strength. Although I can see how Land Speeders can be nice monolith hunters if you bring a couple of fms.



That would be awesome



I agree with them being clunky. I'm less concerned with the "feel" from the opponents side (I'm more concerned with actual numbers), but rolling 3 dice every time a monolith gets attacked, which should be often, can quickly become a pain.



I'm wary of reducing them much more based on the original playtesting. Pricing should be based on what the unit can do if used properly, not how they perform when used wrong. And they were demonstrably overpowered when they were cheaper (according to Mosc). Plus, with Portals they will often get to attack without having to risk being targeted by anything.

The EpicUK downgrade is excessive, and I don't think it's warranted. If you want MW to have an affect something like "against Living Metal, Macro Weapons reduce the reinforced part of the save save by one point", i.e. 4+ Reinforced normal, 4+/5+ against Macro. I don't think it's neccessary at all though.



Infiltrator would be scary, maybe just 20cm move instead?



Everything about Pylons is a nightmare to get right.

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

Living Metal should have virtually no effect on a an army which has limited MW shots. Against AT weapons, it is the same armor as a Leman Russ. The cost of the Monoliths and other living metal units also is a mitigating factor. I agree the Monolith is the best non-WE unit in the game, but it is also the most expensive non-WE unit in the game (correct me if I am wrong here). This drives the Necron player to protect them vigorously instead of spamming a bunch of lesser-Monoliths. I do agree that three saves begins to make your opponent feel like the unit is OTT, which is why I loathe invulnerable saves for non-character units.

_________________
author of Syncing Forward and other stories...

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