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.