Login |  Register |  FAQ
   
Post new topic Reply to topic  Page 2 of 3
  [ 33 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next

New WH40K: Apocalypse rules for Monoliths
tv1013
 Post subject: New WH40K: Apocalypse rules for Monoliths
PostPosted: Fri Aug 24, 2007 2:02 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 08, 2006 10:08 pm
Posts: 148
Location: Cleveland, OH, USA

(Moscovian @ Aug. 24 2007,12:30)
QUOTE

Has anyone actually played with the current Necron rules with the "capped" values for the Gauss Flux Arc?


I played a game with the capped Flux Arc versus a Marine opponent, and at first, they were still appalled by the number of shots, but at FF5+, it wasn't TOO bad... basically one extra hit from each Monolith, the way I rolled.

It could have been worse, I had surrounded two Tactical formations after they had been dropped off from a Thunderhawk -- without a cap, I was looking at around 10-15 shots per Monolith.
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Moscovian
 Post subject: New WH40K: Apocalypse rules for Monoliths
PostPosted: Fri Aug 24, 2007 3:50 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2005 6:32 pm
Posts: 6414
Location: Allentown, Pennsylvania USA
Chroma, it isn't just the number of units.  It is the deadly nature of the Monoliths combined with the numbers that has me worried.  There is a synergy there that will simply push things over the top.

I've played with the CAP a couple of times and I can say it only came into effect ONCE in three games (went from 8 attacks to 6).  

E&C, I'm curious if your brother has any suggestions on how to change things.  There is a lot of talk on how the Necrons are broken but not a lot of talk on how to fix them.  The few fixes proposed usually revolve around taking the phase out away completely.  I could see that if the Monoliths were War Engines and had staying power, but we're talking about a huge rewrite of the entire Necron list in terms of unit stats, special rules, and point values.  I.e. we'd be back to square one.  That doesn't sound appealing to me.

_________________
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  
 
firestorm40k
 Post subject: New WH40K: Apocalypse rules for Monoliths
PostPosted: Fri Aug 24, 2007 5:21 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 2:00 pm
Posts: 2277
Location: Suffolk, United Kingdom

(Evil and Chaos @ Aug. 24 2007,14:43)
QUOTE
My bro' thinks they're still broken, due to the basic mechanics of phasing-out.

... and the rumour is, this rule is going to be dropped for the next edition of the Necron 40k Codex, anyway... ??? :blues:
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
corey3750
 Post subject: New WH40K: Apocalypse rules for Monoliths
PostPosted: Sun Aug 26, 2007 2:01 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Tue Nov 08, 2005 5:02 pm
Posts: 525
Location: Baltimore MD
phase out works differently here than it does in 40k.  Mostly because 40k is so small scale in comparison.

I so don't want to see a Monolith formation, no good can come from it.

I've said this before, but it bears repeating.  A "broken" army basically isn't going to get beaten.

I can shatter a Necron army, and I've had my Necron army shattered.  It's really all a matter of how you play and set up against them.  I know saying that won't help, but it must be done.


The biggest reason the Monolith's portal works when it's broken, is because the Eldar's portal works when Broken.  The trick isn't to "stop" a Necron assault, it's to survive it.  Please keep in mind that there is a need to preserve "look and feel" for the army, as well.

_________________
Necron Army Champion
"Do not come whining to me because you are weaker than your enemy." - Alexander Corvinus
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Evil and Chaos
 Post subject: New WH40K: Apocalypse rules for Monoliths
PostPosted: Sun Aug 26, 2007 2:18 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 05, 2006 2:57 am
Posts: 20887
Location: Harrogate, Yorkshire
A "broken" army basically isn't going to get beaten.


That really depends on the opponent.

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Chroma
 Post subject: New WH40K: Apocalypse rules for Monoliths
PostPosted: Sun Aug 26, 2007 2:34 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 24, 2005 3:06 pm
Posts: 9684
Location: Montréal, QC, Canada

(Evil and Chaos @ Aug. 26 2007,14:18)
QUOTE
A "broken" army basically isn't going to get beaten.


That really depends on the opponent.

Doesn't around 45% of every game depend on the opponent?  And 45% for yourself and 10% for luck and all those other externalities!  *laugh*

I've seen Necrons wiped out as well as hammer an opponent.  It often comes down to assumptions and experience, and occasional mis-interpretation of the rules.

Necrons can be very tough to beat, but it's not impossible.  The Gauss Flux Cap is going to make a big difference I feel.  No more "+18 attacks per Monolith" vs Bugs certainly makes a difference!  *laugh*

_________________
"EPIC: Total War" Lead Developer

Now living in Boston... any EPIC players want to meet up?
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Evil and Chaos
 Post subject: New WH40K: Apocalypse rules for Monoliths
PostPosted: Sun Aug 26, 2007 2:45 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 05, 2006 2:57 am
Posts: 20887
Location: Harrogate, Yorkshire
I meant the opposing army, rather than the opposing player.

Necrons still have some definitely strengths against horde-type armies, I think.

However, they are getting better.

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
nealhunt
 Post subject: New WH40K: Apocalypse rules for Monoliths
PostPosted: Mon Aug 27, 2007 2:28 pm 
Purestrain
Purestrain

Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2003 10:52 pm
Posts: 9617
Location: Nashville, TN, USA

(corey3750 @ Aug. 26 2007,14:01)
QUOTE
I so don't want to see a Monolith formation, no good can come from it.

I don't get it.  Why would that be so bad?

Would 3 Monoliths (225 points) be worse than 1 Monolith and 3 Obelisks (225 points)?  If it is substantially different/better, doesn't that point to a matter of the proportional point costs of Monoliths v Obelisks being off in some way?

_________________
Neal
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
corey3750
 Post subject: New WH40K: Apocalypse rules for Monoliths
PostPosted: Mon Aug 27, 2007 4:41 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Tue Nov 08, 2005 5:02 pm
Posts: 525
Location: Baltimore MD
Monolith's have better defenses, and more potential direct FF attacks than an obelisk.  That's just too many attacks to put in one place.

It's like a formation of Eldar Cobras.  The combined firepower makes the formation stupidly over-gunned.

Then there's the fact that in order to make them practical to purchase for an army, I'd have to drop the cost, so you could have more of them.  

Otherwise, it's a design that inherantly puts all the eggs in one basket, and frankly, that's just not a good idea.

_________________
Necron Army Champion
"Do not come whining to me because you are weaker than your enemy." - Alexander Corvinus
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Moscovian
 Post subject: New WH40K: Apocalypse rules for Monoliths
PostPosted: Mon Aug 27, 2007 4:47 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2005 6:32 pm
Posts: 6414
Location: Allentown, Pennsylvania USA
Well you could say the same thing about a Lemun Russ Vanquisher and a Lemun Russ.  It costs you nothing to have the Vanquisher in the formation yet if you had 10 of them you would certainly see a big difference in the potency of the Russ formation.

Monoliths would most definitely be better than Obelisks both in firepower and armor.  Although it must be pointed out that the Obelisks have undergone a lot of changes since they were costed what they are at currently.  It is possible the Obelisks are off, but doesn't feel that way.  Since the changes of the armor they have felt much better as a formation.

I don't get it.  Why would that be so bad?

Multiple Monoliths would increase the survivability of the portals themselves which would increase their potency.
Multiple Monoliths would diminish the role of Obelisks in the army list.
Multiple Monoliths would increase the assaulting capabilities of the Monolith (which was just nerfed to 6+ attacks/unit - a step backward).

There is nothing about this new type of formation in my mind that would add anything to the list that it doesn't already have (other than problems).  Monoliths in close proximity to each other already support  each other naturally which is an excellent abstract of the rules they are describing.  Unless somebody wants to revamp the entire Necron list, I think we'd be better off avoiding this one.

_________________
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  
 
nealhunt
 Post subject: New WH40K: Apocalypse rules for Monoliths
PostPosted: Mon Aug 27, 2007 5:03 pm 
Purestrain
Purestrain

Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2003 10:52 pm
Posts: 9617
Location: Nashville, TN, USA
I don't have any strong feelings on the Monolith formation either way, but the defense you guys are putting up points to the Monolith being a problem.

Increasing the number of monoliths is a linear increase in firepower (as opposed to adding BP weapons like with the Cobras).  Point cost, while not necessarily linear, should be pretty close.  If the formation becomes "stupidly over-gunned" at a larger size, that is very strong evidence that the problem already exists and it's just being masked by the list forcing small numbers.

If Monoliths are unequivocally better than equal points of Obelisks, then there is an internal balance problem.  One unit or the other should be adjusted.

_________________
Neal
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Moscovian
 Post subject: New WH40K: Apocalypse rules for Monoliths
PostPosted: Mon Aug 27, 2007 5:43 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2005 6:32 pm
Posts: 6414
Location: Allentown, Pennsylvania USA
Once again, the Vanquisher example (just read above).  If what you say is true, the Guard has an internal balance issue because of the possibility of having 10 Vanquishers in a formation.  Similar problems have come up with the Eldar Firestorm and how many can be taken in a Shields of Vaul formation.

It isn't a problem because it isn't a problem.  It only becomes a problem when you put more than one Monolith in a formation.  And I wouldn't say a variable attack (1-6 attacks in assault) is subject to the same type of analysis as a single weapon or set of weapons or a BP weapon.  It certainly isn't linear.  I'm not even sure how you would compare it since there are no other weapon systems like it in Epic.

I'm not saying the list is perfect, but I do think that the most recent changes of the SR and initiative (which have yet to be tested by anybody as far as I know) will do quite a bit to balance it.  If anything else is to change on the list, I think a small change in the point cost of Monoliths and Obelisks could be a solution.  But for now I'd prefer to test one thing at a time.

_________________
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  
 
nealhunt
 Post subject: New WH40K: Apocalypse rules for Monoliths
PostPosted: Mon Aug 27, 2007 7:20 pm 
Purestrain
Purestrain

Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2003 10:52 pm
Posts: 9617
Location: Nashville, TN, USA

(Moscovian @ Aug. 27 2007,17:43)
QUOTE
Once again, the Vanquisher example (just read above).  If what you say is true, the Guard has an internal balance issue because of the possibility of having 10 Vanquishers in a formation.

There is no parallel there.  The Vanquisher isn't a solo choice and Russ don't have a per-unit cost.  If you had them broken out by point-per-unit and an all-Vanquisher formation performed better at the same points, then I'm sure you would agree that would be a problem.

Similar problems have come up with the Eldar Firestorm and how many can be taken in a Shields of Vaul formation.


Yes, and I've noted my objections to that as well.

It isn't a problem because it isn't a problem.  It only becomes a problem when you put more than one Monolith in a formation.

You and Corey both asserted this but I don't understand.

What makes it a problem?  Everything you listed above (increased survivability, better assault, etc.) is directly applicable to any unit in the game.  More units means more survivability, firepower, and better performance in assault.  What makes multiple Monoliths more synergistic than any other increase in formation size?

Durability of portals?  I don't see that this would be the case.  It's easier to break a single formation of 3 than 3 formations of 1.  3 formations of 1 will always take 3 firing actions or assaults (barring intermingled formations).  A single formation of 3 can be broken with one lucky shot (1 kill = broken) or a single assault.  The worst case scenario is that it takes as many activations to break as the 3 independent formations.

Since Monoliths are Fearless, having independent formations break just lets them go scooting all over the board.  Three broken formations means three portals get a double move to reposition for tactical advantage.  The army can go nearly anywhere on the board now.  A single formation, in contrast, still has to stay in formation and can only provide portals to what is essentially a single location.  If that were to be tactically favorable for some reason, independent Monoliths could easily do the same thing.

To me, it looks like a formation of 3 would gain some durability advantages and lose a lot of flexibility.

And I wouldn't say a variable attack (1-6 attacks in assault) is subject to the same type of analysis as a single weapon or set of weapons or a BP weapon.  It certainly isn't linear.  I'm not even sure how you would compare it since there are no other weapon systems like it in Epic.

You just think it through.  It's below linear.  For a normal unit, just getting in range gets you full FF attacks.  For a Monolith to match another Monolith, it not only has to get within 15cm, it also has to get within range of the same number of targets (up to 6).  The absolute best a "trailing" Monolith can do is match the attacks of the closest one, i.e. a linear increase.  In the case of most firefights, the "trailing" Monoliths will get fewer attacks.

I'm trying to understand, but I can't see any big advantages.  Can you give some in-game examples where a single formation is going to be more advantageous than would normally be expected from simply having more units?


Another objection was that a multi-Monolith formation would eliminate the role of Obelisks.  I don't really follow that statement, either, but just for the sake of argument, let's assume it's true.

So what?  We made them up out of whole cloth.  It doesn't exist in the background material.  If the list works without them, so much the better.  That just improves the longshot that it might one day get some sort of official status.

_________________
Neal
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Moscovian
 Post subject: New WH40K: Apocalypse rules for Monoliths
PostPosted: Mon Aug 27, 2007 7:58 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2005 6:32 pm
Posts: 6414
Location: Allentown, Pennsylvania USA
The Vanquisher example makes sense in that an all-Vanquisher formation doesn't exist.  An all-Monolith formation doesn't exist either.  If they existed I'd have a problem with both of them.

In regard to the portals... a single Monolith with Obelisk reinforcement is still the primary target for an attack.  Even if you position the Obelisks to protect the Monolith, once it is gone it is gone.  No more portal.  In order to protect that portal you have to spend points on Obelisks to do it.

But in a multi-Monolith formation you would just buy more portals.  In either case it doesn't matter whether you break the formation or not as the portal(s) will still work.  This means you now have a higher chance of reinforcement troops coming through at that position.

If you want to spend the points on lone Monoliths with no Obelisk support, you take the chance.  Less points for more risk.  A formation of one breaks with anybody shooting at it (AP or otherwise).  So the assertion that 3 individuals is better than a formation of three isn't as black and white as you might initially think.

Fearless Monoliths scooting all over the board makes no sense since after they break they are removed from the board...

I agree there would be a drop in flexibility in some cases.  But you are assuming also that the Monoliths are going to be on the defensive or spread in some awkward formation when assaulted.  Currently there is no way to move three Monoliths to assault an enemy at the same time.  Sure there can be other Monoliths for support, but actively engaging the enemy requires a solo Monolith (with or without Obelisk support) currently.

I can easily imagine situations where a Phalanx is sacrificed to break or remove a scout screening formation to make way for the monstrous 3xMonolith formation to assault the formation behind.  Now you have up to 18 attacks against the enemy formation, PLUS any support.  Even if they lose they are fearless and ready to spit out another Phalanx.

But take what I said and put it aside.  Does the list NEED the multi-Monolith formation?  It won't make it any weaker and the 4.2 list is still overpowered.  It doesn't add anything fluffwise since we're talking about abstracting to an Epic scale.  It could possibly take away the Obelisks as a useful unit which - while you may dismiss that as a good thing - I think makes the list less fun.  There are already a shortage of unit selections on the list which is why I proposed the Warbarque in the first place.

_________________
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  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
  Print view Previous topic | Next topic 
Post new topic Reply to topic  Page 2 of 3
  [ 33 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 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