I had another dokument, as you can read in the EDIT note
And 60 of them means a hull lot of them, teleporting where they want with a damn good shot. Sorry, this is a thing to exploit and has to be eliminated asap.
just my 0,0002 cent
Soren
| Tactical Command http://www.tacticalwargames.net/taccmd/ |
|
| Obelisk spam http://www.tacticalwargames.net/taccmd/viewtopic.php?f=70&t=12406 |
Page 1 of 1 |
| Author: | zombocom [ Wed Apr 23, 2008 11:17 am ] |
| Post subject: | Obelisk spam |
With the movement of the Obelisk formation to a core phalanx rather than a support slot, it does open up the issue of a potential army consisting of nothing but Obelisks: 10 x 6 Obelisks - 3000 points. Would this be game-breaking? Just as importantly, is it fluffy? I can't really say how nasty it might be ingame without trying it, though I suspect an entirely teleporting army sustaining fire on the first turn with 60 AP3+/AT3+ shots could be pretty horrific. From a fluff point of view, does it really make sense to be able to have an army without any necron warriors at all? With no necron lord? I see warriors as the backbone of the army, essential and "mainstay". I don't see the need to move the obelisks into the core phalanx section. |
|
| Author: | hiddenevil [ Wed Apr 23, 2008 11:50 am ] |
| Post subject: | Obelisk spam |
obelisk are a support unit, they do ok damage but cant take too much of it back, so the enemy can just spread his fire reducing your effectiveness rather than focusing on portal units to stop devastating infantry phalanx assaults. it does mean that you can take an entire vehicle army as a somewhat variant list, its effectiveness will need lots of playtesting. the list i plan to use will have one armored phalanx and 3 obelisk to both my monoliths. i see them as distractions and hole fillers. but they can do lots of damage if they target transports. for the fluff note: if you dont take the supreme commander option then strategy rating 1 will simulate the necrons with limited command just advancing on their objectives and reacting to the enemy, with the warbaque your army now has a commander as the warbaque contains advanced technology(probably a necron lord attached to the interior), if a c'tan is present instead...well enough said. the 60 obelisk while alot of them has no anti air support and will be at sucky strategy rating 1. the enemy can just charge them and break them or suppress lots of them before they act. |
|
| Author: | Moscovian [ Wed Apr 23, 2008 12:10 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Obelisk spam |
The list always reflected the Obelisk as a core formation even several iterations ago. This is why it doesn't fall into the category of formations on the list of 'support formations'. Now it is possible Corey intended to keep them as support formations... does anyone remember this? I have fearless wraiths?! In the mean time I am jut writing up the list the way I was asked to. Until I hear from Corey, it's gotta stay. |
|
| Author: | Evil and Chaos [ Wed Apr 23, 2008 12:10 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Obelisk spam |
Certainly not a fluffy list. |
|
| Author: | Soren [ Wed Apr 23, 2008 12:42 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Obelisk spam |
Just a moment...my list has Obelisks with REINFORCED Armor? Are you sure about they cannot take much damage? This is like 60 teleporting Leman Russ battle tanks, but much worse because faster. I would say this is DEFINITELY broken. I hear the complains about the chessy cheesy LRBT in my ears because they got a 5 pts point reduction and here their aequivalent can teleport with higher speed for a smaller price? edit: saw they were reduced to 5+RA but still faaaaar too good, as they are fearless and thick rear armor. This is definitely a point for exploit. |
|
| Author: | hiddenevil [ Wed Apr 23, 2008 1:12 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Obelisk spam |
the reason they were good before was because the opponent was stressed with lots of high priority targets so the obelisk got off blowing away enemies scott free. if they are all you take in your army then the enemy just picks the closest unit and breaks or destroys it with concentrated fire, 6 models will die\break fast. looks good on paper, but i doubt it will do much ingame. |
|
| Author: | Moscovian [ Wed Apr 23, 2008 1:19 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Obelisk spam |
The more I think about it the more I think Corey never intended for it to be a Core formation, but I just can't speak for him. I will email him though. |
|
| Author: | Soren [ Wed Apr 23, 2008 1:21 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Obelisk spam |
That is simply not true. The Formation is completely fearless, which mean you really have to assault it eighter twice to eliminate it or shoot until tomorrow. Else with 30 cm it is unlikley you get the option to pound a formation more than once. |
|
| Author: | Chroma [ Wed Apr 23, 2008 1:23 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Obelisk spam |
(Soren @ Apr. 23 2008,12:42) QUOTE Just a moment...my list has Obelisks with REINFORCED Armor? Are you sure about they cannot take much damage? This is like 60 teleporting Leman Russ battle tanks, but much worse because faster. It's RA5+, and they've only got one weapon... I don't think they quite compare to teleporting Leman Russ... *laugh* |
|
| Author: | Soren [ Wed Apr 23, 2008 1:26 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Obelisk spam |
I had another dokument, as you can read in the EDIT note And 60 of them means a hull lot of them, teleporting where they want with a damn good shot. Sorry, this is a thing to exploit and has to be eliminated asap. just my 0,0002 cent Soren |
|
| Author: | corey3750 [ Wed Apr 23, 2008 1:53 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Obelisk spam |
I wanted to TRY them as a core formation, but no one's done it yet. No, it's not particularly fluffy so far, but the list is supposed to represent an Awakened army, and you have to remember, there were FOUR C'tan left. One, the Void Dragon, was really obsessed with machines. I could easily see the Void Dragon's army containing a lot of vehicles so it's not outside the realm of future fluff. I guess we'd have to wait to see if they ever do anything with the other two C'tan. |
|
| Author: | zombocom [ Wed Apr 23, 2008 2:23 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Obelisk spam |
Also, I'm not sure having them as core fits with the fluff of obelisks either, as it talks about how they are "occasionally" used in formations on their own. That doesn't count like a core formation to me. The main thing is that I don't see the need to have them as a core formation. With the changes to monoliths, necrons are no longer stretched for support formations anyway, so it's not as though you won't have enough room to take them. |
|
| Author: | hiddenevil [ Wed Apr 23, 2008 2:23 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Obelisk spam |
well my playtest games on tomorrow will be using 1 formation as a core unit as per the raider list. will give my feed back and my opponents on their performance both on their own and with the army. also adds some variety into the list so the opponents cant just go "necrons.....so phalanxes and monoliths are a definent, will build to counter that mostly" |
|
| Page 1 of 1 | All times are UTC [ DST ] |
| Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/ |
|