Fair enough. I hadn't realised/had forgotten it couldn't march and that along with other factors you mention does make it seem less scary.

I've played half a dozen more games vs Necrons since I originally posted the 'Let's talk about: The Necrons' thread in March, so have had a chance to form a better opinion of their strengths and weaknesses. Link: viewtopic.php?f=4&t=20466

The Pylon's AA is AA4+ TK(1). This means that it exceptionally good in some circumstances and exceptionally poor (per point spent) in others. Against heavily armoured fliers like Thunderhawks it slices through reinforced armour like butter, against swarms of cheap Ork Fighter Bombers it has a 50% chance of killing one.

If the pylon is to remain the sole source of AA firepower, I would recommend normalising it to where its performance is less based on what army the opponent is playing.
EG Pylon AA4+ TK(1) or burst fire 3xAA5+

I don't think moving pylons from the war engine allowance is a great idea, because although their AA would be more accessible elsewhere they are also TK firing war engines with living metal. Having AA from somewhere other than the WE allowance would be good, but having AA and TK elsewhere could be unbalancing. (That might be a problem inherent in having a single source of AA in a list that is also armed like a Shadowsword against ground units.)

From discussion in that thread it seems Destroyers at -25pts discount would be more palatable.

The C'tan should be a walker.

I personally think that any formation coming through a Necron Monolith that is broken should take a BM for its troubles (sorry necron players). At the moment it is not just the case that breaking Monoliths is sometimes a tactically bad idea because they get to teleport out and appear next turn in a vulnerable or strategic place, but also when a monolith breaks it gets a free double move. Because the Monolith is a skimmer and fearless, breaking one can cause it move behind enemy lines within 5cm of an opponent's formation, setting up the next charge from within.
I can't think of anything that gains more from being broken, so a BM on a formation that then uses the portal seems a small price to pay.

Of course, the monolith formation does have to rally whilst off the board to be able to teleport back into the fight (something that my Monolith formations failed to do 3 times over 2 games on the weekend). It cannot be assumed that monoliths will get the advantages that have been mentioned.
Breaking Monolith formations is always a good thing to do. Reduced/removed Firefight support and the monoliths will not be able to return unless they rally.

If opponents want to place BM's on the formation exiting the portal, they must try to ensure that they have overwatch ready. Most/all armies can do it. Necrons are SR2 after all!

_________________
Just call me Steve.

NetEA Rules Chair
NetEA FAQ

Want to play Iron Warriors in Epic Armageddon? Click HERE
Some of my Armies.
My Hobby site.

You just saved me from packing away the Necrons indefinitely.

_________________
Frogbear is responsible for...
Previous World Eaters
Previous Emperor's Children
Previous Death Guard
Previous Imperial Fists
Previous Chaos Squats

now if only Matt Ward was of a similar mindset* XD

(* or comatose, i'd take comatose at this point)

_________________
~Every Tool Is A Weapon, If You Hold It Right~

I agree with everything except the portal issue. The Monolith's still have to rally off board and cannot support. It also depends on what you have left to activate after the Monoliths break and where on the battlefield they are.

I also can't find any reason to take Destroyers at their current price point. When taking the Nightbringer, you're basically betting on winning the strategy roll or you're not going to get to do much with him, Walker would help alleviate that as others have said.

I like the burst fire idea as well.

Has anyone noticed GW changed the Pylon rules in W40k?

The original Forge World rules from Imperial Armour Update 2006 were 1 x 12-120 Str9 AP3 AA, 5" ordinance blast, Titan Killer

In 2007 the main studio released revised rules for the Pylon in the Apocalypse supplement, replacing the earlier version and it's main gun is now 120 StrD AP2 Heavy 3 (StrD being kind of the new equivalent of titan killer).

Perhaps the epic rules could be adjusted to be more in line with the W40k version? The purpose being to fix the problem of Necron AA being excellent at killing single flyers but poor against quantities of them (such as fighta-bommerz) without needing to invent a new unofficial other AA unit as some have asked for.

Well 3 shots is even more effective against a single target than an 5" template against a single target. And as the Pylon has still to shoot all his shots of one weapon at the same target the difference is pretty nought.

_________________
We are returned!
http://www.epic-wargaming.de/

That's an incredibly literal interpretation of WH40k rules and one that's invalidated by other multishot weapons in epic being able to hit multiple units in a single formation.

Just regarding Shadowlord's point: while this strikes me as a sensible approach, I would prefer to see Pylons remain AA4+ TK(1) but have Monoliths gain AA6+ (or even AA7+, if AA6+ makes them too buff at their current points cost). Or do people believe gaining this AA6+ or AA7+ would be totally over-powering the Monoliths?

Just a n00b Necron player's two cents. Take it for what it's worth.

Maybe the solution is to split the unit in two distinct incarnations (i dunno exactly but something like a "necron pillar" and the necron pylon).

A big one with TK shot (able to threaten titans and single heavy flyers), and a little one without a normal shot but with multiple AA (off the 33% restriction).

my two cents

why are necron titans 0-1??? we do at least once a year play a big game (about 9000 points each with 6 players) and i hate seeing everyone playing lots of big titans and being able to add just 1 to the battle... isnt the war-engine allocation enough?

Are nt all limits for a standard 3,000 points game.

Thus in a 9,000 points a side game, assuming 3 players each side, then every player could field one?

Cheers

James

Technically, no. That is one of the problems with hard and fast restrictions. It's an easy house rule to do, though the lists are balanced between 2-5k, so it would probably work best as 0-1 per 5k or portion thereof.

The reason the Harvester Engines are 0-1 is because of the rarity. These are relics of the War in Heaven at it's height: ancient, rare, and powerful beyond imagining. Abbatiors for instance, are basically floating Tomb Complexes with soul vacuums, suitable for consuming an entire planet for the amusement of the C'Tan. They are simply so uncommon that within the framework of a standard sized game they would never be present in multiples.

_________________
SG

Ghost's Paint Blog, where everything goes that isn't something else.

well... i meant 9000 points... each player!!

at a 5k game just using the war-engine allocation rule you could use 2 abbatoir... and no supreme comander! i dont think that would be game-breaking... imperials can use 2 warlords and still have supreme comander... i underestand the rarity thing, but i still see the rule too restrictive