|
Page 1 of 1
|
[ 2 posts ] |
|
New Necron Codex List Development Guidelines |
zombocom
|
Post subject: New Necron Codex List Development Guidelines Posted: Wed Jan 11, 2012 9:01 pm |
|
Brood Brother |
|
|
Joined: Fri Apr 20, 2007 1:49 am Posts: 5569
|
This is a set of guidelines for anyone developing netEA Necron army lists based on the 5th edition 40k Necron Codex.
The following special rules from the Raiders 2.0 Necron army list must be used by any new lists:
Necron Portals Living Metal Implacable Advance Necron Reserves
The following special rules may optionally be used:
Tomb Complex Phase Out Necron Reserves Garrisons
New army lists may add their own army-wide special rules.
With regards to unit stats, most units that are shared by the lists must use the stats and special rules as laid out in the latest NetEA Necron list (as found in the 2012 compendium). Here is a list of the shared units that must use the existing stats:
Necron Warriors Immortals Flayed Ones Destroyers Heavy Destroyers Monolith
The following semi-shared units may if you wish have different stats, but must use different names to those in the Raiders list:
Canoptek Spyders Canoptek Wraiths Necron Lord C'tan Shards
With regards to stats for new units, list developers will need to come to a compromise in order to achieve consistency. If the developers cannot agree, I will step in.
I am willing to consider stat changes to shared units, but only under very specific circumstances:
1) The existing stats must be very unrepresentative of the stats in the new 40k codex. 2) The proposed stats must be representative for BOTH the new and old styles. 3) The proposal must not unbalance the old list in any way.
--------
Of course, these guidelines only apply to lists that wish to be considered part of the netEA project; people are free to make fanlists with whatever they want in them.
Have fun!
|
|
Top |
|
|
Ulrik
|
Post subject: Re: New Necron Codex List Development Guidelines Posted: Fri Aug 31, 2012 3:45 pm |
|
Brood Brother |
|
Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2008 9:15 am Posts: 1832 Location: Oslo, Norway
|
As the new AC, I agree with all of the above. It is still in effect.
If you, as a list developer, for some reason feel that some of the guidelines are unreasonable, I'm willing to debate it. But the above is my stance until somebody presents a compelling case for why they're a hindrance.
|
|
Top |
|
|
|
Page 1 of 1
|
[ 2 posts ] |
|