next to no portals is what im pushing for in my new style necron list. I personal HATE portals and see it as a poor 1 trick robot ponney style or play. Maybe if they could only be used to exit out of they would be not bad, but still.... (note* nothing against who ever came up with it, i just dont think thats how necrons would work)

As a necron player I find that the portal hopping is what's most hard for the opponent to handle. Current list sort of makes you play that way and also kind of forces your opponent to play a certain way (from what I've read around here and experienced myself).
I haven't found that the netEA LM rule is overly powerfull.

The hopping can make them a boring army to play against. This is a bit radical, but perhaps you Ulrik (as armychamp) should try and lead development of (your own or based on 1 of the 2 allready in this subforum) a "new-codex-list" that doesn't have as much acces to portals. I think it might be easier to make a more versatile list, that more people find is fun to play against (and with), based on the new book/units.

Borka, I'm leaning towards making a new list as well. The problem is that the new Necrons left me really cold, so I got no interest in making a list based on the new codex. However, I do like the Tomb World list that's in the compendium. I'm thinking of working on that and removing the option for two Monoliths in a Maniple (there is no Monolith Phalanx in the list) to make it harder to pop out, engage and then run away (as it would require two separate formations with portals).

Current thinking for the Tomb World list would be to remove upgrades from the Monolith Maniple formation, add back the big Harvesters (Abattoir and Aeonic Orb) and make 1 Pylon the baseline for the Pylon Network while keeping the upgrades (so one for 200 and then up to three more for 175 pts each). The list would then be limited to only 1 Pariah and no formations with two portals, which should help to limit standard Necron tactics. My limited testing has led me to believe that it lacks the range to be a good defensive army, so it might need some more ranged firepower (or I need to find new ways to play it).

The problem is testing. I don't get to play as much Epic as I like (which is a different problem I'll take up elsewhere), and nobody else has report playing the list, ever.

In conclusion: Maybe changing the LM rule will weaken the Raiders list enough so that portal-engage-portal is more manageable, while working on the Tomb World list may solve the problem that Necrons are too one-dimensional?

After thinking even more useless thoughts, combined with useful feedback, I have a suggestion:



That breaks portal-engage-portal without affecting anything else.

Good idea? Horrible idea?

I don't like it, I think it detracts from the necron playstyle quite a bit.... people like me just need to develop tactics to cope with them

_________________
NetEA Space Marine, Imperial Fists and Blood Angels Army Champion

NetEA Red Corsairs Army Champion

My hobby/painting threads

Army Forge List Co-ordinator

Adjusting LM makes a massive difference to portal, engage, portal. I rarely ever use this in a game, rather than, as seems to be the case with some of these anesdotes, almost every time the crons engage.

Sometimes it's advantageous to leave a necron fm on the table after an engagement but also:

By limiting LM the necron player has to be more cautious with their monoliths. This means that I can't always deploy them within 45cm of the opponent because of fear of having them killed (With a SR2 army you're not going to get to go first often). This means that my monoliths are often moving the full 30cm, applying the BM and then the warriors are having to move their full 15cm to engage. PEP only works when you can get the Monoliths to within 15/20cm of the enemy.

Additionally, as you lose monoliths to enemy fire, your options become somewhat depleted. Having to use 2 monoliths for 1 engagement is really not feasable every time.

I usually have 11 activations, 5 fms coming on from portals and 8 portals.

Also opposition tactics have a lot to do with this. I often need to leave a fm of monoliths back in my own half of the table to deny the blitz and objectives in my half of the table to fast moving marine and warhound opponents.

Being forced into corner deployment and opposition castling are also quite effective against my necrons. If you can't pick on isolated units and/or teleport right into face of the enemy for fear of losing all of your portals and your opponent maneuvers cageily (Is that even a word?) then it's also really easy for your opponent to whittle down the activations and leave you thoroughly out-maneuvered and out of activations.

PEP is a gimmick at best and once your opponent figures out how to deal with it, it's used less and less. Much like how Storm Serpent rushes are effective against an unprepared enemy, yet in tournament eldar lists you rarely see Storm Serpents because they're just not that effective against the vets. On the plus side though there are some really fun, creative and sometimes quite complex ways to use portals to get your troops around that make the Necrons a much more fun and thought provoking army to play with once you're forced to have to think a bit more because your opponent has wised up to PEP.