Changes 2013:

New Living Metal rule:



This is basically the same as the EUK rule, but with different words. The one meaningful difference (that I can see so far) is that this rule is affected by Lance, while the EUK rule makes Lance hits into normal hits. I prefer this version as I think it's cleaner to treat LM as being Reinforced Armour with exceptions, rather than making a rule that works out as RA in 95% of the cases without actually using the same rules.

Pylons moved to Harvester section. I've never liked that they are the only unit that are limited both by core choices and points, and I think with the LM change it's an opportunity to fix it.

Æonic Orb and Abattoir reduced to 650 pts. These are the units most affected by the LM change, so they probably need a discount.

Feel free to post comments here without having tried them, I'll open a separate thread for playtest reports.


Changes 2015:

-Broken portals giving a BM to formations using them (I am going to talk to PFE100 about having it change for all portals, Eldar too)
- Points drop for the Harvester engines: 600 for the Orb and 650 for the Abattoir. (I know 50 points isn't a huge difference in cost but it will change the list structure preventing 2 pylons from being taken, but now if you desire you can take a supreme commander, warbarque or a Spacecraft with an Abattoir/Orb in a 3k list). Not being able to take all three is still a problem.
- Pylon moving to the Harvester section.
- Living Metal having to make their armour save against each point of TK damage rather than just reducing it to 1. Allowed a reroll for Lance and Macro Weapons
- Points drop for Monolith Phalanx and Maniple formations by 25pts.
- Points drop for Eques Maniples 25 to 50 points.
- Leader added to Pylon


Changes 2018

These are the proposed changes to the approved Necrons list I've put forward. Please feel free to weigh in. They were put forward going on 3 years ago play test change list and I've used them in many games:

Rules changes for the approved Necrons list:
- Broken portals giving a BM to formations using them.
- Living Metal = 4+ inv. But getting to make the inv save against each point of TK damage rather than just reducing it to 1. (All Units with Living Metal given point adjusted to compensate, see below)
- Points drop for the Harvester engines: 600 points.
- Pylon moving to the Harvester section, points dropped by 25, added leader.
- Points drop for C'Tan by 25 points.
- Warbarque dropped 25 points.
- Points drop for Monolith Phalanx and Maniple formations by 25pts. 
- Points drop for Eques Maniples by 50 points.

Interesting, looking to dust off my necrons this spring so I'll try and get some games in.

AT sniper will also interact differently with this compared to the EUK living metal. Very much an edge case though!

also crossfire (or do all LM units have TRA?)

in fact as far as I can see, a MW hitting in crossfire (5+ save) is better than a TK hitting in crossfire (4+ save)

edit: a quick glace at the EUK army list reveals that only the c'tan do not have TRA, so quite marginal again then!

_________________
Just some guy

My hobby/painting threads

Army Forge List Co-ordinator

I believe all Necron vehicles have Thick Rear Armour, including the war barque etc and the non
living Metal Obelisks, but not the C'Tan.

C'tan have always been vulnerable to crossfire using NetEA rules, so I don't see a problem with that. Sniper is affected by the change, but the purpose of it is to remove the "ignore everything" elements of the rule, so that would be intended.

How many AT or FF Snipers are there? Currently it would only affect Lictors vs Pylons AFAIK.

EUK Leman Russ Destroyer is the only AT Sniper I can think of.

_________________
SG

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

Is there actually a need for the change to Living Metal, other than "EUK did it differently?" judging from this thread, most people didn't have a huge problem with Living Metal. It's the portal consolidation that seems to be most aggravating to play against.

Yes, but Living Metal is easier to change without radically altering the list. What I'm hoping is that the change will force Necron players to be more careful with their Monoliths, which would limit portal consolidation.

The only direct change I can see to portal consolidation is to ban a formation from using two portals in one activation, which is a huge change.

Not that LM isn't also a problem. Monoliths aren't really that expensive compared to other RA4+ vehicles (92 pts vs 75 for Land Raiders and 65 for Russes), and they got LM, Fearless and TRA on top of all that. (This totally leaves out the offensive capabilities and movement, but I'm not at all sure that Monoliths do badly in that comparison.) In addition, as I've thought about it for some time, I like the blanket immunity to so many special abilities less and less. Weapons vary in power based on number of attacks, to hit value and various special rules - hitting only the special rules is inconsistent. Why are Railguns, Lascannons or a Genestealers rending claws unaffected, while multi-meltas and power fists are neutered? It reminds me too much of the "dead, unless you can pass your armor save, unless your hit by a power weapon, unless you have an invulnerable save, unless the weapon ignores invulnerable saves, unless your invulnerable save can't be negated ad absurdum" that plagues 40k.

Bottom line, portal assaults and consolidation is what the Raiders list does. I'd rather make a new list, probably the Tomb World list, rather than changing the existing list into something that's unrecognizable as the old list.

Fair enough!

Personally, I feel that the monoliths definitely lose out when compared to the Land Raider and Leman Russ, though. Their main advantage is durability, and that only applies against MW/TK/Lance hits. As far as offensive potential goes, a single 30cm AP4+/AT4+ shot compares poorly against the [75cm AP4+/AT4+, 45cm AT5+, 2x30cm AP5+] of the Leman Russ, or the [30cm AP4+, 2x45cm AT4+] of the Land Raider. Especially since it's more expensive.

Don't get me wrong, the ability to teleport/phase out matters quite a bit, as does the skimmer capability, but it's also slower than both of them, and much more susceptible to breaking.

I think that a big part of the portal issue comes from the use of broken formations of monoliths and their portals. If you double Monoliths forward and fire at an enemy, they return fire and break the formation, you can use your withdrawal movement to launch them another 30cm forward, and still use the portals to launch an attack. Directly outlawing the use of broken portals becomes too big a limiter, though, which prohibits an easy fix to that problem.

Strictly comparing offensive attacks leave the Monoliths in the dust, but they're also Fearless, Skimmers, Teleporters and have Portals. That's pretty huge. Not to mention that they hit twice as hard in assaults.

Monoliths are ideally suited to their role, which is to teleport in, survive attacks, launch assaults and support them. Perhaps too well suited?

Or maybe changing it is exactly what should be done. I'll take it to the other thread.

edit: Of course, one has to keep in mind that annoying isn't necessarily the same as a problem.

Very true. I'm just a little bit nervous about knocking down the defensive capability of Monoliths, when their endurance is really their main selling point. (Well, obviously the portals, but they need to survive in order to use them.)

Any opinions on MW with crossfire being better than TK(1)? Feels odd, or too rare to care about? (As it only affects C'Tan hit by TK(1) - TK(DX) is still better since it does multiple points of damage.)

Harvester engines were already unpopular; with this rule change they're a total waste of points.

_________________
http://www.troublemakergames.co.uk/
Epic: Hive Development Thread