Hoping to resurrect this. It's been a while since there has been much activity and hopefully that means people have had some time to mull over these changes and get some games in.

So from what I gather the big changes being discussed are (were);

Living Metal revision: Making saves for each point of TK damage being inflicted.
After a bunch of personal play testing by myself and my opponents while they occasionally found Living metal annoying weren't overly bothered by it. TK weapons are uncommon and as Necron war engines don't have shields I think this would break the list more than it would help the list.

Points reduction for Harvester Engines from 750 to 650.
I see no problem with this even with Living metal not changing. I have been testing them in the Sautekh list at 600 points and they have been performing well but not overly so. Though I did take infiltrator off the Abbitoir and added a portal to the Aeonic orb.

Moving Pylons from the support section to the Harvester section.
I see no problem with this I have done extensive play testing and its a very small change.

As I've gathered the largest issue opponents have with facing Necrons is the portaling ability. I have been testing out an amended portal rule that causes formations using a broken portal to gain one blast marker when going through, if its going from one portal to another on the board and both portals are broken then it gets 2 BMs.
I think this gives some satisfaction for the opponents who invested the activations breaking the portal formation but it doesn't break the army. In many circumstances it is a moderate hindrance for the list but I've also taken this into account by increasing the upgradeable formation size of Monolith Phalanx formations. I've converted the Monolith Maniple and Phalanx into one formation starting with 2 monoliths at 175pts with upgrades of up to two more Monoliths and up to three Obelisks. I think that this would translate nicely as you could have one large Monolith formation that you would be aggressive with when teleporting and could weather a little more fire and maybe two other smaller ones that would arrive later to give you options after the battle field has had some movement and casualties.

Something else we have been testing is a reduction on the armour value of the warriors to 5+ from 4+. In my opinion to keep with the fluff this makes more sense. This would make it so that the opponent would have a better chance of actually killing a formation of warriors before it phases out. Which I know has been a beef with several of my opponents. The change is pretty big as it effects a core unit and would certainly require a cost reduction for the unit.

I think the list could benefit from point reductions to several other formations as well like the Eques Maniple and the Warbarque. Ill put together a revised playtest version this week with the proposed changes.

_________________
Necron AC (click to see current Necron list threads)
Toronto Wargaming Group

This all sounds fairly promising to me, my only issue is:


Personally, I would rather make a save for each point of damage. This would weaken single-hit things like Monoliths, but in most other cases I think things would be reliably survivable.
As an example, a Pylon hit by a Volcano Cannon that rolls a '2' for damage has a 50% chance of dying on just a single 4+ save, but only ~25% of a chance of dying with two 4+ saves. It is much more likely to break from the second option, but I think that's an acceptable reward for the opponent. The bigger things are, the more this is the case- there'll be some reliable damage, but probably fewer outright kills.

I haven't played any games since the last EEC, but...

I've come around to the fact that Necrons as they stand are, in fact, balanced. But they're a "frustrating" kind of balanced, where the opponent is either helpless or the Necrons misfire and lose badly. So I'm still in favor of changing things up, but you should keep in mind that nerfs and buffs might have to balance out in some way.

Final thought: Dumping Infiltrator on the Abattoir is a huge, huge change - it's ~700 points of pure assault engine, reducing it's threat range by 37% (and halved if you want to get into CC) is something that needs extensive testing. Note that it also cripples the ability of the Abattoir to get into position to support mulitple assaults, which is how you get value out of an assault titan.

I guess I should clarify. Currently the approved rules have living metal treating all TK weapons with multiple hits as 1 hit no matter the roll. So even a TK weapon with D6 damage would only ever count as one point.

_________________
Necron AC (click to see current Necron list threads)
Toronto Wargaming Group

I agree with you on the Abbatoir though just trying to find middle ground between the two Harvester engines and 600 points seems to be working well for the Orb but is much too cheap with an infiltrating Abbatoir (even with the TK nerf we have been trying).

I also agree with you both, I just gathered the impression was that the list needed some changes not because it wasn't balanced but because it was no fun to play against and generally a one trick pony to play. Personally I kind of like it how it is except I think the Harvester engines can come down a bit in points even with no changes. Its just that and I know from personal experience my opponents don't like to play against it, lose or win. Mostly they hate phase out and using portals to go into reserves, they find it aggravating and honestly I can't say I don't feel a little bad doing it as it feels pretty cheesy.

_________________
Necron AC (click to see current Necron list threads)
Toronto Wargaming Group

The Necrons can seriously piss off opponents, no doubt about that. We have to find a way to get 'em to smile while we harvest their troops!

600 points too cheap? It's not a Warlock.
...or is it?

_________________
- Ulrik

Right, I had forgotten that rule. So to clarify- that has gone in this new list, and we now make a save for each point of TK damage?


Warriors in 40k took quite a hit, and are no longer space marine equals (still tough, but their toughness comes mainly from their resurrection gimmick- represented in this list by other means). As the Sautek list is supposed to represent this newer style of Necrons, I'm all for the save change.


I know you want to keep the points equal, but it's not really necessary, especially if it's impacting how well these machines actually work. Why are you so strongly attached to the idea?
For list set-out, their are numerous options for how to present it without looking messy.

Correct. This was in part my reasoning for giving the War engines a points reduction. Something that I haven't really come across much yet is TK weapons against the smaller war engines like the Warbarque . Next time I play the list going to ask that my opponent specifically take some TK weapons (possibly a Death Strike) and see how that plays out. It would essentially a 50% to do 3+ points of dmg and at a 6 could very easily one shot them.


I wouldn't say I'm strongly attached, just giving the lower points and two minor changes a go and if that doesn't work then yeah separating them was my next course of action if necessary.

_________________
Necron AC (click to see current Necron list threads)
Toronto Wargaming Group

The unit size will stay at a base of 6, I'm sensitive to the fact that changing the formation size would be quite annoying as you might have to acquire more stands. I don't see the warrior formation composition changing. most likely it would result in a reduced cost. Possibly with an allowance for additional warriors as a upgrade. when playing the Sautekh list with the armour reduction and warrior upgrade. I've found that they behave most similarly to an ork warband coming in via Landa. Meaning they do the job the you brought them for, but with the reduced armour the formation gets whittled down fast before the end of the turn. My opponents seem to just focus the infantry formations and everything else becomes secondary as soon as they arrive.

I just wanted to be clear that I do understand that the third edition in W40K is very different to 5th and I figured I'd just comment on the fact that the Sautekh list is using 5+. While it would be nice to have the stats homogenous between the two lists, I think its too big a change for the moment.

As most people agree the list is actually well balanced (all be it annoying), so in the near future I am going to be devoting most of my time to advancing the Sautekh list towards approval but roughly this is what I'm looking at including for play testing:

- 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 Spacecraft, and even a supreme commander (warbarque or C'tan) with an Abattoir in a 3k list).
-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.
- Points drop for Monolith Phalanx and Maniple formations by 25pts.
- Points drop for Eques Maniples 25 to 50 points.
- Leader added to Pylon.

_________________
Necron AC (click to see current Necron list threads)
Toronto Wargaming Group

Awesome, Playtesting document updated with the proposed changes. Let me know if there are any mistakes and/or general opinions/impressions.

_________________
Necron AC (click to see current Necron list threads)
Toronto Wargaming Group

I'd really like to open up the list to be more than a one trick pony as its so often described. I seems the biggest issue is with the WE allocation limitiation and how it affects the big WEs, your Supreme commander and AA defense. Taking the larger war engine previously made it so you couldn't take a supreme commander. With the current playtest changes now you can but you are then stuck with the trade off of taking Supreme or AA not both. This opened it up a little but really doesn't change a whole lot. Originally I was going to propose adding a formation of Sentry Pylons like those found in the Sautekh and Tomb world lists. However it was also proposed to me that we amend the Spyder stats to let the Scarab swarm attack include an AA, potentially as it is now (30cm AP5+/AT5+) with an added AA5+. I don't think we can include both, though I would be very interested to try out both of the options. Which would the consensus prefer?

Tomb Spyders with an added AA5+ added to their scarab swarm attack
or
formation of four 10cm AV 5+AR, - CC, 5+ FF Sentry pylons with stats 75cm AT5+ AA5+, teleport, RA, Fearless, TRA.

The formation of sentry pylons would be easier as they already exist in the other lists and I wouldn't have to worry about stat differences like I would with the Tomb spyder option.

_________________
Necron AC (click to see current Necron list threads)
Toronto Wargaming Group

Will be getting some games in over the following few weeks. Planning on alternating the approved list with and without the playtest changes. Comments to come.

_________________
Necron AC (click to see current Necron list threads)
Toronto Wargaming Group