Login |  Register |  FAQ
   
Post new topic This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  Page 10 of 17
  [ 248 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 ... 17  Next

Necron 4.2 - comments
Moscovian
 Post subject: Necron 4.2 - comments
PostPosted: Sun Sep 23, 2007 12:38 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2005 6:32 pm
Posts: 6414
Location: Allentown, Pennsylvania USA
Well the Eldar have hit-n-run abilities, so I wouldn't judge the army on that tactic alone.  With that said, the problems with the Necron stem from a couple of sources (one of which is the phase out) but I am not convinced the popcorn army is the cause of it all.  The playtesting (as far as I know) has yet to show a popcorn army in action.  It looks good on paper but show me.

As a general problem the Necron phase out annoys people because the Necron benefit more from being punished than from being ignored.  More specific problems exist with 2 unit types (IMO) as I've posted above.  Without regurgitating my writing I think the problems can be fixed by changing those two units and modifying the initiatives of the infantry.  I playtested Corey's suggestions and after two games it was obvious the initiative changes he wanted to try weren't working at all.

But all this aside, I wouldn't abandon your project.  These issues will get ironed out, especially by the time you finish your army.

_________________
author of Syncing Forward and other stories...

It's a dog-eat-dog world, and I've got my Milkbone underwear on.
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
fbruntz
 Post subject: Necron 4.2 - comments
PostPosted: Tue Sep 25, 2007 2:42 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Tue Apr 04, 2006 7:45 am
Posts: 232
Location: Lyon, France
One question about the Warbarque : Commander or Supreme Commander? In the PDF it's only Commander...

_________________
François Bruntz,
La Tribune de Laïtus Prime
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Moscovian
 Post subject: Necron 4.2 - comments
PostPosted: Tue Sep 25, 2007 3:31 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2005 6:32 pm
Posts: 6414
Location: Allentown, Pennsylvania USA
From conversations with Corey and other references on the thread the Warbarque should be able to to be upgraded to a Supreme Commander (as long as there is no C'tan with your army).

_________________
author of Syncing Forward and other stories...

It's a dog-eat-dog world, and I've got my Milkbone underwear on.
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
fbruntz
 Post subject: Necron 4.2 - comments
PostPosted: Tue Oct 02, 2007 2:29 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Tue Apr 04, 2006 7:45 am
Posts: 232
Location: Lyon, France

(Moscovian @ Sep. 25 2007,15:31)
QUOTE
From conversations with Corey and other references on the thread the Warbarque should be able to to be upgraded to a Supreme Commander (as long as there is no C'tan with your army).

Oups! That's right. I should have read better...  :blush:

_________________
François Bruntz,
La Tribune de Laïtus Prime
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
corey3750
 Post subject: Necron 4.2 - comments
PostPosted: Fri Oct 19, 2007 5:27 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Tue Nov 08, 2005 5:02 pm
Posts: 525
Location: Baltimore MD
After looking through the various comment, and I agree that the Destroyers/Heavy Destroyers seem a little over gunned.

I made them to be the same as Predator Annihilators (with a similar cost), but the fact that they are skimmer infantry complicates the issue somewhat.  The more I think about it, the more I agree that a tone-down is in order.

In regards to the initiative:  I don't see any Necron being uncoordinated.  They are sort of like the Borg in that respect from everything I've seen or read.

I've been kicking around the idea of doing something completely out of precedent and making the Monolith's extra attacks function only when they were directly involved in an assault.  That would still make them suicide to go after directly, but eliminate their devastating support ability.  It would also make single Monoliths even more pointless as they would be only a single extra attack as a support.  You'd need to have a beefier formation to do anything with it.

thoughts

_________________
Necron Army Champion
"Do not come whining to me because you are weaker than your enemy." - Alexander Corvinus
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Evil and Chaos
 Post subject: Necron 4.2 - comments
PostPosted: Fri Oct 19, 2007 5:50 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 05, 2006 2:57 am
Posts: 20887
Location: Harrogate, Yorkshire
I've been kicking around the idea of doing something completely out of precedent and making the Monolith's extra attacks function only when they were directly involved in an assault.  That would still make them suicide to go after directly, but eliminate their devastating support ability.  It would also make single Monoliths even more pointless as they would be only a single extra attack as a support.  You'd need to have a beefier formation to do anything with it.


I'd prefer to see Monoliths have their extra attacks fixed at a permenant +4 or the suchlike.

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Moscovian
 Post subject: Necron 4.2 - comments
PostPosted: Fri Oct 19, 2007 6:46 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2005 6:32 pm
Posts: 6414
Location: Allentown, Pennsylvania USA
Well Corey already fixed them at a 6 max which seemed to take the grossness out of the assault support.    Altough a 4max or 5max wouldn't be bad either.

Corey, I am curious what kind of tone down you were thinking for the Destroyers.  

The monolith change would certainly mitigate the strength of the unit but I think it would come at a cost of being a bit fiddly.  I can't think of any units on any lists that support differently than they firefight.  I'm not sure how I feel about that but the fact that there is unprecedented is reason for pause.

Any thought on making the phase out an option only for NON-broken formations?
I proposed this rather glibbly a few months ago but the more I think about it the more I am feeling it might be worth trying.  The biggest complaints about the Necrons:
1. They are rewarded for breaking in better positioning.
2. They shed all their BMs after breaking.
This would solve both those problems.  Phase-outs don't affect anything in the way of War Engines (C'tan excluded).  So...
Monoliths: would no longer benefit from being broken.  Likewise broken monoliths would be sitting ducks for the enemy to pound on.  The next turn rolls around and your opponent has a chance to shoot at them again before the portal is used.  Non-broken Monoliths would now become targets that people actually want to shoot at.
Obelisks: would certainly get a boost here when fielded on their own, but they took a (necessary) nerf on their armor (4+RA to 5+RA, removal of scout) so I am not sure this would be overwhelming.
Flayed Ones: I haven't been exactly wowed by these things and IMO they'd get a nice boost.
C'tan: these guys are UGLY in battle, but to enjoy them you have to get them close and personal.  Keeping the variable strategy rating would be a must if making this change, but once again they wouldn't benefit from breaking.  Now the Necron player will field them even more carefully than before.  If it breaks you could be seeing it surrounded and destroyed the next turn.  If it is destroyed, there goes your 3+ SR.
Infantry: This once again could be a very powerful thing, but the phase out is ALREADY powerful.  Changing this means the enemy will be focusing to break formations (as they should want to).  And infantry, unlike the others mentioned above, still need to come through a portal to come back.  This puts the Necron player in a difficult spot if his nearby Monolith is broken.  Do I phase out and try to re-deploy in a better position and risk my monolith being destroyed?  Or do I protect it and remain on the board.
In general: If this were employed the shedding of BMs might be something we'd have to lose or modify - perhaps to make it where they automatically rally and lose half their BMs.  Not sure on this part...

Lastly this will discourage phase outs in turns three and four because those formations off the board will count as destroyed and those broken one s on the board wouldn't count for much..

_________________
author of Syncing Forward and other stories...

It's a dog-eat-dog world, and I've got my Milkbone underwear on.
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Chroma
 Post subject: Necron 4.2 - comments
PostPosted: Fri Oct 19, 2007 6:51 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 24, 2005 3:06 pm
Posts: 9684
Location: Montréal, QC, Canada

(corey3750 @ Oct. 19 2007,17:27)
QUOTE
The more I think about it, the more I agree that a tone-down is in order.

I think a good "tone down" would be making them LVs as opposed to Infantry... they are relatively big floating targets, and they'd get their share of lascannon fire.

_________________
"EPIC: Total War" Lead Developer

Now living in Boston... any EPIC players want to meet up?
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Moscovian
 Post subject: Necron 4.2 - comments
PostPosted: Fri Oct 19, 2007 7:02 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2005 6:32 pm
Posts: 6414
Location: Allentown, Pennsylvania USA
Corey, on the initiative to the infantry: I can see them being a lot like Borg as well (being the Star Trek geek that I am) but doesn't the very definition of the word initiative seem contradictory to the Necron/Borg? ?

2+ is not bad at all and it could simulate them being confused by the adaptable and fluid nature of living creatures in battle. ?I've played against computer programs that when faced with something they haven't seen before (in a chess game, a war game, whatever) they would immediately go into a defensive posture. ?This could be the Necrons taking their HOLD action when they fail their roll, or better yet the player selecting their MARSHALL action in order to get that +1 modifier and automatically activate. ?And if we do the change I suggested above the 2+ initiative would be essential for balance.




_________________
author of Syncing Forward and other stories...

It's a dog-eat-dog world, and I've got my Milkbone underwear on.
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Evil and Chaos
 Post subject: Necron 4.2 - comments
PostPosted: Fri Oct 19, 2007 7:08 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 05, 2006 2:57 am
Posts: 20887
Location: Harrogate, Yorkshire
Altough a 4max or 5max wouldn't be bad either.


No, I mean a permenant +4, no less, no more.

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
corey3750
 Post subject: Necron 4.2 - comments
PostPosted: Fri Oct 19, 2007 8:10 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Tue Nov 08, 2005 5:02 pm
Posts: 525
Location: Baltimore MD
I can see making things non-variable would be easier in dealing with the Monolith in the long run.

************************************

One of the tone-downs for Destroyers I was thinking of was to make them LV.  I've been struggling over it because really they aren't LV, and shouldn't be, but sometimes reality has to take a back seat to balance issues.  Either that or leave them as is, but give them only one attack each.

************************************

Initiative, as defined in epic, is not misleading.  If it meant what it should mean, then you'd have a point, but really the term that should have been used is "Discipline Rating" or "Training".  It represents the ability to follow orders and act upon them in a coordinated fashion.  There is no confusion, no hesitation and total mechanical coordination in the Necron, which is why they all had a 1+ rating .

************************************
Having the phase out work for non-broken units is completely and utterly contrary to the entire concept of Phasing out.  Phasing out is the response the Necron have to getting their butts kicked to the point they lose cohesion as a fighting force.

Long ago, when I was first doing this, I had thought of having Phase Out be final.  Once you Phased out, you were gone for good and considered destroyed.  Of course this would nessecitate making the entire Necron Army a swarm army like the Tyranids, everything being cheap and disposable.

Now, I MIGHT be willing to consider removing the automatic rally.  That's still a hold over from Jervis' original list.  If you break you'd need to roll to rally. Then if you successfully rallied you'd remove all blast markers in preparation for a return.

************************************
Honestly though, the biggest problem I still see is a manifest refusal to fight the Necron the way they need to be fought.  It requires a fundamental change in tactics to beat them, and if you insist on fighting them as you would any other army you WILL lose.

_________________
Necron Army Champion
"Do not come whining to me because you are weaker than your enemy." - Alexander Corvinus
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Moscovian
 Post subject: Necron 4.2 - comments
PostPosted: Fri Oct 19, 2007 8:37 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2005 6:32 pm
Posts: 6414
Location: Allentown, Pennsylvania USA
Okay, well that makes sense.  As for the automatic rally removal that would certainly be a nerf on the Necrons.  Imagine having your BTS goal just sitting off board broken and unable to rally on turn 2.  Turn three rolls around and as your checking for victory conditions the BTS formation counts as destroyed...
I like this idea, Corey.  It might be the golden goose the Necron needed.

The LV change would certainly be a helpful change to the Destroyers, but their movement and armament is still pretty hideous.  I'd much rather prefer to see one/both of those nerfed and leave them as infantry, but I could accept LV too.

I am ambivalent on the 4 attacks (essentially adding a +3 addtional attacks to the unit stat).  The cap seemed to take care of things, the variable is characterful, and it provides a weakness to the Monolith (assaults by smaller groups and clipping assaults).  The fixed amount would be simpler but IMO more powerful.

You are high on crack though if you still think that EVERYBODY has just been playing against the Necrons wrong.  I have seen them lose ONCE and I had to work hard for that loss. :)  But fear not, for if you make these adjustments I see a big change comin'.

_________________
author of Syncing Forward and other stories...

It's a dog-eat-dog world, and I've got my Milkbone underwear on.
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
corey3750
 Post subject: Necron 4.2 - comments
PostPosted: Fri Oct 19, 2007 8:58 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Tue Nov 08, 2005 5:02 pm
Posts: 525
Location: Baltimore MD
I can't get high.  I'm inherently resistant to drugs :p

I say this based on the battle reports I've seen.

_________________
Necron Army Champion
"Do not come whining to me because you are weaker than your enemy." - Alexander Corvinus
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Moose Cloud
 Post subject: Necron 4.2 - comments
PostPosted: Sun Oct 21, 2007 4:48 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Tue May 02, 2006 10:38 pm
Posts: 16
I haven't been able to play with or against necrons but I think you guys may be a little too close. 4.2 seems to really have brought the necrons in line. They are expensive and a lot of the formations don't exactly wow or pay through the nose for it if they do.

I would tone destroyers down a little(not as far as making them light vehicles because they would instantly become everyone's favorite target). I think losing one of their shots and getting a proce cut to 300 is reasonable.

I think the change to obelisks really toned down one of the main broken aspects of the army and perhaps after the rather minor(but needed) destroyer change there should be more playtesting to stop the list going too far in the opposite direction.

In order to help playtest I'm getting myself a necron army. Does anyone have a good guide for monliths and flayed ones? Also has anyone used the small andrayadas skimmers as destroyer bodies? They're much cheaper than 40k scarabs you see...
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
zombocom
 Post subject: Necron 4.2 - comments
PostPosted: Sun Oct 21, 2007 11:18 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Fri Apr 20, 2007 1:49 am
Posts: 5569
Corey - Even under the new rules I'm still yet to lose with my necrons. They're still just too good, mostly due to the phase-out issue which you still haven't really acnowledged.

_________________
http://www.troublemakergames.co.uk/
Epic: Hive Development Thread
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
  Print view Previous topic | Next topic 
Post new topic This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  Page 10 of 17
  [ 248 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 ... 17  Next


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  


Powered by phpBB ® Forum Software © phpBB Group
CoDFaction Style by Daniel St. Jules of Gamexe.net