i don't neccessarily disagre w/ anything you said. but if these comments have been made since the list began is one thing. having played w/ the list and PROVING that it is flawed is completely different. this has not been done... (yet).

It's a very difficult thing to show in a battle report. It's easy to show a particular unit is overpowered, but when one of the basic rules of the race is in question you can't really show that in a report. For example, as I said the rallying without BMs thing was one of the main reasons I was able to win this game (because the vital engagement on turn 3 was done by a formation that had lost all BMs while rallying so was able to win the assault), but that doesn't immediately jump out at you.

It's very hard to prove that a specific special rule is a problem, you more have to go with how it feels, and it feels unfair to me.

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

There is one other disadvantage to phasing out.  Broken formations can still block enemy movement.  Necrons can only do that for a partial turn until they phase out.

_________________
Neal

Broken formations can also be used to inflict the -1 to rally rolls on enemy formations... fail to rally, withdraw within 30cm of some enemy you want to harass... Necrons can't do that.

_________________
"EPIC: Total War" Lead Developer

Now living in Boston... any EPIC players want to meet up?

There are several disadvantages to phasing out...

Blocking movement (as Neal said)
Preventing Hold-the-line on rallied formations
Formations off board count as destroyed for point tallies

I'm not suggesting that it is a liability - the rule was always intended to be an advantage.  

And my original comment (which echoed mnb's) needs some further clarification.  We had two very extensive threads going over what people perceived as 'balance issues' with the Necrons.  The phase out was never brought up.  C'tan bombs, Abattoirs, Obelisks as cores, Monolith formations, Wraiths, etc.  But not a word of the phase out.  Then whammo! it becomes a major issue here and goes off like a C'tan bomb.

Bizarre.

Neal, your comments regarding the phase out having always been a problem really can't apply here because the phase out rules have changed.  The loss of the auto-rally was a big step - so big that the phase out can barely be called the same mechanic.  It changed the nature of the Necron list fundamentally by preventing guarantees.  And as Corey has stated in the past the removal of BMs was done to smooth out the mechanic to prevent people from building formations OFF board.  So there are ups and downs to that aspect as well.

This isn't to stifle discussion.  It is just pointing out 1) it isn't the uber special rule it is being painted as in this thread, and 2) it wasn't considered a top priority of things wrong with the list before, so why should it now?

_________________
author of Syncing Forward and other stories...

It's a dog-eat-dog world, and I've got my Milkbone underwear on.

There are several other disadvantages to not being able to be on the board, aside from the HUGE fact that they are considered destroyed while off-board.

After all, unless they have a Harvester engine, you only need to BREAK the BTS unit to get a VP.  Name one other army that has that kind of limitation.

It didn't used to be that way.  I could always revert it all to it's origional version under Jervis.. you know, where EVERYTHING had a 4+ RA save... where Living metal units automatically healed a point of damage every turn and treated every weapon as if it were nothing more than a normal AT shot.

When the Necron's auto-rallied, as well as removing all blast markers... and automatically passed their activation rolls.  Of course with a 4+ RA save on EVERYTHING it was rather hard to break them in the first place.

As it stands now, the phase out/Necron rules are a HUGE reduction in what they used to be.  

I don't plan to see the Necron army reduced to nothing more than a IG or Marine list with different names for the units.

You just have to see what disadvantages the Necron's abilities give them, and then change your play style to exploit them.  Adapt to fight the enemy, and you can win.  

Most of the battle reports I've seen over the years, I look at the pictures of the deployment and can tell right off that bat that they were going to lose.  It's like watching someone play against IG that ignores their Artillery companies.  You know that unless there's a whole lot of luck, the Guard is just going to pound them flat.

Half the battle in beating the Necron lies in your deployment.  Deploy well, and you stand an excellent chance, deploy poorly, and only the dice can save you.  If those basic rules changed, then against a well deployed enemy, the Necron would be screwed.

Every army performs differently, as Moscovian pointed out, pretty much every army in Epic has some sort of strange rule when it comes to BM, or rallying, or both.  Each is designed to shape how they play, as well as add flavor to the army... to make them distinct and unique.

_________________
Necron Army Champion
"Do not come whining to me because you are weaker than your enemy." - Alexander Corvinus

If it's true that deployment is the determining factor in facing Necrons, then isn't that actually a problem with the list in and of itself?

It seems to me that deployment shouldn't be the deciding factor in a game.  Deployment is and should be a big deal, but most mistakes should be potentially recoverable and army compositions with sub-optimal anti-Necron deployment options should still stand a chance.  It should not be a nearly automatic death sentence.

_________________
Neal

nor is it.

There are varying levels of how far off the "ideal" deployment you can go, depending on what your opponent put in his army.

In general terms, you can tell what it's going to be before you even set up.

If the Necron player sets nothing up, you know he isn't bringing an Abbatoir or Aeonic orb.  Since there are really only 2 BP weapons in the entire list, that means the only probable BP armed unit you might see will be the Deciever.

By and large the Necron army is an assault oriented army.  Simple common sense should dictate your deployment against such a force.  If you spread your forces out across your deployment zone, like you might against IG or Marines... you are pretty much garunteed to lose.

Much the same thing would happen if you punched up your entire army into a small space if you were fighting IG.... yet I don't hear people screaming that the IG is overpowered because it would be foolish to deploy that way.

Odd, isn't it?

Marine players want to say the Pylon is overpowered because of what they fear it will do to their Thunderhawks...  I wonder:  What do you put in that Thunderhawk?

Assault Marines?

_________________
Necron Army Champion
"Do not come whining to me because you are weaker than your enemy." - Alexander Corvinus

Isn't it the same problem as facing any heavy teleport/planetfall/airdrop army?

Obviously, it's more of an issue with Necrons, but it's not exclusive to them.

_________________
"EPIC: Total War" Lead Developer

Now living in Boston... any EPIC players want to meet up?

Moved to a new thread.

_________________
Neal