It's been a bit quiet here lately, so I thought I'd jig things up a little by rehashing what exactly we're meant to be playtesting. Consider this the minutes of the previous discussions.

The following are Corey's confirmed changes to the Raiders version:



On top of these confirmed and agreed changes, several other areas were being looked at for potential change, with greater and lesser levels of agreement:

Monoliths
It has generally been agreed that the Monolith formation should have a minimum size of 3. There have been two main suggestions how this should be done:

Option 1:


Option 2


General agreement is in place on the prices, just the specifics of the list design remain to be decided on.

Pylon

There has been much complaint about the AA capability of Pylons, largely due to their ability to shoot down Thunderhawks in one shot, and their exceptional range.

Equally, Necron players have suggested the unit is a "paper tiger", and due to being DC2 spends most of the game broken.

A general consensus was agreed on reducing the AA shot to TK(1), and possibly reducing to 90cm. However, Corey was very much against any changes to the Pylon's stats, despite the popularity of such a change.

Wraiths

A majority of players consider these to be significantly underpowered and overpriced. A broad consensus was agreed for adjusting their stats a little, with the majority favouring CC4+ EA+1, while retaining first strike.

A number of people expressed the opinion that they would prefer the Wraith to be returned to being an upgrade rather than just its own formation.

Abbatoir

The consensus was that this unit was underpowered compared to the Aeonic Orb, so it was agreed to increase it to DC 8, while dropping the TK(D3) EA from +3 to +2.

Phase Out

Concerns were raised over why Necron formations get to lose all BMs when rallying offboard.



Let's use these minuted discussions as a starting point, and see if we can get decisions stamped down on the main areas of contention, i.e. the Pylon stats, the Monolith formation specifics and what to do about Wraiths.

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

Give them infiltrator and lower their move if they cost to much.

These guys are tomb guardians in the fluff. In Nightbringer they ambushed the Marines by coming out of the walls and then disappearing again.

Attack-wize, I think they're fine as is. They shouldn't be hitting more than assault marines if we're assuming 3 per base.

_________________
Dave

Blog

NetEA Tournament Pack Website

Squats 2019-10-17

I second the infiltrator suggestion - it perfectly represents what Wraiths are designed for with their ability to phase straight through obsticals and strike at deeper throops before further out ones have a chance to react.

I don't have all the models yet to play these and those I have aren't put together yet. In time I will test out the Necrons, but I have (virtually) all epic armies I can choose from and only play 0-2 times or so a month.

I like the simplicity of this option, but it seems to be worded to allow up to 5 monoliths if someone wanted to take that many compared the the max three in a formation of the other option. Maybe this?

_________________
-Vaaish

I suggested this on the other thread as it allows 3-6 unit formations with a max of 3 Monoliths and adheres to the style of the current list.

_________________
Dave

Blog

NetEA Tournament Pack Website

Squats 2019-10-17

That seems fine to me as well.

_________________
-Vaaish

In the Portal rules you should specify that it can only be used by Necron formations. Else by the letter of the rule the opponent could use them too  

_________________
We are returned!
http://www.epic-wargaming.de/

Zombocom is going to drag me to action I can see...
--> waking up  -->
(Stretches)  

Morning, tomb-kin.  How was your 1,000,00 year slumber?  I feel a little stiff, like my back is made of metal, but what do you expect?  We're Necrons.
----
Monoliths: Despite the fact that Option 2 is prettier, I think Option 1 eliminates any funny business with formations of 5 Monoliths and such.  However, if somebody wants to try that out and try to break it, let them.  If it turns out they can't, I'd consider going with the Option 2 format (just so it takes up less space and is easier on the eyes).

Pylons -> AA TK(1).  IMO we should leave the range alone.  The number one beef with the Pylon is the Thunderhawk concern and moving it to TK(1) mitigates that concern.  Anyone else who has actually played against the Necrons knows that these things are more obligatory than decent choices.

Wraiths -> Prior to the last minute changes for Raiders, the Wraiths were as follows:
Upgrade 0-3 Wraiths +50 points each, for the Phalanx, Venator, and Eques formations.  We should probably go back to this.

Their stats are as follows:


My suggestion is we eliminate the invulnerable save, reduce their speed to 20cm and make them infiltrators.  This increases their assault range while avoiding the 60cm assault.  In making them slower overall, we've matched the characteristic of the plodding Necrons a little closer.  This also matches the Eldar Warp Spiders which were made infiltrators to represent their mini-teleport jumps (something akin to the phasing through walls).

If anyone is interested in doing a Tomb Stalker list, the exclusively Wraith formations can be tried out there.

Abattoir:  DC 8, while dropping the TK(D3) EA from +3 to +2.  I am still not convinced that we shouldn't just make it EA +1, but we need to set some point for testing so...  EA +2 is as good as any.

According to Corey, the phase out eliminating BM's was designed to keep formations from abusing the Marshall rule and bringing back large amounts of troops by marshalling them through the portal.  If you have no BMs, you have no ability to Marshall and get back guys.

While the elimination of BMs is a plus for the Necron, being offboard most certainly isn't.  Troops that are off board cannot contest objectives and count as destroyed for Victory Points.  

Now what I would be interested in seeing is a game where the BM's were retained.  This would make that Marshall rule kick into overdrive and you would see more BMs on Necron formations while seeing a lot more units returning to the board.  IMO if you want to playtest that, go right ahead.  Heck, I might try this myself the next game that I play.

As for Corey... I have no idea if he is even interested in playing Epic anymore.  The last time we corresponded I put him on a CC list with other Epic players in his area but I never heard from him at all.  I don't know if he is even interested in being the Necron Champ.  The forum shows that the last time he showed up was September, the last time I emailed him about the Abattoir.  This is one for the NetERC I suppose, but if I don't get any correspondence from Corey I'll simply do the best I can with what we have and put those changes into Raiders and hope I don't irritate too many people along the way.

_________________
author of Syncing Forward and other stories...

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

Actually that was refuted, as the necron rule specifically allows necron units to marshall from offboard even when they don't have BMs:





If Corey is no longer interested I would be very interested in taking the list forward.

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

Fine, ignore my suggestion. See if I care.



They have two CC attacks at 3+!?!?!

_________________
Dave

Blog

NetEA Tournament Pack Website

Squats 2019-10-17

It wasn't 'refuted' as you can't refute intent.  That would imply that Corey lied which I don't think anyone is saying.  It doesn't matter what the rule says; Corey set it up that way with the elimination of marshallingoff board.  If the rule failed to reflect that, it would need an errata.  

The question is, what do we do now?  If we allow BM's to accumulate off board after rallying, then the Necron rule would just be worded more simply.  If we decide to leave things as they are, then we would have to go back and change the wording in the Necron rule to explicitly state no Marshalling was allowed offboard.  BTW, I wanted that statement in there and Corey argued with me at the time it wasn't needed since it was redundant.   In the end, I defaulted to his decision.

_________________
author of Syncing Forward and other stories...

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

Ya' big baby, I wasn't ignoring you.  I was just typing for a reeeeally long time and you posted in front of me.  I think yours is pretty too, Dave.  I'll give you a sucker when I see you next for being a good boy.  

Seriously though, I think any of them will be fine.  The Necron Army List chart area is rather sparse so space won't be an issue.  Mine, Dave's, or Zombo's all pretty much do the same thing.  Anyone feel free to post some feedback and tell me what is easier on your eyes and the simplest to comprehend.

_________________
author of Syncing Forward and other stories...

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

Mosc: Corey actually redacted his statement after someone posted those rules, saying he had made a mistake about his reason. This wasn't taken any further however, so he has not as of yet posted his current reasoning for the rule being the way it is.

With regards to the Monoliths, we really are picking hairs. Any of these solutions will be fine frankly, we just need the AC (or failing that Mosc for the sake of Raiders) to make a call.

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

I like Option 1 that Zombocom posted.

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter

I kind of like daves as it eliminates the oddities of having two formations whose names are close enough to be confusing as to which has what and it prevents the whole 5 monolith thing from option two.

_________________
-Vaaish