Exactly.  The Necron rally process means BMs = regeneration chits.

That is the root of all the problems in the Rally/Regroup/Necron/Phase Out rule interactions.  Fix that and all the weirdness and problems go away.

_________________
Neal

yes well, it was put the way it is now because people were complaining about mostly destroyed formations returning virtually unharmed.

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

Because if you are going to be trashing it's stats, and making it something it isn't supposed to be, and reduce it from something of limited use to something utterly useless, then there's no reason not to just scrap the whole bloody thing and start from scratch on it.

Since it represents the sum total of AA ability the Necrons have, turning it into a multi unit formation would at least give it the ability to do something meaningful to aircraft in general is actually preferable to me.

I never liked the Pylon in the first place, I just wasn't arrogant enough to take what Games Workshop made, toss it out the window, and develop something completely new and hang their name on it.

Frankly the idea of having to change this simply because Marine players appear to be unable to play any list other than one that relies entirely on Thunderhawks should seem to suggest that perhaps THAT'S the list that should be changed...

In any case, if the stats are going to be changed AT ALL, then the Pylon should become something that is at least worth taking.  So if there's to be any change it will be because the Pylon would be redone entirely.

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

How that is done, however, is up for debate.  Corey and I went over that miserable rule for weeks and we still didn't iron out the problems because the RAW still allows the Necron rule to bring troops back without BMs.  

I am thinking, however, that there might be a huge nerf on Necron formations if they retain their BMs since they won't be doing anything except walking on the board.  They have to move or shoot for the Marshall to take place and shooting is not an option obviously.  While the formation may be partly reformed, they will be just sitting there on the board.

It is hard to theory hammer this one which is why I will be trying it out myself just to see what it looks like.  It would be great if other tried it too.  If the retaining of the BMs has a net zero change to the strength of the list, it would be great since it is just one more special rule we can eliminate.

_________________
author of Syncing Forward and other stories...

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

Corey, it isn't trashing the stats.  It already has the ability to cause between 1 to 3 DC damage.  It isn't like it is being changed to AA6+.  It is a nerf, I agree, but don't make it sound like it is being morphed into a mouse when it isn't.  

You can justify the change if you want a couple ways.  Maybe it is harder to hit a fast moving aircraft than a laboring ground based WE, or a spacecraft for that matter, thus justifying the change to TK(1).  Or maybe 40K should be used as a guideline instead of a hard-fast rule.  That has been the approach in most of the Epic lists.  There are probably a dozen or more units that are not quite what the 40K stats are because they simply don't fit into Epic that way.

_________________
author of Syncing Forward and other stories...

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

I don't see it as a Nerf.  Quite the opposite.

Gives a good excuse to not bother with a harvester engine, and instead take a fully loaded warrior formation to be your BTS formation, since it would be virtually unkillable.

But I don't have a problem with doing it either way.  So feel free to test away on it, and if it makes everyone happy then by all means it works for me.

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

I think you are right, but I can't say with certainty.  Thus the test.

_________________
author of Syncing Forward and other stories...

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

of course it is.

The stats, as they currently are laid out, are virtually identical to it's 40k stats.  It's one of the very few things that translates over directly.

In any event the point remains:  If there are going to be stat changes, then they might as well be more fundemental to it's actally worth using.

As it stands, it's ONLY effective use is to scare people who bring heavy air transport armies.. It's not actually really effective, it just scares people because of the possibility.

If that's going to be taken away, then there's no reason not to just go ahead and start over to make it a worthwhile piece.

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

Having AA is reason enough for the Pylon.  Scaring away air transports is a secondary function and if you need to truly knock one out of the sky then take two Pylons.  Many people do this anyway.

But there are plenty of reasons to not make the change you are talking about.  You are looking at fundamentally changing the stats, the formation cost, and the number of units in the formation, and the number of models being used (something that might preclude Necron players from actually fielding the one Pylon model they own, as an example).  This would require more than just a few rounds of playtest to figure out - it would take months.  That could put the Raiders review a full year behind or more as well.

At least the other changes are either small or reversions back to older stats / costs.  The Monolith change limits extreme choice but the formation is largely the same in composition and cost.  The wraith changes are simply putting it back to what the list had prior to the Raiders version.  The C'tan is a small drop from BP6 to BP4.  The Abattoir change does very little statistically to the way the unit fights and actually matches your fluff better.

All of these things have one thing in common: they are all nudges.  They aren't strip-it-down-and-build-a-Corvette-from-Cadillac moves.

And, once again on the 40K translation, it isn't deviating THAT far from what it was.  Do we need to hold to the game of 40K that blindly that we can't accept a small change for the sake of balance?

_________________
author of Syncing Forward and other stories...

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

I've said a few times in the past that I would like to see Pylons available in formations as well as in singles.

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter

Maybe in a "Tomb Guardian" variant list... yes, there should be Necron variants available.

_________________
"EPIC: Total War" Lead Developer

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

I don't think the formation should be saved for a variant list, considering how Pylons are typically represented in the background / 40k artwork (generally several of them close together, close enough to be in a formation).

I believe the lack of a formation has led this DC2 vehicle to fairly consistantly under perform, due to it/them spending most of every game they are involved in broken...

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter

The change for the Pylons isn't a "nudge"

It's gutting what is already an almost useless unit to appease those who want to have the rules changed to fit the way they want to play.

Sort of like saying "I have a hard time laying blast markers because I don't like playing with disrupt units, so They Shall Know No Fear needs to be removed or nerfed"

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

how about E&Cs idea? having either 2 or 3 in a formation would mean less time broken (would take 4 or 6 BMs instead of 2) and could take down a thawk (if in formation of 3). wouldn't this please both sides?

it would be more useful.

But it would also be more dangerous to ground forces.  What would you suggest for a point cost for 3 of them?

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