UPDATE August 31, 2012

The list in Raiders 2.0 is now slightly out of date. The updated list is found on the NetEA website, in the Compendium or in the Tournament Pack.

The changes from Raiders 2.0 are:

- Eques formations (Destroyers) now cost 350 points, down from 375 points

- C'tan (Nightbringer and the Deceiver) gain the Walker ability

UPDATED September 13, 2010

Follow the link below to get the newest version of the Necron List.  This is the FINAL version and will hopefully undergo no changes. However, regardless of changes we'll be leaving it alone for the next year.

Feel free to comment on this thread.

http://www.tacticalwargames.net/archive/rules/epic/raiders.html

Note: This is the FINAL version of the Raiders 2.0. The previous DRAFT from February 2010 had quite few errors in it that needed fixing, formatting problems, points that needed to be corrected, and so on. No doubt there are still things that I missed and I apologize in advance for them.

_________________
author of Syncing Forward and other stories...

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

Shouldn't this thread refer to the Necron list and not the Minervans in the first post?  *laugh*

_________________
"EPIC: Total War" Lead Developer

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

Yay for copy and paste!

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

At the top of this thread is a link to Raiders 2.0. Within it lies the newest Necron list.

thanks

Coming up on the six-month point for the Necrons and I wanted to get some feedback from old and new players on the overall list, how well the rules read, internal or external balance issues, etc. General thoughts are welcome, but please try to provide specific examples from gameplay when applicable.

_________________
author of Syncing Forward and other stories...

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

Mostly I think some formatting changes could help out.

One thing that popped up that was a little confusing is that the Lord doesn't have to be on a warrior stand. I think all that's needed here is slight clarification that the Lord is either part of a warrior stand or able to be placed on any stand in the detachment. I have no attachment to either direction, but I think more people have modeled the Lord on other stands so that might be the route to go.

Is there any reason the harvester section can't be renamed to war engines and the pylon moved down from the support section? It doesn't seem like it would really change the number of pylons that show up in a list since they are already limited by the 1/3 war engine rule.

Following that, if the harvesters are renamed war engines, you could move the 1/3 point allocation rule into that box which would be the natural place to see it rather than a note that harvesters count toward WE allocation total.

_________________
-Vaaish

Are Pylons limited by the 1/3 allowance? If so, it's pretty unclear, and they would be one of the only formations to be limited twice (as a Maniple selection and as War Engine on points.)

The Garrison rule is also a bit unclear - can any formation called a Phalanx be garrisoned, or only formations from the Necron Phalanxes section? I'd suggest renaming the Armored and Monolith Phalanxes either way, it's a bit weird to have "Phalanx" formations under "Maniples" when there's a separate category called "Phalanxes".

quoting from the army list page under the support header:
"Note that Pylons count toward your War Engine allocation."

_________________
-Vaaish

I agree with Vaaish's points.

I'll point out again that I don't think you need both the Monolith Maniple and Phalanx formations. You could drop the Phalanx and change the Maniple's upgrades to add 0-3 Obelisks for +50 each, and upgrade 0-2 obelisks to monoliths for +35-40 points each. That would achieve pretty much the same thing, aside from not being in 25 point increments (the horror!).

_________________
Dave

Blog

NetEA Tournament Pack Website

Squats 2019-10-17

I'm probably confused by looking at the NetEA docs then.

Yeah, I wouldn't count on the NetEA docs until they reach a final format. To my knowledge, they haven't. But your points are read and understood about the chart. The Necron Lord isn't obligated to be in a warrior stand. That'll have to do until I get an update done.

_________________
author of Syncing Forward and other stories...

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

For those interested, and since there hasn't been any comments here for some time, I put together a summary sheet for the raiders 2.0 cron list for an upcoming game now that my arm is 99% done. I think I've got all the stats right, but if anyone sees any mistakes, let me know.

EDIT: File removed, see updated sheet later in thread.

_________________
-Vaaish

"arm" should be "army"

Tomb spyder, scarab swarm (base contact) no macro weapon and the ignore cover is missing