Interested in reviving the discussions about the tomb stalker/sentinel. Was trying to think about how to incorporate it into the list without drastically altering it.

How would you feel about having it function similar to the eldars Avatar except instead of the farseer summoning it, it gets "summoned" near the tomb complex for one turn. Extra incentive to take the expensive tomb complex and it fits with the fluff of it being a tomb guardian.

_________________
Necron AC (click to see current Necron list threads)
Toronto Wargaming Group

I would rather include a unit. What you describe, while fluffy, would require another special rule. The necron list already has quite a few special rules and I don't want to add more. A unit could instead come with a note in the list saying something along the lines of "may only be bought if also fielding a Tomb Complex"

Thanks for your input

Got a game in last week against a guard list and going to get another in this week against a marine list. Had a few comments from my opponent about this list, I'm sure he will elaborate more when he posts the battle report.

1. The night scythes are underpriced/overpowered. The combination of 4 shots AA shots at 5+ at 30 cm and the fact that they have the portal when landing, 175pts. is too cheap.
In the game we played they didn't really come across as overpowered at all, though I used them most of the time for ground attacks and portals and their AA really didn't get used. I think he meant just a point comparison between them and Thunderbolts.

2. He felt that the MW disrupt 6BP on the bombers was underpriced also, though in game they severely underperformed as he had a crazy amount of AA. (5 hydras and a squad of Thunderbolts always on CAP)

3. He had a much more enjoyable game against this list compared to the scarab conflict list. Mainly the no phase out and the amour nerf to the warriors and flayed ones. I found the warriors even in groups of 8 with a tomb spider were extremely vulnerable, though I likely need to change tactics (I was playing them too similarly to the way I played the scarab conflict list). More play testing required but it may warrant a price drop for the unit to 200.

I ended up losing 2:1 in the third somewhat due to a seriously bad tactical mistake in the start of the second. It would have been close had I played it properly. Though I still think I would still have been the underdog.

I found the secondary ability of the eternity gates to be quite powerful. Doing a marshal action to build back up the unit going through the gate and postioning them so they give a ton of supporting fire when retaining to assault with the monoliths.

Next week I am going to give the Vault and deathmarks a try and beef up my warrior units to 10. Will post that battle report also.

_________________
Necron AC (click to see current Necron list threads)
Toronto Wargaming Group

Thanks a lot much appreciated! (I asked for peoples reaction on the points cost of the airplanes in the begining, since this was my first try at making a list. I realy didn't get any answers.)



I think I see what he means, thunderbolts are a good compairsion. The thunderbolts are only better at attacking a mixed formation. AT or AP are about the same, but the night scythes comes with a portal, better save and also have both AA attacks at 30 cm. The use of the portal of course means forgoing the ability to intercept, but it's still a big advantage.

I think we should try them for 225 points, please do in your next battle if you bring any. A 50 points increase might be overdoing it, but it's easier to lower the cost later than to raise it a scond time.

Come to think about it I think the doom scythes are also on the cheap side, they should probably more like a 125 points a piece.


Concerning the bombers I see two possiblities for toning them down. Lowering the BP to 2 points each. That means loosing one planes loweres their effectiveness quite heavily, which will make the player a lot more conservative in their use. The other way would be to increase the points. At first perhaps to 375 points. That would put them at the same costs as the Tau AX-1-0.


This makes me very glad as it was my prime concern and complaint with the old necrons


Yeah please test them again at 225 points, but I'm open to a lowering of the cost.


Yeah the eternity gate is not only a nerf of the portal game. It actually in some ways is a boost as well. Perhaps not actually a boost per say, but it lowers the amount of monoliths needed freeing up points for other units.
(I mean what you describe above can be achieved with raider monoliths as well of course but requires two monoliths.)

I think this is quite overboard. Honestly I don't think I would field them at 225. When they land and use the portal they are so vulnerable and would be too heavy an investment, Id go with the doom scythes instead and use just monoliths for the portal. If you compare them to Eldar nightwings at 100 points a piece they are quite a bit better (4+ armour, 30cm 5+ AA Lance attack) and cheaper. I think they are fine at 175, for IG thunderbolts are only 150pts...



I think this is fair for the doom scythes. The MW 3+ TK(1) attack on a fighter is very nice.



At 375 I don't think I would use them. I would instead drop the MW and drop them to 325 or even 300.



I'll try them again at 225 but with the increase in points to the fliers, keeping activation counts up will be very difficult

_________________
Necron AC (click to see current Necron list threads)
Toronto Wargaming Group

Hoping someone knows of a viable C'tan shard proxy, I'd really like to add one to the trial list.

_________________
Necron AC (click to see current Necron list threads)
Toronto Wargaming Group

One thing did strike me about the Night Shroud: just one of these things has a 3BP MW Disrupt barrage? That's better than a Quake Cannon... You'll have to forgive me, I've no idea about 40K stats at all, it just struck me as quite an extreme weapon.

Of course there is quite a variation amongst aircraft stats - for instance the Marauder having 3BP yet the Phoenix only 1BP. Still, MW BP is a big boost, and then of course with Disrupt on top it just seems a bit "how can we make this more awesome?" Having read a brief description on Lexicanum I'm not sure where the Disrupt comes from? More disrupting than a 3BP MW barrage, I mean

_________________
Kyrt's Battle Result Tracker (forum post is here)
Kyrt's trade list

Well it has maximum strength and lowest possible armour piercing value in 40k. (They use the 5" template. And each plane has five deathspheres.) I think that qualifies for MW when translating 40k stats to epic.
On the other hand we don't have to make such an direct approach when doing epic stats. A possiblity could be to do what Moscovian did for the goliath mega cannon (squat list). MW was discussed as appropriate for such a humongus gun, but he instead opted for ignore cover to represent its great firepower. This is a possiblity I'm open to. I don't think a regular BP attack with only disrupt is a good representation of the stats.

The disrupt comes from them having both the blind and pinning special rule in 40k. I added it mostly for fluff. It's in most cases a moot rule, as most thing will die to a MW attack anyway. That would of course change if MW was droped in favor of ignore cover.

Yeah true IG armies pay 150 pts I saw that now. I looked at a space marines list and they pay 175. (I don't play any imperial army ) But there still are some rather big benefits like I described earlier. I also forgot to mention the 1+ initiative which is a considerable boost. I still think they should have an increase. Please try them at 200 pts.


Yeah the use of a MW barrage attack will always be controversial in epic. Please see my answer above to Kyrt.


Ok thanks.


I will be testing this list myself again later in the fall, after the European team tournament in Berlin. I will however make a small update after your next game and current feedback to implement changes discussed.

OK thanks for the explanation. The description I read reminded me of a vortex missile/d-cannon effect which does make MW seem appropriate (what good is armour against that?), but I guess ignore cover could also make sense. It didn't mention the disrupt-ish effects since those are 40K rules and everyone knows what happens when you publish 40K stats online

On the 3 BP itself, is that base don the template size? 2 BP is hardly any different for 2 aircraft really (6 BP -> 4 BP = less one blast marker). 3 BP does mean that even if they lose a bomber, the formation still gets the best to-hit values. So perhaps 2 BP would be a minor nerf?

_________________
Kyrt's Battle Result Tracker (forum post is here)
Kyrt's trade list

Will do, I'll get a game in on Wednesday using the new point total for the night scythes.

_________________
Necron AC (click to see current Necron list threads)
Toronto Wargaming Group

I actually thought a lot about this issue/plane before deciding on the MW as I know it's controversial. At the same time it's the best (in my point of view) representation of the background/40k rules. The fact that it comes on an airplanes makes it somewhat more acceptalbe, at least I think so. This is because an airplane cannot take a sustain action so it will usually hit infantry on 5+ (most players will put their infantry in cover).

I realized they would be very good so wanted to mitigate that to some extent. The plane also got's the living metal rule in 40k. Which could perhaps have been used to argue a 5+ reinforced save. I chose not to for not wanting to make them to good.

Yes the 5x big template was something I considered. However more importantly to me 3 BP's came from not wanting to make them a choice never taken. What I mean is some formations while great will seldomly be taken because of the high cost/risk. I for instance almost never play with AX-1-0 when playing tau, even though I have the very nice forge world minis and Tau can really use what they bring. Something that cost almost 200 points and can be taken down by one lousy hit with only a 50% of saving is a big risk. I realized I my self would probably never take a formation were each plane only has 2 BP. Because of how the BP table works in conjuction with cost/risk.

Two planes with 3 BP each, will if one is lost, be exactly 50% less effective (the loss of one template and halving of automatic BM's). A plane with 2BP will on the other hand loose a lot more than 50% in effectivness. Basically taking one out makes the formation bordering worthless. I find that (in my choice of formations) unacceptable for an relativly easy to kill, but high cost unit.

The changing from MW to ignore cover would be my prefered choice for a nerf. This would of course change the dynamic of the unit and be a big boost against any hord/no save army. They will on avarage kill 50% of any such infantry formation hit regardless of were on the field they are. But at the same time a lot less effective against powerarmoured dudes.

(I don't think 3 planes/2BP each is doable because of high cost and perhaps to good.)

Yeah bombers are definitely a problem. It's hard to justify spending many points on them as they just aren't reliable - i.e. they activate less, when they fail to activate they do nothing, and the counters to them work in -your- turn. They end up being very "binary" - i.e. lots of times they won't do anything at all, and then one time they'll be great. I think that inevitably leads to them being down the pecking order when it comes to choosing your army list. Like you, I was reminded of the AX-1-0 also.

Honestly, the only reason I mentioned it is because the Necron list has always struggled (IMO) with the "my army's better than your army" effect, i.e. you read the list and it all looks a bit, well, unfair. As if it is designed to limit the possible weaknesses and your opponent's counters. Taken together, one might be forgiven for thinking Necrons were designed by someone who doesn't like losing From what you've said, you've perceived this yourself too, have already tackled the worst of it, and are being careful with the stats. I guess the issue for the bomber is, a MW barrage with disrupt thrown on the top "looks" bad, even if it isn't, but it's compounded by the fact that the list also has 90cm range TK flak weapons (which are themselves unique). If the weakness of the bomber is that their firepower degrades if one is shot down, the Pylon provides an equally extreme mitigation for that.

In terms of what to do with this particular unit, I can see negatives on both sides - make them powerful and/or numerous and they become too expensive to justify for a flyer in a 3-5k tournament army, but make them weaker and they can't really achieve much. In this instance I think you're hamstrung by the unit itself - it sounds like a ridiculously powerful weapon so it's hard to have more than a couple of units at a sane points cost.

Anyway, you've explained the reasoning and I think you know what you're doing.

_________________
Kyrt's Battle Result Tracker (forum post is here)
Kyrt's trade list

I'm glad you did bring it up! I knew the plane might be an isseu. So it's a good thing that I got to discuss my reasoning.

Any suggestion of what you think is a fair points cost for the night shroud with current epic stats?

I'd probably put them at 200+ each, which sadly is probably in "never take" territory like atension says. I just can't help but think it's all-around better than the AX-1-0. Better armour, better initiative, better secondary weaponry, and the main weapon is probably about the same (though not easy to compare). It's certainly not worse.

Do they have to come in pairs?

_________________
Kyrt's Battle Result Tracker (forum post is here)
Kyrt's trade list