They are defiantly not bad for their points even with the propsed LM change though the small unit size makes them very vulnerable to being wiped out and Necrons rely heavily on their portals to be effective.

What about Ponderous rule on the Sautekh and the limited unit size in Sautekh for monolith/obelisk units. In the scarab conflict list you have the option to add obelisks, the Sautekh you don't.

It sounds like Monoliths in the Sautekh list if this change happens with no other changes, opponents will focus fire them break them, they will only be able to move 15cm from where they teleported if they live thought the turn they teleport in. Being stuck broken so the player has to decide if they need to hide them (not that they can even move that far) (generally taking them out of effective portal range for troops) or risk death and another round of fire to keep them close to be effective. There are many lists with a high amount of MW shots that they could easily crush a RA formation with 3 units even with Invulnerable. Most necron players would agree that while they are good on paper with 3 FF 5+ they rarely get to participate as supporting fire as they are often broken.


Would the obelisks also be 5+ RA with invulnerable with no other changes?

If you look at the EEC results there were several Necron lists and all finished middle of the pack using the current approved list. If LM needs a nerf than the list especially Sautekh needs a buff somewhere else.

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

I had a game during EEC against Necrons, and I would like to add that although my opponent apparently took the saves MikeT failed to, there still are a lot of advantages to breaking Monoliths. If you are properly dug in, which you should be against Necrons, there really are not that many super-advantageous places to double to. If you manage to keep Portals broken, while retaining Overwatch, the Necrons are in trouble. They need the Monoliths' +EA FF and BM advantage to work properly. Since I had a minimum of two formations on Overwatch all the time, with Disrupt or MW, I kept assault losses to a minimum. Also, if you can whittle a Monolith formation down to one portal, the Necron infantry has nowhere to run to.

My main gripe with Necrons is that you, as an opponent, are forced to non-mobility for two turns, since if you move you are dead. Then turn 3 is all about breaking and phasing out as much as possible (especially the BTS) and try to grab one other objective.

Eldar, Krieg, possibly Steel Legion as well have formations that can dish out enough hurt to actually take out Monolith formations. For other armies, you have to play the patient game, minimize losses and wait for an opportunity to break out.

We ended in a 1:1 draw. It was a tough, intense and exciting game from the moment the Necrons teleported in turn 1, so I have no gripes with the game or the opponent. Still, the Necrons carry more issues to the table than Living Metal (not unlike NetEA Tyranids).

For Living Metal, an option would be a variable invulnerable save. So against normal attacks 2 x 4+, against MW 4+/5+, against TK 4+/6+. Maybe 1/2 damage against TK, if war engines are to remain a viable choice.

/Fredmans

What Ulrik wrote.


I don't think it would be that bad. The epic-uk list has them with a worse save than this would produce against MW.


Agreed. With invulnerable there would be buffs in place already though.

[1] Such a change would for the most part make monoliths more survivable. The vast majority of incoming shots are are actually of the regular kind AT/FF in almost all armies you face.

[2] You don't actually need as many portals/monoliths as you used to. Bringing the same amount as in a raiders game will give redundancy. They're not needed to leave the table. You only need one to relocate a stranded phalanx over the field and you don't need to strand a monolith formation were the phalanx was to do it (which is a major boost). Phalanxes will not be facing out so the need to come back on board is reduced, but then again the need to relocate is greater.

[3] One of their FF attacks have been upgraded to a MW attack in the Sautekh version (a minor buff I know).

Perhaps reinstating the possibility to add obelisks to make the formation more resilient is in order.


I'd prefer to keep them the same.

Seems like some play testing is in order. I have a game today and 2 games on Friday, I'm sure at least 1 or 2 will be with the Sautekh list. Sounds like most are on board with the LM removal. Did you want me to try the LM gone and an invulnerable 6+ save in its place? What about regeneration on the WE's? The list I plan on trying will have one pylon, two groups of monoliths and a Vault.

with the loss of LM would you consider putting the 4+ save back on the infantry? (In the interest of keeping the same stats on units between lists). or are you still pretty set on the 5+?

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

Yes please do. Feel free to upgrade the formations with extra obelisks as per the raiders list.

I'd prefer to keep the 5+ save. I like how it helps underline the different theme between warriors and immortals. One of ordinary (for necrons that is) troops and the more elite formation.

Please ask your opponent afterwards if it felt more fair. It might be the opposite as they actually, like Steve points out, get a third save against normal attacks. That's not something I want.

First of all I think it's worth saying that, whatever happens, the goal is for Necrons to stay balanced. It has been fairly clear IMO that this is all about the perception and frustrating effects of the list, not balance, so I think we should all be able to relax about this, as any nerfs would obviously be counter balanced in some way.

On to the discussion: firstly I don't see why an invulnerable save is not a shield, it works against TK just fine, and this is exactly what holofields are. So I'm not sure why regeneration is needed too.

It seems it could be very useful for getting all the units balanced to have a variable inv save. That way you could give any combination of saves you felt appropriate to each unit (eg choose whether to also give them RA).

However one thing that does spring to mind: if the scalability of shooting types and negating lance are concerns (which I think they are also), why not use the holofields mechanic? That is, LM could be an invulnerable save that replaces the regular save, but the regular save is what is used for RA. That way, there is still a single save against TK, TK(x) is still better than MW, MW is better than AT, and Lance still works (Lance and MW have the same effect). Plus, you never have more than two saves, which helps with the "ridiculousness factor". It may not be necessary to make the invulnerable save variable (5+ sounds good IMO), but that would remain an option of course.

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

Yes it could be considered a shield of sorts of course. The difference though is that the it would be a lot worse than other races shields. Regeneration nicly represent the selfrepairing from the backgound. Just like the infantry can pick them self back up again.



Yes that's an idea I had as well. The buty of the regular inv save is that it doesn't require a special rule. On the other hand adding a regeneration effect could be considered a new special rule in any case, so I might be contradicting myself.

Ok, my game got postponed until tomorrow due to work.
What would you like me to test specifically?

I was planning on trying out the vault. So would you like me to try LM as a 5+ inv or 6+ inv? Would you like me to try regeneration on WE?

This is the list I am planning on fielding.

Warriors x9
Warriors x9 overlord
Immortals x8
Flayed Ones
3 Monoliths
3 Monoliths
4 Doomsday Arcs
Night scythes
Night scythes
Night scythes
Tesseract Vault
Pylon

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

Go with 6+ regular inv save + regen to start with and not the holofield quivalent we talked about. I have to look into that a bit more.

I have favoured the EUK KISS approach myself, just to add that small point to the pool of feedback.

_________________
http://hordesofthings.blogspot.co.nz/

Blood Angels vs Sautekh 3000 point Batrep here:
viewtopic.php?f=84&t=28276&p=537851#p537851

Feedback:

This list has no weaknesses.

Eternity Gates are broken - Immortals Marshalling 140cm across the board through a gate to get in engage range/support of engagement while shrugging off 3 BM and regenerating the 3 dead units to be whole again is ridiculous. At least with portals in the Raiders list they had to be near a portal to get off the board to come out again. This list removes that problem and lets troops move where they want as ffar as they wantfor no penalty. Don't get me started on broken Portals/Gates being used for BM-free engagements!

Scythes & Portals - This mechanic is highly unfair to your opponent (who generally has to spend points on AA) and again allows engagement without the penalty of any AA flak attacks/BM placement as they are a completely separate formation. Infantry just retain and engage out of them without BMs. AFAIK No other Air Assault troops get to do this in the game. This results in Scythes getting to place BMs before the assault and not taking part (and thus taking not getting destroyed even if you win the engagement) except as Support fire (which is often not required but tops off a ridiculously one-sided engagement outcome).

Tesseract - 4BP, 2x TK firing DC 3 War Engine? Why?

Doomsday Arcs - Icing on the proverbial. 25cm Skimming 75cm MW4+ fire? Really? Is it necessary?

Living Metal had very little effect in this game but the very first time it did it was, of course, saved by the Invulnerable!!

Sautekh do it all. They can compensate for every situation and cover all bases and still out number the opposition....

I'm not sure whether it belongs here as it concerns the list used at the EEC which is the 2013 list. I just post here because of the reference to the game between Mike and me.

Two playing a game always remember it differently.
IMHO Mike didn't loose because of bad saves, but because he ignored my Anhilators, because he had pure Monolith units and because one of his Monolith units failed to rally twice in a row.

I concentrated usually the fire of two Anhillator units on a single monolith unit and in the first turn the Anhillators killed one (4*4+,8*5+,4*5+,8*6+ that should have been 7+ hits or nearly 2 Monolith together with 5 LandSpeeder shots on a 6, I got in fact two Monolths, so that’s average.) , in the second I killed three firing one unit sustained - this alone should kill 1.6 - and one unit after move and one after double - should have been close to another 2 - I killed three so that’s average or worse for the Predators, depending on when I lost a Predator.
In the last turn a full unit of Predators plus Hunter did a sustain fire and killed 2 Monoliths which is a bit above average (1.83 kills), but I hit better 8 times (instead of 7.33) and he saved exactly average. This is only number crunching, but it shows, the rolling regarding the Monolith was overall hits and save average,

I consciously placed my Anhillators so I could fire on one unit after move and would be in a position to „sustain fire“ on another unit in the next turn and I didn't fire on the other unit so it wouldn't phase out, getting out of my sights in the process.
Would Mike have had his Obelisks distributed in the Monolith units as I'm used to see. I would just have not been able to score so many hits on the Monoliths. I think I shot at the formation of Obelisks only in the last turn and than only after the Monolith had been destroyed, so the number of shots poured in the Monoliths units would not have differed, but the hits would have been divided between Monoliths and Obelisks. It wouldn't have mattered in which turn a Monolith would have been saved because some of the hits would have been distributed to the Obelisks. In the end most likely one or two more would have survived. At the end of the game I had - if I remember correctly - still 10 of 12 Anhillators left - had Mike attacked them instead of the units I offered as a sacrifice (Land Speeders and Assault Marines), my Fire Power would have been so low, that I wouldn’t had made it.
He held the C'tan and Obelisks back (The Obelisks started in his deployment zone), they didn't really contribute much before last turn, even more important they didn’t draw important firepower probably none at all before last turn - they just weren’t a thread. He was unlucky with the C'Tans save in CC, but at this point it wouldn't have mattered, he would have got the BTS and I would have had to distribute my fire differently, but the result would have been the same in the end, because I out activated him at that time by 5 units (2 flyers, 2 Ari and a Predator formation after he activated his last unit that could reach my half or claim/contest an objective), the Pings from the planes would have been enough to break the C'Tan - more important than that was the fact that twice in a row a unit of Monoliths didn’t rally. On the other hand as far as I remember it, whenever he assaulted one of my units he killed it completely regardless of 4+ save and being SpaceMarines. That just shows how differently we remember games.
I'm sure next time Mike will trounce me, now that he has seen how my army works, but IMHO this time the loss was neither because of some inherent weakness of the Necron army list nor because of over/under average dice rolling. Often Necrons win, because their opponents are unfamiliar with the list, this time the Necron player was unfamiliar with his opponents list.

I'm not sure the Necron army is too hard, but I'm sure it is too frustrating.
It’s not a single special rule that is frustrating it is the amount and how they interact:

I played at least 6 times against Necrons with two different races and of those I won 5 times - admittedly some of the Necron players were not very experienced. Despite the wins I prefer not to play against Necrons, because I always have the feeling that somebody stacked the odds to the advantage of the Necrons and that they should win.
It feels like there was a plan to make them work easily and than everything was made to ensure it will work. Whenever somebody mentioned a possibility to counter the way the army works, the possibility was countermanded.
And I’m sure the lists are not used to their full potential yet. I.e. most players throw their Pylons away. By setting them up in plain sight probably even in the opponents half. Just to get a single TK shot out. But in doing so they often trade a single shot for an activation that is very much needed in the later phases of the game. Especially as a Pylon can be broken, with 2 Pings . I also assume the players will get better handling the phasing out problem, and than it will start to get really difficult. Right now, I think right now the Necrons are more of a psychological problem, because IMHO it’s a pain to play against them, but once somebody really goes for it and will add some clever tactics to the all to obvious paths, it will get ugly.

Regarding Living Metal I agree the EpicUK way is neater, but it’s still annoying

The following is just to flesh the above out. See it as a depiction or see it as whining if you like, but if an army makes you whine, it’s design should also make you wonder.

When you play the first time against Necrons, your opponent will tell you, "beware those are portals, the infantry is coming through them, and the infantry is quite hard".
No problem, so I go and kill the infantry - Not really, you will not see them long enough, they get out a portal and firefight.
No problem, I win the close combat - Not really the way it works is that the Portals move up, ping you, I retain keep in firefight distance, beat you, being better even than your Tacticals having an Inspiring stand and adding the firesupport of the Portals.
No Problem, I will trounce your infantry with my artillery after the CC is over - Not really after the firefight they will regroup through an other portal out of harms way.
No problem, you must put two formations there, reducing your flexibility - Not really, each unit is a portal.
No problem, I will surely inflict some damage and the attrition will wear you down - Probably not, because I get infantry stands back like replenishing shields.
No problem, at least they retain some blast markers - Not likely, they rally on a 1, obviously you can’t get a unit within 30cm of an unit off-board, and they all come with a leader, having fought only one combat - more than 3 Blast Markers are unlikely.

No problem, I shoot the portals - Not really, they have 4+ reinforced save.
No problem, I put my Landspeeders on to them that will be Macro and crossfire - Not really, they ignore Macro.
No problem, so I use the crossfire at least - Not really, they ignore it.
No problem, so I take a Titan Killer - Despite the fact that you don't have one in your army, I would still have a 4+ save against it.
No problem, I send my Termies in - Not really, the Monoliths are Skimmers and have 3 attacks on a five - each.
No problem, I ping them, attack them and kill them by combat result. - Not really, they are fearless.
No problem, I just break them, rendering them useless - Not really, you know, they can still be used as portals and get kind of a free move by getting broken.
No problem, I will loose a unit, but my troops are now in position having broken them, so I kill them next turn. - Not really, they will phase out before and if they rally they will come back in a different place, because they can teleport.
No problem, they will have to rally on a 4, so one or the other might not rally - Might be, but it’s a three, we discussed that before, but at least no Leader.
Put a swear word here -
No problem, I keep my units together and keep some in overwatch - Now it’s time to talk about the Orb
Let’s just start - Go ahead, I only have the Orb to set up, everything else teleports in.

And we haven’t covered crits that are potentially better for the enemy than the unit hit, or ignoring multiple wounds, or 90 cm AA4+, TK combined with 120cmMW4+, TK(D3), getting +1 on Marshall actions.
After an introduction like this there is most likely not much enthusiasm left.

Now that I've had a few games with it and put together a well rounded list I must agree it does have very little in the way of weaknesses.


The more I play the more I see the eternity gate as a plus not a minus to the old just straight up portals.


With air superiority this is quite a deadly mix. Though it takes two activations to pull off where transported units only take one. Retaining with the infantry though the portal after the flier lands is not without a little risk also of having the sustaining activation fail and leaving your fliers exposed on the ground.


This I don't think is too bad especially with LM only being a 6+ with regeneration.


I agree with this it may fit with the fluff but it gives the list decisive long-range powerful weapons that force the opponent out of castling strategy and allow the units to be picked off by portalling troops quite conveniently.


This was true but not representitive as BA marines really lack non CC MW.


I must agree on this point mainly because of the boomsday Arcs.

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

Thanks for playing against the list again Dobbsy and your feedback. This is exactly what I don't want to hear though. But it good that this comes up. This list is early in development and I want to iron out all the "loop holes".

The whole portal part of necrons makes them a lot harder to balance than other armies.



Yeah I see your point. I also realize there's a great synergy between the night scythes and the eternity gate. Attack somewhere way out and then just move back to were you're needed easily next turn without a sweat. I think we will have to implement a range limit like we talked about earlier. 45 or 60 cm what do you think is a good start Atension? You have now played the list more than me.


I think we need to rethink these planes. The portal seems to be to good a thing. I was hesitant to give it to the formation, because from a fluff point and 40k background they actually have kind of a portal light (they can only transport 10 inf). I didn't want to introduce a third kind of portal and that's why I chose this.

A proposition I'd like feed back on is the following:
How about we get rid of the portal for night scythes all together, make the formation 3 strong and let each airplane have a transport capacity of 2 infantry units each (matching the 40k rules, but that's not important). This will require 3 formations (prepper+planes+phalanx) to prep and assault a target just like other races in the game do. It will be a lot riskier as each plane going down would mean the loss of 2 infantry units (representing them getting stranded). The opponent gets to place the crucial BM for the formation coming under fire. Loosing the assault means the airplane goes pop. You could only bring on a low number formation this way. It would also be good in limiting the ordinary portals (ei the possibility to leave the table) to only war engines.
I think it would go a long way to downgrade their power. Thought? Would it make them useless compared to portals?



Basiacally it's based on the background and 40k attacks. To quote my self.


Most of the attacks have very high strength attacks, several even have the D strength, basically the apocalypse version of epics TK. I therefore wanted one of the attacks to have TK and a TK barrage, well...
I based the barrage on the weakest attack so that I could stay away from MW and TK. The TK has 15cm range and will be hard to use after the turn you teleport.


They have them same range as battle cannons in 40k. How would a decrease in range effect them to you think? 45 or 60 cm?


I've been thinking a bit more on my suggestion. I don't think it's a good one. Getting a third save against regular attacks making monoliths stronger is not what the list needs. Lets scrap that idea.

I got an even more radical idea though on the same theme during the last day pondering the issue.

How about we scrap living metal from the Sautekh (only!) list. No invulnerable save. Perhaps an extra DC would be in order here and there. Living metal can be tied into the necron regeneration rule only instead. Basically a WE gets to repair one damage every end phase, they may repair damage during a marshall action, this would have to be limited to a single point of damage.

LM is not all that super tuff any more in 40k. There's no negating lance or meltaweapons any more.

It would remove a bit of the feeling of necrons negate everything. Yes you might repair your vehicle, but it comes with a big downside, you have to sacrifice an activation. Monoliths would still be almost the same as in the epic uk list except against TK.

The biggest problem I see with it is the pylon and the warbarque. Would they need to go up by 1 DC each?



Thanks for your feed back I read it all. Yes probably in the wrong thread as it is in relation to the Raiders list. I haven't moved it though as you very elegantly showed what I believe is the problem with raiders and what I want to not have an opponent experience against Sautekh.

cheers

Certainly a good idea, I would also look at the mechanic being tested for dropping Stormboyz from an Ork Bommer in the Blood Axe list.

_________________
_________________
www.epic-uk.co.uk - home of the UK Epic tournament scene
NetEA NetERC Xenos Lists Chair
NetEA Ork + Feral Ork + Speed Freak Champion