Login |  Register |  FAQ
   
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 61 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next

Current Issues

 Post subject: Current Issues
PostPosted: Sat Jun 04, 2011 6:11 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Fri Apr 20, 2007 1:49 am
Posts: 5568
Hi all.

Having been recently appointed Necron AC, I want to get a feel for current opinions on the list before I lay out my ideas for a way forward.

What concerns and thoughts do you currently have about the list?


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Current Issues
PostPosted: Sat Jun 04, 2011 11:22 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Sat Aug 02, 2008 3:22 pm
Posts: 5678
Location: Australia
My one was broken portals being used with no detrimental effect. My solution for that was that a formation that uses a broken portal should gain a BM.

_________________
Frogbear is responsible for...
Previous World Eaters
Previous Emperor's Children
Previous Death Guard
Previous Imperial Fists
Chaos Squats


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Current Issues
PostPosted: Sun Jun 05, 2011 12:26 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 27, 2009 9:21 pm
Posts: 1978
Location: Thompson, MB, Canada
I'm a bit concerned that the new Necron codex will prompt a lot of revision. I'd say it'd be better to just make a new list to represent it (depending on the scale of the changes, of course).

_________________
The Apocrypha of Skaros 1.1
Rogue Trader Expedition 0.4
The Horus Heresy 0.5
Night Lords 0.1
My Trade Thread


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Current Issues
PostPosted: Sun Jun 05, 2011 12:41 am 
Purestrain
Purestrain
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jul 09, 2007 10:14 am
Posts: 3416
Location: Western Australia
I have no issue with broken portals being used. An all teleporting army with a SR of 2 is always going to be up against it. At least if the portal formation is broken, it can't add supporting fire to the inevitable engagement about to happen.

My preferred adjustment is to give the C'Tan the Walker ability. Right now it is a real risk to teleport them into terrain and if the Nightbringer wants to engage an enemy using close combat in terrain, he could lose 1/3 of his DC on the way in. Just not realistic or playable as it is.

I'm also not sure about Destroyers. I don't know what the solution is either. They are so much more expensive than other formations that I struggle to fit them into my army. They have nice abilities and are useful but you can get more bang for your buck with other, cheaper formations.

Thanks for taking on the Necron AC zombo (and thanks to Mosc for all his sterling work before).

_________________
Just call me Steve.

NetEA Rules Chair
NetEA FAQ

Want to play Iron Warriors in Epic Armageddon? Click HERE
Some of my Armies.
My Hobby site.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Current Issues
PostPosted: Sun Jun 05, 2011 2:00 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Thu May 20, 2010 6:12 am
Posts: 1331
Location: Australia
my concerns, in order of priority are:

1: Lack of Anti-Air capability. it feeds into a much larger list design concern regarding their war-engine allocations getting choked out easily, but the fact that Pylons are the only choice and are so expensive per shot, means that the larger necron warengines rarely ever get taken (and when they do, at significant tactical loss in other areas, as the only options for Supreme Commander and AA fire are also expensive war-engines. If you take an abbatoir at 3000 points, you're stuck with at most a single AA shot and no supreme commander possible)
I'd like to see some non-warengine AA abilities somwhere (my ideal location would be the tomb spyder i believe) so as to free up the reliance on pylons quite so much.

1.5: I'd also like to see the Pylon (and/or the Ctan) moved so they're no longer in the War Engine allocation. (especially since the pylon also takes up support slots and cannot garrisson) its hard enough trying to fit a big thing into the list as it is, especially without cheap/aircraft formations to bulk up the activation count. to be stuck without any serious AA fire or a supreme commander in the process is a real killer.

2: reduce destroyer cost/size and increase their flexibility. at the price, they're very hard to fit into a list because you need, at minimum, a 405 point infantry-unit to be the BTS (unless you think you can win without a BTS left, a 6 point infantry formation is particularly suceptable to breaking when the opponent only needs to break it to get the victory condition. something not suffered by any other army) and while destroyers (and abbatoirs) may be worth their cost, unless the list allows them to be taken without hamstringing yourself in other key areas, their actual value is irrelevant.

3: give the Ctan Walker (or better yet, Mobility) so as to remove terrain from their immediate concern. if anything in the universe deserves this, its the Ctan. they can literally walk through walls...

_________________
~Every Tool Is A Weapon, If You Hold It Right~


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Current Issues
PostPosted: Sun Jun 05, 2011 2:25 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Wed Apr 25, 2007 1:01 pm
Posts: 2518
Location: California
Jaggedtoothgrin wrote:
(especially since the pylon also takes up support slots and cannot garrison)

To the best of my knowledge they CAN garrison? Since there Immobile. Or so I've heard discussed? Zombo?

Either way I would to see the Pylon be either a Support Slot OR War Engine 1/3 but NOT BOTH! I think overall balance would be better if they were just War Engines 1/3 allotment. Keeps the limit on too many WE in smaller games and the Cron's WE are powerful.

I would also like to see another AA option, maybe a Tomb Spider Variant, not just tacking on an AA shot to the the regular ones.

Walker or something on C'tan would be a good idea. Also I agree they should be moved out of the WE section. Only being able to have SC from 1/3 WE area is a bit lame.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Current Issues
PostPosted: Sun Jun 05, 2011 2:37 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Mon Aug 11, 2003 7:27 pm
Posts: 5424
Location: Bristol
Weren't people saying the Tomb Spyder were poor for it's abilities/points/adding AV targets to an otherwise infantry formation? I've not yet played with Necrons, but that was a vibe I picked up reading a lot of commentary here while working out what to keep/sell of the models I had.

I think mobility or walker sounds sensible for C'tan. Personally I'd stick with just the Pylon for AA, but something could be done to improve the slots/percentage limits as others have mentioned, to make choices a little more flexible.


Last edited by GlynG on Sun Jun 05, 2011 2:50 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Current Issues
PostPosted: Sun Jun 05, 2011 2:47 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Thu May 20, 2010 6:12 am
Posts: 1331
Location: Australia
my understanding was that warengines could never garrison. although i was basing that upon the discussion from the tombworld list which claimed advantage in that they where able to in that list (implying that they where unable to elsewhere) but more careful reading of the compendium has the "no warengines" included in one of the 3 options, rather than a seperate "and no warengines" clause that i had thought it was. so you'd be right i believe, they can infact garrison
frankly, garrisoning is basically my single smallest concern on that list anyway, since i'd probably rather be teleporting where i want anyway

_________________
~Every Tool Is A Weapon, If You Hold It Right~


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Current Issues
PostPosted: Sun Jun 05, 2011 12:17 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Fri Apr 20, 2007 1:49 am
Posts: 5568
Angel_of_Caliban wrote:
Jaggedtoothgrin wrote:
(especially since the pylon also takes up support slots and cannot garrison)

To the best of my knowledge they CAN garrison? Since there Immobile. Or so I've heard discussed? Zombo?


Pylons cannot garrison. This isn't anything to do with being an immobile war engine, it's because nothing in the Necron army is allowed to garrison, except for up to two infantry phalanxes at the Tomb Complex.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Current Issues
PostPosted: Sun Jun 05, 2011 12:20 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Fri Apr 20, 2007 1:49 am
Posts: 5568
frogbear wrote:
My one was broken portals being used with no detrimental effect. My solution for that was that a formation that uses a broken portal should gain a BM.


For now I'm not planning on changing this, as it's consistent with the way portals work in the Eldar list.

If you can show me how the use of broken portals is specifically unbalancing I can of course be persuaded.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Current Issues
PostPosted: Sun Jun 05, 2011 12:23 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Fri Apr 20, 2007 1:49 am
Posts: 5568
Simulated Knave wrote:
I'm a bit concerned that the new Necron codex will prompt a lot of revision. I'd say it'd be better to just make a new list to represent it (depending on the scale of the changes, of course).


Let me say now that I have no plans to make sweeping changes to the current list when the new 40k codex comes out. I will produce or shepherd a varient list based on the new codex.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Current Issues
PostPosted: Sun Jun 05, 2011 12:25 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Fri Apr 20, 2007 1:49 am
Posts: 5568
Onyx wrote:
My preferred adjustment is to give the C'Tan the Walker ability. Right now it is a real risk to teleport them into terrain and if the Nightbringer wants to engage an enemy using close combat in terrain, he could lose 1/3 of his DC on the way in. Just not realistic or playable as it is.


I can definitely see a good argument for giving the C'Tan Walker. I'd equally like to do something to make the Nightbringer worth taking over the Deceiver.

Onyx wrote:
I'm also not sure about Destroyers. I don't know what the solution is either. They are so much more expensive than other formations that I struggle to fit them into my army. They have nice abilities and are useful but you can get more bang for your buck with other, cheaper formations.

Quote:
2: reduce destroyer cost/size and increase their flexibility. at the price, they're very hard to fit into a list because you need, at minimum, a 405 point infantry-unit to be the BTS (unless you think you can win without a BTS left, a 6 point infantry formation is particularly suceptable to breaking when the opponent only needs to break it to get the victory condition. something not suffered by any other army) and while destroyers (and abbatoirs) may be worth their cost, unless the list allows them to be taken without hamstringing yourself in other key areas, their actual value is irrelevant.


I'm going to open a thread asking for new ideas on Destroyers soon.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Current Issues
PostPosted: Sun Jun 05, 2011 12:33 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Fri Apr 20, 2007 1:49 am
Posts: 5568
Jaggedtoothgrin wrote:
1: Lack of Anti-Air capability. it feeds into a much larger list design concern regarding their war-engine allocations getting choked out easily, but the fact that Pylons are the only choice and are so expensive per shot, means that the larger necron warengines rarely ever get taken (and when they do, at significant tactical loss in other areas, as the only options for Supreme Commander and AA fire are also expensive war-engines. If you take an abbatoir at 3000 points, you're stuck with at most a single AA shot and no supreme commander possible)
I'd like to see some non-warengine AA abilities somwhere (my ideal location would be the tomb spyder i believe) so as to free up the reliance on pylons quite so much.


I'd be happy to see people playtest some alternative AA ideas, but I'm very cautious about adding any to the list.

Jaggedtoothgrin wrote:
1.5: I'd also like to see the Pylon (and/or the Ctan) moved so they're no longer in the War Engine allocation. (especially since the pylon also takes up support slots and cannot garrisson) its hard enough trying to fit a big thing into the list as it is, especially without cheap/aircraft formations to bulk up the activation count. to be stuck without any serious AA fire or a supreme commander in the process is a real killer.


I'm going to take a long hard look at the structure and pricing system for the War Engines, as I agree that the limitations at 3000 points are unnecessarily excessive and lead to the Harvester Engines never being seen.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Current Issues
PostPosted: Sun Jun 05, 2011 1:18 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Mon Aug 11, 2003 7:27 pm
Posts: 5424
Location: Bristol
What are people's thoughts on the Abattoir? Again I've never used Necrons myself, but in a conversation Man of Kent (last year maybe) he mentioned he thought it was the most broken thing in epic on the basis it being absolutely lethal in close combat, but with 20cm and infiltrate its also fast - unlike other battle titans - so it's easier to get it into combat and harder to avoid. He said he found it a nightmare to play with his tyranids and wasn't sure what he could have done against it.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Current Issues
PostPosted: Sun Jun 05, 2011 1:26 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Fri Apr 20, 2007 1:49 am
Posts: 5568
I've used the Abattoir loads and generally speaking it's pretty poor for the points. Remember that it can't march or teleport, so against a sensible opponent it should only get into combat on turn 3.

Yes nids will struggle a little against it, but they struggle against anything that's better than them in CC.

Remember that currently taking it also means not having a supreme commander at 3000 points.

Basically the Orb is the better choice almost all the time, even since the bump to 8DC on the Abbatoir. Of course both Harvesters are a poor choice compared to C'Tan/ Warbarque + Pylons.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 61 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  


Powered by phpBB ® Forum Software © phpBB Group
CoDFaction Style by Daniel St. Jules of Gamexe.net