asdepicas wrote:
the necron list is supposed to not be changing at least before september, but we should be testing that year to try and find if there is something that should be changed AFTER that time has passed.
I have no set deadline for when the necron list can be changed. The version that will go in the armies book is fixed, and will remain for a year, but we can and should test changes during that year, in order to know what needs doing next time around. The version in the armies book is the latest "stable" version, but there's nothing stopping us having a "working copy" also.
asdepicas wrote:
- necron list works really balanced, although being quite short of options makes it easy to other armies to use specific "anti-necron" lists
Agreed, but I'm but planning to fiddle around adding the new units to the core list. The "anti-necron tactics" have always been an intended counterbalance to the strengths of the list.
asdepicas wrote:
- some units seem autoinclude (monoliths, infantry) while some others seem underused (which brings back the low options problem)
Well infantry have to be included since they're the only core option, and monoliths to bring them onto the board are essential too. I don't see that as a problem. Some units are underused, however.
asdepicas wrote:
- destroyers seem underused, main problem being that necrons work better using many low cost formations and that makes destroyers usually the most expensive unit in the army... and they arent resilient enough for being our enemies main target
I've dropped the price on them 25 points in the Armies book list, we'll see if that makes any difference to how often they're taken.
asdepicas wrote:
-wraiths and spiders also dont see much play, spiders main problem is being AV in an infantry formation, wraiths dont seem too useful and player prefer to keep infantry cheaper than include these
Spyders took a beating thanks to the change to the necron rule, so their leader bonus can only now be used when regrouping. There's not much that can be done about the AV sniping, other than considering a pure formation of them, but I doubt that'd see much use either.
I still use spyders, and I think they're at the right price point, they just suffer from the usual epic syndrome that more activations are better than taking more upgrades.
asdepicas wrote:
- i´ve heard people complain about pariahs being underplayed... i usually play one stand of these in my armies and works wonders... not having "necron" makes them less interesting... but inspiring is nuts
Interesting. I hadn't heard any complaints about pariahs; I consider them an autobuy, the first upgrade I buy for every infantry phalanx. Inspiring is just awesome, though it leads to weirdness whereby the best way to use them is to sit them safe at the back of an engagement rather than getting close and personal with their MW CC...
asdepicas wrote:
- not having AA outside of pylons has been largely discussed. i agree that due to background pylon should be our only AA, and lowering pylon point cost can give necron even more access to low cost activations wich can unbalance the army... but still find that pylon is overcosted for what it does... and being our only AA makes it nearly autoinclude... something not working well here, but no easy solution... maybe make pylon little bit better? having another way to fire AA? give it DC3? not sure about this one...
There is really no perfect solution to the pylon problem. DC3 isn't warranted, as they're definitely DC2 in the background/40k, and upping their abilities would bring down the wrath of the non-necron players who hate them. Perhaps the option to add a second pylon to the formation would help?
asdepicas wrote:
- obelisk formations arent being used, mainly because of necron portal dependance
They're not taken much, but if anything they're already underpriced for their abilities, so I can't really drop the price further. As you say, they're a casualty of the need to get more portals on the board. However, as monolith maniples remain popular, obelisks are still being used, just not the dedicated formation much, so I'm not that worried at this stage.
asdepicas wrote:
- nightbringer is clearly not as good as deceiver
I know. Infiltrator?
asdepicas wrote:
- i´ve found a couple of players that complain about necrons being quite difficult to defeat with assault oriented armies... so many skimmers and infantry not comming in until oponent has used all his activations seems their main complain, i´ve lost to assault oriented armies with my necrons and i dont think there is such problem... but having heard the complaint i thought i should add it to this list
It's a core epic problem, not this list in general. Play Nids vs Eldar and you'll see just how horrible a match-up can be!
On the point about not bringing infantry on till everything has activated, remind your opponents about overwatch; it's one of the strongest tools against necrons.