Login |  Register |  FAQ
   
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 29 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next

necron raider list analysis and discussion

 Post subject: necron raider list analysis and discussion
PostPosted: Mon Nov 21, 2011 12:50 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Sun Aug 21, 2011 10:34 am
Posts: 132
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.
after a bunch of battles this are the few things i´ve found

- necron list works really balanced, although being quite short of options makes it easy to other armies to use specific "anti-necron" lists
- some units seem autoinclude (monoliths, infantry) while some others seem underused (which brings back the low options problem)
- 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
-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
- 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
- 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...
- obelisk formations arent being used, mainly because of necron portal dependance
- nightbringer is clearly not as good as deceiver
- 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

well this are just a few thing i´ve found testing for months and some others people have told me about, i´ll continue testing specially those units that seem underplayed to find if there is a real problem with them or if they can work in some other way... just starting this post to test, discuss and find what can be done to further improve the balance and playability of necron army list


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: necron raider list analysis and discussion
PostPosted: Mon Nov 21, 2011 1:16 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2008 9:15 am
Posts: 1832
Location: Oslo, Norway
My impressions is that if Pylons should be buffed DC3 would be very nice. Not because it makes them more survivable (they rarely die in my games), but because it makes them harder to break - they never die because the opponent doesn't see the point in killing something that is Living Metal but so easy to break. And unlike Monoliths they're useless when broken.

Skimmer FF armies are the rocks to the scissor of CC armies. That's just how EA works, and I don't think the solution to that is going to be found on the army level.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: necron raider list analysis and discussion
PostPosted: Mon Nov 21, 2011 1:35 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

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

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


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: necron raider list analysis and discussion
PostPosted: Mon Nov 21, 2011 1:39 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Fri Apr 20, 2007 1:49 am
Posts: 5568
Ulrik wrote:
My impressions is that if Pylons should be buffed DC3 would be very nice. Not because it makes them more survivable (they rarely die in my games), but because it makes them harder to break - they never die because the opponent doesn't see the point in killing something that is Living Metal but so easy to break. And unlike Monoliths they're useless when broken.


Unfortunately it's not background representative. As I suggested above, how about the option to add a second pylon to the formation?

Ulrik wrote:
Skimmer FF armies are the rocks to the scissor of CC armies. That's just how EA works, and I don't think the solution to that is going to be found on the army level.


Agreed, it's a core list problem. I've always felt the skimmer option to avoid CC entirely all the time is unfair. Personally I think there should be some limit on it, like if it gets locked in combat by two units it can't avoid CC, or they can only do it when initiating the engagement or something.

Either way it's a problem with the core rules and not the necron list.

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


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: necron raider list analysis and discussion
PostPosted: Mon Nov 21, 2011 2:07 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Sun Aug 21, 2011 10:34 am
Posts: 132
zombocom wrote:
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.


well i dont think that new units should be added, there should be a new army list for them, i was speaking of making underused units more playable so that our play style could change a bit between games
Quote:
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.

i dont see a problem of monoliths/infantry being the core of the list, but maybe we should find a way to play armies not so based on monolith assault tactics... im trying to test armies based on mobile units such as destryers and obelisks backed with infantry (garrisoned in our objective) and couple of warbarques for fire support and portals... finding some trouble due to destroyers cost though, still cant find why do they cost as much as a leman russ

Quote:
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.

i still find them overcosted... they cost like a leman russ... move more... but much less firepower, resilience, options and
are shot as infantry (note that there are more Ap weapons than AT and usually hit easier) but i will continue testing this ones before giving a more weighted opinion as i can see their posibilites...

Quote:
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.

agree, maybe giving them a rule to allow to rise one more necron in the regroup phase instead of leader... i dont think that making them a pure formation will help. maybe giving them necron? i base this suggestion in how they worked in the dawn of war videogame. i´m more concerned about the wraiths though... this ones may work as independent formation... giving more options to our armies. also they are used as scouts in the background and tend to work independently

Quote:
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...

i also find them awesome... just was noting what a couple of players told me. also agree that the seem to be "command from rear" units, but i sometimes take them to the front to deal with heavy armored units

Quote:
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?

as said, this one is the hardest one to solve. i dont think adding a second to the formation would help, it would give them more resilience, yes, but being AA it would still be better to field them as different formations, also for the number of activations. maybe adding a second for a bit less cost... but still not too fond of this one


Quote:
asdepicas wrote:
- nightbringer is clearly not as good as deceiver


I know. Infiltrator?

that seems interesting. i´ll test it today

should you want anything specific to be tested just ask, i´ll try my best to help as much as i can


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: necron raider list analysis and discussion
PostPosted: Mon Nov 21, 2011 3:51 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2008 9:15 am
Posts: 1832
Location: Oslo, Norway
zombocom wrote:
Unfortunately it's not background representative. As I suggested above, how about the option to add a second pylon to the formation?


Two problems with that is that you lose an activation and your AA bubble is smaller.

I think 150 pts for the second pylon would offset those penalties, but would it be too cheap?

zombocom wrote:
Agreed, it's a core list problem. I've always felt the skimmer option to avoid CC entirely all the time is unfair. Personally I think there should be some limit on it, like if it gets locked in combat by two units it can't avoid CC, or they can only do it when initiating the engagement or something.

Either way it's a problem with the core rules and not the necron list.


I can't think of any good solution, as skimmers not being engaged in close combat is very appropriate. Maybe take it to a new thread in the Rules Amendment forum.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: necron raider list analysis and discussion
PostPosted: Mon Nov 21, 2011 5:20 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Fri Apr 20, 2007 1:49 am
Posts: 5568
Yeah, I was thinking 150 points for the second pylon.

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


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: necron raider list analysis and discussion
PostPosted: Mon Nov 21, 2011 9:55 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Sun Aug 21, 2011 10:34 am
Posts: 132
another thing that i forgot to add to the "should discuss" list is aenoic orb being superior to the abatoir. in my opinion abatoir with 8DC and infiltrator isnt too bad, the problem i find is that it has 2 titankiller attacks and 11 normal attacks (3 ignore cover) while really hard in close combat, i think it should have 2 of his normal attacks improved to MW, just like nightbringer has, it is supposed to be our melee titan, but it struggles a bit against well armored formations.

in a couple of minutes im going to play another game testing a list not based on monolith assault, with a couple of destroyers, obelisks and wraiths as independent formation (6 wraiths 350 points)... hope it works


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: necron raider list analysis and discussion
PostPosted: Tue Nov 22, 2011 10:13 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Sun Aug 21, 2011 10:34 am
Posts: 132
as i said, wanted to test a different way of playing with necrons, this is the list i used

6 destroyer with leader -400 (trying them as core formation)
6 heavy destroyers -375
6 obelisks -300
6 obelisks -300
6 obelisk -300
warbarque -300
nightbringer -300 (the idea was to use a second warbarque but i wanted to test nightbringer with infiltrate)
6 wraiths -350 (seem fine as independent formation)
3 monolith -275
tomb complex -75

the game was against orks and i losed in turn 3 (2-1)

some ideas after the game:

- destroyers being a core unit could solve 2 problems, first they would see more play, secondly necron armies would be able to have an alternative way of playing other than portal assault. fluff wise i dont see why warriors should be played in evey army, they are so good that probably they will still be in every army but i dont underestand why IG can play just with tanks or space marines without tacticals oo orks a stompla/buggy based army without infantry and necrons cant play an army based on destroyers
- wraith formation at 350 points worked fairly well (wasnt sure if 350 or 325 point cost would be the right one so i went on with the most expensive to test it) this way they would see some more play, they can be quite powerful coming out a portal, but not overpowered due to overwatch and the fact that having no firefight is a real pain when facing skimmers or receiving assaults
-obelisk formtions are really good, but while necrons have so much portal dependance they will still see no play.
- nightbringer with infiltration still isnt good enough for its cost, but at least is playable and would see some play
- playing a mobile army with necrons seemed refreshing, having so few options in necron strategy can make the army a bit boring to play (nearly no changes in the army from game to game), and i think this could be a solution to that problem. the army worked well, a bit squishy but really mobile.

Quote:
The "anti-necron tactics" have always been an intended counterbalance to the strengths of the list.

i dont think this is a good idea, being so easy to make anti-necron armies due to their lack of tactical options discourage player to play campaigns with necrons. ¿why play them if you are going to lose every game due to people preparing army lists to counter every option you have? it may work well in tournaments but not in local gaming/campaigns that is where most players play their games. in my opinion allowing an alternate way of play could be the answer to most of necron problems, destroyers eligible as core formations seem to work well. it may not be the most fluffy change (isnt something unthinkable though) and although im known to be always defending the background, sometimes we have to do minor concesions to make the game more balanced or more enjoyable. this has been done in nearly every other army (as i said marines without tactical, IG or orks without infantry.. etc)

i´ll test it more to see how it works


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: necron raider list analysis and discussion
PostPosted: Tue Nov 22, 2011 10:33 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Fri Apr 20, 2007 1:49 am
Posts: 5568
Hmmm, the idea of Destroyers as a core formation does have merit actually, and would certainly encourage an alternate playstyle.

The wraith formation has been tried before now, but nobody used it.

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


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: necron raider list analysis and discussion
PostPosted: Tue Nov 22, 2011 11:55 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Sun Aug 21, 2011 10:34 am
Posts: 132
zombocom wrote:
Hmmm, the idea of Destroyers as a core formation does have merit actually, and would certainly encourage an alternate playstyle.


i´ve seen a couple of 40k necron players change their army in epic just because necron army list seemed "boring" to them due to nearly every necron army being the same (3 phalanx, 3-4 portal formations, 1-2 pylons and a couple of points to customize)
Quote:
The wraith formation has been tried before now, but nobody used it.


many player hate formations with no firefight, but, i myself find a formation of 6 wraiths (325-350 points) really interesting, it could work with the destructor idea as they can move as fast as them, and it can work in a portal assault list just because they can assault from a portal with 12 attacks and first strike. I would definitely use them, maybe not in every list but it would be a nice add to the army list. someone said something about giving them CC 3+ but in my opinion with extra attacks and first strike that would be too much for the intended cost.
one of the biggest issues with wraiths is that there are no miniatures and are not the easiest conversion to do (im not too proud of mines and plan to do something new) and many people just dont use them because of this (same happens with flayed ones)


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: necron raider list analysis and discussion
PostPosted: Tue Nov 22, 2011 12:00 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 05, 2006 2:57 am
Posts: 20802
Location: Harrogate, Yorkshire
A lot of these ideas could be tried out in a new Necron list that reflects the new codex.

_________________
6mm scale Scifi Plastic Sprues available here!


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: necron raider list analysis and discussion
PostPosted: Tue Nov 22, 2011 12:40 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 9:25 pm
Posts: 91
Location: Bristol
I would be interested to see a new codex themed list. The old 40k necron army was famed for being pretty standard with limited viable list options I have heard that the new codex has gone a long way to add some more flavour.

_________________
Got Cubes?


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: necron raider list analysis and discussion
PostPosted: Tue Nov 22, 2011 12:42 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Sun Aug 21, 2011 10:34 am
Posts: 132
sure, hope all of these ideas are taken on acount for the new list, but for now, i opened this thread to try and improve the playability of the "old" necrons. im not too fond of some of the new units in the 40k codex... i love the idea of "terminators" advance, do we really needed sniper necrons? or skimmer transports? (having the portal technology this one seems odd to me) i rather stick to the old style


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: necron raider list analysis and discussion
PostPosted: Tue Nov 22, 2011 1:18 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2008 9:15 am
Posts: 1832
Location: Oslo, Norway
While they should be taken into account when designing the new list, the old list will be so different from the new one (monolith portals, need I say more) that using them on the old list will be valuable too.

So the ideas are these?

- Pylons, 1 for 200, 2 for 350
- Destroyers as a core (Phalanx) formation
- Wraith formation.
- Nightbringer with something (Infiltrate being the hot candidate)

Even if it isn't used much, maybe that's down to a lack easy proxies? When you order a necron army you end up with all infantry except destroyers and wraiths. Destroyers are an easy conversion and theoretically brings much needed shooting, while wraiths aren't easily converted and only bring CC assaults, which are partly covered by Flayed Ones anyway.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 29 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


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