Last Online
Recent Posts
posted in BFG - General Discussion read more

Well, technically speaking, buffing the RoF increase from the Reload stance would also be buffing the DPS for that, and their DPS is a bit low at its base anyways. I personally think a hypothetical stance giving Lightning Arcs some weak AP would be better than a raw DPS increase via stance, especially since it fits in with their fluff from the original rulebook:

"Stored solar energy is released as a forest of living energy tendrils which envelop targets probing for weaknesses."

Sounds like some armor-piercing space lightning to me!

posted in BFG - General Discussion read more

I like the sound of that, too. Basically just give them really high morale, but once they break, there's no chance to regain control, they just immediately warp out?

The other issue is potentially boarding; offensively, Necrons are decent, but defensively they're highly vulnerable due to how few ships they have, making matchups against SM and Tyanids in particular quite harsh. This may seem a bit extreme, but what if Necron ships passively regenerated crew over time to represent their systems and troops repairing over time? Just to also push in that "you can't beat them at attrition, you need to strike all at once to break them" angle.

posted in BFG - General Discussion read more

Exactly; perhaps there could be an opposing weapon stance as well that, while active, gave lightning arcs a minor version of armor piercing? For example, if AP is reverted back to reducing armor to 25, this hypothetical stance would give lightning arcs AP 50 instead of 25.

Overall, I think what the Necrons should be, and as such what their mechanics should represent, boils down to one or two sentences.
A highly elite (meaning few but powerful ships) fleet that excels in battles of attrition. Their weakness should be enemies focusing on single ships at a time and quickly beating them down to mitigate Necron's advantage in attrition, but they have the tools to mitigate massive alpha strikes if the player is competent (jump to reposition an overextended ship, solar pulse to negate massive torpedo and bomber volleys)

posted in BFG - General Discussion read more

Agreed, but regardless of the strength of lances as they are, Necrons don't have access to very much AP firepower at all. A blanket lance buff should have first priority, but I'm still thinking that Necrons will need either more lances on their ships, or the lances they already have should have a DPS boost as well.

That or a lance escort would be nice!

posted in BFG - General Discussion read more

Ah, you're right that the necron lances do pierce shields, but I personally find that no necron ship really has enough of them to make a difference against heavily armored enemies. A necron fleet might see a total of 16 lance DPS at the absolute maximum (4x Scythe Harvesters), whereas an Imperial fleet can match that with, for example, 4x Gothics (and that's just counting only one broadside, not both!) for a bit over half the price. Necrons in general have very limited access to AP weapons in significant numbers.

posted in BFG - General Discussion read more

That's fair; honestly, I think their lances may be in a good place, it's just their lightning arcs that really need a touch up. It might be interesting to give Necron weapons a secondary effect, like extra collateral troop damage on crits?

While I agree with you in principle, dispersed lightning arcs isn't a straight damage multiplier. The higher regeneration provided by their hull stance often makes the opportunity cost of dispersed lightning arcs too high often, and it's effectiveness is contingent on the enemy really bunching up.
On the other hand, though, making the inertia less jump faster to recharge will certainly make it more effectively regardless, since necrons will be more able to easily reposition to take advantage of clustering.

posted in BFG - General Discussion read more


Ah, yeah, true. My mistake on the wording, but regardless, the effect is clear.
Should anything be done for Gauss Whips, or are they fine as they are now? Having them be stronger AP than other faction's lances might be interesting, reducing armor to 25 like previously, while everything else stays at AP 50?

posted in BFG - General Discussion read more

I really like these ideas, especially the scarab swarm one! It's very fluffy, solves the issue of critting (and critical hits) very nicely, and makes it so that Necron's are very, very resistant to attrition across the board. They have to be brought down via decisive, focused strikes, whether it be via damage, morale, boarding, whatever.

As for overall DPS, while I like the idea of Necrons having a good few abilities on each of their ships (representing how advanced they are, tech wise), I also think a general stat and points increase across the board would also be warranted.
For example:

  1. Lightning Arcs RoF improved to 10 seconds, from 15. (edit*)
  2. All line ships get bumped up a speed class (+40) and a rotation class (+4)
  3. All ships get a bit more hull, 100 for escorts, up to 600 or so for the Cairn
  4. to compensate, all ships get a bit more expensive, LC's go up to the 200's, Cairn up to at least 550, etc
posted in BFG - General Discussion read more

Well, that's egg on my face; after checking, you are indeed correct. I could have sworn they did, but that was just me mistaking the Night Scythe's abysmal damage for "none at all."

Regardless, however, the actual damage output of the Night Scythe Squadron is too low for them to function as the mediocre fighter-bombers that they currently are. Each fighter does 0.33 damage per second, for a total of 2 damage per second with a full squadron. Theoretically they are capable of a total of 180 damage over their 90 second lifespan; in practice, however, this damage output is quickly whittled down as the individual fighters are destroyed by turrets.

I'll have to do some rigorous testing on my own time as how to efficient they truly are, but I'll concede to you that they're decent against lone, singular escorts. As far as being effective for dealing damage against actual line ships, the fact that they do damage over time (rather than in one burst) means that they're quickly ruined by turrets, let alone other fighters joining the fight.

EDIT: There's also the fact to consider that all of the Necron lineships launch exactly one squadron of Night Scythes, from the Cartouche to the Cairn. There is a theoretical maximum of 7 squadrons out on the field at once (7 Cartouche), and even ignoring that their damage is over time rather than burst, their ship damage is mediocre with even a moderate amount of carriers from other factions.

posted in BFG - General Discussion read more

@cowgomoo said in Necron feedback and why they are trash fleet.:

All of this would work, although increasing points further I'm not a fan of. You can only run 3 capital ships currently...

That would be very in line with Necron flavor, wouldn't it? The Cairn alone should be like a mini-phalanx, and priced accordingly.

Guass cannons already fill this gap.

Technically yes, but Necron's don't have great access to heavy AP like other races do. They don't really have a dedicated "lance ship", instead only having minor to moderate lances on their line ships.
HOWEVER, if Necrons were given more ship variants (even if they don't get any new weapon types at all), such as a 2 (or even 3) lance LC or a lance escort, then I'd agree that lightning arcs could just do with a slight damage or RoF boost. As of now, though, Necrons are lacking in concentrated AP overall.

They do minor hull damage already. They suck, but you can kill small isolated ships with them.

So do other race's fighters, but that's ultimately just marginal damage unless you spam 3 or 4 squadrons on a single escort. Combined fighter/bombers is still a downgrade from separate fighters and bombers, since it has exactly half the uses overall and less utility because of it, but at least it'd give Necrons an actual long range presence.