oooh, my bad then, it's true that I usually do not see the *serious* tournaments as part of this game as I'm not into this aspect at all ... mea culpa
I would agree with the general feeling that GW may not show any interest in those tournaments, though I am convinced they support the competitive/friendly side of the game
after all, 40k/wfb are games and a winner there should be at the end of a battle
I know this might be an eternal debate, sorry to have jumped on it
The general assumption from Games Workshop is that you're going to collect and paint an army because you like it, then play games with it rather than that you analyse out a power build with no care for the theme of the army like you find all over the place at these big tournament scenes.
Given that it's a hobby where you need to spend about a thousand bucks and over a hundred hours to complete an army, this probably isn't an unfair representation of the average customer base.
changemod wrote: The general assumption from Games Workshop is that you're going to collect and paint an army because you like it, then play games with it rather than that you analyse out a power build with no care for the theme of the army like you find all over the place at these big tournament scenes.
Given that it's a hobby where you need to spend about a thousand bucks and over a hundred hours to complete an army, this probably isn't an unfair representation of the average customer base.
Good point.
I can also say, that being excited about playing games (i.e. a good rules) is an MOTIVATOR to build and paint an army, while bad rules (i.e. no fun to keep losing) is a DEMOTIVATOR to build and paint an army.
Back to the rumors -
While it sounds like we don't have a lot of new stuff in the book (oh, please, make flayed ones useful) the end of year nid units in WD really helped inject new life into the bugs, so here is hoping necrons may get new units later in the year.
Here is hoping it has good internal balance and a lot of solid options.
Would be nice to brush the dust off a bunch of units...
I am hoping mostly for a good change with the destroyers, they just look really cool. Having 3 x unit's of these in your army with D.Lords leading them would look sick.
A few more info after a better reading. And keep in mind I translate things so in the English version of the WD things may sound different, so please don't go berserk if after I say "Dance of Death" it's in reality Death Dance, Deadly Dance, Mortal Tango or Fatal Dubsteb in your WD.
Regarding the Decurion, I find the way it works for some of these formations not that clear. Formations are presented in boxes linked by lines. You can take 1 to 10 of the optional formations, and since there are only 9 total it's obvious you can take some more than one. But the way it's presented I'm actually wondering if you can take anything you want multiple time, or only the first three ones (which are the Destroyers, Praetorian and the Canoptek one). In a way it makes sense to not spam things like Trans Ctans or Obelisk, but in another it makes no sense to be limited to a single Deathmark unit yet spam things like Praetorians... WD, why you no clear?
Also WD refers to the Decurion itself as giving bonuses to the units composing it in addition to what the Formations do, but I never managed to find these bonuses listed anywhere.
Some precisions:
- I previously said the Canoptek formation includes 1 Spyder, but later in a pic it shows said formation with 1 UNIT of Spyders. So I don't know which page is right.
- I said the Praetorian formation included a Stalker, but actually after rereading it it's an UNIT of Stalkers.
- Heavy Destroyers are indeed their one unit now.
- Deathmarks and Flayed are indeed only 1 unit.
- Dommscythes are 2 to 4.
- Royal court MUST include at least one Lord and one Cryptek.
- Obyron can replace a Lord.
- Illuminator and Orikan can replace a Cryptek.
Regarding the CTans, WD seems to really make a difference between Shards of the Deceiver, Nightbringer, Trans CTan and the Vault. This is how their power work:
- During the shooting phase, chose an enemy unit.
- Roll a D6 or pick a card to determine the attack it suffers.
- The randomness represents the CTan basically doing whatever he wants when released on a battlefield.
- Each attack comes in 2 Flavors.
- The first one, supposedly already devastating, is used by the two shards and the Trans CTan.
- The second one, that appears to be the powerful Apocalypse effect, is for the Vault.
A bit worried for C'Tans now....
Well... it IS fluffy...
Hopefully it'll be a "random flavor of terrible death" kind of thing where you can be assured that the target is going to get a pounding whatever the result.
NecronLord3 wrote: As a corporation they don't care. The people writing the books and selling the models are acutely aware of how the units work in tournaments.
AHAHAHA thats gold... Wait... were you being serious?
Yes I am. There are different departments, teams and elements of GW as a company. Often there is a case of the right hand having no idea what the left hand is doing, even amongst those designing the rule books. It's a case of mismanagement but it does not mean that tournaments are entirely irrelevant to elements of GW.
Except that in the absence of actually being a member first hand, we only have their actions to judge them by. Their actions say they don't care/support tournaments. Saying they care but are incompetent doesn't cut it.
Red Corsair wrote: Except that in the absence of actually being a member first hand, we only have their actions to judge them by. Their actions say they don't care/support tournaments. Saying they care but are incompetent doesn't cut it.
I agree, but when their actions give actual prize support to FLGS and track purchases during events held for 40K/fantasy, thats kind of actually opposite of what you are saying.
Red Corsair wrote: Except that in the absence of actually being a member first hand, we only have their actions to judge them by. Their actions say they don't care/support tournaments. Saying they care but are incompetent doesn't cut it.
So when they provide prize support to events like the LVO or are in communication with Adepticon about the game and rules inquirers, these actions are what I judge them by. Do they support the tournaments like they did in the past? No but they created the competitve tournament scene and have allowed the independent events runners to take over. It's a resource that they don't have to commit any energy or time and effort to that is stronger today without them than it was 10 years ago when they were the ones doing it in some ways exclusively by themselves.
While it sounds like we don't have a lot of new stuff in the book (oh, please, make flayed ones useful) the end of year nid units in WD really helped inject new life into the bugs, so here is hoping necrons may get new units later in the year.
Is this what we're reduced to? Resigned that new codexes will suck but hoping maybe later we can buy a suppliment that might be good?
He says he'll stop drinking and then maybe he'll get a job and stop hitting me...
While it sounds like we don't have a lot of new stuff in the book (oh, please, make flayed ones useful) the end of year nid units in WD really helped inject new life into the bugs, so here is hoping necrons may get new units later in the year.
Is this what we're reduced to? Resigned that new codexes will suck but hoping maybe later we can buy a suppliment that might be good?
I remember when the switch from $35 to $50 for the new codexes was a crazy and infuriating change. Now you can pay double that to get a couple of formations that give you free special rules to make your units not suck as much.
Henshini wrote: Giving out support to tournaments is not the same as writing a rule set that functions well in tournaments.
Exactly, this promotes sales more then a healthy tournament set. Look, they are aware of events that HEAVILY alter their rules to be playable competitively while sitting on their hands and not FAQ'ing even the most obvious errors.... Like I said, their action demonstrate they could care less about tournament play.
While it sounds like we don't have a lot of new stuff in the book (oh, please, make flayed ones useful) the end of year nid units in WD really helped inject new life into the bugs, so here is hoping necrons may get new units later in the year.
Is this what we're reduced to? Resigned that new codexes will suck but hoping maybe later we can buy a suppliment that might be good?
He says he'll stop drinking and then maybe he'll get a job and stop hitting me...
KK, don't ever stop you are easily my favorite poster on dakka
Henshini wrote: Giving out support to tournaments is not the same as writing a rule set that functions well in tournaments.
Exactly, this promotes sales more then a healthy tournament set. Look, they are aware of events that HEAVILY alter their rules to be playable competitively while sitting on their hands and not FAQ'ing even the most obvious errors.... Like I said, their action demonstrate they could care less about tournament play.
While it sounds like we don't have a lot of new stuff in the book (oh, please, make flayed ones useful) the end of year nid units in WD really helped inject new life into the bugs, so here is hoping necrons may get new units later in the year.
Is this what we're reduced to? Resigned that new codexes will suck but hoping maybe later we can buy a suppliment that might be good?
He says he'll stop drinking and then maybe he'll get a job and stop hitting me...
KK, don't ever stop you are easily my favorite poster on dakka
Im sorry you guys feel this way then, because this rule set is not hard to follow in a tournament setting. We have events all over the globe for 40K that not only help contribute to the sales but actually require a fair amount of support to get off the ground. Not to mention that supplements, while adding to the money machine, also give a competative edge to any army...
Even in this case with the new necron stuff coming out... yes its going to be a cash grab, but thats how commericalism works.
If this gets you that bent out of shape then I would suggest another hobby because this stuff isnt going to change, and its not just GW that does it anymore either.
Is this what we're reduced to? Resigned that new codexes will suck but hoping maybe later we can buy a supplement that might be good?
Outside of detachment taxes, or the necessity to buy multiples of the same expensive kits, these rumors are quite tame. I'm excited about the new army load outs and the C'tan dynamics.
I think it's brilliant if GW actually made the Vault stronger than the Trans. The Vault is a bigger target (which would make more sense), and it sells more kits (good for GW, not for the consumer). Any tech that can hold and harness something as potent as a Shard, should have a devastating effect. Hopefully it will have wounds instead of HP, or at least be a mighty bulwark/ignore melta/lance with high AV (ala Aquila) for palatability.
The randomness of the powers also makes more sense, in sync with cannon. As long as all the results are equally savage, brutal, and demoralizing to your opponent, the nuances in the randomness may be ancillary. This makes C'tans a bit "Rara Avis". Rumored MSS changes leave me less than comfortable.
I feel like our current 'dex lacked upgrade options on the unit level. Meaning, other than HQs, we were/are pigeonholed in inflexible, rigid design. We don't have the versatility of upgrade options that say, Space Marine sergeants have, or any Imperium vehicle for that matter. Not very forthcoming for a race older than time, and the alleged axiomatic vertex of technology and doomsday devices.
He says he'll stop drinking and then maybe he'll get a job and stop hitting me...
Shhheeeesh...ever see femdom porn? Women love that smut!!! It a predisposition, hardwired into their very fabric! Just joshing...
While it sounds like we don't have a lot of new stuff in the book (oh, please, make flayed ones useful) the end of year nid units in WD really helped inject new life into the bugs, so here is hoping necrons may get new units later in the year.
Is this what we're reduced to? Resigned that new codexes will suck but hoping maybe later we can buy a suppliment that might be good?
I remember when the switch from $35 to $50 for the new codexes was a crazy and infuriating change. Now you can pay double that to get a couple of formations that give you free special rules to make your units not suck as much.
Welcome to the Free Market.
That's what happens when your company goes public.
Until we have a hardcore, philanthropist golden goose wargamer pinch out a gem, we will all be succinctly acquiescent.
via an anonymous source on Faeit 212
This is from the new White Dwarf.
The Decurion Detachment is a new way of organizing Necrons. Formations are broken down into three groups, Command, Core, and Auxiliary.
Command
Royal Court (0-1 per Reclamation Legion)
*1 Overlord/ Imotekh
*1-3 Lords
*1-3 Crypteks
nflagey wrote: Oh so *you* think someone writing about fungus-based organisms launching invasions while fighting with each other, or about metallic skeleton with reminiscence of ancient Egypt, or about Ridley Scott's Alien like creatures, ... do not care about how the game is played, including tournaments?
Do you know what a non-sequitur is?
I'd first question if he even understood what he wrote. That was impressive!
Can we PLEASE take the "they care", "no they don't", "yes, they do", "No they don't" to another thread?
Please?
Thank you in advance.
Now, regarding these latest rumors - very interesting.
The grouping by ....type (canoptek, praetorian, etc.) might have some merit, if the new units have ANY kind of synergy.
I love the ctan personally, and really hope they are viable on the table top. Supposedly they were in the WD battlereport, do we have any info ANYWHERE on the specific powers?
Dangit, if the Destroyer Cult is any good I'll want to run it because Destroyers are cool....but I only have 5 and 3 heavy because obviously I wouldn't want more than one unit with the current codex.
Oh well, at least I'm capable of most of the other ones I have any reason to care about.
DavePak, I agree. Not only does it make a fair amount of sense... and hopefully there will be synergy within the Auxiliary Choices. Praetorians with their Stalker. Deathmarks on their own. Canoptek's together, etc. Fits better with the fluff... for example, Zahndrek didn't use Deathmarks. Someone out of favor with the Silent King wouldn't be able to call upon the Praetorians, etc. Love the Destroyer Cult.
Just to be clear, though... people are saying that this is the 'Formation' rather than the CAD. Right? I can't see anyone taking too many of the Auxilary Choices in a 'normal' sized 40k game. Using current points totals, the core and command are over 500 points, bare bones. It's closer to 1,000 points usefully equipped. I guess that would give you room for up to 2 auxiliary choices.
Not that I'm believing any of this until the book is in my hands. Gamestore confirmed a call from GW saying that it'll be the 31st.
This seems inflexible and geared for large games as each of the groups is 300+ points except for flayed ones or deathmarks.
I suppose the FOC will remain better suited for small games say 1500 or less.
It is interesting that the core group includes tomb blades, lychguard and monoliths but not wraiths, scarabs, ABs.
Looks like the codex plays entirely different than today or we are seeing the on-set of the nerf beating.
Why would anyone need/want to take 3 monoliths under any circumstances? Necronium Lance?
well ..... one of the Best Blood Angels Formations requires nearly 1000 points worth of models just to gain the useful benefits from it.
Formations like that cause a double win for GW its both a way to make the formations manageable and not broken annnnnd make you buy models you might not have in order to use them.
Show me on the doll where the bad mods touched you.
It's sad that there will (probably) not be any more releases for Necrons with this new codex; they're definitely getting the Grey Knights treatment. Although this release is important in that it marks the complete transition of softcovers into hardcover books, so I'm quite curious what will come next. It shouldn't take that long since this release was fairly minimal in new content.
Gunther wrote: This seems inflexible and geared for large games as each of the groups is 300+ points except for flayed ones or deathmarks.
I suppose the FOC will remain better suited for small games say 1500 or less.
It is interesting that the core group includes tomb blades, lychguard and monoliths but not wraiths, scarabs, ABs.
Looks like the codex plays entirely different than today or we are seeing the on-set of the nerf beating.
Why would anyone need/want to take 3 monoliths under any circumstances? Necronium Lance?
You have to remember, as long as you can bring dedicated transports as normal you can bring a significant portion of most people's base Necron list with the Reclamation Legion. The only thing it's really lacking is the Wraiths and the ABs. As long as DAs *if you want ABs) and Monos have been buffed a little, and TBs a bit too, probably, that should even out. Also depends what extra goodies each formation brings.
I'm excited though. I love new tools to work with. Also looking forward to seeing what these 6 C'tan powers bring. If it's something like Halicnation, but with 6 options instead of 3, it should be pretty balling.
Accolade wrote: Show me on the doll where the bad mods touched you.
It's sad that there will (probably) not be any more releases for Necrons with this new codex; they're definitely getting the Grey Knights treatment. Although this release is important in that it marks the complete transition of softcovers into hardcover books, so I'm quite curious what will come next. It shouldn't take that long since this release was fairly minimal in new content.
Are we artfully forgetting, or just outright dismissing Sisters of battle from the list? Just want to know what's cool these days.
The Sister's codex was updated.
Admittedly, not to hardback but Digital is better then strewn across 2 out of print issues of WD... (and he did only say Softcover to Hardcover, I'd hardly call the old SoBWD 'dex' a proper Softback Codex)
Accolade wrote: Show me on the doll where the bad mods touched you.
It's sad that there will (probably) not be any more releases for Necrons with this new codex; they're definitely getting the Grey Knights treatment. Although this release is important in that it marks the complete transition of softcovers into hardcover books, so I'm quite curious what will come next. It shouldn't take that long since this release was fairly minimal in new content.
Are we artfully forgetting, or just outright dismissing Sisters of battle from the list? Just want to know what's cool these days.
It's cool to dump on Sisters! Gotta keep 'em down!
Accolade wrote: Show me on the doll where the bad mods touched you.
It's sad that there will (probably) not be any more releases for Necrons with this new codex; they're definitely getting the Grey Knights treatment. Although this release is important in that it marks the complete transition of softcovers into hardcover books, so I'm quite curious what will come next. It shouldn't take that long since this release was fairly minimal in new content.
Are we artfully forgetting, or just outright dismissing Sisters of battle from the list? Just want to know what's cool these days.
As another poster stated, they got their digital book not all that long ago. I'm not "dissing" sisters, though if people expect radically different things for them than what they've gotten (ie basically nothing), then that's their perogative.
Dang, big wall of new pictures got me excited and it's just the info we already have and a clearer picture of the codex art... Which is actually looking a touch derpy because of the poorly foreshortened arm.
As long as DAs *if you want ABs) and Monos have been buffed a little, and TBs a bit too, probably, that should even out. Also depends what extra goodies each formation brings.
Anrakyr Royal Decurion - 725 pts min - Reroll reserves / Reroll seize initiative
Mephrit Resurgence Decurion - 500 pts min - Monolith repairs D6 W / D3 Im per turn
Zarutha's Royal Decurion - 1275 pts min - Choose one rule (Crusader, Counter-attack, Fearless, Monster Hunters) and apply to every non-vehicle model
Conclave of The Burning One - 255 pts min - Use toughness of Ctan for crypteks
To me, only the Resurgence Decurion and Conclave-of-The-Burning-One seem valuable considering pts/benefits.
Waaghboss Grobnub,
Myself, I'm trying to avoid the 'New-Codex-Hangover-itosis" this time around. Symptoms include bellyaching about what seemed to be made worse, and a high fever of what didn't change but should have. Individuals are usually exposed by reading forums unprotected by cynicism. Fortunately, it is rarely fatal to your gaming hobby though the recovery time is often months.
But to answer your questions, obviously it will be difficult to figure out what is really a nerf and what isn't. It'll take a couple of months before we start to see some tournament lists.
You mean it's a new unit? It's the closed version of the Vault thingy from apocalypse isn't it? It's new in the codex though which might be what you meant.
White Dwarf wrote:
Codex: Necrons introduces the Decurion Detachment, you'll probably use it once or twice and then forget it exists.
Also... multiple Super Heavies/Gargantuan Creatures (assuming Trans/Obelisk/Vault keep their unit types) for what seems like less points investment than taking multiple CADs.
Shame the rumours were accurate about this restrictive marketing gimmick.
Needs a few key fixes:
-Change tomb blades to 0-3 instead of 1-3. The only reason to have mandatory Jetbikes is to force sales of Jetbikes.
-If you've taken a Royal Court, you should be able to not take an Overlord in your core formation. This also goes for the main FOC if you're allowed to take these formations independently, as being taxed an entire Overlord to get access to multiple Crypteks is absolutely absurd.
-Deathbringer Flight and Destroyer Cult have unnecessarily large minimums.
And of course, you have a 5 troops tax if you want to take supplementary forces.
I kinda like the idea but at unless the codex got a massive rebalance overhaul (which isn't hugely likely) I think the execution isn't going to be excellent.
That said as long as you can still use a CAD and the Mephrit Dynasty Detachment this is just another way of building an army.
Hulksmash wrote: I kinda like the idea but at unless the codex got a massive rebalance overhaul (which isn't hugely likely) I think the execution isn't going to be excellent.
That said as long as you can still use a CAD and the Mephrit Dynasty Detachment this is just another way of building an army.
The big issue is the Royal court, which provides a lot of the Army's personality if you want to not run it as a faceless horde.
Unless they did a Daemons style thing where you can take multiple Crypteks for one HQ slot, I guess?
That's not very important, nobody expects you to rebase fully painted models and you can always stick new ones on whatever base size the rest of your army is already at for the sake of consistency and pretend they're older if your opponent decides to be an ass about it.
I know that when I get the new Overlord he's going straight onto either a 25 or a 40, fit dependent. Hell if I'm having a solitary model in my entire army on a medium base when everyone else is on small or large.
godswildcard wrote: That's cool. Now you don't even have to take a Lord of War to run the incredibly OP Transcendant C'Tan.
It's just an 'auxiliary' detachment.
Unless they account for that and it somehow still takes up a LoW slot, that's just going to be stupid.
'Want a game?'
'Sure, but no LoWs'
'No problem!' (Places Transcendant C'Tan)
'Yeah, on second thought, I'm good...'
Or am I missing something? Is it gonna take a nerf bat to the face?
My guess would be, TC'Tan would be a LoW choice if you include him as part of a CAD (assuming it still exists), but counts as Auxilliary Detachment, if you use this building-block-approach.
What "role" it is classified as sorta depends on where it enters the army-building-process (TM! ). It' seems like "FOC-switching" of units making a come-back in a particularly obscure and round-about way, but I probably would start to once again let go of the idea that "unit X" is always strictly tied to "army-organisation-slot-Y". Units might once again "enter" armies in different roles.
I have two Triarch Stalkers but unless Triarch Praetorians get a major rework and the Judicator Battalion get some really impressive rules I don't see myself including them in any Decurion I put together.
I always liked Tomb Blades and never got any Wraiths so this isn't a major bother for me. I'm looking forward to seeing if all these mini-Formations have special rules or not.
changemod wrote: It looks like they're doing a complete overhaul of all the Escalation Necron units, so yes: The Tran C'tan will have a different stat set than before.
That said, a game with a no Superheavies restriction is still a game with a no Superheavies restriction.
True. But a "no-LoW"-game isn't necessarily a "no-Superheavies"-game (e.g. Imperial Knights). The two are not synonymous.
changemod wrote: It looks like they're doing a complete overhaul of all the Escalation Necron units, so yes: The Tran C'tan will have a different stat set than before.
That said, a game with a no Superheavies restriction is still a game with a no Superheavies restriction.
True. But a "no-LoW"-game isn't necessarily a "no-Superheavies"-game (e.g. Imperial Knights). The two are not synonymous.
Makes more sense to make it no Superheavies... Unless you think Logan Grimnar, Dante and Ghazkhul are game breaking?
MaxT wrote: The important question is whether you can continue to use a CAD or not.
Edit: or if you can use it, but you're giving up so many benefits it's a redundant option.
Considering the rulebook says you can always use a CAD and the Mephrit Dynasty came out around a month ago so I'd say it's pretty likely you can continue to use standard detachments.
Granted the benefits of the mini detachments or a rebalancing of the units might make it pointless but you can still run the list the way you used to. Outside of possible issues with the Crypteks.
MaxT wrote: They certainly look like it on the photos.
Cool. Just wondering because I recently purchased a few boxes of Necron Warriors and am waiting to assemble them because I wanted to make sure they were going to be on 32mm bases.
MaxT wrote: They certainly look like it on the photos.
Cool. Just wondering because I recently purchased a few boxes of Necron Warriors and am waiting to assemble them because I wanted to make sure they were going to be on 32mm bases.
I think basically just base them on whatever at this point, within reason. Who caressss, GW certainly don't.
So going by points costs and unit sizes from the old codex (I'm sure there will be adjustments) you can get a minimum Reclaimation Legion (1xOL,5xImmortals,2x5Warriors,1xTB) and squeeze in 2x Trancendent C'tan into an 1850pt list.
And that is just terrifying.
Now saying that, all the C'tan could be getting a reworking especially given these new powers of the C'tan cards.
Wilson wrote: I really do not understand that chart at all...
The chart has really helped me understand it. I'm probably a visual learner. Basically, the box in the top left is Compulsary. And then, on top of that, you can take a Royal Court formation, and up to ten of the formations below in any combination.
So are those boxes formations as such, or can you pick and choose?
In other words to take the Wraiths do you also have to take the other canoptek units, or could you just take the Wraiths without them.
Or another example would be the Royal Court, do you have to take all of those Lords?
The Royal Court one isn't so much of an issue as it's obviously optional but otherwise is it me or does this mean we will see less Wraiths in games (personally not a bad thing for me)?
Or am I just a numpty that has got way too used to using the FOC.
ImAGeek wrote: Well we don't know what changes there's been to different units and stuff yet.
My suggested tweaks aren't about balance so much as about the twin concerns of list variety within the Decurion toolbox and not having formations that force the player to buy extra models.
ImAGeek wrote: Well we don't know what changes there's been to different units and stuff yet.
My suggested tweaks aren't about balance so much as about the twin concerns of list variety within the Decurion toolbox and not having formations that force the player to buy extra models.
No fair enough, but (and I'm reaching here, as its GW...) the limits might be like they are for balance reasons...
ImAGeek wrote: Well we don't know what changes there's been to different units and stuff yet.
My suggested tweaks aren't about balance so much as about the twin concerns of list variety within the Decurion toolbox and not having formations that force the player to buy extra models.
No fair enough, but (and I'm reaching here, as its GW...) the limits might be like they are for balance reasons...
It does sound crazy written out..
What balance is there to not being allowed to field your Doom Scythe until you buy a second one? Or to needing to field a very large Destroyer Cult if at all? Or it being 100% mandatory to have a tomb blade unit at all times or you can't field a Decurion Army?
What balance is there to not being allowed to field your Doom Scythe until you buy a second one?
Assuming (!) these are Formations with unique benefits on their own, two Doom Scythe minimum would seem reasonable. Why else would anyone take a single Doom Scythe (CAD? Unbound?) instead of this Doom Scythe-Formation, if the latter gives you something extra?
Indeed, benefits could depend on there being two... similar to the "all units from this formation come in on one reserve roll" or similar things we've seen, which would be pointless with "only one".
ImAGeek wrote: Well we don't know what changes there's been to different units and stuff yet.
My suggested tweaks aren't about balance so much as about the twin concerns of list variety within the Decurion toolbox and not having formations that force the player to buy extra models.
No fair enough, but (and I'm reaching here, as its GW...) the limits might be like they are for balance reasons...
It does sound crazy written out..
What balance is there to not being allowed to field your Doom Scythe until you buy a second one? Or to needing to field a very large Destroyer Cult if at all? Or it being 100% mandatory to have a tomb blade unit at all times or you can't field a Decurion Army?
I'm just guessing here, but I think it looks more like the top two boxes are FOC related and the light colored boxes below the "1-10 per Reclamation Legion" are formations.
Regardless I think the actual codex will shed some light on this because I'm sure there is more going on that we just don't know about yet.
It is going to continue to get more confusing with special rules. Currently Detachment command benefits never apply to formations, as they're seperate:
Go unbound, only have special rules on the units.
Take a detachment, have special rules on the units plus command benefits
Take a formation, have special rules on the units plus formation benefits
But now:
Take a Decurion Detachment, have special rules on the units plus command benefits of the detachment plus each formation gets formation benefits for itself also.
Wilson wrote: I really do not understand that chart at all...
The chart has really helped me understand it. I'm probably a visual learner. Basically, the box in the top left is Compulsary. And then, on top of that, you can take a Royal Court formation, and up to ten of the formations below in any combination.
I am still pretty new at this, so does a formation act as a single unit? For example, would the individual units of scarabs, spyders and wraiths act as a unit together or are they independent (but required to have on the field) of one another?
I assume you can still build an army normally, this weird Dodecahedron thing isn't compulsary?
And the first thing I noticed from those WD pics is (and this might sound silly to people but is a big thing to me) there's no real standout pieces of art in the codex preview pages. Normally the art is the first thing that grabs me, but there's nothing spectacular there. I hope there's better in the codex. Probably sounds silly.
Wilson wrote: I really do not understand that chart at all...
The chart has really helped me understand it. I'm probably a visual learner. Basically, the box in the top left is Compulsary. And then, on top of that, you can take a Royal Court formation, and up to ten of the formations below in any combination.
I am still pretty new at this, so does a formation act as a single unit? For example, would the individual units of scarabs, spyders and wraiths act as a unit together or are they independent (but required to have on the field) of one another?
I think formations just prescribe what units you can take, but you don't have to use them as a unit together. It doesn't effect the tabletop past limiting your choices and whatever bonus they give you.
There's the Decurion chart.. format of which sucks. The lines go through three top gray 'auxillary' options, so does that mean you need to take one of those three first, or just pick 1-10 selections of the gray options freely? If the point is to make an easy to understand chart, that's just really bad design.
Otherwise, it reminds me of Flames of War army list organisation. You have multiple options for a 'core army' and each comes with slightly adjusted auxillary choices. IMO it's a pretty good system, you can eliminate certain power builds and slightly guide the lists towards fluff.
changemod wrote: I can't believe I'm writing up a fix suggestion before the codex is even out, but..
How about you wait for the book?Â
I acknowledge that's a little absurd and your response is to point out the thing I acknowledged?
As I said though, the suggestions I placed are entirely based around the encouragement to buy extra models built in to the formations, and the inability to get a royal court without being taxed heavily for it. (Taking a second Overlord is a massive playstyle restriction due to points sunk.)
changemod wrote: I can't believe I'm writing up a fix suggestion before the codex is even out, but..
How about you wait for the book?Â
I acknowledge that's a little absurd and your response is to point out the thing I acknowledged?
As I said though, the suggestions I placed are entirely based around the encouragement to buy extra models built in to the formations, and the inability to get a royal court without being taxed heavily for it. (Taking a second Overlord is a massive playstyle restriction due to points sunk.)
No, I'm agreeing with you. You're being absurd./
And a second overlord isn't that big a deal since you can take a CCB.
changemod wrote: I can't believe I'm writing up a fix suggestion before the codex is even out, but..
How about you wait for the book?Â
I acknowledge that's a little absurd and your response is to point out the thing I acknowledged?
As I said though, the suggestions I placed are entirely based around the encouragement to buy extra models built in to the formations, and the inability to get a royal court without being taxed heavily for it. (Taking a second Overlord is a massive playstyle restriction due to points sunk.)
No, I'm agreeing with you. You're being absurd./
But only marginally. Like you aren't even listening to, my objections aren't rule based. They're based around nonsense like telling a new player they need to spend thirty bucks on Jetbikes to use the core formation.
And a second overlord isn't that big a deal since you can take a CCB.
A pointsink isn't a big deal because it lets you sink even more points?
In all honesty I do not believe the Decurion detachment thing is meant for building an army to PLAY with. It is simply there to convince people that the discount () web bundles they will be introducing are worth buying.
I will bet we see Web Bundles of : Destroyer cult - 1 box of 3 destroyers, 1 single destroyer, 1 DL upgrade Deathbringer Flight - 4x Scythe boxes Annihilation nexus - 2x AB 1X Arc boxes Judicator Battalion - 2 box pretorians 1 stalker Canoptec Harvest - 1 spider, 3 wraiths, 24 warriors+ 6 scarab bases (because scarabs will still only come with warriors) and of course the "core" web bundle to START an army and makes all the new players run for the hills !!!!!!Reclamation Legion Web Bundle!!!!! 3x tomb blades 5x lychguard 10x immortals 24x warriors 1 overlord 1 monolith only $300
NOTE: these are not rumors, Just my impression on what will be coming thanks to the Decursion thing.
changemod wrote: I can't believe I'm writing up a fix suggestion before the codex is even out, but..
How about you wait for the book?Â
I acknowledge that's a little absurd and your response is to point out the thing I acknowledged?
As I said though, the suggestions I placed are entirely based around the encouragement to buy extra models built in to the formations, and the inability to get a royal court without being taxed heavily for it. (Taking a second Overlord is a massive playstyle restriction due to points sunk.)
No, I'm agreeing with you. You're being absurd./
But only marginally. Like you aren't even listening to, my objections aren't rule based. They're based around nonsense like telling a new player they need to spend thirty bucks on Jetbikes to use the core formation.
And a second overlord isn't that big a deal since you can take a CCB.
A pointsink isn't a big deal because it lets you sink even more points?
changemod wrote: I can't believe I'm writing up a fix suggestion before the codex is even out, but..
How about you wait for the book?Â
I acknowledge that's a little absurd and your response is to point out the thing I acknowledged?
Well, given how you use the word "but.." after your acknowledgement...
Gosh. Almost as if I explained myself.
Is there a reason a new player couldn't just use a normal CAD? Only mandatory units are 1 HQ and 2 Troops- seems like the perfect answer. If they want to use the Decurion they just need to add to thei collection slowly.
Sinful Hero wrote: Is there a reason a new player couldn't just use a normal CAD? Only mandatory units are 1 HQ and 2 Troops- seems like the perfect answer. If they want to use the Decurion they just need to add to thei collection slowly.
Nothing stopping him, but unlike an ordinary formation that just gives you a small supplementary force to work with, this fancy customisable super-formation army is an elaborate marketing tool front and centre in his codex selling shiny benefits to the new player if only he buys a Tomb Bike kit or two Scythe Kits instead of one and so forth.
ImAGeek wrote: I assume you can still build an army normally, this weird Dodecahedron thing isn't compulsary?
And the first thing I noticed from those WD pics is (and this might sound silly to people but is a big thing to me) there's no real standout pieces of art in the codex preview pages. Normally the art is the first thing that grabs me, but there's nothing spectacular there. I hope there's better in the codex. Probably sounds silly.
...
The picture of the Overlord looks pretty sweet to me.
ImAGeek wrote: I assume you can still build an army normally, this weird Dodecahedron thing isn't compulsary?
And the first thing I noticed from those WD pics is (and this might sound silly to people but is a big thing to me) there's no real standout pieces of art in the codex preview pages. Normally the art is the first thing that grabs me, but there's nothing spectacular there. I hope there's better in the codex. Probably sounds silly.
...
The picture of the Overlord looks pretty sweet to me.
You mean the cover? I can't see another overlord picture.
keltikhoa wrote: In all honesty I do not believe the Decurion detachment thing is meant for building an army to PLAY with. It is simply there to convince people that the discount () web bundles they will be introducing are worth buying.
I will bet we see Web Bundles of :
Destroyer cult - 1 box of 3 destroyers, 1 single destroyer, 1 DL upgrade
Deathbringer Flight - 4x Scythe boxes
Annihilation nexus - 2x AB 1X Arc boxes
Judicator Battalion - 2 box pretorians 1 stalker
Canoptec Harvest - 1 spider, 3 wraiths, 24 warriors+ 6 scarab bases (because scarabs will still only come with warriors)
and of course the "core" web bundle to START an army and makes all the new players run for the hills
!!!!!!Reclamation Legion Web Bundle!!!!!
3x tomb blades
5x lychguard
10x immortals
24x warriors
1 overlord
1 monolith
only $300
NOTE: these are not rumors, Just my impression on what will be coming thanks to the Decursion thing.
Yeah... with the Decursion list, the 'Tomb Awakens' seems like a pretty poor bundle because you have... at best... two of the three units required to make any of the Auxiliary choices. Seems made from the start to sell web-bundles and take more money out of your FLGS pockets.
Automatically Appended Next Post: GAAAH!!! I'm worked blocked, and I can't find the pictures. I was in some of the leaked pages... maybe a White Dwarf page.
I'm not to down on the art though... there was some really nice stuff in the Exterminatus book, my image is an example.
Sinful Hero wrote: Is there a reason a new player couldn't just use a normal CAD? Only mandatory units are 1 HQ and 2 Troops- seems like the perfect answer. If they want to use the Decurion they just need to add to thei collection slowly.
Nothing stopping him, but unlike an ordinary formation that just gives you a small supplementary force to work with, this fancy customisable super-formation army is an elaborate marketing tool front and centre in his codex selling shiny benefits to the new player if only he buys a Tomb Bike kit or two Scythe Kits instead of one and so forth.
We actually have had giant formations of formations before- it's nothing new. The only thing new about this one is you can actually field it in a sub-2000pt game. It's as much as an "elaborate marketing tool" as every other formation ever made. You field specific units, to get these bonuses. It's just an extension of that framework taken to an entire force.
>> Necrons in this formation get Relentless
>> Article claims that this has a "tremendous advantage": Necrons can now fire and charge
>> What intern wrote this article?
Sinful Hero wrote: Is there a reason a new player couldn't just use a normal CAD? Only mandatory units are 1 HQ and 2 Troops- seems like the perfect answer. If they want to use the Decurion they just need to add to thei collection slowly.
Nothing stopping him, but unlike an ordinary formation that just gives you a small supplementary force to work with, this fancy customisable super-formation army is an elaborate marketing tool front and centre in his codex selling shiny benefits to the new player if only he buys a Tomb Bike kit or two Scythe Kits instead of one and so forth.
We actually have had giant formations of formations before- it's nothing new. The only thing new about this one is you can actually field it in a sub-2000pt game. It's as much as an "elaborate marketing tool" as every other formation ever made. You field specific units, to get these bonuses. It's just an extension of that framework taken to an entire force.
Pretty much, yes. The big difference here is that it's hyped up as one of the main ways to play the army and just flexible enough to encourage you to build your collection up to use the fractions of it.
If they're going to do it this way, they more or less have an obligation to allow just a fraction more flexibility than they did. I'm not asking too much here, just to be a little more toolboxy and a little less manipulative.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Sigvatr wrote: >> Necrons in this formation get Relentless
>> Article claims that this has a "tremendous advantage": Necrons can now fire and charge
>> What intern wrote this article?
No, that actually is pretty huge. It's a tactical option added to every troop unit in the army at once, particularly since you ideally want to be in rapid fire range anyhow.
Sigvatr wrote: >> Necrons in this formation get Relentless
>> Article claims that this has a "tremendous advantage": Necrons can now fire and charge
>> What intern wrote this article?
Lol. Is it wrong if I think that people doing internships at GW probably play the game more often and know more about the rules then the "veterans" writing these guidelines (and the actual rules)?
1) I like the Decurion. It makes sense to me - Necrons are robots, they're going to be super organized. I work with databases all day, so this is just an organization breakdown.
2) I won't run Judicator Battalion unless Praetorians are amazing. I'm not dropping $100 for 2 boxes of mediocre semi-assault units just to put a Stalker on the table. If I want my Stalker, I'll just run a CAD.
3) I think that we're going to see a re-classification of the Transcendent C'Tan. I don't think it'll be Gargantuan anymore, just a souped up C'Tan - more expensive than Nightbringer or Deciever but more powerful. I also don't know about the Obelisk - if you can run up to 10 in the Decurion, I dunno if it'll keep Superheavy, or get changed or what not. I think the Vault will be the Super Heavy option and the other two will get toned down to be in line with other power levels.
4) Will the Decurion be part of the Codex? Or am I going to need this White Dwarf to run one? Codex isn't even out yet and I need this WD, the WD from December with the Formation, and Shield of Baal: Exterminatus. Ugh.
No, that actually is pretty huge. It's a tactical option added to every troop unit in the army at once, particularly since you ideally want to be in rapid fire range anyhow.
When choosing between being able to fire 40 shots and charge, just to then immediately die, and firing 40 shots with full BS and then 40 shots at BS1...the choice isn't too tough. Even better with the (current!) Tesla rules.
The Tomb Blades part is still weirding me out (thanks for deleting my post without telling me btw, great job!). Why would you force people to include Tomb Blades? They are the least fluffy units in the entire codex. Maybe, they just didn't sell well enough?
The Decurion is a detachment made of formations. Formations are detachments themselves, therefore the Decurion is a detachment of detachments.
So shouldn't it be called the Recursion Detachment instead.
Well, it could also be considered a formation made up of formations, not all unlike the Champions of Fenris "super-formation", which you get fielding all other formations in the supplement at once.
No, that actually is pretty huge. It's a tactical option added to every troop unit in the army at once, particularly since you ideally want to be in rapid fire range anyhow.
When choosing between being able to fire 40 shots and charge, just to then immediately die, and firing 40 shots with full BS and then 40 shots at BS1...the choice isn't too tough.
Assuming you're thinking of charging something that you don't safely outclass, yes.
Maybe Illuminor will get better abilities to buff troops making them more effective in cc.
I hope they retool Szeras (spelling?) such cool model and decent but missing something. Though with mulitple detachemnts he is not taking up valuable HQ slots so maybe he will be cool.
Always wanted to field Orikan also for fun. I think I might buy two Orikan's and the new lord and kitbash a buffed Orikan for when the "stars are right". If they ever are right lol.
I don't give a gak what changes they make unless the Deathbringer formation when it shoots gives your opponent victory points being able to take 4 Doomscythes is going to be awesome.
This may be a silly question... Will new codec contain units from IA12? And if standard CAD is no more, how will IA12 work with the non red harvest units (tessleract arc, sentinel etc).
Ffyllotek wrote: This may be a silly question... Will new codec contain units from IA12? And if standard CAD is no more, how will IA12 work with the non red harvest units (tessleract arc, sentinel etc).
No, Forgeworld units are Forgeworld. I don't think I've ever seen a FW unit added to a regular 40k codex.
Ffyllotek wrote: This may be a silly question... Will new codec contain units from IA12? And if standard CAD is no more, how will IA12 work with the non red harvest units (tessleract arc, sentinel etc).
No, Forgeworld units are Forgeworld. I don't think I've ever seen a FW unit added to a regular 40k codex.
It's been a while,, but the Tyranid Trygon was the biggest one I remember. Imperial Guard Hydras also had a FW kit that GW redesigned for 40k.
I think if we were going to see it now, though, they'd be in the Decurion list. Unless they're keeping it a super secret for the codex, but seeing as there haven't even been slight rumors I'm not counting on it.
Yeah, it's unlike that they will say you can't use a CAD. It will most likely follow the format from the previous books.
Bit odd though how they are going for this Formation within a Formation detachment instead of an army-specific FOC like the other books though. It's certainly unique, but still.
CthuluIsSpy wrote: Yeah, it's unlike that they will say you can't use a CAD. It will most likely follow the format from the previous books.
Bit odd though how they are going for this Formation within a Formation detachment instead of an army-specific FOC like the other books though. It's certainly unique, but still.
I'm almost willing to bet there will still be an FOC, but they're also putting formations in, as well as a super formation made of other formations.
I was really looking forward to Necrons to start playing 40k again, but I think like all the other releases in the past year it will be shelved once I realize how much it would actually cost me to get started playing again...
Skerr wrote: Maybe Illuminor will get better abilities to buff troops making them more effective in cc.
I hope they retool Szeras (spelling?) such cool model and decent but missing something. Though with mulitple detachemnts he is not taking up valuable HQ slots so maybe he will be cool.
Always wanted to field Orikan also for fun. I think I might buy two Orikan's and the new lord and kitbash a buffed Orikan for when the "stars are right". If they ever are right lol.
I don't think Illuminor Szeras was big enough. Should have been much more spider-like IMO and bigger to represent he's actually bat gak crazy
The confusing part is actually the one model "formations" on the Decursion list.
Star God is just one C'tan variant as a choice.
Living Tomb has an Obelisk mandatory, but doesn't need you to take the optional Monoliths.
And both "Deathmarks" and "Flayed Ones" are just a unit of those things. Do they get a bonus like other formations, or is it just that you can take Deathmarks along with your Decursion and stay bound?
WayneTheGame wrote: I was really looking forward to Necrons to start playing 40k again, but I think like all the other releases in the past year it will be shelved once I realize how much it would actually cost me to get started playing again...
Well, how much do you already have? These formations are really just for people who have an established collection.
Or for those with over-burdened wallets.
WayneTheGame wrote: I was really looking forward to Necrons to start playing 40k again, but I think like all the other releases in the past year it will be shelved once I realize how much it would actually cost me to get started playing again...
Well, how much do you already have? These formations are really just for people who have an established collection.
Or for those with over-burdened wallets.
Or, ya know, just feth it and drop your Forgeworld + whatever unbound on the table and roll some dice.
Ffyllotek wrote: This may be a silly question... Will new codec contain units from IA12? And if standard CAD is no more, how will IA12 work with the non red harvest units (tessleract arc, sentinel etc).
No, Forgeworld units are Forgeworld. I don't think I've ever seen a FW unit added to a regular 40k codex.
It's been a while,, but the Tyranid Trygon was the biggest one I remember. Imperial Guard Hydras also had a FW kit that GW redesigned for 40k.
Do believe the Tau Piranha was also a Forgeworld unit before finding its way into the Codex
Gunther wrote: This seems inflexible and geared for large games as each of the groups is 300+ points except for flayed ones or deathmarks.
I suppose the FOC will remain better suited for small games say 1500 or less.
It is interesting that the core group includes tomb blades, lychguard and monoliths but not wraiths, scarabs, ABs.
Looks like the codex plays entirely different than today or we are seeing the on-set of the nerf beating.
Why would anyone need/want to take 3 monoliths under any circumstances? Necronium Lance?
You have to remember, as long as you can bring dedicated transports as normal you can bring a significant portion of most people's base Necron list with the Reclamation Legion. The only thing it's really lacking is the Wraiths and the ABs. As long as DAs *if you want ABs) and Monos have been buffed a little, and TBs a bit too, probably, that should even out. Also depends what extra goodies each formation brings.
I'm excited though. I love new tools to work with. Also looking forward to seeing what these 6 C'tan powers bring. If it's something like Halicnation, but with 6 options instead of 3, it should be pretty balling.
I don't see anything that says I can't take multiple AB detachments, I just have to pay the Doomsday Ark tax. Who knows, maybe doomsday arks will get a buff.
Do they mean "elite" as in 'elite warrior' or as in 'this unit takes up an elite-slot'?
Because that would mean Immortals became an Elite Choice for us.
changemod wrote: What balance is there to not being allowed to field your Doom Scythe until you buy a second one? Or to needing to field a very large Destroyer Cult if at all? Or it being 100% mandatory to have a tomb blade unit at all times or you can't field a Decurion Army?
The balance? These are Formations.
Every Formation would be 'better' if you had a 0-X limit.
But if you had that for Formations, why bother with regular Detachments? Why would I pick several units if I could also pick those units with BONUS rules?
Hell, the only decent Formations for my Blood Angels are around 800-1000 points at a minimum.
So I think a minimum of two Doom Scythes just to gain some additional rules is something we should be happy with.
I've taken a look at the Decurion-chart and I am quite happy with it.
I'm already looking at lists I liked to play and analyze the small changes I could make to turn it into a Decurion, which would give me a lot of bonus rules.
The only thing that upsets me is the horror of 31-01-2015. It's the day where I am crying behind my catalogue editor from Battlescribe.
Ffyllotek wrote: This may be a silly question... Will new codec contain units from IA12? And if standard CAD is no more, how will IA12 work with the non red harvest units (tessleract arc, sentinel etc).
No, Forgeworld units are Forgeworld. I don't think I've ever seen a FW unit added to a regular 40k codex.
Forgeworld units will still fulfill their battlefield role within a normal CAD. Red Harvest has its own detachment (which cannot ally with other necrons according to some RAW for some stupid reason).
Any changes to Reanimation Protocols will determine if a normal CAD or the Mephrit is the stronger choice for tourneyments. Do you want the reroll 1's on RP, or do you want objective secured. Some rumors are saying that RP will happen before combat resolution... that may lean me in the direction of preferring Objective Secured troops.
WayneTheGame wrote: I was really looking forward to Necrons to start playing 40k again, but I think like all the other releases in the past year it will be shelved once I realize how much it would actually cost me to get started playing again...
Well, how much do you already have? These formations are really just for people who have an established collection. Or for those with over-burdened wallets.
I have nothing for 40k anymore, it was all destroyed years ago. So I'd be starting from scratch, which makes everything so much worse :( Besides I meant more in general that it's going to be super expensive like everything else for 40k. Last time I looked at pricing some Necrons I was around $300 for 750 points...
Do they mean "elite" as in 'elite warrior' or as in 'this unit takes up an elite-slot'?
Because that would mean Immortals became an Elite Choice for us.
changemod wrote: What balance is there to not being allowed to field your Doom Scythe until you buy a second one? Or to needing to field a very large Destroyer Cult if at all? Or it being 100% mandatory to have a tomb blade unit at all times or you can't field a Decurion Army?
The balance? These are Formations.
Every Formation would be 'better' if you had a 0-X limit.
But if you had that for Formations, why bother with regular Detachments? Why would I pick several units if I could also pick those units with BONUS rules?
Hell, the only decent Formations for my Blood Angels are around 800-1000 points at a minimum.
So I think a minimum of two Doom Scythes just to gain some additional rules is something we should be happy with.
I've taken a look at the Decurion-chart and I am quite happy with it.
I'm already looking at lists I liked to play and analyze the small changes I could make to turn it into a Decurion, which would give me a lot of bonus rules.
The only thing that upsets me is the horror of 31-01-2015. It's the day where I am crying behind my catalogue editor from Battlescribe.
Yeah, I saw that too. They are next to a picture of a lychguard as well, which heavily implies the move to elite.
I hope they stay troop. The warriors were feeling lonely back in 3rd.
changemod wrote: What balance is there to not being allowed to field your Doom Scythe until you buy a second one? Or to needing to field a very large Destroyer Cult if at all? Or it being 100% mandatory to have a tomb blade unit at all times or you can't field a Decurion Army?
The balance? These are Formations.
Every Formation would be 'better' if you had a 0-X limit.
But if you had that for Formations, why bother with regular Detachments? Why would I pick several units if I could also pick those units with BONUS rules?
Honestly I don't care what random bonus rules it has if they're going to treat it as a main codex FOC. The key point is that it should be accessible and flexible if used in that manner rather than a tool to get people to double up on sales of a bunch of models.
Do they mean "elite" as in 'elite warrior' or as in 'this unit takes up an elite-slot'?
Because that would mean Immortals became an Elite Choice for us.
changemod wrote: What balance is there to not being allowed to field your Doom Scythe until you buy a second one? Or to needing to field a very large Destroyer Cult if at all? Or it being 100% mandatory to have a tomb blade unit at all times or you can't field a Decurion Army?
The balance? These are Formations.
Every Formation would be 'better' if you had a 0-X limit.
But if you had that for Formations, why bother with regular Detachments? Why would I pick several units if I could also pick those units with BONUS rules?
Hell, the only decent Formations for my Blood Angels are around 800-1000 points at a minimum.
So I think a minimum of two Doom Scythes just to gain some additional rules is something we should be happy with.
I've taken a look at the Decurion-chart and I am quite happy with it.
I'm already looking at lists I liked to play and analyze the small changes I could make to turn it into a Decurion, which would give me a lot of bonus rules.
The only thing that upsets me is the horror of 31-01-2015. It's the day where I am crying behind my catalogue editor from Battlescribe.
I'm glad someone else noticed! I commented on this earlier, but everyone seemed to wrapped up in previous arguments to notice.
I dunno, it wouldn't surprise me, but it also wouldn't be a big issue if it Immortals were Elites. Though I would imagine a boost for them if they were, and perhaps Flayed Ones into Troops.
Only a week and a half... ugh, patience is not my virtue.
I am feeling very "meh" about this decurion thing. It is very inflexible and requires too many HQ choices. If I want an army with Crypteks and Destroyers I have to have three HQ's.
Then there's the weird "taxes" you have to pay. Want scarabs? You have to bring wraiths and a spider too. Annihilation Barges? You have to use a Doomsday Ark.
Do they actually think this is useful or strategically sound? What it's going to mean for me is tons of pages in my new book completely wasted.
And.....I'm fine with that. I don't like relying on formations anyways. If they left how things work mostly the same, I can keep running my old lists and having fun. It all comes down to how Crypteks work and what upgrades are available to them. Hopefully they spent all their creative juices in this weird decurion thing and didn't think to change too much
Requizen wrote: I dunno, it wouldn't surprise me, but it also wouldn't be a big issue if it Immortals were Elites. Though I would imagine a boost for them if they were, and perhaps Flayed Ones into Troops.
Only a week and a half... ugh, patience is not my virtue.
I sure hope it doesn't happen.
Our troops selection already hurts from having only three choices... warriors, tesla immortals, gauss immortals. No upgrades or anything.
Never really liked flayed ones, never got into the ' they are crazy crazy space robots'
Very few of the formations or detachments that are coming out are supposed to be "competitively sound". They're for theme lists and fluffy armies. It largely comes down to whether you want your army to run as something that fights well against your enemies or one that has a cool overarching thematic look but doesn't worry about winning or losing.
Never really liked flayed ones, never got into the ' they are crazy crazy space robots'
They aren't. It's reductio ad absurdum. All Necrons absolutely hate any living being or force of life in the entire universe and aim at fully eradicating life. Flayed Ones are not "crazy" (they are mindless robots after all), they are just one aspect of said hate for life and use the skins of their enemies in order to scare them - which is nothing but a very basic tactic and thus a good, rational idea.
Never really liked flayed ones, never got into the ' they are crazy crazy space robots'
They aren't. It's reductio ad absurdum. All Necrons absolutely hate any living being or force of life in the entire universe and aim at fully eradicating life. Flayed Ones are not "crazy" (they are mindless robots after all), they are just one aspect of said hate for life and use the skins of their enemies in order to scare them - which is nothing but a very basic tactic and thus a good, rational idea.
Yes they are. They're Necron who have been infected with the Flayer virus which drives them insane.
Never really liked flayed ones, never got into the ' they are crazy crazy space robots'
They aren't. It's reductio ad absurdum. All Necrons absolutely hate any living being or force of life in the entire universe and aim at fully eradicating life. Flayed Ones are not "crazy" (they are mindless robots after all), they are just one aspect of said hate for life and use the skins of their enemies in order to scare them - which is nothing but a very basic tactic and thus a good, rational idea.
Actually they were always crazy, even in the 3rd ed book. In the 3rd ed codex, Flayed Ones were Necrons who wanted to be organic again, so they ripped the skins off of corpses (or the living!) in an attempt to become alive again. An error with their programming, if you will. The fact that they scared the crap out of everything that sees them was a side effect.
The Flayer Virus is a 5th ed creation. The Flayer Virus was a "curse" placed upon the necrons by a C'tan, which gave them an insatiable hunger for flesh.
Just curious, but were flayed ones ever considered competitive? I never played a game with the previous codex (even though it was the first GW thing I ever purchased).
I always found them subpar. Even in 3rd they weren't great. Immortals were always the better elite choice. Which is a pity because I love the (3rd ed) models. They had a sort of Freddy Krueger vibe going for them, which works well with the eldritch murderous nightmare theme of the 3rd book.
The 5th ed Flayed Ones look like something from Dias delos Muertos. Hobos, to be exact.
Never really liked flayed ones, never got into the ' they are crazy crazy space robots'
They aren't. It's reductio ad absurdum. All Necrons absolutely hate any living being or force of life in the entire universe and aim at fully eradicating life. Flayed Ones are not "crazy" (they are mindless robots after all), they are just one aspect of said hate for life and use the skins of their enemies in order to scare them - which is nothing but a very basic tactic and thus a good, rational idea.
It's not a reductio ad absurdum. I was not trying to make fun of them or belittling them either.
They just strike me as too OTT with the Flayer Virus from 5th.
From your words I suppose you are a Trucron player.
I'm not, but as necrons players we can chill out and make fun of everyone else in the settings because Necrons are awesome robots and everybody else is not.
Fafnir13 wrote: Just curious, but were flayed ones ever considered competitive? I never played a game with the previous codex (even though it was the first GW thing I ever purchased).
Competitive? I don't think they were even useful...
Never really liked flayed ones, never got into the ' they are crazy crazy space robots'
They aren't. It's reductio ad absurdum. All Necrons absolutely hate any living being or force of life in the entire universe and aim at fully eradicating life. Flayed Ones are not "crazy" (they are mindless robots after all), they are just one aspect of said hate for life and use the skins of their enemies in order to scare them - which is nothing but a very basic tactic and thus a good, rational idea.
It's not a reductio ad absurdum. I was not trying to make fun of them or belittling them either.
They just strike me as too OTT with the Flayer Virus from 5th.
From your words I suppose you are a Trucron player.
I'm not, but as necrons players we can chill out and make fun of everyone else in the settings because Necrons are awesome robots and everybody else is not.
They've always been crazy though, truecron or not.
changemod wrote: Yeah, the third edition book introduced a lot of cool things, but most of the story was crap except for the Nightbringer and Deceiver stuff.
Shame we lost Pariahs, but otherwise 5th edition was right to return to the original concept.
You're making it sound as if there was such a different concept for the Necrons between the 3rd and 5th editions... I mean, before the 3rd edition Codex there was hardly anything. Then the third came in with all that C'tan stuff and hatred for life. Now the 5th one tried to create a bit more character, but sadly enough removed some of the coolest stuff from the 3rd edition. I mean: bro-punch?
Okay, so they have one less attack, but a 3+ save, initiative 4 (Yes, Necrons were allowed to have Initiative scores worth a damn if combat specialists once) and an ability that makes you take a leadership test, and if you fail they basically have Invisibility in combat. They can also take an upgrade that gives them a gauss-like effect against vehicles.
Squad size 4-10.
Otherwise the same. An improvement and I'd take them over the modern ones... But they're also five points more expensive and thus not actually particularly worthwhile. Could do pretty good against Orks, I guess.
I gotto say that I like the idea of the formation and the set units in each grouping. It does remind me of Space Marine 2nd Ed (Epic), which was a system I liked. I wish they'd do one for Tyranids based upon the size Hive Node/Hexagon structure. That was inspired.
Only downside is mandatory Tomb Blades. They're the herpiest, derpiest models in the Necron range (yes, even worse than the FineCost Flayed Ones).
Yes he is quite nice. And we finally have a model with an actual scythe.
They've always had Scythes. A Warscythe is an actual polearm and is straightened out because the farm tool would be hilariously impractical.
Which actually makes it kinda funny that the Edge of Eternity gets Precision Strikes for being an optimal shape for killing wheat.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
H.B.M.C. wrote: Only downside is mandatory Tomb Blades. They're the herpiest, derpiest models in the Necron range (yes, even worse than the FineCost Flayed Ones).
You can convert Annihilation Barge pilots into them, if it helps. Mine turned out pretty good when I did that.
I know they've always been called "War Scythes", but they have never been actual scythes. Just bladed pole-arms. As for being impractical... who cares? This is 40K. That and, well, Zasalamel. Look him up.
changemod wrote: You can convert Annihilation Barge pilots into them, if it helps. Mine turned out pretty good when I did that.
I just have general problems with "robots driving robots". Destroyers made sense as their lower halves were converted into vehicles. Why would the Necrons ever need to "pilot" anything. Their big walkers should be autonomous. So should their fliers. Their transport should be a mobile portal, not Trade Federation Droid dispensers. The Command Barge I can live with, as it's the Lord standing on one as it flies, but it shouldn't have those dipppy crew members with their feet waving in the air.
I know they've always been called "War Scythes", but they have never been actual scythes. Just bladed pole-arms. As for being impractical... who cares? This is 40K. That and, well, Zasalamel. Look him up.
changemod wrote: You can convert Annihilation Barge pilots into them, if it helps. Mine turned out pretty good when I did that.
I just have general problems with "robots driving robots". Destroyers made sense as their lower halves were converted into vehicles. Why would the Necrons ever need to "pilot" anything. Their big walkers should be autonomous. So should their fliers. Their transport should be a mobile portal, not Trade Federation Droid dispensers. The Command Barge I can live with, as it's the Lord standing on one as it flies, but it shouldn't have those dipppy crew members with their feet waving in the air.
It sort of makes sense. They still have their warmachines after biotransference, and it's cheaper to just put pilots in the existing warmachines instead of modifying them to be completely autonomous.
That said, I do have some gripes with a couple of the designs.
First gripe - The barges. Why two pilots? For what reason does it need two?
Second Gripe - The exposed cockpit in the flyer. It's not open topped, and it looks stupid. It's basically a glaring feth-me hole.
I would also like to see some "post-biotransference" vehicle designs, fully automated, or at least integrated with a necron.
It sort of makes sense. They still have their warmachines after biotransference, and it's cheaper to just put pilots in the existing warmachines instead of modifying them to be completely autonomous.
That said, I do have some gripes with a couple of the designs.
First gripe - The barges. Why two pilots? For what reason does it need two?
Annie Barge has a Pilot and a Gunner. Catacomb Command Barge has a pilot and a guy who wishes his Phaeron would stop messing around back there and let them put the gun back on.
I would also like to see some "post-biotransference" vehicle designs, fully automated, or at least integrated with a necron.
Take a Dreadnought base, and stick the Annihilation Barge onto it upside down with no pilots.
Overall, the Decurion thing looks a bit....well, unless all the units are good, you are paying the "praetorian tax" on many things.
(paying for crap units to ride along with the units you wanted).
Also, wow, who ever thought relentless was useful on incredibly subpar assault units. I think they got stuck on the word "relentless" sounding cool for an army of implacable robots....
Don't get me wrong, wraiths with heavy / rapid fire weapons would be awesome.
The fact someone things that relentless and move through cover are significantly valuable for necrons does not bode well for the decurions.
(when you have to rationalize the rule in the text "now just wait, it does not suck as bad as you think...." maybe you picked the wrong USR...).
Hopefully too many things won't get the trygon treatment (ask a nid player) and I ctan will be usable again.
So assuming they stay dedicated transports (which I assume they would be considering they aren't in the robot flow chart) then every unit that can take one normally can take one in the formation
This is exciting. I can see myself expanding my crons a flow chart box at a time. I'm not even fussed about the new rules, until a month ago we had no unique detachments or formations so having a new way to build my army makes me light up
A Scythe is not a halberd and a halberd is not a scythe. None of whom are comparable to a spear.
A scythe used in warfare was also called a Fauchard and the difference between a scythe and a glaive was that the cutting edge was concave. They saw widespread use as well as they were cheap and easy to fashion with some simple changes to the farming implement.
A halberd is significantly different to both of them consisting instead of a blade, an axe head on top and a hook/hammer.
Damn. That flow chart is making me want to start a Necron force too...but have too many "evil" armies already. I kinda hope they make a chart like that for all the armies really.
Sinful Hero wrote: Damn. That flow chart is making me want to start a Necron force too...but have too many "evil" armies already. I kinda hope they make a chart like that for all the armies really.
It's a flow chart for what looks like to be a super formation. So if others get super formations they might see something similar.
ClockworkZion wrote: It's a flow chart for what looks like to be a super formation. So if others get super formations they might see something similar.
I kinda wish it was the way all armies were structured... but I'm weird like that.
ClockworkZion wrote: It's a flow chart for what looks like to be a super formation. So if others get super formations they might see something similar.
I kinda wish it was the way all armies were structured... but I'm weird like that.
I could get behind it. Especially for Apoc. That looks perfect for Apoc.
So many people upset by a scythe, it looks freakin cool as all heck, theres tons of crap that doesnt make sence in 40 (like whatever maugen ra's gun scythe thing is) and I also like the tomb blades, they look odd enough to still fit in to me, the newer flayed ones i dont really like because the scissor hands and carrying bodies around never really seemed "cool" I liked the draped claw wielding oldies.
My problem with the Tomb Blades has always been the riders (and not because Tomb Blades have riders, or even that they exist at all when Destroyers seem to fill the role Tomb Blades now fill). They're just kidna hanging there, all droopy like. They don't look animated at all. They're like runaway motorcycles with a skeleton still sitting on it.
Sinful Hero wrote: Damn. That flow chart is making me want to start a Necron force too...but have too many "evil" armies already. I kinda hope they make a chart like that for all the armies really.
It's a flow chart for what looks like to be a super formation. So if others get super formations they might see something similar.
We've already seen a few other super formations, but they're usually apocalypse level. I'd love to see one with this much customization for the other armies at a manageable points level.
ClockworkZion wrote: It's a flow chart for what looks like to be a super formation. So if others get super formations they might see something similar.
I kinda wish it was the way all armies were structured... but I'm weird like that.
I do too honestly, but it may just be because it's "different" than everything else that I like it so much.
Requizen wrote:Option, of course. 40k nowadays is "play your way". You can do normal CAD out of book OR Mephrit Dynasty from SoB:Leviathan OR Decurion.
Thanks, wanted to make sure. I don't have or want tomb blades.
angelofvengeance wrote:
Skerr wrote: Maybe Illuminor will get better abilities to buff troops making them more effective in cc.
I hope they retool Szeras (spelling?) such cool model and decent but missing something. Though with mulitple detachemnts he is not taking up valuable HQ slots so maybe he will be cool.
Always wanted to field Orikan also for fun. I think I might buy two Orikan's and the new lord and kitbash a buffed Orikan for when the "stars are right". If they ever are right lol.
I don't think Illuminor Szeras was big enough. Should have been much more spider-like IMO and bigger to represent he's actually bat gak crazy
I do agree he should look more menacing, perhaps his frame is solely utilitarian. Wish he wasn't examining a head in the brightness of battle but I get it, he loves to experiment on elves. I still want the named crypteks worth taking.
H.B.M.C. wrote:I gotto say that I like the idea of the formation and the set units in each grouping. It does remind me of Space Marine 2nd Ed (Epic), which was a system I liked. I wish they'd do one for Tyranids based upon the size Hive Node/Hexagon structure. That was inspired.
Only downside is mandatory Tomb Blades. They're the herpiest, derpiest models in the Necron range (yes, even worse than the FineCost Flayed Ones)
That was my major concern about decurion. It sucked when destroyers lost jet bike status and we got these bozo cyclops crons on epic segues. Although I did like the idea of upgrading them with particle guns. I forget which one drops cup cakes but 6 of those would be fun. But I can't take the model seriously.
H.B.M.C. wrote: My problem with the Tomb Blades has always been the riders (and not because Tomb Blades have riders, or even that they exist at all when Destroyers seem to fill the role Tomb Blades now fill). They're just kidna hanging there, all droopy like. They don't look animated at all. They're like runaway motorcycles with a skeleton still sitting on it.
They're so awful!
They make me think of the old metal lawnchair Destroyers.
Sinful Hero wrote: Damn. That flow chart is making me want to start a Necron force too...but have too many "evil" armies already. I kinda hope they make a chart like that for all the armies really.
It's a flow chart for what looks like to be a super formation. So if others get super formations they might see something similar.
We've already seen a few other super formations, but they're usually apocalypse level. I'd love to see one with this much customization for the other armies at a manageable points level.
Not really. The Formations full of Formations have been for standard play. The model count an points cost is usually Apoc level, but the restrictions are not.
H.B.M.C. wrote: My problem with the Tomb Blades has always been the riders (and not because Tomb Blades have riders, or even that they exist at all when Destroyers seem to fill the role Tomb Blades now fill). They're just kidna hanging there, all droopy like. They don't look animated at all. They're like runaway motorcycles with a skeleton still sitting on it.
They're so awful!
They make me think of the old metal lawnchair Destroyers.
Lol, missed this but exactly. Not even worthy of a futuristic Molly Hatchet album cover
Sinful Hero wrote: Damn. That flow chart is making me want to start a Necron force too...but have too many "evil" armies already. I kinda hope they make a chart like that for all the armies really.
It's a flow chart for what looks like to be a super formation. So if others get super formations they might see something similar.
We've already seen a few other super formations, but they're usually apocalypse level. I'd love to see one with this much customization for the other armies at a manageable points level.
Not really. The Formations full of Formations have been for standard play. The model count an points cost is usually Apoc level, but the restrictions are not.
That's what I meant by apocalypse level- their minimums cost too much for regular games. Although I think the Dark Eldar had a customizable formation in one of the Forgeworld books. Carnival of Pain I think, had quite a few 0+ options
H.B.M.C. wrote: My problem with the Tomb Blades has always been the riders (and not because Tomb Blades have riders, or even that they exist at all when Destroyers seem to fill the role Tomb Blades now fill). They're just kidna hanging there, all droopy like. They don't look animated at all. They're like runaway motorcycles with a skeleton still sitting on it.
They're so awful!
They make me think of the old metal lawnchair Destroyers.
That is illogical thinking, report to your nearest Canoptek facility for reintegration!
(says the man with about 25 of the original metal Destroyers, 100+ Warriors, and 30 Immortals, all from 2nd Edition)
Lord, what a troll that guy is to photograph the Deceiver. It's even like it's grinning right at us, pointing to what we cannot see.
The move to model the war scythe as a gardening implement is rather derpy to me. I was always impressed by the subtle selection of a war scythe in the first place as the symbol of Necron authority (and scythes are more of a nurgle thing besides). This is just pandering to folks who have never even beheld an actual, practical, scythe; I still know people who'd laugh their asses off looking at this thing. The model does have an interesting back carapace, and a superior robe to that of Anrakyr's skirt for those with conversion in mind.
Unless Tomb Blades receive a significant upgunning (which is par for the course for GW), I wonder just how many people will prove the tool and buy into this new "handy collecting guide."
EDIT: Biggest change yet is the Immortal "Elite" designation. Perhaps GW sold enough, and want to shift other products?
bodazoka wrote: Does anyone know what the stat line of Immortals was before they moved to troops?
Toughness 5 and their Gauss Blasters were Assault 2 instead of Rapid Fire.
were they more expensive last time?
Yes. 28 points per model.
Cheers for that mate.
I'd be happy to see them in elites if something else was transferred to the troop slot so we have at least 2 x options there. 28 points though... is huge for 1 x wound models with a 3+ save, id want something more for 28 points.
bodazoka wrote: Does anyone know what the stat line of Immortals was before they moved to troops?
Toughness 5 and their Gauss Blasters were Assault 2 instead of Rapid Fire.
were they more expensive last time?
Yes. 28 points per model.
Cheers for that mate.
I'd be happy to see them in elites if something else was transferred to the troop slot so we have at least 2 x options there. 28 points though... is huge for 1 x wound models with a 3+ save, id want something more for 28 points.
Oh, everything cost more back then. I wouldn't worry about that.
I mean, I don't see any actual evidence that they've been bumped back to elites yet, but they won't be at 3rd edition prices if they are.
The "Dynastic Elite" blurb seems to talk about Phaerons fitting their favorite warriors/vassals/whatever with better, fancier armor. Immortals and Lychguard have pretty much the exact same torso, and they were showing them off in the pictures.
Drakmord wrote: The "Dynastic Elite" blurb seems to talk about Phaerons fitting their favorite warriors/vassals/whatever with better, fancier armor. Immortals and Lychguard have pretty much the exact same torso, and they were showing them off in the pictures.
Phaerons can kit their vassels on 32mm bases for more protection.
Drakmord wrote: The "Dynastic Elite" blurb seems to talk about Phaerons fitting their favorite warriors/vassals/whatever with better, fancier armor. Immortals and Lychguard have pretty much the exact same torso, and they were showing them off in the pictures.
hey, quick question about what models are actually compatible: can you easily (i.e. without any effort at all) use pieces from Immortals/Deathmarks to make Lychguards/Praetorians?
Hollismason wrote: Yeah what's up with just the picture of the Deciever and no rules.
"Tune in next week, same bat time, same bat channel..."
Either you'll find out when you get a dex, or they'll blurb it up in the next WD (but that's not a new model right? so doubt it'll get a WD bio)
So about that big formation, do they typically just drop a bunch of new formations with new rulesets/invalidate old ones with a new dex? (other than apoc) (I started playing at the end of 6th.)
I'm holding onto two halves of deathstorm BA's for our local BA/'cron player, and judging by the decurion blurb, I may have to lean on him to get my money and get rid of these space vampires before he goes on a wild 'cron spree...
Also, looks like I'll be picking up some 'cron cards friday, if for some reason I ever want them later..
The formation thing is relatively new, there haven't been any invalidated formations so far.
These series of code releases and hwk they plan to move forward with future releases is all pretty new territory.
Drakmord wrote: The "Dynastic Elite" blurb seems to talk about Phaerons fitting their favorite warriors/vassals/whatever with better, fancier armor. Immortals and Lychguard have pretty much the exact same torso, and they were showing them off in the pictures.
hey, quick question about what models are actually compatible: can you easily (i.e. without any effort at all) use pieces from Immortals/Deathmarks to make Lychguards/Praetorians?
The Praetorians have distinctive jump tech on their backs and nothing either carries as weapons would match so you would need to purchase bits. Negative on "without any effort".
It sort of makes sense. They still have their warmachines after biotransference, and it's cheaper to just put pilots in the existing warmachines instead of modifying them to be completely autonomous. That said, I do have some gripes with a couple of the designs.
First gripe - The barges. Why two pilots? For what reason does it need two?
Annie Barge has a Pilot and a Gunner.
I understood that, but why? Can't they just have a pilot? For the most advanced race in the galaxy you'd think they'd have a joystick or a keyboard + mouse.
It sort of makes sense. They still have their warmachines after biotransference, and it's cheaper to just put pilots in the existing warmachines instead of modifying them to be completely autonomous.
That said, I do have some gripes with a couple of the designs.
First gripe - The barges. Why two pilots? For what reason does it need two?
Annie Barge has a Pilot and a Gunner.
I understood that, but why? Can't they just have a pilot? For the most advanced race in the galaxy you'd think they'd have a joystick or a keyboard + mouse.
So that the pilot can focus 100% on driving and the gunner can focus 100% on aiming.
It's not a technological limitation, it's a matter of split focus.
It makes absolutely no sense when the main gun is taken away of course.
So that the pilot can focus 100% on driving and the gunner can focus 100% on aiming.
It's not a technological limitation, it's a matter of split focus.
It makes absolutely no sense when the main gun is taken away of course.
I always assumed the second necron on the command barge was the Overlord's butler. Someone's got to get the G&T's ready. Luckily when the barge is kitted out with the twin-linked tesla cannon bulter is also pretty handy at taking down fliers and infantry.
It makes absolutely no sense when the main gun is taken away of course.
Then the second pilot controls the communications, because you totally need good communications if you're driving the commander of an army around. Any problems?
As for the rest of the rumours, I don't like the spammability that the decurion allows - but, well, this game is pretty susceptible to spam anyway. Also, the compulsory tomb blades look like an extremely shameless cash grab. But as long as necrons will be playable even without the formations (or with Mephrit ones), this codex can still be good.
H.B.M.C. wrote: My problem with the Tomb Blades has always been the riders (and not because Tomb Blades have riders, or even that they exist at all when Destroyers seem to fill the role Tomb Blades now fill). They're just kidna hanging there, all droopy like. They don't look animated at all. They're like runaway motorcycles with a skeleton still sitting on it.
They're so awful!
Yeah definitely a facepalm moment when I saw those. Awful models
May as well just give destroyers x2 gauss arms and use the Heavy Destroyer's target laser for the Omniscope
I like the bikes themselves, but the pilots look a tad derpy.
If they were actually sitting and not doing that weird half stand I think they'd look better
I also rather like tomb blades. The only bother with them is that they take forever to assemble. I got like 15 of them and it took ages to finish them.
Rules wise they performed rather well for me so far in 6th and 7th. I usually use em without any additional gear. Once you upgrade them they become way too expensive in my opinion.
Hollismason wrote: Yeah what's up with just the picture of the Deciever and no rules.
Yeah, what kind of a person leaks pictures of models from a hardcopy WD, without the rules?!
GW itself would post pictures of just a picture from the hardcopy without rules.
Fluffwise, Immortals have always been "elite warriors" and the warriors were the made from the non-military trained individuals. I guess that is why warriors have the same stats as the elite warriors of the Imperium (who are also in the troop slot of their respective codex).
I don't expect Immortals to move to elites or to change too much. Immortals are currently 3 more points a model than Blood Angel Tac squads... then the Immortal could see a bit of a points drop since they don't have the options that Marines have.
This is the reason I don't think that they will move... in the Core of the Decurion Detachment you have a HQ, Elite, a FA, and a HS choice already. Rather than having 2 elites, it makes more sense to have 3 troops.
Warriors on the other hand... well, they have better than IG attack and shooting but the same armor save. Hopefully GW will make the warriors significantly cheaper than... say Space Wolves Scouts (who have the same base stats, but many more options and special rules). Cheap enough to make running a Mephrit Silver Tide possible in a 1500 point game.
Isn't the Deceiver just a C'tan shard now, rules wise? There has been no generic C'tan model; that's what the Nightbringer and the Deceiver are used for now.
CthuluIsSpy wrote: Isn't the Deceiver just a C'tan shard now, rules wise? There has been no generic C'tan model; that's what the Nightbringer and the Deceiver are used for now.
No, not in the new codex. The Deceiver and Nightbringer are specifically mentioned by name in the Reclamation Detachment.
Maybe we shouldn't read too much into that yet - they're specifically mentioned in the model gallery in the current codex too, but they don't get unique statlines.
CthuluIsSpy wrote: Isn't the Deceiver just a C'tan shard now, rules wise? There has been no generic C'tan model; that's what the Nightbringer and the Deceiver are used for now.
No, not in the new codex. The Deceiver and Nightbringer are specifically mentioned by name in the Reclamation Detachment.
Maybe it's a configuration? Some of the powers in the 5th ed book were basically modified versions of the 3rd ed C'tan powers.
don't expect Immortals to move to elites or to change too much. Immortals are currently 3 more points a model than Blood Angel Tac squads... then the Immortal could see a bit of a points drop since they don't have the options that Marines have.
(...)
Warriors on the other hand... well, they have better than IG attack and shooting but the same armor save. Hopefully GW will make the warriors significantly cheaper than... say Space Wolves Scouts (who have the same base stats, but many more options and special rules). Cheap enough to make running a Mephrit Silver Tide possible in a 1500 point game.
The last time I did some mathhammering, necron warriors turned out as resilient and shooty as space marines with boltguns, and if you spent the same points on immortals instead, you got on average the same resilience and firepower.
Still, I think a small point drop is likely (though I would prefer a stat upgrade and a point increase TBH, collecting palayble army would be faster then).
don't expect Immortals to move to elites or to change too much. Immortals are currently 3 more points a model than Blood Angel Tac squads... then the Immortal could see a bit of a points drop since they don't have the options that Marines have.
(...)
Warriors on the other hand... well, they have better than IG attack and shooting but the same armor save. Hopefully GW will make the warriors significantly cheaper than... say Space Wolves Scouts (who have the same base stats, but many more options and special rules). Cheap enough to make running a Mephrit Silver Tide possible in a 1500 point game.
The last time I did some mathhammering, necron warriors turned out as resilient and shooty as space marines with boltguns, and if you spent the same points on immortals instead, you got on average the same resilience and firepower.
Still, I think a small point drop is likely (though I would prefer a stat upgrade and a point increase TBH, collecting palayble army would be faster then).
All true, Skybax. Currently, we are getting a 1 point discount but we don't have the cheap special/heavy weapons, access to chapter tactics, cheap transports or They Shall Show No Fear. I would like stat increases, but I don't see them as likely (especially between books that are only 4 years apart).
The little mathhammering I've done on the rumored change to Gauss makes our anti-tank the same on a Landraider... but doubles the efficiency for each AV less. That is HUGE. It would be almost too much to hope for the same against armor saves, as giving Gauss Instant Death on a 6 to wound most models would be way too good (even if it matches the fluff of the gun). Maybe the cost of our troops will stay roughly the same if the change is made to Gauss.
Ratius wrote: Sheeesh some pretty big changes there.
So with the Ctan you pick a target and nasty gak just happens?
Im thinking no.
more like
1: Pick a target
2: roll dice - (pray to get the attack that can hurt the target) (OR even reach target as docdoom77 said)
3: put money in the swear jar
If they balance out the powers nastiness wise and have a few that can actually backfire as the capricious nature of the Ctan line suggests, then it might work.
But if its a faceroll to pick a Ctan shard, I cannot see any point.
If I target my T-C'tan with Tank Hunter from Zhandrekh. Then move it closer to a Baneblade-chassis. Then shoot it with an attack that statistically kills it at average. The last thing I would freaking want is to roll an entire other ability that is aimed at wiping out mass groups of Space Marines.
Ratius wrote: If they balance out the powers nastiness wise and have a few that can actually backfire as the capricious nature of the Ctan line suggests, then it might work.
But if its a faceroll to pick a Ctan shard, I cannot see any point.
Given the names of the attacks in the image I'm guessing you can get a "sneak peak" of the powers by looking up the Trans C'tan in Escalation.
What fracking garbage. I was excited to finally put down my Shards on the table (have Nightbringer, was thinking of buying Deceiver, have T-C'tan with Vault) but this? This is crap. "Oh, you don't have Psychic powers to roll on random? Here, have random shooting each turn!"
If the powers aren't explicitly fantastic, or the C'Tan don't have something else baseline to make them worth bringing, no thanks. I play Daemons and get enough randomness from there, Necrons are supposed to be the army where I know exactly what I'm bringing and can play them tactically each time.
Eh... every time I think "oh yeah the C'Tan stat lines aren't bad" and bring one, they die before they get into combat because 6" is not good in the current meta. Probably better now with the Veil, but still.
The stat line is good, but the cost is insane. If that gets toned down, I'll try them out. If they stay in the same range, ugh.
The only thing that matters is the powers themselves. If they are't all capable of damaging every unit type, then that's going to be a big problem. Even something crazy like 6d6 strength 5 AP whatever hits means you just wasted 100+ points of shooting potential if the unit you targeted was like, a chimera.
If the duel-profiles are explicitly based around profile 1 being anti-infantry and the other being anti-vehicle/MC then we're golden. But that would just beg the question of why have a table with multiple powers if all the powers are functionally similar.
We'll see. Even if it turns out that the powers are fething awesome, I really cannot fathom why GW couldn't be bothered to just have you roll the power before targeting the unit. That alone would make the system so much better.
A single dreadnought holding its own against hundreds of necrons, for hours, is also supported by the fluff.
Do you want dreadnoughts to be buffed so that a single one can kill half your army by itself?
If its appropriately costed I wouldn't have a problem with it. So what's your problem with random powers if they're supported by the fluff?
Why would writing bad fluff to justify bad rules writing equate to a good idea?
That's subjective of course - everyone will enjoy different aspects of the fluff. But using it to justify or explain away clunky bad rules isn't helpful. Rolling a random power with a random attack type after declaring a target sounds pretty bad. But - we'll have to see when the rules for the actual powers are revealed.
Ghaz wrote:Its just your opinion that its bad fluff. Personally I don't have a problem with it.
It sure is!* Which is why I specifically highlighted the subjective nature of fluff in the very next line of my post:
Cryptek of Awesome wrote:That's subjective of course - everyone will enjoy different aspects of the fluff. But using it to justify or explain away clunky bad rules isn't helpful.
I also went on to state that we can't even fully judge the random shooting rules until we see all of the powers.
Which goes to show that even if you go out of your way to be as neutral as possible on a forum someone will still misinterpret and be offended by it or object to it.
*Actually I have no opinion on the new Necron fluff because I haven't read any of it.
Ghaz wrote:Its just your opinion that its bad fluff. Personally I don't have a problem with it.
It sure is!* Which is why I specifically highlighted the subjective nature of fluff in the very next line of my post:
Cryptek of Awesome wrote:That's subjective of course - everyone will enjoy different aspects of the fluff. But using it to justify or explain away clunky bad rules isn't helpful.
I also went on to state that we can't even fully judge the random shooting rules until we see all of the powers.
Which goes to show that even if you go out of your way to be as neutral as possible on a forum someone will still misinterpret and be offended by it or object to it.
*Actually I have no opinion on the new Necron fluff because I haven't read any of it.
You can't say it is bad game design without seeing the rules though.
It's an enslaved star god with no real motive or regard for the outcome in battle, one way or another. Having the power be random actually highlights the capricious nature they harbor perfectly. Is it going to be awesome in a consistent and competitive light? No, but every unit entry shouldn't be and their are plenty of great options and multiple alternatives already so it isn't a bad thing.
MTG has TONS of cards that are random and non competitive yet loads of fun in alternate formats. A perfect example would be Capricious Efreet.
I know it's cool to rag on GW for making ANY random charts but sometimes random does fit.
I'd suggest just waiting a week until we have solid facts before branding something as stupid.
I am guessing A LOT has changed in this book. But, who really knows yet?
Yes, and random fits in certain scenarios.
Like when I want to charge an enemy, or at the start when I want a Warlord Trait for the entire game.
I could even accept it if I had to random at the start of my Shooting Phase.
But not after I picked a target and decided to attack it.
That is not when I want my power to randomize!
It might be acceptable on a C'tan Shard; but on every single C'tan version we have? Ridiculous!
If the random C'tan ability ends up being below your standards just run something else. I do not run them now because they are not what I am looking for. If given a choice I would rather see increase competitive viability in Praetorians and Destroyers. We shall see...
One would hope to that, even if the powers effects are random, they all share the same range. Which neatly solves any problems of roling after selecting a target.
1. 24" Assault Single target
2. 24" Assault Small blast
3. 24" Assault Large Blast
4. 24" Assault Beam
5. 24" Assault 6
6 24" Assault 3d6
Ghaz wrote:Its just your opinion that its bad fluff. Personally I don't have a problem with it.
It sure is!* Which is why I specifically highlighted the subjective nature of fluff in the very next line of my post:
Cryptek of Awesome wrote:That's subjective of course - everyone will enjoy different aspects of the fluff. But using it to justify or explain away clunky bad rules isn't helpful.
I also went on to state that we can't even fully judge the random shooting rules until we see all of the powers.
Which goes to show that even if you go out of your way to be as neutral as possible on a forum someone will still misinterpret and be offended by it or object to it.
*Actually I have no opinion on the new Necron fluff because I haven't read any of it.
You can't say it is bad game design without seeing the rules though.
I'd suggest just waiting a week until we have solid facts before branding something as stupid.
I'd suggest reading the entire post. I literally say in multiple posts that we can't make a firm argument till we see all the powers. My responses were addressing a discussion between two people who arguing about the relationship b/w fluff and rules. I'm saying bad/clunky rules aren't justified by bad fluff - or good fluff for that matter.
I then go on to say that fluff is subjective and we'll have to wait & see the full rules - which everyone somehow ignores.
adamsouza wrote: One would hope to that, even if the powers effects are random, they all share the same range. Which neatly solves any problems of roling after selecting a target.
1. 24" Assault Single target 2. 24" Assault Small blast 3. 24" Assault Large Blast 4. 24" Assault Beam 5. 24" Assault 6 6 24" Assault 3d6
I think we're probably looking at something like:
1. 24" Assault Hellstorm D 2. 24" Fear Test 3. 24" Strikedown Nova S4 4. 72" S10 AP1 Apocalyptic Blast 5. C'Tan takes D6 wounds, no saves. 6. 24" Toughness Test or Remove Model
I fully expect it to be 4 decent powers (1 small blast, 1 large blast, 1 torrent, and 1 single shot), 1 uber power (probably Strength D) and 1 backfire card, where the target is necrons or the enemy unit is buffed.
Personally, I agree with many on here that it fits perfectly with the fluff that is the C'Tan shards. It certainly makes more sense than some of the other random tables, such as the psyker powers and warlord traits. As long as the C'Tan retain their stat line, and get an appropriate price adjustment, I think this could end up being a significant improvement.
So a thought that crossed my mind is with the listing of the C'Tan separately on that chart they may be getting different stat lines and/or special rules.
TKoS on Faeit 212 wrote:
The decurion detachment will not be a Necron only thing. The standard FOC was designed with the Space Marine company structure in mind, and GW has
been toying around with new ways to building fluffy armies. Looking back
the Archangel Strikeforce from Shield of Ball, this can can be seen as a
prototype for a decurion detachment.
IG will be getting their own decurion in a dataslate some time in the
future, and the Necron force from IA12 will be getting one as well. Expect
2-6 warriors, 1-6 flayed ones, and 1-3 charnel scarabs, but this is just
speculation.
Expect more decuron formations to pop up in expansions and future codex
updates, but don't think FOC charts are going away. Decurion formations
will become the new "fluffy" lists; options that more closely adhere to the
quirks and idiosyncrasies of specific Warlords or factions.
GWÂ General Rumors - Jan 2015 via TKoS on Faeit 212 The decurion detachment will not be a Necron only thing. The standard FOC was designed with the Space Marine company structure in mind, and GW has been toying around with new ways to building fluffy armies. Looking back the Archangel Strikeforce from Shield of Ball, this can can be seen as a prototype for a decurion detachment.
IG will be getting their own decurion in a dataslate some time in the future, and the Necron force from IA12 will be getting one as well. Expect 2-6 warriors, 1-6 flayed ones, and 1-3 charnel scarabs, but this is just speculation.
Expect more decuron formations to pop up in expansions and future codex updates, but don't think FOC charts are going away. Decurion formations will become the new "fluffy" lists; options that more closely adhere to the quirks and idiosyncrasies of specific Warlords or factions.
Sinful Hero wrote: Well, unless they change the powers one will be a S6 Ap2 Hellstorm, and another will be a 48" S8 Ap3 Heavy 6d6.
My guess - the references to the Apocalypse powers means that we'll see toned-down versions of each. Seismic Storm - S8 AP3 6d6 for Tesseract, S6 AP3 3d6 for Shard, for example. Or Cosmic Fire - S6 AP2 Hellstorm for Tesseract, S5 AP3 24" Beam for Shard. (Obviously those numbers don't mean anything, but you get the point).
Because lets face it, there is no possible way the Ctan shard could be worse than they are now.
Not true. They could remain overpriced AND have a crappy assortment of random powers, half of which could be completely useless if you pick the wrong target. It's not likely, but it's most definitely possible.
Because lets face it, there is no possible way the Ctan shard could be worse than they are now.
Not true. They could remain overpriced AND have a crappy assortment of random powers, half of which could be completely useless if you pick the wrong target. It's not likely, but it's most definitely possible.
Ha, I kinda already put them in the absolutely no use whatsoever catagory. Never even seen anyone fielding them, not even in internet lists!
So how long until everyone is rolling to randomly determine their war gear? Nothing unbalances a game like letting a good player pick and choose the stuff they bring. For that matter, we should start rolling to determine what units you can bring. This will fix so many problems with the game. I can't wait
Fafnir13 wrote: So how long until everyone is rolling to randomly determine their war gear? Nothing unbalances a game like letting a good player pick and choose the stuff they bring. For that matter, we should start rolling to determine what units you can bring. This will fix so many problems with the game. I can't wait
Jaq Draco lives wrote: I don't see why everyone is so bent out of shape.
Because lets face it, there is no possible way the Ctan shard could be worse than they are now.
Because they needed to be fixed, not get hit with random tables that you roll on AFTER you pick a target.
The current powers (Escalation) all have different goals.
If I wanted to see what I actually fired with after I picked my target, I would have played Orks.
That's what they are all about.
Now we will have one of two options:
-C'tan Shards that are good and incredible if you roll lucky.
-C'tan Shards that are 'meh' and good if you roll lucky.
It will probably be the second one, which means I would probably prefer any other reliable unit over a C'tan.
And it doesn't matter if they are less worse when I still end up not ever taking them.
Unless they would make a random-table where every roll is something I will enjoy.
I really doubt GW is able to do that.
TKoS on Faeit 212 wrote:
The decurion detachment will not be a Necron only thing. The standard FOC was designed with the Space Marine company structure in mind, and GW has
been toying around with new ways to building fluffy armies. Looking back
the Archangel Strikeforce from Shield of Ball, this can can be seen as a
prototype for a decurion detachment.
IG will be getting their own decurion in a dataslate some time in the
future, and the Necron force from IA12 will be getting one as well. Expect
2-6 warriors, 1-6 flayed ones, and 1-3 charnel scarabs, but this is just
speculation.
Expect more decuron formations to pop up in expansions and future codex
updates, but don't think FOC charts are going away. Decurion formations
will become the new "fluffy" lists; options that more closely adhere to the
quirks and idiosyncrasies of specific Warlords or factions.
Regards,
TKoS
That's a random user trying to extend his 15 minutes of fame by entering his wish-listing as 'rumours'.
Fafnir13 wrote: So how long until everyone is rolling to randomly determine their war gear? Nothing unbalances a game like letting a good player pick and choose the stuff they bring. For that matter, we should start rolling to determine what units you can bring. This will fix so many problems with the game. I can't wait
Fafnir13 wrote: So how long until everyone is rolling to randomly determine their war gear? Nothing unbalances a game like letting a good player pick and choose the stuff they bring. For that matter, we should start rolling to determine what units you can bring. This will fix so many problems with the game. I can't wait
Yeah, as a couple other posters have pointed out you're a little late with that joke.
Again, it's too early to say, but as long all the new C'tan powers have the same range, random effect shouldn't be that big of a problem.
Now if a C'tan desides to shoot a tank with a wimpy attack, it's not optimal for you as a gamer, but it's as fluffy as Orks fighting amonst themselves, Commisars killing their own troops, and all the random stuff that happens to Demon Armies. None of which are game breaking..
adamsouza wrote: Again, it's too early to say, but as long all the new C'tan powers have the same range, random effect shouldn't be that big of a problem.
Now if a C'tan desides to shoot a tank with a wimpy attack, it's not optimal for you as a gamer, but it's as fluffy as Orks fighting amonst themselves, Commisars killing their own troops, and all the random stuff that happens to Demon Armies. None of which are game breaking..
Neither of your first two examples completely negates the units effectiveness (can't say about daemons, I'm unfamiliar with their codex). In fact, those are both boons allowing the unit to avoid morale. Not "I targetted a tank and rolled a S4 attack." Sigh.
I just don't see it as the same thing. If the article is wrong and you roll BEFORE selecting a target, it remains flavorful and is not nearly so bad. Also, if all the attacks can be effective against hard and soft targets, it's not a big deal either. It all comes down to how it ends up working. We'll see soon!
adamsouza wrote: Again, it's too early to say, but as long all the new C'tan powers have the same range, random effect shouldn't be that big of a problem.
Now if a C'tan desides to shoot a tank with a wimpy attack, it's not optimal for you as a gamer, but it's as fluffy as Orks fighting amonst themselves, Commisars killing their own troops, and all the random stuff that happens to Demon Armies. None of which are game breaking..
That's because when Daemons roll for random wargear, they can take a "default" option. You don't like your Greater Reward? Take the Etherblade for a S+1 Mastercrafted AP2 weapon. The "primaris" rewards are good, if the C'Tan powers have a default one you can jump to if you roll a crap one, it'll be good too.
Additionally, most Daemon armies take Fateweaver to help negate randomness anyway.
adamsouza wrote: Again, it's too early to say, but as long all the new C'tan powers have the same range, random effect shouldn't be that big of a problem.
Now if a C'tan desides to shoot a tank with a wimpy attack, it's not optimal for you as a gamer, but it's as fluffy as Orks fighting amonst themselves, Commisars killing their own troops, and all the random stuff that happens to Demon Armies. None of which are game breaking..
If Cosmic Fire and Seismic Assault remain unchanged from Escalation you already know one is a Hellstorm Template and the other has a 48" range.
adamsouza wrote: Why do you keep assuming they will remain unchanged ?
They are clearly being changed to have dual profiles.
Also, when I was refering to Chaos Daemons, I was thinking about the test once a round for random stuff, not the wargear.
Well, Warp Storm is a bit different. No one relies on Warp Storm for any of their units. You get something good? Awesome! You get something bad? Well, play around it. Again, most people bring Fateweaver because he allows you to reroll the results on the table in case it goes bad. If we can reroll C'Tan results, then that'll be good too. In fact, Daemons have a lot of ways to mitigate randomness.
The better comparison to this would be something like Possessed or Chaos Spawn. And no one likes them because random combat stats are stupid.
Why do you assume they will change? For the most part GW tweaks- not changes. I have no idea what they'll end up being. The Tesseract Vault may have a completely set of abilities to roll for. They used the same names for the powers, so I assume they haven't changed much. Could be totally wrong.
CthuluIsSpy wrote: Already in the 5th ed book. Flayed Ones are created by the Flayer Virus.
True so why would it be worth mentioning again now?
For new players? Not everyone started in 5th.
Or its a poorly selling set an the revamped the rules and featured it in the white dwarf to sell more models... The magazine is little more than a glorified advert these days anyway. They could just be plugging the Flayer C'tan you actually infected the Necrons with the virus named after him, but with 45 flayed ones to my name I really hope they're showing them some love.
I think the profile will be the same for the Tesseract Vault version of the power and toned down for the normal C'Tan version. (Hellstorm -> Template, Strength lowered, etc.)
The more I learn about the old rules, the more I find "new" things are just a return to form.
I'm not really concerned about the C'tan, to be honest. I've used the transcendent one in a couple games (it was fun to be a nigh unstoppable god of death, but you can't play with cheat codes turned on forever ), and never found a good use for the shard since the end of "Tremor Crons" with 6th ed. If the shard becomes at all useable, it's an improvement.
I save my real fretting for my precious Crypteks. I just know GW is itching to nerf their usability.
It's curious we've seen so much about the potential organization of the army, but heard little on any unit/wargear/special rule changes, especially anything that can be considered concrete.
GW's doing a good job thus far of keeping this book relatively under wraps
The more I learn about the old rules, the more I find "new" things are just a return to form.
It's one of the reasons I can't take the "everything was better in the day" stuff seriously. 40k is the same as it's always been: full of random tables.
adamsouza wrote: Again, it's too early to say, but as long all the new C'tan powers have the same range, random effect shouldn't be that big of a problem.
Now if a C'tan desides to shoot a tank with a wimpy attack, it's not optimal for you as a gamer, but it's as fluffy as Orks fighting amonst themselves, Commisars killing their own troops, and all the random stuff that happens to Demon Armies. None of which are game breaking..
Neither of your first two examples completely negates the units effectiveness (can't say about daemons, I'm unfamiliar with their codex). In fact, those are both boons allowing the unit to avoid morale. Not "I targetted a tank and rolled a S4 attack." Sigh.
I just don't see it as the same thing. If the article is wrong and you roll BEFORE selecting a target, it remains flavorful and is not nearly so bad. Also, if all the attacks can be effective agrainst hard and soft targets, it's not a big deal either. It all comes down to how it ends up working. We'll see soon!
I would have to reread but it did talk about how spiteful the star slaves are now and the randomness is their way of screwing their masters.
Ghaz wrote: If its appropriately costed I wouldn't have a problem with it.
A dreadnought being costed so that it matches its fluff would be nearing super-heavy/titan costs. Why in God's name would you want that?
So what's your problem with random powers if they're supported by the fluff?
My problem is with poor game mechanics. I don't care if a poor game mechanic is fluffy or not, it's still a poor game mechanic. And yes, I'm aware that the powers could be revealed to be Please don't bypass the language filter like this. Reds8n awesome- doesn't really change my point.
Bronzefists42 wrote: Well a good story element does not equal a good game mechanic.
A mad star god that just does what he pleases is a cool story note.
Ghaz wrote: If its appropriately costed I wouldn't have a problem with it.
A dreadnought being costed so that it matches its fluff would be nearing super-heavy/titan costs. Why in God's name would you want that?
'Want' and 'not having a problem with it' are two different things, but if GW wants to go down that path then as long as its balanced by being costed appropriately then I stand by my statement.
That's just your personal opinion that random number of attacks is a poor game mechanic. That's an opinion that I don't agree with. No game mechanic is inherently 'good' or 'bad'. It's solely how that mechanic is implemented that determines if the mechanic is 'good' or 'bad'. I'll wait and see how the random number of attacks for the C'tan pan out before I pass judgment instead of doing so with the rules sight unseen.
Ghaz wrote: 'Want' and 'not having a problem with it' are two different things
Why would you not want a generic dreadnought to be capable of ripping apart 1000 points of your necron army by itself? It's supported by the fluff.
That's just your personal opinion that random number of attacks is a poor game mechanic. That's an opinion that I don't agree with. No game mechanic is inherently 'good' or 'bad'. It's solely how that mechanic is implemented that determines if the mechanic is 'good' or 'bad'. I'll wait and see how the random number of attacks for the C'tan pan out before I pass judgment instead of doing so with the rules sight unseen.
That's all well and good, but not really relevant to the discussion. You think random mechanics are cool? Good for you, I'm not trying to convert you to my ideas for what counts as good or bad game design. What I'm saying is that a mechanic "being fluffy" does not justify its existence. Many aspects of the 40K table-top game are not 1:1 to the fluff, and that's because 40KTT is an abstraction and the representation of the lore has to be balanced with functional, fair game mechanics. Ergo, quoting someone who says "I don't like X mechanic" and saying "but it's supported by the fluff" strikes me as nonsensical.
The example of the dreadnought above highlights that having something be 1:1 to the fluff isn't necessarily a great idea. A single dreadnought or tactical squad eating half your army may be "fluffy", but many people wouldn't consider that fun or fair, as evidenced by the mass concern people have with LoW's in regular games.
Red Corsair wrote: This always happens in these threads. They talk about random effects and people decide to make leaps of logic rather then wait a for all the facts.
For all we know it could have one weapon profile and random secondary effects.
...
Or it could suck entirely! But maybe wait before bitching.
you are easily my favorite poster on dakka 
Just joshing...
