Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Just Dave wrote:

 Desubot wrote:
Speaking of retcons, before matt ward got to it, didn't the big E fight the full c tan not a shard?

Yup. My post earlier in the thread:

 Just Dave wrote:
I personally don't think you can quite compare the Emperor to a C'tan shard. It seems when the book was written - many years before the new Codex - that it was intended to show the Emperor as capable of overpowering a weakened/starving C'tan, rather than a generic shard, as shards weren't around in those days.
IMHO it would however seem reasonable to think that the Void Dragon would otherwise whump the Emperor if it wasn't starving etc.

Whoops missed that. thanks

 Popenfresh wrote:
The C'tan cannibalcide was retconned? When did that happen? Admittedly, I only quicky read through Ward's horribad fluff but I never came across anything debunking it.

In the newcron fluff, there's absolutely no mention of the cannibalcide. They get their bodies, trick the Necrontyr into becoming machines, eat their souls, get superstrong from that, and go kick Old One ass. In the old fluff, the fighting between the C'Tan was a big thing, leaving the galaxy in shambles, whole star systems consumed, and almost all life in the galaxy extinguished, just through their in-fighting.

Guessing since there's no nod or whisper about that in the new codex, it's not there anymore. Especially since in the old codex, there were only 4 C'Tan left, whereas in the new one it says there were anywhere from 4 to 4000 at the time of the necron betrayal.

One thing people that likes to rag at me about the C'Tan fail to recognize is the fact that Empy the most psyker ever is what they are not in that case. I mean they have just nothing to fend off the mighty will of Empy. And for all we know Empy can just have nearly emptied himself mind-controlling one. Of course this is pure speculation from me.

 Beaviz81 wrote:
One thing people that likes to rag at me about the C'Tan fail to recognize is the fact that Empy the most psyker ever is what they are not in that case. I mean they have just nothing to fend off the mighty will of Empy. And for all we know Empy can just have nearly emptied himself mind-controlling one. Of course this is pure speculation from me.

I have no idea what you're saying, sorry. The structure of your sentences makes zero sense. Assuming you're saying that the C'Tan couldn't combat the Emperor due to his psychic powers, I'm sure that topic has been done to death, most likely each time ending with the mention of the Void Dragon's shard nearly killing the Emp, (not to mention the C'Tan wiping out the Old Ones).

So yeah...oh noes, they'd be really scared of psykers. :|

 Mavlun wrote:

 Beaviz81 wrote:
One thing people that likes to rag at me about the C'Tan fail to recognize is the fact that Empy the most psyker ever is what they are not in that case. I mean they have just nothing to fend off the mighty will of Empy. And for all we know Empy can just have nearly emptied himself mind-controlling one. Of course this is pure speculation from me.

I have no idea what you're saying, sorry. The structure of your sentences makes zero sense. Assuming you're saying that the C'Tan couldn't combat the Emperor due to his psychic powers, I'm sure that topic has been done to death, most likely each time ending with the mention of the Void Dragon's shard nearly killing the Emp, (not to mention the C'Tan wiping out the Old Ones).

So yeah...oh noes, they'd be really scared of psykers. :|

If you applied you reading-eyes instead of your writing hands you might have seen perfect sense of the thread. Just think before writing rudely.

As for explanation. Empy fought the thing with what I assume to be a Force-Spear. And with that I think he just as well can have mind-controlled the creature using the Force-Weapon as a conduit. Was just a suggestion, nothing else as that can explain how he was nearly killed by it.

As for the Necrons, they didn't destroy them, just broke them into pieces which would've reassembled had they not been locked in tesseract labyrinths. And the sort of power described in the Codex as having been used in those weapons is the sort of power I haven't seen in 40k yet, so discussing that seems kind of moot.

The Flayer was destroyed though.

 Mavlun wrote:
In the newcron fluff, there's absolutely no mention of the cannibalcide. They get their bodies, trick the Necrontyr into becoming machines, eat their souls, get superstrong from that, and go kick Old One ass. In the old fluff, the fighting between the C'Tan was a big thing, leaving the galaxy in shambles, whole star systems consumed, and almost all life in the galaxy extinguished, just through their in-fighting.

Guessing since there's no nod or whisper about that in the new codex, it's not there anymore. Especially since in the old codex, there were only 4 C'Tan left, whereas in the new one it says there were anywhere from 4 to 4000 at the time of the necron betrayal.

God this is why I hate Ward's fluff, he turned the arguably biggest and most epic conflict in the 40k setting into a bland mundane rolfstomp while making a dumb space marine a whirlwind of epic rape and fanwank.

Either way, the new codex doesn't mention the fight between the Emperor and the Void dragon either, does that mean it was retconned too? I personally don't buy it. The new dex seems to focus mainly on the necrons whereas the old dex was very C'tan based, it makes sense it went deeper into the motivations and actions of the C'tan.

It's true though that the new dex is vague on the amount of C'tan left, however, I still didn't see anything directly refuting the cannibalcide. And on top of that I thought it was a very awesome piece of fluff so I'll be damned to let Ward that it away from me as well!

So yeah...oh noes, they'd be really scared of psykers. :|

Then why were they so bent on separating the warp from the materium?

 Popenfresh wrote:

 Mavlun wrote:
In the newcron fluff, there's absolutely no mention of the cannibalcide. They get their bodies, trick the Necrontyr into becoming machines, eat their souls, get superstrong from that, and go kick Old One ass. In the old fluff, the fighting between the C'Tan was a big thing, leaving the galaxy in shambles, whole star systems consumed, and almost all life in the galaxy extinguished, just through their in-fighting.

Guessing since there's no nod or whisper about that in the new codex, it's not there anymore. Especially since in the old codex, there were only 4 C'Tan left, whereas in the new one it says there were anywhere from 4 to 4000 at the time of the necron betrayal.

God this is why I hate Ward's fluff, he turned the arguably biggest and most epic conflict in the 40k setting into a bland mundane rolfstomp while making a dumb space marine a whirlwind of epic rape and fanwank.

Either way, the new codex doesn't mention the fight between the Emperor and the Void dragon either, does that mean it was retconned too? I personally don't buy it. The new dex seems to focus mainly on the necrons whereas the old dex was very C'tan based, it makes sense it went deeper into the motivations and actions of the C'tan.

It's true though that the new dex is vague on the amount of C'tan left, however, I still didn't see anything directly refuting the cannibalcide. And on top of that I thought it was a very awesome piece of fluff so I'll be damned to let Ward that it away from me as well!

You are spot on with the Matt Ward stuff. I mean he managed to solve a battle with the Ultramarines getting angry, as a solution to them. Never mind Kaldor Draigo, he is so over-powered I consider him to be a Primarch, and the list goes on. Not that Phil Kelly is much better. I mean I was bored when I read the Space Wolves-codex.

 Popenfresh wrote:
Either way, the new codex doesn't mention the fight between the Emperor and the Void dragon either, does that mean it was retconned too? I personally don't buy it. The new dex seems to focus mainly on the necrons whereas the old dex was very C'tan based, it makes sense it went deeper into the motivations and actions of the C'tan.

It's true though that the new dex is vague on the amount of C'tan left, however, I still didn't see anything directly refuting the cannibalcide. And on top of that I thought it was a very awesome piece of fluff so I'll be damned to let Ward that it away from me as well!

Haha, well of course you can choose to believe whatever you like. Evidence points to the contrary though. Your example is flawed, in that the battle between the Emp and the dragon was referenced in a BL book, whereas the cannibalism as far as I am aware was a big part of the former Codex, but not gone into detail in any BL publishing, therefore its absence from this one is directly relevant.

Further proof lies in the 9 named C'Tan that were destroyed and turned into shards mentioned in White Dwarf, implying that there were at least 9 full C'Tan at the time of the necron betrayal, which goes completely against previous fluff about the Deceiver getting the C'Tan to eat each other until only 4 were left.

But yeah, in the end I guess you can pretend that it still happened.

 Popenfresh wrote:

So yeah...oh noes, they'd be really scared of psykers. :|

Then why were they so bent on separating the warp from the materium?

Well why do you think?

 Mavlun wrote:

 Popenfresh wrote:
Either way, the new codex doesn't mention the fight between the Emperor and the Void dragon either, does that mean it was retconned too? I personally don't buy it. The new dex seems to focus mainly on the necrons whereas the old dex was very C'tan based, it makes sense it went deeper into the motivations and actions of the C'tan.

It's true though that the new dex is vague on the amount of C'tan left, however, I still didn't see anything directly refuting the cannibalcide. And on top of that I thought it was a very awesome piece of fluff so I'll be damned to let Ward that it away from me as well!

Haha, well of course you can choose to believe whatever you like. Evidence points to the contrary though. Your example is flawed, in that the battle between the Emp and the dragon was referenced in a BL book, whereas the cannibalism as far as I am aware was a big part of the former Codex, but not gone into detail in any BL publishing, therefore its absence from this one is directly relevant.

Further proof lies in the 9 named C'Tan that were destroyed and turned into shards mentioned in White Dwarf, implying that there were at least 9 full C'Tan at the time of the necron betrayal, which goes completely against previous fluff about the Deceiver getting the C'Tan to eat each other until only 4 were left.

But yeah, in the end I guess you can pretend that it still happened.

 Popenfresh wrote:

So yeah...oh noes, they'd be really scared of psykers. :|

Then why were they so bent on separating the warp from the materium?

Well why do you think?

You know if things ain't contradicted directly in another codex then it's still canon, I mean BL over a Codex shouldn't normally be followed, especially as the former were much focused on C'Tan. I mean it's really bad often to elect BL-fluff over codex-fluff. A codex can be interpreted, but not directly contradicted unless it is in a later codex. That's the common law.

 Beaviz81 wrote:

You know if things ain't contradicted directly in another codex then it's still canon, I mean BL over a Codex shouldn't normally be followed, especially as the former were much focused on C'Tan. I mean it's really bad often to elect BL-fluff over codex-fluff. A codex can be interpreted, but not directly contradicted unless it is in a later codex. That's the common law.

I think you're confused. I agree that codex fluff > BL fluff. With the exception that when something exists in BL fluff, but NOT in Codex, it's still canonical. I still consider the Void Dragon fight, as well as the Nightbringer fight canon, although they don't show up in the new Codex, but the cannibalism was a 3rd Edition Codex-only thing (as far as I know), and as it's no longer mentioned, but in fact is flat out opposed by new fluff, then it's been retconned IMO.

 Mavlun wrote:

 Beaviz81 wrote:

You know if things ain't contradicted directly in another codex then it's still canon, I mean BL over a Codex shouldn't normally be followed, especially as the former were much focused on C'Tan. I mean it's really bad often to elect BL-fluff over codex-fluff. A codex can be interpreted, but not directly contradicted unless it is in a later codex. That's the common law.

I think you're confused. I agree that codex fluff > BL fluff. With the exception that when something exists in BL fluff, but NOT in Codex, it's still canonical. I still consider the Void Dragon fight, as well as the Nightbringer fight canon, although they don't show up in the new Codex, but the cannibalism was a 3rd Edition Codex-only thing (as far as I know), and as it's no longer mentioned, but in fact is flat out opposed by new fluff, then it's been retconned IMO.

Is it opposed directly or not, that's the question.

For example many people wants the Space Wolves to transform into wolves, and feel they with a sentence Dan Abnett wrote can back it up. It's a total lie, and wolves are very little mentioned without space first. If it exists in BL-fluff you are allowed to interpret it, and knowing the fanwank the books of Ward is, they are written as how the guys feels about themselves.

 Beaviz81 wrote:

 Mavlun wrote:

 Beaviz81 wrote:

You know if things ain't contradicted directly in another codex then it's still canon, I mean BL over a Codex shouldn't normally be followed, especially as the former were much focused on C'Tan. I mean it's really bad often to elect BL-fluff over codex-fluff. A codex can be interpreted, but not directly contradicted unless it is in a later codex. That's the common law.

I think you're confused. I agree that codex fluff > BL fluff. With the exception that when something exists in BL fluff, but NOT in Codex, it's still canonical. I still consider the Void Dragon fight, as well as the Nightbringer fight canon, although they don't show up in the new Codex, but the cannibalism was a 3rd Edition Codex-only thing (as far as I know), and as it's no longer mentioned, but in fact is flat out opposed by new fluff, then it's been retconned IMO.

Is it opposed directly or not, that's the question.

For example many people wants the Space Wolves to transform into wolves, and feel they with a sentence Dan Abnett wrote can back it up. It's a total lie, and wolves are very little mentioned without space first. If it exists in BL-fluff you are allowed to interpret it, and knowing the fanwank the books of Ward is, they are written as how the guys feels about themselves.

Well, like I said, to me it seems that it's been retconned. It was a very important part of C'Tan history in the 3rd ed codex, but is no longer mentioned in the new one. If it wasn't meant to be retconned, why not include one single sentence of it? Furthermore, there are 8 C'Tan that are turned to shards that we know of FOR SURE (and 1 destroyed) by the Necrons so the "they ate each other until only 4 were left" thing is clearly out of the picture. Moreover, the sentence that there could have been ANY number of C'Tan destroyed by the Necrons in the new Codex is even more proof to me.

 Mavlun wrote:

 Beaviz81 wrote:

 Mavlun wrote:

 Beaviz81 wrote:

You know if things ain't contradicted directly in another codex then it's still canon, I mean BL over a Codex shouldn't normally be followed, especially as the former were much focused on C'Tan. I mean it's really bad often to elect BL-fluff over codex-fluff. A codex can be interpreted, but not directly contradicted unless it is in a later codex. That's the common law.

I think you're confused. I agree that codex fluff > BL fluff. With the exception that when something exists in BL fluff, but NOT in Codex, it's still canonical. I still consider the Void Dragon fight, as well as the Nightbringer fight canon, although they don't show up in the new Codex, but the cannibalism was a 3rd Edition Codex-only thing (as far as I know), and as it's no longer mentioned, but in fact is flat out opposed by new fluff, then it's been retconned IMO.

Is it opposed directly or not, that's the question.

For example many people wants the Space Wolves to transform into wolves, and feel they with a sentence Dan Abnett wrote can back it up. It's a total lie, and wolves are very little mentioned without space first. If it exists in BL-fluff you are allowed to interpret it, and knowing the fanwank the books of Ward is, they are written as how the guys feels about themselves.

Well, like I said, to me it seems that it's been retconned. It was a very important part of C'Tan history in the 3rd ed codex, but is no longer mentioned in the new one. If it wasn't meant to be retconned, why not include one single sentence of it? Furthermore, there are 8 C'Tan that are turned to shards that we know of FOR SURE (and 1 destroyed) by the Necrons so the "they ate each other until only 4 were left" thing is clearly out of the picture. Moreover, the sentence that there could have been ANY number of C'Tan destroyed by the Necrons in the new Codex is even more proof to me.

I'm vary in person for Matt Ward-retcons. Especially when it comes to things left out, they don't count for anything, plus you have the very valid POV-point when it comes to any codex he writes, as I refer to the C'Tan-point raised earlier.

Lot's of new codices make old fluff fade into the background, that doesn't necessarily mean it's gone completely. That reminds me, whatever happened to the pariahs anyway, are those officially gone too now?

But yeah, considering the new codex turned a good deal of fluff from the old one 180degrees around, I'd say the absence of one piece oldcron fluff in the new codex doesn't count as a complete recton (in my opinion at least). But yeah, by adding 4 new C'tan the cannibalcide story does indeed appear to be less of a certainty. But like I said, I also didn't see any fluff directly debunking it either.

 Beaviz81 wrote:

 Mavlun wrote:

 Beaviz81 wrote:

 Mavlun wrote:

 Beaviz81 wrote:

You know if things ain't contradicted directly in another codex then it's still canon, I mean BL over a Codex shouldn't normally be followed, especially as the former were much focused on C'Tan. I mean it's really bad often to elect BL-fluff over codex-fluff. A codex can be interpreted, but not directly contradicted unless it is in a later codex. That's the common law.

I think you're confused. I agree that codex fluff > BL fluff. With the exception that when something exists in BL fluff, but NOT in Codex, it's still canonical. I still consider the Void Dragon fight, as well as the Nightbringer fight canon, although they don't show up in the new Codex, but the cannibalism was a 3rd Edition Codex-only thing (as far as I know), and as it's no longer mentioned, but in fact is flat out opposed by new fluff, then it's been retconned IMO.

Is it opposed directly or not, that's the question.

For example many people wants the Space Wolves to transform into wolves, and feel they with a sentence Dan Abnett wrote can back it up. It's a total lie, and wolves are very little mentioned without space first. If it exists in BL-fluff you are allowed to interpret it, and knowing the fanwank the books of Ward is, they are written as how the guys feels about themselves.

Well, like I said, to me it seems that it's been retconned. It was a very important part of C'Tan history in the 3rd ed codex, but is no longer mentioned in the new one. If it wasn't meant to be retconned, why not include one single sentence of it? Furthermore, there are 8 C'Tan that are turned to shards that we know of FOR SURE (and 1 destroyed) by the Necrons so the "they ate each other until only 4 were left" thing is clearly out of the picture. Moreover, the sentence that there could have been ANY number of C'Tan destroyed by the Necrons in the new Codex is even more proof to me.

I'm vary in person for Matt Ward-retcons. Especially when it comes to things left out, they don't count for anything, plus you have the very valid POV-point when it comes to any codex he writes, as I refer to the C'Tan-point raised earlier.

Regardless of the opinion on the name of the author, the fact that it's been retconned still stands as far as I'm concerned.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Popenfresh wrote:
Lot's of new codices make old fluff fade into the background, that doesn't necessarily mean it's gone completely. That reminds me, whatever happened to the pariahs anyway, are those officially gone too now?

But yeah, considering the new codex turned a good deal of fluff from the old one 180degrees around, I'd say the absence of one piece oldcron fluff in the new codex doesn't count as a complete recton (in my opinion at least). But yeah, by adding 4 new C'tan the cannibalcide story does indeed appear to be less of a certainty. But like I said, I also didn't see any fluff directly debunking it either.

Like I said, there isn't anything directly saying "oh btw the previous edition codex stuff about cannibalism is gone", cause that wouldn't make any sense

I'm just trying to use common sense, you know

Not when it's not done directly. Then it stands, nothing else. And as mentioned Matt Ward's fluff is very OTT, so the POV is a very valid thingy against his fluff. I mean Phil Kelly seems modest in comparison with Matt Ward, and then you know it's bad.

That'd be dumb indeed, but an example of a full retcon is how in the the oldcron dex the C'tan were the ones calling the shots, now it's the other way around. You can't say cannibalcide fluff has been overhauled by the same degree.

 Popenfresh wrote:
That'd be dumb indeed, but an example of a full retcon is how in the the oldcron dex the C'tan were the ones calling the shots, now it's the other way around. You can't say cannibalcide fluff have been overhauled by the same degree.

Clearly, that is a full retcon, but I am of the opinion that the cannibalism thing is also indirectly hinted to (with quite tangible evidence), as well.

1st off, there's no real -reason- for the cannibalism in the new fluff. Secondly, it's not even hinted to even in the least. Thirdly, when the C'Tan are at their weakest, aka after the War in Heaven, there's the numbers thing.

I think it was meant to be retconned, and that's heavily hinted to, but since people had already fallen in love with The Deceiver and his plots, they didn't want to slap them in the face directly. Also, the freedom to create your own C'Tan with its own abilities and backstory (which can even be that he ate some other C'Tan if you feel like it ) as opposed to being forced to choose between 1 of 4 remaining C'Tan is better IMO.

 Mavlun wrote:
Clearly, that is a full retcon, but I am of the opinion that the cannibalism thing is also indirectly hinted to (with quite tangible evidence), as well.

1st off, there's no real -reason- for the cannibalism in the new fluff. Secondly, it's not even hinted to even in the least. Thirdly, when the C'Tan are at their weakest, aka after the War in Heaven, there's the numbers thing.

I think it was meant to be retconned, and that's heavily hinted to, but since people had already fallen in love with The Deceiver and his plots, they didn't want to slap them in the face directly. Also, the freedom to create your own C'Tan with its own abilities and backstory (which can even be that he ate some other C'Tan if you feel like it ) as opposed to being forced to choose between 1 of 4 remaining C'Tan is better IMO.

I'll agree that it was probably meant to be retconned.

Correct me if I'm wrong but I'm pretty sure the C'tan were at their strongest after the war, it would make perfect logical sense. The massive carnage and destruction would've fed them infinitely more than robotosizing a single race. Especially since the new fluff made the war so mundane.

But see, this is another reason why I dislike the new fluff so much, Oldcron C'tan were capricious arrogant beings. The Old Ones weren't even beaten and being so cocksure of their victory they dismissed them started turning upon one an other. It gave them so much more flavor as villains. Now they're nothing more than worfs there to show off how OTT OP the newcrons are. They didn't trick the necrontyr into being their slaves and on top of that they were turned into boring worfs in order for Ward to show off how much more powerful his new faction was relative to everything that was already established.

Sure the C'tan their powerlevel went even more up but that hardly makes for a better bad guy. If you look at the C'tan simply from the perspective on the newcron codex they're so very lackluster.

 Popenfresh wrote:

 Mavlun wrote:
Clearly, that is a full retcon, but I am of the opinion that the cannibalism thing is also indirectly hinted to (with quite tangible evidence), as well.

1st off, there's no real -reason- for the cannibalism in the new fluff. Secondly, it's not even hinted to even in the least. Thirdly, when the C'Tan are at their weakest, aka after the War in Heaven, there's the numbers thing.

I think it was meant to be retconned, and that's heavily hinted to, but since people had already fallen in love with The Deceiver and his plots, they didn't want to slap them in the face directly. Also, the freedom to create your own C'Tan with its own abilities and backstory (which can even be that he ate some other C'Tan if you feel like it ) as opposed to being forced to choose between 1 of 4 remaining C'Tan is better IMO.

I'll agree that it was probably meant to be retconned.

Correct me if I'm wrong but I'm pretty sure the C'tan were at their strongest after the war, it would make perfect logical sense. The massive carnage and destruction would've fed them infinitely more than robotosizing a single race. Especially since the new fluff made the war so mundane.

But see, this is another reason why I dislike the new fluff so much, Oldcron C'tan were capricious arrogant beings. The Old Ones weren't even beaten and being so cocksure of their victory they dismissed them started turning upon one an other. It gave them so much more flavor as villains. Now they're nothing more than worfs there to show off how OTT OP the newcrons are. They didn't trick the necrontyr into being their slaves and on top of that they were turned into boring worfs in order for Ward to show off how much more powerful his new faction was relative to everything that was already established.

Sure the C'tan their powerlevel went even more up but that hardly makes for a better bad guy. If you look at the C'tan simply from the perspective on the newcron codex they're so very lackluster.

Hmmm you've got a couple of things somewhat wrong.

In the new fluff, the C'Tan were at their strongest once they devoured the Necrontyr. They were supposedly in the billions, and the "soulfood" gave them powers beyond belief. After the war, having battled it out with the Old Ones, they were severely weakened, from battle, as well as exhausting energy just generally turning the galaxy to mush by means of black holes, supernovas, etc, and directly fighting the Old Ones. This was their weakest point, and the only moment during which the incredible weaponry the Necrons had, had any sort of chance of breaking them into the shards.

Concerning the cannibalism, in the old fluff they were tricked into eating each other by the Deceiver, as populations had grown thin and they were running the risk of running out of food. It was less a hubris thing, and more a hunger thing.

In the new fluff, they DO in fact trick the Necrontyr into being their slaves. The only notable differences are that it was one single individual (or rather the triarch) that decided the fate of the Necrontyr race, the Silent King.

Overall I like the new codex. I never liked The Deceiver as a C'Tan, feeling like he didn't belong to that race, but rather as the Eldar God. The Necron got a lot more interesting to me, there's a lot of interesting, cool new characters and stories, and I have very few gripes with it (my main one is that the Necron can speak instead of being the creeping, silent death, which was the one thing I wish would've remained unchanged.

As for lackluster, tell me you really don't love Trazyn.



Ninja edit: Derp, it was in fact the deceiver that tricked the SIlent King into accepting the bio transferrence in new fluff.

 Mavlun wrote:

 Popenfresh wrote:

 Mavlun wrote:
Clearly, that is a full retcon, but I am of the opinion that the cannibalism thing is also indirectly hinted to (with quite tangible evidence), as well.

1st off, there's no real -reason- for the cannibalism in the new fluff. Secondly, it's not even hinted to even in the least. Thirdly, when the C'Tan are at their weakest, aka after the War in Heaven, there's the numbers thing.

I think it was meant to be retconned, and that's heavily hinted to, but since people had already fallen in love with The Deceiver and his plots, they didn't want to slap them in the face directly. Also, the freedom to create your own C'Tan with its own abilities and backstory (which can even be that he ate some other C'Tan if you feel like it ) as opposed to being forced to choose between 1 of 4 remaining C'Tan is better IMO.

I'll agree that it was probably meant to be retconned.

Correct me if I'm wrong but I'm pretty sure the C'tan were at their strongest after the war, it would make perfect logical sense. The massive carnage and destruction would've fed them infinitely more than robotosizing a single race. Especially since the new fluff made the war so mundane.

But see, this is another reason why I dislike the new fluff so much, Oldcron C'tan were capricious arrogant beings. The Old Ones weren't even beaten and being so cocksure of their victory they dismissed them started turning upon one an other. It gave them so much more flavor as villains. Now they're nothing more than worfs there to show off how OTT OP the newcrons are. They didn't trick the necrontyr into being their slaves and on top of that they were turned into boring worfs in order for Ward to show off how much more powerful his new faction was relative to everything that was already established.

Sure the C'tan their powerlevel went even more up but that hardly makes for a better bad guy. If you look at the C'tan simply from the perspective on the newcron codex they're so very lackluster.

Hmmm you've got a couple of things somewhat wrong.

In the new fluff, the C'Tan were at their strongest once they devoured the Necrontyr. They were supposedly in the billions, and the "soulfood" gave them powers beyond belief. After the war, having battled it out with the Old Ones, they were severely weakened, from battle, as well as exhausting energy just generally turning the galaxy to mush by means of black holes, supernovas, etc, and directly fighting the Old Ones. This was their weakest point, and the only moment during which the incredible weaponry the Necrons had, had any sort of chance of breaking them into the shards.

Concerning the cannibalism, in the old fluff they were tricked into eating each other by the Deceiver, as populations had grown thin and they were running the risk of running out of food. It was less a hubris thing, and more a hunger thing.

In the new fluff, they DO in fact trick the Necrontyr into being their slaves. The only notable differences are that it was one single individual (or rather the triarch) that decided the fate of the Necrontyr race, the Silent King, and that there's no mention of The Deceiver being the one that did the tricking, but they were indeed tricked.

Overall I like the new codex. I never liked The Deceiver as a C'Tan, feeling like he didn't belong to that race, but rather as the Eldar God. The Necron got a lot more interesting to me, there's a lot of interesting, cool new characters and stories, and I have very few gripes with it (my main one is that the Necron can speak instead of being the creeping, silent death, which was the one thing I wish would've remained unchanged.

As for lackluster, tell me you really don't love Trazyn.

As for them eating each other it was in fact the Laughing God that tricked Tsara'noga into eating another C'Tan and going nuts. It was Eldar trickery no doubt with magic involved.

It was actually The Deceiver, aka Mephet'Ran.
Tsara'Noga = The Outsider.

 Mavlun wrote:
It was actually The Deceiver, aka Mephet'Ran.
Tsara'Noga = The Outsider.

The deciver was the one betraying the C'tan, the Outsider was the one tricked into thing by the Laughing God. At least according to the 3rd. edition.

 Beaviz81 wrote:

 Mavlun wrote:
It was actually The Deceiver, aka Mephet'Ran.
Tsara'Noga = The Outsider.

The deciver was the one betraying the C'tan, the Outsider was the one tricked into thing by the Laughing God. At least according to the 3rd. edition.

Oops, misread your post. I thought you said the Outsider was the one doing the tricking

 Mavlun wrote:

 Beaviz81 wrote:

 Mavlun wrote:
It was actually The Deceiver, aka Mephet'Ran.
Tsara'Noga = The Outsider.

The deciver was the one betraying the C'tan, the Outsider was the one tricked into thing by the Laughing God. At least according to the 3rd. edition.

Oops, misread your post. I thought you said the Outsider was the one doing the tricking

Hahaha, no wonder you sounded like such a dick. No I leaned on the 3rd. codex-thingy, that's when it started. I must say I question the sanity of the Outsider. I mean if the Joker (The Laughing God) came over to me and stold me eating my friends being a good thing I would have said no. Instead he choose to eat his friend.

Silly C'tan!

 Beaviz81 wrote:

 Mavlun wrote:

 Beaviz81 wrote:

 Mavlun wrote:
It was actually The Deceiver, aka Mephet'Ran.
Tsara'Noga = The Outsider.

The deciver was the one betraying the C'tan, the Outsider was the one tricked into thing by the Laughing God. At least according to the 3rd. edition.

Oops, misread your post. I thought you said the Outsider was the one doing the tricking

Hahaha, no wonder you sounded like such a dick. No I leaned on the 3rd. codex-thingy, that's when it started. I must say I question the sanity of the Outsider. I mean if the Joker (The Laughing God) came over to me and stold me eating my friends being a good thing I would have said no. Instead he choose to eat his friend.

You're applying human logic to beings that had been created at the same time as the Big Bang, and that for billions of years not even aknowledged that they were in a material universe, content merely with feeding. See, that's why I don't like the Deceiver. All the C'Tan have some very small human-ish trait, mostly hunger, whereas the Deceiver is just a human in C'Tan's clothing. Just doesn't fit.

 Mavlun wrote:

 Beaviz81 wrote:

 Mavlun wrote:

 Beaviz81 wrote:

 Mavlun wrote:
It was actually The Deceiver, aka Mephet'Ran.
Tsara'Noga = The Outsider.

The deciver was the one betraying the C'tan, the Outsider was the one tricked into thing by the Laughing God. At least according to the 3rd. edition.

Oops, misread your post. I thought you said the Outsider was the one doing the tricking

Hahaha, no wonder you sounded like such a dick. No I leaned on the 3rd. codex-thingy, that's when it started. I must say I question the sanity of the Outsider. I mean if the Joker (The Laughing God) came over to me and stold me eating my friends being a good thing I would have said no. Instead he choose to eat his friend.

You're applying human logic to beings that had been created at the same time as the Big Bang, and that for billions of years not even aknowledged that they were in a material universe, content merely with feeding. See, that's why I don't like the Deceiver. All the C'Tan have some very small human-ish trait, mostly hunger, whereas the Deceiver is just a human in C'Tan's clothing. Just doesn't fit.

If that's the case it serves nothing than to make Empy even mightier. He was the ultimate man and being like he told told Lorgar when he made him kneel. That wasn't a lie. That was the truth about Empy, too bad ultimate father wasn't amongst them skills.

It's usually hubris that brings the mightiest to their knees, and the Emp (as well as the C'Tan) was no exception. That's just the way things are, I suppose.

I feel like we've derailed the thread horribly and want to apologize for my part in that to the OP, sorry, got carried away.

Back on topic, the 3rd ed. codex has a cool little story about Abaddon getting info from a daemon concerning the Void Dragon. It shows the basalt caverns beneath Mars. In the floor there's a sarcophagus made of adamantium and gold, with flickering beams of "unimaginable" energy flowing in a glittering arc to the sarcophagus.

Take this either as a containment field of sorts, or a feeding mechanism, or a way to drain the Void Dragon, but apparently that's what it looks like. The end of the Codex has a vision of a Farseer, with the C'Tan causing the death of the Galaxy. The Void Dragon has apparently conquered and enslaved Mars and the mechanicum, and has used them as slaves, bleeding them of energy, then tossing them like used napkins (obviously not in those words )

 Beaviz81 wrote:
As for explanation. Empy fought the thing with what I assume to be a Force-Spear. And with that I think he just as well can have mind-controlled the creature using the Force-Weapon as a conduit. Was just a suggestion, nothing else as that can explain how he was nearly killed by it.

The Force Spear?

Oh right, the one that shattered because it couldn't penetrate the C'tan's hide.