Switch Theme:

C'tan Power rewrite  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Poll
Should the powers get ITC FAQ'd
Yes
No
Needs to be tested

View results
Author Message
Advert


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.




Made in us
Regular Dakkanaut




Hello Hammerheads,

A lot of people on the forums and in my local stores/tournaments agree that changing the C'Tan powers to the following would not only be fair, but fix the unit.

Instead of choosing a target and then randomly generating a power, you generate a random power, then get to select your target.

Arguments:

With this change in wording, it still allows for a power to be randomly assigned to do absolutely nothing. With only a 24" range, the number of targets within range are going to be mediocre.

With only having a 4++ save, the model is still very easy to take down.

Putting yourself in the middle of multiple different types of enemy units would be beneficial, but still very risky as a blob of basic infantry can take this guy down with enough shots, or unlucky save rolls.

My goal for this poll is to present it to the fine gentlepeople at ITC as a petition, if the poll ends up being more of a then a .



Automatically Appended Next Post:
I think it needs to be tested, personally.

This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2017/02/22 00:33:14


 
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut




Honestly the original Transcendent CTan really captured how powerful they should've been on the tabletop.

I think the customization should come back because, while the Shards weren't good, it was a neat element. Then we should have simply more powerful Deceiver and Nightbringer Shards.

That is really the only thing I haven't tackled in my rebalancing of the Necron codex because I haven't had time on top of the CTan being a Monstrous task to handle.

CaptainStabby wrote:
If Tyberos falls and needs to catch himself it's because the ground needed killing.

 jy2 wrote:
BTW, I can't wait to run Double-D-thirsters! Man, just thinking about it gets me Khorney.

 vipoid wrote:
Indeed - what sort of bastard would want to use their codex?

 MarsNZ wrote:
ITT: SoB players upset that they're receiving the same condescending treatment that they've doled out in every CSM thread ever.
 
   
Made in us
Fixture of Dakka





I agree with both of the above.


ATTENTION
. Psychic tests are unfluffy. Your longing for AV is understandable but misguided. Your chapter doesn't need a separate codex. Doctrines should go away. Being a "troop" means nothing. This has been a cranky service announcement. You may now resume your regularly scheduled arguing.
 
   
Made in us
Second Story Man





Astonished of Heck

WikkedTiki wrote:
Hello Hammerheads,

A lot of people on the forums and in my local stores/tournaments agree that changing the C'Tan powers to the following would not only be fair, but fix the unit.

Instead of choosing a target and then randomly generating a power, you generate a random power, then get to select your target.

Arguments:

With this change in wording, it still allows for a power to be randomly assigned to do absolutely nothing. With only a 24" range, the number of targets within range are going to be mediocre.

With only having a 4++ save, the model is still very easy to take down.

Putting yourself in the middle of multiple different types of enemy units would be beneficial, but still very risky as a blob of basic infantry can take this guy down with enough shots, or unlucky save rolls.

My goal for this poll is to present it to the fine gentlepeople at ITC as a petition, if the poll ends up being more of a then a .



Automatically Appended Next Post:
I think it needs to be tested, personally.

While dakka is not an ITC forum, nor am I an ITC pursuer, this has been my fix for the Powers of the C'tan.

-------------------

In regards to an overall adjustment, I think the C'tan Shards are fine with this adjustment for Monstrous Creatures, however, I do feel that there should be a Gargantuan version as well, too which needs a bigger sculpt to do it proper. The Transcendent C'tan should also be renamed so that "Transcendent" is referred to the differences to being a GMC, though I can't think of a good name for the non-unique version at this time.

There are two ways to look at it from a lore perspective from there. On one hand, the Monstrous Shards are too minimal to have the full aspect of the C'tan, so keep them at lower power and a little more random makes sense.

However, on the Gargantuans, they are more cohesive, thus being more predictable in the Powers they use and purchasable, OR so much harder to control that they you still can't control the Power but their output is so much more massively stronger. However, all three versions should have their individual Powers also improved.

One other thought, the spammable C'tan should be available to either pick from a roster of Powers that would represent the Burning One and other C'tan which hadn't held such a distinctive identity over the millenia as the Nightbringer and Deceiver have, but would be good opportunities to expand the roster.

To be fair, I was going to use Morghast for my Heavy Support C'tan before I sold off all my Necrons.

Are you a Wolf, a Sheep, or a Hound?
Megavolt wrote:They called me crazy…they called me insane…THEY CALLED ME LOONEY!! and boy, were they right.
 
   
 
Forum Index » 40K Proposed Rules
Go to: