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.

It specifically says "In the shooting phase, pick a target and roll". Which is the worst way you could possibly do this.

 pretre wrote:



Automatically Appended Next Post:
Well, they just fixed the 'TC'tan is OP' problem.

God fething dammit GW, you just had to perform as expected.

Without actually seeing the powers you can't say

maybe there is no range limit on any of them

maybe you need los

maybe there are different, defined ranges, on all the powers (ouch)

in each case knowing the limits will help dictate how you decide to use your C'Tan (or if you do), and what it's target priorities will be

A cookie* to the first person to post the rules of the powers.














*May not be cookie. Roll d6 and consult chart: 1) cookie 2)kick in the nads 3)£1000,000 4)Handshake 5)Re-roll d6 6) This result has no effect

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.

 Ghaz wrote:

Its supported by their fluff in the current codex though.

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?

It sounds that "Dual Profile" just means one for the Shards and one for the Tesseract Vault.

 BlaxicanX wrote:

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?

 Ghaz wrote:

 BlaxicanX wrote:

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.

Its just your opinion that its bad fluff. Personally I don't have a problem with 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.

In that new picture upper left it mentions some kind of virus? Maybe the flayed ones have changes worth mentioning.

Already in the 5th ed book. Flayed Ones are created by the Flayer Virus.

 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?

Cryptek of Awesome wrote:

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...

 NakedSeamus wrote:

 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.

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

 Red Corsair wrote:

Cryptek of Awesome wrote:

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 don't.

 Red Corsair wrote:

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.

Well, unless they change the powers one will be a S6 Ap2 Hellstorm, and another will be a 48" S8 Ap3 Heavy 6d6.

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

GW 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.


Sounds pretty unlikely to me.

 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).

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.

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.

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.

 docdoom77 wrote:

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.

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!

Ahh Faeit212.. About as reliable as a chocolate fireguard