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.

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

I'd say about 1987

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.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

Spoiler:

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

My Daemons already do that

 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.

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.

 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:

 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.

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.)

 docdoom77 wrote:

I'd say about 1987

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

We'll see how it pans out

 Fafnir13 wrote:

 docdoom77 wrote:

I'd say about 1987

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.

 docdoom77 wrote:

 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.

Will I be able to pick what powers the C'tan uses if I have the Earth Badge?

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.

Random attacks is not a good game mechanic.

 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.

Random attacks is not a good game mechanic.

This.

 BlaxicanX wrote:

 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.

 BlaxicanX wrote:
My problem is with poor game mechanics..

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 40K TT 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.

Fluff is for bunnies and porn stars, give us good rules so we can be happy

Exalted.

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.

Example

18" s7 *D6 effect

*1- assault 6 ap4 armor bane
*2- assault 2 ap3 Large blast
*3- assault 4 ap5 blast, ignores cover
etc etc.

Or it could suck entirely! But maybe wait before bitching.

 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.

Quote the post(s) you're referring to.

I like to choose what ability I want to use when making my list.

Leaving things up to chance can screw you over, having total control over it won't.

It's honestly that simple.

 Screaming Echo wrote:
I like to choose what ability I want to use when making my list.

Leaving things up to chance can screw you over, having total control over it won't.

It's honestly that simple.

Nit picking but "total control" in a game of dice?

bodazoka wrote:

 Screaming Echo wrote:
I like to choose what ability I want to use when making my list.

Leaving things up to chance can screw you over, having total control over it won't.

It's honestly that simple.

Nit picking but "total control" in a game of dice?

Total control of the options you bring, not their outcome during game.