Necron release rumours (prices and pics in first post)

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.

**Sigvatr**

There is no RAW yet on the new C'tan.

**Eyjio**

changemod wrote:
I don't think this is particularly believable, given the Tran is said to be no stronger for being a mass of combined shards.

I've been thinking about it too, and if the t C'tan is that cheap, why would it not be an elite? It's not listed with the other two shards and it's hardly setting the word on fire if it's T7. Seems a bit trolley, but as I said before, this is GW...

**changemod**

Sigvatr wrote:
There is no RAW yet on the new C'tan.

Unit needs to be named "C'tan Shard" to join the formation, so if it isn't...

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Eyjio wrote:
changemod wrote:
I don't think this is particularly believable, given the Tran is said to be no stronger for being a mass of combined shards.

I've been thinking about it too, and if the t C'tan is that cheap, why would it not be an elite? It's not listed with the other two shards and it's hardly setting the word on fire if it's T7. Seems a bit trolley, but as I said before, this is GW...

They used the model for the Burning One in Exterminatus, but if they were gonna downgrade it to just the Burning One's shard I'd have figured they'd rename it.

**Requizen**

changemod wrote:
Sigvatr wrote:
There is no RAW yet on the new C'tan.

Unit needs to be named "C'tan Shard" to join the formation, so if it isn't...

Read the names from the Elites section. You will notice that both the Nightbringer and Deceiver say "C'tan Shard" before their names.

**Verviedi**

Ugh. Anyone want to buy some Necrons... Say... In Febuary?

**changemod**

Requizen wrote:
changemod wrote:
Sigvatr wrote:
There is no RAW yet on the new C'tan.

Unit needs to be named "C'tan Shard" to join the formation, so if it isn't...

Read the names from the Elites section. You will notice that both the Nightbringer and Deceiver say "C'tan Shard" before their names.

Yep, and appear to not have that as the complete unit title.

**skybax**

So, inspired by the discussion on C'tan powers, I had some fun mathhammering.

[EDIT: I got the numbers wrong, now they're right]

I assumed that C'tan are BS 5, firing at a target up to 24" from them, and the target doesn't get any saves. Then, I compared it with shooting a single meltagun from <6".
The numbers mean the following: probability of a glancing or better result - average number of HP removed - average number of penetration rolls (with AP 1 bonus)

against AV 14 (Land Raider):
C'tan: 0.271 0.433 0.303
Guardsman w/melta, <6":0.361 0.361 0.652

against AV 12 (Wave Serpent):
C'tan: 0.703 0.842 0.913
Guardsman w/melta, <6": 0.486 0.486 0.902

against AV 11 (Rhino):
C'tan: 1.080 1.219 1.667
Guardsman w/melta, <6": 0.527 0.527 0.986

So basically, as WD editors would say, you can call a C'tan shard an anti-tank specialist - against heavy vehicles it is on par with melta-wielding guardsman. It shines against lighter vehicles, though, when it reaches the unbelivalbe level of two guardsmen firing meltas at once

**changemod**

Verviedi wrote:
Ugh. Anyone want to buy some Necrons... Say... In Febuary?

I never understand why people say this.

Did you spend so much money, effort and time painting and modelling an army just to toss it away because some of the stuff you like has slightly worse rules?

**Eyjio**

skybax wrote:
So, inspired by the discussion on C'tan powers, I had some fun mathhammering.

I assumed that C'tan are BS 5, firing at a target up to 24" from them, and the target doesn't get any saves. Then, I compared it with shooting a single meltagun from <6".
The numbers mean the following: probability of a glancing or better result - average number of HP removed - average number of penetration rolls (with AP 1 bonus)

against AV 14 (Land Raider):
C'tan: 0.271 0.433 0.303
Guardsman w/melta, <6":0.361 0.361 0.652
Marine w/melta <6": 0.481 0.481 0.870

against AV 12 (Wave Serpent):
C'tan: 0.494 0.633 0.704
Guardsman w/melta, <6": 0.486 0.486 0.902
Marine w/melta <6": 0.648 0.648 1.203

against AV 11 (Rhino):
C'tan: 0.662 0.801 1.041
Guardsman w/melta, <6": 0.527 0.527 0.986
Marine w/melta <6": 0.703 0.703 1.314

So basically, as WD editors would say, you can call a C'tan shard an anti-tank specialist - against heavy vehicles it is as strong as a melta-wielding guardsman. It really shines against lighter vehicles, though, when it reaches the power of a melta-equipped superhuman Space Marine or a pious Sister of Battle.

Brilliant. My 240 point model has the same effectiveness as either a 20 point, or if I'm lucky, 24 point model? Stop the presses. Now compare it to a Riptide, Wraithknight, Imperial Knight or any other MC which deals with tanks.

**Requizen**

changemod wrote:
Requizen wrote:
changemod wrote:
Sigvatr wrote:
There is no RAW yet on the new C'tan.

Unit needs to be named "C'tan Shard" to join the formation, so if it isn't...

Read the names from the Elites section. You will notice that both the Nightbringer and Deceiver say "C'tan Shard" before their names.

Yep, and appear to not have that as the complete unit title.

Oh, so you're just a smug pedantic gak, ok.

**changemod**

Requizen wrote:
changemod wrote:
Requizen wrote:
changemod wrote:
Sigvatr wrote:
There is no RAW yet on the new C'tan.

Unit needs to be named "C'tan Shard" to join the formation, so if it isn't...

Read the names from the Elites section. You will notice that both the Nightbringer and Deceiver say "C'tan Shard" before their names.

Yep, and appear to not have that as the complete unit title.

Oh, so you're just a smug pedantic gak, ok.

Don't be absurd, I'm just saying there's a solid chance they might have messed it up until we see the actual entry.

**skybax**

Eyjio wrote:

Brilliant. My 240 point model has the same effectiveness as either a 20 point, or if I'm lucky, 24 point model? Stop the presses. Now compare it to a Riptide, Wraithknight, Imperial Knight or any other MC which deals with tanks.

After setting the numbers right it's getting up to 30 pts, but yeah, that's not exactly the Knight level.

But admittedly, there may be some units against which powers are good - my bet would be on heavy infantry, or units of creatures with more than one wound.

**Kangodo**

Eyjio wrote:
Brilliant. My 240 point model has the same effectiveness as either a 20 point, or if I'm lucky, 24 point model? Stop the presses. Now compare it to a Riptide, Wraithknight, Imperial Knight or any other MC which deals with tanks.

It's more the €125 I spend on it than the 240 points that I care about.
I couldn't care less about the second-hand 15 euro C'tan Shard.

**Verviedi**

changemod wrote:
Verviedi wrote:
Ugh. Anyone want to buy some Necrons... Say... In Febuary?

I never understand why people say this.

Did you spend so much money, effort and time painting and modelling an army just to toss it away because some of the stuff you like has slightly worse rules?

There's no point in running an army where all of my stuff is useless because I only bought OP stuff and it got nerfed.
It would cost more to update my arny than to sell it.

**Sidstyler**

Why'd you "only buy OP stuff" to begin with?

**Verviedi**

Sidstyler wrote:
Why'd you "only buy OP stuff" to begin with?

Because my only opponent uses power builds.
You've probably heard of him.

**Sigvatr**

There is no RAW yet. Period. The only source of RAW are GW publications, thus codices, dataslates, BRB etc. Rumors are as far from being RAW as possible.

**RivenSkull**

changemod wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Thokt wrote:
RivenSkull wrote:
The more I read, the more and more it looks like Necrons are getting a massive nerf almost everywhere, and I'll be selling my stuff.

One would have almost hoped (well as a Necron-only player) that GW would go: "Oh gak we're losing so much money. Bring back the Codex Creep so people buy again."

What exactly have you been reading?

Yeah, I've not heard many nerfs at all in these rumors. Almost buffing across the board.

I read all of the Faeit 212/Warseer things posted in the thread not realizing they were Faeit 212/Warseer

**blaktoof**

if you ran an army that was based only on the OP models your army will almost always be 'outdated' when the new codex comes out. Usually this means its not as powerful as some other build for another army so the player sells all their models and buys the current OP net list build for a different army, and the cycle continues. Please do this, it gives GW more money so they can continue print rules for us to play with.

if you buy balanced TAC lists you never have this problem. If you keep your 'bad models' they also become 'good' next edition or two.

I would wait for the codex to come out before you worry about so many things, there's a good chances you roll for power before selecting target for c'tan despite the english as a poor second language post with the rumored stuff. It is also possible you can pick to roll for a power or use the power the specific shard has.

**Sigvatr**

blaktoof wrote:
If you keep your 'bad models' they also become 'good' next edition or two.

Flayed Ones.

You lose!

**skybax**

Sigvatr wrote:
blaktoof wrote:
If you keep your 'bad models' they also become 'good' next edition or two.

Flayed Ones.

You lose!

If the rumours are true, they may become kinda playable this time...

Also, I did some more mathhammering. Against marines don't take C'tan, take a Leman Russ. But against Nurgle Chaos Spawns? Man, a C'tan is perfect. EDIT: actually no, it isn't. Four autocannon HWTs still do the job better and cost less.

**Sidstyler**

Verviedi wrote:
Sidstyler wrote:
Why'd you "only buy OP stuff" to begin with?

Because my only opponent uses power builds.
You've probably heard of him.

I don't think I have, no.

**Sasori**

Sigvatr wrote:
blaktoof wrote:
If you keep your 'bad models' they also become 'good' next edition or two.

Flayed Ones.

You lose!

if the Rumors are True they are Ap 5, shred, with a standard of 4 attacks each... That's pretty good.

I'm going to call it in saying those extra powers make the Deceiver Shard worth it. Grand Illusion as always massive when I played with it. I can barely think of a game that it didn't make an impact. The -2 Leadership is just icing on cake.

**davethepak**

Ok, so at least the new ctan powers are not terrible, and some in specific situations can be quite good.

And that is the rub - in specific situations.

Also, look, to everyone who might not get why some necron players are not happy, its because of this -

Necrons don't have a problem killing infantry at range.
They have a problem killing vehicles at range.

While gauss is effective, its also kind of a boring alternative.
Of course, who knows that gauss will do now....

So yeah, that list of powers is mostly effective against infantry - but they already have that in their bag of tricks.
THUS necron players are not that excited about their 240 point unit that is good at killing infantry.

(now, if he was 2/4++ that would at least help him get into CC).

**skoffs**

Necrons don't have problems with infantry or vehicle killing,
It's MCs and 2+ saves we lack answers to.

**changemod**

skoffs wrote:
Necrons don't have problems with infantry or vehicle killing,
It's MCs and 2+ saves we lack answers to.

Deathmarks and Wraiths respectively.

Well, our other close combat units are also pretty good against 2+ saves but good luck closing in.

**Eyjio**

changemod wrote:
skoffs wrote:
Necrons don't have problems with infantry or vehicle killing,
It's MCs and 2+ saves we lack answers to.

Deathmarks and Wraiths respectively.

Well, our other close combat units are also pretty good against 2+ saves but good luck closing in.

Deathmarks are terrible vs MCs and only good vs 2+ saves with the cheese flamer. Wraiths are good currently, and may still be good, but a very large single point of failure without MSS barge lords. MCs have always been Necrons' major issue. 2+ saves melt to mass s7, as do most vehicles. If we no longer have that mass S7 and no way to protect lords from the insane MCs out there...

**Verviedi**

Sidstyler wrote:
Verviedi wrote:
Sidstyler wrote:
Why'd you "only buy OP stuff" to begin with?

Because my only opponent uses power builds.
You've probably heard of him.

I don't think I have, no.

Look through my posts.

**Sasori**

changemod wrote:
skoffs wrote:
Necrons don't have problems with infantry or vehicle killing,
It's MCs and 2+ saves we lack answers to.

Deathmarks and Wraiths respectively.

Well, our other close combat units are also pretty good against 2+ saves but good luck closing in.

Deathmarks are only good VS non 2+ MCs. They are also only generally good one time with the mark.

Riptides, Wrathknights and Flyrant heavy Tyranids still look to be major issues.

That being said, we've only had a glimpse (that may not even be true) so far.

**skoffs**

Who the hell thought it would be a better idea to roll for random attack AFTER choosing the target?!
(choosing your target after you know what power you're going to be using would have made them usable. In this form? Well, I guess GW was just tired of selling C'tan models...)