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.

"I have the Codex"

Then doesn't divulge anything new....

Come on...

 Nilok wrote:

What rumor exactly said that Ghost Arks will get these rules?

It would be strange for them being the sole vehicle without Living Metal..but then again, I wouldn't trust the same game design team that thought of giving a high-cost model random powers further than you can see.

Well to be honest, I wouldn't use C'tan on AV14 stuff anyways. A lot of those powers would be better directed at masses of light/heavy infantry and light/medium armoured vehicles.

 Sasori wrote:
"I have the Codex"

Then doesn't divulge anything new....

Come on...

Well, given the source, are we surprised?

 Sasori wrote:
"I have the Codex"

Then doesn't divulge anything new....

Come on...

Heh annoying isnt it?!

What I don't understand is why the C'tan powers have to be random on target selection and it isn't that the shards simply draw 2-3 cards at the start of the game and those are the powers the C'tan will use for the duration of the game.

 Voodoo_Chile wrote:
What I don't understand is why the C'tan powers have to be random on target selection and it isn't that the shards simply draw 2-3 cards at the start of the game and those are the powers the C'tan will use for the duration of the game.

Because Random Tables.

FORGE THE NARRATIVE!!!!

 Nilok wrote:
That's going a little overboard with the mathhammer.

I actually made a mistake: It's 11%, the 23 was the chance on a penetrate.

IWND and the other HP recovery won't matter unless it takes a HP, so you need to factor a hit and a glance or pen to see how well the rule will actually do. By assuming that it won't take the glance or pen in the first place is almost the same as saying it isn't needed. If a dedicated anti-tank unit is shooting at a Ghost Ark, unless it glances, it will at least get a +1 to the chart, this is compounded further with AP.

I think the HP recovery rules are a little wasted on a Ghost Ark unless it takes mostly glances or it regains it's Quantum Shielding at full HP and doesn't immediately explode.

What rumor exactly said that Ghost Arks will get these rules?

I know, it was more in a reaction to the guy that acted as if Melta always blows them up.
The Ghost Ark will lose Hullpoints, that is a guarantee.
Getting a few back HP's is a bonus, a small one but still a bonus.

Living Metal gives the 6+; but we have a few ways to get IWND.

 angelofvengeance wrote:
Well to be honest, I wouldn't use C'tan on AV14 stuff anyways. A lot of those powers would be better directed at masses of light/heavy infantry and light/medium armoured vehicles.

Right, but what Necron army needed MORE help against light infantry? It's MCs and heavy walkers that Nevrons struggle with, and these powers are too unreliable to deal with either. Then again, drop pods are popular now, so maybe the additional MEQ murdering might be good. Certainly I think the Nightbringer is the better option - gaze of death brutalises things with LD8 or so. I still think they're too flimsy to see play though.

 angelofvengeance wrote:
I'm glad they fixed the Death Ray on the Doom Scythe. While interesting, the 1mm line was a bit annoying to do in a game.

Sure, if by 'fixed' you mean 'neutered'.

Unless it got a point drop to go along with it this is a serious nerf on a model that wasn't really all that great in the first place...

 angelofvengeance wrote:
I honestly don't get people being upset about C'tan. All of those powers are wonderful!

People are upset because, save for AV10-11 vehicles and low-medium toughness MCs with crappy armor saves, no matter what target you're shooting at you've got a 1/3 or worse chance of rolling up an all but useless power for the task.

Targeting light infantry? Roll 5 or 6 and you'll kill maybe one model, up to 3 if roll 6 and are otherwise very lucky.
Targeting MEQ? Roll 1 and you're golden, anything else and you're looking at around 1-3 unsaved wounds unless you get very lucky with the dice.
Targeting TEQ? Don't expect more than 1-2 wounds to stick no matter what you pick.
Targeting AV12? Roll 3 and you'd be lucky to make a more than a glance or two, roll 2 and even a glance is a long shot.
Targeting AV13? Results 2 and 3 are now right out, result 4 has a less than 50% chance of glancing even if all three blasts land on the vehicle.
Targeting AV14? Don't bother with any result other than 5 or 6.
Targeting multi-wound models with T4 and Sv4+ or worse? 1, 3, 5 or 6 will wreck its day something fierce, 4 might get a couple of wounds in, 2 will at best get 1.
Targeting multi-wound models with T4 and Sv3+? It's your lucky day! Roll 1, 5 or 6 for a decent shot at ID, rolling 3 could get you 2 unsaved wounds, otherwise don't expect more than 1 wound (if that).
Targeting multi-wound models with T5-6 and Sv3+? Any result other than 5 will net you somewhere between 0 and 2 wounds on average.
Targeting multi-wound models with T7 or higher and Sv3+? Rolling 5 remains the same, other results get that much worse.
Targeting multi-wound models with T4 and Sv2+? Rolling 5 or 6 have a good shot at ID, rolling 1 may get ID but doesn't get through the armor save, rolling 4 averages at around 1 unsaved wound, anything else and you're out of luck.
Targeting multi-wound models with T5 or higher and Sv2+? Rolling 5 is still the same, rolling 6 gets you a decent shot at a single wound and an long shot chance at lucking out with 3 (don't bet on it), anything else and you may as well not bother.

So the only things that it's really reliable against are AV10-11 vehicles or T3 Sv4+ (or worse) multi-wound models, and it does passably well against T4 Sv4+ multi-wound models. Why the hell would Codex: Necrons of all armies pay premium price for THAT?

C'tan shooting is looking to be so unreliable that you shouldn't take one unless you think it would be worth the points investment without factoring in these powers. If you think an MC with a C'tan statline, Fleshbane and the ability to inflict 3d6-Ld AP2 wounds at a unit within 12" is worth the 240pt investment of taking the Nightbringer Shard then the shooting powers are just gravy, if you don't then they shouldn't be the thing to change your mind about using one.

Good against AV 10-11 and infantry..hm...why exactly wouldn't you rather take 2 Annihilation Barges instead?

 Sigvatr wrote:
Good against AV 10-11 and infantry..hm...why exactly wouldn't you rather take 2 Annihilation Barges instead?

Cause they'd be faster, cheaper, have greater firepower and arguably better survivability, and we can't have that now can we?

Hey,

I posted this on warseer and seeing the discussion going on here, thought I share my thoughts with you:

I am still ruminating about that random c'tan powers for it really hurts my stomach - even though I want to be unaffected by it and I said earlier that this powers are all better then the non-random ones before (except for swarm of spirit dust). So sorry to put this in a rumors thread so yeah only feelings and thoughts in this one, no new rumors but old ones if you do not want to read such you can skip

Several other posters made me think about this more: why such a bland game mechanic, why disappoint so many players, why no empathy for us? I imagine so many others sitting there with the new codex being disappointed where they should not be it would be easy to make the codex balanced and fun!: changing the tesseract vault like that, taking away the only last big C'Tan..come on! It seems so stubborn and then this WD texts wich are so soulless and nearly provocative: as if we would love randomization, as they say...

Then thinking about GW mention that they love big MC's stomping the battlefield ... man, they are in their fifties or fourties I guess, is that believable?, to some degree but then seeing how the shards are so lackluster (assuming the rumors are valid) in comparison to wraithknights, riptides and the gray knight one...and for balancing: it would be easy to errata the statline of the riptide to a 3+/4++

Back to the random c'an powers: why not split the random chart in two subfields from which you the have to roll?, or as others said pick three cards at the start of the game...?

One idea that fits all this as an answer would be that long ago I heard a rumor, that GW wants warhammer 40K to be the kid version, the more comical version and 30K the grown up version - that would be absolute **** I do not want to go back in the timeline and I do not dig the 30K aesthetics at all not to mention my love for necrons that even all the dumbed down ideas and design flaws of the ward codex couldn't eliminate!

So the bottom line seems to be a really disconnected leading team inside GW, that just do not care, or are getting a little senile or simply old or wanting younger players in - I told some of this to my GF and she really isn't into 40K or wargaming and she said :"Do they want to disgust it's own customers away?" this were here inate feelings without knowing anything that is going on for years...:/

So sorry again for this in a rumors thread, thought you might share my feelings a little :/ and we never know maybe the codex will be different from the rumors.

They're not random, they're cinematic.

Now go forge a narrative.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
They're not random, they're cinematic.

No go forge a narrative.

that would be a lousy movie sequence!

C'tan thing sucks, tesla and phase shifter/ccb got rightfully nerfed, rumour has it mss got nerfed, but everything else got better or are equivalent.

Oh, the cheesy transcendent c'tan got nerfed. Oh well.

Did the wraith invuln get nerfed with the overlords? T5 is still probably better.

Overall, most of what I am seeing is good for necrons. No reason to drown yourself in your tears over some admittedly dumb things. 7th has seen more random, some toning down/balancing, and more interesting play.

 Crazyterran wrote:
C'tan thing sucks, tesla and phase shifter/ccb got rightfully nerfed, rumour has it mss got nerfed, but everything else got better or are equivalent.

Oh, the cheesy transcendent c'tan got nerfed. Oh well.

Did the wraith invuln get nerfed with the overlords? T5 is still probably better.

Overall, most of what I am seeing is good for necrons. No reason to drown yourself in your tears over some admittedly dumb things. 7th has seen more random, some toning down/balancing, and more interesting play.

Yo dude, i am not drowning in tears, i really love the balancing and as an oldcron player i like most of the changes - but as others said nerfing the T-C'tan and doing what they supposedly did is something different man shall i take your baneblade and make it a Rhino?

Bye anyway


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Not to forget making the tesseract vault random: NOW THAT IS ******** don't you think?

 Henker-Kind wrote:

 Crazyterran wrote:
C'tan thing sucks, tesla and phase shifter/ccb got rightfully nerfed, rumour has it mss got nerfed, but everything else got better or are equivalent.

Oh, the cheesy transcendent c'tan got nerfed. Oh well.

Did the wraith invuln get nerfed with the overlords? T5 is still probably better.

Overall, most of what I am seeing is good for necrons. No reason to drown yourself in your tears over some admittedly dumb things. 7th has seen more random, some toning down/balancing, and more interesting play.

Yo dude, i am not drowning in tears, i really love the balancing an as an oldcron player i like most of the changes - but as others said nerfing the T-C'tan and doing what they supposedly did is something different man shall i take your baneblade and make it a Rhino?

Bye anyway

If it gets a price drop, like the new t-c'tan did, then it is not all bad. The baneblade isn't even close to being considered competitive, anyways. The c'tan was one of the primary reasons that lords of war got banned in tournaments, and those tournaments that selectively banned lords of war still banned it.

The smaller c'tans were bad last edition, too, so... Meh?

Ok one more reply:

baneblade was a bad example let us say warhound titan that is his power level anyway...and the T-C'tan with the new destroyer weapon rules and players not taking the same power twice isn't OP and he also dies quite easily in an apoc environment.

I still think that there was some C'tan mobbing going around within the tourney scene, just because frontline gaming led the way with pointing out how Op the T-C'tan was: I think they were wrong.
And a price reduction isn't calming if it is then overpriced and with random shooting attacks. I still hope the apoc variant will be made viable per faq. I am just a fan of the C'Tan man

I've been told by gw I need to pre order for Saturday.

So it's not on general sale Saturday? Was hoping to get into town and pick up off shelves.

I will get it on saturday from an independent...

Ffyllotek wrote:
I've been told by gw I need to pre order for Saturday.

So it's not on general sale Saturday? Was hoping to get into town and pick up off shelves.

Maybe they are expecting to be sold out or have everything preordered (they can only hope).
Or more likely, they are only getting one or two books/want to get your money before you read it.

Pre-ordered it on iTunes so it'll download when it's out.

 angelofvengeance wrote:
Pre-ordered it on iTunes so it'll download when it's out.

Same

 angelofvengeance wrote:
Pre-ordered it on iTunes so it'll download when it's out.

How do you like having it on a pad compared to owning the book?

I like all the quick reference stuff Plus it's all there in the cloud so I don't have to fill shelves with books. And I get to harvest all the nice artwork for backgrounds on my tablet and pc .
If you're on anything other than an iPad, you get shafted quality wise.

 angelofvengeance wrote:
I like all the quick reference stuff Plus it's all there in the cloud so I don't have to fill shelves with books. And I get to harvest all the nice artwork for backgrounds on my tablet and pc

My feelings exactly

 angelofvengeance wrote:
I like all the quick reference stuff Plus it's all there in the cloud so I don't have to fill shelves with books. And I get to harvest all the nice artwork for backgrounds on my tablet and pc

Thanks for the info. I'm still in the "scratching my name in the dirt with a stick" phase, and was interested in possibly getting the Iyanden book on a pad.

 angelofvengeance wrote:
I like all the quick reference stuff Plus it's all there in the cloud so I don't have to fill shelves with books. And I get to harvest all the nice artwork for backgrounds on my tablet and pc .
If you're on anything other than an iPad, you get shafted quality wise.

Just a little question from a non I-User:

When it is in the cloud, what is the legal situation, is it yours or just lent, if you buy it once, can you download it again, is it downloaded to your harddisk as a pdf ro so? Because I smell some strange development in digital ownership and clouds in general?

Relapse wrote:

 angelofvengeance wrote:
I like all the quick reference stuff Plus it's all there in the cloud so I don't have to fill shelves with books. And I get to harvest all the nice artwork for backgrounds on my tablet and pc

Thanks for the info. I'm still in the "scratching my name in the dirt with a stick" phase, and was interested in possibly getting the Iyanden book on a pad.

I'd just avoid the Iyanden book in any format