How do you think Necron's will be represented in 8th? Maybe gauss will be wounds on 5+ max. RP could be a thing where when they roll moral, if they roll below the point of losing more models, they reclaim some that were lost. Thoughts and speculations?
Max 5+ on to damage rolls would be the closest mechanical match, and useful on Toughness 8+, which I guess represents vehicles, so that could work. The problem is Necrons only have a handful of weapon above s6, and their availability is much lower than equivalents in other armies since Necrons don't do mixed weapon in units. So Necrons depend on Gauss for anti-vehicle work, which is where things start to fray around the edges, with wounds doubling or more on vehicles, plus adding armor saves, gauss looses a lot of mileage. I know this is true of most weapons, but just to show you how bad it is for gauss:
2/3 chance to hit * 1/3 chance to wound * 1/3 chance to fail the save = 7.4% chance to get a wound thru per shot, meaning it takes about 14 shots per wound, means it takes 112 gauss shots to take down a dreadnought.
Compare to 7th ed 2/3 chance to hit 1/6 chance to glance, so 11% of shots get through, so 9 shots to a wound, 3 wounds to kill it, so 27 shots to a dreadnought.
That's almost quadruple when most other anti-vehicle weapons only doubled. If we got shred like in SWA here is how the math looks:
2/3 chance to hit (1 - 2/3 * 2/3) 5/9 chance to wound and a 1/3 chance of it failing it's armor save. so 10/81 or 12%. at 12% it's 8 shots to a wound, for 8 wounds that means about 64 shots, which is a little over double the 7th ed amount of shots. which is what we would expect.
This would up their offensive ability against toughness 4 and below, but with no mixed weapon types they loose out on split fire and anti-infantry weapons, so it probably comes close enough to balancing out that it only requires minor adjustments to points to make it work.
As for reanimation protocols, I honestly have no idea. My hope is that goes back to pre 7th ed style of getting knocked down, and then rolling to get back up at the end of the turn. Maybe allow necrons to spend command points to reroll the reanimation for a unit. Big things will have varying levels of it will not die, kind of like the royal blood rules from the FEC. But there are a lot of ways they can do RP and nothing has hinted at it or constrained it like with gauss, so I wouldn't even call the above an educated guess.
I've been mulling this over too. 7th ed besides our toughness, our main feature was that we could potentially hurt everything with our weapons. Now everyone can do that, its interesting where they will go with Gauss.
They said every army will have its own unique playstyle, im wondering if they change ours. I wouldn't mind a tweaked playstyle, but as Grimgold stated, without Gauss we have relatively few and far between high Str weapons capable of reliably dealing with vehicles/high T.
We have a flyer, a vehicle, warscythes, a walker and three FW pylons capable of taking on armour atm (C'tan not included )
Didn't even think about doom scythes, seems they probably have a new lease on life. The death ray is what lascannons in 7th ed want to be when they grow up, s10 ap1 lance small blast. So that probably means a d3 attacks, s10, -3 ap, and a d6 damage. Capable of one shotting a dreadnought on a good roll, that's going to be expensive.
Wonder what the lance rule will do, maybe make it so you always wound on a 4+ or your normal value whichever is less. sorry for the tangent just got me thinking.
Possibly a -1 on the wound chart for gauss e.g. toughness x2 so 6+ required becomes a 5+ to wound and reduced battleshock (leadership failure) casualties? Say roll 1d6 as opposed to 2d6 to represent RP?
In shadow War Armageddon, Gauss allows the re rolling of failed to wound hits. Might be beneficial in 8th edition 40k, as it will help against everything rather than the big guys.
Another possibility is Gauss doing mortal wounds on a 6, might make it feel that Gauss is super deadly?
2 wounds on a roll of six is an interesting idea, against a dreadnought:
(2/3 * 1/6 * 1/3) + 2(2/3 * 1/6 * 1/3)
1/27 + 2/27 = 1/9
so 11% of shots will inflict a wound, so 9 shots to a wound, 72 shots to kill a dread, which is spot on with 7th ed after accounting for wound inflation.
Things can get weird against single wound models, If you roll a save per wound, you greatly reduce the chance their armor will save them, against a space marine it goes from a 66% chance of surviving a Gauss shot to a 44% chance. So you would have to separate those attacks from the main pool and roll saves on a per model basis. If this is the way we save, I would think we'd do something else for gauss.
If you roll an armor save per hit then it doesn't make a difference, dead is dead whether the single wound target took one wound or two.
A mortal wound on a roll of six is the most potent of the suggestions and basically replaces shred with rending. Against a dread:
(2/3 * 1/6 * 1/3) + (2/3 * 1/6) = 4/27 or a 15% chance per hit to inflict a wound so 7 shots to a wound, for 56 shots to kill a dread.
Out of the suggestions in this thread, I think a 6 doing an extra wound is probably the best of them, as it gets us the closest to 7th ed gauss rules. It can also be applied to all Gauss weapons, including the heavy gauss cannon which should do a D6 damage because it's a las cannon equivalent.
Looking at Gauss from a fluff perspective, it strips the molecules off of its target. That could be represented by AP -1. Gauss cannons could be AP -2 and Heavy gauss cannons are likely to be just like Lascannons And/Or Gauss could cause a Mortal Wound for every to wound roll of 6.
RP is likely to be similar to how it works not, just an extra save if you fail yours. This could likely just get merged with FnP, if either rule still exists.
Fluff wise Gauss functions like power weapons, disrupting the molecular bonds and then removing chunks of material, which is why they are called flayers because it looks like the target was skinned by the weapon. That's a glancing hit, longer hits or more powerful gauss weapons can bore through material like a power drill, leaving holes where armored ceramite was before. This is why gauss has always been able to mess up vehicles, no material in the universe is strong enough to resist gauss weapons for long. Every necron warrior is armed with a weapon that can kill a titan or chop down a mountain if given enough time.
Which is to say the fluff can justify just about any rules you'd care to throw at it. So the question becomes how to make the rules fit the reality of the army. Necrons don't have mixed weapons and tend to be light on heavy weapons in general, so gauss needs to be a swiss army knife, capable of working on just about any target.
With the increase in effectiveness of heavy weapons, Gauss weapons need a similar increase in effectiveness. Otherwise, you'll see the meta for crons get completely out of whack, If you under tune gauss, warriors and immortals become crap versions of space marines because they can't take heavy weapons. This will lead to the issue marines had in 7th ed, where you took just as many tac marines as you had to and not a single model more. This would completely change Necron armies, instead of being heavy on infantry, they would instead load up on vehicles, canoptek and flyers.
Since their stated goal was to keep armies playing the same in general even if specific things changed, that means there has to be some kind of benefit for gauss.
Fluff wise Gauss functions like power weapons, disrupting the molecular bonds and then removing chunks of material, which is why they are called flayers because it looks like the target was skinned by the weapon. That's a glancing hit, longer hits or more powerful gauss weapons can bore through material like a power drill, leaving holes where armored ceramite was before. This is why gauss has always been able to mess up vehicles, no material in the universe is strong enough to resist gauss weapons for long. Every necron warrior is armed with a weapon that can kill a titan or chop down a mountain if given enough time.
Which is to say the fluff can justify just about any rules you'd care to throw at it. So the question becomes how to make the rules fit the reality of the army. Necrons don't have mixed weapons and tend to be light on heavy weapons in general, so gauss needs to be a swiss army knife, capable of working on just about any target.
With the increase in effectiveness of heavy weapons, Gauss weapons need a similar increase in effectiveness. Otherwise, you'll see the meta for crons get completely out of whack, If you under tune gauss, warriors and immortals become crap versions of space marines because they can't take heavy weapons. This will lead to the issue marines had in 7th ed, where you took just as many tac marines as you had to and not a single model more. This would completely change Necron armies, instead of being heavy on infantry, they would instead load up on vehicles, canoptek and flyers.
Since their stated goal was to keep armies playing the same in general even if specific things changed, that means there has to be some kind of benefit for gauss
.
This is why I think that even the most basic Gauss weapon should be AP -1. Cannons and Heavy cannons should then be AP -2/-3 respectively. Combine with the new To-wound chart allowing even Flayers to wound Dreads on 5+, I do not see Necrons being in a bad spot.
Maybe make Blasters & Cannons Assault 3 to compensate for not having as many D3 or D6 damage weapons.
Tesla, however, could do D3 damage instead of extra hits.
Fluff wise Gauss functions like power weapons, disrupting the molecular bonds and then removing chunks of material, which is why they are called flayers because it looks like the target was skinned by the weapon. That's a glancing hit, longer hits or more powerful gauss weapons can bore through material like a power drill, leaving holes where armored ceramite was before. This is why gauss has always been able to mess up vehicles, no material in the universe is strong enough to resist gauss weapons for long. Every necron warrior is armed with a weapon that can kill a titan or chop down a mountain if given enough time.
Which is to say the fluff can justify just about any rules you'd care to throw at it. So the question becomes how to make the rules fit the reality of the army. Necrons don't have mixed weapons and tend to be light on heavy weapons in general, so gauss needs to be a swiss army knife, capable of working on just about any target.
With the increase in effectiveness of heavy weapons, Gauss weapons need a similar increase in effectiveness. Otherwise, you'll see the meta for crons get completely out of whack, If you under tune gauss, warriors and immortals become crap versions of space marines because they can't take heavy weapons. This will lead to the issue marines had in 7th ed, where you took just as many tac marines as you had to and not a single model more. This would completely change Necron armies, instead of being heavy on infantry, they would instead load up on vehicles, canoptek and flyers.
Since their stated goal was to keep armies playing the same in general even if specific things changed, that means there has to be some kind of benefit for gauss
.
This is why I think that even the most basic Gauss weapon should be AP -1. Cannons and Heavy cannons should then be AP -2/-3 respectively. Combine with the new To-wound chart allowing even Flayers to wound Dreads on 5+, I do not see Necrons being in a bad spot.
Maybe make Blasters & Cannons Assault 3 to compensate for not having as many D3 or D6 damage weapons.
Tesla, however, could do D3 damage instead of extra hits.
-
It fits fluffwise, but if you've ever seen AoS armies with a lot of rend (like certain FEC builds), that can get really nasty really fast. I wouldn't necessarily complain, but it'll probably be more along the lines of "6s to wound are treated as having an additional -1 rend. Rend - becomes rend -1, rend -1 becomes rend -2, etc. It's the same basic idea, but probably a little more balanced. As far as Tesla goes, I still expect it to add extra hit rolls.
Theres no point making Gauss have extra armour shred, because that's just upping the lethality against every target...unless that's what you want to do.
The simplest way to have it match up with 7th ed utility for vehicle hunting would be to have unsaved Gauss wound rolls of 6 cause D6 damage.
No extra performance against single would models, but instead of average 6 '6' glances taking out a 3HP Leman Russ after a 4+ cover save in the last ed, it's more like 9 '6' wound rolls after it's 3+ save, more if it's armour is improved by cover.
Halfpast_Yellow wrote: Theres no point making Gauss have extra armour shred, because that's just upping the lethality against every target...unless that's what you want to do.
The simplest way to have it match up with 7th ed utility for vehicle hunting would be to have unsaved Gauss wound rolls of 6 cause D6 damage.
No extra performance against single would models, but instead of average 6 '6' glances taking out a 3HP Leman Russ after a 4+ cover save in the last ed, it's more like 9 '6' wound rolls after it's 3+ save, more if it's armour is improved by cover.
an extra d6 damage? that sounds a little excessive, you're suddenly turning necron gauss weapons into "potentially a las canon"
Well they up-scaled the amount of wounds that vehicles have, if we are to retain some of our abilities to shoot vehicles dead, increasing damage seems to be the natural way
Its hard to speculate here.
I want Necrons to be competitive as much as possible.
Not sure if we see a shift in the meta. Monolith playable? MCs and vehicles more viable? How about our infantry and weapons?
Halfpast_Yellow wrote: Theres no point making Gauss have extra armour shred, because that's just upping the lethality against every target...unless that's what you want to do.
The simplest way to have it match up with 7th ed utility for vehicle hunting would be to have unsaved Gauss wound rolls of 6 cause D6 damage.
No extra performance against single would models, but instead of average 6 '6' glances taking out a 3HP Leman Russ after a 4+ cover save in the last ed, it's more like 9 '6' wound rolls after it's 3+ save, more if it's armour is improved by cover.
an extra d6 damage? that sounds a little excessive, you're suddenly turning necron gauss weapons into "potentially a las canon"
On a roll of 6 to wound, yeah. You're still behind the 8-ball compared to where you were in 7th ed with 6 = glance mechanic and most vehicles having 3 HP. You have to deal with a large amount of wounds and high armour saves.
It just sounds like a lot because you haven't really internalised the scale of the new amount of wounds and high saving throws vehicles get in 8th.
torblind wrote: Well they up-scaled the amount of wounds that vehicles have, if we are to retain some of our abilities to shoot vehicles dead, increasing damage seems to be the natural way
Maybe they'll be like Scourge from Dropzone, and gauss weapons deal 2 damage base.
That sort of makes them deadly like before.
Not as deadly as a lascannon, but deadlier than most other small arms.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
wuestenfux wrote: Its hard to speculate here.
I want Necrons to be competitive as much as possible.
Not sure if we see a shift in the meta. Monolith playable? MCs and vehicles more viable? How about our infantry and weapons?
Monoliths might be playable, since vehicles are getting a bunch of wounds overall.
LRBTs for example, will be T8 with 12 wounds and a 3+ save. Expect the monolith to have a similar (if not greater) statline.
No idea about infantry and weapons. Hopefully there will be a faction focus soon.
torblind wrote: Well they up-scaled the amount of wounds that vehicles have, if we are to retain some of our abilities to shoot vehicles dead, increasing damage seems to be the natural way
Maybe they'll be like Scourge from Dropzone, and gauss weapons deal 2 damage base.
That sort of makes them deadly like before.
Not as deadly as a lascannon, but deadlier than most other small arms.
well vehicles have save now, probably in the 2+/3+ range, that makes it hard to get back to where we could shoot a vehicle dead if we conjure up 3-4 6's. If wound count is Hull-points x3/x2, and vehicles save 2 out of 3 wounding shots, then some adjustment needs to 9-fold increase the damage output of gauss weaponry to correctly represent where we were. To account for cover saves in 7th, perhaps 5-fold would suffice. Even D6 damage (giving 3.5) isn't helping there. Perhaps a combination of save modifier on vehicles and damage output could do it.
I don't think that doing additional damage on a '6' to wound roll is a very good idea (for balance) in a system in which 6s wound any target.
Imagine if Flayers are str4 and get AP -1 on a 6. Any T8+ target they would will always be AP -1, because the only successful 'to wound' is a 6. That skews their preferred target, don't you thing?
If Gauss, Rending and Bladestorm all have this mechanic, than mass buckets of dice would be superior than bringing any "quality' weapons. I think GW should shy away from this. it also goes against so many changes they are making to stream-line the game.
I am not saying it is that difficult to separate your 6s from other rolls, just the changes we have seen so far seem to what to limit this kind of variance.
Maybe instead of only on a six, it would be if you simply wounded. That way you would still want to go after the weapon's intended target in order to proc the special effect.
Galef wrote: I don't think that doing additional damage on a '6' to wound roll is a very good idea (for balance) in a system in which 6s wound any target.
Imagine if Flayers are str4 and get AP -1 on a 6. Any T8+ target they would will always be AP -1, because the only successful 'to wound' is a 6. That skews their preferred target, don't you thing?
If Gauss, Rending and Bladestorm all have this mechanic, than mass buckets of dice would be superior than bringing any "quality' weapons. I think GW should shy away from this. it also goes against so many changes they are making to stream-line the game.
I am not saying it is that difficult to separate your 6s from other rolls, just the changes we have seen so far seem to what to limit this kind of variance.
-
I agree with the last part. I don't like the mechanic. But I don't think we're getting away from it either. I think it's likely to be in. As to the first point(s): I think it's a reasonable representation of what the rule accomplished in 7th edition. It gives Gauss weapon a superior chance to hurt high toughness targets. Since anything wounds anything, it seems logical to make Necrons just a little better at it.
That's probably the blade storm and or rending mechanic, Gauss has a different function entirely.
Well vehicles have a save now which is also an entirely different mechanic.
-1 extra rend on sixes will not make much of a difference when using gauss flayers and gauss blasters.
Always -1 extra rend on vehicles might be a solution to put it more inline with previous results on vehicles.
-1 rend would give the heavy gauss canon a nice buff, which it needs since it was a poor mans lascannon before (due to its limited range).
If you wound vehicles on 5+ (flayers, blasters) and the vehicle gets a 4+ save instead of 3+, then you are inline with 7th edition where you glanced on 6+.
However if you take into account that the vehicles have many more wounds it will still be 2-4 times worse than 7th.
To put flayers and blaster equal to 7th they would need to have -1 rend and do D4 wounds against vehicles.
This will not happen since cannons and heavy cannons would be OP. Gauss weapons will most likely be nerfed compared to previous edition.
Don't get me wrong, abilities that trigger on a '6' are fine, just not on the basic weaponry that everything in an army can take. That's why bladestorm in 7e is so powerful. Its only balancing point was that it did nothing against vehicles.
In a system in which everything has Wounds, that balance point goes out the window. That's why I hope that Shuriken weapons are a simple AP -1, but lower Str on each weapon.
For Guass, I think AP -1 could work too, even if it makes the 2 similar. The str values, range, and type can dictate the more eccentric differences
A dark eldar character just got damage+2 and armor-3 on 6'es, just what necrons need to to still be a real threat to vehicles like in 7th! Ie they could now glance to death most vehicles on 4-5 6'es
Gauss was to give the chance for the Troops to damage Vehicles, and then grew to Wound anything, it had nothing to do with AP. Since anything can already Wound everything, the only modification that fits that structure is that you get to add +1 on your To Wound Rolls.
RP may be a little harder. The only considerations I can think of is like now or reducing your opponent's To Wound Roll. Of course, the 5th Edition could be used, but it was a lot more clunky (if more accurate).
Galef wrote: Don't get me wrong, abilities that trigger on a '6' are fine, just not on the basic weaponry that everything in an army can take. That's why bladestorm in 7e is so powerful. Its only balancing point was that it did nothing against vehicles.
In a system in which everything has Wounds, that balance point goes out the window. That's why I hope that Shuriken weapons are a simple AP -1, but lower Str on each weapon.
For Guass, I think AP -1 could work too, even if it makes the 2 similar. The str values, range, and type can dictate the more eccentric differences
-
Bladestorm was fine as a rule. The issue came from units that were priced better than other codex equivalents.
Well, vehicles (most) didn't have saves, now they seem to do, that certainly alters the effect of wounding on 6, armor modifier or ridiculous damage increase seems necessary to compensate
Charistoph wrote: Gauss was to give the chance for the Troops to damage Vehicles, and then grew to Wound anything, it had nothing to do with AP. Since anything can already Wound everything, the only modification that fits that structure is that you get to add +1 on your To Wound Rolls.
RP may be a little harder. The only considerations I can think of is like now or reducing your opponent's To Wound Roll. Of course, the 5th Edition could be used, but it was a lot more clunky (if more accurate).
You misunderstand what gauss is for, it's not so that Necrons can hurt vehicles, though that is one of its effects, it's to make up for the fact that Necrons don't have mixed weapon types in our units. A 1 in 6 chance to glance a vehicle was a roundabout/random way of giving 1 in 6 warriors a special weapon. With the changes to the durability of large units, gauss has to change as well. Also, we are guessing since we are past the point where we could make suggestions, and have some faith in GW that they didn't bone us.
Thus all of the guesses are around making massed gauss fire dangerous to anything, so we end up with guesses like mortal wounds on 6, rerolling failed to wounds, or doing multiple wounds on 6s.
I just thought of another way Gauss could be representing in 8E: 6s to wound count as Damage +1.
So if Flayers are D:1, a 6 makes it D:2
If heavy Gauss cannons are D: d6, a 6 to wound will be d6+1
This would be a nice dynamic between Tesla and Guass. Tesla gets 2 extra hits on a 6 to hit, Guass gets extra Damage on a 6 to wound.
it would also make them more relevant against vehicles as they are now since they'll need 5s & 6s to wound most vehicles, so most successful to-wound will cause extra damage
Galef wrote: I just thought of another way Gauss could be representing in 8E: 6s to wound count as Damage +1.
So if Flayers are D:1, a 6 makes it D:2
If heavy Gauss cannons are D: d6, a 6 to wound will be d6+1
This would be a nice dynamic between Tesla and Guass. Tesla gets 2 extra hits on a 6 to hit, Guass gets extra Damage on a 6 to wound.
it would also make them more relevant against vehicles as they are now since they'll need 5s & 6s to wound most vehicles, so most successful to-wound will cause extra damage
Charistoph wrote: Gauss was to give the chance for the Troops to damage Vehicles, and then grew to Wound anything, it had nothing to do with AP. Since anything can already Wound everything, the only modification that fits that structure is that you get to add +1 on your To Wound Rolls.
You misunderstand what gauss is for, it's not so that Necrons can hurt vehicles, though that is one of its effects, it's to make up for the fact that Necrons don't have mixed weapon types in our units. A 1 in 6 chance to glance a vehicle was a roundabout/random way of giving 1 in 6 warriors a special weapon. With the changes to the durability of large units, gauss has to change as well. Also, we are guessing since we are past the point where we could make suggestions, and have some faith in GW that they didn't bone us.
I did not misunderstand it. That is the only thing Gauss did in the 3rd and 5th Edition codices. It allowed any Gauss Weapon to automatically Glance a Vehicle on a roll of 6, no matter the Armour Value or Str of the Weapon. When it was first introduced, Gauss was the most prevalent Weapon system of the Necrons, and the only ranged one outside of HQs and Heavy Support. The only Weapons that could harm any Vehicle in that codex without Gauss were the Heavy Destroyer's Gauss Cannon (a LasCannon by another name) and the Particle Whip. The 7th Edition codex changed Gauss so it to also automatically Wound on a 6+. And you are pretty much giving the same reason I gave.
Galef wrote:I just thought of another way Gauss could be representing in 8E: 6s to wound count as Damage +1.
So if Flayers are D:1, a 6 makes it D:2
If heavy Gauss cannons are D: d6, a 6 to wound will be d6+1
This would be a nice dynamic between Tesla and Guass. Tesla gets 2 extra hits on a 6 to hit, Guass gets extra Damage on a 6 to wound.
it would also make them more relevant against vehicles as they are now since they'll need 5s & 6s to wound most vehicles, so most successful to-wound will cause extra damage
Interesting, even if some of it is repeated. It definitely has possibilities. I do think that the set number of hits on a 6 was ever a good idea.
I don't think I have ever had any real benefit of wounding anything on a 6 in 7th with gauss, anything with T8 or higher most certainly has a 2+ or 3+ save, probably also FNP.
Glancing on a 6 most certainly is the only real value of gauss currently.
If all vehicles have 3+ saves as standard, we certainly should have some armor save shenanigans on a 6, in addition to a small increase in dmg output.
Not having to hide from the new lesser races inferior technology, such as armored vehicles, certainly is a key element to playing necrons.
With our short range but resilient units, we have to be able march on, and expect 10 warriors in rapid fire range to be a real threat to vehicles. With a mere +1 dmg on 5s/6s but still allowing them 3+ saves, we aren't that big of a threat to 12-15 wounds.
I actually believe GW will deliver for necrons, but I'm very excited to see what it will be.
Galef wrote: I just thought of another way Gauss could be representing in 8E: 6s to wound count as Damage +1.
So if Flayers are D:1, a 6 makes it D:2
If heavy Gauss cannons are D: d6, a 6 to wound will be d6+1
This would be a nice dynamic between Tesla and Guass. Tesla gets 2 extra hits on a 6 to hit, Guass gets extra Damage on a 6 to wound.
it would also make them more relevant against vehicles as they are now since they'll need 5s & 6s to wound most vehicles, so most successful to-wound will cause extra damage
-
I said that on page 1.
Indeed you did, my apologies, Doc. I didn't remember that, despite clearly responding to it immediately after you. I think I may not have had my head completely around it at first.
The Faction focus for Dark Eldar gives the profile for Disintegrators as 3 shot AP -3, Damage:2. We hadn't seen a Damage 2 weapon up til now, just 1, D3 and D6
If a stock weapon on a faction's most common vehicle can have Damage 2, why not have Gauss do it on a 6 to wound?
With our short range but resilient units, we have to be able march on, and expect 10 warriors in rapid fire range to be a real threat to vehicles. With a mere +1 dmg on 5s/6s but still allowing them 3+ saves, we aren't that big of a threat to 12-15 wounds.
Good point, but remember that Flayers are not the only Gauss weapons out there. Gauss blasters will certainly have AP -1, Cannons AP -2 and Heavy Cannons AP -3 with D6 damage.
Having a mixed list in 8E will be way better than one in 7E.
Galef wrote: I just thought of another way Gauss could be representing in 8E: 6s to wound count as Damage +1.
So if Flayers are D:1, a 6 makes it D:2
If heavy Gauss cannons are D: d6, a 6 to wound will be d6+1
This would be a nice dynamic between Tesla and Guass. Tesla gets 2 extra hits on a 6 to hit, Guass gets extra Damage on a 6 to wound.
it would also make them more relevant against vehicles as they are now since they'll need 5s & 6s to wound most vehicles, so most successful to-wound will cause extra damage
-
I said that on page 1.
Indeed you did, my apologies, Doc. I didn't remember that, despite clearly responding to it immediately after you. I think I may not have had my head completely around it at first.
The Faction focus for Dark Eldar gives the profile for Disintegrators as 3 shot AP -3, Damage:2. We hadn't seen a Damage 2 weapon up til now, just 1, D3 and D6
If a stock weapon on a faction's most common vehicle can have Damage 2, why not have Gauss do it on a 6 to wound?
-
No problem at all. I see no reason why this wouldn't perfectly represent Gauss's ability to strip its targets away at the molecular level. Harder for vehicles, monsters and tough characters to survive. it.
torblind wrote: I don't think I have ever had any real benefit of wounding anything on a 6 in 7th with gauss, anything with T8 or higher most certainly has a 2+ or 3+ save, probably also FNP.
Glancing on a 6 most certainly is the only real value of gauss currently.
If all vehicles have 3+ saves as standard, we certainly should have some armor save shenanigans on a 6, in addition to a small increase in dmg output.
Not having to hide from the new lesser races inferior technology, such as armored vehicles, certainly is a key element to playing necrons.
With our short range but resilient units, we have to be able march on, and expect 10 warriors in rapid fire range to be a real threat to vehicles. With a mere +1 dmg on 5s/6s but still allowing them 3+ saves, we aren't that big of a threat to 12-15 wounds.
I actually believe GW will deliver for necrons, but I'm very excited to see what it will be.
That's why I'm kind of expecting 6s to cause mortal wounds. That way we could bypass those 2+ and 3+ saves.
torblind wrote: I don't think I have ever had any real benefit of wounding anything on a 6 in 7th with gauss, anything with T8 or higher most certainly has a 2+ or 3+ save, probably also FNP.
Glancing on a 6 most certainly is the only real value of gauss currently.
If all vehicles have 3+ saves as standard, we certainly should have some armor save shenanigans on a 6, in addition to a small increase in dmg output.
Not having to hide from the new lesser races inferior technology, such as armored vehicles, certainly is a key element to playing necrons.
With our short range but resilient units, we have to be able march on, and expect 10 warriors in rapid fire range to be a real threat to vehicles. With a mere +1 dmg on 5s/6s but still allowing them 3+ saves, we aren't that big of a threat to 12-15 wounds.
I actually believe GW will deliver for necrons, but I'm very excited to see what it will be.
That's why I'm kind of expecting 6s to cause mortal wounds. That way we could bypass those 2+ and 3+ saves.
torblind wrote: I don't think I have ever had any real benefit of wounding anything on a 6 in 7th with gauss, anything with T8 or higher most certainly has a 2+ or 3+ save, probably also FNP.
Glancing on a 6 most certainly is the only real value of gauss currently.
If all vehicles have 3+ saves as standard, we certainly should have some armor save shenanigans on a 6, in addition to a small increase in dmg output.
Not having to hide from the new lesser races inferior technology, such as armored vehicles, certainly is a key element to playing necrons.
With our short range but resilient units, we have to be able march on, and expect 10 warriors in rapid fire range to be a real threat to vehicles. With a mere +1 dmg on 5s/6s but still allowing them 3+ saves, we aren't that big of a threat to 12-15 wounds.
I actually believe GW will deliver for necrons, but I'm very excited to see what it will be.
That's why I'm kind of expecting 6s to cause mortal wounds. That way we could bypass those 2+ and 3+ saves.
That seems very overpowered.
Indeed, that would be a bit much. The more I think of it, the more I think Doc's idea of being Damage 2 (or +1) on a 6 to wound will be pretty close to what Gauss will be.
Mortal wounds on 6s might be the fluffiest answer, but it seems too effective against troops and changes they way Necrons play. So far as we've seen The philosophy of the new edition is that they can change mechanics but gameplay should be left intact where it can be.
The issue with 2 wounds on sixes is it can one shot a lot of what are supposed to be tough infantry, terminators, and Nu-Marines for instance. I doubt they are going to make something that effective against their new cash cow.
My current bet is actually always wound on a 4+, It doesn't matter to infantry who would have been wounded on a 4+ anyway, it does make a difference to vehicles and monstrous creatures with a toughness in the 5+ range.
So going back to the old example of the dreadnought:
2/3 * 1/2 * 1/3 = 1/9
So 1 in 9 shots wounds a dread, at 8 wounds that is 72 shots to kill it. You might also recognize this number from 7th ed:
2/3 * 1/6 = 1/9
Which is 2/3 chance to hit, with 1 in 6 glancing, no save because vehicles didn't get them. So this solution is functionally identical to the gauss rule from 7th ed when shooting at vehicles with a 3+ save (which is all the ones we've seen so far).
torblind wrote: I don't think I have ever had any real benefit of wounding anything on a 6 in 7th with gauss, anything with T8 or higher most certainly has a 2+ or 3+ save, probably also FNP.
Glancing on a 6 most certainly is the only real value of gauss currently.
If all vehicles have 3+ saves as standard, we certainly should have some armor save shenanigans on a 6, in addition to a small increase in dmg output.
Not having to hide from the new lesser races inferior technology, such as armored vehicles, certainly is a key element to playing necrons.
With our short range but resilient units, we have to be able march on, and expect 10 warriors in rapid fire range to be a real threat to vehicles. With a mere +1 dmg on 5s/6s but still allowing them 3+ saves, we aren't that big of a threat to 12-15 wounds.
I actually believe GW will deliver for necrons, but I'm very excited to see what it will be.
That's why I'm kind of expecting 6s to cause mortal wounds. That way we could bypass those 2+ and 3+ saves.
That seems very overpowered.
Indeed, that would be a bit much. The more I think of it, the more I think Doc's idea of being Damage 2 (or +1) on a 6 to wound will be pretty close to what Gauss will be.
Grimgold wrote: Mortal wounds on 6s might be the fluffiest answer, but it seems too effective against troops and changes they way Necrons play. So far as we've seen The philosophy of the new edition is that they can change mechanics but gameplay should be left intact where it can be.
The issue with 2 wounds on sixes is it can one shot a lot of what are supposed to be tough infantry, terminators, and Nu-Marines for instance. I doubt they are going to make something that effective against their new cash cow.
My current bet is actually always wound on a 4+, It doesn't matter to infantry who would have been wounded on a 4+ anyway, it does make a difference to vehicles and monstrous creatures with a toughness in the 5+ range.
So going back to the old example of the dreadnought:
2/3 * 1/2 * 1/3 = 1/9
So 1 in 9 shots wounds a dread, at 8 wounds that is 72 shots to kill it. You might also recognize this number from 7th ed:
2/3 * 1/6 = 1/9
Which is 2/3 chance to hit, with 1 in 6 glancing, no save because vehicles didn't get them. So this solution is functionally identical to the gauss rule from 7th ed when shooting at vehicles with a 3+ save (which is all the ones we've seen so far).
You know, that actually works really well, and it's also pretty fluffy.
A dark eldar character just got damage+2 and armor-3 on 6'es, just what necrons need to to still be a real threat to vehicles like in 7th! Ie they could now glance to death most vehicles on 4-5 6'es
actually rhe AP -3 is all the time (jesus the dark eldar are gonna be cutting apart marines) the leader of the incubi only gets +2 dmg on a 6. which yes I could see being how gauss weapons work
RP is harder to guess than gauss, whereas with Gauss we have lots of examples of weapons and targets and can math our way to an approximate solution, We haven't seen any kind of secondary save like repair protocols or FnP. We also know the top armies are being adjusted (the T'au caught several nerfs as did daemons), so I would expect any balancing happening with Necrons to be in this area. Though I also expect Necron nerfs to be mild since Necron decurion was the biggest area of complaint about balance, and that's gone in 8th ed. My first hunch is to not overthink this, Necrons have had a system that has worked for quite a few editions, so we will probably only need some mild tweaks.
Repair Protocols(X): When a model with the Repair protocols rule takes it's final wound place the model on its side, at the end of the current turn roll a die for each of these models, on a 5+ they get back up with X number of wounds, up to their maximum starting wounds. When a model with repair protocol and multiple wounds is at less than maximum wounds at the end of a round, it may make a 5+ repair protocol roll, on a successful roll they heal X wounds up to their starting wound amount.
Warriors and immortals will have Repair Protocols (1), and Nobel frames (Lords, Overlords, Lychguard, and Praetorians), Crpyteks, and Destroyers will have Repair Protocols(2). Nobel frames will also have two base wounds. Orbs give +1 to repair protocols X value (max of +1), and crpyteks give a +1 to the roll, and the orb of eternity does both.
Necron overlords will have a unique command ability, they can spend a CP to allow models within 12" to reroll ones on repair protocol rolls, this must be decided before any repair protocols rolls are made for the turn.
Tomb spiders will no longer summon new scarabs, and will instead just replace losses similar to how ghost arks function in 7th ed, but no longer risk taking wounds to do so. Tomb spiders can sacrifice their shooting action to give a nearby (3") Necron structure or vehicle repair protocols(3) for the turn.
Grimgold wrote: Repair Protocols(X): When a model with the Repair protocols rule takes it's final wound place the model on its side, at the end of the current turn roll a die for each of these models, on a 5+ they get back up with X number of wounds, up to their maximum starting wounds. When a model with repair protocol and multiple wounds is at less than maximum wounds at the end of a round, it may make a 5+ repair protocol roll, on a successful roll they heal X wounds up to their starting wound amount.
If they are trying to keep things simple, I seriously doubt we will be going back to the 3rd/5th Edition mechanics. I honestly think we'll be looking at them having either the second Save or they will be reducing the opponent's To Wound Roll. I could be wrong here, but I seriously doubt we'll be regressing on this one like this.
Grimgold wrote: Necron overlords will have a unique command ability, they can spend a CP to allow models within 12" to reroll ones on repair protocol rolls, this must be decided before any repair protocols rolls are made for the turn.
Honestly, I would rather see this tied to Crypteks than Overlords. But unless Crypteks can come with more than 1 model per slot, a lot of people are going to be hurting finding room for their Lords (if they stick around) as well as their Crypteks. Of course, allowing it for Crypteks would mean that they don't have access to other abilities like the 5th Edition Crypteks did. At this point, though, we don't know which kind of Noble Necrons we will be seeing here.
Grimgold wrote: Tomb spyders will no longer summon new scarabs, and will instead just replace losses similar to how ghost arks function in 7th ed, but no longer risk taking wounds to do so. Tomb spyders can sacrifice their shooting action to give a nearby (3") Necron structure or vehicle repair protocols(3) for the turn.
Quite probably. This follows a more simplified method and not having to track as much.
be intreasting to see how repair stuff works, as in addition to necrons you have the rhino track repair system (me I'd just make the rhino have one of the most forgiving "damage effectiveness loss" charts in the game)
I know certain things in AoS have ways of ignoring Mortal Wounds (Plaguebearers, Warriors of chaos with shields), so it wouldn't surprise me if necrons had something similar to that.
I think we know what's going on with Repair protocols now, between disgustingly resilient and and the painboyz aura secondary saves didn't go away for the edition change. So repair protocols are very likely going to stay the same in 8th ed, a secondary save taken per wound, with a 5+ able to go down to a 4+ near a crpytek. To balance out instant death no longer giving a -1, you instead have to make a save vs each wound, which makes surviving things like a lascannon much less likely, instead of being 1 in 3 it's now 1 in 8 that a RP saves a warrior from heavy weapons.
Still no hint on gauss, but I think always wounding on a 4+ is still the most mathematically sound approach. Then again I thought getting rid of secondary saves was the most mathematically sound approach so maybe they are playing off of a different sheet of music.
From a thread on reddit, leaks translated from Italian, probably the same guy who leaked the pricing info.
Necrons:
Reanimation protocols are made at the start of your movement phase. Roll a D6 for every slain model, on a 5+ it comes back. You can roll again in the following turns. You cannot roll if the whole unit is slain.
Can't keep a good Necron down, or a bad one. I like it actually, differentiates repair protocols nicely from disgustingly resilient.
Living metal allows for automatically regaining lost wounds
No surprises here.
Basic Gauss is 24" Rapid Fire Ap-2, Gauss Cannon is Ap-3 DmgD3
This is the one that makes me pause, awesome if true, but man the marine tears we will harvest will fill an ocean.
Discipline 10
Leadership 10, so big units are possible, again no surprises here.
Warriors cost unchanged form 7th
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Monolith M6" W20 S8 T8 Save3+, Gauss Flux Arc Heavy 3 S5 Ap-2, Whip Heavy 6 S8 Ap-2 DmgD6. When it gets charged, roll on a D6 and if 4+ (or worse, depending on wounds lost) charging unit gets D6 mortal wounds.
More wounds than a land raider, heals wounds every round, but a 3+ save vs the land raiders 2+. Most amusing, can land on people charging it for mortal wounds.
On the fence, the gauss change comes out of left field, but the rest of it seems plausible by the standard of other leaks and faction focus. what do you guys think?
Reanimation protocols are made at the start of your movement phase. Roll a D6 for every slain model, on a 5+ it comes back. You can roll again in the following turns. You cannot roll if the whole unit is slain.
Can't keep a good Necron down, or a bad one. I like it actually, differentiates repair protocols nicely from disgustingly resilient.
So, back to 3rd/5th version, but continues to happen rather than just right after the Wounds are taken. Very very mean. I wonder if the Eternity Gate will allow for an additional roll...
I imagine the ap -2 is for flayer/blaster (s4/s5 respectively), The cannon which is wielded by destroyers is s5 ap-3 d3 damage, and the heavy Gauss cannon is basically a half range las cannon.
Well if those leaks are real, Gauss is going to be pretty scary in 20-warrior units (Seriously. 40 shots at -2 Rend would be freaking horrifying in AoS). That RP system sounds pretty nasty, too. And those Monolith stats? Please, please tell me that's real! I may have to pick up another one if so. Now if they could just make a C'tan worth taking . . .
A lot of the Reddit rumours lately have me thinking that they are leaving something out (like AP -2 is only on a '6' to wound).
Similar rumors say that Eldar Warp Spiders have an AP -4 gun. These were previously AP - and on a '6' to wound they became AP2. I really think whoever is leaking the stuff on Reddit is leaving out the '6' to wound part. Either on purpose or isn't reading enough.
Galef wrote: A lot of the Reddit rumours lately have me thinking that they are leaving something out (like AP -2 is only on a '6' to wound).
Similar rumors say that Eldar Warp Spiders have an AP -4 gun. These were previously AP - and on a '6' to wound they became AP2. I really think whoever is leaking the stuff on Reddit is leaving out the '6' to wound part. Either on purpose or isn't reading enough.
That would make way more sense. No "basic" weapon should ever have that kind of rending value.
Both the warp spiders and gauss needed big changes because of fundamental rules shift. No more initiative to wound on, and now all weapons have gauss. I'm not sure if on sixes is required, but I could see it, Our FLGS should be getting their store books this week so we won't have to wait long for confirmation one way or another.
*Edit* Could be incomplete, maybe Gauss gives the weapon an additional -1 rend, so flayer is -1, blaster is -2, cannon is -3, and heavy cannon is -4. That seems less over the top.
That would make way more sense. No "basic" weapon should ever have that kind of rending value.
Yes, it seems a bit too much at 13p a model, but as mentioned by Grimgold it might be for Blasters. Although it wouldn't surprise me. Games might only last for 3 turns in this edition considering all the firepower and movement shenanigans everything seems to have. Perhaps Necrons have Movement 4 and gets high Ap weapons?
If the Monolith rumors are true then atleast Blasters should have Ap-2, if it mirrors the 7th ed weapon stats.
Tomb Blades should be lethal with 4 S5 Ap-2 shots.
If Flayers are Ap-2 Ghost Arks will be amazing.
I'm not sure what stats Tesla weapons need to have to compete with this, but they would need a hefty boost.
Tesla has to get some awesome new rule that gets more shots the larger the units, it's the only way it could compete. Like an extra shot for every five or ten models in the target unit.
Grimgold wrote: Gauss gives the weapon an additional -1 rend, so flayer is -1, blaster is -2, cannon is -3, and heavy cannon is -4. That seems less over the top.
According to the leaked Italian codex, this is exactly what Gauss is. Flayer is Rapid fire 1, S4 AP-1 Blaster is Rapid fire 1, S5, AP -2 Cannon is Heavy 2, S5 AP -3, D3 damage Heavy cannon is Heavy1, S9, AP-4, D6 damage
It appears that GW is using the AP modifier system to represent a wide range of shooting abilities (Rending, Gauss, hopefully Bladestorm), while melee "Rending" is AP -4 still on 6s to wound.
Grimgold wrote: Gauss gives the weapon an additional -1 rend, so flayer is -1, blaster is -2, cannon is -3, and heavy cannon is -4. That seems less over the top.
According to the leaked Italian codex, this is exactly what Gauss is.
Flayer is Rapid fire 1, S4 AP-1
Blaster is Rapid fire 1, S5, AP -2
Cannon is Heavy 2, S5 AP -3, D3 damage
Heavy cannon is Heavy1, S9, AP-4, D6 damage
It appears that GW is using the AP modifier system to represent a wide range of shooting abilities (Rending, Gauss, hopefully Bladestorm), while melee "Rending" is AP -4 still on 6s to wound.
-
Sounds fair.
Gives the small arms a buff against infantry, but a nerf against vehicles.
I will use the normal cannon a lot more with it's -3 and D3 damage.
Think I will use Immortals instead of Warriors if the points stay the same.
Tomb blades will probably still be great if they don't become to expensive. Switching out those magnetized Particle Beamers to Gauss Blasters (pewpewpewpew).
Will have to field Tomb blades in larger squads because of the changes in Reanimation Protocols.
Grimgold wrote: From a thread on reddit, leaks translated from Italian, probably the same guy who leaked the pricing info.
Necrons:
Reanimation protocols are made at the start of your movement phase. Roll a D6 for every slain model, on a 5+ it comes back. You can roll again in the following turns. You cannot roll if the whole unit is slain.
Can't keep a good Necron down, or a bad one. I like it actually, differentiates repair protocols nicely from disgustingly resilient.
I'm curious about how this will work for Characters. Will they just not benefit from Resurrection Protocols? Will they be able to revive even without a unit? Will they be able to revive only if there's a unit nearby?
Actually, since it specifies unit, and since characters are their own unit, I think that implies characters will never be permanently slain and will always stick around on the table, waiting for that 5+ to bring them back.
CthuluIsSpy wrote: Actually, since it specifies unit, and since characters are their own unit, I think that implies characters will never be permanently slain and will always stick around on the table, waiting for that 5+ to bring them back.
Actually, the wording indicates the opposite of that:
"You cannot roll if the whole unit is slain"
Since the character is his own unit, if he dies then the whole unit has been slain. Thus, if they use the same rule, characters will never be allowed to benefit from RPs.
CthuluIsSpy wrote: Actually, since it specifies unit, and since characters are their own unit, I think that implies characters will never be permanently slain and will always stick around on the table, waiting for that 5+ to bring them back.
Actually, the wording indicates the opposite of that:
"You cannot roll if the whole unit is slain"
Since the character is his own unit, if he dies then the whole unit has been slain. Thus, if they use the same rule, characters will never be allowed to benefit from RPs.
Hm, you have a point.
They will most likely have to make an exception, as with the changes to how characters work, RP as it is would be useless on them.
If it works how I think its going to work though, necron characters are going to be really annoying. Like the necron lord in Dark Crusade, who just waits in your base after dying until he's bought again, and then he gets back up and starts wrecking your stuff when you aren't looking.
They will most likely have to make an exception, as with the changes to how characters work, RP as it is would be useless on them.
If it works how I think its going to work though, necron characters are going to be really annoying. Like the necron lord in Dark Crusade, who just waits in your base after dying until he's bought again, and then he gets back up and starts wrecking your stuff when you aren't looking.
I hope you're right. It will be really weird if basic Warriors can revive multiple times but the HQs can't even come back once.
We've seen Necron Character datasheets, and they don't have Reanimation Protocols, just Living Metal. Then, unless Living Metal has some special interaction with characters... they are not coming back.
I thought a big part of 8th was to get rid of paper rock scissors. hopefully without losing the flavor of armies completely (looks at AOS for examples) some thigns just had to go though. I am sure tesla and aguss will still do something cool but they were the paper to vehicles rock (really clay, vehicles were weak to everything) I am hoping guass will effect some keywords and either do double damage to tanks and walker keywords or wound anything on a 5 which would help fix some of their own weaknesses. against MC
Denegaar wrote: We've seen Necron Character datasheets, and they don't have Reanimation Protocols, just Living Metal. Then, unless Living Metal has some special interaction with characters... they are not coming back.
I was just going to point out that they are more likely to have Living Metal because of how RP works.
Denegaar wrote: We've seen Necron Character datasheets, and they don't have Reanimation Protocols, just Living Metal. Then, unless Living Metal has some special interaction with characters... they are not coming back.
Living Metal now automatically heals a wound now, and I believe Imhotek was revealed to heal d3 per turn.
We have the rules in italian, well parts of them anyway. Still powers of the C'Tan, looks like one that inflicts mortal wounds to a single unit it can see, one that gives the C'Tan more attacks, and one that can hit any unit within 24" of the ctan on a 6 and inflicts a mortal wound. Still random, but at least mortal wounds are always useful.
That crazy rumor about quantum shielding is correct, roll a die when you take multiple wounds, and if you roll under the wounds inflicted you ignore the hit.
Staff of light is doing something crazy, it has two profiles, one for within 12" and one for within 24". Within 12 it's the staff of light we all know and love assault 3, str 5, ap -2, outside of 12 inches (or maybe a different firing mode), it's a tesla weapon, assault 3 str 6 0 ap, and on a 6+ appears to do an extra wound, Google translate is my wing man, but part of the entry is missing.
Lords, overlords, and presumably the other independent characters have living metal special rule but not repair protocols. Based on other leaks, We know living metal heals a wound a round, and a phylactery makes that a D3. Res orb allows units within 3" of the bearer to reroll(?) reanimation rolls, not sure on that , there is something about per model in there, and I'm not sure it's expendable.
edit here is an image missing from our leaks thread:
Denegaar wrote: We've seen Necron Character datasheets, and they don't have Reanimation Protocols, just Living Metal. Then, unless Living Metal has some special interaction with characters... they are not coming back.
Oh. Well that really sucks.
Thanks, GW, glad you removed the iconic Necron ability from out HQs.
They gave us automatic D3 wounds IWND on characters (assuming you spring for the phylactery and why wouldn't you), and they are pretty tough in their own right, with a 3+/4++ save, toughness 5, and north of four wounds they are already pretty tough. Add in the 2+ LoS from lychguard, and the inability for anything but snipers to hit them at range and you have a model that will go the distance. If anything I think necron characters might be tougher in this edition than they have ever been.
Grimgold wrote: We have the rules in italian, well parts of them anyway. Still powers of the C'Tan, looks like one that inflicts mortal wounds to a single unit it can see, one that gives the C'Tan more attacks, and one that can hit any unit within 24" of the ctan on a 6 and inflicts a mortal wound. Still random, but at least mortal wounds are always useful.
That crazy rumor about quantum shielding is correct, roll a die when you take multiple wounds, and if you roll under the wounds inflicted you ignore the hit.
Staff of light is doing something crazy, it has two profiles, one for within 12" and one for within 24". Within 12 it's the staff of light we all know and love assault 3, str 5, ap -2, outside of 12 inches (or maybe a different firing mode), it's a tesla weapon, assault 3 str 6 0 ap, and on a 6+ appears to do an extra wound, Google translate is my wing man, but part of the entry is missing.
Lords, overlords, and presumably the other independent characters have living metal special rule but not repair protocols. Based on other leaks, We know living metal heals a wound a round, and a phylactery makes that a D3. Res orb allows units within 3" of the bearer to reroll(?) reanimation rolls, not sure on that , there is something about per model in there, and I'm not sure it's expendable.
edit here is an image missing from our leaks thread:
Interesting, the only thing I think I couldn't make out is the twinlinked gauss blasters for the Tomb blades.
Grimgold wrote: They gave us automatic D3 wounds IWND on characters (assuming you spring for the phylactery and why wouldn't you)
Which is completely irrelevant if your overlord is dead.
Grimgold wrote: and they are pretty tough in their own right, with a 3+/4++ save, toughness 5, and north of four wounds they are already pretty tough.
No, they're really not. That 3+ save will be much worse against most weapons, the 4++ save is outright ignored by any Mortal Wounds, any anything that does Multiple Wounds only needs to get one or two of those past your save and your Overlord is gone for good.
Grimgold wrote: Add in the 2+ LoS from lychguard, and the inability for anything but snipers to hit them at range and you have a model that will go the distance.
And not do anything. Because Necron characters are worthless outside of combat. And once you get into combat, your Overlord has nothing to hide behind.
Grimgold wrote: If anything I think necron characters might be tougher in this edition than they have ever been.
Everything we've seen thus far points to the opposite.
Grimgold wrote: We have the rules in italian, well parts of them anyway. Still powers of the C'Tan, looks like one that inflicts mortal wounds to a single unit it can see, one that gives the C'Tan more attacks, and one that can hit any unit within 24" of the ctan on a 6 and inflicts a mortal wound. Still random, but at least mortal wounds are always useful.
That crazy rumor about quantum shielding is correct, roll a die when you take multiple wounds, and if you roll under the wounds inflicted you ignore the hit.
Staff of light is doing something crazy, it has two profiles, one for within 12" and one for within 24". Within 12 it's the staff of light we all know and love assault 3, str 5, ap -2, outside of 12 inches (or maybe a different firing mode), it's a tesla weapon, assault 3 str 6 0 ap, and on a 6+ appears to do an extra wound, Google translate is my wing man, but part of the entry is missing.
Lords, overlords, and presumably the other independent characters have living metal special rule but not repair protocols. Based on other leaks, We know living metal heals a wound a round, and a phylactery makes that a D3. Res orb allows units within 3" of the bearer to reroll(?) reanimation rolls, not sure on that , there is something about per model in there, and I'm not sure it's expendable.
edit here is an image missing from our leaks thread:
Interesting, the only thing I think I couldn't make out is the twinlinked gauss blasters for the Tomb blades.
I guess they're going to be Cadenza Rapida 2 S5 AP-2 dmg 1 then
torblind wrote: Could lychguard 2+ LoS even if either unit is in CC?
Last I heard, that only works against shooting.
Though either way, I don't see how this is a point in favour of the overlord's suitability when the main argument appears to involve him needing other units to take hits for him.
Which is completely irrelevant if your overlord is dead.
Did 7th ed hide a come back from the dead mechanic I missed, because it was my understanding if you lost your last wound you were out. So yeah, not sure what your point is.
vipoid wrote: No, they're really not. That 3+ save will be much worse against most weapons, the 4++ save is outright ignored by any Mortal Wounds, any anything that does Multiple Wounds only needs to get one or two of those past your save and your Overlord is gone for good.
it's a 3+ or at worst a 4++, considering how many ap 3 weapons were out there it's not much changed aside from having double wounds. Also no one else recovers from mortal wounds, so I'd say we are the strongest in that regard.
vipoid wrote: And not do anything. Because Necron characters are worthless outside of combat. And once you get into combat, your Overlord has nothing to hide behind.
Necron characters buff nearby necron units and depending on cofiguration can do decent in ranged or CC, and LoS works in CC.
vipoid wrote: Everything we've seen thus far points to the opposite.
Lets just do some quick math, to show you how far off base you are I'll assume no look out sir, and that he is standing out in the middle of a field with his codpiece flapping in the breeze:
Bolters 7th ed: 2/3 * 1/3 * 1/3 * 2/3 = .05 means 3/.05 or 60 bolter shots to down a lord
Bolters 8th ed: 2/3 * 1/3 * 1/3 = .07 means 6/..07 or 86 bolter shots to down an overlord
Reaper chain sword 7th ed: (1/2 * 2/3 * 1/2 * 3) + (1/2 * 1/6 * 3) = .75 or 1.3 reaper chainsword attacks to kill an overlord
Reaper chain sword 8th ed: 2/3 * 2/3 * 1/2 = 2/9 = .22 or about 4.5 reaper chainsword swings to kill an overlord
In the worst case for him he gets caught by an opponent who wants to lascannon him to death: 7th ed 2/3 * 5/6 * 1/2 * 2/3 = .19 so about 15.78 las cannons shots to kill him
8th ed 2/3 * 2/3 * 1/2 * 3.5 = .77 so 6/.77 so 7.8 lascannon shots to kill him
An overlord is already tougher in 8th ed before the living metal special rule, with the living metal special rule he will be a monster.
*edit* forgot three wounds in lascannon comparison, updated, but I think we can chalk that one up to lascannons being worth taking now.
The troops are teleported away for repair and then returned to the battle. The characters on the other hand have more advanced bodies that can selfrepair like the T1000.
Will it be as good as the 4+ RP from 7th?
For the troops it will in some instances.
For the characters it's worse, but they may have other benefits.
I'm already planning a mass blob of 3 20 man squads of warriors backed up with a ghost ark each.
Expensive, but the sheer troll factor and disgusting luck will HORRIFY ANY OPPONENT. Imagine the face of an opponent who looks smug at taking out 12 warriors. And you bring back 10 of them the next turn.
Trolltastic. Just pure, undiluted trolling from the kings of dick moves themselves!
Which is completely irrelevant if your overlord is dead.
Did 7th ed hide a come back from the dead mechanic I missed, because it was my understanding if you lost your last wound you were out. So yeah, not sure what your point is.
vipoid wrote: No, they're really not. That 3+ save will be much worse against most weapons, the 4++ save is outright ignored by any Mortal Wounds, any anything that does Multiple Wounds only needs to get one or two of those past your save and your Overlord is gone for good.
it's a 3+ or at worst a 4++, considering how many ap 3 weapons were out there it's not much changed aside from having double wounds. Also no one else recovers from mortal wounds, so I'd say we are the strongest in that regard.
vipoid wrote: And not do anything. Because Necron characters are worthless outside of combat. And once you get into combat, your Overlord has nothing to hide behind.
Necron characters buff nearby necron units and depending on cofiguration can do decent in ranged or CC, and LoS works in CC.
vipoid wrote: Everything we've seen thus far points to the opposite.
Lets just do some quick math, to show you how far off base you are I'll assume no look out sir, and that he is standing out in the middle of a field with his codpiece flapping in the breeze:
Bolters 7th ed:
2/3 * 1/3 * 1/3 * 2/3 = .05 means 3/.05 or 60 bolter shots to down a lord
Bolters 8th ed:
2/3 * 1/3 * 1/3 = .07 means 6/..07 or 86 bolter shots to down an overlord
Reaper chain sword 7th ed:
(1/2 * 2/3 * 1/2 * 3) + (1/2 * 1/6 * 3) = .75 or 1.3 reaper chainsword attacks to kill an overlord
Reaper chain sword 8th ed:
2/3 * 2/3 * 1/2 = 2/9 = .22 or about 4.5 reaper chainsword swings to kill an overlord
In the worst case for him he gets caught by an opponent who wants to lascannon him to death:
7th ed
2/3 * 5/6 * 1/2 * 2/3 = .19 so about 5.3 las cannons shots to kill him
8th ed
2/3 * 2/3 * 1/2 * 3.5 = .77 so 6/.77 so 7.8 lascannon shots to kill him
An overlord is already tougher in 8th ed before the living metal special rule, with the living metal special rule he will be a monster.
Quiet! You're detracting from his "it's different, and I don't understand it, so it must be worse! The sky is falling!" narrative.
Cmdr_Sune wrote: In reference to Grimgolds nice calculations for 7th vs 8th.
Your lascannon calculation for 7th is off by about 10 shots. Also if you take decurion into account 7th ed Characters are tougher.
Do we know if 8th ed characters have access to 2+ saves? There might also be other rules or wargear that futher mitigate damage in 8th.
It doesn't really bother me, we got new awesome C'tans instead!
lol, fixed it thanks for catching that. As for Decurion, that relies on other units, and if we can have other units involved 8th ed overlord is immortal since he can just stay near a unit and pull casualties from the other side.
Freddy Kruger wrote: I'm already planning a mass blob of 3 20 man squads of warriors backed up with a ghost ark each.
Expensive, but the sheer troll factor and disgusting luck will HORRIFY ANY OPPONENT. Imagine the face of an opponent who looks smug at taking out 12 warriors. And you bring back 10 of them the next turn.
Trolltastic. Just pure, undiluted trolling from the kings of dick moves themselves!
One problem, morale.
Leadership - dead warriors - 1D6 = more losses
10 - 12 - 1D6 = 3 to 8 more dead warriors
However we don't know if Necrons will have some way to mitigate morale, every other faction seems to have it.
lol, fixed it thanks for catching that. As for Decurion, that relies on other units, and if we can have other units involved 8th ed overlord is immortal since he can just stay near a unit and pull casualties from the other side.
That's true. 7th and 8th are very different in respect of how characters are handled so it's difficult to make a comparison. But it's fun to speculate and try to strategize.
Freddy Kruger wrote: I'm already planning a mass blob of 3 20 man squads of warriors backed up with a ghost ark each.
Expensive, but the sheer troll factor and disgusting luck will HORRIFY ANY OPPONENT. Imagine the face of an opponent who looks smug at taking out 12 warriors. And you bring back 10 of them the next turn.
Trolltastic. Just pure, undiluted trolling from the kings of dick moves themselves!
One problem, morale.
Leadership - dead warriors - 1D6 = more losses
10 - 12 - 1D6 = 3 to 8 more dead warriors
However we don't know if Necrons will have some way to mitigate morale, every other faction seems to have it.
lol, fixed it thanks for catching that. As for Decurion, that relies on other units, and if we can have other units involved 8th ed overlord is immortal since he can just stay near a unit and pull casualties from the other side.
That's true. 7th and 8th are very different in respect of how characters are handled so it's difficult to make a comparison. But it's fun to speculate and try to strategize.
I think he meant 12 lost between the 3 units, not from one unit.
One problem, morale.
Leadership - dead warriors - 1D6 = more losses
10 - 12 - 1D6 = 3 to 8 more dead warriors
However we don't know if Necrons will have some way to mitigate morale, every other faction seems to have it.
You have a very good point there, but I'm hoping the high morale of Necrons will help. Also, AFAIK ghost arks still allow repairing of Necrons, and with the new 'rolling reanimation until the unit is wiped out' I'm guessing opponents will either focus a squad until annihilation or throw some big scary CQB units to hold them up and kill them.
Until we get 100% info, all this is just wishful thinking. All I want is to just run a gakload of infantry for the lulz and hopefully this might be good in 8th...
I think repair protocols is our way to mitigate morale, but aside from that having a good leadership is a decent defense. when someone kills 10 members of the 20 man blob you can expect an average of 3.5 casualties from battle shock. But a 20 man warrior blob also has other interesting advantages, like 20 flayer shots hitting on 2's, or the deceiver redeploying a 20 man warrior blob or two into rapid fire range (the tau are going to love that trick). In general if they are not in a ghost ark, you should be running max sized units of warriors.
I just spent some time list building in italian, and they don't have an entry for twin linked Gauss blasters, or twin linked tesla carbines. So tomb blades are getting something other than those weapons. It looks like they will have tesla cannons, which are assault 3 s6 Tesla, or Gauss something or other which is heavy 3 S5 ap -2. well that a fairly significant change, I also don't see shield vanes anywhere hope they are baked in.
Not sure how I'm feeling about some of the changes. It feels a little lackluster compared to some of the other craziness that's been leaked. Then again, C'Tan I think are worth something now.
BomBomHotdog wrote: Well looks like Whip Coils really aren't an auto take anymore and Transdimentional Beamers might actually see some play
They are heavy D3, not pistols. So hitting on 4+ while moving. I feel pistols will be better suited, more consistent damage reliably. They're 3W now and still have a 3++ so they're more tougher than before, probably wont have RP however (havent seen the spyder yet, could potentially do an aura like formation bonus from 7th?). Pistols can shoot while in combat, adding to their CC damage, while TDB cant.
At 17 points per model, it looks like Necron Immortals will be solid choices. Warriors are great for adding bulk and keeping the whole unit going, but for putting the hurt on things, I think Immortals will definitely be the go to choice.
Anyone notice how we are actually playing tomb kings in space now? They gave overlords "My Will Be Done". Its pretty much the same rule that Tomb Kings had. Da heckin
as far as las equivalent we have: Heavy destroyers, Rods of covenant, Monolith, War scythe, doom scythe, doomsday ark, etc, this shouldn't be THAT much of an issue but only time will tell.
Pretty disappointed that while the Ghost Ark retains the ability to transport characters, it still doesnt actually have the room to do it with squad of Warriors.
And if Im reading the rules on the Night Scythe correctly, since you are only allowed to beam down a single unit, you cant setup both a squad and a character?
How do I move my HQs around other than 5" at time?
unbaraki wrote: Pretty disappointed that while the Ghost Ark retains the ability to transport characters, it still doesnt actually have the room to do it with squad of Warriors.
And if Im reading the rules on the Night Scythe correctly, since you are only allowed to beam down a single unit, you cant setup both a squad and a character?
How do I move my HQs around other than 5" at time?
You can put multiple units in a transport now, apparently, so you can make a character boat out of a ghostark.
Other than that...not many mobility options for necrons. You'd think the masters of time and space would have come up with teleportation shenanigans, but I guess not.
unbaraki wrote: Pretty disappointed that while the Ghost Ark retains the ability to transport characters, it still doesnt actually have the room to do it with squad of Warriors.
And if Im reading the rules on the Night Scythe correctly, since you are only allowed to beam down a single unit, you cant setup both a squad and a character?
How do I move my HQs around other than 5" at time?
Eternity Gate? Deepstrike the Monolith turn one, Eternity Gate and charge the Lychguard turn two, bring in the Overlord turn 3. It's like a Russian nesting doll of murderbots!
Also one question: What is the point of Wraiths having a 4+/3++? Wouldn't they just always use the 3++?
Necrons better be 2 to 3 times more expensive points-wise than they are now to account for the insanely OPness of reanimation protocols.
I'm kind of wondering how they had people in the community play-test this when reanimation protocols was widely known to be one of the biggest OP issues with 7th along with grav, scatbikes, riptides, gladius. Then they went and made it incredibly more powerful. Granted we haven't seen points costs, but this one seems insanely wrong.
Danny slag wrote: Necrons better be 2 to 3 times more expensive points-wise than they are now to account for the insanely OPness of reanimation protocols.
I'm kind of wondering how they had people in the community play-test this when reanimation protocols was widely known to be one of the biggest OP issues with 7th along with grav, scatbikes, riptides, gladius. Then they went and made it incredibly more powerful. Granted we haven't seen points costs, but this one seems insanely wrong.
This new version of RP actually returns one of the greatest weaknesses of the Necrons staying on the field. The 7th Edition RP makes it difficult to engage in the Morale Check or Battleshock mechanic from being engaged. The older and 8th Edition version actually doesn't engage until after you do a lot of damage to it and doesn't actually prevent the damage before engaging the Battleshock mechanic. That means that in combination with everything else, it will actually be easier to get the models off the board than in 7th.
Keeping them off will be equally as hard as before, though. And before you bring up the fact that they can keep bringing them back turn after turn: the 3rd had Phase Out to deal with, and 5th Edition version operated on a per Phase basis. And that's not even considering the fun that the Monolith and Ghost Ark engaged in.
necrontyrOG wrote: Anyone have an idea on how the new RP is going to work with multi-wound models? Safe to assume they will come back with one wound only?
The RP roll is for the model, and there is nothing at all preventing the model from returning at full health.
Yeah it doesn't specify they return with one wound, so they probably return at max health. Which is really good. Especially on destroyers, who have 3 wounds each now. They are not going down easily.
Vehicles are expensive and rather fragile, like most vehicles. Monoliths and Obelisks in particular are susceptible. Sure, lots of wounds, but expensive and "meh" firepower.
Lychguard got nerfed. 4++ and Warscythes are meh now as well. These were one of my favorite units, but now won't be hard to remove.
Most of the characters seem solid and fluffy, but regening a wound a turn when most things attacking them will kill them outright is kinda pointless.
Canoptek Spyders are only going to be used for fixing vehicles, methinks.
Reanimation is back to being our army wide ability that could be ignored completely. Woo for fluff. Wish I could deny Eldar of Battle Focus.
The Transcendent Ctan is still going to remain in the shelf.
Resurrection Orbs are...I don't even know. I just hate that they're still one use only. With all the changes, they don't seem worth it.
Just noticed Overlords can't take a Phylactery, only Destroyer Lords can. Piss off, GW.
EnTyme wrote:I love how every new rules leak for X is followed by 50% posts stating X is overpowered and 50% posts stating X is worthless now.
krodarklorr wrote:Gotta say, overall, I'm disappointed in Necrons.
Vehicles are expensive and rather fragile, like most vehicles. Monoliths and Obelisks in particular are susceptible. Sure, lots of wounds, but expensive and "meh" firepower.
Lychguard got nerfed. 4++ and Warscythes are meh now as well. These were one of my favorite units, but now won't be hard to remove.
Most of the characters seem solid and fluffy, but regening a wound a turn when most things attacking them will kill them outright is kinda pointless.
Canoptek Spyders are only going to be used for fixing vehicles, methinks.
Reanimation is back to being our army wide ability that could be ignored completely. Woo for fluff. Wish I could deny Eldar of Battle Focus.
The Transcendent Ctan is still going to remain in the shelf.
Resurrection Orbs are...I don't even know. I just hate that they're still one use only. With all the changes, they don't seem worth it.
Just noticed Overlords can't take a Phylactery, only Destroyer Lords can. Piss off, GW.
Vehicles are expensive and rather fragile, like most vehicles. Monoliths and Obelisks in particular are susceptible. Sure, lots of wounds, but expensive and "meh" firepower.
Lychguard got nerfed. 4++ and Warscythes are meh now as well. These were one of my favorite units, but now won't be hard to remove.
Most of the characters seem solid and fluffy, but regening a wound a turn when most things attacking them will kill them outright is kinda pointless.
Canoptek Spyders are only going to be used for fixing vehicles, methinks.
Reanimation is back to being our army wide ability that could be ignored completely. Woo for fluff. Wish I could deny Eldar of Battle Focus.
The Transcendent Ctan is still going to remain in the shelf.
Resurrection Orbs are...I don't even know. I just hate that they're still one use only. With all the changes, they don't seem worth it.
Just noticed Overlords can't take a Phylactery, only Destroyer Lords can. Piss off, GW.
Wow, talk about perspective....
While I can't disagree with some of your distinct points..... I see lots of other stuff to be happy about.
Now, due to living metal, and RP protocols - unless another player has actual discipline and finish off units quickly, our army is going to be amazingly resilient.
This is easy to distract an opponent with this - and mess with their target priority.
Gauss is awesome now - everywhere. Those pesky 3+ saves, just got nerfed.
Tomblades, one of my favorite units - are even better.
While the transcendent ctan is not good (we do need a 600 point ctan ....a "unsharded" one) - the nightbringer is finally good enough to use for the points.
RP - the old incredibly frustrating FNP garbage is gone - this was no fun to play against, and with all the decurion bonuses, was painfully broken.
The wargear was cleaned up - a lot of weird and useless garbage gone. I do admit the res orb is a bit expensive, so it should be used correctly.
And finally, the monolith might be used again! (all vehicles in the game went up in points) - it can fire everything at no penalty and move!
I am not sure what people were wanting - the new crons feels solid - with lots of choices and nothing "auto include" anymore.
As far as wargear, not much changed except the Warscythe being not as good, and my overlord can't take a Phylactery. Also there are no relics, and the Voidreaper was my favorite weapon.
Gauss and Tomb Blades are good, yes.
RP was indeed broken at the levels it was. But the fluff says that Necrons are among the most resilient races in the galaxy. By these new rules, anyone with a brain stem will finish off a unit entirely, and there for we're no tougher than anyone else. Nurgle takes the cake on that now.
The monolith is BS 3 now. So all the shots it gets now will hit half the time, and after the new wounding mechanic, won't realistically do much damage to anything in comparison to similarly costed units in other books.
krodarklorr wrote: Vehicles are expensive and rather fragile, like most vehicles. Monoliths and Obelisks in particular are susceptible. Sure, lots of wounds, but expensive and "meh" firepower.
Quantum shielding is actually fairly decent, once we actually looked at the math on it. It makes doomsday arks and ghost arks about as resilient to las cannons as a monolith, taking a little over 10 shots apiece to kill with las cannons. I think we compare pretty favorably to other vehicles. You can check for yourself here: https://drive.google.com/open?id=1kJB9wnpPRdyBy6tckVUJQzNlISKL_MpmOa4FfHMl2Gc
krodarklorr wrote: Lychguard got nerfed. 4++ and Warscythes are meh now as well. These were one of my favorite units, but now won't be hard to remove.
you are just going to ignore the fact they now have two wounds and don't strike last in cc? I'd say they might have actually gotten better in this edition.
krodarklorr wrote: Most of the characters seem solid and fluffy, but regening a wound a turn when most things attacking them will kill them outright is kinda pointless.
They can't be targeted if you are close to other to other friendly units, and lychguard can LoS on a 2+, and they can heal a d3 wounds per round. We will probably have many gripes as the edition goes on, but I don't think our characters being fodder will be one of them.
krodarklorr wrote: Canoptek Spyders are only going to be used for fixing vehicles, methinks.
they did catch a nerf, but a gloom prism might still make them worth taking since it allows us to stop enemy psychic powers, and daemons and eldar will rely heavily on getting their powers off to buff themselves.
krodarklorr wrote: Reanimation is back to being our army wide ability that could be ignored completely. Woo for fluff. Wish I could deny Eldar of Battle Focus.
if someone is beating us hard enough that reanimation doesn't matter, the fact that reanimation doesn't matter is the least of our concerns.
krodarklorr wrote: The Transcendent Ctan is still going to remain in the shelf.
Maybe, but the nightbringer and deceiver are both pretty cool, and you choose power at the start of the game rather than after you pick a target you get a random power.
krodarklorr wrote: Resurrection Orbs are...I don't even know. I just hate that they're still one use only. With all the changes, they don't seem worth it..
Like in the previous edition, if used at the right time it can be a big help, if your 20 man blob of warriors is down 15, reanimation will add 5 back, rez orb will get you another 3 or 4, which will turn a devastating round of shooting into a "Meh" round of shooting.
krodarklorr wrote: Just noticed Overlords can't take a Phylactery, only Destroyer Lords can. Piss off, GW.
True and disappointing, I'm hope it will be addressed when we get a codex and the rest of our missing wargear.
Personally i am glad necrons got a nerf. They needed one to balance the game. The new RP has its ups and downs to it compared to 7th. Gauss isnt nearly as effective against vehicles now which will mean we will have to find room for heavy support but the standard gauss rifle will chew through infantry.
I think the only reason anyone can complain about the changes are the ones upset that they cant walk over most other armies any more. Is the game really fun if you always win just because the rules for your army make them op? Im sure after some testing people will come up with mean lists that will do great.
Thats just my opinion. Im looking forward to see how space wolves will do in This edition as well. Hopefully wulfen caught a nerf so i can use them without my friends getting mad at me lol
Son of Russ wrote: Personally i am glad necrons got a nerf. They needed one to balance the game. The new RP has its ups and downs to it compared to 7th. Gauss isnt nearly as effective against vehicles now which will mean we will have to find room for heavy support but the standard gauss rifle will chew through infantry.
I think the only reason anyone can complain about the changes are the ones upset that they cant walk over most other armies any more. Is the game really fun if you always win just because the rules for your army make them op? Im sure after some testing people will come up with mean lists that will do great.
Thats just my opinion. Im looking forward to see how space wolves will do in This edition as well. Hopefully wulfen caught a nerf so i can use them without my friends getting mad at me lol
I never walked over anyone other than newbies who didn't know what they were doing (we played low points games with no decision to help them learn). And I definitely didn't walk over Eldar or Tau.
My gripe comes from people now being able to walk all over our infantry, which I really hope isn't the case in practice.
)
