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.

Aash wrote:

 vipoid wrote:
I think one of the issues with any Gauss rule is that there are so many different Gauss weapons.

You've got the basic rifle (Rapid Fire 1 S4 AP-1 D1)
You've got the Blaster (Rapid Fire 1 S5 AP-2 D1)
You've got the Cannon (Heavy 3 S6 AP-3 Dd3)
You've got the Heavy Cannon (Heavy 1 S9 AP-4 Dd3)

It's really hard to make a rule that isn't pointless on at least two of those.

In terms of the rules discussed, I did like the 'Gauss weapons never need worse than a 4+ to wound', but at the same time it also seems to be yet another slap in the face to Dark Eldar. "Hey, Dark Eldar, now Necrons have Poisoned Weapons, too. Except that theirs are better in every way because they work on vehicles and aren't restricted to wounding low-toughness models on 4s.'

Maybe make them the mechanical counterpoint to poison- always wounds on a 4+ but only applies against targets with the vehicle (Vehicle and/or battle suit and/or drone etc?) key word?

That's an interesting concept. It wouldn't really help out the heavy cannon, but that's an outlier than doesn't need help against vehicles. It helps higher strength gauss less than lower strength gauss, but I'm not sure that's a problem. I haven't run the numbers, but does it make gauss too lethal against vehicles? Is my 10 man warrior squad going to be killing a rhino in a single volley or anything?

20 shots of Gaus Flayers against T7 Save3+ will do 3.3 instead of 2.2 wounds. Even at strength 4 the to wound roll only goes from 5+ to 4+ so it doesnt change very much.
The only very noticable case is Gaus Flayers against T8 Save3+. With the new rules they also do 3,3 damage but under the old rules they would have only caused 1.1 wounds.

I think Gauss weapon should have a poisoned rule, but only for vehicles. Back in 7th ed, the gauss rule only had an effect on vehicles, so why not make a wounding rules that would only work on vehicles ? Plus, it would reflect the gauss rule from the past pretty well.

Something like wounding vehicles on 4+ or causing vehicles mortal on a wound role of 6 would be awesome.

In the first case, the vehicle can still make his save, while in the second case, each shot only have 1/6 chance to auto wound the vehicle. It would provide a reason to field huge blobs of necron warriors.

 Khornate25 wrote:
I think Gauss weapon should have a poisoned rule, but only for vehicles. Back in 7th ed, the gauss rule only had an effect on vehicles, so why not make a wounding rules that would only work on vehicles ? Plus, it would reflect the gauss rule from the past pretty well.

Something like wounding vehicles on 4+ or causing vehicles mortal on a wound role of 6 would be awesome.

In the first case, the vehicle can still make his save, while in the second case, each shot only have 1/6 chance to auto wound the vehicle. It would provide a reason to field huge blobs of necron warriors.

That was for only the 5th edition. At some point it regained the ability to always wound on a 6 too, though that was more limited to Flayers really using the ability overall. It's silly how Necrons have always struggled to kill Monstrous Creatures AND vehicles. Anyone saying they destroyed vehicles easily was literally wrong as even bad anti-tank like Lascannons would do more against the 100 and less point tanks.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Khornate25 wrote:
I think Gauss weapon should have a poisoned rule, but only for vehicles. Back in 7th ed, the gauss rule only had an effect on vehicles, so why not make a wounding rules that would only work on vehicles ? Plus, it would reflect the gauss rule from the past pretty well.

Something like wounding vehicles on 4+ or causing vehicles mortal on a wound role of 6 would be awesome.

In the first case, the vehicle can still make his save, while in the second case, each shot only have 1/6 chance to auto wound the vehicle. It would provide a reason to field huge blobs of necron warriors.

That was for only the 5th edition. At some point it regained the ability to always wound on a 6 too, though that was more limited to Flayers really using the ability overall. It's silly how Necrons have always struggled to kill Monstrous Creatures AND vehicles. Anyone saying they destroyed vehicles easily was literally wrong as even bad anti-tank like Lascannons would do more against the 100 and less point tanks.

Gauss was rather against vehicles in 6E and 7E as a result of the Gauss rule, it very much affected vehicles, when that basically meant 3 "wounds" and no armor saves across the board.

Looking at the 7E codex here, it's pretty much identical to the 5E codex, it states that an Armour Penetration roll of a 6 that does not cause a penetrating hit automatically causes a glancing hit, in addition to wounding anything on a 6 regardless of T.

It was just overshadowed by Tesla weapons against lighter vehicles because most of them were S7 and had a gazillion twin-linked shots.

 Vaktathi wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Khornate25 wrote:
I think Gauss weapon should have a poisoned rule, but only for vehicles. Back in 7th ed, the gauss rule only had an effect on vehicles, so why not make a wounding rules that would only work on vehicles ? Plus, it would reflect the gauss rule from the past pretty well.

Something like wounding vehicles on 4+ or causing vehicles mortal on a wound role of 6 would be awesome.

In the first case, the vehicle can still make his save, while in the second case, each shot only have 1/6 chance to auto wound the vehicle. It would provide a reason to field huge blobs of necron warriors.

That was for only the 5th edition. At some point it regained the ability to always wound on a 6 too, though that was more limited to Flayers really using the ability overall. It's silly how Necrons have always struggled to kill Monstrous Creatures AND vehicles. Anyone saying they destroyed vehicles easily was literally wrong as even bad anti-tank like Lascannons would do more against the 100 and less point tanks.

Gauss was rather against vehicles in 6E and 7E as a result of the Gauss rule, it very much affected vehicles, when that basically meant 3 "wounds" and no armor saves across the board.

Looking at the 7E codex here, it's pretty much identical to the 5E codex, it states that an Armour Penetration roll of a 6 that does not cause a penetrating hit automatically causes a glancing hit, in addition to wounding anything on a 6 regardless of T.

It was just overshadowed by Tesla weapons against lighter vehicles because most of them were S7 and had a gazillion twin-linked shots.

Anyone making that claim never did the math for Gauss vs vehicles and you really just proved that. If your vehicle was like 150 points and had 3HP yeah it looked amazing. If your vehicle wasn't BAD though it was a different story.

 Vaktathi wrote:
Looking at the 7E codex here, it's pretty much identical to the 5E codex, it states that an Armour Penetration roll of a 6 that does not cause a penetrating hit automatically causes a glancing hit, in addition to wounding anything on a 6 regardless of T.

Ignoring the fact of more vehicles getting a save than they did back then and that 1 wound is rarely as worthwhile as shaking a vehicle. Imagine a unit of Warriors preventing a Leman Russ from shooting for a turn each time they shot until your anti-tank guns have time to deal with it. Now they cause a single stinky wound and it has 11 left so it was basically all for nothing with most Necron weapons being so random that overkill is a guarantee. Even back in 5th with the 3rd ed Codex where Necrons were trash AFAIK they were better at harassing vehicles with their gauss flayers than now.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Khornate25 wrote:
I think Gauss weapon should have a poisoned rule, but only for vehicles. Back in 7th ed, the gauss rule only had an effect on vehicles, so why not make a wounding rules that would only work on vehicles ? Plus, it would reflect the gauss rule from the past pretty well.

Something like wounding vehicles on 4+ or causing vehicles mortal on a wound role of 6 would be awesome.

In the first case, the vehicle can still make his save, while in the second case, each shot only have 1/6 chance to auto wound the vehicle. It would provide a reason to field huge blobs of necron warriors.

That was for only the 5th edition. At some point it regained the ability to always wound on a 6 too, though that was more limited to Flayers really using the ability overall. It's silly how Necrons have always struggled to kill Monstrous Creatures AND vehicles. Anyone saying they destroyed vehicles easily was literally wrong as even bad anti-tank like Lascannons would do more against the 100 and less point tanks.

Gauss was rather against vehicles in 6E and 7E as a result of the Gauss rule, it very much affected vehicles, when that basically meant 3 "wounds" and no armor saves across the board.

Looking at the 7E codex here, it's pretty much identical to the 5E codex, it states that an Armour Penetration roll of a 6 that does not cause a penetrating hit automatically causes a glancing hit, in addition to wounding anything on a 6 regardless of T.

It was just overshadowed by Tesla weapons against lighter vehicles because most of them were S7 and had a gazillion twin-linked shots.

Anyone making that claim never did the math for Gauss vs vehicles and you really just proved that. If your vehicle was like 150 points and had 3HP yeah it looked amazing. If your vehicle wasn't BAD though it was a different story.

I didn't say it was the straight best AT across the board, but it wasn't awful and allowed basic Troops Warriors to be about as, if not more, effective as any other Troop unit against vehicles, certainly relative to something like a typical Imperial troops unit like a Tac or Infantry squad unless they were at very close range with multiple Meltas (and certainly moreso than with a single Lascannon HW). You'd need to get something like a quad brace of stationary BS4 Lascannons to achieve broadly the same HP stripping potential against light/medium vehicles as a squad of 10 rapid-firing Warriors would (the LC's would do more against AV10, same against AV 11, worse against anything higher, including stuff like 55/65pt Chimeras), and while having the potential to Explode a tank or inflict other results through a Pen that was significantly more variable and HP stripping was by far the most effective vehicle kill option in that era (especially so if the vehicle actually was getting a save as volume of fire was more consistent than swingy single shot big AT guns, something that still plagues 8E actually ).

vict0988 wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
Looking at the 7E codex here, it's pretty much identical to the 5E codex, it states that an Armour Penetration roll of a 6 that does not cause a penetrating hit automatically causes a glancing hit, in addition to wounding anything on a 6 regardless of T.

Ignoring the fact of more vehicles getting a save than they did back then and that 1 wound is rarely as worthwhile as shaking a vehicle. Imagine a unit of Warriors preventing a Leman Russ from shooting for a turn each time they shot until your anti-tank guns have time to deal with it. Now they cause a single stinky wound and it has 11 left so it was basically all for nothing with most Necron weapons being so random that overkill is a guarantee. Even back in 5th with the 3rd ed Codex where Necrons were trash AFAIK they were better at harassing vehicles with their gauss flayers than now.

Yeah in this edition the same effect wouldn't be anywhere near as powerful for sure.