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.

Okay, i need to say something about some people thinking, that it is enough to glance tanks to death.

Let's assume we have a tank that has 3 weapons. Now assume we have Necrons shooting at that tank.

2/3 chance to hit. 1/6 chance to glance. On the damage roll we have 1/3 chance to damage the vehicle.
That means you need an average of 27 shots to affect the vehicle with the Gauss rule. Since you need 5 of those hits to destroy the vehicle we are talking about 135 shots to kill ONE vehicle. And the enemy probably has more than just one.

How many Necron Warriors are you planning to take in 2000 points to have that amount of fire power?

I know, someone will point out, that you don't NEED to destroy tanks, because they are not scoring. Well actually you do need to destroy tanks 1/3 of the time, when we talk about kill points. Or when there is a draw on objectives and VPs are used...

Stingray_tm wrote:Okay, i need to say something about some people thinking, that it is enough to glance tanks to death.

Let's assume we have a tank that has 3 weapons. Now assume we have Necrons shooting at that tank.

2/3 chance to hit. 1/6 chance to glance. On the damage roll we have 1/3 chance to damage the vehicle.
That means you need an average of 27 shots to affect the vehicle with the Gauss rule. Since you need 5 of those hits to destroy the vehicle we are talking about 135 shots to kill ONE vehicle. And the enemy probably has more than just one.

How many Necron Warriors are you planning to take in 2000 points to have that amount of fire power?

I know, someone will point out, that you don't NEED to destroy tanks, because they are not scoring. Well actually you do need to destroy tanks 1/3 of the time, when we talk about kill points. Or when there is a draw on objectives and VPs are used...

I'll just shoot the tanks with my heavier gauss weapons instead.

Radical I know.

Or get them with my faster C'tan. Or running pariah's screened by destroyers or scarabs or something.

I reckon the gauss rule will be changed for the new rending when they get a new codex anyway.

wash-away wrote:I'm just concerned about the table that's hills and forests. any unit can pick away at them.

I can kind of see people putting fire prism's up high especially with the new template rules.

The rules state that the models must be based with the bases that come with the model, that includes skimmers with their flying bases.

If you've convereted your models onto a custom base you'll need to mention that to your opponent ahead of time and you probably will need to play them as high as standard bases are.

Stingray_tm wrote:Okay, i need to say something about some people thinking, that it is enough to glance tanks to death.

Let's assume we have a tank that has 3 weapons. Now assume we have Necrons shooting at that tank.

2/3 chance to hit. 1/6 chance to glance. On the damage roll we have 1/3 chance to damage the vehicle.
That means you need an average of 27 shots to affect the vehicle with the Gauss rule. Since you need 5 of those hits to destroy the vehicle we are talking about 135 shots to kill ONE vehicle. And the enemy probably has more than just one.

How many Necron Warriors are you planning to take in 2000 points to have that amount of fire power?

I know, someone will point out, that you don't NEED to destroy tanks, because they are not scoring. Well actually you do need to destroy tanks 1/3 of the time, when we talk about kill points. Or when there is a draw on objectives and VPs are used...

You're right. It's certainly not an ideal situation but Necrons in CC with vehicles now hit on rear armor so you have new options to destroy vehicles. It may be that GW has certain armies (Necron, Tyranids) behave in a way where you essentially immobilize vehicles and then destroy them in CC.

And as reds8n mentioned, in the new codex they'll probably change their weapons to rending. We just don't know yet. Hell, they might even make some changes in the 5th edition codex FAQs.

I think the most sensible solution would be to make those changes in the FAQs:

Gauss: "A six on the armour penetration roll always gives -1 (total) on the damage table."
Venom Cannon: "Every time a Venom Cannon hit matches or exceeds the AV, the hit will resolved with a -1 on the damage table."

It's balanced, it can be done, because those weapons already have special rules overriding main rules, so you can make those changes without making any exceptions that haven't been made before.

GW listens to and acts on peoples gripes that tanks are not resiliant enough (in comparison to MC's) in the game, balancing that with new move and fire rules.

Now people gripe that they cannot destroy tanks with their current armies that havent been adjusted for 5th edition rules. Others complaining that they cannot move and fire all of their weapons anymore, depite the fact that their tanks have a better chance of seeing turn 6, in effect giving them more chances to fire.

*Sigh*

A quick question about models having to be on the bases they came with:

My tau tanks are all modeled to just sit on their landing gear because the GW bases just don't work for something that big. Couldn't it be argued that the landing gear is a GW supplied "base" since it is intended that the vehicle be able to sit on it? It's not like I converted the landing gear or anything like that.

tomguycot wrote:A quick question about models having to be on the bases they came with:

My tau tanks are all modeled to just sit on their landing gear because the GW bases just don't work for something that big. Couldn't it be argued that the landing gear is a GW supplied "base" since it is intended that the vehicle be able to sit on it? It's not like I converted the landing gear or anything like that.

The flying base is the one it is supplied with.

Can someone tell me about the Slow and Purposeful USR? Did they change it or is Ghazgkull still the only to get the bonus for charging.

Vaktathi wrote:That means a lot of models are going to get stuck in the horrendous (and slowed) category of "opponents permission" for no reason.

Look on the bright side: unless there is some club somewhere that holds a pistol to your head and forces you to play*, all GW models have always been "opponent's permission". Just think of the upcoming rule on bases as a clarification that actually changes nothing.




*If your club has a house rule that allows you to use pistols to coerce opponents to play with you, then feel free to disregard the main rule book as your ammunition permits.

Ratbarf wrote:"tanks are very vulnerable to close-up attacks with sticky bombs, etc. (the equivalent of Krak grenades)- or at least the WII ones were"

I don't really think thats the case though with some vehicles, such as the Tau skimmers that are completely enclosed or the landraider. To sight a current example of hard to kill in close tanks would be the Abrams. It doesn't have any viewparts it uses cameras so unless the hatch is open there is really no way in unless you throw a grenade down the barrel.

Are the hatches and hinges as solid as the front glacis plate? No, they aren't. And even if they were, when there are infantry on the tank, it's not going to buttoned up blind. It's going to be looking to get the hell away from the infantry.

Not that it matters, because the driver is using optical viewports, and that glass can be shattered.

Eh, the Russian t72 tank uses a hatch in the bottom to drop a gas canister that kills the people on the tank before they can do much damage.

"Skimmer height: Perhaps it's a good idea to keep several bases handy, with rods from 1/4" to 6" high (or for the really advanced modeller, an extendo-base that's hidden inside the craft's which could telescope to any length desired)."

Man, they way I really wanted to see this done would have been the way that Hero clix did it with their flying bases. They have a slider that can be moved up and down by notches and differrent rules apply depending on what notch you are at. (For instance you can only be attacked by an opponent in close combat if they are on the same notch as you. And if you are on the top notch those on the ground can't even target yeu. Makes a lot more sense to me then the current skimmer rulses.)

Ratbarf wrote:Eh, the Russian t72 tank uses a hatch in the bottom to drop a gas canister that kills the people on the tank before they can do much damage.

"Skimmer height: Perhaps it's a good idea to keep several bases handy, with rods from 1/4" to 6" high (or for the really advanced modeller, an extendo-base that's hidden inside the craft's which could telescope to any length desired)."

Man, they way I really wanted to see this done would have been the way that Hero clix did it with their flying bases. They have a slider that can be moved up and down by notches and differrent rules apply depending on what notch you are at. (For instance you can only be attacked by an opponent in close combat if they are on the same notch as you. And if you are on the top notch those on the ground can't even target yeu. Makes a lot more sense to me then the current skimmer rulses.)

well I think skimmers should get some kind of advantage if they choose to fly instead of hover. but i guess gw doesn't want to do anything that drastic yet.

wash-away wrote:
well I think skimmers should get some kind of advantage if they choose to fly instead of hover. but i guess gw doesn't want to do anything that drastic yet.

Why would skimmers need to be any better than they are?

Ratbarf wrote:Eh, the Russian t72 tank uses a hatch in the bottom to drop a gas canister that kills the people on the tank before they can do much damage.

I miss the Frag Launchers from 2nd ed - nothing like a bunch of bomblets to encourage infantry to avoid btb with a tank.

Plastic Parody wrote:Its an average of 4" not 5", not that it makes a huge difference. This hurts high BS armies more that it does Guard.

From a certain point of view (/Obi-Wan).

It hurts everyone, but in the new system high-BS gets the better benefit. And yes, it's a 4" average, not 5". So rather than missing by 5", you miss by 4". Seriously, get the small blast. A scatter of more than 2" means you will miss most of the time.

BYE

Smatticus wrote:I haven't played much 40k lately, but when I do my favorite army is Necrons.

I am concerned about the new glancing hits at -2 to the roll. Now the only way to destroy an armored vehicle with Necrons is a Monolith or Heavy Destroyers. Disruption fields are now useless.

Any thoughts for the ancient enemy?

Immoblising vehicles twice will destroy, right? So Necrons have ability.

tkdarktrooper wrote:Can someone tell me about the Slow and Purposeful USR? Did they change it or is Ghazgkull still the only to get the bonus for charging.

Ghazkull does not get the charging bonus currently but in 5th there is no longer a rule that strips the charge bonus from S&P Models

Old Man Ultramarine wrote:

Smatticus wrote:I haven't played much 40k lately, but when I do my favorite army is Necrons.

I am concerned about the new glancing hits at -2 to the roll. Now the only way to destroy an armored vehicle with Necrons is a Monolith or Heavy Destroyers. Disruption fields are now useless.

Any thoughts for the ancient enemy?

Immoblising vehicles twice will destroy, right? So Necrons have ability.

No, immobilizing twice will destroy a weapon. You have to immobilize and destroy all weapons, before it destroys the vehicle. And as only 1/3 of the glancing hits will actually damage the vehicle, it's going to take a LOT of hits to kill, say, a Predator.

H.B.M.C. wrote: A scatter of more than 2" means you will miss most of the time.

But misses will be much more entertaining... say against a horde army... orks, 'nids, etc. You're bound to hit something.

Of course with my luck, I'll be more of a danger to my own troops.

You'll see a lot of Necrons with Heavy Ds and possibly even Tomb Spyders. They are still MCs at S6. Gauss fire won't cut it, so just think of it as a fringe benefit. If you can't shoot at anything else, you can still at least annoy that vehicle.

Pariahs are good at killing vehicles, but a Destroyer Lord with Warscythe will be much better. I must admit, you might see people field Pariahs and not have everybody in the vicinity incapacitated by laughter anymore. I never thought that would happen. Ah well, the pendulum swings, welcome to 3rd ed.

Running C'tan makes them pretty good.

TommyStriker wrote:

wash-away wrote:
well I think skimmers should get some kind of advantage if they choose to fly instead of hover. but i guess gw doesn't want to do anything that drastic yet.

Why would skimmers need to be any better than they are?

I just don't like them hovering around. I really don't want to cut them down...

How do weapons with multiple possible Strength values work for Defensive Weapons? Would a Missile Launcher count as a Defensive Weapon when firing a frag/plasma missile?

I read most of this thread earlier this morning... found it very informative plus also quite amusing as well.

G

Wait, so Necrons need to take anti-tank weapons to kill tanks in 5th? The Monolith is even tougher than it currently is?

What is the world coming to?

CK

Corpsman_of_Krieg wrote:Wait, so Necrons need to take anti-tank weapons to kill tanks in 5th?
CK

Which is all fine and dandy if you're able to take an anti-tank weapon in any given troop slot choice, but no, Necrons have only two anti-tank gun in the entire army which are both Heavy slots. Let a Warrior unit upgrade one of it's guys to carry a Gauss Cannon or Heavy Gauss Cannon and I won't mind so much. Give Flayed One's claws the effects of a Krak Grenade would also be a nice move.

Aduro wrote:How do weapons with multiple possible Strength values work for Defensive Weapons? Would a Missile Launcher count as a Defensive Weapon when firing a frag/plasma missile?

Since it is based on the strength of the weapon you are firing a S4 plasma missile shot from an Eldar Missile Launcher does indeed count as a defensive weapon. Makes them the pivot man for any freaky-deeky Eldar weapon pron you might be filming soon.

First off, to be perfectly honest. Necrons are more balanced than they were before because of these changes. Now instead of Warrior Spamming someone to death you might have to take a heavy destroyer or two. Also you have to worry about a vehicle parking next to an objective. It may not score but it prevents _you_ from scoring.
As all objectives need to be cleared of enemy units before you can claim them. So simply immobilizing it does nothing.
I'm fairly certain 5th Edition doesn't care if a vehicle has any weapons or wheels blown off. As long as it "works" and "lives"
its in the way. Things need to be destroyed afaik.

What Necrons honestly need is a new Codex. They need FNP instead of WBB, they need more diversity in units and in weapon selection. That needs to be fixed. Not the rules, which are fine atm. Also the Monolith isn't as tough as it was before, mainly because you can actually _hit_ it in Hand to Hand now. Shooting at it is the same, however, being able to scratch its paint finally is a boost.

Haven't read much about buildings/ruins in this thread. There is a difference. Buildings are pretty much like immobile transports with armor values and access points. They can be destroyed reducing them to dangerous terrain, or even explode and replace with a crater. Ruins are pretty much like the standard Cityfight gothic ruin model. One thing that struck me is how different movement is inside ruins... Regardless of the actual building model, levels are considered 3" apart vertically. You roll difficult terrain as usual, but vertical movement counts... In other words if you roll a 1 or 2, you can move 1" or 2" horizontally. You roll a 3, you can move horizontally OR straight up or down 1 level, with no horizontal movement, and so on until you roll a 6, where you can move 6" horizontally, 3" horizontally and up/down a level, or up/down 2 levels without any horizontal movement. A real stark difference to the Cityfight rules.

I only gave a cursory glance, but it appeared that blast/template rules were the same, i.e. only affect 1 level, templates can target same level or 1 level above/below.

Yep, ruins are vastly different now.

I've got some pieces that frankly are just too tall now, and I'm going to chop them down. A 6 story building corner looked cool for COD when you could move over AND up the same amount. But now, if a squad of scouts starts out in floors 5 and 6, nothing is digging them out in HTH unless it's got a 12" move or charge. If you don't roll a 6 on either of the two dice, a unit with 6" movement is only going up/own one level a turn. I'll probably be making the terrrain wider and lower, keeping the max building height to 4 levels, with most at 2 or 3.

1. Step one, take large building, pretend your the annoying mallkid, and knock it off the table, watching it shatter.

2. Glue pieces back together in new and interesting ways.

3. Touch up with a few quick spurts of black primer and some drybrushing.

yeah...
I also think that i'm going to board up all the windows so that WYSISYG is alot easier...
this will get rid of all the 'i can see him through that window there!'

Panic...