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.

There are several analysis around the web of the effectiveness of Tesla Immortals. One of the clearest things is that they clearly beat out Gauss Immortals at all but the closest ranges. Given that Tesla and Gauss have equal cost on Immortals, this seems like a clear oversight. The easiest fix is probably to drop the cost of Gauss on Immortals making it the base option and Tesla then is priced as the clear upgrade it is. The problem is that any significant cost decrease to Gauss Immortals brings them strikingly close in price to Warriors over which they have several advantages.

Alternately, we change up their profiles somewhat to create difference in use-cases between them. My suggestion is to switch their types; making Gauss Assault 2 and Tesla Rapid Fire 1. This would reduce the threat of Tesla at-range but keep allow it to keep its full, current, level of threat at close range and remain the terror of overwatch. Meanwhile, Gauss would gain sheer number of shots at greater than half range, making it comparable to Tesla, and gain improved mobility. This switch would clearly delineate strategies between the two types of weapon. Rather than both being simply "march and shoot," with Tesla being clearly better. Tesla would become a better defensive/holding ground option while Gauss would be better for pushing forward and capturing.

Thoughts?

But... they both have very different uses? Tesla isnt nearly as good vs good saves. I.E terminators etc.

Our troops are in a bad spot as it is, I cant see how adjusting the weapons will change anything. It also would mean that warriors have rapid fire gauss, while immortals dont?

Doesnt seem to fit well, unless warriors also got assault 2. Then maybe theyd be better.

At greater than 12" tesla currently still equals gauss for expected damage vs a 2+ save. They have equal strength, so toughness is immaterial. At less than 12" they equal expected wounds for 4+ saves and gauss only really wins out signficantly at 2+. Of course, being Rapid Fire slows their ability to get into 12".
So, no, Tesla is just generally better.

This change would make the gauss profiles between flayers and carbines different... however blasters, flux arcs, etc are all heavy, so changing types is not a huge flaw.

It's not a huge buff, but it does make point values a little more sensible.

Expanding a little, and talking through another possible points of adjustment along the way;

The same group of Immortals (we'll go with 10 for ease of calculation) outfitted with both Tesla and Gauss;
To Hit;
Immortals Gauss at greater than 12" get 10 shots. With a 3+ to hit 1/3 of their shots miss for an average of 6.66 shots hitting.
Gauss at less than 12" get 20 shots, for 13.33 shots hitting.
Tesla at up to it's full 24" range gets 20 shots, a third of which miss but 1/6 "explode," resulting in 20 hits.

Roll to wound;
All profiles have the same Strength so no differentiation happens here.
This is another place where Gauss could get a buff to make it less obviously inferior to Tesla. However, the Flayer is S4, Blaster is S5, Cannon is S5, and the Heavy Cannon S9. This post is making a great case that, among other things, Gauss strengths across the board should probably climb upwards by a point or two minimum. For now, just note that this adjustment would require shift of more than the Immortal's weapons to fit.

Save;
Tesla immediately starts shedding 1/6 of its shots to armor as it has no AP. However, it only reaches 6.66 shots, the number gauss is going to start out with, are still achieved vs a 3+ save.
Gauss at greater than 12" started 10 shots down and has lost 3-4 shots in accuracy compared to Tesla. Armor of 5+ or worse is ignored, but still only deals 6.66 shots. Vs a 4+ or better it will shed 1/6 of its shots. However, starting 10 shots down it will only match Tesla vs a 2+ armor save.
Gauss is significantly better at less than 12". At a 5+ or better save it "regains" the shots it lost in accuracy compared to Tesla. However, at 4+ that only gives Gauss a 1.111 shot advantage on Tesla. At a 2+ save it's landing roughly twice the number of wounds (6.66 vs 3.33). However, this comes at the cost of having to get a unit that can't move and shoot within 12".

Options 3, 4, and 5;

The differentiation between Gauss and Tesla is, theoretically, that Tesla is for lots of little creatures while gauss is for things like vehicles and monsters. I've already covered why that doesn't actually work out, given that expected damage value for Gauss is worse than or roughly equal to Tesla until you reach the corner case of a 2+ save at less than 12".

For option 1 I went after the source; the main difference between Tesla and Gauss is the number of initial hits. By bringing the two into line you bring the overall calculations closer together. This is why Gauss within rapid fire range is closer to the Tesla line in terms of expected wound output and the only place where it beats Tesla when it's supposed to (strong save values).
Three stats move roughly together; toughness, armor, and wounds. A high toughness model generally also has a better save and more wounds. IE; the difference between a guardsman and a leman russ tank. Among the three there's some variation as to how different "types" of toughness might be represented but at large that remains true.

Option 3; Increase wounds stat.
If gauss is supposed to be the counter-armor, then we increase the wound stat on the Blaster to 2. This would double the wounds output against individual targets, but not increase the number of 1 wound models removed by a Blaster. The problem is that the Gauss Cannon deals d3 wounds, making the blaster do average damage for the cannon seems inappropriate so that weapon would need a similar increase. Then, the Gauss Flux Arc (a heavy weapon) deals 1 wound, and the Heavy Gauss Cannon deals D6 wounds (as does the the Doomsday Ark)...

Option 4; Provide a maximum to-wound.
Similar to the Feeder Mandibles of the scarabs, and one of the more thematically appropriate rules (given that it's mostly an update of the Gauss rule from every other edition).
The problem is that Gauss Blasters are already S5. This would only differentiate from a Tesla Carbine for targets with a toughness of 10 or greater, making it even more of a corner case than 2+ armor saves (without invulnerability) at less than 12".

Option 5; Change the points
Either reduce the price of gauss or increase the price of tesla.
With the current price there is only a 4 point price difference between Gauss Immortals and Warriors who have inferior saves and fill the same battlefield role. Warriors are already considered on the edge of usefulness because of that, so reducing the price of Gauss Immortals without doing something similar for Warriors seems ill-advised.
Which leaves increasing the price of Tesla. However, given how much of a premium Necrons pay for most of their army, and the level of "success" produced for it, raising the price on one of the few truly cost-effective units seems a little harsh.

silentone2k wrote:
Options 3, 4, and 5;

The differentiation between Gauss and Tesla is, theoretically, that Tesla is for lots of little creatures while gauss is for things like vehicles and monsters. I've already covered why that doesn't actually work out, given that expected damage value for Gauss is worse than or roughly equal to Tesla until you reach the corner case of a 2+ save at less than 12".

For option 1 I went after the source; the main difference between Tesla and Gauss is the number of initial hits. By bringing the two into line you bring the overall calculations closer together. This is why Gauss within rapid fire range is closer to the Tesla line in terms of expected wound output and the only place where it beats Tesla when it's supposed to (strong save values).
Three stats move roughly together; toughness, armor, and wounds. A high toughness model generally also has a better save and more wounds. IE; the difference between a guardsman and a leman russ tank. Among the three there's some variation as to how different "types" of toughness might be represented but at large that remains true.

Option 3; Increase wounds stat.
If gauss is supposed to be the counter-armor, then we increase the wound stat on the Blaster to 2. This would double the wounds output against individual targets, but not increase the number of 1 wound models removed by a Blaster. The problem is that the Gauss Cannon deals d3 wounds, making the blaster do average damage for the cannon seems inappropriate so that weapon would need a similar increase. Then, the Gauss Flux Arc (a heavy weapon) deals 1 wound, and the Heavy Gauss Cannon deals D6 wounds (as does the the Doomsday Ark)...

That's the one I'd go with, then increasing Gauss Cannons to 3 instead of d3. Gauss Flux Arcs would be 2 as well, and the Doomsday Cannon could be d3+3. Make the big advantage of Gauss weapons be that they pound big tough things with high damage and strong AP at the cost of having only middling Strength.

-1 to hit modifiers, +1 armor bonuses, and the availability of better transportation for reliable rapid fire range all change this math quite a lot. This is almost a perfect case of appropriately balanced options for a unit plus or minus a single point or so, there are so so many more important things in need of fixing than tesla being a better option 70% of the time instead of exactly 50% of the time.

 Actinium wrote:
-1 to hit modifiers, +1 armor bonuses, and the availability of better transportation for reliable rapid fire range all change this math quite a lot. This is almost a perfect case of appropriately balanced options for a unit plus or minus a single point or so, there are so so many more important things in need of fixing than tesla being a better option 70% of the time instead of exactly 50% of the time.

A +1 modifier to tesla is one of the easiest things to do, which either makes tesla much stronger or negates the -1.
If you check the math, a +1 armor bonus still only makes gauss useful at less than 12" and a tiny number of cases.
What reliable transport is there to get Necron Immortals around?
If you think that "must be firing at a 2+ save within 12 inches" is the difference between 50% of use cases and 70% I'm guessing you tend towards close combat armies.
Hyperphase swords and voidblades having the same stats and a 3 point difference in cost was "almost perfect balance plus or minus a couple points."

In summary if you that other things are more important; go do those.

I'm not sure how on the math you are, with 10 Immortals...
With Gauss in rapid fire range, both guns have the same amount of kills vs GEQ.
Same assumptions, for MEQ, Tesla scores 4.5 kills and Gauss 6.
Against FEQ, Gauss scores 9 kills and Tesla 7.
With Rhinos, Guass gets 3 wounds and Tesla 2.

So the difference is actually that Gauss is basically better up close, compared to Tesla. That is actually pretty balanced...

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
I'm not sure how on the math you are, with 10 Immortals...
With Gauss in rapid fire range, both guns have the same amount of kills vs GEQ.
Same assumptions, for MEQ, Tesla scores 4.5 kills and Gauss 6.
Against FEQ, Gauss scores 9 kills and Tesla 7.
With Rhinos, Guass gets 3 wounds and Tesla 2.

I thought I explained my math, but attached is a spreadsheet.
Everything you're saying is only true if the Immortals are always within charge range... with weapons that are harder to move/shoot with and worse in overwatch.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

So the difference is actually that Gauss is basically better up close, compared to Tesla. That is actually pretty balanced...

Even if Gauss being always better up close was true that's not at all anywhere near balanced.
Unless something about Gauss made it easier to move (it doesn't) or better during the inevitable charge/close combat (they don't) being better up close for a Necron shooty-unit is a horrible, no good, very bad thing.
But, even up close, gauss blasters aren't noticeably better until you're shooting at MEq (3+) or better armor saves... Basically; if you made Gauss Assault 2, the attack type Tesla currently has, you would simply balance out a few more regular expected wound values with higher wounding for better armor... but in Overwatch (which is generally the result of being within RF range of 24" weapons, where you're saying Gauss is already the better choice) the math says you'd still prefer Tesla.

So, I really don't have any idea what you're talking about suggesting the two are balanced.

I am not downloading an attachment. Actually show your work, please.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also if you want Rapid Fire range we have Scythes. Tesla is better for foot, but you want Gauss when flying high.

I explained my work earlier, you said you couldn't follow it so I gave you my homework to copy. If you don't want to download an attachment it's basic multiplication and division.

silentone2k wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
I'm not sure how on the math you are, with 10 Immortals...
With Gauss in rapid fire range, both guns have the same amount of kills vs GEQ.
Same assumptions, for MEQ, Tesla scores 4.5 kills and Gauss 6.
Against FEQ, Gauss scores 9 kills and Tesla 7.
With Rhinos, Guass gets 3 wounds and Tesla 2.

I thought I explained my math, but attached is a spreadsheet.
Everything you're saying is only true if the Immortals are always within charge range... with weapons that are harder to move/shoot with and worse in overwatch.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

So the difference is actually that Gauss is basically better up close, compared to Tesla. That is actually pretty balanced...

Even if Gauss being always better up close was true that's not at all anywhere near balanced.
Unless something about Gauss made it easier to move (it doesn't) or better during the inevitable charge/close combat (they don't) being better up close for a Necron shooty-unit is a horrible, no good, very bad thing.
But, even up close, gauss blasters aren't noticeably better until you're shooting at MEq (3+) or better armor saves... Basically; if you made Gauss Assault 2, the attack type Tesla currently has, you would simply balance out a few more regular expected wound values with higher wounding for better armor... but in Overwatch (which is generally the result of being within RF range of 24" weapons, where you're saying Gauss is already the better choice) the math says you'd still prefer Tesla.

So, I really don't have any idea what you're talking about suggesting the two are balanced.

Yeah, I explained the math for Rapid Fire Gauss Blasters vs Tesla Carbines. I made that clear. Gauss is better overall when in Rapid Fire range. That's balanced. You're claiming it isn't without math to back you up there.

I did explain my math,l. Better, frankly, than you did. I also provided my calculations in full. I'm not going to figure out how to transcribe them to dakka because you don't like the format. Feel free to do so and show your own work.

I chose cover, negative to hit mods, and transportation because those things are in flux, even now without the necron codex in sight, which makes it very hard to say with certainty that tesla will be the better choice tomorrow let alone a year from now with no changes to cost or function for the two immortal options.

A couple weeks ago space marines couldn't get a -1 to hit modifier just by painting their armor black, now they can. Every time you shoot at something in cover the effectiveness of tesla drops compared to things out of cover, this wont always make it the worse choice but if the meta of the game leans more meq and tables start running more and more cover granting terrain then the environment now starts to favor gauss more compared to yesterday. We don't have reliable transportation right now but tomb world deploy could easily be the kind of thing that gets faq'd to be more reliable and it would change how we use immortals drastically, including the likelihood they shoot from 12" or less which again changes which is the best option.

I'm not saying they're perfectly balanced against each other right now, i run 30 immortals and they all have tesla, I know its generally the better option currently. But they're close enough to be balanced and I can't say for sure which option i'll be running if every codex release has a -1 to hit chapter/sept/craftworld/whatever tactic going forward or if fortifications become a big meta trend or something which makes me hesitate to agree either of the two weapons needs any kind of 'fix' just yet.

silentone2k wrote:
I did explain my math,l. Better, frankly, than you did. I also provided my calculations in full. I'm not going to figure out how to transcribe them to dakka because you don't like the format. Feel free to do so and show your own work.

And you're just obsessed with making Gauss Blasters better than Tesla because you actually ignore the balancing factor. Tesla is good at all ranges, and Gauss does it better at Rapid Fire range.

I'm asking WHY that isn't balanced.

 Actinium wrote:
I chose cover, negative to hit mods, and transportation because those things are in flux, even now without the necron codex in sight, which makes it very hard to say with certainty that tesla will be the better choice tomorrow let alone a year from now with no changes to cost or function for the two immortal options.

A couple weeks ago space marines couldn't get a -1 to hit modifier just by painting their armor black, now they can. Every time you shoot at something in cover the effectiveness of tesla drops compared to things out of cover, this wont always make it the worse choice but if the meta of the game leans more meq and tables start running more and more cover granting terrain then the environment now starts to favor gauss more compared to yesterday.

My Will Be Done is cited as a must-have synergy with every discussion of Tesla I've seen. It immediately restores those -1 penalties or grants extra hits on a 5+.
There is no comparable effect for increasing Gauss effectiveness aside from moving inside charge range with a weapon that doesn't help with or against charges or close combat. And then it still only really beats out tesla against MEq or better armor.

 Actinium wrote:
We don't have reliable transportation right now but tomb world deploy could easily be the kind of thing that gets faq'd to be more reliable and it would change how we use immortals drastically, including the likelihood they shoot from 12" or less which again changes which is the best option.

It could happen. Or the garbage version of tomb deploy that currently exists could be intended. Look at the morale vs RP decision that came out. Could have gone the other way, whether it was errata or faq, but they chose to go with the worse options for the army already struggling.

Even assuming that we get better transports, though, Immortals are not close combat fighters. Being within 12" is not a strategic advantage for the models in any way until you add gauss. And Gauss does not provide enough for that required closeness.

 Actinium wrote:
I'm not saying they're perfectly balanced against each other right now, i run 30 immortals and they all have tesla, I know its generally the better option currently.

You run 30 immortals... all tesla... recognize its the better option by enough that not one squad gets gauss...

You're saying that you are aware enough of everything I'm saying that you incorporate it into your list building, but don't think it should change because... it's good enough.

 Actinium wrote:
But they're close enough to be balanced and I can't say for sure which option i'll be running if every codex release has a -1 to hit chapter/sept/craftworld/whatever tactic going forward or if fortifications become a big meta trend or something which makes me hesitate to agree either of the two weapons needs any kind of 'fix' just yet.

Unless the meta literally becomes ultra-fast 'crons vs Fortifications putting out -1 penalties the math says you'll still be running tesla.
I'm not going to hold my breath.

Let's not be disingenuous here, unlike chapter tactics MWBD isn't free and it only effects 1 unit a turn, and even still it only negates the extreme drawback a -1 to hit modifier has on tesla but that's still going from an avg 30 hits down to 20 for 10 immortals, a flat 33.33% drop in offensive power compared to a gauss unit going from 8.33/16.66 hits to 6.66/13.33, only a 20% drop. The unbuffed numbers are bigger, tesla gets 50% weaker while gauss only gets 25% weaker. A short range is a drawback but i think it's a little off-key to imply that the immortals are putting themselves in extreme danger by moving forward to shred a unit in rapid fire range, that's how all strong short range shooting works, it's like claiming aggressors are weak against boyz because they have to get within charge range to wipe the unit out. I run 30 tesla carbines but that's all dry fit with pins, i can and will swap to gauss if it makes sense to do so. Like this article just went up yesterday, but what if that sample list with the terminator bomb becomes a big thing? A whole army of 3+/2+ models with -1 to hit and the mobility to put them immediately in your face where you will never be outside rapid fire range regardless of your weapon option. There's something like that that makes me revisit what option I'm taking with almost every release, it feels weird to ask for a sweeping overhaul to an option i'm actively considering using.

20 shots hitting at 50%(4+) still has twice the hits of 10 shots hitting at 50%. After figuring in the difference in AP the break even point, where gauss wounds equals tesla, is 3+. At 2+ you get 2.5 hits with gauss vs 1.66 with tesla. So, if you have an army wide -1 to hit and 2+ saves all around... sure. Gauss beats tesla.

But I thought we weren't being disingenuous... how many 2+ saves can benefit from those chapter tactics? (or, reliably, cover?)

If we're within 12", the army wide -1 goes away. But the target is in cover! (I'm still not sure why Immortals want to be within 12" of anything. But, hell, they're prepping for a charge they can't take after shooting a Rapid Fire weapon.) Against a 2+ or 3+ save gauss is clearly better. Against a 4+ save it's 5 hits tesla vs 5.55 gauss... Oh, and once they are in close combat none of this matters because both gauss and tesla immortals have s4, t4, 1 attack, 1 wound, and no AP... So we have them right where we want them!

Ingenious!

silentone2k wrote:
20 shots hitting at 50%(4+) still has twice the hits of 10 shots hitting at 50%. After figuring in the difference in AP the break even point, where gauss wounds equals tesla, is 3+. At 2+ you get 2.5 hits with gauss vs 1.66 with tesla. So, if you have an army wide -1 to hit and 2+ saves all around... sure. Gauss beats tesla.

But I thought we weren't being disingenuous... how many 2+ saves can benefit from those chapter tactics? (or, reliably, cover?)

If we're within 12", the army wide -1 goes away. But the target is in cover! (I'm still not sure why Immortals want to be within 12" of anything. But, hell, they're prepping for a charge they can't take after shooting a Rapid Fire weapon.) Against a 2+ or 3+ save gauss is clearly better. Against a 4+ save it's 5 hits tesla vs 5.55 gauss... Oh, and once they are in close combat none of this matters because both gauss and tesla immortals have s4, t4, 1 attack, 1 wound, and no AP... So we have them right where we want them!

Ingenious!

And when you're in Rapid Fire range, the Gauss wins out.

Why aren't you seeing that as balanced? Ones better star, when better right in the face.

Besides not agreeing with the basic premise of this proposition, I like that your suggestion is either to drop the price of Gauss making immortals cheaper to field stock or to completely modiify the weapons without changing the price.

Wouldn't the simplest solution be to increase the cost of Tesla? Even if it's 1-2 ppm?

But no. It's about making immortals less expensive or gauss better. That tells me everything I need to know about the space where the OP is coming from.

 Lance845 wrote:
Besides not agreeing with the basic premise of this proposition, I like that your suggestion is either to drop the price of Gauss making immortals cheaper to field stock or to completely modiify the weapons without changing the price.

Wouldn't the simplest solution be to increase the cost of Tesla? Even if it's 1-2 ppm?

But no. It's about making immortals less expensive or gauss better. That tells me everything I need to know about the space where the OP is coming from.

I think the 6 page thread in general discussion about where Necrons are in the heirarchy of armies so far this edition justifies assuming that a power buff to gauss isn't a horrible idea.
The fact you glazed over "completely modify the weapons without changing price" included about as much a nerf to tesla as a buff to gauss tells me everything I need to know abput where your head's at.

silentone2k wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:
Besides not agreeing with the basic premise of this proposition, I like that your suggestion is either to drop the price of Gauss making immortals cheaper to field stock or to completely modiify the weapons without changing the price.

Wouldn't the simplest solution be to increase the cost of Tesla? Even if it's 1-2 ppm?

But no. It's about making immortals less expensive or gauss better. That tells me everything I need to know about the space where the OP is coming from.

I think the 6 page thread in general discussion about where Necrons are in the heirarchy of armies so far this edition justifies assuming that a power buff to gauss isn't a horrible idea.
The fact you glazed over "completely modify the weapons without changing price" included about as much a nerf to tesla as a buff to gauss tells me everything I need to know abput where your head's at.

Except nowhere in that thread is the problem with necrons gauss. Its mainly that their defining special rule that is meant to make them incredibly durable becomes easier and easier to negate the larger the game gets until it reaches a tipping point (that isnt very high btw) where the rule might as well not exist at all.

The next issue is again not gauss. Its that necrons have been gutted of the majority of their options over a few editions with the change from 7 to 8 being one of the worst. The complete lack of special weapons to give infantry a better edge agaisnt specialized targets, especially on elite infantry like lychguard and preatorians, is a huge detriment.

Dont use the actual good discussion on why necrons have it bad to justify proposing rules that dont fix any of the actual issues in that thread. Necrons need fixes. This isnt going to help anything.

 Lance845 wrote:


Except nowhere in that thread is the problem with necrons gauss. Its mainly that their defining special rule that is meant to make them incredibly durable becomes easier and easier to negate the larger the game gets until it reaches a tipping point (that isnt very high btw) where the rule might as well not exist at all.

The next issue is again not gauss. Its that necrons have been gutted of the majority of their options over a few editions with the change from 7 to 8 being one of the worst. The complete lack of special weapons to give infantry a better edge agaisnt specialized targets, especially on elite infantry like lychguard and preatorians, is a huge detriment.

Dont use the actual good discussion on why necrons have it bad to justify proposing rules that dont fix any of the actual issues in that thread. Necrons need fixes. This isnt going to help anything.

You came at me, to the point of putting words in my mouth declaring what I must be thinking; that this was entirely to buff necrons. Yes? That's an entire thread devoted to "necrons have significant issues." Yes? Is there, perhaps, a line between the two somewhere?
Is Gauss vs Tesla a point of discussion in that thread? No. There are much bigger issues with the army in the current rule set. I agree with that. However "larger problems" don't mean "only problem." Do you acknowledge that the price point between gauss and tesla shouldn't be the same? Are we still arguing that "better versus heavily armored targets (if close or additional protection vs hits is afforded)" is somehow balanced against all other targets including most anything at >12 inches.


So, what you're saying is this should be solved by simply nerfing Tesla? Or do you think that immortals need a price bump, dispite the fact there's an entire "good discussion" about how the entire army already doesn't produce value for points?

silentone2k wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:


Except nowhere in that thread is the problem with necrons gauss. Its mainly that their defining special rule that is meant to make them incredibly durable becomes easier and easier to negate the larger the game gets until it reaches a tipping point (that isnt very high btw) where the rule might as well not exist at all.

The next issue is again not gauss. Its that necrons have been gutted of the majority of their options over a few editions with the change from 7 to 8 being one of the worst. The complete lack of special weapons to give infantry a better edge agaisnt specialized targets, especially on elite infantry like lychguard and preatorians, is a huge detriment.

Dont use the actual good discussion on why necrons have it bad to justify proposing rules that dont fix any of the actual issues in that thread. Necrons need fixes. This isnt going to help anything.

You came at me, to the point of putting words in my mouth declaring what I must be thinking; that this was entirely to buff necrons. Yes? That's an entire thread devoted to "necrons have significant issues." Yes? Is there, perhaps, a line between the two somewhere?
Is Gauss vs Tesla a point of discussion in that thread? No. There are much bigger issues with the army in the current rule set. I agree with that. However "larger problems" don't mean "only problem." Do you acknowledge that the price point between gauss and tesla shouldn't be the same? Are we still arguing that "better versus heavily armored targets (if close or additional protection vs hits is afforded)" is somehow balanced against all other targets including most anything at >12 inches.


So, what you're saying is this should be solved by simply nerfing Tesla? Or do you think that immortals need a price bump, dispite the fact there's an entire "good discussion" about how the entire army already doesn't produce value for points?

First I think you are taking this all far too personally. I don't give enough of a gak to come at you in any way. My post was not directed at you specifically. My post was directed at the discussion. I agree with people who say it's not needed to change anything about tesla and gauss and I disagree with the direction you are going in to "fix" a thing I don't think is broken.

I think gauss and tesla are fine. I think they fill different roles and work better or worse in those roles. I think the AP can be more significant then you give it credit for. I think the extra hits are nice when AP isn't so needed.

I think immortals and warriors are fine for their points. For the vast majority necrons points are correct. What they NEED is to give a lot of the toys back. Add back in pariahs. Remove the requirement for Necrons to deploy by turn 3 from their Tomb Worlds (and should remove this requirement in general from the game. It's dumb as gak). Allow up to 3 units to deploy at a time from Monolith Eternity Gates and up to 2 units to deploy at a time from Nightscythes beams. Finally, and most importantly, they need to change RP to something that functions better in a IGOUGO set up if they are going to be so persistent in sticking with that crappy game structure.