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.

 adamsouza wrote:
I don't think there was anything in Space Wolves, Orks, Blood Angels, or Grey Knights that was nerfed as hard as hard as the cynics are predicting Necron Nerfs. I just don't see it happening.

Grey Knights lost Inquisition, Assassins, Psybolts, Psyflame, Rad Grenades, and Psychotroke grenades.
Admittedly all reasonable changes, but it was a major hit.

I don't expect major nerfs for Necrons, just a blandification/streamlining and a few outriders-
Tesla will likely change to Shock (same thing, but does not work on snap shots) which will help balance A barges and the fliers.
MSS may disappear, or get turned into something less NPE- say LD test on 3d6 or WS1
Crypteks will likely be simplified into a couple of fixed variants.
Deathmarks will likely lose their counter-deepstrike rules and get Interceptor instead.
Res Protocols may stay the same, while Everliving may just turn into IWND + EW
Hopefully Trans C-Tan gets toned down some, and obelisk beefed up some as LoW options.

 Tokhuah wrote:
Since we know that Destroyers are getting a re-box maybe there will be a Heavy option that includes Twin-linked Tesla Desructor at no additional cost to compensate for the Barge nerf.

Got Praetorians? Up Wounds to 2 and increase the range of the Rod to 24". Fixed!

Oh yea, and Wraith Coils should go up to 10 pts each but count as x2 one handed weapons to provide an additional attack. Then cost the model +5 but give them +1 toughness. @ 60 pts, Perfect Balance!

Why not? This thread has turned from rumors to wishes...

Haaaaaa
...
and then I remember that there are people who actually WANT these changes.
:/

 MajorWesJanson wrote:

 adamsouza wrote:
I don't think there was anything in Space Wolves, Orks, Blood Angels, or Grey Knights that was nerfed as hard as hard as the cynics are predicting Necron Nerfs. I just don't see it happening.

Grey Knights lost Inquisition, Assassins, Psybolts, Psyflame, Rad Grenades, and Psychotroke grenades.
Admittedly all reasonable changes, but it was a major hit.

I don't expect major nerfs for Necrons, just a blandification/streamlining and a few outriders-
Tesla will likely change to Shock (same thing, but does not work on snap shots) which will help balance A barges and the fliers.
MSS may disappear, or get turned into something less NPE- say LD test on 3d6 or WS1
Crypteks will likely be simplified into a couple of fixed variants.
Deathmarks will likely lose their counter-deepstrike rules and get Interceptor instead.
Res Protocols may stay the same, while Everliving may just turn into IWND + EW
Hopefully Trans C-Tan gets toned down some, and obelisk beefed up some as LoW options.

I wouldn't mind the ever-living being changed to IWND+EW. Ever living just seems to over complicate character re animation protocols. the Crypteks will probably be like the Dark Eldar Haemonculi and just have the toys specific to that particular unit.

I think ever living is fine, it should have just been applied more broadly to units like Lychguard and Immortals.

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:


I think Sigvatr just wants the Focused death-ray in the standard codex.

I just want GW to finally FAQ it. Same as Kulekh.

Different team, they are not going to FAQ it.
So no idea what this has to do with a rumour for a new Necron Codex.

 MajorWesJanson wrote:

I don't expect major nerfs for Necrons, just a blandification/streamlining and a few outriders-
Tesla will likely change to Shock (same thing, but does not work on snap shots) which will help balance A barges and the fliers.
MSS may disappear, or get turned into something less NPE- say LD test on 3d6 or WS1
Crypteks will likely be simplified into a couple of fixed variants.
Deathmarks will likely lose their counter-deepstrike rules and get Interceptor instead.
Res Protocols may stay the same, while Everliving may just turn into IWND + EW
Hopefully Trans C-Tan gets toned down some, and obelisk beefed up some as LoW options.

I have a feeling none of this may happen. Has any guess to BA, SW, AM/IG, DE, SM, Tyranids or what ever I missed, really happened from what people guessed except for the "no mini no rules now"?

All I can guess is, since Necrons have all their minis for characters they will not be loosing any. Will be surprised if it happens. As for rules being nerfed, don't see it happening. Funny I don't see the Necrons being all so powerful now like they use to be, so I could see them getting better not worse or sideways the least. I think there will be lots of complaints. Since a lot of people like to quote the tourney scene, I don't see Necrons winning anything as of late. They are not the top dog anymore so who knows, maybe the conspiracy side of me, will see Necrons get a buff so the people who need to win with plastic toy soldiers will flock to Necrons again just like they did in 5th edition.

Kangodo wrote:
Different team, they are not going to FAQ it.
So no idea what this has to do with a rumour for a new Necron Codex.

It is rumored that the Death Ray gets a re-write in order to sort any understanding issue out. If GW knew how to do their job, they could simply write sth. like "The Death Ray (and all versions of it) [...]" or simply "The (Focused) Death Ray [...]". New codex gets released anyway, so adding this mere info would be extremely easy.

"and all versions of it", it seems the community is just as bad at making rules as GW is

No, adding that would not be easy. If they start with Forgeworld rules in the Codex, they would add everything.
But that goes entirely against the idea of having two teams: You keep EVERYTHING separate!

 Sigvatr wrote:

Kangodo wrote:
Different team, they are not going to FAQ it.
So no idea what this has to do with a rumour for a new Necron Codex.

It is rumored that the Death Ray gets a re-write in order to sort any understanding issue out. If GW knew how to do their job, they could simply write sth. like "The Death Ray (and all versions of it) [...]" or simply "The (Focused) Death Ray [...]". New codex gets released anyway, so adding this mere info would be extremely easy.

Or maybe they can give Doomscythes a FDR upgrade option......

The GW Codex: Necrons can't modify the focused death ray rules given that those rules aren't in the Codex: Necrons to begin with. They'd have to add those rules wholesale to the codex, and that would require a unit/multiple units in the codex to use said rule.

Since pylons are ForgeWorld models and their rules are thusly in IA, what would you suggest should get FDR that is in the codex so that you can get this rule addition?

If Tesla changes to Shock, tesla carbines will become inferior to gauss blasters (sometimes inferior to gauss flayers) in almost all circumstances, other than being Assault. If they do change to that, I'm pretty sure they'll gain something else (Ignore Cover, maybe).

Since pylons are ForgeWorld models and their rules are thusly in IA, what would you suggest should get FDR that is in the codex so that you can get this rule addition?

Like I said Doomscythes. 25 pt upgrade. Exchange deathray for focused deathray. Done.

zeromaeus wrote:
The GW Codex: Necrons can't modify the focused death ray rules given that those rules aren't in the Codex: Necrons to begin with. They'd have to add those rules wholesale to the codex, and that would require a unit/multiple units in the codex to use said rule.

GW and FW are not a different company. They cross-reference a lot. Just open any given IA. IA12 for example, that directly references Codex: Necrons. The "FW IS NOT GW" argument is a stillborn argument.

If GW was doing a good job and did as I suggested above, I would love to see people claiming "Nu-uh, this is Codex: Necrons thus everything that's written here has no bearing on FW rules!".

Alcibiades wrote:
If Tesla changes to Shock, tesla carbines will become inferior to gauss blasters (sometimes inferior to gauss flayers) in almost all circumstances, other than being Assault. If they do change to that, I'm pretty sure they'll gain something else (Ignore Cover, maybe).

I still don't see the hubbub about tesla and snaps. It isn't any worse than some other special rules that some codex get (battle focus, SMS, etc..). Tesla shots still have AP-. As with most of the necron flavor rules it's all psychological shock and sleight. People have knee-jerks based on just one facet of a effect.

The one decision GW made on gauss affecting vehicles apposed to tesla bearing that torch instead, had me scratching my noggin. Tesla is more plausible to emp equipment hence anti vehicle.

 Sigvatr wrote:

zeromaeus wrote:
The GW Codex: Necrons can't modify the focused death ray rules given that those rules aren't in the Codex: Necrons to begin with. They'd have to add those rules wholesale to the codex, and that would require a unit/multiple units in the codex to use said rule.

GW and FW are not a different company. They cross-reference a lot. Just open any given IA. IA12 for example, that directly references Codex: Necrons. The "FW IS NOT GW" argument is a stillborn argument.

If GW was doing a good job and did as I suggested above, I would love to see people claiming "Nu-uh, this is Codex: Necrons thus everything that's written here has no bearing on FW rules!".

Hopefully what will happen is that FW will update their FAQs with the release of the new Necron codex.

 Nyghoma wrote:

Alcibiades wrote:
If Tesla changes to Shock, tesla carbines will become inferior to gauss blasters (sometimes inferior to gauss flayers) in almost all circumstances, other than being Assault. If they do change to that, I'm pretty sure they'll gain something else (Ignore Cover, maybe).

I still don't see the hubbub about tesla and snaps. It isn't any worse than some other special rules that some codex get (battle focus, SMS, etc..). Tesla shots still have AP-. As with most of the necron flavor rules it's all psychological shock and sleight. People have knee-jerks based on just one facet of a effect.

The one decision GW made on gauss affecting vehicles apposed to tesla bearing that torch instead, had me scratching my noggin. Tesla is more plausible to emp equipment hence anti vehicle.

Yeah, I don't want tesla to suffer partially for the reasons you've said, that it's not actually broken and would lose all the point in taking it.

The other reason I want it to stay the same is that I've heard so many assertions it's going to be nerfed, some of which were in person and absurdly smug, that I'd frankly improve it out of spite by now if I was the one writing the book.

Tesla doesn't need a nerf, we just need to do something to tone down the twin-linked tesla destructor platforms a touch so they stop being auto-include.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

col_impact wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:

zeromaeus wrote:
The GW Codex: Necrons can't modify the focused death ray rules given that those rules aren't in the Codex: Necrons to begin with. They'd have to add those rules wholesale to the codex, and that would require a unit/multiple units in the codex to use said rule.

GW and FW are not a different company. They cross-reference a lot. Just open any given IA. IA12 for example, that directly references Codex: Necrons. The "FW IS NOT GW" argument is a stillborn argument.

If GW was doing a good job and did as I suggested above, I would love to see people claiming "Nu-uh, this is Codex: Necrons thus everything that's written here has no bearing on FW rules!".

Hopefully what will happen is that FW will update their FAQs with the release of the new Necron codex.

Unlikely, but an update that clarifies the Pylon so the Skyfire/interceptor nerf doesn't render it almost worthless would be nice.

 Nyghoma wrote:

Alcibiades wrote:
If Tesla changes to Shock, tesla carbines will become inferior to gauss blasters (sometimes inferior to gauss flayers) in almost all circumstances, other than being Assault. If they do change to that, I'm pretty sure they'll gain something else (Ignore Cover, maybe).

I still don't see the hubbub about tesla and snaps. It isn't any worse than some other special rules that some codex get (battle focus, SMS, etc..). Tesla shots still have AP-. As with most of the necron flavor rules it's all psychological shock and sleight. People have knee-jerks based on just one facet of a effect.

The one decision GW made on gauss affecting vehicles apposed to tesla bearing that torch instead, had me scratching my noggin. Tesla is more plausible to emp equipment hence anti vehicle.

Well I can see their point with respect to tesla destructors (since they can jink all day with only around a 50% drop in effectiveness). But as I said if they remove the snap shot effect, tesla carbines will become crap. They are statistically inferior to gauss blasters in I think every case within 12" and only slightly superior from 12"-24". The snap shot thing in overwatch (and being assault) is their only benefit.

Gauss is the anti-vehicle effect because Gauss predates Tesla by two versions of the army, essentially.

I do understand the issue.
AB's are lightly undercosted as a 'normal' gun, but they could stay like this.
They are fine as AA.
The problems come when you Jink and hardly lose any shots from doing so.

In my opinion the 'best' solution would be to change the way they work after Jink and leave the snap-shots alone.
But such a rule would be quite messy and overly complicated, so the next best thing would be an upgrade which allows them to use Skyfire.

Though I expect some ridiculous point-increases when I look at the BA-Baal Predator.


Edit: Gauss actually eats the armour away, Tesla just puts lightning on it.. I would guess that most tanks survive some lightning?

Mephrit has already done the extra troops force organisation chart (kind of absurd, frankly, who maxes out troops in a Necron list and still wants more?)

So, what are we most likely to get in the Codex's unique chart?

 Sigvatr wrote:

zeromaeus wrote:
The GW Codex: Necrons can't modify the focused death ray rules given that those rules aren't in the Codex: Necrons to begin with. They'd have to add those rules wholesale to the codex, and that would require a unit/multiple units in the codex to use said rule.

GW and FW are not a different company. They cross-reference a lot. Just open any given IA. IA12 for example, that directly references Codex: Necrons. The "FW IS NOT GW" argument is a stillborn argument.

If GW was doing a good job and did as I suggested above, I would love to see people claiming "Nu-uh, this is Codex: Necrons thus everything that's written here has no bearing on FW rules!".

Yeah that wide perception is comical. People would rather play rules lawyer, holding every word written bible, even against an organic and intuitive conceptual reflection of rule interpretations between FW and GW. Folks throw out the whole spirit of an idea in exchange for some insensible rubbish. Just because one DR is worded slightly different than its FW counterpart, doesn't mean that they have a totally separate set of rules.

For example. In IA 12, ground lash for the tesseract ark portrays similar rules to a beam and deathray. They're family. In my mind, you should apply a standard. Now, ground lash specifically says it doesn't affect zooming/ swooping. One page later is the FDR. It's data entry is intentionally written different than ground lash, suggesting FDR in fact can hit zooming/swooping. FDR and DR are the same exact effect just amplified by range and # of hits. Pre 7th edition, how can you even dispute contrast? The spirit of deathrays are supposed to be the same. Only when they call it GROUND lash and specify an important amendment, should this ever change. We fail to use common sense when GW proves ambiguous.

Bottom line. FDR+DR= same. Ground lash= different

 Sigvatr wrote:

zeromaeus wrote:
The GW Codex: Necrons can't modify the focused death ray rules given that those rules aren't in the Codex: Necrons to begin with. They'd have to add those rules wholesale to the codex, and that would require a unit/multiple units in the codex to use said rule.

GW and FW are not a different company. They cross-reference a lot. Just open any given IA. IA12 for example, that directly references Codex: Necrons. The "FW IS NOT GW" argument is a stillborn argument.

If GW was doing a good job and did as I suggested above, I would love to see people claiming "Nu-uh, this is Codex: Necrons thus everything that's written here has no bearing on FW rules!".

i

Other way around. Everything produced in ForgeWorld is supplemental (to an even greater extent than the actual supplements). It adds onto the base that GW provides. Nothing in standard games requires you to have anything related to ForgeWorld. ForgeWorld rules are extra rules and aren't considered part of the core product. Codex: Necrons is a part of the core system, therefore having supplementary materials refer to it is perfectly valid while the inverse (the core referring to supplemetary rules) is not. So yeah, you're right. Codex: Necrons has a huge impact on ForgeWorld rules. ForgeWorld material just has no impact on Codex: Necron rules.

What you clearly want is a FAQ, from the ForgeWorld team, clarifying your issues with the Focused Death Ray rules. Understandable. That isn't going to be a part of Codex: Necrons unless Codex: Necrons has that rule and it is sufficiently clarified in text as published. That, however, would require something in Codex: Necrons to use the Focused Death Ray ruleset.

In this digital age where mail ordered products are a mouse click away, it would make a lot of sense to reference and cross promote the Forge World lines in the main books, and provide cheap ebook versions of both codices and imperial armour books.

Sadly, "Marketing our products" and "Selling Ebooks at Ebook prices" aren't phrases in Games Workshop's vocabulary. I do think people are too hard on them online in a lot of ways, but their inability to promote themselves properly and the impact that has on their services is a very legitimate problem.

Kangodo wrote:
The problems come when you Jink and hardly lose any shots from doing so.

I really wish people would stop saying that.

Regular Telsa Shot 1 hit on 3 to 5, 3 hits on 6
50% chance to do 1 hit
16% chance to do 3 hits
33% chance to miss


Telsa Snap Shot
16% chance to do 3 hits.
84% chance to miss

Twin Linked Tesla
66% chance to do 1 hit
21% chance to do 3 hits
13% chance to miss
1.2 hits per shot average

Twin Linked Tesla Snap Shot
21% chance to do 3 hits
79% chance to miss
.6 hits per shot average

Twin Linked Telsa, the BEST weapon in the a game at Snap Shots, firing TWIN LINKED, takes a 50% reduction in effectiveness while snap shooting.

Gauss Weapons take a 75% reduction in effectiveness while snap shooting

You might want to recalculate that

The Tesla Destructor has 5.33 hits (1.33 per shot)
After a Jink that becomes 3.67 hits (0.917 per shot)
So they are working at 68.75% efficiency.

A TL-Assault Cannon has 3.56 hits with 1.22 hits after a Jink.
That means it works at 34.38% efficiency.

A Snap Shotting Tesla Destructor has more hits than a regular TL-Assault Cannon, which I find completely okay against Flyers.
My issue, as a Necron player with 5 AB's, is that my penalty for receiving a 4+ Cover Save is something I would call insignificant.
But what I mentioned many times before is that a nerf to the Jink/Tesla synergy would hurt our AA-capabilities too much, so we should be compensated in that area unless GW wants us to keep spamming Flyers.

I did screw up the twin linked on Snap shots. I only figured rerolls on 1-2, not 1-5

It's much too late to be doing the maths

All that people remember is when the Tesla Destructor snap shots and get three 6's. They don't remember the drudgery of turn upon turn of rolling few to no 6's that is the relative norm.

 Fafnir13 wrote:
All that people remember is when the Tesla Destructor snap shots and get three 6's. They don't remember the drudgery of turn upon turn of rolling few to no 6's that is the relative norm.

Hardly. You only have a 23% chance to not roll any 6's with a Tesla Destructor when you snapfire. Only 16% if you include the Annihilation Barge's underslung Tesla cannon. And even one 6 can be enough to put the hurt on a lot of things, not to mention letting you roll for Arc. As Kangodo mentioned, it's mostly that the Tesla Destructor only loses 31% efficiency to basically double the vehicle's resilience on already durable and cheap platforms is what rubs people the wrong way.

But it's just an artefact of an old codex, I fully expect the extra 2 hits on 6's to be removed when you snapfire a la the Shock rule from the new Space Wolves codex.

Why does it have to be an artifact of an old codex ?

Maybe advanced Alien technology is suppossed to work better than the stuff the Imperium has , but barely understands.

It's not like the Eldar have really good skimmers... Oh wait.