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.

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?

Just my 2p.

Gauss might cause 2 wounds on a roll of 6. making your massed fire into anti armor.

What if

A roll of 6 deals an additional damage?

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.

 Grimgold wrote:

Spoiler:

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.

-

 Galef wrote:

 Grimgold wrote:

Spoiler:

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?

BrianDavion wrote:

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.

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

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.

My guess would be -1 rend on to wounds of a 6.

 Kap'n Krump wrote:
My guess would be -1 rend on to wounds of a 6.

That's probably the blade storm and or rending mechanic, Gauss has a different function entirely.

A lot of these are likely. I think doing an additional wound on a damage roll of 6, might be a thing.

As for RP.... I have no idea, but I hope they keep it simple, like an extra 5+ save (not modified) that is ignored by mortal wounds.

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.

 Grimgold wrote:

 Kap'n Krump wrote:
My guess would be -1 rend on to wounds of a 6.

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

-

https://www.warhammer-community.com/2017/05/17/warhammer-40000-faction-focus-drukhari-may17/

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).