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.

 Galef wrote:
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

-

Bladestorm was fine as a rule. The issue came from units that were priced better than other codex equivalents.

Well, vehicles (most) didn't have saves, now they seem to do, that certainly alters the effect of wounding on 6, armor modifier or ridiculous damage increase seems necessary to compensate

 Charistoph wrote:
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).

You misunderstand what gauss is for, it's not so that Necrons can hurt vehicles, though that is one of its effects, it's to make up for the fact that Necrons don't have mixed weapon types in our units. A 1 in 6 chance to glance a vehicle was a roundabout/random way of giving 1 in 6 warriors a special weapon. With the changes to the durability of large units, gauss has to change as well. Also, we are guessing since we are past the point where we could make suggestions, and have some faith in GW that they didn't bone us.

Thus all of the guesses are around making massed gauss fire dangerous to anything, so we end up with guesses like mortal wounds on 6, rerolling failed to wounds, or doing multiple wounds on 6s.

I just thought of another way Gauss could be representing in 8E: 6s to wound count as Damage +1.
So if Flayers are D:1, a 6 makes it D:2
If heavy Gauss cannons are D: d6, a 6 to wound will be d6+1

This would be a nice dynamic between Tesla and Guass. Tesla gets 2 extra hits on a 6 to hit, Guass gets extra Damage on a 6 to wound.

it would also make them more relevant against vehicles as they are now since they'll need 5s & 6s to wound most vehicles, so most successful to-wound will cause extra damage

-

 Galef wrote:
I just thought of another way Gauss could be representing in 8E: 6s to wound count as Damage +1.
So if Flayers are D:1, a 6 makes it D:2
If heavy Gauss cannons are D: d6, a 6 to wound will be d6+1

This would be a nice dynamic between Tesla and Guass. Tesla gets 2 extra hits on a 6 to hit, Guass gets extra Damage on a 6 to wound.

it would also make them more relevant against vehicles as they are now since they'll need 5s & 6s to wound most vehicles, so most successful to-wound will cause extra damage

-

I said that on page 1.

Grimgold wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:
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.

You misunderstand what gauss is for, it's not so that Necrons can hurt vehicles, though that is one of its effects, it's to make up for the fact that Necrons don't have mixed weapon types in our units. A 1 in 6 chance to glance a vehicle was a roundabout/random way of giving 1 in 6 warriors a special weapon. With the changes to the durability of large units, gauss has to change as well. Also, we are guessing since we are past the point where we could make suggestions, and have some faith in GW that they didn't bone us.

I did not misunderstand it. That is the only thing Gauss did in the 3rd and 5th Edition codices. It allowed any Gauss Weapon to automatically Glance a Vehicle on a roll of 6, no matter the Armour Value or Str of the Weapon. When it was first introduced, Gauss was the most prevalent Weapon system of the Necrons, and the only ranged one outside of HQs and Heavy Support. The only Weapons that could harm any Vehicle in that codex without Gauss were the Heavy Destroyer's Gauss Cannon (a LasCannon by another name) and the Particle Whip. The 7th Edition codex changed Gauss so it to also automatically Wound on a 6+. And you are pretty much giving the same reason I gave.

Galef wrote:I just thought of another way Gauss could be representing in 8E: 6s to wound count as Damage +1.
So if Flayers are D:1, a 6 makes it D:2
If heavy Gauss cannons are D: d6, a 6 to wound will be d6+1

This would be a nice dynamic between Tesla and Guass. Tesla gets 2 extra hits on a 6 to hit, Guass gets extra Damage on a 6 to wound.

it would also make them more relevant against vehicles as they are now since they'll need 5s & 6s to wound most vehicles, so most successful to-wound will cause extra damage

Interesting, even if some of it is repeated. It definitely has possibilities. I do think that the set number of hits on a 6 was ever a good idea.

I don't think I have ever had any real benefit of wounding anything on a 6 in 7th with gauss, anything with T8 or higher most certainly has a 2+ or 3+ save, probably also FNP.

Glancing on a 6 most certainly is the only real value of gauss currently.

If all vehicles have 3+ saves as standard, we certainly should have some armor save shenanigans on a 6, in addition to a small increase in dmg output.

Not having to hide from the new lesser races inferior technology, such as armored vehicles, certainly is a key element to playing necrons.

With our short range but resilient units, we have to be able march on, and expect 10 warriors in rapid fire range to be a real threat to vehicles. With a mere +1 dmg on 5s/6s but still allowing them 3+ saves, we aren't that big of a threat to 12-15 wounds.

I actually believe GW will deliver for necrons, but I'm very excited to see what it will be.

 docdoom77 wrote:

Spoiler:

 Galef wrote:
I just thought of another way Gauss could be representing in 8E: 6s to wound count as Damage +1.
So if Flayers are D:1, a 6 makes it D:2
If heavy Gauss cannons are D: d6, a 6 to wound will be d6+1

This would be a nice dynamic between Tesla and Guass. Tesla gets 2 extra hits on a 6 to hit, Guass gets extra Damage on a 6 to wound.

it would also make them more relevant against vehicles as they are now since they'll need 5s & 6s to wound most vehicles, so most successful to-wound will cause extra damage

-

I said that on page 1.

Indeed you did, my apologies, Doc. I didn't remember that, despite clearly responding to it immediately after you. I think I may not have had my head completely around it at first.
The Faction focus for Dark Eldar gives the profile for Disintegrators as 3 shot AP -3, Damage:2. We hadn't seen a Damage 2 weapon up til now, just 1, D3 and D6

If a stock weapon on a faction's most common vehicle can have Damage 2, why not have Gauss do it on a 6 to wound?

torblind wrote:

With our short range but resilient units, we have to be able march on, and expect 10 warriors in rapid fire range to be a real threat to vehicles. With a mere +1 dmg on 5s/6s but still allowing them 3+ saves, we aren't that big of a threat to 12-15 wounds.

Good point, but remember that Flayers are not the only Gauss weapons out there. Gauss blasters will certainly have AP -1, Cannons AP -2 and Heavy Cannons AP -3 with D6 damage.
Having a mixed list in 8E will be way better than one in 7E.

-

-

 Galef wrote:

 docdoom77 wrote:

Spoiler:

 Galef wrote:
I just thought of another way Gauss could be representing in 8E: 6s to wound count as Damage +1.
So if Flayers are D:1, a 6 makes it D:2
If heavy Gauss cannons are D: d6, a 6 to wound will be d6+1

This would be a nice dynamic between Tesla and Guass. Tesla gets 2 extra hits on a 6 to hit, Guass gets extra Damage on a 6 to wound.

it would also make them more relevant against vehicles as they are now since they'll need 5s & 6s to wound most vehicles, so most successful to-wound will cause extra damage

-

I said that on page 1.

Indeed you did, my apologies, Doc. I didn't remember that, despite clearly responding to it immediately after you. I think I may not have had my head completely around it at first.
The Faction focus for Dark Eldar gives the profile for Disintegrators as 3 shot AP -3, Damage:2. We hadn't seen a Damage 2 weapon up til now, just 1, D3 and D6

If a stock weapon on a faction's most common vehicle can have Damage 2, why not have Gauss do it on a 6 to wound?

-

No problem at all. I see no reason why this wouldn't perfectly represent Gauss's ability to strip its targets away at the molecular level. Harder for vehicles, monsters and tough characters to survive. it.

torblind wrote:
I don't think I have ever had any real benefit of wounding anything on a 6 in 7th with gauss, anything with T8 or higher most certainly has a 2+ or 3+ save, probably also FNP.

Glancing on a 6 most certainly is the only real value of gauss currently.

If all vehicles have 3+ saves as standard, we certainly should have some armor save shenanigans on a 6, in addition to a small increase in dmg output.

Not having to hide from the new lesser races inferior technology, such as armored vehicles, certainly is a key element to playing necrons.

With our short range but resilient units, we have to be able march on, and expect 10 warriors in rapid fire range to be a real threat to vehicles. With a mere +1 dmg on 5s/6s but still allowing them 3+ saves, we aren't that big of a threat to 12-15 wounds.

I actually believe GW will deliver for necrons, but I'm very excited to see what it will be.

That's why I'm kind of expecting 6s to cause mortal wounds. That way we could bypass those 2+ and 3+ saves.

 EnTyme wrote:

torblind wrote:
I don't think I have ever had any real benefit of wounding anything on a 6 in 7th with gauss, anything with T8 or higher most certainly has a 2+ or 3+ save, probably also FNP.

Glancing on a 6 most certainly is the only real value of gauss currently.

If all vehicles have 3+ saves as standard, we certainly should have some armor save shenanigans on a 6, in addition to a small increase in dmg output.

Not having to hide from the new lesser races inferior technology, such as armored vehicles, certainly is a key element to playing necrons.

With our short range but resilient units, we have to be able march on, and expect 10 warriors in rapid fire range to be a real threat to vehicles. With a mere +1 dmg on 5s/6s but still allowing them 3+ saves, we aren't that big of a threat to 12-15 wounds.

I actually believe GW will deliver for necrons, but I'm very excited to see what it will be.

That's why I'm kind of expecting 6s to cause mortal wounds. That way we could bypass those 2+ and 3+ saves.

That seems very overpowered.

Martel732 wrote:

Spoiler:

 EnTyme wrote:

torblind wrote:
I don't think I have ever had any real benefit of wounding anything on a 6 in 7th with gauss, anything with T8 or higher most certainly has a 2+ or 3+ save, probably also FNP.

Glancing on a 6 most certainly is the only real value of gauss currently.

If all vehicles have 3+ saves as standard, we certainly should have some armor save shenanigans on a 6, in addition to a small increase in dmg output.

Not having to hide from the new lesser races inferior technology, such as armored vehicles, certainly is a key element to playing necrons.

With our short range but resilient units, we have to be able march on, and expect 10 warriors in rapid fire range to be a real threat to vehicles. With a mere +1 dmg on 5s/6s but still allowing them 3+ saves, we aren't that big of a threat to 12-15 wounds.

I actually believe GW will deliver for necrons, but I'm very excited to see what it will be.

That's why I'm kind of expecting 6s to cause mortal wounds. That way we could bypass those 2+ and 3+ saves.

That seems very overpowered.

Indeed, that would be a bit much. The more I think of it, the more I think Doc's idea of being Damage 2 (or +1) on a 6 to wound will be pretty close to what Gauss will be.

-

Mortal wounds on 6s might be the fluffiest answer, but it seems too effective against troops and changes they way Necrons play. So far as we've seen The philosophy of the new edition is that they can change mechanics but gameplay should be left intact where it can be.

The issue with 2 wounds on sixes is it can one shot a lot of what are supposed to be tough infantry, terminators, and Nu-Marines for instance. I doubt they are going to make something that effective against their new cash cow.

My current bet is actually always wound on a 4+, It doesn't matter to infantry who would have been wounded on a 4+ anyway, it does make a difference to vehicles and monstrous creatures with a toughness in the 5+ range.

So going back to the old example of the dreadnought:

2/3 * 1/2 * 1/3 = 1/9

So 1 in 9 shots wounds a dread, at 8 wounds that is 72 shots to kill it. You might also recognize this number from 7th ed:

2/3 * 1/6 = 1/9

Which is 2/3 chance to hit, with 1 in 6 glancing, no save because vehicles didn't get them. So this solution is functionally identical to the gauss rule from 7th ed when shooting at vehicles with a 3+ save (which is all the ones we've seen so far).

 Galef wrote:

Martel732 wrote:

Spoiler:

 EnTyme wrote:

torblind wrote:
I don't think I have ever had any real benefit of wounding anything on a 6 in 7th with gauss, anything with T8 or higher most certainly has a 2+ or 3+ save, probably also FNP.

Glancing on a 6 most certainly is the only real value of gauss currently.

If all vehicles have 3+ saves as standard, we certainly should have some armor save shenanigans on a 6, in addition to a small increase in dmg output.

Not having to hide from the new lesser races inferior technology, such as armored vehicles, certainly is a key element to playing necrons.

With our short range but resilient units, we have to be able march on, and expect 10 warriors in rapid fire range to be a real threat to vehicles. With a mere +1 dmg on 5s/6s but still allowing them 3+ saves, we aren't that big of a threat to 12-15 wounds.

I actually believe GW will deliver for necrons, but I'm very excited to see what it will be.

That's why I'm kind of expecting 6s to cause mortal wounds. That way we could bypass those 2+ and 3+ saves.

That seems very overpowered.

Indeed, that would be a bit much. The more I think of it, the more I think Doc's idea of being Damage 2 (or +1) on a 6 to wound will be pretty close to what Gauss will be.

-

2 damage is much more fair.

 Grimgold wrote:
Mortal wounds on 6s might be the fluffiest answer, but it seems too effective against troops and changes they way Necrons play. So far as we've seen The philosophy of the new edition is that they can change mechanics but gameplay should be left intact where it can be.

The issue with 2 wounds on sixes is it can one shot a lot of what are supposed to be tough infantry, terminators, and Nu-Marines for instance. I doubt they are going to make something that effective against their new cash cow.

My current bet is actually always wound on a 4+, It doesn't matter to infantry who would have been wounded on a 4+ anyway, it does make a difference to vehicles and monstrous creatures with a toughness in the 5+ range.

So going back to the old example of the dreadnought:

2/3 * 1/2 * 1/3 = 1/9

So 1 in 9 shots wounds a dread, at 8 wounds that is 72 shots to kill it. You might also recognize this number from 7th ed:

2/3 * 1/6 = 1/9

Which is 2/3 chance to hit, with 1 in 6 glancing, no save because vehicles didn't get them. So this solution is functionally identical to the gauss rule from 7th ed when shooting at vehicles with a 3+ save (which is all the ones we've seen so far).

You know, that actually works really well, and it's also pretty fluffy.

I agree, that would be my favored solution currently.

torblind wrote:
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

actually rhe AP -3 is all the time (jesus the dark eldar are gonna be cutting apart marines) the leader of the incubi only gets +2 dmg on a 6. which yes I could see being how gauss weapons work

RP is harder to guess than gauss, whereas with Gauss we have lots of examples of weapons and targets and can math our way to an approximate solution, We haven't seen any kind of secondary save like repair protocols or FnP. We also know the top armies are being adjusted (the T'au caught several nerfs as did daemons), so I would expect any balancing happening with Necrons to be in this area. Though I also expect Necron nerfs to be mild since Necron decurion was the biggest area of complaint about balance, and that's gone in 8th ed. My first hunch is to not overthink this, Necrons have had a system that has worked for quite a few editions, so we will probably only need some mild tweaks.

Repair Protocols(X): When a model with the Repair protocols rule takes it's final wound place the model on its side, at the end of the current turn roll a die for each of these models, on a 5+ they get back up with X number of wounds, up to their maximum starting wounds. When a model with repair protocol and multiple wounds is at less than maximum wounds at the end of a round, it may make a 5+ repair protocol roll, on a successful roll they heal X wounds up to their starting wound amount.

Warriors and immortals will have Repair Protocols (1), and Nobel frames (Lords, Overlords, Lychguard, and Praetorians), Crpyteks, and Destroyers will have Repair Protocols(2). Nobel frames will also have two base wounds. Orbs give +1 to repair protocols X value (max of +1), and crpyteks give a +1 to the roll, and the orb of eternity does both.

Necron overlords will have a unique command ability, they can spend a CP to allow models within 12" to reroll ones on repair protocol rolls, this must be decided before any repair protocols rolls are made for the turn.

Tomb spiders will no longer summon new scarabs, and will instead just replace losses similar to how ghost arks function in 7th ed, but no longer risk taking wounds to do so. Tomb spiders can sacrifice their shooting action to give a nearby (3") Necron structure or vehicle repair protocols(3) for the turn.

 Grimgold wrote:
Repair Protocols(X): When a model with the Repair protocols rule takes it's final wound place the model on its side, at the end of the current turn roll a die for each of these models, on a 5+ they get back up with X number of wounds, up to their maximum starting wounds. When a model with repair protocol and multiple wounds is at less than maximum wounds at the end of a round, it may make a 5+ repair protocol roll, on a successful roll they heal X wounds up to their starting wound amount.

If they are trying to keep things simple, I seriously doubt we will be going back to the 3rd/5th Edition mechanics. I honestly think we'll be looking at them having either the second Save or they will be reducing the opponent's To Wound Roll. I could be wrong here, but I seriously doubt we'll be regressing on this one like this.

 Grimgold wrote:
Necron overlords will have a unique command ability, they can spend a CP to allow models within 12" to reroll ones on repair protocol rolls, this must be decided before any repair protocols rolls are made for the turn.

Honestly, I would rather see this tied to Crypteks than Overlords. But unless Crypteks can come with more than 1 model per slot, a lot of people are going to be hurting finding room for their Lords (if they stick around) as well as their Crypteks. Of course, allowing it for Crypteks would mean that they don't have access to other abilities like the 5th Edition Crypteks did. At this point, though, we don't know which kind of Noble Necrons we will be seeing here.

 Grimgold wrote:
Tomb spyders will no longer summon new scarabs, and will instead just replace losses similar to how ghost arks function in 7th ed, but no longer risk taking wounds to do so. Tomb spyders can sacrifice their shooting action to give a nearby (3") Necron structure or vehicle repair protocols(3) for the turn.

Quite probably. This follows a more simplified method and not having to track as much.

be intreasting to see how repair stuff works, as in addition to necrons you have the rhino track repair system (me I'd just make the rhino have one of the most forgiving "damage effectiveness loss" charts in the game)

I know certain things in AoS have ways of ignoring Mortal Wounds (Plaguebearers, Warriors of chaos with shields), so it wouldn't surprise me if necrons had something similar to that.

I think we know what's going on with Repair protocols now, between disgustingly resilient and and the painboyz aura secondary saves didn't go away for the edition change. So repair protocols are very likely going to stay the same in 8th ed, a secondary save taken per wound, with a 5+ able to go down to a 4+ near a crpytek. To balance out instant death no longer giving a -1, you instead have to make a save vs each wound, which makes surviving things like a lascannon much less likely, instead of being 1 in 3 it's now 1 in 8 that a RP saves a warrior from heavy weapons.

Still no hint on gauss, but I think always wounding on a 4+ is still the most mathematically sound approach. Then again I thought getting rid of secondary saves was the most mathematically sound approach so maybe they are playing off of a different sheet of music.

From a thread on reddit, leaks translated from Italian, probably the same guy who leaked the pricing info.

Necrons:

Reanimation protocols are made at the start of your movement phase. Roll a D6 for every slain model, on a 5+ it comes back. You can roll again in the following turns. You cannot roll if the whole unit is slain.

Can't keep a good Necron down, or a bad one. I like it actually, differentiates repair protocols nicely from disgustingly resilient.

Living metal allows for automatically regaining lost wounds

No surprises here.

Basic Gauss is 24" Rapid Fire Ap-2, Gauss Cannon is Ap-3 DmgD3

This is the one that makes me pause, awesome if true, but man the marine tears we will harvest will fill an ocean.

Discipline 10

Leadership 10, so big units are possible, again no surprises here.

Warriors cost unchanged form 7th

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Monolith M6" W20 S8 T8 Save3+, Gauss Flux Arc Heavy 3 S5 Ap-2, Whip Heavy 6 S8 Ap-2 DmgD6. When it gets charged, roll on a D6 and if 4+ (or worse, depending on wounds lost) charging unit gets D6 mortal wounds.

More wounds than a land raider, heals wounds every round, but a 3+ save vs the land raiders 2+. Most amusing, can land on people charging it for mortal wounds.

On the fence, the gauss change comes out of left field, but the rest of it seems plausible by the standard of other leaks and faction focus. what do you guys think?

 Grimgold wrote:

Reanimation protocols are made at the start of your movement phase. Roll a D6 for every slain model, on a 5+ it comes back. You can roll again in the following turns. You cannot roll if the whole unit is slain.

Can't keep a good Necron down, or a bad one. I like it actually, differentiates repair protocols nicely from disgustingly resilient.

So, back to 3rd/5th version, but continues to happen rather than just right after the Wounds are taken. Very very mean. I wonder if the Eternity Gate will allow for an additional roll...

 Grimgold wrote:

Living metal allows for automatically regaining lost wounds

No surprises here.

Nope, not really.

 Grimgold wrote:

Basic Gauss is 24" Rapid Fire Ap-2, Gauss Cannon is Ap-3 DmgD3

This is the one that makes me pause, awesome if true, but man the marine tears we will harvest will fill an ocean.

A lot depends on what they mean by "Basic Gauss", the Flayer or the Blaster?

The Cannon was the Heavy/Assault 2, Str 5, AP: 3 version. No note on type/RoF for it.

Overall, too much missing information to get a real feel. Is the better AP and Dmg what now represents Gauss, or is it something else?

I imagine the ap -2 is for flayer/blaster (s4/s5 respectively), The cannon which is wielded by destroyers is s5 ap-3 d3 damage, and the heavy Gauss cannon is basically a half range las cannon.

Well if those leaks are real, Gauss is going to be pretty scary in 20-warrior units (Seriously. 40 shots at -2 Rend would be freaking horrifying in AoS). That RP system sounds pretty nasty, too. And those Monolith stats? Please, please tell me that's real! I may have to pick up another one if so. Now if they could just make a C'tan worth taking . . .

A lot of the Reddit rumours lately have me thinking that they are leaving something out (like AP -2 is only on a '6' to wound).
Similar rumors say that Eldar Warp Spiders have an AP -4 gun. These were previously AP - and on a '6' to wound they became AP2. I really think whoever is leaking the stuff on Reddit is leaving out the '6' to wound part. Either on purpose or isn't reading enough.

 Galef wrote:
A lot of the Reddit rumours lately have me thinking that they are leaving something out (like AP -2 is only on a '6' to wound).
Similar rumors say that Eldar Warp Spiders have an AP -4 gun. These were previously AP - and on a '6' to wound they became AP2. I really think whoever is leaking the stuff on Reddit is leaving out the '6' to wound part. Either on purpose or isn't reading enough.

That would make way more sense. No "basic" weapon should ever have that kind of rending value.

Both the warp spiders and gauss needed big changes because of fundamental rules shift. No more initiative to wound on, and now all weapons have gauss. I'm not sure if on sixes is required, but I could see it, Our FLGS should be getting their store books this week so we won't have to wait long for confirmation one way or another.

*Edit* Could be incomplete, maybe Gauss gives the weapon an additional -1 rend, so flayer is -1, blaster is -2, cannon is -3, and heavy cannon is -4. That seems less over the top.

 EnTyme wrote:

That would make way more sense. No "basic" weapon should ever have that kind of rending value.

Yes, it seems a bit too much at 13p a model, but as mentioned by Grimgold it might be for Blasters. Although it wouldn't surprise me. Games might only last for 3 turns in this edition considering all the firepower and movement shenanigans everything seems to have. Perhaps Necrons have Movement 4 and gets high Ap weapons?

If the Monolith rumors are true then atleast Blasters should have Ap-2, if it mirrors the 7th ed weapon stats.

Tomb Blades should be lethal with 4 S5 Ap-2 shots.

If Flayers are Ap-2 Ghost Arks will be amazing.

I'm not sure what stats Tesla weapons need to have to compete with this, but they would need a hefty boost.

Anyway.