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.

 IHateNids wrote:
Yeah, the fact they add to the QS wall is another thing they have going for them.

I reckon if people played "normal" (read - non-Leviathan and non-Custodians) Dreadnoughts, they might have better targets

I do think that Tesla Destructors aren't great. Base AP1 would fix a lot of their issue I think. AP optional & 2D would be sweet

Um no. The S7 is part of the problem. They'd be absolutely garbage at gunning down T7 Dreads.

 IHateNids wrote:
This is what I can see GW doing. Because RoF fixes everything......

Well di it enough and it actually kind of does. Double ROF is superior to -1 in virtually every scenario. Targets that have high save AND constant reroll for save being exception.

vs 2+ save -1 doubles # of casualties, same as ROF doubling. And any save worse than that -1 doesn't double casualties like doubling ROF does. And any save better than 2+ the -1 is irrelevant.

So if I had to pick between double ROF or -1 it's easy. Double ROF.

And dam2 is worse than double ROF as well. Dam2 doesn't neccessarily make you better even vs w2 models. If you have double ROF you get double past saves than you did which is again same as d2. One SOB player confused buzz saws as "primaris" killers due to dam2. Well flails are just as good eventhough they also wound on 3+ vs saw 2+ and have lower save modifier because they have triple the attacks. ROF actually does solve lots of things. Flails are so good on penitent engines because they throw down tons of dice. 8th ed is edition of quantity over quality. Provided ROF is boosted enough it does fix everything. You can make tesla destructor supreme necron titan killer if you give sufficient high ROF. Albeit at that point the ROF would be ridiculous enough it will basically overkill ork boyz mobs

Would like to put this into debate. What if Tesla Destructors/Twin Tesla Destructors have their Tesla bonus going off on modified 5+ instead of 6+?

Well, we already have access to that using the Sautekh Stratagem, and it’s clearly not worth it (in competitive).

The stratagem would put them at 4+ Tesla bonus. Though I agree that the biggest issue with them is the Strength and Damage.

How do you get tesla to explode on 4+, when you have +1 to hit ??

The idea I'm putting forward is to have the heavier Tesla guns exploding on 5+ instead of the standard 6+. Then you could use the Sautekh strat and have them exploding on 4+. It makes sense to me that these bigger Tesla weapons should be pulling off their bonus better than the standard guns.

elook wrote:
The idea I'm putting forward is to have the heavier Tesla guns exploding on 5+ instead of the standard 6+. Then you could use the Sautekh strat and have them exploding on 4+. It makes sense to me that these bigger Tesla weapons should be pulling off their bonus better than the standard guns.

You should put that in the proposed rules section.

Thank you for sharing your opinion on the idea. Btw did you notice the previous page?

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 IHateNids wrote:
Yeah, the fact they add to the QS wall is another thing they have going for them.

I reckon if people played "normal" (read - non-Leviathan and non-Custodians) Dreadnoughts, they might have better targets

I do think that Tesla Destructors aren't great. Base AP1 would fix a lot of their issue I think. AP optional & 2D would be sweet

Um no. The S7 is part of the problem. They'd be absolutely garbage at gunning down T7 Dreads.

I would like to point out wounding on 5s is so much worse than moving on 4s....

still not a guaranteed Kill like our other heavy weapons, but gotta be worth something.

 IHateNids wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 IHateNids wrote:
Yeah, the fact they add to the QS wall is another thing they have going for them.

I reckon if people played "normal" (read - non-Leviathan and non-Custodians) Dreadnoughts, they might have better targets

I do think that Tesla Destructors aren't great. Base AP1 would fix a lot of their issue I think. AP optional & 2D would be sweet

Um no. The S7 is part of the problem. They'd be absolutely garbage at gunning down T7 Dreads.

I would like to point out wounding on 5s is so much worse than moving on 4s....

still not a guaranteed Kill like our other heavy weapons, but gotta be worth something.

They're still piss poor when you land 6 or so hits and then just 3 wound. When it comes to that, the difference of 1 less wound is honestly negligible at that point. They don't have a good target that's big, period.

Strength 8 or damage 2 seem the most popular choices for buffs.

Would be nice if they got a bonus Vs flyers to follow the fluff. A range of 36” would probably also make sense, although maybe not needed.

MrPieChee wrote:
Strength 8 or damage 2 seem the most popular choices for buffs.

Would be nice if they got a bonus Vs flyers to follow the fluff. A range of 36” would probably also make sense, although maybe not needed.

I think when our new codex swings around that tesla will change to natural 6s, which is both a buff and a nerf, but it'd help against flyers for sure. It's ludicrous that our anti-air vehicle, the Obelisk, is loaded up with tesla weaponry that will never trigger vs it's targets.

IanVanCheese wrote:

MrPieChee wrote:
Strength 8 or damage 2 seem the most popular choices for buffs.

Would be nice if they got a bonus Vs flyers to follow the fluff. A range of 36” would probably also make sense, although maybe not needed.

I think when our new codex swings around that tesla will change to natural 6s, which is both a buff and a nerf, but it'd help against flyers for sure. It's ludicrous that our anti-air vehicle, the Obelisk, is loaded up with tesla weaponry that will never trigger vs it's targets.[/q]




Please god no. Getting hit with that kind of nerf will cement our bottom-feeder status.

 iGuy91 wrote:


Please god no. Getting hit with that kind of nerf will cement our bottom-feeder status.

Yeah it's a double-edged sword, but I don't think our top-tier lists are spamming tesla anymore as it is. Regardless, this is the way the wind is blowing. Most other rules that trigger on 6s have changed to natural 6s.

If they make that change, but also improve the rest of our gakky rules then I'm fine with it. Anyway that's some far off speculation.

The only way Tesla is likely to change is if we get a new book. And I don't think that'll be the only change, so thinking it alone will make necrons bottom tier is a little ridiculous.

If we're talking new codex then Tesla should just become rapid fire 2 or 3, and Gauss blasters assault 2. Rapid fire is a perfect fit for Tesla since arcs of electricity are going to ground themselves at longer range. Sure if that's the only change it'll annoy lots of power gamers that have loads of Tesla immortals, but again, it's not a change that could/would happen in isolation!

Honestly, I'm ok with Tesla staying Ass2, but my lord if I didnt rather Guass Blasters were RF2

When I saw Storm Bolters were RF2 at the turn of the edition, I actually got my hopes up

Nah, Ass2 makes more sense than RF2; because the lightning grounds itself, you don't need to aim, so you can fire from the hip while advancing.

Gauss doesn't need more shots, it'd be better and more interesting for it to get a little bit of it's "oomph" back. Like To Wound Rolls of an unmodified 6 get AP-5. But that's more getting to rulescrafting than tactics.

 Gwyn chan 'r Gwyll wrote:
Nah, Ass2 makes more sense than RF2; because the lightning grounds itself, you don't need to aim, so you can fire from the hip while advancing.

I thnk you said that slightly backwards? I am saying I'm fine if they dont change Tesla

Gauss doesn't need more shots, it'd be better and more interesting for it to get a little bit of it's "oomph" back. Like To Wound Rolls of an unmodified 6 get AP-5. But that's more getting to rulescrafting than tactics.

I want Guass to not be automatically inferior. Giving them RF2 means that they have the same minimum damage output at long range, where Tesla can still pop on 6s for extra, and then getting close to them means they'll really really hurt (plus makes Mephrit better)

I'd say the obvious fix for Gauss is to make it D2, since it's the anti-elite infantry option and most elite infantry is rocking 2 wounds now.

Maybe damage 2 on a wound roll of a 6 for all gaus weapons, but flat damage 2 all the time is just more power creep. I mean, I get it, with stalker bolters out in the wild, but those are clearly an error themselves.

 Red Corsair wrote:
Maybe damage 2 on a wound roll of a 6 for all gaus weapons, but flat damage 2 all the time is just more power creep. I mean, I get it, with stalker bolters out in the wild, but those are clearly an error themselves.

Honestly most "On a 6" solutions for Gauss still wouldn't particularly serve to replicate the old benefit of being able to wear down vehicles and monsters with supplementary infantry fire to make up for our very sparse dedicated anti-big weapons.

It doesn't help that Warscythes also lost most of their oomph. I mean yeah, relying on footslogging combat infantry for anti-tank work is niche, but combining the lack of armourbane and all the extra wounds monsters have now... It's one less tool.

I could get behind 6s to wound is a mortal wound on top.

That seems to be floating round in spades right now

changemod wrote:
Honestly most "On a 6" solutions for Gauss still wouldn't particularly serve to replicate the old benefit of being able to wear down vehicles and monsters with supplementary infantry fire to make up for our very sparse dedicated anti-big weapons.

Could we perhaps take a page from the nightbringer and voidreaper?

Have gauss weapons always wound on a 2+ against vehicles, and follow normal strength vs toughness for non-vehicles.

Would this bring gauss too far above tesla? I think it further solidfies the anti-vehicle vs anti-horde nature of the 2.

edit: added quote to clarify what post is responding to.

RIP reading skills.

IanVanCheese wrote:
I'd say the obvious fix for Gauss is to make it D2, since it's the anti-elite infantry option and most elite infantry is rocking 2 wounds now.

Sorry I should say, I meant Immortal Gauss Blasters specifically, not Gauss Flayers.

I floated the idea of all gauss doing MW in addition on a 6 to wound, but loads of people cried that it would be OP (despite the maths showing that it would be fine). I understand though, people hate MW because they're almost impossible to block, so it takes player interaction out of the game.

IanVanCheese wrote:

IanVanCheese wrote:
I'd say the obvious fix for Gauss is to make it D2, since it's the anti-elite infantry option and most elite infantry is rocking 2 wounds now.

Sorry I should say, I meant Immortal Gauss Blasters specifically, not Gauss Flayers.

I floated the idea of all gauss doing MW in addition on a 6 to wound, but loads of people cried that it would be OP (despite the maths showing that it would be fine). I understand though, people hate MW because they're almost impossible to block, so it takes player interaction out of the game.

Who the gak is crying about that? The echo chamber has always said fishing for 6s is a gakky strategy to begin with.

 Tauris_Blazestar wrote:

IanVanCheese wrote:

IanVanCheese wrote:
I'd say the obvious fix for Gauss is to make it D2, since it's the anti-elite infantry option and most elite infantry is rocking 2 wounds now.

Sorry I should say, I meant Immortal Gauss Blasters specifically, not Gauss Flayers.

I floated the idea of all gauss doing MW in addition on a 6 to wound, but loads of people cried that it would be OP (despite the maths showing that it would be fine). I understand though, people hate MW because they're almost impossible to block, so it takes player interaction out of the game.

Who the gak is crying about that? The echo chamber has always said fishing for 6s is a gakky strategy to begin with.

Given that’s the major strength of Possessed bombs, it can’t be that gakky.

Fishing for 6s becomes immeasurably better with rerolls and spades of bonuses

 Tauris_Blazestar wrote:

IanVanCheese wrote:

IanVanCheese wrote:
I'd say the obvious fix for Gauss is to make it D2, since it's the anti-elite infantry option and most elite infantry is rocking 2 wounds now.

Sorry I should say, I meant Immortal Gauss Blasters specifically, not Gauss Flayers.

I floated the idea of all gauss doing MW in addition on a 6 to wound, but loads of people cried that it would be OP (despite the maths showing that it would be fine). I understand though, people hate MW because they're almost impossible to block, so it takes player interaction out of the game.

Who the gak is crying about that? The echo chamber has always said fishing for 6s is a gakky strategy to begin with.

It was in a proposed rules thread I started.