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.

I still maintain that mortal wounds is not the way to go. I'd say double damage on 6+ to wound.

punisher357 wrote:


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 skchsan wrote:
Give it 'on a to wound roll of 6+, this weapon's AP is improved by 2 (AP-2 becomes AP-4)'.

This could give scaling guass weapon crits?

That could potentially work. I'd like to play test that.

I was thinking the same thing - it gives the feel of Gauss cutting through armor but not energy/mystical shields and avoids the issue of creating extra wounds from mortals.

I would make it -3 so that even the humble warrior would ignore virtually all armor on a 6 to wound.

Cryptek of Awesome wrote:

punisher357 wrote:


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 skchsan wrote:
Give it 'on a to wound roll of 6+, this weapon's AP is improved by 2 (AP-2 becomes AP-4)'.

This could give scaling guass weapon crits?

That could potentially work. I'd like to play test that.

I was thinking the same thing - it gives the feel of Gauss cutting through armor but not energy/mystical shields and avoids the issue of creating extra wounds from mortals.

I would make it -3 so that even the humble warrior would ignore virtually all armor on a 6 to wound.

Whilst extra AP would be welcome on flayers, it would be wasted on heavier gauss weapons, and such such a gimmick isn't great. Double damage is the way to go, imo
Mortal wounds only really benefits flayers due to volume of fire. Everything benefits from extra damage.

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

Cryptek of Awesome wrote:

punisher357 wrote:


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 skchsan wrote:
Give it 'on a to wound roll of 6+, this weapon's AP is improved by 2 (AP-2 becomes AP-4)'.

This could give scaling guass weapon crits?

That could potentially work. I'd like to play test that.

I was thinking the same thing - it gives the feel of Gauss cutting through armor but not energy/mystical shields and avoids the issue of creating extra wounds from mortals.

I would make it -3 so that even the humble warrior would ignore virtually all armor on a 6 to wound.

Whilst extra AP would be welcome on flayers, it would be wasted on heavier gauss weapons, and such such a gimmick isn't great. Double damage is the way to go, imo
Mortal wounds only really benefits flayers due to volume of fire. Everything benefits from extra damage.

Yeah, and the extra AP on a 6 to wound seems to steal the shuriken schtick that eldar have, and it would make dynasties like Mephrit feel redundant outside of Tesla. Currently Necrons aren't hurting for sources of AP, it's consistent flat damage at reasonable range.

Shot in the dark here, what if the unmodified hit rolls on a 6 get +1 to wound against the vehicle and monster keyword?

That would be overall useful. Heavy Gauss Cannons in particular would benefit, as that 3+ to wound (not many vehicles are T9) becomes a 2+ to wound.

Flayers, gauss cannons and gauss blasters would mostly be 4+ to wound, which is still beneficial, but does make them sort of the same?

Either that or double damage would be a welcome buff.

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

Cryptek of Awesome wrote:

punisher357 wrote:
Automatically Appended Next Post:

 skchsan wrote:
Give it 'on a to wound roll of 6+, this weapon's AP is improved by 2 (AP-2 becomes AP-4)'.

This could give scaling guass weapon crits?

That could potentially work. I'd like to play test that.

I was thinking the same thing - it gives the feel of Gauss cutting through armor but not energy/mystical shields and avoids the issue of creating extra wounds from mortals.

I would make it -3 so that even the humble warrior would ignore virtually all armor on a 6 to wound.

Whilst extra AP would be welcome on flayers, it would be wasted on heavier gauss weapons, and such such a gimmick isn't great. Double damage is the way to go, imo
Mortal wounds only really benefits flayers due to volume of fire. Everything benefits from extra damage.

I was under the impression this discussion evolved into about how gauss weapon under performs tesla, especially at infantry level, and not a proposal to buff gauss weapon so it performs better than tesla at all points?

The point of this proposal is to provide a buff whose benefit diminishes as the weapons scale up. The heavier gauss weapons don't under perform teslas - infact tesla weapons fall off as they scale up to heavier weapons.

If your point is to make flayers more viable through mechanics that favor weight of fire, I don't see why the AP suggestion falling off at heavier gauss weapon would be an issue. Double damage scales poorly IMO because it's exponential increase as D goes up. Mechanics with diminishing returns generally work better.
Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Grimskul wrote:
Yeah, and the extra AP on a 6 to wound seems to steal the shuriken schtick that eldar have, and it would make dynasties like Mephrit feel redundant outside of Tesla. Currently Necrons aren't hurting for sources of AP, it's consistent flat damage at reasonable range.

1. Necrons are mid range army with effective range of 12"~36". Can you define what reasonable range is?
2. Don't ALL armies, barring the obvious outliers, if not the game as a whole, operate on dealing various damage based on chance and not consistent flat damage?
3. Under this proposal, mephrit warriors at half range will be hitting at S4AP-4 on a roll of 6. That sounds pretty scary to me.

And yes, the AP is a variant of CWE shuriken mechanics. Shuriken crit effect's scaling is handled by scaling S and flat AP. As Gauss weapons have flat & scaling S and scaling AP, I thought it would be interesting to suggest a AP modifier that provides +buff as opposed to flat value.

Having said, I suppose my suggestion is more of a game design suggestion as opposed to flat out buffing necrons. Currently in the game, we notice a few patterns:

1. vehicles rarely have ++Sv
2. ++Sv's are given out like candies, but often capped at 5++ for ones that are given out like candies.

So what if Necrons are designed in a way that it almost always forces the ++Sv, and units that dont have ++Sv MUST rely on high T to mitigate damage from gauss weapons? With base S of 5, gauss weapons are never forced a roll of a 6 to wound. So in that sense, Necrons ARE the epitome the 'consistent flat damage' of 1 - no other army actually has base S5 with 3+BS.

 skchsan wrote:
So what if Necrons are designed in a way that it almost always forces the ++Sv, and units that dont have ++Sv MUST rely on high T to mitigate damage from gauss weapons? With base S of 5, gauss weapons are never forced a roll of a 6 to wound. So in that sense, Necrons ARE the epitome the 'consistent flat damage' of 1 - no other army actually has base S5 with 3+BS.

Gauss flayers and flayer arrays are S4 so they wound T8 on 6+, something you never want. Yes it makes sense Necrons deal consistent damage, but they don't vs vehicles. It's too inefficient in terms of pts to go shooting your flayers even at a T7 unit. A Heavy Destroyer (37 pts R36") does as much damage vs a Predator as 14 Warriors (154 pts R24") or 7 Warriors in RF (77 pts R12"). When you go up to a Knight you need 19 Warriors to do the job of 1 Heavy Destroyer. Warriors do not deal consistent damage any more than Guardsmen do. You need 3 Guardsmen (12 pts) for every Warrior (11 pts) to kill a Predator, to kill a Knight you need 1,5 Guardsmen (6 pts) for every Warrior. Gauss weapons are terrible vs vehicles, they are anti heavy infantry, against vehicles tesla is better because you either have Mephrit or Methodical Destruction stratagem to help destroy them. Gauss weapons should be far better against vehicles than lasguns.

The shuriken mechanic is also BS and not something Eldar should have, Necrons should be the crit on a 6 faction (because they don't get to re-roll all wounds and historically they have had an anti-armour effect on 6+ to wound), Eldar should be the flat AP faction.

 vict0988 wrote:

 skchsan wrote:
So what if Necrons are designed in a way that it almost always forces the ++Sv, and units that dont have ++Sv MUST rely on high T to mitigate damage from gauss weapons? With base S of 5, gauss weapons are never forced a roll of a 6 to wound. So in that sense, Necrons ARE the epitome the 'consistent flat damage' of 1 - no other army actually has base S5 with 3+BS.

Gauss flayers and flayer arrays are S4 so they wound T8 on 6+, something you never want. Yes it makes sense Necrons deal consistent damage, but they don't vs vehicles. It's too inefficient in terms of pts to go shooting your flayers even at a T7 unit. A Heavy Destroyer (37 pts R36") does as much damage vs a Predator as 14 Warriors (154 pts R24") or 7 Warriors in RF (77 pts R12"). When you go up to a Knight you need 19 Warriors to do the job of 1 Heavy Destroyer. Warriors do not deal consistent damage any more than Guardsmen do. You need 3 Guardsmen (12 pts) for every Warrior (11 pts) to kill a Predator, to kill a Knight you need 1,5 Guardsmen (6 pts) for every Warrior. Gauss weapons are terrible vs vehicles, they are anti heavy infantry, against vehicles tesla is better because you either have Mephrit or Methodical Destruction stratagem to help destroy them. Gauss weapons should be far better against vehicles than lasguns.

The shuriken mechanic is also BS and not something Eldar should have, Necrons should be the crit on a 6 faction (because they don't get to re-roll all wounds and historically they have had an anti-armour effect on 6+ to wound), Eldar should be the flat AP faction.

I understand the sentiments, but bad tactics aren't appropriate grounds for buffs. Having said:

1. Flayers being able to glance a vehicle to death was an unfortunate side effect of the AV mechanics and its shortcoming. Also, it may be worth noting Necrons had one of the weakest new model support even within xenos, so I think was more of lack of proper "counter" units problem which GW just said "hey, lets just let Necrons glance vehicles to death". Necrons have ample ways to deal with T7 and above, given that you're utilizing all the available tricks.
2. Comparing guardsmen & warriors vs T8's and knights - they're both bad. They're both not meant to deal with knights or T8's. If they do any damage, it's by sheer luck.
3. As Necron, You don't send in warriors to deal with knights. You send in your wraiths and lock them up for rest of the game with their BEAST keyword and 3++.
4. Necrons have 11 pt anti-heavy infantry units. Then they have 15 pt all-rounder infantry units. They both regenerate themselves on 5+, or 4+ with a cryptek.

If gauss can deal double damage or cause mortal wounds, warriors and immortals probably need 4~5 point bump per model.

And Eldar IS the flat AP army. Shurikens have 0 AP which gets bumped up to -3 on 6's.

Furthermore, attempting to replicate old 'cron's ability to glance vehicles to death by raising its damage output is not the way to go about it. It will make them stronger against everything, and extra damage against 20W model is not the same as landing glancing shots against it. What you should be trying to achieve is "gauss effectively ignores T of units on roll of 6" in order to replicate the old crons as the rule for old gauss weapon essentially got folded into the game as a core rule with the changes to wound chart, where anything can hurt anything on a roll of 6.

I think the most elegant solution for this problem would be either
-on a to hit roll of 6, this weapon wounds on 2+ (still has issues with high Sv)
-on a to hit roll of 6, improve this weapons AP by X (still has issues piercing thru high T)
but in comparison, the latter would have more profound improvement as high Sv's are more prevalent than high T.

 skchsan wrote:
1. Flayers being able to glance a vehicle to death was an unfortunate side effect of the AV mechanics and its shortcoming. Also, it may be worth noting Necrons had one of the weakest new model support even within xenos, so I think was more of lack of proper "counter" units problem which GW just said "hey, lets just let Necrons glance vehicles to death". Necrons have ample ways to deal with T7 and above, given that you're utilizing all the available tricks.

Not completely. Necrons were the last codex of 5th, so many of the concepts were designed to work with whatever they were testing for 6th Ed at the time (such as the Character unit type), and they had the gauss Glancing mechanic since their first codex.

The reason for the Gauss mechanic, though, is the fact that Necrons do not have any special weapons in their units (with the exception of the Wraiths and Destroyers). Warriors and Immortals do not have access to Flamers, Meltaguns, Rokkit Launchas, or similar, so needed a way to deal with Vehicles This originated before Tesla weapons were released, though, leaving Gauss as the 95% of the army's ranged weapon loadouts when they were first created. Gauss was used as compensation for this and the fact that the Heavy Gauss Cannon and Particle Whip were the only weapons that could Penetrate heavy armor back then. Of course, new models and weapons came in and things are different now and GW sometimes have a hard time breaking traditional aspects of the xenos.

 skchsan wrote:
I think the most elegant solution for this problem would be either
-on a to hit roll of 6, this weapon wounds on 2+ (still has issues with high Sv)
-on a to hit roll of 6, improve this weapons AP by X (still has issues piercing thru high T)
but in comparison, the latter would have more profound improvement as high Sv's are more prevalent than high T.

Those are definitely possibilities, but might I make another suggestion:

Gauss: On a To-Wound roll of 6, models hit with this weapon will have their M reduced to half, rounding up, till the Necron player's next turn. In addition, on a To-Wound roll of 6 instead of rolling for Damage, the full damage capacity of the weapon is applied (for example: a D6 weapon will have a Damage of 6).

 Charistoph wrote:
Not completely. Necrons were the last codex of 5th, so many of the concepts were designed to work with whatever they were testing for 6th Ed at the time (such as the Character unit type), and they had the gauss Glancing mechanic since their first codex.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but Necrons were out since 3rd edition. Sorry. Completely misread the post.

 Charistoph wrote:


Gauss: On a To-Wound roll of 6, models hit with this weapon will have their M reduced to half, rounding up, till the Necron player's next turn. In addition, on a To-Wound roll of 6 instead of rolling for Damage, the full damage capacity of the weapon is applied (for example: a D6 weapon will have a Damage of 6).

Interesting suggestion. I like it. There's not that many things in the game that affects the move characteristic, so seeing a gimmick like that might be fun

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:
Gauss: On a To-Wound roll of 6, models hit with this weapon will have their M reduced to half, rounding up, till the Necron player's next turn. In addition, on a To-Wound roll of 6 instead of rolling for Damage, the full damage capacity of the weapon is applied (for example: a D6 weapon will have a Damage of 6).

Interesting suggestion. I like it. There's not that many things in the game that affects the move characteristic, so seeing a gimmick like that might be fun

I was figuring that it was as close to the original Glance mechanic results as we could get without making it insane, not to mention just the shock of the hit would cause a reduction of mobility. Add on to that, while it doesn't directly double damage, it will double the amount of time it takes to get in to close combat with them or change cover, so same results in the long run.

Inspired by your two-part effect:

Gauss: On to hit roll of 6+, this weapon wounds on 2+. Additionally, on to wound roll of 6+, improve this weapon's AP by X.

 skchsan wrote:
Inspired by your two-part effect:

Gauss: On to hit roll of 6+, this weapon wounds on 2+. Additionally, on to wound roll of 6+, improve this weapon's AP by X.

What about:
Gauss: On to hit roll of 6+, this weapon gains 2+ to wound rolls this phase. Additionally, on to wound roll of 6+, improve this weapon's AP by X.

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:


Gauss: On a To-Wound roll of 6, models hit with this weapon will have their M reduced to half, rounding up, till the Necron player's next turn. In addition, on a To-Wound roll of 6 instead of rolling for Damage, the full damage capacity of the weapon is applied (for example: a D6 weapon will have a Damage of 6).

Interesting suggestion. I like it. There's not that many things in the game that affects the move characteristic, so seeing a gimmick like that might be fun

Halving movement distance on a wound roll of 6 is a little much. A 10 man warrior squad at 24” is very very likely to get this ability to trigger and the board control it offers is insane. It’s basically a death sentence to any melee unit that doesn’t arrive from reserves and any transport is useless. The game hardly needs more incentive to castle up either. Plus this interacts really weirdly with flyers that have a minimum move to not die. No one likes that thunder fire stratagem that does this. There’s no reason to give it to an entire army.

 Blndmage wrote:

 skchsan wrote:
Inspired by your two-part effect:

Gauss: On to hit roll of 6+, this weapon wounds on 2+. Additionally, on to wound roll of 6+, improve this weapon's AP by X.

What about:
Gauss: On to hit roll of 6+, this weapon gains 2+ to wound rolls this phase. Additionally, on to wound roll of 6+, improve this weapon's AP by X.

Maybe it could work. But + to wound system scales poorly due to how to wound works in 8th ed. It's effect tapers off as T gets higher, which would be redundant as far as this exercise of 'make gauss more effective against vehicles' goes. To best imitate the effect of gauss in previous editions without resorting to MW treatment, it needs to effectively ignore the effect of T when resolving damage I think.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 evil_kiwi_60 wrote:

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:


Gauss: On a To-Wound roll of 6, models hit with this weapon will have their M reduced to half, rounding up, till the Necron player's next turn. In addition, on a To-Wound roll of 6 instead of rolling for Damage, the full damage capacity of the weapon is applied (for example: a D6 weapon will have a Damage of 6).

Interesting suggestion. I like it. There's not that many things in the game that affects the move characteristic, so seeing a gimmick like that might be fun

Halving movement distance on a wound roll of 6 is a little much. A 10 man warrior squad at 24” is very very likely to get this ability to trigger and the board control it offers is insane. It’s basically a death sentence to any melee unit that doesn’t arrive from reserves and any transport is useless. The game hardly needs more incentive to castle up either. Plus this interacts really weirdly with flyers that have a minimum move to not die. No one likes that thunder fire stratagem that does this. There’s no reason to give it to an entire army.

I agree. Halving movement scales poorly especially for flyers whose 20"-X" movement gets halved to 10"-X/2" vs 5" halved to 2.5".

 evil_kiwi_60 wrote:
Halving movement distance on a wound roll of 6 is a little much. A 10 man warrior squad at 24” is very very likely to get this ability to trigger and the board control it offers is insane. It’s basically a death sentence to any melee unit that doesn’t arrive from reserves and any transport is useless. The game hardly needs more incentive to castle up either. Plus this interacts really weirdly with flyers that have a minimum move to not die. No one likes that thunder fire stratagem that does this. There’s no reason to give it to an entire army.

I was comparing it to the Stun affect of a Glance. Now, it could be limited to just models with the Vehicle and Monster keywords, in fact, I was originally considering that option. As an option, it could be just a flat reduction of speed, like 2".

Now, as I presented it won't affect units as much for two reasons: 1) The model would have to survive the Wound (obviously this would affect higher Wound and higher AP models, so Boyz and Conscripts it would rarely affect), 2) Unit coherency can leave the slowest behind while the rest of the unit can forge ahead. Yes, it would affect Lords of War, Vehicles, and Monsters far more, but then, Gauss always affected those models more.

 Blndmage wrote:

 skchsan wrote:
Inspired by your two-part effect:

Gauss: On to hit roll of 6+, this weapon wounds on 2+. Additionally, on to wound roll of 6+, improve this weapon's AP by X.

What about:
Gauss: On to hit roll of 6+, this weapon gains 2+ to wound rolls this phase. Additionally, on to wound roll of 6+, improve this weapon's AP by X.

I'm a little iffy on this. You'd go from having a single pool of to-hit/to-wound/save rolls to having two pools of to-wound rolls to resolve (6s and not-6s) and two pools of saves (6's and not-6's). So you'd end up rolling 5 sets of dice instead of 3. And you'd be adding those 2 extra sets of dice frequently because gauss weapons appear on tons of units in the codex.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Charistoph wrote:

Gauss: On a To-Wound roll of 6, models hit with this weapon will have their M reduced to half, rounding up, till the Necron player's next turn. In addition, on a To-Wound roll of 6 instead of rolling for Damage, the full damage capacity of the weapon is applied (for example: a D6 weapon will have a Damage of 6).

Aren't attacks technically resolved one at a time even though we all use speed rolling? With this rule, rolling a 6 to wound early on in the series of attacks would be less good than rolling a 6 at the end of the series of attacks. So if you speed roll your attacks and get 8 wounds, three of which are a 6+, then how do we determine where those 6s are in the series of saves I'm about to take? If those three 6s were the first to-wound rolls you would have rolled if you'd done it one at a time, then they're irrelevant provided you kill three of my single-wound models. If one of those 6s was the very last wound to be resolved, then it would be the one that decides whether my unit has its movement reduced.

Or am I misunderstanding something critical about how speed rolling works?

 Charistoph wrote:

I was comparing it to the Stun affect of a Glance. Now, it could be limited to just models with the Vehicle and Monster keywords, in fact, I was originally considering that option. As an option, it could be just a flat reduction of speed, like 2".

Now, as I presented it won't affect units as much for two reasons: 1) The model would have to survive the Wound (obviously this would affect higher Wound and higher AP models, so Boyz and Conscripts it would rarely affect), 2) Unit coherency can leave the slowest behind while the rest of the unit can forge ahead. Yes, it would affect Lords of War, Vehicles, and Monsters far more, but then, Gauss always affected those models more.

If it was each unsaved wound of a 6+ it wouldn’t be as bad because 1 wound models won’t survive most of the time. As it is now, the effect would trigger when you roll a 6 to wound. If that wound is saved the effect would still trigger. Making the effect only for monsters and vehicles and keeping it a flat -2 would make this much more reasonable.

Here's an outside the box approach to this problem.

For every 10 hits scored by a unit using weapons with the gauss keyword against models with T6 or higher keyword treat the target as being -1T for wound rolls made against by the firing unit. This cannot reduce a model's toughness below T5.

Even a block of 20 Warriors outside of Rapid Fire range now treats vehicles as T7 instead of T8. Inside Rapid Fire Range that might go as low as T5.

It doesn't scale to high strength low volume fire, but the idea was to improve the humble Gauss Flayer, so...

 Canadian 5th wrote:
Here's an outside the box approach to this problem.

For every 10 hits scored by a unit using weapons with the gauss against models with T6 or higher keyword treat the target as being -1T for wound rolls made against by the firing unit. This cannot reduce a model's toughness below T5.

Even a block of 20 Warriors outside of Rapid Fire range now treats vehicles as T7 instead of T8. Inside Rapid Fire Range that might go as low as T5.

It doesn't scale to high strength low volume fire, but the idea was to improve the humble Gauss Flayer, so...

Interesting idea. I'd not add a lower bound, though-well, outside not dropping below Toughness 1 to avoid breaking the game.

At max squad size, you have 40 shots. If all 40 hit, you've reduced a T8 model to T4 (for that shooting) which is great! But also only happens .000000000000000008% (yes, PERCENT! that's not a typo) of the time. (Admittedly, you do get into reasonable numbers, as in seven percent of a percent chance with MWBD, but still really unlikely).

More realistically, you could probably get a T7 vehicle down to T4 (requiring 30/40 shots to hit) which actually has a just over 17% chance of happening (94% with MWBD! I was surprised too) or a T6 model down to T3.

 JNAProductions wrote:

 Canadian 5th wrote:
Here's an outside the box approach to this problem.

For every 10 hits scored by a unit using weapons with the gauss against models with T6 or higher keyword treat the target as being -1T for wound rolls made against by the firing unit. This cannot reduce a model's toughness below T5.

Even a block of 20 Warriors outside of Rapid Fire range now treats vehicles as T7 instead of T8. Inside Rapid Fire Range that might go as low as T5.

It doesn't scale to high strength low volume fire, but the idea was to improve the humble Gauss Flayer, so...

Interesting idea. I'd not add a lower bound, though-well, outside not dropping below Toughness 1 to avoid breaking the game.

At max squad size, you have 40 shots. If all 40 hit, you've reduced a T8 model to T4 (for that shooting) which is great! But also only happens .000000000000000008% (yes, PERCENT! that's not a typo) of the time. (Admittedly, you do get into reasonable numbers, as in seven percent of a percent chance with MWBD, but still really unlikely).

More realistically, you could probably get a T7 vehicle down to T4 (requiring 30/40 shots to hit) which actually has a just over 17% chance of happening (94% with MWBD! I was surprised too) or a T6 model down to T3.

I added the lower bound so they don't go crazy against infantry. Dropping GEQ (even MEQ or Bikers) to where they're wounded on a 2+ seems a bit much and steps on Telsa's toes.

EDIT: I completely forgot that I made it so a unit needs a starting toughness above 6 before the rules kicks in so you're correct, the lower bound is currently unnecessary.

 Canadian 5th wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:

 Canadian 5th wrote:
Here's an outside the box approach to this problem.

For every 10 hits scored by a unit using weapons with the gauss against models with T6 or higher keyword treat the target as being -1T for wound rolls made against by the firing unit. This cannot reduce a model's toughness below T5.

Even a block of 20 Warriors outside of Rapid Fire range now treats vehicles as T7 instead of T8. Inside Rapid Fire Range that might go as low as T5.

It doesn't scale to high strength low volume fire, but the idea was to improve the humble Gauss Flayer, so...

Interesting idea. I'd not add a lower bound, though-well, outside not dropping below Toughness 1 to avoid breaking the game.

At max squad size, you have 40 shots. If all 40 hit, you've reduced a T8 model to T4 (for that shooting) which is great! But also only happens .000000000000000008% (yes, PERCENT! that's not a typo) of the time. (Admittedly, you do get into reasonable numbers, as in seven percent of a percent chance with MWBD, but still really unlikely).

More realistically, you could probably get a T7 vehicle down to T4 (requiring 30/40 shots to hit) which actually has a just over 17% chance of happening (94% with MWBD! I was surprised too) or a T6 model down to T3.

I added the lower bound so they don't go crazy against infantry. Dropping GEQ (even MEQ or Bikers) to where they're wounded on a 2+ seems a bit much and steps on Telsa's toes.

EDIT: I completely forgot that I made it so a unit needs a starting toughness above 6 before the rules kicks in so you're correct, the lower bound is currently unnecessary.

Honestly, I'd nix the requirement for starting Toughness of 6 or better. It just feels unneeded.

I don't think that, even with it working on any models, it'd be OP. The ABSOLUTE BEST is T8->T4 (triple the wounding power) or T5/6->T2 (5+ to 2+ wound roll) but considering all the other bits...

It'd be fine-or at least close enough to be worth testing.

 JNAProductions wrote:
Honestly, I'd nix the requirement for starting Toughness of 6 or better. It just feels unneeded.

I don't think that, even with it working on any models, it'd be OP. The ABSOLUTE BEST is T8->T4 (triple the wounding power) or T5/6->T2 (5+ to 2+ wound roll) but considering all the other bits...

It'd be fine-or at least close enough to be worth testing.

Thematically I pictured them all 'crossing the streams' against a single larger target to take it down and I wanted to stick to adding anti-tank power without upping the ability to kill infantry. Given how weak people say 'Crons are they could probably get the bonus against all targets and be fine but I like to avoid the Proposed Rules trend of making overpowered rules.

You could do what the Scrouge do in DZC with their plasma rifles and just have the hits combine into a single, more powerful hit.

I think a lot of the mechanics are getting over-complicated.

I'm 100% against the "if a vehicle" or "if a monster" rules. The whole point is that Gauss used to wound EVERYTHING on a wound roll of a six. This was at a time when no other army could do that.

As far as increasing damage, I don't think it would scale well and anything requiring another dice roll is out. The last thing we need is more unreliable damage/shooting/dice rolls.

In my opinion, the mechanic needs to be simple, quick, and reliable. Rolling a to wound roll of a 6 does "______".

The only two viable solutions I've seen are increasing the ap value and adding a mortal wound. Increasing the armor penetration definitely loses value on the more powerful weapons we have. However, I don't think that would necessarily matter because they're strong enough that they already have enough bite to do whatever they need to do.

I play tested a little with the mortal wounds mechanic and it seems to work just fine, without being over-bearing. It wouldn't be difficult to just modify the rule to state "On a wound roll of a 6 this weapon generates an additional wound that ignores armor saves. Invulnerable saves may still be rolled as normal."

I also think this would add some much needed synergy as MWBD would benefit Tesla, but TLW would benefit Gauss.

punisher357 wrote:
I think a lot of the mechanics are getting over-complicated.

I'm 100% against the "if a vehicle" or "if a monster" rules. The whole point is that Gauss used to wound EVERYTHING on a wound roll of a six. This was at a time when no other army could do that.

As far as increasing damage, I don't think it would scale well and anything requiring another dice roll is out. The last thing we need is more unreliable damage/shooting/dice rolls.

In my opinion, the mechanic needs to be simple, quick, and reliable. Rolling a to wound roll of a 6 does "______".

The only two viable solutions I've seen are increasing the ap value and adding a mortal wound. Increasing the armor penetration definitely loses value on the more powerful weapons we have. However, I don't think that would necessarily matter because they're strong enough that they already have enough bite to do whatever they need to do.

I play tested a little with the mortal wounds mechanic and it seems to work just fine, without being over-bearing. It wouldn't be difficult to just modify the rule to state "On a wound roll of a 6 this weapon generates an additional wound that ignores armor saves. Invulnerable saves may still be rolled as normal."

I also think this would add some much needed synergy as MWBD would benefit Tesla, but TLW would benefit Gauss.

What do you feel is too complex about my suggestion that every 10 hits with gauss weapons reduce the targets toughness by 1? I only ask because we've had toughness lowering effects in the game before and while counting hits is already something most players do as they go to roll to wound. If you can think of a cleaner way to do this sort of effect please let me know.

 Canadian 5th wrote:


What do you feel is too complex about my suggestion that every 10 hits with gauss weapons reduce the targets toughness by 1? I only ask because we've had toughness lowering effects in the game before and while counting hits is already something most players do as they go to roll to wound. If you can think of a cleaner way to do this sort of effect please let me know.

For one, keeping tally of number of hits is an entirely new type of bookkeeping. Also, it's another layer of keeping track for a unit with both non-gauss and gauss weapons.

The only other similar mechanics in the game would be marker lights, but its distinctively clear cut and straight forward.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

punisher357 wrote:
I think a lot of the mechanics are getting over-complicated.

I'm 100% against the "if a vehicle" or "if a monster" rules. The whole point is that Gauss used to wound EVERYTHING on a wound roll of a six. This was at a time when no other army could do that.

As far as increasing damage, I don't think it would scale well and anything requiring another dice roll is out. The last thing we need is more unreliable damage/shooting/dice rolls.

In my opinion, the mechanic needs to be simple, quick, and reliable. Rolling a to wound roll of a 6 does "______".

The only two viable solutions I've seen are increasing the ap value and adding a mortal wound. Increasing the armor penetration definitely loses value on the more powerful weapons we have. However, I don't think that would necessarily matter because they're strong enough that they already have enough bite to do whatever they need to do.

I play tested a little with the mortal wounds mechanic and it seems to work just fine, without being over-bearing. It wouldn't be difficult to just modify the rule to state "On a wound roll of a 6 this weapon generates an additional wound that ignores armor saves. Invulnerable saves may still be rolled as normal."

I also think this would add some much needed synergy as MWBD would benefit Tesla, but TLW would benefit Gauss.

I think most viable MW route is to replace the normal damage with MW instead of generating addtional MW.

'On a 6+ to wound, this weapon deals 1 mortal wounds instead of it's normal damage'

 skchsan wrote:
For one, keeping tally of number of hits is an entirely new type of bookkeeping. Also, it's another layer of keeping track for a unit with both non-gauss and gauss weapons.

The only other similar mechanics in the game would be marker lights, but its distinctively clear cut and straight forward.

You're already likely to roll your weapons separately (or use different colored dice) so that's not an issue. From there once you record your number of hits the math is easy and rolling your wounds is hardly different than normal.

I bet if you tried this in a game you'd probably get used to it after a shooting phase or two.