Switch Theme:

New Gauss rules  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


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.




Made in se
One Canoptek Scarab in a Swarm




Gauss should have a special rule and not just be a bolter, it disassembles atoms so it should be powerful in that way. Any creative ideas of what the gauss special rule could be?
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




To be fair, the Gauss Blaster for Immortals has great stats for a basic weapon. The problem is everyone else getting AP as standard, like Eldar and Tyranids.
   
Made in us
Fixture of Dakka





EviscerationPlague wrote:To be fair, the Gauss Blaster for Immortals has great stats for a basic weapon. The problem is everyone else getting AP as standard, like Eldar and Tyranids.

True. The AP creep bugs me. I'd be fine giving up the AP on my shuriken weapons (and even the extra AP on 6s) for the sake of reversing some of the game's power creep. That said, gauss flayers have felt like they lost a big edge ever since vehicles lost AV and gained wounds.

epaemil wrote:Gauss should have a special rule and not just be a bolter, it disassembles atoms so it should be powerful in that way. Any creative ideas of what the gauss special rule could be?

It used to be that gauss weapons were (modest) anti-tank weapons even when most vehicles were immune to S4. A squad of warriors fishing for 6s could stun and slowly take apart an enemy vehicle. So if we wanted to model that again, maybe one of the following?

A.) Make gauss Poison vs vehicles. As in they never wound on worse than a 4+ against a vehicle target.
or
B.) To-wound rolls of 6 increase their Damage value by 1. Represents the way gauss sometimes seems to just eat a hole in armor and sometimes seems to keep going until it takes a chunk out of the person within the armor. So this would make 'crons somewhat scarier against meq targets and would also make them significantly more effective against vehicle targets as either 50% or 100% (depending on target's Toughness) of their successful wounds would do twice as much damage. It also helps emphasize the difference in roles between gauss and tesla, though maybe the extra Damage would be too good on immortals?


ATTENTION
. Psychic tests are unfluffy. Your longing for AV is understandable but misguided. Your chapter doesn't need a separate codex. Doctrines should go away. Being a "troop" means nothing. This has been a cranky service announcement. You may now resume your regularly scheduled arguing.
 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




 Wyldhunt wrote:
EviscerationPlague wrote:To be fair, the Gauss Blaster for Immortals has great stats for a basic weapon. The problem is everyone else getting AP as standard, like Eldar and Tyranids.

True. The AP creep bugs me. I'd be fine giving up the AP on my shuriken weapons (and even the extra AP on 6s) for the sake of reversing some of the game's power creep. That said, gauss flayers have felt like they lost a big edge ever since vehicles lost AV and gained wounds.

Nah, the Shuriken rule should stay. Flat AP for Gauss vs fishing for those rolls to ignore armor via buffs or sheer weight of fire via Shuriken weapons is a good balance.

Also Gauss flayers haven't ever really been GOOD against vehicles, merely certain ones at a higher point cost. They were terribly inefficient vs Rhinos and Chimeras, for example.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also to build off what you said, I'm of the belief that a poison rule somewhat wouldn't be too bad. Always wounding at worse on a 4+ is a good start, but I also think the game should move to D12 and give something like that more granularity.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2023/01/24 02:26:47


 
   
Made in fr
Trazyn's Museum Curator





on the forum. Obviously

EviscerationPlague wrote:
To be fair, the Gauss Blaster for Immortals has great stats for a basic weapon. The problem is everyone else getting AP as standard, like Eldar and Tyranids.

Yeah, my opponent was shocked to discover that it's a 30" rapid fire weapon with S5 AP-2. It's a great weapon, it's just that everything has a stat bloat, especially marines and their 101 flavors of bolter.

What I have
~4100
~1660

Westwood lives in death!
Peace through power!

A longbeard when it comes to Necrons and WHFB. Grumble Grumble

 
   
Made in se
One Canoptek Scarab in a Swarm




The bonus to wound sounds pretty thematic, would it be too op if it was always at least a 4+ to wound?
   
Made in gb
Lord of the Fleet






London

To keep it simple I would just do "Any hits of a 6 against VEHICLES automatically wound". Nice and simple and also pretty identical to the old 4th Edition rules.
   
Made in dk
Loyal Necron Lychguard






I don't feel the spikyness of 6s do bonus stuff is thematically appropriate for Necrons, but I personally find rolling for tesla to be great fun. I like the idea that both gauss and tesla would do something on hit rolls of 6, I think it'd make balancing and designing buffs easier.

A rule can never be OP, the question is how many points it would cost to make it fair and how elite you want Necron Warriors and Immortals to become. I'd like Necron Warriors to be 9-12 pts, assuming they are fair currently at 11 points I'd be fine with a small increase in their utility at the cost of an extra point. Wounding on hit rolls of 6 against vehicles or poison 4+ against vehicles might be fair at 12 points. Something more extreme like D2 or D2 against vehicles I'd be against because I think Necron Warriors would be too strong at 12 points with that stat increase/ability.

Bonus AP on wound rolls of 6 is a rule that has its greatest effect against high T units with a good armour save, since shuriken weapons are not remotely meant to be anti-vehicle it's very innappropriate. AP-1 might be appropriate for shuriken catapults fluff-wise and as a means to avoid making Rangers into a horde unit.
   
Made in ca
Gargantuan Gargant






 vict0988 wrote:
I don't feel the spikyness of 6s do bonus stuff is thematically appropriate for Necrons, but I personally find rolling for tesla to be great fun. I like the idea that both gauss and tesla would do something on hit rolls of 6, I think it'd make balancing and designing buffs easier.

A rule can never be OP, the question is how many points it would cost to make it fair and how elite you want Necron Warriors and Immortals to become. I'd like Necron Warriors to be 9-12 pts, assuming they are fair currently at 11 points I'd be fine with a small increase in their utility at the cost of an extra point. Wounding on hit rolls of 6 against vehicles or poison 4+ against vehicles might be fair at 12 points. Something more extreme like D2 or D2 against vehicles I'd be against because I think Necron Warriors would be too strong at 12 points with that stat increase/ability.

Bonus AP on wound rolls of 6 is a rule that has its greatest effect against high T units with a good armour save, since shuriken weapons are not remotely meant to be anti-vehicle it's very innappropriate. AP-1 might be appropriate for shuriken catapults fluff-wise and as a means to avoid making Rangers into a horde unit.


I mean, that assumption that a rule can never be OP is kind of wrong, you could make a rule that can't be costed correctly regardless of how many points you give it. If there's a rule that a model has that let's you automatically win the game just by having it be on the table, you could cost it 10,000 points if you want, but it won't be balanced or usable in a meangingful way where you actually have a playable game with an opponent.
   
Made in dk
Loyal Necron Lychguard






 Grimskul wrote:
 vict0988 wrote:
I don't feel the spikyness of 6s do bonus stuff is thematically appropriate for Necrons, but I personally find rolling for tesla to be great fun. I like the idea that both gauss and tesla would do something on hit rolls of 6, I think it'd make balancing and designing buffs easier.

A rule can never be OP, the question is how many points it would cost to make it fair and how elite you want Necron Warriors and Immortals to become. I'd like Necron Warriors to be 9-12 pts, assuming they are fair currently at 11 points I'd be fine with a small increase in their utility at the cost of an extra point. Wounding on hit rolls of 6 against vehicles or poison 4+ against vehicles might be fair at 12 points. Something more extreme like D2 or D2 against vehicles I'd be against because I think Necron Warriors would be too strong at 12 points with that stat increase/ability.

Bonus AP on wound rolls of 6 is a rule that has its greatest effect against high T units with a good armour save, since shuriken weapons are not remotely meant to be anti-vehicle it's very innappropriate. AP-1 might be appropriate for shuriken catapults fluff-wise and as a means to avoid making Rangers into a horde unit.


I mean, that assumption that a rule can never be OP is kind of wrong, you could make a rule that can't be costed correctly regardless of how many points you give it. If there's a rule that a model has that let's you automatically win the game just by having it be on the table, you could cost it 10,000 points if you want, but it won't be balanced or usable in a meangingful way where you actually have a playable game with an opponent.

If you want to give gauss weapons "you win the game when this weapon is fired" it'd make the weapons worth 0 extra points.
   
Made in ca
Gargantuan Gargant






 vict0988 wrote:
 Grimskul wrote:
 vict0988 wrote:
I don't feel the spikyness of 6s do bonus stuff is thematically appropriate for Necrons, but I personally find rolling for tesla to be great fun. I like the idea that both gauss and tesla would do something on hit rolls of 6, I think it'd make balancing and designing buffs easier.

A rule can never be OP, the question is how many points it would cost to make it fair and how elite you want Necron Warriors and Immortals to become. I'd like Necron Warriors to be 9-12 pts, assuming they are fair currently at 11 points I'd be fine with a small increase in their utility at the cost of an extra point. Wounding on hit rolls of 6 against vehicles or poison 4+ against vehicles might be fair at 12 points. Something more extreme like D2 or D2 against vehicles I'd be against because I think Necron Warriors would be too strong at 12 points with that stat increase/ability.

Bonus AP on wound rolls of 6 is a rule that has its greatest effect against high T units with a good armour save, since shuriken weapons are not remotely meant to be anti-vehicle it's very innappropriate. AP-1 might be appropriate for shuriken catapults fluff-wise and as a means to avoid making Rangers into a horde unit.


I mean, that assumption that a rule can never be OP is kind of wrong, you could make a rule that can't be costed correctly regardless of how many points you give it. If there's a rule that a model has that let's you automatically win the game just by having it be on the table, you could cost it 10,000 points if you want, but it won't be balanced or usable in a meangingful way where you actually have a playable game with an opponent.

If you want to give gauss weapons "you win the game when this weapon is fired" it'd make the weapons worth 0 extra points.


I'll take this as you agreeing with me then? Lol, I know you have a bias for Necrons given you play them and gauss definitely needs some additional flavour as a weapon type, but I think the core issues for Necrons lie within the fundamental rules in the codex.
   
Made in dk
Loyal Necron Lychguard






You're right, I'll ammend my statement to "A rule that is fun and fluffy is never OP, the question is how many points it would cost to make it fair." Since your auto-win rule is unfun it's not included in my amended statement. Thank you for correcting me.
   
Made in pl
Tough-as-Nails Ork Boy




Gauss used to be the only weapon in the game (6-7th Edition is my reference for this one) where you always wounded your targets on sixes, at least against vehicles.

But in this current rate, imagine if inflicting enough hits from Gauss weapons made a vehicle have to use the next lower wound bracket, no matter how many wounds are remaining, perhaps tie to their wounds, so say you shoot and hit a Imperial Knight 30 times, it has to use the middle wound bracket, even if its only loses two wounds from the attack (this would "reset" at the end of turn of the defending player, i.e. This would temporarily disrupt that player's model but if it took no further damage that actually push it down the damage bracket it would reset" . Have them be useful disabling tools against hard targets to help distinguish them from stronger weapons.

I'm also ok with dropping AP on many basic guns, like the AP-1 of my Fleshborers. Those are quite odd to me now. I liked the extra range, strength and AP, but I would personally prefer cheaper Gants, retaining the range buff but also helping lower the stat creep among the cheaper guns. Necron Gauss weaponry should be the best among the basis guns against Tanks.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2023/01/27 21:08:13


 
   
Made in us
Fixture of Dakka





panzerfront14 wrote:
Gauss used to be the only weapon in the game (6-7th Edition is my reference for this one) where you always wounded your targets on sixes, at least against vehicles.

But in this current rate, imagine if inflicting enough hits from Gauss weapons made a vehicle have to use the next lower wound bracket, no matter how many wounds are remaining, perhaps tie to their wounds, so say you shoot and hit a Imperial Knight 30 times, it has to use the middle wound bracket, even if its only loses two wounds from the attack. Have them be useful disabling tools against hard targets to help distinguish them from stronger weapons.


Slightly off-topic, but I like the idea of doing something similar with haywire weapons. I'd be okay with taking away the mortal wounds from haywire weapons and replacing it with a rule that says vehicles hit by the weapons use the next lowest health bracket until the end of their next turn. Or possibly just make it -1 to-hit and halve their max speed to simplify things and let it work against vehicles without damage tracks.

I'm not sure how I feel about permanently forcing vehicles to use the lower damage track for gauss. Permanent pseudo-damage seems like it could just be damage, which auto-wounding on 6s to hit or making them Damage 2 on 6s to wound would also accomplish. I kind of like D2 on 6s to wound because it lets gauss work a bit better against multi-wound non-vehicles. Which seems appropriate for the fluff. Sometimes a marine loses a little ceramite to gauss, and sometimes he loses his whole torso.


ATTENTION
. Psychic tests are unfluffy. Your longing for AV is understandable but misguided. Your chapter doesn't need a separate codex. Doctrines should go away. Being a "troop" means nothing. This has been a cranky service announcement. You may now resume your regularly scheduled arguing.
 
   
Made in pl
Tough-as-Nails Ork Boy




 Wyldhunt wrote:
panzerfront14 wrote:
Gauss used to be the only weapon in the game (6-7th Edition is my reference for this one) where you always wounded your targets on sixes, at least against vehicles.

But in this current rate, imagine if inflicting enough hits from Gauss weapons made a vehicle have to use the next lower wound bracket, no matter how many wounds are remaining, perhaps tie to their wounds, so say you shoot and hit a Imperial Knight 30 times, it has to use the middle wound bracket, even if its only loses two wounds from the attack. Have them be useful disabling tools against hard targets to help distinguish them from stronger weapons.


Slightly off-topic, but I like the idea of doing something similar with haywire weapons. I'd be okay with taking away the mortal wounds from haywire weapons and replacing it with a rule that says vehicles hit by the weapons use the next lowest health bracket until the end of their next turn. Or possibly just make it -1 to-hit and halve their max speed to simplify things and let it work against vehicles without damage tracks.

I'm not sure how I feel about permanently forcing vehicles to use the lower damage track for gauss. Permanent pseudo-damage seems like it could just be damage, which auto-wounding on 6s to hit or making them Damage 2 on 6s to wound would also accomplish. I kind of like D2 on 6s to wound because it lets gauss work a bit better against multi-wound non-vehicles. Which seems appropriate for the fluff. Sometimes a marine loses a little ceramite to gauss, and sometimes he loses his whole torso.


I realize my mistake, I intended for that to be a temporary effect at most lasting till the end of the defender player's turn. Basically you've lowered its output, you get a little more freedom of action but if whatever it is, is still kicking after that can either move out of range, or get help and have those Necrons cleared off it.
   
Made in us
Fixture of Dakka





panzerfront14 wrote:
 Wyldhunt wrote:
panzerfront14 wrote:
Gauss used to be the only weapon in the game (6-7th Edition is my reference for this one) where you always wounded your targets on sixes, at least against vehicles.

But in this current rate, imagine if inflicting enough hits from Gauss weapons made a vehicle have to use the next lower wound bracket, no matter how many wounds are remaining, perhaps tie to their wounds, so say you shoot and hit a Imperial Knight 30 times, it has to use the middle wound bracket, even if its only loses two wounds from the attack. Have them be useful disabling tools against hard targets to help distinguish them from stronger weapons.


Slightly off-topic, but I like the idea of doing something similar with haywire weapons. I'd be okay with taking away the mortal wounds from haywire weapons and replacing it with a rule that says vehicles hit by the weapons use the next lowest health bracket until the end of their next turn. Or possibly just make it -1 to-hit and halve their max speed to simplify things and let it work against vehicles without damage tracks.

I'm not sure how I feel about permanently forcing vehicles to use the lower damage track for gauss. Permanent pseudo-damage seems like it could just be damage, which auto-wounding on 6s to hit or making them Damage 2 on 6s to wound would also accomplish. I kind of like D2 on 6s to wound because it lets gauss work a bit better against multi-wound non-vehicles. Which seems appropriate for the fluff. Sometimes a marine loses a little ceramite to gauss, and sometimes he loses his whole torso.


I realize my mistake, I intended for that to be a temporary effect at most lasting till the end of the defender player's turn. Basically you've lowered its output, you get a little more freedom of action but if whatever it is, is still kicking after that can either move out of range, or get help and have those Necrons cleared off it.

I'm just having trouble picturing the fluff. Gauss is functionally sort of similar to acid. It hits the target, and then continues to burn away the surrounding area for a while after the initial impact. So if the gauss effect has burned away enough pieces of a tank to make it move slower, aim worse, etc., why does said vehicle suddenly start working properly again the next round? With haywire, it sort of makes sense. You're causing electrical systems to temporarily lock up or maybe even giving the pilots an electrical jolt. But it's not like tank treads and targeting systems are growing back after gauss dissolves them, right?


ATTENTION
. Psychic tests are unfluffy. Your longing for AV is understandable but misguided. Your chapter doesn't need a separate codex. Doctrines should go away. Being a "troop" means nothing. This has been a cranky service announcement. You may now resume your regularly scheduled arguing.
 
   
Made in pl
Tough-as-Nails Ork Boy




@wyldhunt, you're correct on that, perhaps have it be an effect that disappears if the vehicle is repaired or the monstrous creature regenerates/is healed.

Yes you inflicted damage across a broad range of components but the fluff is, that only 1 or 2 were both exposed enough to really take that damage but also critical enough that the tank/monster/dreadnought was effected. Quick swaps of components, battlefield repairs or rapid regenerations can alleviate these effects.
   
Made in dk
Loyal Necron Lychguard






panzerfront14 wrote:
@wyldhunt, you're correct on that, perhaps have it be an effect that disappears if the vehicle is repaired or the monstrous creature regenerates/is healed.

Yes you inflicted damage across a broad range of components but the fluff is, that only 1 or 2 were both exposed enough to really take that damage but also critical enough that the tank/monster/dreadnought was effected. Quick swaps of components, battlefield repairs or rapid regenerations can alleviate these effects.

If you're looking for inspiration on how to word it you could look at the plague counters from the AoS nurgle faction. I believe you can heal away the infections.
   
Made in us
Crazed Spirit of the Defiler





I’m generally not a fan of upping lethality in the game. I think the best way to approach this is to go back to preventing small arms from hurting vehicles. Give weapons a strength threshold of the vehicles toughness minus 2. If the vehicles toughness is is outside that range then the weapon simply can’t wound.

Guas would give an exception and always wound on a set value. Traditionally it was 6 but since vehicles get armor saves and have more than 3-4 hullpints I think 5+ wouldn’t be too over the top.

Iron within, Iron without 
   
Made in pl
Tough-as-Nails Ork Boy




I agree, its odd that my Ork boyz can hurt the frontal armor of a Leman Russ/Baneblade with Sluggas (not super likely but possible.)

I liked how 7th made it feel, yes your vehicles are basically impervious to my small arms but if I get into CC it isn't that difficult for say an Ork boy to start hacking open a crew hatch. Which might be why the hatches on Rhinos are so thick now that I think about it.
   
Made in us
Crazed Spirit of the Defiler





Or when a power claw was an actual threat to a vehicle or dreadnought? I get that system was my perfect either but the vehicles felt way more like vehicles. It’s still sad to watch a grot shutdown a massive tank from shooting or moving. As it is the vehicles feel more like really fleshy infantry models. Making vehicles tougher and letting gauss bypass it again seems like the best way to find that sweet spot again.

Iron within, Iron without 
   
Made in us
Sure Space Wolves Land Raider Pilot




Somerdale, NJ, USA

Unmodified 6's to wound should become Mortal Wounds. Simple and fluffy.

"The only problem with your genepool is that there wasn't a lifeguard on duty to prevent you from swimming."

"You either die a Morty, or you live long enough to see yourself become a Rick."

- 8k /// - 5k /// - 5k /// - 6k /// - 6k /// - 4k /// - 4k /// Cust - 3k 
   
Made in us
Fixture of Dakka





Lord Clinto wrote:Unmodified 6's to wound should become Mortal Wounds. Simple and fluffy.

Nah. Bringing mortal wounds into it means gauss suddenly has the potential to bypass dodge saves, forcefields, etc. Which doesn't seem to match their fluff. Plus, MWs spill over onto other models in the squad which, in addition to not being especially fluffy, would start to creep in on tesla's turf as the anti-hordes option to gauss's anti-heavy-armor option. Which is why I like D2 on 6s to-wound. It's pretty tame but helps against more sturdy targets like vehicles.

panzerfront14 wrote:I agree, its odd that my Ork boyz can hurt the frontal armor of a Leman Russ/Baneblade with Sluggas (not super likely but possible.)

I liked how 7th made it feel, yes your vehicles are basically impervious to my small arms but if I get into CC it isn't that difficult for say an Ork boy to start hacking open a crew hatch. Which might be why the hatches on Rhinos are so thick now that I think about it.

Meh. You aren't alone in your nostalgia for vehicles that were invulnerable to small arms fire. I'm personally very against such rules because it encourages skew lists where you spam vehicles, focus down the enemy anti-tank, and then get to basically ignore the rest of the enemy army. It was extra annoying for S3 armies because they didn't have the option to spank the tank in melee.


ATTENTION
. Psychic tests are unfluffy. Your longing for AV is understandable but misguided. Your chapter doesn't need a separate codex. Doctrines should go away. Being a "troop" means nothing. This has been a cranky service announcement. You may now resume your regularly scheduled arguing.
 
   
 
Forum Index » 40K Proposed Rules
Go to: