# How the mighty have fallen - Gauss Weapons



## Scytherayne (Aug 10, 2008)

So, basically I just want to hear what everyone has got to say about the Gauss rule, which has basically been nullified to a "all or nothing" rule.

Due to the new glancing chart, you can no longer destroy vehicles with glancing shots, but you can basically render them useless. However, this eliminates the main strength of the Gauss weapon, basically making it a boltgun.

There have been a few things thrown around, such as giving them rending, or making it a penetrating shot instead of a glancing hit.

Personally, I'd just go "remove the -2 when using a gauss weapon and create a new glancing hit chart for the gauss weapons. Hell, use the old glance chart."

But what do you guys think?


----------



## The Son of Horus (Dec 30, 2006)

Or you could just consider it an improvement and not worry about it, because it gives incentive to bring units besides bricks of 20 Warriors. With the old glancing chart, there was absolutely no reason to bother bringing anything at all in a Necron army beyond two lords and as many Necron Warriors as you could given the points level. Necron Warriors should not individually be able to take all comers with equal ease, after all.


----------



## Scytherayne (Aug 10, 2008)

Yeah, now they can't do crap besides get rushed by anything with higher Initiative and be slaughtered in CC. The only bonus that I like from the new glancing chart is that the Monolith is -virtually- indestructible without atleast STR9 weapons.

And what other troop choices? The only other ranged Infantry is Immortals. Same thing applies to them and they cost 14.00$ a pop (Cdn) with a minimum of 10. So Flayed ones can run? Well thats nice, now actually make them CC specialists instead of a point/money sink. 

Necron Warriors are the only troop choice and you -need- to take two. Might aswell take as many as you can, because they are worth it. They are hard to kill, you can field large numbers of them and they can pop even the strongest tanks. Now, they can barely manage to get a crew shaken result.

Pariahs? They're still the N.Lords honor guard basically.


----------



## darkreever (Apr 3, 2008)

Scytherayne said:


> So Flayed ones can run? Well thats nice, now actually make them CC specialists instead of a point/money sink.


Compared to other necron units, flayed ones are close combat specialists. Sure they are nothing when compared to the close combat specialists of other armies, like striking scorpions/howling banshees or khorne berzerkers or death company or any ork that manages a charge, but you can't compare one armies close combat specialist with another and expect them to match decently. Its about how they stack up against the more basic units in their own army.

Once got charged by a unit of flayed ones; ten of them accounted for seven out of eight assault marines engaged in combat with a few necron warriors. They killed half the squad the turn they charged because they got to strike at the same time, though by pure luck and a few rounds of combat enough of them died for me to win combat.


----------



## jakkie (Dec 21, 2007)

the nullified Guass rule was one of the main reasons i switched to Orks!

but i dont think its all bad - sure it means that necron Warriors are now way over prices (points wise), but a tank can easily be taken down by either a squadron of destroyers, or a single heavy destroyer! it also makes playing Necrons more tactical, which was hw GW designed them in the first place. you now have to choose certain units for cetain jobs, instead of having just one "Jack-of-all-trades" unit. I think GW could make the Crons so much better though, with the addition of an anti-tank troops choice, akin to the SM devestater or the Ork Tankbustas.


----------



## f74 (Mar 21, 2008)

Played Necrons for a long time now and I don't think this is so bad.

Just remember you will be still be getting Weapon Destroyed and Immobilized results

Sure it will be harder to take out say a land raider, but the opportunity is still there

Also you can adapt with Heavy Gauss Cannons when you really need it!


----------



## Casmiricus (Mar 6, 2008)

I'd like to point out that YOU CAN STILL DESTROY A TANK BY GLANCING IT TO DEATH. You just need to destroy the offensive weapons, immobilize it, and get one more immobilized/weapon destroyed result. 

Personally, I think this is a lot more true to the fluff. You would never expect single necron warrior to be able to take out a Land Raider. Now a block of 20 of them? Yeah, with all of those little beams stripping away atoms, I can see that.

Or, you can cease complaining and buy something other than the "Two Lords, 6 blocks of warriors" army. Honestly. It's not that it's unbeatable, it's just so damn _boring_ to fight. Kill the Lords, then blow away whole units.


----------



## darklove (May 7, 2008)

The Son of Horus said:


> Or you could just consider it an improvement and not worry about it, because it gives incentive to bring units besides bricks of 20 Warriors. With the old glancing chart, there was absolutely no reason to bother bringing anything at all in a Necron army beyond two lords and as many Necron Warriors as you could given the points level. Necron Warriors should not individually be able to take all comers with equal ease, after all.


Are you joking? :crazy:

Bricks of 20 is what GW want from Necron armies - they even say so in the developer notes on their website. The Necron army is meant to be massed ranks of Warriors, 'Right from the start, the central image of the army was going to be the serried ranks of advancing Necron Warriors. To prevent the warriors being marginalised, the unit size was increased and no other Troops choices were allowed.' [ref: http://uk.games-workshop.com/necrons/designers-notes/2/]

There is NO incentive in the Codex to bring anything other than Warriors because:


You must take 2 Troop choices and Warriors are the only Troop choice
Everything else is too expensive to allow you to take many
Only Warriors can capture objectives
Only Warriors can come through the Monolith Portal from reserve
Everything else in the army comes in such small groups that you can't get a high enough Necron count
Without them you Phase Out

Necrons should be able to take on all comers because that was the concept of the army: please feel free to read the dev notes at the link provided above.  

If Warriors are downgraded in 5th ed., which they are in a way, I think there will be more min-max lists being used. 
People should not get too stressed about the changes and just learn to deal with them until the next Codex. 
Min-max Destroyer lists will be more common: because why bother to hold objectives when you can win any mission by killing all your opponent's units anyway. :shok:


----------



## LeeHarvey (Jul 25, 2008)

I can see how Necron players would be upset by the new damage table and the decreased ability of gauss weaponry it has created. Even though you can still destroy a vehicle with lots of gauss blasters it's become much more difficult since you basically will have to destroy every weapon and immobilize the damn thing first. Maybe that was the intent of GW. Maybe they want people to start taking other units or, more likely, even more Warriors. You take more warriors so the increase in the number of gauss shots during the shooting phase will compensate for their decreased individual effectiveness and therefore reinforce the games designers original intentions of massed ranks of Warriors marching in phalanx formation across the table.


----------



## Scytherayne (Aug 10, 2008)

The new glancing hit chart probably works better for realism when viewing it from a certain perspective. Glancing hits don't make things go boom, unless they hit a gas tank or something equally as volatile.

But its just that GW was so sudden with the "You can't destroy stuff anymore", that a few of us weren't able to adjust. Before, we really didn't have a reason to take anything more than warriors, Destroyers and monoliths.

Now we have to buy the more expensive Heavy Destroyer, or atleast convert 3 normal destroyers.

I'd just like something that kept more to the flavor of Necrons, instead of sitting there with a 20 block of warriors, pelting away for maybe 5-6 shooting phases at a tank that use to take 2-3 at the most to render useless.

I chose the Necrons as my army, because I liked the idea of even their lowest warrior having the ability to pop armored vehicles, and making the opponent change their tactics. Their WBB was an added bonus


----------



## jakkie (Dec 21, 2007)

i chose necrons because im impatient and when i went to my nearest GW supplier they didnt have any Chaos Marines!


----------



## darklove (May 7, 2008)

Just to update on the min-max Destroyer list; this currently costs about £350 for 2000pts in the UK.


----------



## jakkie (Dec 21, 2007)

ouch, really?
can you break that down?


----------



## darklove (May 7, 2008)

Deceiver
Warriors x20
Destroyers x15
Heavy Destroyers x9

1995pts
£354


----------



## Stella Cadente (Dec 25, 2006)

Scytherayne said:


> But what do you guys think?


what do I think about the fact a str4 weapon (which has no relation at all to Gauss technology) are no longer able to destroy titans?

I think...its about bloody time, the "Gauss" gun special rules must of been written by someone with the mental age of 3.

its still a stupid rule in my honest opinion, but at least now its been toned down enough to make it bearable, and we might actually see something other than blocks of 15-20 warriors and a monolith or 2.

DEATH TO THE "gauss" RULE!!!


----------



## darklove (May 7, 2008)

Stella Cadente said:


> what do I think about the fact a str4 weapon (which has no relation at all to Gauss technology) are no longer able to destroy titans?
> 
> I think...its about bloody time, the "Gauss" gun special rules must of been written by someone with the mental age of 3.
> 
> ...


As I mentioned above, even if you give all Necron Warriors bolt pistols with no possible upgrade instead of the Gauss Flayers you will still only get blocks of 15-20. 

There is *NO *other Troop option in the Necron Codex and there are *NO *alternative weapon options.


----------



## Stella Cadente (Dec 25, 2006)

darklove said:


> As I mentioned above, even if you give all Necron Warriors bolt pistols with no possible upgrade instead of the Gauss Flayers you will still only get blocks of 15-20.
> 
> There is *NO *other Troop option in the Necron Codex and there are *NO *alternative weapon options.


thats not my point, thats ALL you would see, no destroyers, no heavy destroyers, no flayed ones, nothing else but large blocks of warriors, with 2 res orb lords, and 2 monoliths.

at least now people might actually take something else


----------



## darklove (May 7, 2008)

Stella Cadente said:


> thats not my point, thats ALL you would see, no destroyers, no heavy destroyers, no flayed ones, nothing else but large blocks of warriors, with 2 res orb lords, and 2 monoliths.
> 
> at least now people might actually take something else


So you mean Necron players should only go for annihilation?


----------



## Stella Cadente (Dec 25, 2006)

darklove said:


> So you mean Necron players should only go for annihilation?


no I mean necron players should actually now use there brains to make a list which is able to handle all situations, something I think a heck of allot of them are going to have trouble with if there stuck in 4th edition mode


----------



## darklove (May 7, 2008)

Stella Cadente said:


> no I mean necron players should actually now use there brains to make a list which is able to handle all situations, something I think a heck of allot of them are going to have trouble with if there stuck in 4th edition mode


= 30-40 Warriors minimum (or full squads = 60-80)

How else do you think people will be able to make lists that can hold objectives?


----------



## Stella Cadente (Dec 25, 2006)

*slams head on desk* nevermind


----------



## darklove (May 7, 2008)

People that have not read the Necron Codex can't understand why there are always so many Warriors - there is a reason and it is *NOT *because Necron players are borring or lazy. There really aren't that many options for Necron players.


----------



## darkreever (Apr 3, 2008)

If your going for highly effective and competitive then no, but then again lists like that aren't known for being overly creative outside of conversion and painting. (Once played someone who used flayed ones and heavy destroyers to a decent effect alongside his thirty warriors; the heavy d's ended up being less than useful against a hybrid all infantry army and he was wishing he brought another squad of flayed ones instead.)


----------



## Lord Reevan (May 1, 2008)

The gauss rule is still pretty good IMO.... with usual blocks of 15 to 20 necrons that is a lot of possible glancing hits which do add up..... It was a bit too powerful before but now I think it's fair.....


----------



## Camaris (Aug 4, 2008)

I've noticed a tendency on these boards for whining about peoples' own codexes and jealousy about other peoples' codexes.
So the gauss rule changed the way you have to play your army. Live with it and adapt. Don't whine because you don't like change.
Every time something changes about anything in this game everybody always runs around screaming their heads off how the world is coming to an end.
Things change. Roll with the punches. Show the world you're bigger then whining.

Now, I'm not saying that all changes are good.
Just that whining about them won't change things.

On topic, I do not feel the change in damage chart 'crippled' any necron playability. Now you have to take thing you otherwise wouldn't. That's all.
You're basic warriors can't deal with everything anymore. Boo-fuckin'-hoo. Join the rest of the armies.


----------



## Marneus Calgar (Dec 5, 2007)

darklove said:


> People that have not read the Necron Codex can't understand why there are always so many Warriors - there is a reason and it is *NOT *because Necron players are borring or lazy. There really aren't that many options for Necron players.


I know, there list can have what... 8 different things? Or somthing like that


----------



## slaaneshy (Feb 20, 2008)

I'm a necron player and agree that the Guass rule was overly powerful in relation to armour and the current one does represent a better balance. However the necron list is limited to essentially one decent anti armour choice now - heavy destroyers, and needs more to balance it out in other slots (i.e. elites).
As for the debate here about the use of lots of necron warriors - we need them, or the army phases out! Ranks of warriors are not a lazy choice, but necessary to keep in the game at turn 4+.


----------



## Stella Cadente (Dec 25, 2006)

slaaneshy said:


> As for the debate here about the use of lots of necron warriors - we need them


of course you need them, but back in 4th that was all you needed, that was my point earlier, back in 4th you never had to take anything but warriors with a couple of res orbs and monoliths and that was it.

heck I lost loads of times to such lists, with armored companies

(cue insults from everyone calling me a useless tactician and that I can't play 40k cus I'm a moron.................oh wait this isn't warseer:fuck


----------



## slaaneshy (Feb 20, 2008)

We still need them! The phase out rule has not changed. You edited my quote to leave that rather important fact out!
A necron army will by necessity always be troop heavy in order to keep in the game, and there really is not that much variety in the choices, as there is only one troop choice.


----------



## Stella Cadente (Dec 25, 2006)

slaaneshy said:


> We still need them! The phase out rule has not changed. You edited my quote to leave that rather important fact out!


no I left it out because it had no relation to the point I keep making


slaaneshy said:


> A necron army will by necessity always be troop heavy in order to keep in the game, and there really is not that much variety in the choices, as there is only one troop choice.


I know theres nothing else for troops, but my point is and still is that there was no need to take anything else but troops, why is this simple point so easily twisted around to make it seem like I'm saying "take something else for troops" ??????????????

christ its like bloody warseer all over again


----------



## slaaneshy (Feb 20, 2008)

If it didn't relate to your point, don't quote it.

Necron lists are troop heavy because of the PHASE OUT rule. Trust me, without that, the lists would be more varied, even with the limited codex as it stands. 
But since the 5th ed now requires troops as the scoring unit for objectives...expect to see even more of them (if possible)!!!


----------



## Stella Cadente (Dec 25, 2006)

*slams head on table again harder*


----------



## slaaneshy (Feb 20, 2008)

Remember, you can't win this as "We'll be Back", regardless...


----------



## revenant13 (Feb 15, 2008)

Camaris said:


> I've noticed a tendency on these boards for whining about peoples' own codexes and jealousy about other peoples' codexes.
> So the gauss rule changed the way you have to play your army. Live with it and adapt. Don't whine because you don't like change.
> Every time something changes about anything in this game everybody always runs around screaming their heads off how the world is coming to an end.
> Things change. Roll with the punches. Show the world you're bigger then whining.
> ...



I couldnt agree with him more.


----------



## Wraithian (Jul 23, 2008)

From personal experience, the way gauss worked, yeah, it was a bit too over the top. One veiling lord with squad equaled on dead tank, really. Now, there's more chance to it, and you have to rip it apart with glancing hits (removing weapons, immobilizing, etc), but it is by no means "screwed," or, "nerfed," or, "oh my god I'm so fuckered in the kiester I can't see straight," or any such. In the hands of a skilled player, 'crons are still tough as nails. My experience comes from when I started teaching a buddy of mine how to play 40K, and he chose necrons. We've spoken many o'tactic over the years since, and I will give him credit, as it is earned: He's one of the most skilled players I know.

This sort of thing goes around every edition. Some armies lose effectiveness, some gain it (some almost to the point of broken), but please do keep one thing in mind. The 'Cron 'Dex is still 2 editions behind. I'm sure the necron cats will get some neat toys with thier new dex, as is the trend with each new release.


----------



## dizzington esq (Apr 24, 2008)

The new gauss rules do not have much of an impact upon the composition of armies that I design. When you shoot enough shots and have enough disruptor field attacks you will on average get enough glances to either destroy or cripple the vehicle/walker. The last battle I had against marines I got a turn one charge with 10 scarabs with d/f on his tank. I immobolised it and finished it off next turn.

I always try to have a mixture of models that can adapt to the changing environment that always happens in a fierce battle where luck and tactics, good or bad, also play a role. Also all depending on what models you prefer will determine the lists that you field, whether balanced or focussed in a certain direction. 

Of course with objective based missions becoming the focus of 5th ed you will see everyones armies fill up with more troops choices, not just necron armies. The new glancing hit rules affect all armies and how their weapons work, not just necrons. This is the big picture that some necron players are overlooking whilst thinking that their army is the one done the worst harm with the new rules.

Did I mention that I like scarabs...


----------



## darklove (May 7, 2008)

I agree with dizzington. Gauss can still kill tanks. Nothing has changed that would stop people using several large blocks of Warriors because there is nothing new in the Codex that can punch armour anyway and you need many Warriors to hold objectives. If you go low on Warriors you have to go with lots of Monoliths and Destroyers so you can win on kill points.


----------



## dizzington esq (Apr 24, 2008)

Thats right Darklove. The only time necron players could really be felt hard done by was if a gauss weapon or disruptor field did not get the automatic glance on an armour pen roll of a 6. But hey, who knows what our next codex has in store for us....

Did I mention that I like scarabs...


----------



## Scytherayne (Aug 10, 2008)

Camaris said:


> I've noticed a tendency on these boards for whining about peoples' own codexes and jealousy about other peoples' codexes.
> So the gauss rule changed the way you have to play your army. Live with it and adapt. Don't whine because you don't like change.
> Every time something changes about anything in this game everybody always runs around screaming their heads off how the world is coming to an end.
> Things change. Roll with the punches. Show the world you're bigger then whining.
> ...


Does anyone like it when their army is nerfed? Especially when their Codex hasn't gotten an update in awhile and they need any advantage they can take? Thought not....

And whining would just be me going "OMG NERF NERF NERF SO W3AK!" Blah blah blah, so on and so forth.

Now, something that also hurts my brain is the way you typed your post. I actually tried to initiate a constructive discussion, instead, you offer a poorly typed post that is counter-productive. Thanks. :crazy:

And for the record, Titans are non-standard WH40k. That point is moot.


----------



## slaaneshy (Feb 20, 2008)

Here here!


----------



## Lord Sinkoran (Dec 23, 2006)

the necrons have taken a bad hit in 5th with the new glancing table but it gives you a chance to take other units. Also there will probaly be new units to balance out the lack of anti tank.


----------



## darklove (May 7, 2008)

Lord Sinkoran said:


> the necrons have taken a bad hit in 5th with the new glancing table but it gives you a chance to take other units. Also there will probaly be new units to balance out the lack of anti tank.


No. It does NOT give you a chance to take other units. This is because 5th ed. has changed many things but not the Necron Codex. The Codex makes you take lots of Warriors, and 5th ed. makes you take lots of Troops = most of your points go on Warriors who are not as good as they once were.

Necrons are still a strong army, but it is silly for people to expect anything other than tons of Warriors in a list.


----------



## Camaris (Aug 4, 2008)

> Does anyone like it when their army is nerfed? Especially when their Codex hasn't gotten an update in awhile and they need any advantage they can take? Thought not....
> 
> And whining would just be me going "OMG NERF NERF NERF SO W3AK!" Blah blah blah, so on and so forth.
> 
> ...


Would you like some cheese with that whine?

You didn't initiate a constructive discussion. You complained. You moaned. You whined. "Boohoo the way I play my Necron army doesn't work anymore and I'm going to have to think for once."
Sorry if this seems offensive but it's supposed to be.
What type of constructive discussion did you go for? How to houserule so you can keep playing your old way? Did you present a list that may present a possible solution to the 'downgrading' of your standard weapon? Did you ask for advice on building such a list?
No.
You complained like a little kid whose icecream just fell on the ground.

As has been said and as is true: The Necron army isn't nerfed. Not by a long shot.
You seem to suffer from a severe case of Codex-envy. You're never satisfied with anything you get. Somebody else's is always better. And any change is an immediate end to your whole army.
I do agree that their codex needs updating but that's true for a lot of them so you'll just have to be patient.



> "OMG NERF NERF NERF SO W3AK!"


In stead of your initial post you could just as easily have put this. It has the same message and tone. And it would have saved you letters.


----------



## darklove (May 7, 2008)

Camaris said:


> Would you like some cheese with that whine?
> 
> You didn't initiate a constructive discussion. You complained. You moaned. You whined. "Boohoo the way I play my Necron army doesn't work anymore and I'm going to have to think for once."
> Sorry if this seems offensive but it's supposed to be.
> ...


It is obvious from what you say that you don't know anything about Necrons. What things have you added to this discussion other than flaming Necron players and getting facts wrong? You certainly are not being very constructive.


----------



## Neccies rule (Jul 14, 2008)

ok the gauss thing hurt but i'm still winning with my crons. i don't rely on the flayer to do anything but stop a tank shooting which they still do just as well. if you wanna take a tank out go use hevy destroyers (destroyers against light ones) tomb spyders or a c'tan. scarabs were always my best friend and so they arn't gonna much as many things to death (boo) they now have a 2+ cover save when they jet boost (cool)

somthing will most likely be done about this so be patient and make a plan


----------



## slaaneshy (Feb 20, 2008)

The poor necron warrior! I think point for point the necron warrior is the best standard troopy around - high toughness and strength, great save and "We'll be Back", plus a gun that can immobilise a tank - who the hell wouldn't want to field as many of these guys as possible? I really don't understand why there is an issue with this other than 'troop envy'!

Take into account the following points as well:

1 - Troops hold objectives in 5th ed - therefore you need quite a few.
2 - Phase Out (unique to the necron) means you need large numbers so not to dissapear around turn 4 - therefore you need quite a few.
3 - They are the cheap points and pound wise - therefore your likely to use/buy a lot.
4 - The changes to the glancing hit rule mean you will need to fire more Gauss Guns to take a tank out - therefore your going to want lots of troops since they don't have much in the way of strength 9 weapons.
5 - There is only one troop choice - therefore there will be lots of one type of troop.

I know some are arguing here in one breath saying the necron player should take more variety in the army, and in the next breath telling the necron player to get on with what they have got and stop whining. 
Well, necron opponent should stop whining about the large numbers of necron troops and find a way to beat them! Battle Cannons and power weapons usually work....

The changes to the glancing hit table have reduced the effectiveness of the gauss gun, but far from fatally. A tank without a gun is pretty useless, as is one that can't move. Plus if you do both, you have killed it any how.

Did I mention I like the necron warrior.....


----------



## humakt (Jan 2, 2008)

In my opinion, giving every basic trooper in the army the ability to destroy any tank on the batttlefield was too much anyway. Another troop choice would be an option, but I think currently the Necrons are no more or less competative since 5th edition.


----------



## darklove (May 7, 2008)

slaaneshy said:


> The poor necron warrior! I think point for point the necron warrior is the best standard troopy around - high toughness and strength, great save and "We'll be Back", plus a gun that can immobilise a tank - who the hell wouldn't want to field as many of these guys as possible? I really don't understand why there is an issue with this other than 'troop envy'!
> 
> Take into account the following points as well:
> 
> ...


Most Necron players aren't whining. What seems to be the issue is that a lot of non-Necron players are moaning that there are always so many Warriors and that Necron players are too thick to think of any other list; i.e. that this is a chance for them to take units other than Warriors.

As you pointed out again, and as I and others have pointed out here and in other threads, Warriors will be the bulk of any Necron list that is designed to be balanced. Warriors are still good troops, but you won't get kill points for immobilising tanks anymore (you have to kill them completely). The only other option is a list that can't hold objectives and wins by kill point scores and is full to the max of Destroyers and Heavy Destroyers.


----------



## Scytherayne (Aug 10, 2008)

Camaris said:


> Would you like some cheese with that whine?
> 
> You didn't initiate a constructive discussion. You complained. You moaned. You whined. "Boohoo the way I play my Necron army doesn't work anymore and I'm going to have to think for once."
> Sorry if this seems offensive but it's supposed to be.
> ...


I'm not going to say that its easy for you to say because your chosen army is GWs' posterboys. It just isn't. Each army has taken this new glancing table differently, the Necrons have just taken it worse than most.

Fortunately for me, now there is more emphasis on Troops, although we only have one, ours is one of the toughest in the game .It can still take down a tank, albeit with 4-5 rounds of shooting but it still happens.

And actually, I've kept the same list, and I've won more battles than I did before 5th edition because people think Necrons can't take down tanks anymore without a heavy destroyer. I think not silly person.

It didn't really encourage more to think more than I used to, it just made my opponents believe my army was weaker. Now, can you actually post something constructive or are you just here to insult me?


----------



## Lord Reevan (May 1, 2008)

I've never played as necrons but have played against them and the 5th. ed army list consisting of lots of troops and maybe a monolith is brilliant AND fluffy. I mean they are the undead robotic horde like thingies so obviously lots of troops are good...Heavy destroyers are good but not worth their points a lot IMO... A lot of the other necron units aren't worth it IMO.... Pariahs are pretty crap to me...

But overall even if the gauss rule has been dumbed down a little it is still goig to be the most common weapon in your army, both fluff wise and tactically, so with that many possible glancing hits something's gonna die!! It might have been overpowered before but what else had they?? They had the least amount of options out of every army so obviously they deserved a good all round unit

And to everyone whining about how necron lists are boring and not thought out- look at your own lists. More than likely they are the same thing game after game after game but isn't as good as the "generic" necron list so obviously there is something wrong with the necron players..... Come on!! It's a tactic based game, the same play style will not work with every army bar necrons as that is the way they were designed to be. You find them overpowered exploit their weakness.... there is always a weakness... moaning about an eneny army seems to be more of a negative insight to the opponent rather than inot the necron player....


----------



## Camaris (Aug 4, 2008)

> So, basically I just want to hear what everyone has got to say about the Gauss rule, which has basically been nullified to a "all or nothing" rule.
> Due to the new glancing chart, you can no longer destroy vehicles with glancing shots, but you can basically render them useless. However, this eliminates the main strength of the Gauss weapon, basically making it a boltgun.
> There have been a few things thrown around, such as giving them rending, or making it a penetrating shot instead of a glancing hit.
> Personally, I'd just go "remove the -2 when using a gauss weapon and create a new glancing hit chart for the gauss weapons. Hell, use the old glance chart."
> But what do you guys think?





> ...Fortunately for me, now there is more emphasis on Troops, although we only have one, ours is one of the toughest in the game. It can still take down a tank, albeit with 4-5 rounds of shooting but it still happens.
> And actually, I've kept the same list, and I've won more battles than I did before 5th edition because people think Necrons can't take down tanks anymore without a heavy destroyer. I think not silly person.
> It didn't really encourage more to think more than I used to, it just made my opponents believe my army was weaker. Now, can you actually post something constructive or are you just here to insult me?


Since you just admitted to not need any change to the rule and that it doesn't negatively affect you I have one question remaining:
What the hell are you moaning about in the first place?
The rules don't need changing. The army doesn't need changing. You just said so yourself. Bragged about it even.

Since you've just taken away the reason for this thread's existence (you state that the Gauss rule isn't bad after all and that Necrons haven't been nerfed) I'm done posting here. Next time, think before you whine.

PS: I haven't insulted you. If I were insulting you you'd know.


----------



## darklove (May 7, 2008)

Camaris said:


> Since you just admitted to not need any change to the rule and that it doesn't negatively affect you I have one question remaining:
> What the hell are you moaning about in the first place?
> The rules don't need changing. The army doesn't need changing. You just said so yourself. Bragged about it even.
> 
> ...


I think you were a bit rude Camaris, even if you did not mean to be insulting. Your tone has been very antaganistic and it is understandable if that rubs people the wrong way.

It is also not up to you to declare when a thread should be closed, just because you think *you *made your point.


----------



## Scytherayne (Aug 10, 2008)

Hey, I made a mistake. Its human. I had been told by my friend Daniel that glancing hits can't destroy vehicles due to the new glancing rules.

I decided to confirm this myself and read past the new chart, finding out that you can indeed destroy vehicles, albeit by immobilizing it and then destroying all of its weapons.

And I wasn't bragging. Peoples own overconfidence is nothing to brag about. I took advantage of the current mindset in my area that Necrons can't destroy vehicles anymore, and I won. Stupid simple.

And yes, you have insulted me. "Boohoo the way I play my Necron army doesn't work anymore and I'm going to have to think for once." Thats called insulting my intelligence. Please, don't try again.


----------



## BalrogTheBuff (Aug 13, 2008)

I agree that a horde of warriors plus a monolith is good based on the fluff. In the Commisar Cain novels he finds some necron. They have swarms of warriors with a group of flayed ones mixed in.

I think glancing hits are still an effective way to take out tanks, at least to cover themselves so that you can take and hold. But as for troop choices maybe they should make scarabs a troop choice but you can only have one unit per unit of warriors (much like IG's Armored Fist).

Scarabs as take and holders worked well in Dawn of War, why not the table top?


----------



## Hespithe (Dec 26, 2006)

Quite simply....

Necron Warriors are necessary in large numbers for two reasons.... Claiming Objectives and Phase Out. But, with 5th Edition, Necron Warriors are nothing more than over-costed Space Marines with very poor initiative. What does this really mean? It means that Necrons suffer in the shooting phase, as Gauss technology is what made the lack of special/heavy weapons balanced in 4th Edition. Now for the points of a typical MEq Elite unit, you get what basically is a very low initiative standard Marine. Lovely. Why is the initiative issue so important? Why, because Necron Warriors are the WORST MEq combat unit in the game. Sure they have 'We'll Be Back', but that won't save them from being overrun during the current combat phase.

Case in point, Necron Warriors are more necessary than ever, but are more over-costed than ever, and worse than ever before in both shooting and assault phases.

Now, more than ever, the Necron armies need the options that the Elite/Fast/Heavy choices provide, but are even more restricted from them and limited to the core Warriors than ever before.

The new 'dex is needed desperately. Or, a simple FAQ giving the Necrons 'Stubborn' across the board.


----------



## dizzington esq (Apr 24, 2008)

BalrogTheBuff said:


> I agree that a horde of warriors plus a monolith is good based on the fluff. In the Commisar Cain novels he finds some necron. They have swarms of warriors with a group of flayed ones mixed in.
> 
> I think glancing hits are still an effective way to take out tanks, at least to cover themselves so that you can take and hold. But as for troop choices maybe they should make scarabs a troop choice but you can only have one unit per unit of warriors (much like IG's Armored Fist).
> 
> Scarabs as take and holders worked well in Dawn of War, why not the table top?



Scarabs are swarms and as such they cannot hold objectives. So to include them as a troop choice would be a total waste of time.

Hespite, I 'd prefer fearless over stubborn any day :biggrin:

Did I mention that I like scarabs...


----------



## darklove (May 7, 2008)

BalrogTheBuff said:


> I agree that a horde of warriors plus a monolith is good based on the fluff. In the Commisar Cain novels he finds some necron. They have swarms of warriors with a group of flayed ones mixed in.
> 
> I think glancing hits are still an effective way to take out tanks, at least to cover themselves so that you can take and hold. But as for troop choices maybe they should make scarabs a troop choice but you can only have one unit per unit of warriors (much like IG's Armored Fist).
> 
> Scarabs as take and holders worked well in Dawn of War, why not the table top?


Making Scarab Swarms a Troop choice won't fix it because the Swarm rule means they can't hold and can only contest objectives.

[edit] Just remembered another thread I started a while ago about Gauss. Make Gauss AP1 vs Vehicles and it has the same effect as 4th ed. = You glance on 6s and then with the AP1 +1 bonus on the damage chart you have a 1/6 chance to destroy the Vehicle. Just a thought...


----------



## Hespithe (Dec 26, 2006)

Stubborn, lol. Never needing anything worse than a '10' on any leadership based roll? That's for me. Fearless can be too painful in certain situations, while naturally high leadership can always be drastically reduced.

Now, honestly, Stubborn Ld-10 or a natural Init-10 (either would work to keep them from phasing out 20 at a time) would be ideal in my opinion, though simply adding the 'Stubborn' special rule would be much easier.


----------



## slaaneshy (Feb 20, 2008)

Just wanted to add - what a great thread! Don't think i've read one that has aroused such feelings from different angles in a long while.

So I think we have a concensus:

Lots of necron warriors in a list is always going to be a feature for reasons already discussed.
The Necron army could do with some extended troop choices and some extra heavy.
The Gauss rule is still effective - but just a bit less so.
People living in Belgium cannot participate in a constructive debate.

It's been fun people. Big slaaneshy love to you all....


----------



## darklove (May 7, 2008)

Rumours from my GW friends are that Slow&Purposeful might be coming, letting all the Warriors move and shoot their Gauss Flayers twice.


----------



## Hespithe (Dec 26, 2006)

Can we have the altered 'rapid-3' rule from the IG rumors thread?

S&P with 3 shots at 12" or one at 24", even with the weakened Gauss Rule would be awesome!

Though... I'd still want Ld10 Stubborn, lol.


----------



## darklove (May 7, 2008)

S&P = you get your rapid fire even at max range. 2 shots at 24" even if you move.


----------



## Hespithe (Dec 26, 2006)

Really? The S&P rule has changed that much? Wow... And I thought things were a bit lopsided before, lol. 

So S&P Modified Gauss Rifles - [email protected] / [email protected]

That could be much fun with 50+ Warriors on the field, lol.


----------



## darklove (May 7, 2008)

Units with S&P also have Relentless, which lets them move and shoot as if they were stationary; i.e. they can move and fire heavy or rapid fire weapons at maximum range in the same turn. They can also assault in the same turn as they fired non-assault weapons.


----------



## thepicto (Aug 13, 2008)

That doesn't let you shoot twice at max range. You just get to shoot once at max range even if you move. Rapid fire weapons only fire twice at 12" or less, regardless of movement,relentless or slow and purposeful.


----------



## darklove (May 7, 2008)

That makes it a nice way to differentiate Immortals and Warriors.


----------



## Scytherayne (Aug 10, 2008)

I think S&P would reflect the overall feel of the Necron warriors and also give them a better chance against CC-rushing.

But, the rumors are basically saying S&P + Stubborn correct? That might fix my DE problems :biggrin:


----------



## Casmiricus (Mar 6, 2008)

I recently played a small (750) game against Necrons. A block of 20 warriors shot my Leman Russ to hell and gone in one turn.

Any whining about the inability of gauss weaponry to deal with tanks is false.

Also, as an aside, you can't blame the belgians. After all, they share a border with the Dutch. :grin:


----------



## darklove (May 7, 2008)

Casmiricus said:


> I recently played a small (750) game against Necrons. A block of 20 warriors shot my Leman Russ to hell and gone in one turn.
> 
> Any whining about the inability of gauss weaponry to deal with tanks is false.
> 
> Also, as an aside, you can't blame the belgians. After all, they share a border with the Dutch. :grin:


Imagine how awful they'd be if they shared a boarder with the US! :suicide:


----------



## Truth Bearer (Jul 30, 2008)

_*NOTHING*_ is worse than sharing a border with the Dutch.


----------



## Camaris (Aug 4, 2008)

Oh yes there is. Sharing a border with the french.
The dutch are however a close second...


----------



## darklove (May 7, 2008)

Belgium will be part of NL again pretty soon anyway, so their worries are going to be over for good :friends:


----------



## Camaris (Aug 4, 2008)

Over My Dead Body!


----------



## darklove (May 7, 2008)

lol - all my family in Oostende would love for Belgium to be part of NL again. I think it is only the annoying frenchy people that don't like the idea.


----------



## Camaris (Aug 4, 2008)

Yeah right. I don't know what world you're living in but the idea of joining with the Netherlands is as repulsive to 85% of the dutch-speaking belgians as joining with France.
It is not going to happen. Never. No way, no how.
We did not become independent from those idiots just to join up with them again.


----------



## Alex (Jan 19, 2008)

I'm only just starting as necrons (when my models come) so i wouldn't know how good the gauss weapons used to be but I'm just going to make do with the new glancing rules, It'll take a few turns but oh well.


----------



## darklove (May 7, 2008)

The problem now is that you don't get kill points for immobilised vehicles anymore, you have to kill them out-right. All the glancing hits might make it useless to your enemy, but you have to keep pounding for many more rounds to get the kill point.


----------



## Hespithe (Dec 26, 2006)

Glad the topic got back to Necrons, lol.

I'd be really happy to see a FAQ issued... one that gives just a few minor tweaks to bring the Necrons back in line. 

As for the Gauss issue, I'm really not too concerned, as long as the combat issue is successfully resolved. I does kinda make disruption fields a huge waste in close combat, though, lol.


----------



## darklove (May 7, 2008)

DisFields were never any good in CC except against Vehicles, they do not work vs non-Vehicles, and in that context they still rock. Even a basic S4 Warrior can cause a glancing hit on a Land Raider in CC if he has DisFields.


----------



## dizzington esq (Apr 24, 2008)

Never really felt warriors needed to take d/f's until I got smeared by a dreadnought. I had to stand there and watch whilst he killed most of them until they got swept. Could not damage him or nothing. It was only then that I wished I hadn't left the tomb world without them. With that now said, I would use them with the new unit of flayed ones I am using and play testing. The last game I played with them saw 2 dreadnoughts on the field in a 1k match. Wished I'd had them then as well...

Did I mention that I like scarabs...


----------



## Hespithe (Dec 26, 2006)

Need a glancing on a 6 to wound with DFs? Well against most vehicles you'll get a glancing on a 6 to wound anyway. Why pay for the 'upgrade' so that you can target Land Raiders as well? Am I missing something?


----------



## revenant13 (Feb 15, 2008)

the DF i guess are supposed to be more for flayed ones and scarabs than anything else. but like the guy before said, im sure itd be really nice for your warriors to have them if they are being charged by a rampaging death company dreadnaut.


----------



## dogowar (Feb 27, 2008)

Just this weekend I played 7 games with the Crons and they accounted for 3 Devilfish, several land speeders and Samiel the leader of the Ravenwing.

Samiel was shot at with 10 warrios in a single round and was immobilized and lost his Assulat canon.

Not what it used to be but it got the job done.


----------



## titan11 (Jul 24, 2009)

It is still possible to kill a vehicle with glancing hits. I read in the new codex that you if you immolbilize a vehicle and get the same result again in any way(penetrating and glancing hits)the result is considered weapon destroyed, and if there are no more weapons on a immolbilized vehicle either of the immolbilized or weapon destroyed results is treated as vehicle wrecked instead. It is just a lot harder to destroy a vehicle with glancing hits.Essentially you are literally pecking a vehicle to death. all you have to usually is get a lot of glancing hits roll a bunch of 5's or 6's so you can can get a immolibilzed or weapons destroyed results to take away all of the vehicles guns and destroy the vehicle.


----------



## titan11 (Jul 24, 2009)

I have read some of the talk about DS fields, honestly they are not that great UNLESS you are involved in a assault with either a walker or another type of vehicle with a rear armor greater than 11 or 12(12 being a s5 unit in melee).That UNLESS is a good reason to POSSIBLY bring them along...currently.When the new codex comes out and IF the rumour about making gauss weapons have rending is true AND the rules regarding DS fields basically remains the same then having them along will definately be something you ALWAYS want to have.


----------



## darklove (May 7, 2008)

@titan11: Welcome to the forum titan11, I hope you find lots of useful information and there is a lot of Necron good stuff here :victory:
Regarding your post: it is a bit like 'Threadomancy', this topic was over a year ago and you didn't really add that much to the discussion. Unless you are updating something super special, like adding a battle report feedback to an army list to show how it worked for example, it is best to let old threads (especially this old) rest in peace


----------

