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.

 NorseSig wrote:

I didn't mean to come across as vitriolic. I was hoping to hash out what I saw as issues in the rebalancing.

Better balance in the game would be a good thing. Unfortunately, not only is it easy to screw up, but also there are many different opionins on what it means to do it right.

Sorry the post didn't start the conversations you wanted to. I was hoping it would.

My comments weren't directed to you or Martel. You guys have actually been helpful.

Part of the issue with marines is they cost a lot which they should, but they are lacking some punch for those points, and due to meta die as easily as others. My idea was to drop the price of a number of the units by 5 to 10 points total and give them an extra special or heavy as was appropriate for the purpose of the unit to make them a little less schitzo and give them a bit more direction which is something you HAVE to have. I also want to preserve army fluff, and make different styles of play viable. I think space marines are the starting point simply because there are more space marine armies than armies of any other type.

I feel like you really should start off at the base line for all the basic armies. its easier to +1 human once you know what a human is.

Also if you are trying to base the game off the fluff you are going to have a hard time. as a lot of that fluff is pretty bias.

ie 10 man tac squad taking on a full 100 man infantry platoon? gooby pls

Try 30 black templars defeating 5000 cultists.

What to do about Tacs being so apparently-worthless is where Martel and I usually argue back and forth extensively.

He, and others like him, believe they need to be adjusted to be relevant against the current meta.

I believe, instead, that the current options that make Tacs so apparently-worthless be nerfed instead. Things like Serpents and Knights of all flavors.

Much of that comes from my meta and play style. Tacs are actually either my backbone or a threat to much of my list, depending on the army I'm fielding.

Before we can really get anywhere, we really need to decide which is the baseline. Often, its assumed that it should be he current meta. To me, it should be Tacs.

As for 'succeeding', to presuppose only perfect balance is a success would mean it cannot succeed. Marginal improvements to the situation, especially as more and more are stacked, would make substantial improvements in the game. Even if it cannot manage perfect balance.

Bharring wrote:
I think you're the one person he felt validated by, Martel.

Blizzard did a great job of balance, especially compared to contemporaries, with StarCraft, and when I played it, WoW. Not perfect, but that is all but impossible in an asymmetric game (Isn't even Chess believed to be slightly biased towards White?).

The true key, in my opinion, was the high frequency of changes, coupled with their subtlety. A sub-1% change somewhere quite frequently dialed back the broken, or brought the useless back to the table.

Their kind of frequency isn't really feasible, but ongoing discussion, and frequent changes, are.

If codices were online free downloads and updated in real time, it would be feasible.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Bharring wrote:
What to do about Tacs being so apparently-worthless is where Martel and I usually argue back and forth extensively.

He, and others like him, believe they need to be adjusted to be relevant against the current meta.

I believe, instead, that the current options that make Tacs so apparently-worthless be nerfed instead. Things like Serpents and Knights of all flavors.

Much of that comes from my meta and play style. Tacs are actually either my backbone or a threat to much of my list, depending on the army I'm fielding.

Before we can really get anywhere, we really need to decide which is the baseline. Often, its assumed that it should be he current meta. To me, it should be Tacs.

As for 'succeeding', to presuppose only perfect balance is a success would mean it cannot succeed. Marginal improvements to the situation, especially as more and more are stacked, would make substantial improvements in the game. Even if it cannot manage perfect balance.

The baseline should actually be an Imperial Guardsman. Not a space marine.

My primary issue with your view on tacs is that you voluntarily field a list against which tacs are relevant. My opponents know that S4 is everywhere in many codices, and so they try to make lists as immune to S4 as possible. Because it works.

To be fair, I don't even know how I'd change tacs in the face of the current meta, given the numerical constraints artificially forced by GW's system. GW's primary "fix" is point adjustment, but I feel that at 14 pts, marines are already at the end of that solution.

 NorseSig wrote:

I didn't mean to come across as vitriolic. I was hoping to

My comments weren't directed to you or Martel. You guys have actually been helpful.

Part of the issue with marines is they cost a lot which they should, but they are lacking some punch for those points, and due to meta die as easily as others. My idea was to drop the price of a number of the units by 5 to 10 points total and give them an extra special or heavy as was appropriate for the purpose of the unit to make them a little less schitzo and give them a bit more direction which is something you HAVE to have. I also want to preserve army fluff, and make different styles of play viable. I think space marines are the starting point simply because there are more space marine armies than armies of any other type.

the problem is not in the SM costs, but in some units ridicolously OP. Try changing some rate of fire, change Invisibility and Ignore covers. Then
test the game, you'll see some improvement in balance, and your space marine will be more usefull.
The game will need other adjustment, but one by one you could fix a lot of them.

I'd have to say that any flyer being in fast assault is a bit worrying here.

Might I suggest something along these lines for Tactical Marines?

-Make 'em smaller squads, of about 2 marines and one Sergeant each. To compensate for this reduction in strength, jack up BS and WS a bit. Shunt the bike upgrades over to the Crusaders, make them feel unique. After all, Black Templars have only tactic: Frontal Assault.
-The Marines individually can take the following, with the costs and other notes laid out below.
-Chainsword and Bolt Pistol, 3 ppm.
-Heavy Bolter, 9 ppm and max one per squad.
-Flamer, 5 ppm and max two per squad.
-Sarge can replace his Bolt Pistol with the following.
-Meltagun, 5 points.
-Plasma Pistol, 3 points.
-Hand Flamer (?), 4 points

Oh, and Legion of the Damned being able to start on the board would be nice.

I think that all the changes you propose would make an already strong army stronger, I for one do believe that the cost of "some" units might be tweaked a little but that's all.

There are however some little changes that might make sense, I'll take your devastators for instance :

-Devastator Squad (Split fire makes sense these guys are basically long fangs with one less heavy and more bullet catchers)
+Gain the Split Fire special rule

Instead of automatic Split Fire, you could rule that the sergeant's signum can be used in two ways :
+1 BS on one model like it already does
OR
allow one model to gain the split fire rule for one turn
OR
give one model the interceptor / skyfire rule for one turn

That would provide an interesting choice for the player, while not being too overpowered.

I'd have to say that any flyer being in fast assault is a bit worrying here.

Might I suggest something along these lines for Tactical Marines?

-Make 'em smaller squads, of about 2 marines and one Sergeant each. To compensate for this reduction in strength, jack up BS and WS a bit. Shunt the bike upgrades over to the Crusaders, make them feel unique. After all, Black Templars have only tactic: Frontal Assault.
-The Marines individually can take the following, with the costs and other notes laid out below.
-Chainsword and Bolt Pistol, 3 ppm.
-Heavy Bolter, 9 ppm and max one per squad.
-Flamer, 5 ppm and max two per squad.
-Sarge can replace his Bolt Pistol with the following.
-Meltagun, 5 points.
-Plasma Pistol, 3 points.
-Hand Flamer (?), 4 points

Oh, and Legion of the Damned being able to start on the board would be nice.

What is so worrying about flyers, which are fast moving vehicles, being in the fast section of the FOC? Flyers are not cheap by any means, and require you to make sacrifices in other areas to run them because of their point costs. I have only ever seen flyers in the heavy section used when they are either a transport or they are literally the only flyer that army has and they NEED one.

The rule to take chainswords already exists, but it is army specific. It usually costs 1ppm or 2ppm, with a LOT of players saying 2ppm is too much. Imight bump bolt pistols up to 2ppm but any more than that is too much,

The arge upgrades really aren't much different than the changes I suggested. It just moves the upgrade to the sarge. 3 points for a plasma pistol isn't enough. What is the point of a 1 point cheaper heavy bolter? Why a 9ppm cost when only one can take it? I don't think tacticals should have 2 specials and 2 heavies. The most I will go is 2 special and a heavy and that was done to make upgrading to bike squads easier, otherwise I would like for tacticals to just have 2 specials. Hand flamers are more of a BA thing. I would be fine with a BA sarge taking one, but not all marine sarges.

The rules for Legion of the damned starting off the board makes sense to me.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

I think that all the changes you propose would make an already strong army stronger, I for one do believe that the cost of "some" units might be tweaked a little but that's all.

It gives a small boost to them but not as big of one as you are implying. If space marines were as strong as you claim they were, then there wouldn't be all the posts you see about them having serious problems/being too weak in pretty much every 40k forum. I don't think they are the weakest codex, but they are FAR from the strongest. The vast majority of my changes come in the form of being able to take an extra special or heavy weapon FOR A COST. The items i gave a discount needed a discount because they were OVERCOSTED to begin with. The change to bolters does NOT make a huge impact on gameplay. It just gives a bit more flexibility to marines which is their strength.

Instead of automatic Split Fire, you could rule that the sergeant's signum can be used in two ways :
+1 BS on one model like it already does
OR
allow one model to gain the split fire rule for one turn
OR
give one model the interceptor / skyfire rule for one turn

That would provide an interesting choice for the player, while not being too overpowered.

I am assuming you think Long Fangs are Overpowered? Devastator squads are the space wolf equivalent to Long Fangs. The difference being They get one less heavy weapon, but can take more bullet catchers; oh and they lack split fire. Dev Squads with bullet catchers are really expensive.

Giving split fire, interceptor, or skyfire to one unit is pretty useless. I know because I have tested this rule variant. The times when I used split fire I wished it was half the devs and the one shot didn't do enough to be worthwhile. same story with interceptor and skyfire.

Standard demi-company lists are certainly midtier. But other builds from the Codex - mostly ones that dont look much like Marine forces - are top tier, or near to. Dev Cents, bike spam, smashfether, etc are all brutal.

What would you think if, instead of Assault 1/2 24"/12", instead it remained Rapid Fire, but Rapid Fire allowed (disordered) charges?
It would still allow Marines to charge after shooting, to spoil charges. And seems to make more sense. And I can't think of anything it would break.

Bharring wrote:
Standard demi-company lists are certainly midtier. But other builds from the Codex - mostly ones that dont look much like Marine forces - are top tier, or near to. Dev Cents, bike spam, smashfether, etc are all brutal.

What would you think if, instead of Assault 1/2 24"/12", instead it remained Rapid Fire, but Rapid Fire allowed (disordered) charges?
It would still allow Marines to charge after shooting, to spoil charges. And seems to make more sense. And I can't think of anything it would break.

That could work.

I think a lot of the issues with bikes could be fixed with the loss of the +1 toughness.

Dev Cents are a trickier issue they are an extremely expensive unit that pays a fair price for their points. They just happen to counter a lot of the stuff people bring to handle marines.

For Bikes, the appropriate fix is dependant on the intended role of Bikes in the first place.

Their current rules allow a 'Tac Marines, but better' role. They do everything. Take ground. Kill stuff. Survive. Get anywhere.

I see them more as flankers or skirmishers. I think they should be a counterpoint for Assault Marines. Both should be mobile flankers or skirmishers. For that, they need stats that make them mobile bullies, and a cost that disincentivises just fielding a horde that runs across the board.

Where ASM and Bikes should be different is that:
-ASM should be great at navigating terrain and ambushing. Their shooting should be minor, except when kitted for short range shooting.
-Bikes should be fast in the open, but get bogged down by/have problems with terrain. However, better mid-ranged shooting, while not being as prepared for a protracted CC.

(I want to re-iterate they should both be bullies, not solid CC.)

To that end, ASM hopping over terrain while Bikes take Dangerous tests sound right. Other differences that would be good:

-ASM don't get a heavy weapon
-ASM get a CCW, Bikes shouldn't (reliant on the Assault to do their damage)
-ASM should have Pistol options for Special, bikes shouldn't.
-ASM should have Assault Grenades, perhaps Bikes shouldn't?(readying yourself for a charge from Bikers should be a lot easier when you are standing behind terrain) Not sure we want to take Grenades away, though. Would be nice if there were some penalty beyond just Dangerous for Bikes assaulting into terrain, though.
-For Special Weapons, as the Grav Gun is more of a Rifle, it feels off on both units. Perhaps a Grav Pistol instead?
-if Bikes can get Malta Guns, ASM should probably have them too. Flamers are an obvious choice. Plasma Gun, I'm not sure should be available for ASM, though.

Bikes might be better armored than most passengers, sure. But SM bikes should be -at best - as durable as Power Armor. I don't see a Biker taking more punishment just because he rides a bike, and if its strong enough to pop a Marine, its strong enough to pop a bike. I agree with stripping the +1T. Probably from all bikes, but I'll get to that later.

Hit and Run and Skilled Rider.
Hit and Run seems like a specialized tactic. Either from being a Chapter that focuses on Bikes, or from being an expert biker.

Skilled Rider generally would make Bikes simply superior to ASM. The big downfall to Bikes, aside from cost, is terrain. Should be very hard to get.

So, let's make a Vanguard Veteran Biker option. Like Bike Squads, but as Veterans. Probably with CCW upgrade options.

I think Vanguard Veteran Bikers get Hit and Run.
White Scars Chapter Tactic *or* an Assault Company detatchment gives Hit and run to Bike Squads. Squads with Hit and Run already get Skilled Rider.

As for +1T for bikes, removing that game-wide seems right. Think about secondary affects:

Eldar:
Those Windriders? No longer as tough as SMs. And now their armor save seems fine.
Farseers? 15 points for a jetbike for a Farseer isn't the +1T candy it is now. Still has a point (3+, mobility), but they are more in line with picking a jetbike.
Shining Spears? Die too easily either way. Will still do the same (get in before shot? Do some damage. Otherwise, die).

DE?
-Bikes die if shot either way

CSM?
Burgle never seemed to be the Biker Lord. So its no longer so tempting to do Nurgle Bikers. Do Nurgle for toughness. Bikes for mobility.

Marines?
Bikes are more mobile Tacs. Not just simply better Tacs.

Orkz?
Biker boyz got hitnhard enough this edition. That said, while they should be a little tougher than regular boys, that +1T made the difference far too huge. They need another look anyways. Perhaps +1 FNP? let's not go there yet, but note the issue.

So, long post summary:
Suggested changes for Bikes and ASM:

Game-wide
-Bikes no longer give +1T

SM:
ASM:
-Add Melta Gun to the list of options

Bikers
-Remove Grav Gun

Vanguard Veteran Bikes
-Elites (could be FA)
-Like Bikers, but +1A each
-Get Hit&Run stock

Captain/CM:
Bike Option - no longer unlocks Bike troops (see detachment)

White Scars CT:
-Gives Bikes Hit & Run. Any Bikes that get it from another source get Skilled Rider instead

Assault Company Detachment:
-2-10 ASM or Bike squads
-1-2HQ, at least one on a Bike
-0-3 troops/Elite/FA/HS
-Benefit:
-- All Bikes get hit & run. Bikes with H&R from another source get Skilled Rider
-- ASM can use their jetpacks in both movement and assault phases

Thoughts?

Bharring wrote:
For Bikes, the appropriate fix is dependant on the intended role of Bikes in the first place.

Their current rules allow a 'Tac Marines, but better' role. They do everything. Take ground. Kill stuff. Survive. Get anywhere.

I see them more as flankers or skirmishers. I think they should be a counterpoint for Assault Marines. Both should be mobile flankers or skirmishers. For that, they need stats that make them mobile bullies, and a cost that disincentivises just fielding a horde that runs across the board.

Where ASM and Bikes should be different is that:
-ASM should be great at navigating terrain and ambushing. Their shooting should be minor, except when kitted for short range shooting.
-Bikes should be fast in the open, but get bogged down by/have problems with terrain. However, better mid-ranged shooting, while not being as prepared for a protracted CC.

(I want to re-iterate they should both be bullies, not solid CC.)

To that end, ASM hopping over terrain while Bikes take Dangerous tests sound right. Other differences that would be good:

-ASM don't get a heavy weapon
-ASM get a CCW, Bikes shouldn't (reliant on the Assault to do their damage)
-ASM should have Pistol options for Special, bikes shouldn't.
-ASM should have Assault Grenades, perhaps Bikes shouldn't?(readying yourself for a charge from Bikers should be a lot easier when you are standing behind terrain) Not sure we want to take Grenades away, though. Would be nice if there were some penalty beyond just Dangerous for Bikes assaulting into terrain, though.
-For Special Weapons, as the Grav Gun is more of a Rifle, it feels off on both units. Perhaps a Grav Pistol instead?
-if Bikes can get Malta Guns, ASM should probably have them too. Flamers are an obvious choice. Plasma Gun, I'm not sure should be available for ASM, though.

Bikes might be better armored than most passengers, sure. But SM bikes should be -at best - as durable as Power Armor. I don't see a Biker taking more punishment just because he rides a bike, and if its strong enough to pop a Marine, its strong enough to pop a bike. I agree with stripping the +1T. Probably from all bikes, but I'll get to that later.

Hit and Run and Skilled Rider.
Hit and Run seems like a specialized tactic. Either from being a Chapter that focuses on Bikes, or from being an expert biker.

Skilled Rider generally would make Bikes simply superior to ASM. The big downfall to Bikes, aside from cost, is terrain. Should be very hard to get.

So, let's make a Vanguard Veteran Biker option. Like Bike Squads, but as Veterans. Probably with CCW upgrade options.

I think Vanguard Veteran Bikers get Hit and Run.
White Scars Chapter Tactic *or* an Assault Company detatchment gives Hit and run to Bike Squads. Squads with Hit and Run already get Skilled Rider.

As for +1T for bikes, removing that game-wide seems right. Think about secondary affects:

Eldar:
Those Windriders? No longer as tough as SMs. And now their armor save seems fine.
Farseers? 15 points for a jetbike for a Farseer isn't the +1T candy it is now. Still has a point (3+, mobility), but they are more in line with picking a jetbike.
Shining Spears? Die too easily either way. Will still do the same (get in before shot? Do some damage. Otherwise, die).

DE?
-Bikes die if shot either way

CSM?
Burgle never seemed to be the Biker Lord. So its no longer so tempting to do Nurgle Bikers. Do Nurgle for toughness. Bikes for mobility.

Marines?
Bikes are more mobile Tacs. Not just simply better Tacs.

Orkz?
Biker boyz got hitnhard enough this edition. That said, while they should be a little tougher than regular boys, that +1T made the difference far too huge. They need another look anyways. Perhaps +1 FNP? let's not go there yet, but note the issue.

So, long post summary:
Suggested changes for Bikes and ASM:

Game-wide
-Bikes no longer give +1T

SM:
ASM:
-Add Melta Gun to the list of options

Bikers
-Remove Grav Gun

Vanguard Veteran Bikes
-Elites (could be FA)
-Like Bikers, but +1A each
-Get Hit&Run stock

Captain/CM:
Bike Option - no longer unlocks Bike troops (see detachment)

White Scars CT:
-Gives Bikes Hit & Run. Any Bikes that get it from another source get Skilled Rider instead

Assault Company Detachment:
-2-10 ASM or Bike squads
-1-2HQ, at least one on a Bike
-0-3 troops/Elite/FA/HS
-Benefit:
-- All Bikes get hit & run. Bikes with H&R from another source get Skilled Rider
-- ASM can use their jetpacks in both movement and assault phases

Thoughts?

I like a lot of what you got here. I cam to the same conclusion about bikes and toughness. White Scars already get Hit & Run + Skilled Rider + a bonus +1 to bike HOW to boot. They are fine as is. Personally, I disagree with the removal of grav-guns from bikes. Grav-guns are useless on non relentless models. I look at bikes as less of a upgrade as much as a form of transport. Which at 7ppm for a regular bike you pay for. I think bikers are a unit that could go either way on the melee, or skirmisher roles. The only reason bikes are tacs but better is because tacs are sub par. The problem lies more with the weakness of tacs. This is a big part of the reason for the change to bolters to assault 2 in 12in. It lessens the advantage of bikes shooting a bit The whole reason to have hit&run and/or skilled rider on bikes is to make it a viable tactic for other armies. I would use a long barreled firearm over a pistol on a bike for the simple reason that I can rest a barrel on the bars. Granted I would stop before I shot, but with a handgun I would have to ride one handed into the enemy, maintaining my balance, ducking for cover, while trying to aim. With a melee weapon it is MUCH easier to keep the weapon at the ready while dodging obstacles and swing as I ride by letting momentum of the bike do most of the work. Like I said with the rifle you zip in range do a quick stop. use bars to steady my aim, take a shot, and zip away. I have never been shot at, but I have used a firearm (rifle and handgun) on a bike before as well as a (foam) sword on a bike before (mis-spent youth.) Personally, I found the rifle and foam sword easiest to use.

I still would not take vanguard that have hit&run at 19ppm. Especially since they still have to pay for jump packs. At 16ppm It becomes reasonable. I like hit & run on them though. And a bike vanguard makes sense to me. It is a thought I think we both had.

After more thought I could go with Assault squad melta. It would make sense. Assault marines already don't get a heavy choice and under my group's changes they still don't. I can get behind the jetpacks in both phases. I could be wrong but I thought assault squads already got grenades?

I would say a biker hq + 40 is a sufficient entry cost to give hit & run OR skilled rider to all bikes. I would say 100 point + biker hq is also reasonable.

I would LOVE to see a Heavy bike option. Maybe a trike or Quad. What It would Have as opposed to the other bike option I don't know, but it would be fluffy as heck

I think the consolidation charge rule should be disorganized now. I tried it in a game didn't feel right as an organized charge.

Hopefully my thoughts make sense. I am a little doped up on painkillers today so it might not. If not I apologize and will try to clean things up once I am not so loopy and discombobulated.

Just throwing in a little bit:

I love the removal of the Toughness bonus that Bikes confer.

Also, I echo the comment regarding Bikers keeping Grav-guns; when firearms became the predominant weapon and breach-loaders became common, the primary firearm of a cavalryman was actually a cavalry carbine, rather than a pistol of some kind.

So historically-speaking, what could be considered the most effective "iteration" of the cavalry archer carried a shorter and lighter rifle rather than a pistol.

This also helps make ASM and Bikers a bit more different- ASM are punchy bullies, while Bikers are shooty bullies.

The problem with Gravbikers is to simply slightly tone down the Grav Gun itself... Right now it's simply too similar to the Starcannon of 3rd edition or the Psycannon of 5th; it's a catch-all that counters everything in the game, except for the stuff Marines don't really need help in killing.

Change it to say a Heavy 2 profile. Done.
They're still really good, (especially on bikes), but they're no longer God-mode guns like they currently are, where they get both high rate of fire + ability to reliably & easily kill MEQ's/TEQ's/MC's and vehicles.

Experiment 626 wrote:
The problem with Gravbikers is to simply slightly tone down the Grav Gun itself... Right now it's simply too similar to the Starcannon of 3rd edition or the Psycannon of 5th; it's a catch-all that counters everything in the game, except for the stuff Marines don't really need help in killing.

Change it to say a Heavy 2 profile. Done.
They're still really good, (especially on bikes), but they're no longer God-mode guns like they currently are, where they get both high rate of fire + ability to reliably & easily kill MEQ's/TEQ's/MC's and vehicles.

God Mode Gun? Really? I guess I just don't see it as a god mode gun. Is grav good? yes absolutely. But I hardly think it is the god mode you are claiming it is. Unless you have a bunch of grav cannons on a relentless or snp platform grav is only really good for against 3+ armor or better. People prefer it over plasma on bikes because you can't blow yourself up with grav. People take cent stars because they have enough shots to be versatile. I honestly don't think cent stars are broken. They just seem like it because they are versatile target wise and tear up the meta that is so prolific now. You pay a LOT for cent stars just like you pay a LOT to run bikes. Which all relates to less upgrades elsewhere and less units overall. That can be a killer for marine armies who have to play very smart due to low resource count overall. I think the real issue with grav is it is the only thing that fills a particular hole in marine armies that doesn't have the downside of blowing yourself up. I want to like plasma i really do, but honestly the gets hot! rule makes plasma completely worthless to me. I have yet to ever kill anything other than my own troops with plasma. If you want grav whatever to go away then fix marines so they have other options, which is part of what the rules changes are all about. I have a feeling at some point my group will give up on the current ideas we are working on and we will go the other direction ie start with base marines and start nerfing a lot of everything else but still buffing bottom tier armies.

Removing Grav from Bikes should be a non-starter. I think something should happen, but straight removing them isn't the right thing.

What do you think about Heavy 2 for Grav Guns? Three shots per biker always felt like far too many thanks to Relentless, but two might work well as a not-plasma option.

Another small part of the problem is Bikers don't give up their ability to hurt GEQs when taking Grav Guns. This is because they get it on top of their TL Boltguns. Replacing the Boltguns might be better, but would require model changes, so I doubt it'd happen.

The big scary parts of GravCents are, I think, twofold:
1) Draigo/Tiggy/Moth/etc stars. The buffs you can stack on them get crazy, even more so than their crazy cost.
1) Grav Amps. So the stuff Grav shouldn't matter to still need to fear it greatly. Its like twin linking overwatch - it might not sound like a huge change, but it works out to be amazing.

The first would be very hard to "fix".
The second, do they really need those 'amps'? Their cost as Grav platforms might need to come down as a result, but what would you think? Removing them won't reduce their threat to DKs and Riptides and such by much, but would reduce their threat to things they shouldn't counter, I think.

(Whiskey - the Dragoon-style unit was more fast-redeployment infantry than cavalry. It was quickly realized that being atop a horse was less survivable than dismounting and fighting on foot. So they'd usually ride close to where they wanted to be, dismount, and form up in a line. Biker Marines aren't like that, it seems.)

NorseSig,
I doubt we'll agree on everything, but I think we're both getting a clearer picture as this thread goes on.

Personally think grav weapons need a complete overhaul

I really dont understand how in the feth having superior armor suddenly makes it hurt more. (like artificer armor is just better and well maintained power armor so it wouldn't suddenly have more mass)

I feel it should just wound based on unit type. like 5+ for regular infantry, 4+ 3+ 2+ or whatever on bikes jump packs to MC.
I guess it can lift them up and suddenly drop them from the sky or whatever.

 Desubot wrote:
Personally think grav weapons need a complete overhaul

I really dont understand how in the feth having superior armor suddenly makes it hurt more. (like artificer armor is just better and well maintained power armor so it wouldn't suddenly have more mass)

I feel it should just wound based on unit type. like 5+ for regular infantry, 4+ 3+ 2+ or whatever on bikes jump packs to MC.
I guess it can lift them up and suddenly drop them from the sky or whatever.

my understanding is that what is happening is that the grav effect is crushing the armor. The more armor the more crush effect their is up to a point. The more armor you have the more there is to crush. The reason for not working the same on vehicles is there is just too much armor/metal all around to have as much of a crush effect for the size of the gun. I could be wrong on understanding it that way.

The 3 shots seems fair considering the less range which can even be halved. And while twin linked bolters are better than regular bolters they are not that much better. Heavy 2 on grav guns just would not make sense. They are not big enough weapons for that. I think the reason grav guns get 3 shots has to do with maybe gw realizing space marines have poor firepower density and they were trying to compensate. But don't quote me on that because i am just guessing and probably wrong. GW doesn't seem to have anything resembling common sense at all. Which is why all these problems exist. I wish someone would beat them with a rubber hose every time they made a mistake. Maybe then they would learn not to keep doing the same stupid stuff over and over.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Another small part of the problem is Bikers don't give up their ability to hurt GEQs when taking Grav Guns. This is because they get it on top of their TL Boltguns. Replacing the Boltguns might be better, but would require model changes, so I doubt it'd happen.

Honestly I can't off hand think of a single unit in the game that gives up its ability to hurt GEQs when taking any upgrades with maybe the exception of maybe melta bombs. Why should bikes be the only ones to suffer this? Especially since grav is not very good against them. I agree we probably won't agree on everything. I just don't see an issue with grav itself or centurions. I think some of the problems lie with the things like draigo and the psychic phase. Invisibility for instance needs either an overhaul or to be removed imo. How the best way to do some of these changes im not sure on and neither is my group.

As far as the grav-amp on centurions goes, it is fine on them imo. As you mentioned it is often what is paired with the centurions that makes them broken. I think the way to fix the problem is to fix what makes them broken. In other words I think the way allies works is part of the problem. While a lot of the things in the allies makes sense now compared to 6th it has created this situation where some really broken things can be done.

Maybe there should be a limit on what invisibility affects like no effect on very bulky models? IDK. I am not strong with the psychic phase. I stopped running librarians shortly into 7th. About 40% of the armies I went against were psychic in nature and I just didn't have enough charges with my one librarian to cancel powers or get powers off successfully.

 NorseSig wrote:

 Desubot wrote:
Personally think grav weapons need a complete overhaul

I really dont understand how in the feth having superior armor suddenly makes it hurt more. (like artificer armor is just better and well maintained power armor so it wouldn't suddenly have more mass)

I feel it should just wound based on unit type. like 5+ for regular infantry, 4+ 3+ 2+ or whatever on bikes jump packs to MC.
I guess it can lift them up and suddenly drop them from the sky or whatever.

my understanding is that what is happening is that the grav effect is crushing the armor. The more armor the more crush effect their is up to a point. The more armor you have the more there is to crush. The reason for not working the same on vehicles is there is just too much armor/metal all around to have as much of a crush effect for the size of the gun. I could be wrong on understanding it that way.

The 3 shots seems fair considering the less range which can even be halved. And while twin linked bolters are better than regular bolters they are not that much better. Heavy 2 on grav guns just would not make sense. They are not big enough weapons for that. I think the reason grav guns get 3 shots has to do with maybe gw realizing space marines have poor firepower density and they were trying to compensate. But don't quote me on that because i am just guessing and probably wrong. GW doesn't seem to have anything resembling common sense at all. Which is why all these problems exist. I wish someone would beat them with a rubber hose every time they made a mistake. Maybe then they would learn not to keep doing the same stupid stuff over and over.

Thats Really really really dumb. considering if the spacial area is being crushed then stronger harder armor wouldn't really budge as much compared to soft armor which would crumple and crumple the guys innards anyway and the whole vehicle doesnt need to be crushed if its aimed only at the weapons and becomes damaged would cripple the tank right off the bat (like a demolisher cannon or the more expensive laser based ones) . "realistically" it should be picking people up and dropping them which makes far more sense damage wise. while vehicles would imobilize and take a hull point because it was lifted and set on its side kinda.

Edit: As for the bike. just keep it simple and make them lose troop status like jump packs, make them work like normal marines so 5 per unit 10 for combat squad 1 special/attack bike per 5 or however current tacticals are writen

Thats Really really really dumb. considering if the spacial area is being crushed then stronger harder armor wouldn't really budge as much compared to soft armor which would crumple and crumple the guys innards anyway and the whole vehicle doesnt need to be crushed if its aimed only at the weapons and becomes damaged would cripple the tank right off the bat (like a demolisher cannon or the more expensive laser based ones) . "realistically" it should be picking people up and dropping them which makes far more sense damage wise. while vehicles would imobilize and take a hull point because it was lifted and set on its side kinda.

Edit: As for the bike. just keep it simple and make them lose troop status like jump packs, make them work like normal marines so 5 per unit 10 for combat squad 1 special/attack bike per 5 or however current tacticals are writen

I kinda like the idea of grav working like localized gravitational fields myself. I like the idea of a person or vehicle gettting crushed like a sub in the deep sea when goes too deep or loses pressurization.

Part of the problem with tacticals and many space marine units now IS how their access to specials work. I feel 3 specials or heavies or a mix of the two is about what most marine units should have access to. Some maybe should get more than that. One of the big problems with marines is they are too generalist a lot of the time. They are so middle of the road they can't really do much against anything (tacticals i mean). I think the problem with bikes would be fixed by the loss of the +1 toughness. And while we are at it remove the toughness boost to thunderwolf mounts as well. I am sorry I personally don't think either transport needs it or should have it.

But middle of the road is middle of the road which is what tactical and at that basic troops should be.

They should not be balls to the wall killing machines compared to actual balls to the walls killing machines

I think I'm still thinking along the lines of balancing to the middle.

Grav, short of Stars, is probably about even with the top end. But there is a reason nothing that isn't relentless takes it.

(From a mechanics standpoint, current rules lead to some oddities. Such as Fire Dragons and Autarchs being more afraid of it than Carapace Vets or Necron Warriors. But rules will never be perfect.)

 Desubot wrote:
But middle of the road is middle of the road which is what tactical and at that basic troops should be.

They should not be balls to the wall killing machines compared to actual balls to the walls killing machines

The problem with tacticals is they aren't middle of the road. I don't want them to be killing machines, but I do want them to actually be able to kill something. Or at least be able to kill their points worth. Tacticals getting their points in kills shouldn't be an automatic thing, but it shouldn't be an uphill battle that makes it a longshot to do either.

Tactical marines are middle of the road against all possible unit matchups, but this includes units that no one ever uses. As has been pointed out, they can stand up against other foot troops pretty well.

Problem: Tactical marines are really ineffective, especially for their cost, against what people ACTUALLY bring. Everyone minimizes points spent on troops and the marines are always going to lose that race.

Bharring wrote:
I think I'm still thinking along the lines of balancing to the middle.

Grav, short of Stars, is probably about even with the top end. But there is a reason nothing that isn't relentless takes it.

(From a mechanics standpoint, current rules lead to some oddities. Such as Fire Dragons and Autarchs being more afraid of it than Carapace Vets or Necron Warriors. But rules will never be perfect.)

There should be some top end items for space marines. Every other army has them why not space marines as well. I myself don't take grav on bike squads. I need the melta too much and bikes are about the best way to do it. I prefer to run 2 to 3 bike squads with meltas and attack bikes with meltas since it gives more wounds to the unit and lets the meltas get to the things I need to destroy easier. But, this is more do to my local meta where it is impossible to have too much melta. I do still run a grav command squad though. With the premium marines tend to pay for everything they should have a few closer to top end items. I think the issue with grav is more of it should be extended to a few more things and you will see it less on bikes. Or rather grav should be aan option for the more expensive points wise models like bikes nad of course tacticals because they are meant to be the most versatile unit. I say no to grav cannons on bikes though. That weapon belongs on either something that has trouble using it to its greatest effect like tacticals or something that is expensive like dev cents or termies. Termies would be limited to 2 obviously.

I have toyed with the idea of removing assault, biker, and devastator squads and folding them into tacticals. How it would work is when you select tacticals you select either tactical, assault, devastator, or biker (default being tactical, only one option may be chosen and it may not be changed). Selecting one gives the tacticals the wargear and options of the selected option. Doing this doesn't change much but does unclutter things and allows for giving tacticals grav cannons. It also allows for tacticals to have up to two special or heavy weapons (or a mix of the two). I don't know if I would want devastators to have grav cannons, but that may be ok because they don't have relentless or snp, and they arent t5, 2w models. They are muc hcheaper but then again no one seems to have trouble killing marines.

I find meltaguns on bikes surprisingly frustrating to use. My bikes always have grav, but my attack bikes sport MM.

Martel732 wrote:
Tactical marines are middle of the road against all possible unit matchups, but this includes units that no one ever uses. As has been pointed out, they can stand up against other foot troops pretty well.

Problem: Tactical marines are really ineffective, especially for their cost, against what people ACTUALLY bring. Everyone minimizes points spent on troops and the marines are always going to lose that race.

I think one of the goals should be to not make troops a tax. Yes they can stand up to other troops, but they have less punch than other troops, but die just as easily as other troops (except necrons) and cost more.

 NorseSig wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Tactical marines are middle of the road against all possible unit matchups, but this includes units that no one ever uses. As has been pointed out, they can stand up against other foot troops pretty well.

Problem: Tactical marines are really ineffective, especially for their cost, against what people ACTUALLY bring. Everyone minimizes points spent on troops and the marines are always going to lose that race.

I think one of the goals should be to not make troops a tax. Yes they can stand up to other troops, but they have less punch than other troops, but die just as easily as other troops (except necrons) and cost more.

They actually don't die as easily most of the time, but their lack of offense makes this a pointless feature.

Martel732 wrote:
I find meltaguns on bikes surprisingly frustrating to use. My bikes always have grav, but my attack bikes sport MM.

against my group pretty much every freaking vehicle I have to deal with is av 13 or 14 unless it is a flyer. And usually it is stuff that packs a wallop and has mobility and range so it MUST die. It is a little frustrating I admit, but with my local meta it is actually better than grav on bikes. Pure attack bikes get blown up too easily before they get their job done for some reason, but my local group feels less threatened by melta bike squads so my melta squads tend to actually do it's job.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

They actually don't die as easily most of the time, but their lack of offense makes this a pointless feature.

It has been my experience that they do. On a side note I freaking HATE necrons.

3 attack bikes have better range and more wounds than 5 bikers with 3 X melta shots.