95451
Post by: alex0911
Am I the only one who actually thinks Grav Guns are bad for the game? To be honest, I dont see much problems to include a couples of them in your list. However, bringning a cheesy list with full Grav guns and OP Centurions is really killing the power of every unit of 2+ armors, which was a great add to the game in my opnion. At first, you had to pay attention on your moving phase, so you can avoid AP 2 weapons and do your best to get rid of them. Right now? It seems like bringing units with 2+ armors is kind of a waste if you play vs any factions with grav guns cause lets be honest, they are everywhere... I did enjoy playing terminators / grey knights / MC and laugh when i did get some 1s but right now i feel like i should avoid to bring them and focus a little bit more on bringing more models.
What you guys think ?
20243
Post by: Grey Templar
While it is too strong, Grav guns didn't kill 2+ armor. 2+ armor spam died long ago to just massed bolter/bolter equivalent fire.
Grav guns shoveled the dirt onto 2+ armor's coffin, but they didn't kill it.
51383
Post by: Experiment 626
There's nothing wrong with bringing a unit or two equipped with Grav. Outside of hyper competitive "Tournament" style games though, it's a dick move to spam the living crap out of Grav, (or any other obnoxious item such as mass D-Scythes or Decurion 'Crons).
The biggest problem I have with Grav though is that it's far too much of an outright, all-or-nothing gimmick. If I'm playing my Daemons for example, I laugh at Grav spam as it tries in vain to wound everything on 6's. But if I want to bring out some CSM's, it's a pointless game as my codex is the oldest book still in the game and has no real way of dealing with an easily spammed weapon that removes almost everything I can field on a 3+ or better...
35310
Post by: the_scotsman
I dislike Grav, but only because I feel that "thing that kills heavy infantry with ap2" is overused and if they wanted an anti MC weapon it should wound based on high toughness=easier to kill.
95451
Post by: alex0911
the_scotsman wrote:I dislike Grav, but only because I feel that "thing that kills heavy infantry with ap2" is overused and if they wanted an anti MC weapon it should wound based on high toughness=easier to kill.
I like the idea ! Automatically Appended Next Post:  Grey Templar wrote:While it is too strong, Grav guns didn't kill 2+ armor. 2+ armor spam died long ago to just massed bolter/bolter equivalent fire.
Grav guns shoveled the dirt onto 2+ armor's coffin, but they didn't kill it.
At least it was based on your luck to not roll 1s and it was different every singles games, which was very funny.
18690
Post by: Jimsolo
I think the whole point is to crush enemies carrying around too much armor for their own good (ie Centurions). A change to wounding on high Toughness wouldn't make as much sense.
Personally, I like them. As a SM player, they are reasonable enough to put on cents but not game breaking enough for me to switch my combi-meltas over to.
As a Dark Eldar Covens player, I find them laughable and hope my opponents spam the ever loving crap out of them.
51383
Post by: Experiment 626
 Jimsolo wrote:I think the whole point is to crush enemies carrying around too much armor for their own good (ie Centurions). A change to wounding on high Toughness wouldn't make as much sense.
Personally, I like them. As a SM player, they are reasonable enough to put on cents but not game breaking enough for me to switch my combi-meltas over to.
As a Dark Eldar Covens player, I find them laughable and hope my opponents spam the ever loving crap out of them.
When it's just a unit of Dev Cents that haven't also allied in the likes of Draigo on top of including Tiggy/Loth, Grav isn't too bad to deal with...
When it's a Gladius Strike Force going full on MSU to spam as much Grav as possible? Sorry but, GTFO. Odds are that's going to be a pointless game for one person.
78299
Post by: j31c3n
Grav is (apart from tiggy grav centstar crap) no more effective at killing TEQ than plasma. And the units that can carry grav cannons - the real threat - are typically flimsy and I don't think any of them can get an invulnerable save on their own. So get your Ignores Cover and/or AP2 stuff out of mothballs and blow them away.
Grav's biggest strength is the Graviton rule, which is also its biggest weakness, because it renders the weapon type ineffective against lightly armored foes. I'd like to see more weapons with a similar paradigm, honestly, rather than see anti-tank weapons be trained on infantry.
66539
Post by: greyknight12
Grav is indeed bad, it's rate of fire and grav amps make it moderately effective against all targets and capable of deleting others. However, as previous posters have alluded to there is a lot more that is "killing the game" than just grav (though as a GK player, it does cause me an undue amount of pain).
199
Post by: Crimson Devil
The problem is Salvo, drop that and Grav is fine.
83210
Post by: Vankraken
Grav kills Plasma due to RoF and lack of gets hot which removes a lot of the risk. In general the weakness of Grav is carried by the fact it has such high RoF when compared to things like melta and plasma. Its 1 in 6 chance per hit to auto immobilize a vehicle (again its high RoF is problematic for this) works to widen the gap between standard vehicles and super heavies which is something that this game doesn't need.
63623
Post by: Tannhauser42
I think the issue with Grav is that it duplicates the role of plasma, while being even more powerful than plasma against certain armies, and weaker than plasma against others, while also being a hybrid of other weapon roles, thus being an almost "do-it-all" weapon.
Basically, there are three overall categories of ranged weapons SM can carry: anti-light infantry (4+ or worse), anti-heavy infantry (3+ or better), and anti-armor (whether vehicles or MCs); further divided into long and short ranged.
Anti-Light Infantry: Short: Flamers / Long: Heavy Bolters (which generally still suck at that role after all this time)
Anti-Heavy Infantry: Short: Plasmaguns / Long: Plasma Cannons,
Anti-Armor: Short: Meltagun / Long: Lascannon
Hybrid: Missile Launchers for both Light Infantry and Anti-Armor at long range (while being mediocre at both) and Multi-Meltas for short to midrange Anti-Armor
Grav is a hybrid, hitting all three of those categories together. It has enough shots to deal with light infantry (combined with grav-amps on the heavy grav especially), nullifies the armor save of heavy infantry, doesn't care about the toughness of MCs, and also threatens armor, with automatic immobilized results and HP damage to vehicles. This isn't to say Grav is the end-all-be-all, as it does poorly in certain match-ups (demons, for example, where only 6s will do anything). In many ways, Grav is almost the weapon SM should have had all along, as it can handle everything, which is what SM are supposed to be able to do (with varying degrees of success).
Interestingly enough, this is also why Volkite weapons from 30K are considered "OP" at times. With their S5/6 and number of shots, they can threaten light vehicles. The S6 versions have longer ranges (30" and 45"). And Volkite also finally fills that one role that has been missing for SM all these years: effective ranged anti-light infantry. The numerous threads in the Proposed Rules section and elsewhere bemoaning the ineffectiveness of Heavy Bolters and what can be done to make them worth taking are a testament to that fact.
But this is not unique to Space Marines. Any time an army gets something that makes them good at something they've historically been poor at, it is automatically frowned upon until time passes and people get used to it and the next big thing comes along.
95451
Post by: alex0911
 greyknight12 wrote:Grav is indeed bad, it's rate of fire and grav amps make it moderately effective against all targets and capable of deleting others. However, as previous posters have alluded to there is a lot more that is "killing the game" than just grav (though as a GK player, it does cause me an undue amount of pain).
Well lets say its hard to play GK these days... If you wanna play them, you most allie them with .... Centurions ! hahaha Inquisition is also fine tho Automatically Appended Next Post:
Didnt you read haha Automatically Appended Next Post:  Tannhauser42 wrote:I think the issue with Grav is that it duplicates the role of plasma, while being even more powerful than plasma against certain armies, and weaker than plasma against others, while also being a hybrid of other weapon roles, thus being an almost "do-it-all" weapon.
Basically, there are three overall categories of ranged weapons SM can carry: anti-light infantry (4+ or worse), anti-heavy infantry (3+ or better), and anti-armor (whether vehicles or MCs); further divided into long and short ranged.
Anti-Light Infantry: Short: Flamers / Long: Heavy Bolters (which generally still suck at that role after all this time)
Anti-Heavy Infantry: Short: Plasmaguns / Long: Plasma Cannons,
Anti-Armor: Short: Meltagun / Long: Lascannon
Hybrid: Missile Launchers for both Light Infantry and Anti-Armor at long range (while being mediocre at both) and Multi-Meltas for short to midrange Anti-Armor
Grav is a hybrid, hitting all three of those categories together. It has enough shots to deal with light infantry (combined with grav- amps on the heavy grav especially), nullifies the armor save of heavy infantry, doesn't care about the toughness of MCs, and also threatens armor, with automatic immobilized results and HP damage to vehicles. This isn't to say Grav is the end-all-be-all, as it does poorly in certain match-ups (demons, for example, where only 6s will do anything). In many ways, Grav is almost the weapon SM should have had all along, as it can handle everything, which is what SM are supposed to be able to do (with varying degrees of success).
Interestingly enough, this is also why Volkite weapons from 30K are considered " OP" at times. With their S5/6 and number of shots, they can threaten light vehicles. The S6 versions have longer ranges (30" and 45"). And Volkite also finally fills that one role that has been missing for SM all these years: effective ranged anti-light infantry. The numerous threads in the Proposed Rules section and elsewhere bemoaning the ineffectiveness of Heavy Bolters and what can be done to make them worth taking are a testament to that fact.
But this is not unique to Space Marines. Any time an army gets something that makes them good at something they've historically been poor at, it is automatically frowned upon until time passes and people get used to it and the next big thing comes along.
I guess you are right, next codexes will have a way to counter these guns
18690
Post by: Jimsolo
Experiment 626 wrote: Jimsolo wrote:I think the whole point is to crush enemies carrying around too much armor for their own good (ie Centurions). A change to wounding on high Toughness wouldn't make as much sense.
Personally, I like them. As a SM player, they are reasonable enough to put on cents but not game breaking enough for me to switch my combi-meltas over to.
As a Dark Eldar Covens player, I find them laughable and hope my opponents spam the ever loving crap out of them.
When it's just a unit of Dev Cents that haven't also allied in the likes of Draigo on top of including Tiggy/Loth, Grav isn't too bad to deal with...
When it's a Gladius Strike Force going full on MSU to spam as much Grav as possible? Sorry but, GTFO. Odds are that's going to be a pointless game for one person.
In a tailored list against an MEQ opponent mayhaps. But in a tournament where you don't know for sure who you'll be facing? GROPO guard, orks, Dark Eldar, Harlequins, and daemons all giggle and hope they draw this list.
77886
Post by: TheNewBlood
I wouldn't say that grav itself is killing the game, but that certain platforms and weapons are overperforming. Grav Centurions are fine normally, but only become OP with allies.
My biggest pet peeve is that grav weapons are effective against virtually everything, when that's normally the niche of plasma. I think the regular grav gun is fine; Salvo 2/3 at 18" only becomes dangerous when you start to spam it. It's the grav cannon that's overperforming, as most of its platforms ignore the salvo penalty and can go for the full six shots. Add grav amps to let you re-roll wounds and penetration, and grav starts to get ridiculous.
Personally, I would change the grav cannon to Salvo 3/4 and make grav amps do nothing against vehicles.
25983
Post by: Jackal
Being a daemons player, I am rarely bothered by it.
However I don't get to use it.
It is top tier for what it is, but if removed I fear the new top tier would be OTT instead.
Being the best at a role instantly gives something a bad start.
11860
Post by: Martel732
Take out MCs with 2+ armor and the WK and there is no more need for grav.
77886
Post by: TheNewBlood
Martel732 wrote:Take out MCs with 2+ armor and the WK and there is no more need for grav.
I'm not against the principle of MCs having 2+ armour saves. It's just that the most common ones that do also happen to be undercosted.
11860
Post by: Martel732
 TheNewBlood wrote:Martel732 wrote:Take out MCs with 2+ armor and the WK and there is no more need for grav.
I'm not against the principle of MCs having 2+ armour saves. It's just that the most common ones that do also happen to be undercosted.
MCs with 2+ armor won't die in a reasonable time to melta/plasma in my experience. The undercosted thing hurts as well, but there is a physical limitation to how many shots you can expect to get off against them and melta/plasma don't cut it.
77886
Post by: TheNewBlood
Martel732 wrote: TheNewBlood wrote:Martel732 wrote:Take out MCs with 2+ armor and the WK and there is no more need for grav.
I'm not against the principle of MCs having 2+ armour saves. It's just that the most common ones that do also happen to be undercosted.
MCs with 2+ armor won't die in a reasonable time to melta/plasma in my experience. The undercosted thing hurts as well, but there is a physical limitation to how many shots you can expect to get off against them and melta/plasma don't cut it.
I'm not sure I follow how melta and plasma don't kill MCs in a reasonable time. They cut through the armour, and wound on a 2 or 3. Sure, one meltagun or plasmagun isn't going to cut it, but that's why you bring multiples of those, both in the army and in specialist squads.
63623
Post by: Tannhauser42
A 2+ armor save on MCs isn't really much of an issue. Most weapons that reliably wound them are already AP2 (not counting poison).
11860
Post by: Martel732
Meltas are a joke for MCs, since they can only be fired from a short distance and only cause one wound and don't get through the FNP of an MC.
Plasma is better, but you still need 12" range to double tap, you kill some of your own guys (regardless of T, so it's double bad for bikers) and S7 only wounds most MCs on a 3+, not a 2+. And it's still one less shot than grav.
It's hard to get the multiples you need of these two weapons into range before CC happens. Or, in the case of the Riptide, you many never get to shoot them at all from 12" away.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Tannhauser42 wrote:A 2+ armor save on MCs isn't really much of an issue. Most weapons that reliably wound them are already AP2 (not counting poison).
I think it's a huge issue. It makes krak missiles and any kind of wound spam approach not viable on the time scale of a 40K game.
All this being said, I'd say that grav centurions that aren't invisible aren't really a problem. I'd say it's invisibility and the Loth dude that is the problem.
92230
Post by: Korinov
MCs with 2+ saves while walker vehicles can be killed by a single melta shot is actually one of the examples why the current 40k rules (as a whole) are so far from being a reasonably balanced game.
As a CSM player, I have quite an issue with Grav weapons, mostly because they kill both my troops and vehicles with relative ease while I have nothing to counter them. And no, I won't begin a daemon army just to get some allies.
Grav is an all-corners weapon that performs nicely in almost all situations. It outperforms plasma without its drawbacks, it outperforms rapid fire weapons except against light infantry, it can potentially outperform melta when firing at vehicles, and it basically outperforms everything else when trying to deal with MCs. Only exception is when facing foes with little to no armor, but guess what, marines already have bolters to deal with those.
In short, Grav is pure cheese. Not even the fact that even more ludicrous cheese has appeared in other armybooks since its introduction can or will change that.
6772
Post by: Vaktathi
The problem with Grav is twofold. It's extremely versatile and it's all too often got inbuilt ways to mitigate weaknesses It murders medium & heavy infantry and MC's, and even against vehicles you just need two 6's to kill 98% of the non-superheavy vehicles in the game.
Combined with the fact that it often got rerolls due to grav amps and is taken on Relentless platforms (bikers or Centurions or Skyhammer formations) that make its Salvo downsides pointless, it's a pretty one dimensional point-click-delete weapon option.
Were it just basic Grav Guns & pistols on Tac Squads and the like, Grav wouldn't be a huge problem. When given absurd numbers of shots on platforms that ignore Salvo downsides and rerolls to wound, it's absolutely absurd.
That said, 2+ save units had problems before grav weapons, but has been somewhat wonky for many editions (there were IG armies in 4E that would be packing 40 something plasma guns in 1500pts). Grav is just the latest thing.
11860
Post by: Martel732
Given how often my grav bikers fail to get the job done, I'd say that the cannons w/amps are the objectionable level of firepower. Which the BA don't get, by the way. Do DA have centurions?
And for the above poster, a WK or Riptide will mess up your CSM a lot faster than some BA on bikes with grav guns.
92230
Post by: Korinov
Martel732 wrote:And for the above poster, a WK or Riptide will mess up your CSM a lot faster than some BA on bikes with grav guns.
This thread is not about WKs or Riptides though.
77886
Post by: TheNewBlood
 Korinov wrote:Martel732 wrote:And for the above poster, a WK or Riptide will mess up your CSM a lot faster than some BA on bikes with grav guns.
This thread is not about WKs or Riptides though.
The thing is, grav weapons were given to Space Marines in the 6th edition codex to counter Wraithknights, Riptides, and Dreadknights. All of these are still undercosted for what they bring to the table, especially the Wraithknight. The introduction of Imperial Knights only gave more emphasis to the necessity of grav weapons.
Grav guns themselves are not the problem. They have three shots at 18 inches maximum if you don't move or are relentless. You would need to spam grav weapons to be effective. The problem is the grav cannon + amp on relentless platforms. Between Centstar and Skyhammer, vanilla marines now have an easy way to delete all but the least-susceptible units in the game.
6772
Post by: Vaktathi
TheNewBlood wrote: Korinov wrote:Martel732 wrote:And for the above poster, a WK or Riptide will mess up your CSM a lot faster than some BA on bikes with grav guns.
This thread is not about WKs or Riptides though.
The thing is, grav weapons were given to Space Marines in the 6th edition codex to counter Wraithknights, Riptides, and Dreadknights.
That's a rather bold assumption. GW doesn't have a history of game balance design decisions of this sort of nature. Usually when something is added, it's because it sounded cool to someone and it looked like it could scratch that "whiz-bang" itch. One will notice no other armies were given such a hardcounter to these sorts of units.
11860
Post by: Martel732
Korinov wrote:Martel732 wrote:And for the above poster, a WK or Riptide will mess up your CSM a lot faster than some BA on bikes with grav guns.
This thread is not about WKs or Riptides though.
In my mind the two cant be talked about separately.
96925
Post by: Champion of Slaanesh
Imho grav isn't too powerful alot of the time vs marines for example it's actually worse than plasma as your wounding on a 3+ rather than a 2+
63064
Post by: BoomWolf
Grav is a poorly thought mechanic design-wise.
When you pay premium for defenses, its completely acceptable that a payment to bypass them by the opponent is made, like in the case of plasma.
But grav? it outright punishes you for improving saves, while ignoring ANY level of AV or toughness, rending all the basic defense forms completely meaningless, leaving you with easily bypassed cover and the invuls who are rare and expensive as your only hopes.
And if you think to solve it by having high number of low vaue targets, it still won't help much as grav enjoys enough of a RoF to still help against horde type enemies.
And to top it off, the platform that is best deploying grav, has a backup weapon who is basically pure anti-horde, making the grav cents quite good at killing 95% of the things in the game (anything but demons and necron wraiths basically)
Grav has no real weaknesses or downsides, no real answers and no real and available counters. it even punishes you for deploying stronger units. its simply flawed design.
11860
Post by: Martel732
The game has been punishing stronger units for some time. Except for the chosen few, which resist even grav.
6772
Post by: Vaktathi
There's plenty of strong, resilient units that work to great effect. The key is typically that they usually have more than one type of save, or often potentially all three types of save and another mechanism like FNP or RP on top to boot.
What you see having a problem is generally anything reliant on one type of save or just raw T/AV. With vehicles, most of them are relatively easy to kill, especially with things like Grav, Gauss, Haywire, etc not caring about AV and vehicles not generally getting saves. The vehicles you do see usually causing people problems are things that have or can get saves (Skimmers, Knights, etc). Likewise, infantry with 2+ saves doesn't bother a lot of people, but when it's a 2+ with a 3++ and FNP on a T5 bike to boot, or a Rriptide with its 2+/5++ potential 3++ with 5 wounds andnd FNP, that becomes another story entirely.
11860
Post by: Martel732
"There's plenty of strong, resilient units that work to great effect. "
I wouldn't say plenty. There's the chosen few, and then there's the entirety of C:BA and C:Orks.
77886
Post by: TheNewBlood
Martel732 wrote:"There's plenty of strong, resilient units that work to great effect. "
I wouldn't say plenty. There's the chosen few, and then there's the entirety of C: BA and C:Orks.
Dark Eldar would like to have a word with you about durability. The only durable things in the codex (Talos/Cronos, Grotesques) also happen to be the slowest in a codex designed for rapid mobility.
11860
Post by: Martel732
TheNewBlood wrote:Martel732 wrote:"There's plenty of strong, resilient units that work to great effect. "
I wouldn't say plenty. There's the chosen few, and then there's the entirety of C: BA and C:Orks.
Dark Eldar would like to have a word with you about durability. The only durable things in the codex (Talos/Cronos, Grotesques) also happen to be the slowest in a codex designed for rapid mobility.
Okay we're all in the same batch of crap ass codices. Go figure. Is BA vs DE even a good match anymore? Or is it stupid like BA vs C: CWE?
6772
Post by: Vaktathi
Martel732 wrote:"There's plenty of strong, resilient units that work to great effect. "
I wouldn't say plenty. There's the chosen few, and then there's the entirety of C: BA and C:Orks.
I didn't say they were evenly spread, it's not like IG or CSM really have any super durable units either, but they're certainly possible with lots of armies. BA doesn't have any super absurdly resilient units, but when taken as allies often form a key component of things like SW TWC deathstars and the like.
11860
Post by: Martel732
 Vaktathi wrote:Martel732 wrote:"There's plenty of strong, resilient units that work to great effect. "
I wouldn't say plenty. There's the chosen few, and then there's the entirety of C: BA and C:Orks.
I didn't say they were evenly spread, it's not like IG or CSM really have any super durable units either, but they're certainly possible with lots of armies. BA doesn't have any super absurdly resilient units, but when taken as allies often form a key component of things like SW TWC deathstars and the like.
Damn moochers!
76717
Post by: CrownAxe
Champion of Slaanesh wrote:Imho grav isn't too powerful alot of the time vs marines for example it's actually worse than plasma as your wounding on a 3+ rather than a 2+
3 shots wounding on 3+ is way better then 2 shots wounding on 2+ that also has a chance of hurting yourself
77886
Post by: TheNewBlood
 BoomWolf wrote:Grav is a poorly thought mechanic design-wise.
When you pay premium for defenses, its completely acceptable that a payment to bypass them by the opponent is made, like in the case of plasma.
But grav? it outright punishes you for improving saves, while ignoring ANY level of AV or toughness, rending all the basic defense forms completely meaningless, leaving you with easily bypassed cover and the invuls who are rare and expensive as your only hopes.
And if you think to solve it by having high number of low vaue targets, it still won't help much as grav enjoys enough of a RoF to still help against horde type enemies.
And to top it off, the platform that is best deploying grav, has a backup weapon who is basically pure anti-horde, making the grav cents quite good at killing 95% of the things in the game (anything but demons and necron wraiths basically)
Grav has no real weaknesses or downsides, no real answers and no real and available counters. it even punishes you for deploying stronger units. its simply flawed design.
Plasma is only really risky if you have worse than a 3+ armour save. You have a 1/18 or 5.5% chance of a space Marine dying to a Gets Hot from a plasmagun. Grav is also more expensive than melta, which is good against everything at no downside.
Unless you spam them, regular grav guns are not the problem. It's grav cannons that have the ridiculous firepower. Grav Centurions make ridiculously good platforms for them. I think that the grav cannon needs a reduced maximum fire rate, and grav amps should only let you get re-rolls against bulky or heavier units and MCs. In an ideal world, vehicles shouldn't be affected by grav at all.
11860
Post by: Martel732
Melta is basically useless against MCs, though.
92977
Post by: Lythrandire Biehrellian
Except it ignores their save and wounds most on a 2+.
Grav hasn't done what it and strength D were supposed to do, which is make people look at weaker troops as a viable option. If they hadn't increased the amount of str6 shooting at the same time maybe...
My houserule makes salvo fire at half distance if you move, even if you are relentless or a vehicle. Shuts down the amount of threat area those units normally pack.
91541
Post by: DoomShakaLaka
The fact that grav is NECESSARY is what is killing the game. Grav itself is a symptom of the power creep.
80404
Post by: Red Marine
Ok.
Play a game against marines with MCs or Decurion, and have the SM player ditch the grav. Then play a game with MCs &/or decurion and the SM player with grav. As close to the same lists as possibe. Dont change the terrain. I dare ya.
Dont worry, the first game wont go past turn 3.
95451
Post by: alex0911
 Red Marine wrote:Ok.
Play a game against marines with MCs or Decurion, and have the SM player ditch the grav. Then play a game with MCs &/or decurion and the SM player with grav. As close to the same lists as possibe. Dont change the terrain. I dare ya.
Dont worry, the first game wont go past turn 3.
Well maybe if you play vs tyranids but versus others factions you wont face so much MCs... Lets say its all about the ratio ? Too much grav guns centurions is broken and 0 grav gun is a worthless list?
83680
Post by: ChazSexington
Who bitches about grav? I roll a minimum of 80 Cultists every game!
40344
Post by: master of ordinance
Oddly enough Grav is one of the few weapons I dont mind facing too much as my Infantry have only 5+ saves and I equip my tanks with camo gear and always endeavour to place them hull down to really boost that cover save, which when combined with a flavour of bubblewrap makes Grav a waste of points against me.
11860
Post by: Martel732
Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:Except it ignores their save and wounds most on a 2+.
Grav hasn't done what it and strength D were supposed to do, which is make people look at weaker troops as a viable option. If they hadn't increased the amount of str6 shooting at the same time maybe...
My houserule makes salvo fire at half distance if you move, even if you are relentless or a vehicle. Shuts down the amount of threat area those units normally pack.
Irrelevant. Not a enough shots to matter. You will be assaulted by said MC that ignores your armor and squashed like a bug. I would insist on playing by the text rule in your meta, unless you are also banning WK, Riptides, and DK. Automatically Appended Next Post: alex0911 wrote: Red Marine wrote:Ok.
Play a game against marines with MCs or Decurion, and have the SM player ditch the grav. Then play a game with MCs &/or decurion and the SM player with grav. As close to the same lists as possibe. Dont change the terrain. I dare ya.
Dont worry, the first game wont go past turn 3.
Well maybe if you play vs tyranids but versus others factions you wont face so much MCs... Lets say its all about the ratio ? Too much grav guns centurions is broken and 0 grav gun is a worthless list?
Riptides, DKs, and WKs say " HI!"
92230
Post by: Korinov
Martel732 wrote: Korinov wrote:Martel732 wrote:And for the above poster, a WK or Riptide will mess up your CSM a lot faster than some BA on bikes with grav guns.
This thread is not about WKs or Riptides though.
In my mind the two cant be talked about separately.
If you want, we can start a thread about all those top-tier armies with magnificent toys against whom the low-tier armies have no counter nor response.
Saying grav was added to the game and as such is absolutely needed to deal with MCs makes as much sense as saying that Warp Talons were added to the game to deal with... dunno, something.
There's a problem with overpowered MCs? Yes. Is grav the solution? No. Because it also kills virtually everything else without breaking a sweat, at pretty decent range and with no drawbacks. Also, only Spesss Mehreeens have access to grav weapons. I think that's something worth of pointing out, since some SM players seem to believe they're the only ones having trouble with overpowered MCs out there, thus they're entitled to get grav while everyone else gets nothing.
40344
Post by: master of ordinance
Korinov wrote:Martel732 wrote: Korinov wrote:Martel732 wrote:And for the above poster, a WK or Riptide will mess up your CSM a lot faster than some BA on bikes with grav guns.
This thread is not about WKs or Riptides though.
In my mind the two cant be talked about separately.
If you want, we can start a thread about all those top-tier armies with magnificent toys against whom the low-tier armies have no counter nor response.
Saying grav was added to the game and as such is absolutely needed to deal with MCs makes as much sense as saying that Warp Talons were added to the game to deal with... dunno, something.
There's a problem with overpowered MCs? Yes. Is grav the solution? No. Because it also kills virtually everything else without breaking a sweat, at pretty decent range and with no drawbacks. Also, only Spesss Mehreeens have access to grav weapons. I think that's something worth of pointing out, since some SM players seem to believe they're the only ones having trouble with overpowered MCs out there, thus they're entitled to get grav while everyone else gets nothing.
Be fair - Space Marine players have trouble with anything that requires more from their brains than applying brute force. To even consider that they may have to use 'tactics'.... Those are for the lowly non Space Marine peasants!
88026
Post by: casvalremdeikun
Pretty much this. Though I could see the Gravgun being Rapid Fire and the Grav Cannon being 2/3 Salvo. Increase their range to bolted range and we are good.
86452
Post by: Frozocrone
Wasn't Grav exclusively available on Bikes and Centurions though?
Stands to reason they made Grav as good as it is to sell those kits. Same with the new Devastator kits. Sorta like the new Windriders. New kit needs selling, so make it as good as possible.
I'm pretty sure the game designers know what they are doing, which is to please shareholders.
50138
Post by: Savageconvoy
You can't really talk about Grav without talking about WK and Riptide since IoM doesn't have many options for dealing with those units at range.
It's like trying to discuss lascannons without ever bringing up the concept of vehicles, because then you just discuss how plasma does a much better job and is more available.
Honestly I don't mind each faction getting unique weapons. As someone pointed out, it would actually be a great weapon for them since it's so versatile but could be toned down a lot.
That being said, it would be better for more factions to get access to weaponry able to deal the variety of major threats in the meta. But that is a level of balance that clearly is not in the company's plans.
40344
Post by: master of ordinance
 Savageconvoy wrote:You can't really talk about Grav without talking about WK and Riptide since Space Marines doesn't have many options for dealing with those units at range.
Fixed that for you.
Once again you are forgetting that not every Imperial player runs Space Marines. Many of us run Imperial Guard, Sisters of Battle or the like. We dont get access to Grav and we do not have any crazy strong counterpart to deal with it. We just have to suck it up and try our best whilst ignoring the almost facist sneers of the Space Marine players and the 'Well you should have brought Marines and/or allies then' comments.
63064
Post by: BoomWolf
TheNewBlood wrote: BoomWolf wrote:Grav is a poorly thought mechanic design-wise.
When you pay premium for defenses, its completely acceptable that a payment to bypass them by the opponent is made, like in the case of plasma.
But grav? it outright punishes you for improving saves, while ignoring ANY level of AV or toughness, rending all the basic defense forms completely meaningless, leaving you with easily bypassed cover and the invuls who are rare and expensive as your only hopes.
And if you think to solve it by having high number of low vaue targets, it still won't help much as grav enjoys enough of a RoF to still help against horde type enemies.
And to top it off, the platform that is best deploying grav, has a backup weapon who is basically pure anti-horde, making the grav cents quite good at killing 95% of the things in the game (anything but demons and necron wraiths basically)
Grav has no real weaknesses or downsides, no real answers and no real and available counters. it even punishes you for deploying stronger units. its simply flawed design.
Plasma is only really risky if you have worse than a 3+ armour save. You have a 1/18 or 5.5% chance of a space Marine dying to a Gets Hot from a plasmagun. Grav is also more expensive than melta, which is good against everything at no downside.
Unless you spam them, regular grav guns are not the problem. It's grav cannons that have the ridiculous firepower. Grav Centurions make ridiculously good platforms for them. I think that the grav cannon needs a reduced maximum fire rate, and grav amps should only let you get re-rolls against bulky or heavier units and MCs. In an ideal world, vehicles shouldn't be affected by grav at all.
Plasma paying alot to bypass armor was looked at point value, not only risk. compared to a bolter is not much better to shoot at hordy units, who are likely to use cover over armor anyway. it does more, but at a higher pricetag and with a little risk attached.
Grav on the other hand, does FAR more than plasma as it doesn't simply gets better against AV or high T, it completly overwrites them, making even the highest value irrelevant.
As for melta, it pays in lack of range and the fact its overwhelmingly horrible against horde or even light infantry by complete and utter lack of shots.
As for the ideal world, its not how grav currently works. the CURRENT design is bad. the mere fact that you paying points to boost your defenses only makes you weaker against grav rather than the "aint gonna help" that plasma does is bad design as its infuriating that you practically paid points to make yourself weaker, and the fact grav cannons exist-makes them the staple of what IS grav. nobody cares about the pistol, its hardly a relevant gun. nobody cares about the rifle in a Tac squad, or even the cannon in a regular dev squad. we care about grav bikers and gravcents/relentless gravdevs. because they are the units who are braking the mechanic.
In every game mechanic, the most important point are the extremes, and the extemes in grav are showing just how unstable the mechanic is. it needs to change in itself, not just the weapon's RoF.
76717
Post by: CrownAxe
 Frozocrone wrote:Wasn't Grav exclusively available on Bikes and Centurions though?
Stands to reason they made Grav as good as it is to sell those kits. Same with the new Devastator kits. Sorta like the new Windriders. New kit needs selling, so make it as good as possible.
I'm pretty sure the game designers know what they are doing, which is to please shareholders.
No they don't
Look at most of their new kits. Yes some of them were really good (like the riptide, or the wraithknight) but a lot of their new kits are awful. And I don't mean not good, I mean completely unplayable on release
- Dark Talon
- Dark Shroud
- Tzeentch Chariot (literally didn't even function)
- Forgefiends
- Mutilators
- Voidraven Bomber
-Toxicrene
- Exocrine
- Orkanaughts
- Miltus Tempestus
- Harelequin Skyweavers
These kits were all completely brand new yet were insufferably bad. It's clear from the evidence that all the broken units they make are on accident.
Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.
40344
Post by: master of ordinance
And none of those are Space Marine units..... Well, GW bias Marine confirmed.
76717
Post by: CrownAxe
Stalker/Hunter was pretty bad
40344
Post by: master of ordinance
Hydra. Nerfed to open topped, has no special rules, less than stellar guns and no interceptor. And got no points reduction.
70626
Post by: Dakkamite
Not grav, grav cannons.
More shots than heavy bolter, kills high AP dudes better than plasma, doesn't overheat, re-rolls to wound, abundant "relentless" platforms such as magically super accurate bikers, kills MC better than missile launchers and gak
Yeah, crap balance even by GW standards.
76717
Post by: CrownAxe
 master of ordinance wrote:
Hydra. Nerfed to open topped, has no special rules, less than stellar guns and no interceptor. And got no points reduction.
Wyvern is the best IG unit and built from the same kit
50138
Post by: Savageconvoy
You forgot the Tau flyer.
Tau pathfinders got a new kit with a whole slew of new bits and options. But nobody uses any of them.
55033
Post by: LValx
When was the last time a grav based army won a big tournament? I cannot think of any. Even the good gladius's dont spam it. Skyhammer hasnt won a damn thing. Looks to me like a lot of people looking at a 7th edition codex through a 5th edition lens. It is difficult to call grav broken when there are a bunch of weapons throughout the game that are every bit as good.
Second, does no one on this message board play with terrain? If you even have a toe in cover you are getting at least a 5+, that mitigates the damage of things like grav to a high degree. Bikes/Skimmers get their jinks. Grav is good, but it isnt so obviously good that people will run it on every unit. It is super inefficient vs light vehicles and very inefficient vs most xenos.
11860
Post by: Martel732
BA have grav and are still awful. Worse than IG, even. Where's my bias?
And marines STILL have karma left over from 2nd. Yeah, they were THAT bad. I still remember a 2nd ed tournament that had 3 flawless (yes, the marines did not kill a SINGLE enemy) victories against loyalist marines: two from Eldar and one from CSM.
77886
Post by: TheNewBlood
BoomWolf wrote:Plasma paying alot to bypass armor was looked at point value, not only risk. compared to a bolter is not much better to shoot at hordy units, who are likely to use cover over armor anyway. it does more, but at a higher pricetag and with a little risk attached.
Grav on the other hand, does FAR more than plasma as it doesn't simply gets better against AV or high T, it completly overwrites them, making even the highest value irrelevant.
As for melta, it pays in lack of range and the fact its overwhelmingly horrible against horde or even light infantry by complete and utter lack of shots.
As for the ideal world, its not how grav currently works. the CURRENT design is bad. the mere fact that you paying points to boost your defenses only makes you weaker against grav rather than the "aint gonna help" that plasma does is bad design as its infuriating that you practically paid points to make yourself weaker, and the fact grav cannons exist-makes them the staple of what IS grav. nobody cares about the pistol, its hardly a relevant gun. nobody cares about the rifle in a Tac squad, or even the cannon in a regular dev squad. we care about grav bikers and gravcents/relentless gravdevs. because they are the units who are braking the mechanic.
In every game mechanic, the most important point are the extremes, and the extemes in grav are showing just how unstable the mechanic is. it needs to change in itself, not just the weapon's RoF.
The extreme examples of the mechanic mean that those examples need to be changed, not the mechanic itself. By that logic, because Space Marines have some OP units, the entire Space Marine codex must be totally re-written.
As you admitted, grav isn't OP on Tac Squads, but is ridiculously powerful on relentless platforms that can spam the grav gun and/or make it more powerful. I would argue that instead of changing grav itself, I would change those units' access to grav. Eliminate it outside of combi-weapons on bikers, get rid of skyhammer, and nerf the grav cannon+ amp combo.
11860
Post by: Martel732
" Eliminate it outside of combi-weapons on biker"
Might as well go ahead and toss the BA codex in the garbage then. That's literally our best unit. And it's not even a canonical BA unit.
6772
Post by: Vaktathi
 LValx wrote:When was the last time a grav based army won a big tournament?
Grav Centurions have featured prominently in more than a few high placing lists.
Even the good gladius's dont spam it.
That's also where Grav is at its least effective, as things like Tac Squads aren't getting the Grav Amp rerolls and aren't Relentless to ignore the Salvo downsides.
Skyhammer hasnt won a damn thing.
For what, the whole 5 or 6 weeks it's been out? That's also something that, much like Knights, has a handful hardcounters that will prevent them from often placing top place, but absolutely dominate any army that doesn't have access to them.
Let's also not forget that most big tournaments are playing with a set of house rules and restrictions that do not exist in the core game that many local events and almost all pickup games will be playing by.
Second, does no one on this message board play with terrain? If you even have a toe in cover you are getting at least a 5+, that mitigates the damage of things like grav to a high degree. Bikes/Skimmers get their jinks.
Yup, cover helps, but between the sheer volume of fire some platforms can put out, plus the rerolls, they can push through it. A Grav Centurion unit or a Grav Devastator squad is getting 5 shots apiece. A full Grav Cent squad is going to vape a 10-man MEQ unit in 4+ cover or a 6-man in a single round of shooting.
Grav is good, but it isnt so obviously good that people will run it on every unit. It is super inefficient vs light vehicles and very inefficient vs most xenos.
It's just fine against 4+ sv and better units. Grav works great against Eldar and Tau as well as Tyranid MC's. About the only places where it's likely to be routinely "meh" is probably Orks, Dark Eldar, and Harlequins.
90374
Post by: Pain4Pleasure
My dark eldar welcome your grav as do my tempestus and imperial knights. My grey knights say to stay away
94689
Post by: CrashGordon94
Honestly there are a lot of good points, but personally I don't think it would be such an issue if the weapons were re-priced approrpriately.
95451
Post by: alex0911
 CrashGordon94 wrote:Honestly there are a lot of good points, but personally I don't think it would be such an issue if the weapons were re-priced approrpriately.
I think differents prices could help ? Or simply remove terminators, MCs and grey knight codex 
77886
Post by: TheNewBlood
Martel732 wrote:" Eliminate it outside of combi-weapons on biker"
Might as well go ahead and toss the BA codex in the garbage then. That's literally our best unit. And it's not even a canonical BA unit.
You misunderstand. The best Blood Angels unit is clearly the drop pod in the fast attack slot. 
71876
Post by: Rihgu
Well, Blood Angels got a Tactical box (so by extension, the 6th edition release of the Vanilla Tactical box counts here), and a Terminator box, and neither of those units are stellar (I'd say they are bad, but that'd get the thread entirely off topic as the vocal minority comes to disagree)
Dark Talon and Dark Shroud were Dark Angels (who ARE Space Marines, if not Codex: Space Marines) kits.
Codex: Space Marines Devastators & Assault Marines are bad, their only saving grace being Skyhammer (which is not a part of Codex: Space Marines)
I guess they aren't unplayably bad like the list is purported to be, but they are/were all very not good units when the kits were first released.
Unless you meant specificaly Codex: Space Marines, in which case ignore all of that except for Tactical, Assault, and Devastator boxes. I think Vanguard Veterans may have also had a 6th edition release, in which case they can be added here as well as far as stinkers go. Not really seeing a bias any way you look at it.
93294
Post by: Dman137
I don't think grav is all that strong, sure it's ap2 and wounds on your save but the units holding garv weapons can die just as fast as what they shoot at. Not to meantion a thread I had up about grav-amps and how they work.
6772
Post by: Vaktathi
Dman137 wrote:I don't think grav is all that strong, sure it's ap2 and wounds on your save but the units holding garv weapons can die just as fast as what they shoot at.
I have a hard time recalling anything that can kill a Grav Centurionn unit at the same rate the Grav Cent's are killing them
86452
Post by: Frozocrone
I was gonna be cheeky and suggest a Warboss with a Power Klaw but a min unit of GravTurions does 2.93 wounds lol.
77886
Post by: TheNewBlood
Vaktathi wrote:Dman137 wrote:I don't think grav is all that strong, sure it's ap2 and wounds on your save but the units holding garv weapons can die just as fast as what they shoot at.
I have a hard time recalling anything that can kill a Grav Centurionn unit at the same rate the Grav Cent's are killing them
Easy. Eldar Wraithguard. Wraithcannon or D-scythe, makes no difference. But that's fighting an OP unit with a blatantly broken one.
102
Post by: Jayden63
Pretty much the doom of 40K is the constant lowering of point costs and the increase of high rate of fire high strength weaponry.
Even though the model count of each army might not be going up too much, the massive increase in the proliferation of these non basic guns is a problem.
54708
Post by: TheCustomLime
I would argue that MCs are the issue at heart here. If MCs weren't so common grav spam wouldn't be as prominent.
6772
Post by: Vaktathi
TheNewBlood wrote: Vaktathi wrote:Dman137 wrote:I don't think grav is all that strong, sure it's ap2 and wounds on your save but the units holding garv weapons can die just as fast as what they shoot at.
I have a hard time recalling anything that can kill a Grav Centurionn unit at the same rate the Grav Cent's are killing them
Easy. Eldar Wraithguard. Wraithcannon or D-scythe, makes no difference. But that's fighting an OP unit with a blatantly broken one.
Probably
Jayden63 wrote:Pretty much the doom of 40K is the constant lowering of point costs and the increase of high rate of fire high strength weaponry.
Even though the model count of each army might not be going up too much, the massive increase in the proliferation of these non basic guns is a problem.
Indeed. The even worse part is that it's generally the "multirole" armies that are getting such weapons, allowing them to match or exceed the firepower output of ostensibly more shooting oriented armies.
TheCustomLime wrote:I would argue that MCs are the issue at heart here. If MCs weren't so common grav spam wouldn't be as prominent.
I'm sure the weapons would be commonly taken no matter what as they're effective against basically anything in most cases. I'm not so sure the problem lies purely with MC's either, but with absurdly tough units in general, be they MC's like the Riptide, or just tough infantry variants like TWC's and Bikers.
102
Post by: Jayden63
What I find amusing is that for ages people have cried that Terminators should be tougher, harder, more worth it, etc. But what does GW do? They supply the most common army a high rate of fire weapon that easily destroys terminators. Hit on 3, wound on 2s, Yeah... that makes people want to take those 40 point bullet magnets.
6772
Post by: Vaktathi
 Jayden63 wrote:What I find amusing is that for ages people have cried that Terminators should be tougher, harder, more worth it, etc. But what does GW do? They supply the most common army a high rate of fire weapon that easily destroys terminators. Hit on 3, wound on 2s, Yeah... that makes people want to take those 40 point bullet magnets.
it also doesn't help they basically just went off and made SuperTerminators
86452
Post by: Frozocrone
Yo dawg, I heard you like Terminators so we made super terminators with AP2 weapons so you can terminate while you terminate >.<
88905
Post by: ORicK
I don't like the grav gun.
If it would cost significantly (at least 5) more points, it would be allright. But as is, it is overpowered.
If you have armour 2+ or 3+ in you army or regular vehicles, grav weapons are the single worst weapons you can face.
102
Post by: Jayden63
ORicK wrote:I don't like the grav gun.
If it would cost significantly (at least 5) more points, it would be allright. But as is, it is overpowered.
If you have armour 2+ or 3+ in you army or regular vehicles, grav weapons are the single worst weapons you can face.
Five points is not enough to balance them. If an army fields 20 of them, then thats only an extra 100 points. In an 1500-2000 point list, its still a bargan. It just means you will be tableing your opponent on turn 4 instead of turn 3.
Grav and grav amps are broken on the mechanics level. The only way to fix them with points (without changing their profile) is to make them so outrageous you wouldn't think of taking more than 6 in any army.
62560
Post by: Makumba
LValx wrote:When was the last time a grav based army won a big tournament? I cannot think of any. Even the good gladius's dont spam it. Skyhammer hasnt won a damn thing. Looks to me like a lot of people looking at a 7th edition codex through a 5th edition lens. It is difficult to call grav broken when there are a bunch of weapons throughout the game that are every bit as good.
Second, does no one on this message board play with terrain? If you even have a toe in cover you are getting at least a 5+, that mitigates the damage of things like grav to a high degree. Bikes/Skimmers get their jinks. Grav is good, but it isnt so obviously good that people will run it on every unit. It is super inefficient vs light vehicles and very inefficient vs most xenos.
An IG player who got a pre 6th ed codex for 7th ed, should be looking at the grav goodness with 7th ed eyes. My ground tanks and IG will just jink to avoid most of the dmg and it will be ok.
25751
Post by: gmaleron
My Imperial Guard for the most part don't mind lots of Grav (except if he gets 2 6's effectively messing up my Valkyries full of my Elysians...) but my pure suit Tau list hate it. One of the reasons I laugh whenever I am playing my Tau and they bitch about my Riptides when they have either x2 Squads of Grav Centurions on the table or even nastier the Grav Kataphrons from Mechanicum. Again I am really shocked that no one as realized that those guys are even nastier then Centurions just because of a 30 inch range and 18 shots per squad that can be boosted to BS7 for a turn.
86452
Post by: Frozocrone
 gmaleron wrote:My Imperial Guard for the most part don't mind lots of Grav (except if he gets 2 6's effectively messing up my Valkyries full of my Elysians...) but my pure suit Tau list hate it. One of the reasons I laugh whenever I am playing my Tau and they bitch about my Riptides when they have either x2 Squads of Grav Centurions on the table or even nastier the Grav Kataphrons from Mechanicum. Again I am really shocked that no one as realized that those guys are even nastier then Centurions just because of a 30 inch range and 18 shots per squad that can be boosted to BS7 for a turn.
That reminds me of the first time my Tau friend played against his first SM player after facing off against my Nids for so long. Came up to me after the game and I distinctly remember him saying 'feth Grav weapons'.
39502
Post by: Slayer le boucher
The problem is like others said, RoF on Relentless models, and they automaticly come with the Amps to reroll wounds with no extra cost.
Those should be rapide fire and the Amps should be +10ppm.
For the rest, its an annoying weapons, but just has Meltas and Plasmas are annoying, and we have dealt with those since 1st Ed.
Its not even a good anit tank weapon since you need 6's no matter that you're armor 10 or 14, compared to other weapons.
Whats mitigate this is that you only need two 6's to destroy a vehicle, since most of them have 3HP's, but unlike in 6th ed, you don't have the "ignore covers and invul save" shenanigans anymore.
88026
Post by: casvalremdeikun
Considering that Grav Cannons are 35 pts each, I think it is pretty hard to make the case for an even bigger points increase for them. A squad of Grav Cannon Devastators costs 210 pts without a transport.
88905
Post by: ORicK
Grav cannons are more expensive indeed. But combined with amps they still are too powerfull. The lascannon, also a lot of points, is laughable in comparison.
An army should have different weapons to deal with different types of targets.
The grav weapons is the solution to everything.
Grav guns are 15 points and on bikes they should be AT LEAST 20 (as Jayden63 also wrote).
Of my bike army i only gave 1 unit grav guns. The other 3 units have 2 flamers, 2 plasma guns and 2 melta guns.
I already know that that is not the best choice, but i just dislike the grav spam.
80637
Post by: krodarklorr
I also believe Grav is killing the game. It's never healthy for a game when you have a mechanics (armor save, Hull points, Toughness, armor value) and then have something that not only outright ignores all of that, but is spammable. Of course it's going to be the auto-include option for all of TFGs.
Now, granted, the reason GW came up with grav was to answer the astounding amount of 2+/3+ MCs that were coming out. Dreadknights, Riptides, Wraithknights, ext. But, that counter is so hard, that Tyranids cry in the corner, C'tans remain unusable, and it begs the question "Why bring anything big and scary at all?".
97607
Post by: topaxygouroun i
Too many shots for the cost and free reroll to wound. Aside from the fect that rerolling dice is plain stupid (there is a reason this is a dice based game, to have a luck factor embedded, if you allow rerolls then you are removing the dice factor, and then why play with dice in the first place? But apart from free rerolls, it's just too many shots. Salvo rules is laughable because everybody is putting them in relentless platforms. 5 shots that are awesomely good against 90% of the game range should not cost 45 pts, especially when a lascannon costs 20 for only one shot.
Grav makes plasma and lascannons obsolete, makes krak missiles silly comparable (same points gives you 3 kraks vs 5 grav shots). Also range doesn't matter because bikes and because drop pods on the centurions. The ap2, toughness ignoring and vehicle killing is the icing on top of the fondue.
If grav did not work on vehicles (or if it did just the single hull point without the immobilize) AND got up in price by 15 pts at least, then it would still be crazy good but at least it would be manageable.
Oh and the stupidity about the MC's needs to stop. Not all armies have WK's, in fact all other MC's except for the WK (which is a gargantuan, not a monstrous) . Most other MC's sit at a T6, 4-6 wounds with a 3+ armor and no kind of any other save whatsoever. Unless it's flying, the Monstrous creature is not good, and it does not justify the designing of the grav weaponry.
80637
Post by: krodarklorr
topaxygouroun i wrote:Too many shots for the cost and free reroll to wound. Aside from the fect that rerolling dice is plain stupid (there is a reason this is a dice based game, to have a luck factor embedded, if you allow rerolls then you are removing the dice factor, and then why play with dice in the first place? But apart from free rerolls, it's just too many shots. Salvo rules is laughable because everybody is putting them in relentless platforms. 5 shots that are awesomely good against 90% of the game range should not cost 45 pts, especially when a lascannon costs 20 for only one shot.
Grav makes plasma and lascannons obsolete, makes krak missiles silly comparable (same points gives you 3 kraks vs 5 grav shots). Also range doesn't matter because bikes and because drop pods on the centurions. The ap2, toughness ignoring and vehicle killing is the icing on top of the fondue.
If grav did not work on vehicles (or if it did just the single hull point without the immobilize) AND got up in price by 15 pts at least, then it would still be crazy good but at least it would be manageable.
Oh and the stupidity about the MC's needs to stop. Not all armies have WK's, in fact all other MC's except for the WK (which is a gargantuan, not a monstrous) . Most other MC's sit at a T6, 4-6 wounds with a 3+ armor and no kind of any other save whatsoever. Unless it's flying, the Monstrous creature is not good, and it does not justify the designing of the grav weaponry.
I always think to myself "Why do you need to roll dice when everything you have is BS5+ and Twin-linked?". The answer is, you don't. You have successfully removed the random factor in this dice game. 
91541
Post by: DoomShakaLaka
Well I run my grav cannons on drop podded in non-skyhammer devastators so 35pts is as much as I'm willing to pay for the things.
Its already 15pts more expensive than a lascannon! How much do what the stupid things to cost?
I say drop plasma guns and cannons 10pts and maybe bring the grav gun to 20 and the cannon to 40.
That way you look at your list and go" hmmm..... I could have 4 plasma cannons or one grav-cannon..."
11860
Post by: Martel732
Jayden63 wrote:What I find amusing is that for ages people have cried that Terminators should be tougher, harder, more worth it, etc. But what does GW do? They supply the most common army a high rate of fire weapon that easily destroys terminators. Hit on 3, wound on 2s, Yeah... that makes people want to take those 40 point bullet magnets.
Kind of a non issue, though, since terminators were already dumped out of most lists back in 5th. Automatically Appended Next Post:  krodarklorr wrote:I also believe Grav is killing the game. It's never healthy for a game when you have a mechanics (armor save, Hull points, Toughness, armor value) and then have something that not only outright ignores all of that, but is spammable. Of course it's going to be the auto-include option for all of TFGs.
Now, granted, the reason GW came up with grav was to answer the astounding amount of 2+/3+ MCs that were coming out. Dreadknights, Riptides, Wraithknights, ext. But, that counter is so hard, that Tyranids cry in the corner, C'tans remain unusable, and it begs the question "Why bring anything big and scary at all?".
It's a gear check for your opponent. Plus, Eldar can shred the grav units with scatterlasers before they get in range. Automatically Appended Next Post: krodarklorr wrote:topaxygouroun i wrote:Too many shots for the cost and free reroll to wound. Aside from the fect that rerolling dice is plain stupid (there is a reason this is a dice based game, to have a luck factor embedded, if you allow rerolls then you are removing the dice factor, and then why play with dice in the first place? But apart from free rerolls, it's just too many shots. Salvo rules is laughable because everybody is putting them in relentless platforms. 5 shots that are awesomely good against 90% of the game range should not cost 45 pts, especially when a lascannon costs 20 for only one shot.
Grav makes plasma and lascannons obsolete, makes krak missiles silly comparable (same points gives you 3 kraks vs 5 grav shots). Also range doesn't matter because bikes and because drop pods on the centurions. The ap2, toughness ignoring and vehicle killing is the icing on top of the fondue.
If grav did not work on vehicles (or if it did just the single hull point without the immobilize) AND got up in price by 15 pts at least, then it would still be crazy good but at least it would be manageable.
Oh and the stupidity about the MC's needs to stop. Not all armies have WK's, in fact all other MC's except for the WK (which is a gargantuan, not a monstrous) . Most other MC's sit at a T6, 4-6 wounds with a 3+ armor and no kind of any other save whatsoever. Unless it's flying, the Monstrous creature is not good, and it does not justify the designing of the grav weaponry.
I always think to myself "Why do you need to roll dice when everything you have is BS5+ and Twin-linked?". The answer is, you don't. You have successfully removed the random factor in this dice game.
As a Starcraft player, I support removing as much randomness as possible!
80637
Post by: krodarklorr
Martel732 wrote:
krodarklorr wrote:I also believe Grav is killing the game. It's never healthy for a game when you have a mechanics (armor save, Hull points, Toughness, armor value) and then have something that not only outright ignores all of that, but is spammable. Of course it's going to be the auto-include option for all of TFGs.
Now, granted, the reason GW came up with grav was to answer the astounding amount of 2+/3+ MCs that were coming out. Dreadknights, Riptides, Wraithknights, ext. But, that counter is so hard, that Tyranids cry in the corner, C'tans remain unusable, and it begs the question "Why bring anything big and scary at all?".
It's a gear check for your opponent. Plus, Eldar can shred the grav units with scatterlasers before they get in range.
Not necessarily. Anyone who's anyone just runs them in Drop pods, so they'll shred the bikes before they can even do anything, or make them jink, which limits their offensive output.
Contrary to popular belief, there are ways to counter Scatriders.
97607
Post by: topaxygouroun i
 DoomShakaLaka wrote:Well I run my grav cannons on drop podded in non-skyhammer devastators so 35pts is as much as I'm willing to pay for the things.
Its already 15pts more expensive than a lascannon! How much do what the stupid things to cost?
I say drop plasma guns and cannons 10pts and maybe bring the grav gun to 20 and the cannon to 40.
That way you look at your list and go" hmmm..... I could have 4 plasma cannons or one grav-cannon..."
Are we actually talking about the same game here? Just because you play your gravs in the worst way possible does not mean they are even in the slightest way justified. If someone is paying 250+ pts for a monster or an equivalent costed tank, you should not be able to oneshot it first turn from point blank range by paying the same points. Because:
1. You get to reliable deep strike without a reserve roll (drop pod),
2. your unit is left unharmed while their is evaporated.
3. you can kill it regardless of LoS or any kind of save mechanism because monsters do not have nearly decent saves,
4. none should be able to wipe out 250+ cost units just with a single unit in a single round. Other people ALSO want to actually move their models on the table for at least a turn, deploying something just to put it back into the case without even touching it in between is not fun.
5. You can do all the above WHILE playing Grav in the worst possible way possible. If you play it as a skyhammer you can one shot up to two 250 pt monsters with the same unit in a single turn and your 250 pt deepstriking unit can also actually one shot a 1000 pt hierophant bio titan before it even gets a chance to move. And THAT's plain stupid.
Also advocating that Grav should be cheaper because you play it wrong is like me demanding that I should get a Mercedes sedan for 100 euros because all I want to do with it is make it as a home for my cat. And then you try to justify reducing the cost of Grav by reducing the cost on all special weapons as well so that one should get more choices on how to use it and therefore play less grav? What are you even talking about?
91541
Post by: DoomShakaLaka
topaxygouroun i wrote: DoomShakaLaka wrote:Well I run my grav cannons on drop podded in non-skyhammer devastators so 35pts is as much as I'm willing to pay for the things.
Its already 15pts more expensive than a lascannon! How much do what the stupid things to cost?
I say drop plasma guns and cannons 10pts and maybe bring the grav gun to 20 and the cannon to 40.
That way you look at your list and go" hmmm..... I could have 4 plasma cannons or one grav-cannon..."
Are we actually talking about the same game here? Just because you play your gravs in the worst way possible does not mean they are even in the slightest way justified. If someone is paying 250+ pts for a monster or an equivalent costed tank, you should not be able to oneshot it first turn from point blank range by paying the same points. Because:
1. You get to reliable deep strike without a reserve roll (drop pod),
2. your unit is left unharmed while their is evaporated.
3. you can kill it regardless of LoS or any kind of save mechanism because monsters do not have nearly decent saves,
4. none should be able to wipe out 250+ cost units just with a single unit in a single round. Other people ALSO want to actually move their models on the table for at least a turn, deploying something just to put it back into the case without even touching it in between is not fun.
5. You can do all the above WHILE playing Grav in the worst possible way possible. If you play it as a skyhammer you can one shot up to two 250 pt monsters with the same unit in a single turn and your 250 pt deepstriking unit can also actually one shot a 1000 pt hierophant bio titan before it even gets a chance to move. And THAT's plain stupid.
Also advocating that Grav should be cheaper because you play it wrong is like me demanding that I should get a Mercedes sedan for 100 euros because all I want to do with it is make it as a home for my cat. And then you try to justify reducing the cost of Grav by reducing the cost on all special weapons as well so that one should get more choices on how to use it and therefore play less grav? What are you even talking about?
Wtf bro?
Someone was saying that they wanted to significantly raise the price. I was saying that not everyone runs their grav with dickery. I NEVER said to make it cheaper.
I said you could INCREASE the cost to 20 pts for a grav GUN and to 40pts for a grav CANNON while also simultaneously DECREASING the price of PLASMA which was the original TAC gun that sucks in comparison.
82151
Post by: Brennonjw
grav is to good, yeah, but it's really situational. Eldar, Dark Eldar, Orks, Half of Tau, 'Nids all mitigate the to wound rolls. I feel there are more broken things to complain about than how "amazing" grav weaponry is.
45327
Post by: CalgarsPimpHand
Just increasing the point cost slightly doesn't fix things though. The problem is complicated because there are crappy ways of running grav cannons, and there are completely broken ways. Increasing points will make grav devs even more worthless while only making a grav cent player pay a small amount more. The change has to come from the basic mechanics.
Now, I hate grav (I basically hate anytime something unnecessary is invented out of whole cloth and added to the fluff purely to sell new toys). I hate the fact that marines are suddenly carrying the kind of crazy advanced weapon you would normally associate with admech, and I hate the fact that in gameplay terms it has more or less supplanted a lot of iconic but underperforming special and heavy weapons. It's also annoying that my friend immediately bought and built a moderate number of grav units when they came out, so even trying to play oldhammer I would have to work in some kind of rules for them. All that being said, they're here to stay, so here's how I would fix them:
Reduce rate of fire on grav cannons by 1. Grav now only causes an immobilized result on vehicles if the vehicle is not already immobilized.
Points can stay the same. I think this would make grav less generally useful without neutering it at its primary role.
11860
Post by: Martel732
krodarklorr wrote:Martel732 wrote:
krodarklorr wrote:I also believe Grav is killing the game. It's never healthy for a game when you have a mechanics (armor save, Hull points, Toughness, armor value) and then have something that not only outright ignores all of that, but is spammable. Of course it's going to be the auto-include option for all of TFGs.
Now, granted, the reason GW came up with grav was to answer the astounding amount of 2+/3+ MCs that were coming out. Dreadknights, Riptides, Wraithknights, ext. But, that counter is so hard, that Tyranids cry in the corner, C'tans remain unusable, and it begs the question "Why bring anything big and scary at all?".
It's a gear check for your opponent. Plus, Eldar can shred the grav units with scatterlasers before they get in range.
Not necessarily. Anyone who's anyone just runs them in Drop pods, so they'll shred the bikes before they can even do anything, or make them jink, which limits their offensive output.
Contrary to popular belief, there are ways to counter Scatriders.
The Eldar player is doing it wrong then. Use your WS and WK to screen your bikes.
80637
Post by: krodarklorr
 Brennonjw wrote:grav is to good, yeah, but it's really situational. Eldar, Dark Eldar, Orks, Half of Tau, 'Nids all mitigate the to wound rolls. I feel there are more broken things to complain about than how "amazing" grav weaponry is.
Umm, wait, how? Eldar have massed 3+ saves and a fair bit of T6/T8 units. And everything else is like shooting AP2 bolt guns. Then of course, Grav completely says "F you" to the Serpent shield, because it doesn't care. If someone is playing a Dark Eldar list worth a damn, they'll be using Coven units. So yeah, Grotesques aren't the ideal target for Grav weaponry, but Talos/Kronos engines are. And of course, they'll kill vehicles the same. And what half of Tau mitigates the wounds? Kroot? Oh boy, Grav is wounding them on 6s. Good thing Bolt guns wound them on 3s with no saves. And everything else Tau would die. Crisis suits, Riptides, Commanders, Broadsides, ext. Those are what people normally use. And Nids? Are we talking competitive or casual? Competitive, you'll only see Mawlocs and Flyrants. Mawlocs will die in droves to Grav, and Flyrants, if hit, will die to them, or be hampered by jinking. Casual, as in Tervigons, or literally any other MC, will keel over at the site of Grav, unless they invested in Venomthropes. In which case, shoot them first. That's 6 Space Marines to chew through (5+ cover from screening, + Shrouded = 3+ cover). Then they're boned. Grav is pretty much universally good. There is very little, if any, mitigating it.
95451
Post by: alex0911
krodarklorr wrote:I also believe Grav is killing the game. It's never healthy for a game when you have a mechanics (armor save, Hull points, Toughness, armor value) and then have something that not only outright ignores all of that, but is spammable. Of course it's going to be the auto-include option for all of TFGs.
Now, granted, the reason GW came up with grav was to answer the astounding amount of 2+/3+ MCs that were coming out. Dreadknights, Riptides, Wraithknights, ext. But, that counter is so hard, that Tyranids cry in the corner, C'tans remain unusable, and it begs the question "Why bring anything big and scary at all?".
. I feel the same way my friend... Automatically Appended Next Post: topaxygouroun i wrote:Too many shots for the cost and free reroll to wound. Aside from the fect that rerolling dice is plain stupid (there is a reason this is a dice based game, to have a luck factor embedded, if you allow rerolls then you are removing the dice factor, and then why play with dice in the first place? But apart from free rerolls, it's just too many shots. Salvo rules is laughable because everybody is putting them in relentless platforms. 5 shots that are awesomely good against 90% of the game range should not cost 45 pts, especially when a lascannon costs 20 for only one shot.
Grav makes plasma and lascannons obsolete, makes krak missiles silly comparable (same points gives you 3 kraks vs 5 grav shots). Also range doesn't matter because bikes and because drop pods on the centurions. The ap2, toughness ignoring and vehicle killing is the icing on top of the fondue.
If grav did not work on vehicles (or if it did just the single hull point without the immobilize) AND got up in price by 15 pts at least, then it would still be crazy good but at least it would be manageable.
Oh and the stupidity about the MC's needs to stop. Not all armies have WK's, in fact all other MC's except for the WK (which is a gargantuan, not a monstrous) . Most other MC's sit at a T6, 4-6 wounds with a 3+ armor and no kind of any other save whatsoever. Unless it's flying, the Monstrous creature is not good, and it does not justify the designing of the grav weaponry.
Like he said, if you plan to play vs WKs and Flyrants fine... Vs the rest ? Lets says its not very friendly haha
80637
Post by: krodarklorr
alex0911 wrote: krodarklorr wrote:I also believe Grav is killing the game. It's never healthy for a game when you have a mechanics (armor save, Hull points, Toughness, armor value) and then have something that not only outright ignores all of that, but is spammable. Of course it's going to be the auto-include option for all of TFGs.
Now, granted, the reason GW came up with grav was to answer the astounding amount of 2+/3+ MCs that were coming out. Dreadknights, Riptides, Wraithknights, ext. But, that counter is so hard, that Tyranids cry in the corner, C'tans remain unusable, and it begs the question "Why bring anything big and scary at all?".
. I feel the same way my friend...
Glad to hear.
However, to be fair to the people who defend Grav, it's not the only thing digging 40k's grave.
44276
Post by: Lobokai
Here's my issue with the Grav hate, it doesn't ignore game mechanics, it penalizes one dimensional reliance on a given mechanic. If you're running tons of 2+ armor, that's kinda silly. 2+ is great for a ton things (I play Deathwing and GK, so back off already)... but its not the easy button (and neither is grav).
Now you're forced to run a "bubble wrap" for your 2+ units... with cheaper and more numerable units. You should have all seen this coming the second allies dropped. Now SM are better with AM or scouts or Admech spam or an Inquisitor or just need to pay attention to and actually use cover now. Grav is simply forcing MEQ and MCs to use game mechanics they have spent so much time ignoring... to me, that's good for the game, not bad.
and if you think grav has removed the MCs from the game, I give you the tournament scene... and if you thought one unit type (MCs) would stay on the top of the hill for more than one edition... you've not paid attention to 40k.
Grav is not so spammable that any of the horde options can't solve it... and even staying fluffy, really every major faction with a full sized codex has options. Riptides and Wraithknights are a good as they ever were... if you're leaving them in the breeze so that drop Grav or bike grav is getting you and you're unable to pay them back in kind, I don't like saying it, but please post your list/tactics and that issue can be addressed, because all the serious Grav threats have pretty straight forward counters.
51383
Post by: Experiment 626
Chaos Marines are likely the most outright auto-boned against Grav honestly... Within just their own codex, they've got Cultists as their only bubble wrap option, or they can take an over costed DP sans armour for a 250+pts FMC who'll be relying pretty much on just a 5++ for protection. (and anyways, Codex Daemons DP's are light years beyond anything a CSM DP can bring to the table...)
The entire codex is overall slow, relying entirely on Rhinos & Bikers for speed. It lacks any actual weight of fire abilities (imho, the biggest problem right now for Chaos Marines). And is then finally buried by generally being slightly overcosted across the board while also lacking in the Battle Bros department, unless you can get your hands on IA13. (which can be highly problematic for a majority of players)
Grav heavy lists vs. Chaos Marines is pretty much no different than facing Decurion 'Crons and Kraftworld Eldar.
93294
Post by: Dman137
Grav weapons don't re-roll failed to wound rolls. Grav-amps specifically say re-roll the result. That's means you have to reroll all the dice, successful and failed.
62560
Post by: Makumba
DoomShakaLaka wrote:
That way you look at your list and go" hmmm..... I could have 4 plasma cannons or one grav-cannon..."
4 of those will do nothing and one grav will kill just as much. The only way for grav not to be used is either if there was a better weapons with better kill ratio, and as of yet the only better ones are D weapons mounted on eldar, or if the cost is so high all units using them would be worthless. That won't happen either.
Grav is simply forcing MEQ and MCs to use game mechanics they have spent so much time ignoring... to me, that's good for the game, not bad.
I like how you ignore what effect grav has on armies like IG. where there is no way to bubble wrap against drop pods and multi shot grav units kill tanks and transports even with cover.
95451
Post by: alex0911
Experiment 626 wrote:Chaos Marines are likely the most outright auto-boned against Grav honestly... Within just their own codex, they've got Cultists as their only bubble wrap option, or they can take an over costed DP sans armour for a 250+pts FMC who'll be relying pretty much on just a 5++ for protection. (and anyways, Codex Daemons DP's are light years beyond anything a CSM DP can bring to the table...)
The entire codex is overall slow, relying entirely on Rhinos & Bikers for speed. It lacks any actual weight of fire abilities ( imho, the biggest problem right now for Chaos Marines). And is then finally buried by generally being slightly overcosted across the board while also lacking in the Battle Bros department, unless you can get your hands on IA13. (which can be highly problematic for a majority of players)
Grav heavy lists vs. Chaos Marines is pretty much no different than facing Decurion 'Crons and Kraftworld Eldar.
CSM needs a new codex... Grav guns just give you one more reason for a new book haha
96925
Post by: Champion of Slaanesh
To the person who said mcs are not useful unless they can fly my GuO would like to angrily disagree with you there good sir
90435
Post by: Slayer-Fan123
 Lobukia wrote:2+ is great for a ton things (I play Deathwing and GK, so back off already)
There's already am issue with GW writers overvaluing Terminators in the first place, though. They took a step in the right direction with the major price cut on Vanilla Terminators, but Deathwing Terminators (all varieties) and Paladins are VERY overcosted.
90374
Post by: Pain4Pleasure
Dman137 wrote:Grav weapons don't re-roll failed to wound rolls. Grav- amps specifically say re-roll the result. That's means you have to reroll all the dice, successful and failed.
Whoever told you that eldar boy lied.
44276
Post by: Lobokai
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Lobukia wrote:2+ is great for a ton things (I play Deathwing and GK, so back off already)
There's already am issue with GW writers overvaluing Terminators in the first place, though. They took a step in the right direction with the major price cut on Vanilla Terminators, but Deathwing Terminators (all varieties) and Paladins are VERY overcosted.
Agreed, I'd not say DW or GK Pallies are economic choices, but in a double wing list or so, my Termies almost always earn their points
Makumba wrote:
Grav is simply forcing MEQ and MCs to use game mechanics they have spent so much time ignoring... to me, that's good for the game, not bad.
I like how you ignore what effect grav has on armies like IG. where there is no way to bubble wrap against drop pods and multi shot grav units kill tanks and transports even with cover.
IG have tons of bubble wrap, in fact I use AM/ IG units for bubble wrap in other lists (seriously, leave no spaces larger than 5" between units and drop pods can't show up...  , I'm making assumptions on basic game mechanic understanding when posting here. Grav Cannons are trickier, but you should be able to get some cover and the fact that your foe can actually have an effective anti tank unit is hardly a symptom of a balance issue.
65718
Post by: Grimmor
I agree in that there is to much Grav. A buddy said this the other day actually. "Plasma did what grav does now, grav just does it better" and honestly? Hes right. Grav is WAY to accessible. I would have been fine with it on Kataphron Destroyers (cuz Mechanicus) and on Cent Devastators. But combi Grav, Grav Devs, Gravs in Tac squads, its freakin everywhere and its downright excessive. Mrines pay for their 3+ armor, and it prety much counts for nothing now-a-days
77886
Post by: TheNewBlood
 Grimmor wrote:I agree in that there is to much Grav. A buddy said this the other day actually. "Plasma did what grav does now, grav just does it better" and honestly? Hes right. Grav is WAY to accessible. I would have been fine with it on Kataphron Destroyers (cuz Mechanicus) and on Cent Devastators. But combi Grav, Grav Devs, Gravs in Tac squads, its freakin everywhere and its downright excessive. Mrines pay for their 3+ armor, and it prety much counts for nothing now-a-days
The basic grav gun isn't a problem; move and you get two shots at 9", stand still and you get 3 at 18". It's how powerful grav becomes on Relentless platforms and how much firepower the grav cannon puts out.
6772
Post by: Vaktathi
Indeed, the basic Grav gun in things like Tac squads is largely pretty ok, it's priced high enough and has enough drawbacks to make it good but not the automatic choice over alternatives, though does rather unnecessarily basically duplicate the Plasma Gun's role, but balance-wise is pretty ok.
They start to become pretty much auto-take on Relentless biker units over other options, and the Grav Cannon's raw volume of fire (coupled with the rerolls from the entirely unnecessary Grav Amp) make it absurd.
65718
Post by: Grimmor
TheNewBlood wrote: Grimmor wrote:I agree in that there is to much Grav. A buddy said this the other day actually. "Plasma did what grav does now, grav just does it better" and honestly? Hes right. Grav is WAY to accessible. I would have been fine with it on Kataphron Destroyers (cuz Mechanicus) and on Cent Devastators. But combi Grav, Grav Devs, Gravs in Tac squads, its freakin everywhere and its downright excessive. Mrines pay for their 3+ armor, and it prety much counts for nothing now-a-days
The basic grav gun isn't a problem; move and you get two shots at 9", stand still and you get 3 at 18". It's how powerful grav becomes on Relentless platforms and how much firepower the grav cannon puts out.
Thats valid. And i am aware that my Kataphrons are terrible offenders, but they are expensive, slow, and bad shots. Also its the Cult Mechanicus, if anyone deserves a crazy awesome weapon its those guys.
93294
Post by: Dman137
Pain4Pleasure wrote:Dman137 wrote:Grav weapons don't re-roll failed to wound rolls. Grav- amps specifically say re-roll the result. That's means you have to reroll all the dice, successful and failed.
Whoever told you that eldar boy lied.
Know one told me its in the rules lol go look it up and show me where it says you re-roll failed to wound rolls
6772
Post by: Vaktathi
Dman137 wrote:Pain4Pleasure wrote:Dman137 wrote:Grav weapons don't re-roll failed to wound rolls. Grav- amps specifically say re-roll the result. That's means you have to reroll all the dice, successful and failed.
Whoever told you that eldar boy lied.
Know one told me its in the rules lol go look it up and show me where it says you re-roll failed to wound rolls
Each to-wound roll occurs in a single die, regardless of how many there are.
When the rulebook is talking about having to reroll everything, they're talking about things like Ld tests that are taken on mulutple dice (e.g. a 2d6 roll). A grav amp doesn't mean you have to reroll everything.
90374
Post by: Pain4Pleasure
Vaktathi wrote:Dman137 wrote:Pain4Pleasure wrote:Dman137 wrote:Grav weapons don't re-roll failed to wound rolls. Grav- amps specifically say re-roll the result. That's means you have to reroll all the dice, successful and failed.
Whoever told you that eldar boy lied.
Know one told me its in the rules lol go look it up and show me where it says you re-roll failed to wound rolls
Each to-wound roll occurs in a single die, regardless of how many there are.
When the rulebook is talking about having to reroll everything, they're talking about things like Ld tests that are taken on mulutple dice (e.g. a 2d6 roll). A grav amp doesn't mean you have to reroll everything.
This. So dboy, you're wrong.
94689
Post by: CrashGordon94
I figure "re-roll the result" is referring to how you can re-roll glances to upgrade to pens but must keep the second result or something like that.
...Completely irrelevant to Grav but it wouldn't be the first time GW forgot how their bloody rules work...
90374
Post by: Pain4Pleasure
Each roll is it's own roll, and each wound is it's own wound and hit it's own hit. Dboy is starting to confuse others now. Dang it
93294
Post by: Dman137
Pain4Pleasure wrote: Vaktathi wrote:Dman137 wrote:Pain4Pleasure wrote:Dman137 wrote:Grav weapons don't re-roll failed to wound rolls. Grav- amps specifically say re-roll the result. That's means you have to reroll all the dice, successful and failed.
Whoever told you that eldar boy lied.
Know one told me its in the rules lol go look it up and show me where it says you re-roll failed to wound rolls
Each to-wound roll occurs in a single die, regardless of how many there are.
When the rulebook is talking about having to reroll everything, they're talking about things like Ld tests that are taken on mulutple dice (e.g. a 2d6 roll). A grav amp doesn't mean you have to reroll everything.
This. So dboy, you're wrong.
In the Grav- amp rules it does not say "re-roll failed to wound rolls" it's says "re-roll the result" so unless you can't point to somewhere in the rules were it says you re-roll failed to wound rolls then your wrong and you must re-roll all the dice you can't pick and choose
90374
Post by: Pain4Pleasure
The result of what? The wound. Unless you're saying the grav amp doesn't work at all since it just say a result but the result of what?
Rule 1 please, motyak
54708
Post by: TheCustomLime
Dman137 wrote:Pain4Pleasure wrote: Vaktathi wrote:Dman137 wrote:Pain4Pleasure wrote:Dman137 wrote:Grav weapons don't re-roll failed to wound rolls. Grav- amps specifically say re-roll the result. That's means you have to reroll all the dice, successful and failed.
Whoever told you that eldar boy lied.
Know one told me its in the rules lol go look it up and show me where it says you re-roll failed to wound rolls
Each to-wound roll occurs in a single die, regardless of how many there are.
When the rulebook is talking about having to reroll everything, they're talking about things like Ld tests that are taken on mulutple dice (e.g. a 2d6 roll). A grav amp doesn't mean you have to reroll everything.
This. So dboy, you're wrong.
In the Grav- amp rules it does not say "re-roll failed to wound rolls" it's says "re-roll the result" so unless you can't point to somewhere in the rules were it says you re-roll failed to wound rolls then your wrong and you must re-roll all the dice you can't pick and choose
That assumes that the "result" refers to all the dice rolled and that "Rerolling the result" means you have to reroll all dice if you want to invoke the rule.
90374
Post by: Pain4Pleasure
 TheCustomLime wrote:Dman137 wrote:Pain4Pleasure wrote: Vaktathi wrote:Dman137 wrote:Pain4Pleasure wrote:Dman137 wrote:Grav weapons don't re-roll failed to wound rolls. Grav- amps specifically say re-roll the result. That's means you have to reroll all the dice, successful and failed.
Whoever told you that eldar boy lied.
Know one told me its in the rules lol go look it up and show me where it says you re-roll failed to wound rolls
Each to-wound roll occurs in a single die, regardless of how many there are.
When the rulebook is talking about having to reroll everything, they're talking about things like Ld tests that are taken on mulutple dice (e.g. a 2d6 roll). A grav amp doesn't mean you have to reroll everything.
This. So dboy, you're wrong.
In the Grav- amp rules it does not say "re-roll failed to wound rolls" it's says "re-roll the result" so unless you can't point to somewhere in the rules were it says you re-roll failed to wound rolls then your wrong and you must re-roll all the dice you can't pick and choose
That assumes that the "result" refers to all the dice rolled and that "Rerolling the result" means you have to reroll all dice if you want to invoke the rule.
If it doesn't help and benefit eldar, he doesn't like it and will argue. He is one of "those" players
93294
Post by: Dman137
Pain4Pleasure wrote:The result of what? The wound. Unless you're saying the grav amp doesn't work at all since it just say a result but the result of what? Man, you're hard to teach. Almost isn't worth it with you.
EDIT: if I ever played you and you tried your little hardest to make me reroll all dice you're facial features would be altered in some form. Then I'd be up an army as well. Not saying how. Not threatening. These would just be the results of specific outcomes. Never disliked another member as much as you.
the result is both successful and failed when you roll dice the out come of the roll is the result. If you were suppose to re-roll only the fails then it would say so under the grav- amp rule. Automatically Appended Next Post: Pain4Pleasure wrote: TheCustomLime wrote:Dman137 wrote:Pain4Pleasure wrote: Vaktathi wrote:Dman137 wrote:Pain4Pleasure wrote:Dman137 wrote:Grav weapons don't re-roll failed to wound rolls. Grav- amps specifically say re-roll the result. That's means you have to reroll all the dice, successful and failed.
Whoever told you that eldar boy lied.
Know one told me its in the rules lol go look it up and show me where it says you re-roll failed to wound rolls
Each to-wound roll occurs in a single die, regardless of how many there are.
When the rulebook is talking about having to reroll everything, they're talking about things like Ld tests that are taken on mulutple dice (e.g. a 2d6 roll). A grav amp doesn't mean you have to reroll everything.
This. So dboy, you're wrong.
In the Grav- amp rules it does not say "re-roll failed to wound rolls" it's says "re-roll the result" so unless you can't point to somewhere in the rules were it says you re-roll failed to wound rolls then your wrong and you must re-roll all the dice you can't pick and choose
That assumes that the "result" refers to all the dice rolled and that "Rerolling the result" means you have to reroll all dice if you want to invoke the rule.
If it doesn't help and benefit eldar, he doesn't like it and will argue. He is one of "those" players
Show me in the rules for grav- amps where it says re-roll failed wound rolls.
90374
Post by: Pain4Pleasure
Dman137 wrote:Pain4Pleasure wrote:The result of what? The wound. Unless you're saying the grav amp doesn't work at all since it just say a result but the result of what? Man, you're hard to teach. Almost isn't worth it with you.
EDIT: if I ever played you and you tried your little hardest to make me reroll all dice you're facial features would be altered in some form. Then I'd be up an army as well. Not saying how. Not threatening. These would just be the results of specific outcomes. Never disliked another member as much as you.
the result is both successful and failed when you roll dice the out come of the roll is the result. If you were suppose to re-roll only the fails then it would say so under the grav- amp rule.
Do you not read what rules people are telling you exist? Please please, people are trying to help you. Honestly. You make it so hard when you blantly get rules so wrong. It is hard to read what you write and take you as a serious 40k player. I feel horrible for whom you play with
Edit: you said it says reroll the result. Each dice is a result. So choose which results you want to reroll. The dice as a whole are NOT a single result.
54708
Post by: TheCustomLime
" the result is both successful and failed when you roll dice the out come of the roll is the result. If you were suppose to re-roll only the fails then it would say so under the grav-amp rule."
Where is that definition?
"Show me in the rules for grav-amps where it says re-roll failed wound rolls. "
Show me in the rules where you have to reroll all dice.
93294
Post by: Dman137
TheCustomLime wrote:" the result is both successful and failed when you roll dice the out come of the roll is the result. If you were suppose to re-roll only the fails then it would say so under the grav- amp rule."
Where is that definition?
"Show me in the rules for grav- amps where it says re-roll failed wound rolls. "
Show me in the rules where you have to reroll all dice.
Like I said if it don't say re-roll the failed then you have to re-roll all. Automatically Appended Next Post: Pain4Pleasure wrote:Dman137 wrote:Pain4Pleasure wrote:The result of what? The wound. Unless you're saying the grav amp doesn't work at all since it just say a result but the result of what? Man, you're hard to teach. Almost isn't worth it with you.
EDIT: if I ever played you and you tried your little hardest to make me reroll all dice you're facial features would be altered in some form. Then I'd be up an army as well. Not saying how. Not threatening. These would just be the results of specific outcomes. Never disliked another member as much as you.
the result is both successful and failed when you roll dice the out come of the roll is the result. If you were suppose to re-roll only the fails then it would say so under the grav- amp rule.
Do you not read what rules people are telling you exist? Please please, people are trying to help you. Honestly. You make it so hard when you blantly get rules so wrong. It is hard to read what you write and take you as a serious 40k player. I feel horrible for whom you play with
Edit: you said it says reroll the result. Each dice is a result. So choose which results you want to reroll. The dice as a whole are NOT a single result.
it says the result on the failed result.
54708
Post by: TheCustomLime
Dman137 wrote: TheCustomLime wrote:" the result is both successful and failed when you roll dice the out come of the roll is the result. If you were suppose to re-roll only the fails then it would say so under the grav- amp rule."
Where is that definition?
"Show me in the rules for grav- amps where it says re-roll failed wound rolls. "
Show me in the rules where you have to reroll all dice.
Like I said if it don't say re-roll the failed then you have to re-roll all.
It doesn't say you have to reroll all dice either and that condition is always specified.
On a side note, that rule also means you can reroll successful dice too if you wanted. Though I don't see why you would.
90374
Post by: Pain4Pleasure
The result is not a single entity! Wow... Can lead a horse to water.. can't make it drink. I'm walking out on trying to help your ignorant thoughts. You're hopeless
93294
Post by: Dman137
TheCustomLime wrote:Dman137 wrote: TheCustomLime wrote:" the result is both successful and failed when you roll dice the out come of the roll is the result. If you were suppose to re-roll only the fails then it would say so under the grav- amp rule."
Where is that definition?
"Show me in the rules for grav- amps where it says re-roll failed wound rolls. "
Show me in the rules where you have to reroll all dice.
Like I said if it don't say re-roll the failed then you have to re-roll all.
It doesn't say you have to reroll all dice either and that condition is always specified.
On a side note, that rule also means you can reroll successful dice too if you wanted. Though I don't see why you would.
This is a prime example of GW not writing there dexs properly. Why not just put "re-roll failed to wound rolls".? But no they put "result" result is anything, anything you roll is a result, they don't even say failed result, it just says re-roll the result. Automatically Appended Next Post: Pain4Pleasure wrote:The result is not a single entity! Wow... Can lead a horse to water.. can't make it drink. I'm walking out on trying to help your ignorant thoughts. You're hopeless
quote a rule that says grav- amps let you re-roll failed to wound rolls.
54708
Post by: TheCustomLime
And my interpretation is equally as valid. A single dice roll is as much of a "result" as all of the dice rolled. I agree it's a little vague but your interpretation relies on a lot more assumptions.
90374
Post by: Pain4Pleasure
TheCustomLime wrote:And my interpretation is equally as valid. A single dice roll is as much of a "result" as all of the dice rolled. I agree it's a little vague but your interpretation relies on a lot more assumptions.
And he will stick to it. You're talking to a wall... A not very sturdy wall you wouldn't wanna lean against. I commend your efforts.
6772
Post by: Vaktathi
Dman137 wrote:Pain4Pleasure wrote: Vaktathi wrote:Dman137 wrote:Pain4Pleasure wrote:Dman137 wrote:Grav weapons don't re-roll failed to wound rolls. Grav- amps specifically say re-roll the result. That's means you have to reroll all the dice, successful and failed.
Whoever told you that eldar boy lied.
Know one told me its in the rules lol go look it up and show me where it says you re-roll failed to wound rolls
Each to-wound roll occurs in a single die, regardless of how many there are.
When the rulebook is talking about having to reroll everything, they're talking about things like Ld tests that are taken on mulutple dice (e.g. a 2d6 roll). A grav amp doesn't mean you have to reroll everything.
This. So dboy, you're wrong.
In the Grav- amp rules it does not say "re-roll failed to wound rolls" it's says "re-roll the result" so unless you can't point to somewhere in the rules were it says you re-roll failed to wound rolls then your wrong and you must re-roll all the dice you can't pick and choose
Yes, it says you can reroll the result "when rolling to wound". Note that "result" is singular, and is not using the plural "results". Each "to-wound" roll has it's own result. I've never seen anyone interpret the Grav- amp the way you're proposing here.
EDIT: also, in every instance in the rulebook where the word "result" is used, it's in reference to the outcome of a single roll (even if with multiple dice, e.g. 2d6), not the collective outcomes of multiple different rolls.
93294
Post by: Dman137
TheCustomLime wrote:And my interpretation is equally as valid. A single dice roll is as much of a "result" as all of the dice rolled. I agree it's a little vague but your interpretation relies on a lot more assumptions.
I'm not saying your interpretation isent valid, I'm just saying why put in the rule saying "result" when they could have just put "failed to wound rolls" like it's that way for every other weapon thy re-rolls to wound.
11860
Post by: Martel732
He's trolling you guys so hard. Just stick him on ignore.
90374
Post by: Pain4Pleasure
Best advice in thread. Exalted
54708
Post by: TheCustomLime
Dman137 wrote: TheCustomLime wrote:And my interpretation is equally as valid. A single dice roll is as much of a "result" as all of the dice rolled. I agree it's a little vague but your interpretation relies on a lot more assumptions.
I'm not saying your interpretation isent valid, I'm just saying why put in the rule saying "result" when they could have just put "failed to wound rolls" like it's that way for every other weapon thy re-rolls to wound.
Because the GW design studio doesn't play the same game as us despite using the same core rulebook. To them any vagueness of the rules can be quickly resolved by a friendly pre-game chat and that is good enough for $50+ rulebooks.
93294
Post by: Dman137
TheCustomLime wrote:Dman137 wrote: TheCustomLime wrote:And my interpretation is equally as valid. A single dice roll is as much of a "result" as all of the dice rolled. I agree it's a little vague but your interpretation relies on a lot more assumptions.
I'm not saying your interpretation isent valid, I'm just saying why put in the rule saying "result" when they could have just put "failed to wound rolls" like it's that way for every other weapon thy re-rolls to wound.
Because the GW design studio doesn't play the same game as us despite using the same core rulebook. To them any vagueness of the rules can be quickly resolved by a friendly pre-game chat and that is good enough for $50+ rulebooks.
you'd think that when your paying 50$+ a rule book or codex and 50$ a box of dudes that they would take the time to write clear cut rules.
92121
Post by: Yoyoyo
Edited by Manchu
20677
Post by: NuggzTheNinja
I run a Spawn rush list. Nothing makes me happier than seeing tons of Grav across the table from me.
21596
Post by: DarthSpader
Grav didn't kill 40k. Allies shenanigans did. It tag team with challenges to pile drive 40k into the floor and smash it with a folding chair.
86074
Post by: Quickjager
Dman, shame on me for replying to you but here is the logic used in why you are wrong in your interpretation of Grav Amps.
- I roll one die at a time, if it fails I reroll the result.
That is why the way you interpret the sentence is wrong. I hate grav and I go by RAI for most things. But here it is pretty clear on how you play it.
47598
Post by: motyak
Well I think we've got all we can out of this thread, including several warnings. Let's stop here before we have more
|
|
