Problem:

Grav has, for all intents and purposes, replaced all other forms of imperial shooting. It's effective against too many things.

Outline of solution:

Therefore, grav must remain strong against what it's intended to kill (big, strong, giant things) but must be weakened against things it's not intended to kill (infantry spam).

Answer:

Revise the rules for graviton to read as follows: "All wounds accrued by a single volley of fire by a graviton weapon must be resolved against only a single model. Any wounds in excess of the number of wounds possessed by that model shall not be resolved against another model."

Further revise it to read: "A volley of graviton fire may, at most, only strip a single HP from a vehicle or produce the 'immobilized' result. Once a vehicle has been immobilized, it cannot be targeted by further volleys of graviton fire."

I agree that Grav needs to be good at killing large units, but these units should be predominantly (Flying) Monstrous Creatures and (Flying) Gargantuan Creatures.

The reason I impose this is because I feel Gravitation weapons should not be an Anti-Tank weapon since we already have plenty of those, and same goes for Anti-Infantry Weapons. Ergo, this leaves (Flying) Monstrous Creatures and (Flying) Gargantuan Creatures (among other things) for which my friends and I agree Grav should be the answer to.

So I feel that not only is your rule not fleshed out enough, but also doesn't properly address the fact that it should be (if nothing else) moving away from being effective against infantry and also moving away from being effective against vehicles.

Plus now it seems you're starting threads (which conveniently always include polls) because you ".. like data..."

I think the rules for grav are complicated enough for any newcomers. I don't think we need to muddy the waters further like this. If people think grav is op, the solution surely is just to increase the cost, and limit its availability.

It's already pretty expensive to kit out a normal dev squad as grav. But maybe limit grave to Sternguard, characters, and centurions. Or just make it prohibitively expensive for other units or something.

 General Kroll wrote:
I think the rules for grav are complicated enough for any newcomers. I don't think we need to muddy the waters further like this. If people think grav is op, the solution surely is just to increase the cost, and limit its availability.

It's already pretty expensive to kit out a normal dev squad as grav. But maybe limit grave to Sternguard, characters, and centurions. Or just make it prohibitively expensive for other units or something.

It's not that complicated. "All wounds must be dealt to a single model; furthermore, once you've immobilized a vehicle, that's it. No more."

How complicated is that?

At any rate, your suggestion doesn't really fix grav. Limit grav to centurions? Grav centurions are OP as feth.

Traditio wrote:

 General Kroll wrote:
I think the rules for grav are complicated enough for any newcomers. I don't think we need to muddy the waters further like this. If people think grav is op, the solution surely is just to increase the cost, and limit its availability.

It's already pretty expensive to kit out a normal dev squad as grav. But maybe limit grave to Sternguard, characters, and centurions. Or just make it prohibitively expensive for other units or something.

It's not that complicated. "All wounds must be dealt to a single model; furthermore, once you've immobilized a vehicle, that's it. No more."

How complicated is that?

At any rate, your suggestion doesn't really fix grav. Limit grav to centurions? Grav centurions are OP as feth.

What's complicated is your execution. Which model is the target if you're targeting a squad? Are you using the normal rules of whoever is closest? And what if the vehicle suffers an Immobilised result from Dangerous Terrain (for example)? Does that still mean that Grav can no longer fire at the target?

The General's solution is a lot easier and simpler.

The real solution to grav is to make it do nothing against vehicles. If you want to kill vehicles while still killing elite infantry and MCs you take plasma. If you want the best way to kill elite infantry and MCs at the expense of doing nothing against vehicles and very little to horde infantry you take grav.

IllumiNini wrote:What's complicated is your execution. Which model is the target if you're targeting a squad? Are you using the normal rules of whoever is closest?

Yes. Closest model is the target.

And what if the vehicle suffers an Immobilised result from Dangerous Terrain (for example)? Does that still mean that Grav can no longer fire at the target?

Yup.

The General's solution is a lot easier and simpler.

It also doesn't solve the problem of grav centurion cheese.

Traditio wrote:

IllumiNini wrote:What's complicated is your execution. Which model is the target if you're targeting a squad? Are you using the normal rules of whoever is closest?

Yes. Closest model is the target.

And what if the vehicle suffers an Immobilised result from Dangerous Terrain (for example)? Does that still mean that Grav can no longer fire at the target?

Yup.

Then say that in the rule in the original post. When creating a rule, specificity is everything. So far, you have a sweeping statement that isn't specific enough. Include these answers in the original post.

Traditio wrote:

The General's solution is a lot easier and simpler.

It also doesn't solve the problem of grav centurion cheese.

I could also argue that neither does your solution. At least the General's solution offers to severely limit the amount of Grav attacks you can put out, thus mitigating the cheesiness at least a little bit.

 Peregrine wrote:
The real solution to grav is to make it do nothing against vehicles. If you want to kill vehicles while still killing elite infantry and MCs you take plasma. If you want the best way to kill elite infantry and MCs at the expense of doing nothing against vehicles and very little to horde infantry you take grav.

Do this. Remove the ability to glance or even cause immobilized results. Vehicle structures (with the exception of Orks ramshackle vehicles) are built to withstand multiples times its gravitational weight.

Grief wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:
The real solution to grav is to make it do nothing against vehicles. If you want to kill vehicles while still killing elite infantry and MCs you take plasma. If you want the best way to kill elite infantry and MCs at the expense of doing nothing against vehicles and very little to horde infantry you take grav.

Do this. Remove the ability to glance or even cause immobilized results. Vehicle structures (with the exception of Orks ramshackle vehicles) are built to withstand multiples times its gravitational weight.

Can we also agree that grav should not be an anti-horde weapon?

How can you manage to so consistently generate bad ideas to fix issues in the least useful way? You would do better to restrict access to Grav than to try and fiddle with the rules for it. The problem is volume of fire, not what it can do. A single grav shot against a vehicle is a hail mary pass. Twenty grav shots is not. The problem is one of quantity, not quality.

MIni MIehm wrote:
How can you manage to so consistently generate bad ideas to fix issues in the least useful way? You would do better to restrict access to Grav than to try and fiddle with the rules for it. The problem is volume of fire, not what it can do. A single grav shot against a vehicle is a hail mary pass. Twenty grav shots is not. The problem is one of quantity, not quality.

Plus there has to be an element of Trolling when the title of the thread is "Brilliant Grav Fix" haha.

On the issue at hand, I always thought something along the lines of making Grav Cannons (for example) Salvo 2/3 instead of Salvo 3/5. This combined with the General's idea would definitely put Grav in its place.

I think it just needs to change what value it wounds on. The fluff for Grav Guns is that they use the target's own mass against them, so why can't that be reflected in the existing rules by something that already exists: the Bulky USR. Change Grav so that instead of wounding vs an armour save, it wounds like the following:

Regular Models: 5+
Bulky Models: 4+ (would include Terminators, Jump Infantry and Jet Pack Infantry)
Very Bulky Models/Monstrous Creatures: 3+ (would include Bikes, Jetbikes and Centurions)
Extremely Bulky Models/Gargantuan Creatures: 2+

It can have no effect against vehicles, because vehicles don't need any further help dying. Plus that gives an inherent weakness to Grav, requiring you to look elsewhere for anti-vehicle needs. Or risk running into a Guard Tank Company and being boned.

Traditio wrote:
Can we also agree that grav should not be an anti-horde weapon?

It isn't. A grav weapon against a typical horde model (T3, 5+ armor or worse) is effectively a STR 2 AP 2 weapon, down to STR 1 against ork-equivalents. You can use grav against hordes if you have nothing better to do with it, but it's not going to accomplish much. You'll probably just wish you'd kept your bolters instead of "upgrading" to grav.

 GoonBandito wrote:
I think it just needs to change what value it wounds on. The fluff for Grav Guns is that they use the target's own mass against them, so why can't that be reflected in the existing rules by something that already exists: the Bulky USR. Change Grav so that instead of wounding vs an armour save, it wounds like the following:

Regular Models: 5+
Bulky Models: 4+ (would include Terminators, Jump Infantry and Jet Pack Infantry)
Very Bulky Models/Monstrous Creatures: 3+ (would include Bikes, Jetbikes and Centurions)
Extremely Bulky Models/Gargantuan Creatures: 2+

It can have no effect against vehicles, because vehicles don't need any further help dying. Plus that gives an inherent weakness to Grav, requiring you to look elsewhere for anti-vehicle needs. Or risk running into a Guard Tank Company and being boned.

They are all sensible suggestions, but I honestly think the rules need to be kept as simple and easy to remember as possible. Everyone usually remembers what armour save their units have, so it's really easy to just say, it wound on the armour save. All this bulky very bulky etc may have people pausing and looking up rules to check all the time. That was my problem with the OPs idea. Not that it was overly complex for seasoned players, or that hard to get your head around. Just that it adds another layer of rules checking to the game. Right now there is plenty to remember with grav. Did I move? Can I fire all my shots or just half range etc.

Just make it super expensive, and limit it to certain units. Sure it won't solve the problem of cent stars, but I don't think we need to. They are already expensive. Gravspam is clearly an issue though, so make grav a very expensive upgrade for things like bikes, tactical and standard dev squads. Say 50 points for a cannon and amp, and 30 for a standard gun/combi gun. Then let the Sternguard and cents keep access at the regular price kind of like how Vanguard get cheap power weapons.

That way it keeps the rules simple, and fluffy. Grav is supposed to be fairly rare, so chapters shouldn't really be equipping whole bike companies with it, or every tactical squad.

MIni MIehm wrote:
How can you manage to so consistently generate bad ideas to fix issues in the least useful way? You would do better to restrict access to Grav than to try and fiddle with the rules for it. The problem is volume of fire, not what it can do. A single grav shot against a vehicle is a hail mary pass. Twenty grav shots is not. The problem is one of quantity, not quality.

It needs the volume of fire because MCs are undercosted for their durability. We could fix krak missiles and lascannons vs MCs and just eliminate grav as far as I'm concerned. But that's not happening because they have to sell models.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 IllumiNini wrote:

MIni MIehm wrote:
How can you manage to so consistently generate bad ideas to fix issues in the least useful way? You would do better to restrict access to Grav than to try and fiddle with the rules for it. The problem is volume of fire, not what it can do. A single grav shot against a vehicle is a hail mary pass. Twenty grav shots is not. The problem is one of quantity, not quality.

Plus there has to be an element of Trolling when the title of the thread is "Brilliant Grav Fix" haha.

On the issue at hand, I always thought something along the lines of making Grav Cannons (for example) Salvo 2/3 instead of Salvo 3/5. This combined with the General's idea would definitely put Grav in its place.

No RoF decrease unless you massively nerfing Riptide and WK.

This rule just makes grav useless. Eg, playing against space marines, and they take a lot of centurions of their own. Yay! I can kill one centurion a turn, even though grav guns should be great against their 2+ armour. Or if you were playing against farsight tau. Yay! I've killed their two riptides. For the next four turns I can kill one crisis suit per round of shooting with my expensive centurion unit.

Fix =/= useless.

I personally would use a Toughness or AV scale depending on vehicle in order to determine the dice needed to cause a wound.

E.g:

T1 T2 = 6
T3 T4 = 5
T5 T6 = 4
T7 T8 = 3
T9 T10 = 2

AV 10 = 6
AV 11 = 5
AV 12 = 4
AV 13 = 3
AV 14+ = 2

Rough preliminary for AV values since some vehicles have different facings (also Quantam Shielding needs to be addressed, so I think base values).

That way, Plasma is the go-to for Elite units that don't weigh much but Grav is the weapon for the heavier units.

Of course, the other option is for the weapons to be Heavy 3 or something that is not Salvo 3/5 (ie, reduced the number of shots).

Small drop in the ocean though...

Even at 5 shots, it can be a struggle to take down a Riptide or WK. With expensive as grav cents are, there should not be a struggle.

That's an issue with the Riptide/Wraithknight. Centurions are overcosted as is for what they bring stat-wise.

But Grav-Cannons on Relentless (SnP but same thing in effect) platforms are just too good that 20 ppm more and I think I still would bring them.

 Frozocrone wrote:
That's an issue with the Riptide/Wraithknight. Centurions are overcosted as is for what they bring stat-wise.

But Grav-Cannons on Relentless (SnP but same thing in effect) platforms are just too good that 20 ppm more and I think I still would bring them.

Until Riptide/WK gets nerfed, no nerfs to grav. Which mean no nerfs to grav, because there would be the screams of 1,000,000 cheesemongers if their godmode MCs got nerfed.

Maybe they should learn2play

I don't see those MC getting nerfs anytime soon, considering they have just had new Codexes that buffed them instead of nerfing.

 Frozocrone wrote:
Maybe they should learn2play

I don't see those MC getting nerfs anytime soon, considering they have just had new Codexes that buffed them instead of nerfing.

Exactly. So by that logic, grav actually needs buffs, and terminators and the like should just understand that they have no role in this game anymore.

We could just change Grav to wound based on model size

normal: 5+
Bulky: 4+
Extremely Bulky: +3
MC: 2+
GMC: 2+ with reroll on 4+

Infantry model may make a strength test to ignore the wound. If they fail, they take the wound with no saves of any kind allowed (FNP and RP are unaffected). If a model passes the test, they ignore the wound.

Any Flying unit has to test for grounding (with rerolls) if it gets hit. Regular Tests if it gets wounded.

Tanks get Immobilized for a single turn on a to-pen roll of 6. This does not cause a hull point to be lost. Further immobilizations caused by graviton weapons do not stack and do not cause hullpoints to be lost.

Skimmers get Crew Stunned on a to-pen of 6 and cannot Jink for that turn. This does not cause a hull point to be lost.

That's a better idea.

Martel732 wrote:
That's a better idea.

Any suggestions?

 Tactical_Spam wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
That's a better idea.

Any suggestions?

Seems okay to me, but I'm sure someone else will have an objection.

Martel732 wrote:

 Tactical_Spam wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
That's a better idea.

Any suggestions?

Seems okay to me, but I'm sure someone else will have an objection.

And what do ya know? I'm here to object! haha

Tactical_Spam wrote:We could just change Grav to wound based on model size

normal: 5+
Bulky: 4+
Extremely Bulky: +3
MC: 2+
GMC: 2+ with reroll on 4+

Infantry model may make a strength test to ignore the wound. If they fail, they take the wound with no saves of any kind allowed (FNP and RP are unaffected). If a model passes the test, they ignore the wound.

Any Flying unit has to test for grounding (with rerolls) if it gets hit. Regular Tests if it gets wounded.

Tanks get Immobilized for a single turn on a to-pen roll of 6. This does not cause a hull point to be lost. Further immobilizations caused by graviton weapons do not stack and do not cause hullpoints to be lost.

Skimmers get Crew Stunned on a to-pen of 6 and cannot Jink for that turn. This does not cause a hull point to be lost.

My two objections are:

(1) If Grav can hurt vehicles, it should not cause Immobilised results. It should be Crew Shaken instead and still inflict the HP. I'm still tossing up whether or not I like the idea of Grav hurting vehicles in the first place.

(2) Skimmers as well as Open-Topped should get a Crew Stunned result, suffer a HP, and not be able to Jink the next turn (maybe three is too much, but losing a HP should be one of the at least two that affects them).

 IllumiNini wrote:

Tactical_Spam wrote:We could just change Grav to wound based on model size

normal: 5+
Bulky: 4+
Extremely Bulky: +3
MC: 2+
GMC: 2+ with reroll on 4+

Infantry model may make a strength test to ignore the wound. If they fail, they take the wound with no saves of any kind allowed (FNP and RP are unaffected). If a model passes the test, they ignore the wound.

Any Flying unit has to test for grounding (with rerolls) if it gets hit. Regular Tests if it gets wounded.

Tanks get Immobilized for a single turn on a to-pen roll of 6. This does not cause a hull point to be lost. Further immobilizations caused by graviton weapons do not stack and do not cause hullpoints to be lost.

Skimmers get Crew Stunned on a to-pen of 6 and cannot Jink for that turn. This does not cause a hull point to be lost.

My two objections are:

(1) If Grav can hurt vehicles, it should not cause Immobilised results. It should be Crew Shaken instead and still inflict the HP. I'm still tossing up whether or not I like the idea of Grav hurting vehicles in the first place.

(2) Skimmers as well as Open-Topped should get a Crew Stunned result, suffer a HP, and not be able to Jink the next turn (maybe three is too much, but losing a HP should be one of the at least two that affects them).

(1) I do not like the idea of suffering HP from grav, but the rest is considered. I am balancing the effects of grav between Skimmers and Tanks because frankly Skimmers are more survivable than tanks. If a Tank cannot move, it will probably die. If a Skimmer cannot Jink, it will probably die. I do not want to sacrifice the damage output of a Tank because they are bad enough as it is.

(2) Why would Open-Topped also get Crew Stunned?

 General Kroll wrote:
I think the rules for grav are complicated enough for any newcomers. I don't think we need to muddy the waters further like this. If people think grav is op, the solution surely is just to increase the cost, and limit its availability.

It's already pretty expensive to kit out a normal dev squad as grav. But maybe limit grave to Sternguard, characters, and centurions. Or just make it prohibitively expensive for other units or something.

That's brilliant, let's invalidate the only good option that Dev Squads have.

I'm not overly a fan of grav wounding on model size.
Why would a fully armoured Space Marine be just as easy to crush as a Gretchin? Why is a carapace armoured Scion harder to kill than a flak armoured Ogryn? Evidently, some tweaking would be needed.

I would suggest the size of the model conferring a bonus to the wound roll.
Infantry: -1 (Makes it less of a horde weapon)
Bulky: 0
Very Bulky: +1
Extremely Bulky: +2
MC: +3
GMC: +4

Those numbers could be taken down one more in the chart, with Infantry having a -2 and GMC having a +3. Any model is still always wounded on a 6, and fails on a 1. Reduce access to grav-amps on Devastator Squads, and maybe on Centurions too, only allow Sternguard, Devastators, and Devastator Centurions to have grav-cannons, and leave it so that grav-cannons can only cause Immobilised results to vehicles (no way of causing Hull Points) and problem solved.

That's why I added the Strength test... But you thing still works alright.

Why not change it to 30K grav?

pm713 wrote:
Why not change it to 30K grav?

Because that can't kill Riptides or WKs. GW always does this. There is some elite subset of units that have to be handled a specific way. That specific way mulches all non-elite choices because it is only adequate vs the power units and no one can take their foot off the pedal of OP. Go calculate how many LASCANNON shots it takes to bring down a Riptide or WK and then tell me that grav needs a nerf.

Martel732 wrote:

pm713 wrote:
Why not change it to 30K grav?

Because that can't kill Riptides or WKs. GW always does this. There is some elite subset of units that have to be handled a specific way. That specific way mulches all non-elite choices because it is only adequate vs the power units and no one can take their foot off the pedal of OP. Go calculate how many LASCANNON shots it takes to bring down a Riptide or WK and then tell me that grav needs a nerf.

Grav needs a nerf. I shouldn't be able to take a weapon that has no downside.

pm713 wrote:

Martel732 wrote:

pm713 wrote:
Why not change it to 30K grav?

Because that can't kill Riptides or WKs. GW always does this. There is some elite subset of units that have to be handled a specific way. That specific way mulches all non-elite choices because it is only adequate vs the power units and no one can take their foot off the pedal of OP. Go calculate how many LASCANNON shots it takes to bring down a Riptide or WK and then tell me that grav needs a nerf.

Grav needs a nerf. I shouldn't be able to take a weapon that has no downside.

Well they shouldn't be able to take immortal MCs, either. So it's an empasse.

pm713 wrote:

Martel732 wrote:

pm713 wrote:
Why not change it to 30K grav?

Because that can't kill Riptides or WKs. GW always does this. There is some elite subset of units that have to be handled a specific way. That specific way mulches all non-elite choices because it is only adequate vs the power units and no one can take their foot off the pedal of OP. Go calculate how many LASCANNON shots it takes to bring down a Riptide or WK and then tell me that grav needs a nerf.

Grav needs a nerf. I shouldn't be able to take a weapon that has no downside.

It technically has downsides when swarm armies become a thing again...

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

pm713 wrote:

Martel732 wrote:

pm713 wrote:
Why not change it to 30K grav?

Because that can't kill Riptides or WKs. GW always does this. There is some elite subset of units that have to be handled a specific way. That specific way mulches all non-elite choices because it is only adequate vs the power units and no one can take their foot off the pedal of OP. Go calculate how many LASCANNON shots it takes to bring down a Riptide or WK and then tell me that grav needs a nerf.

Grav needs a nerf. I shouldn't be able to take a weapon that has no downside.

It technically has downsides when swarm armies become a thing again...

Except you can put it on Bikers.

You can't put grav cannon on bikers, and that's the one that matters. Trust me. Grav guns are insufficient, as I've fielded 12 before and still got mauled. Not rerolling the wounds makes it not viable vs vehicles and it doesn't have enough shots to threaten the hardest targets like Riptides. Riptide just doesn't care about 3-4 AP2 wounds.

I had an idea for Grav. It's probably too complicated to work though.

It involved making Grav weapons into 'opposite' weapons. Instead of having a strength or AP, to wound the target you have to roll equal to or under the targets toughness. So the lower the targets toughness, the harder it is to wound. If the targets toughness is 6 or higher it'll automatically wound. And it's the same for armor saves. 'Fails' are passes and passes are fails. So a terminator needs to roll a 1 to save themselves, whilst an ork passes on a 1, 2, 3, 4 or 5.

If I've done this right, Grav weapons will be useless at taking out light infantry, but very effective against heavy infantry.

In the face of overwhelming opposition to my opinion, I wish to offer a defense.

Assumption:

All heavy weapons should have a specific role which they play well and other heavy weapons do not. In the SM codex, we have the following options (not counting heavy flamers)

1. Lascannons
2. Multimeltas
3. Missile Launchers
4. Grav-cannons
5. Plasma cannons
6. Heavy bolters

Among special weapons (not counting the flamer), we have the following options:

1. Meltaguns
2. Plasma guns
3. Grav guns

Each of these should have a role which it alone does well, and no other weapon does as well.

Heavy-bolters are a crowd control heavy weapon. They're for thinning hords and putting out a high rate of fire against massed infantry. [Flamers also do this, but in a different way; flamers are close range, heavy bolters long range.] Therefore, grav should not be good at this.

Plasma-cannons are for taking out MEQs and TEQs. Therefore, grav should not be good at this.

Multi-meltas are for taking out vehicles close range. Therefore, grav should not be good at this.

Lascannons are for taking out vehicles and MCs at range: Therefore, grav should not be good at this.

Missile launchers are a generalist weapon which should be average at both AT and anti-infantry firepower. Grav should not do this well.

Grav clearly has a role: taking out GMCs and other really "scary," points intensive, overpowered individual models.

It should be good at that. It should not be good at doing those other things.

If we adopted the proposal of my OP, grav would fill its niche role, and only its niche role, in an optimal manner.

It would become on par with, not superior to, lascannons, multimeltas, etc.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 CREEEEEEEEED wrote:
This rule just makes grav useless. Eg, playing against space marines, and they take a lot of centurions of their own. Yay! I can kill one centurion a turn, even though grav guns should be great against their 2+ armour. Or if you were playing against farsight tau. Yay! I've killed their two riptides. For the next four turns I can kill one crisis suit per round of shooting with my expensive centurion unit.

Yes. Grav should be as "useless" against MEQs and TEQs as plasmaguns are against wraithknights.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Future War Cultist wrote:If I've done this right, Grav weapons will be useless at taking out light infantry, but very effective against heavy infantry.

Grav shouldn't be good against heavy infantry. It should be good against MCs, GMCs and deathstars.

Running with your logic grav shouldn't exist. For eliminating GMC's and such at long range you have the Lascannon and at short range you have Melta. Grav isn't filling some weird gap any more than giving Eldar D spam did.

pm713 wrote:
Running with your logic grav shouldn't exist. For eliminating GMC's and such at long range you have the Lascannon and at short range you have Melta. Grav isn't filling some weird gap any more than giving Eldar D spam did.

Melta and lascannons are primarily AT weapons. Melta and lascannons aren't effective vs. MCs. They'll do. But they're not specifically for that.

Traditio, lascannons can't take out anything anymore. Most Imperial heavy weapons are now quite poor in the game. That's why they put in grav. And to sell models of course.

Traditio wrote:

pm713 wrote:
Running with your logic grav shouldn't exist. For eliminating GMC's and such at long range you have the Lascannon and at short range you have Melta. Grav isn't filling some weird gap any more than giving Eldar D spam did.

Melta and lascannons are primarily AT weapons. Melta and lascannons aren't effective vs. MCs. They'll do. But they're not specifically for that.

"Lascannons are for taking out vehicles and MCs at range" As you say Lascannons for both. Logically the same applies to the Melta as they are almost identical in terms of ability to wound MC's (in fact in almost every case they're the same). Why is a high power weapon not good for eliminating a MC? If it's sufficient to destroy a tank it is sure sufficient to kill a monster. The correct fix is to fix the weapons rather than bloat the game by making up new weapons. Your logic of each weapon having a niche doesn't work unless you want to add "sells more models".

An example of a good fix would be this: Add the Monster Slayer rule to Lascannons and Multi Meltas. Monster Slayer = Weapons with this special rule cause a MC's Wounds to decrease by 2 rather than 1 for each Unsaved Wound. This means that if a single Lascannon dealt an Unsaved Wound to a Wraithlord its Wounds would drop from 3 to 1.

Martel732 wrote:
Traditio, lascannons can't take out anything anymore. Most Imperial heavy weapons are now quite poor in the game. That's why they put in grav. And to sell models of course.

At the very least, Martel, do you agree that the fix I propose would put grav on par with, as opposed to superior to, the other heavy and special weapons?

Let's ignore external balance for a moment.

Would it internally balance SM weaponry?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

pm713 wrote:"Lascannons are for taking out vehicles and MCs at range"

I spoke inaptly. Lascannons aren't an anti-MC weapon. They're an AT weapon.

My bad.

If it's sufficient to destroy a tank it is sure sufficient to kill a monster.

False. Monsters don't go kaboom.

The correct fix is to fix the weapons rather than bloat the game by making up new weapons. Your logic of each weapon having a niche doesn't work unless you want to add "sells more models".

An example of a good fix would be this: Add the Monster Slayer rule to Lascannons and Multi Meltas. Monster Slayer = Weapons with this special rule cause a MC's Wounds to decrease by 2 rather than 1 for each Unsaved Wound. This means that if a single Lascannon dealt an Unsaved Wound to a Wraithlord its Wounds would drop from 3 to 1.

That still wouldn't internally balance SM weapons. Grav would still be OP.

Yeah, Grav-cannons and Assault Cannons are really the only good ones. Lascannons are too expensive for what amount to HP plinkers, Missile Launchers can't kill blobs and have a tough time penetrating armor, Heavy Bolters are waaay too expensive and Multi-meltas are just straight up useless on infantry platforms. I would say that the issue isn't so much that Grav is OP but that the shifting meta has left the other heavies behind.

IMO, the best "fix" for Grav is fix the other heavies and remove Grav's ability to immobilize vehicles.

 TheCustomLime wrote:
Yeah, Grav-cannons and Assault Cannons are really the only good ones. Lascannons are too expensive for what amount to HP plinkers, Missile Launchers can't kill blobs and have a tough time penetrating armor, Heavy Bolters are waaay too expensive and Multi-meltas are just straight up useless on infantry platforms. I would say that the issue isn't so much that Grav is OP but that the shifting meta has left the other heavies behind.

IMO, the best "fix" for Grav is fix the other heavies and remove Grav's ability to immobilize vehicles.

Do you think that my fix would internally balance SM heavy weapons?

Again, let's ignore external balance.

Would it impose internal balance?

I think people would still take Grav due to the overabundance of MCs. Besides Grav Space Marines have very few easy counters to them. You kind of have to give people incentive to take other heavies, y'know?

My point about Lascannons is true. If it has sufficient power to damage a vehicle it has sufficient power to damage a monster. Your issue is that the rules fail to reflect this which is dealt with (or at least I tried to deal with it) in my suggested fix which you ignored.

Grav is OP because it got shoehorned in rather than dealing with things properly. You either need to create a new niche for it or remove it. At least following your approach to the weapons.

 TheCustomLime wrote:
I think people would still take Grav due to the overabundance of MCs. Besides Grav Space Marines have very few easy counters to them. You kind of have to give people incentive to take other heavies, y'know?

If a grav cannon could only kill 1 terminator per round of shooting, that wouldn't encourage you to take plasma guns, lascannons, plasma cannons, etc?

If a grav cannon could only immobilize a tank and then do no further damage, that wouldn't encourage you to take melta and lascannons?

pm713 wrote:
My point about Lascannons is true. If it has sufficient power to damage a vehicle it has sufficient power to damage a monster. Your issue is that the rules fail to reflect this which is dealt with (or at least I tried to deal with it) in my suggested fix which you ignored.

Grav is OP because it got shoehorned in rather than dealing with things properly. You either need to create a new niche for it or remove it. At least following your approach to the weapons.

Grav is OP because it's designed for the current climate, not 3E.

 Kanluwen wrote:

pm713 wrote:
My point about Lascannons is true. If it has sufficient power to damage a vehicle it has sufficient power to damage a monster. Your issue is that the rules fail to reflect this which is dealt with (or at least I tried to deal with it) in my suggested fix which you ignored.

Grav is OP because it got shoehorned in rather than dealing with things properly. You either need to create a new niche for it or remove it. At least following your approach to the weapons.

Grav is OP because it's designed for the current climate, not 3E.

The current climate that varies place to place you mean? And from time to time? It was not needed when it first came out and it wouldn't be now if there was a single competent designer at GW. Shoot me if I think solving a problem is better than making it worse. It's OP because it has no significant downside that isn't easily avoided. Which happened because it got shoehorned in.

Traditio wrote:

 TheCustomLime wrote:
I think people would still take Grav due to the overabundance of MCs. Besides Grav Space Marines have very few easy counters to them. You kind of have to give people incentive to take other heavies, y'know?

If a grav cannon could only kill 1 terminator per round of shooting, that wouldn't encourage you to take plasma guns, lascannons, plasma cannons, etc?

If a grav cannon could only immobilize a tank and then do no further damage, that wouldn't encourage you to take melta and lascannons?

The problem is no one really takes those in higher end play. I think you'd see it in more casual games but tournament players would probably just augment their forces with high yield weapon platforms like Stormtalons/Hawks, Sicarans etc. Cent-star is just too good of a counter to the MC heavy meta.

TheCustomLime wrote:The problem is no one really takes those in higher end play. I think you'd see it in more casual games but tournament players would probably just augment their forces with high yield weapon platforms like Stormtalons/Hawks, Sicarans etc. Cent-star is just too good of a counter to the MC heavy meta.

I could provide other examples. If a grav cannon could only kill 1 SM bike, 1 tactical marine, 1 centurion, etc, you wouldn't consider lascannons, plasma guns, etc?

Traditio wrote:

TheCustomLime wrote:The problem is no one really takes those in higher end play. I think you'd see it in more casual games but tournament players would probably just augment their forces with high yield weapon platforms like Stormtalons/Hawks, Sicarans etc. Cent-star is just too good of a counter to the MC heavy meta.

I could provide other examples. If a grav cannon could only kill 1 SM bike, 1 tactical marine, 1 centurion, etc, you wouldn't consider lascannons, plasma guns, etc?

Plasma guns and Lascannons? Yeah, in that case, I would. But it'd feel like an overall nerf to the Codex, y'know?

Nope, because it'd still be a guaranteed kill.

5 shots almost definitely killing 1 guy no matter their unit type, toughness, save etc. Is better than 1 or 2 shots maybe killing 1 or 2 guys but most likely killing no one in many cases..

TheCustomLime wrote:Plasma guns and Lascannons? Yeah, in that case, I would. But it'd feel like an overall nerf to the Codex, y'know?

Yes, and that's my point. Currently, internal balance is lacking in the SM heavy weapons. My proposal would internally balance that. It would be an overall nerf to the codex, but that's fine.

That's a symptom that other things need to be nerfed also.

Traditio wrote:

TheCustomLime wrote:Plasma guns and Lascannons? Yeah, in that case, I would. But it'd feel like an overall nerf to the Codex, y'know?

Yes, and that's my point. Currently, internal balance is lacking in the SM heavy weapons. My proposal would internally balance that. It would be an overall nerf to the codex, but that's fine.

That's a symptom that other things need to be nerfed also.

And I agree with that. My current attitude towards Grav is that I'll give it up when Eldar/Tau players give up their G/MCs.

 Matt.Kingsley wrote:
Nope, because it'd still be a guaranteed kill.

5 shots definitely killing 1 guy no matter their unit type, toughness, save etc. Is better than 1 or 2 shots maybe killing 1 or 2 guys.

Not necessarily. In principle, that plasma cannon shot can hit 5 terminators (say, because they just deepstriked in) and kill all 5.

Traditio wrote:

 Matt.Kingsley wrote:
Nope, because it'd still be a guaranteed kill.

5 shots definitely killing 1 guy no matter their unit type, toughness, save etc. Is better than 1 or 2 shots maybe killing 1 or 2 guys.

Not necessarily. In principle, that plasma cannon shot can hit 5 terminators (say, because they just deepstriked in) and kill all 5.

It can also hit 5 of your Terminators and kill all of them.

TheCustomLime wrote:And I agree with that. My current attitude towards Grav is that I'll give it up when Eldar/Tau players give up their G/MCs.

Under my proposal, grav would still be effective vs. G/MCs. It would still allow you to strip all of a G/MCs wounds in a single volley of shooting.

 TheCustomLime wrote:

Traditio wrote:

TheCustomLime wrote:Plasma guns and Lascannons? Yeah, in that case, I would. But it'd feel like an overall nerf to the Codex, y'know?

Yes, and that's my point. Currently, internal balance is lacking in the SM heavy weapons. My proposal would internally balance that. It would be an overall nerf to the codex, but that's fine.

That's a symptom that other things need to be nerfed also.

And I agree with that. My current attitude towards Grav is that I'll give it up when Eldar/Tau players give up their G/MCs.

I'm up for that.

pm713 wrote:It can also hit 5 of your Terminators and kill all of them.

Not under the rules that I've proposed in the OP.

Traditio wrote:

pm713 wrote:It can also hit 5 of your Terminators and kill all of them.

Not under the rules that I've proposed in the OP.

I meant the plasma cannon.

pm713 wrote:I meant the plasma cannon.

Oh.

I understand. Scatter and all.

True that.

I don't care about internal balance really. Balancing externally will fix internal balance automatically. Also, grav isn't overpowered as much as other imperial heavy weapons are under powered. A heavy bolter kills an average of one ork. Think about that a second.

Martel732 wrote:

MIni MIehm wrote:
How can you manage to so consistently generate bad ideas to fix issues in the least useful way? You would do better to restrict access to Grav than to try and fiddle with the rules for it. The problem is volume of fire, not what it can do. A single grav shot against a vehicle is a hail mary pass. Twenty grav shots is not. The problem is one of quantity, not quality.

It needs the volume of fire because MCs are undercosted for their durability. We could fix krak missiles and lascannons vs MCs and just eliminate grav as far as I'm concerned. But that's not happening because they have to sell models.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 IllumiNini wrote:

MIni MIehm wrote:
How can you manage to so consistently generate bad ideas to fix issues in the least useful way? You would do better to restrict access to Grav than to try and fiddle with the rules for it. The problem is volume of fire, not what it can do. A single grav shot against a vehicle is a hail mary pass. Twenty grav shots is not. The problem is one of quantity, not quality.

Plus there has to be an element of Trolling when the title of the thread is "Brilliant Grav Fix" haha.

On the issue at hand, I always thought something along the lines of making Grav Cannons (for example) Salvo 2/3 instead of Salvo 3/5. This combined with the General's idea would definitely put Grav in its place.

No RoF decrease unless you massively nerfing Riptide and WK.

I don't have any access to grav weapons, and grav weapons can't harm the vast majority of my models. I'm not super terrified of MCs. They die the same as anything else, assuming I want to waste a turn killing them in the first place.

Maybe something like fixing up the other heavy weapons while scaling back a few other things too. I kind of like the idea of the lascannon being made into something more representative of its long range punching power; something like make it do d3 hp/wounds if the target is over 12" away, so its not stepping on the toes of melta weapons but providing a slightly different style of dealing with vehicles. Likewise to go with the 2d6 pen, melta range could probably do 2hp/wounds damage, also giving it some added punch to mc, but while that puts them more in line with the multiple glancing style the game has moved to that's probably yet another stop gap fix while the real issues like the power mc have gained over time compared to vehicles.

Like I like the riptide and I'm going to use it for the exact same reason I used to use the avatar with foot eldar (it was durable and a distraction that soaked up damage) but I think it could go to being a 3+ instead of a 2+. Thing is the game is a bit of a mess and instead of tuning things a bit more they just release something new as a bandaid for the real issues straining the game.

Grav could be changed, and more likely would be "streamlined", to be something like wounding on 2+ or 3+ on MC and GMC and 4+ on everything else. Maybe a 3+ on bulky and higher infantry.

 GoonBandito wrote:
I think it just needs to change what value it wounds on. The fluff for Grav Guns is that they use the target's own mass against them, so why can't that be reflected in the existing rules by something that already exists: the Bulky USR. Change Grav so that instead of wounding vs an armour save, it wounds like the following:

Regular Models: 5+
Bulky Models: 4+ (would include Terminators, Jump Infantry and Jet Pack Infantry)
Very Bulky Models/Monstrous Creatures: 3+ (would include Bikes, Jetbikes and Centurions)
Extremely Bulky Models/Gargantuan Creatures: 2+

It can have no effect against vehicles, because vehicles don't need any further help dying. Plus that gives an inherent weakness to Grav, requiring you to look elsewhere for anti-vehicle needs. Or risk running into a Guard Tank Company and being boned.

I like this idea!

Hahahaha, I just voted to see how the poll is going. As you have said about having a "Strong minority" in the threads about banning Superheavies, how are you going to try and spin this one into a victory as well. Or are you going to wait until you have 100 votes to see how it changes, and if it doesn't change how you like it, make another thread with a poorly worded thread title vs. what the poll actually says so you can "collect data".

pm713 wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

pm713 wrote:
My point about Lascannons is true. If it has sufficient power to damage a vehicle it has sufficient power to damage a monster. Your issue is that the rules fail to reflect this which is dealt with (or at least I tried to deal with it) in my suggested fix which you ignored.

Grav is OP because it got shoehorned in rather than dealing with things properly. You either need to create a new niche for it or remove it. At least following your approach to the weapons.

Grav is OP because it's designed for the current climate, not 3E.

The current climate that varies place to place you mean? And from time to time? It was not needed when it first came out and it wouldn't be now if there was a single competent designer at GW. Shoot me if I think solving a problem is better than making it worse. It's OP because it has no significant downside that isn't easily avoided. Which happened because it got shoehorned in.

The current climate of the game where high S, low ROF, and low AP weapons are garbage because of Hull Points and the number of Wounds that their traditional prey(monsters and vehicles) have.

I've said time and time again that Grav is a band-aid fix on the bigger issue regarding "legacy" weapons versus the newly designed stuff.

 Kanluwen wrote:

pm713 wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

pm713 wrote:
My point about Lascannons is true. If it has sufficient power to damage a vehicle it has sufficient power to damage a monster. Your issue is that the rules fail to reflect this which is dealt with (or at least I tried to deal with it) in my suggested fix which you ignored.

Grav is OP because it got shoehorned in rather than dealing with things properly. You either need to create a new niche for it or remove it. At least following your approach to the weapons.

Grav is OP because it's designed for the current climate, not 3E.

The current climate that varies place to place you mean? And from time to time? It was not needed when it first came out and it wouldn't be now if there was a single competent designer at GW. Shoot me if I think solving a problem is better than making it worse. It's OP because it has no significant downside that isn't easily avoided. Which happened because it got shoehorned in.

The current climate of the game where high S, low ROF, and low AP weapons are garbage because of Hull Points and the number of Wounds that their traditional prey(monsters and vehicles) have.

I've said time and time again that Grav is a band-aid fix on the bigger issue regarding "legacy" weapons versus the newly designed stuff.

That's EXACTLY what they are. They wallpapered all the other Imperial heavy weapons in 6th/7th ed.

Also, your fix would suck against monstrous creatures in squads (which Tyranids can do).


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also, are you allowed to vote on your own polls? Literally only one person said it would fix Grav. Polls don't lie, right Traditio?

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Also, your fix would suck against monstrous creatures in squads (which Tyranids can do).


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also, are you allowed to vote on your own polls? Literally only one person said it would fix Grav. Polls don't lie, right Traditio?

Yeah, but that one vote represents a strong minority, duh.

The best fix to Graviton?

Least complicated is either change the Immobilized to Crew Stunned, or leave the Hull Point loss off (especially if the FAQ ruling for Immobilized results stand).

Everything else needs to be directed at the Weapons themselves. It is easier, and better, to adjust them then the Special Rule. Range, Amps, Type and Volume are the things that need to be properly addressed.

Same problem that eldar has with shuricannons vs scatlasers. The point cost is too low to consider -1 ROF and -12" range.


1. Make tbe grav cannons shorter range. That way you have to move if you are devastators thus lowering their ROF.
2. Up them to +50 cost to take on a devestator.
3. Make them heavy 5 instead of salvo.

In either combination leave the effects the same.

Nobody is going to take a weapon that costs 50 points on a Devastator, even if they were in the Skyhammer. That's ludicrous and you know it.

DAaddict wrote:
Same problem that eldar has with shuricannons vs scatlasers. The point cost is too low to consider -1 ROF and -12" range.


1. Make tbe grav cannons shorter range. That way you have to move if you are devastators thus lowering their ROF.
2. Up them to +50 cost to take on a devestator.
3. Make them heavy 5 instead of salvo.

In either combination leave the effects the same.

1. Their already shorter range compared with other weapons (e.g. Grav Cannons are 30" whereas Plasma Cannons are 36", and Grav-guns are 18" whereas Plasma Guns are 24"), so reducing their range even further may be a bad idea.

2. That's way, WAY too much. That's severe over-costing (even if Grav weapons stayed as is).

3. That's too many shots if you ask me. Heavy 3 or Salvo 2/3 are the two profiles I'd go with for a Grav Cannon, with 3 shots being the max I'd ever let it fire (with all other rules equal).

No one would pay 50 points??? My problem is you can pick between
A heavy bolter _+10 for 4 shots at 36" that can only hit infantry and you have to be stationary or snapfire,
MM same cost for 1 24" shot that can only take out tanks or over costed to shoot at MEQ
ML 48" range that have some multipurpose.
PC for 36" range and you MUST be stationary to fire.
LC 48" range and really overcosted to fire at anything but tanks.
or GC 30" range and ROF 5 and only ROF 3 to move and fire so you a virtual 36" range matching any other choice except ML or LC and full BS/ Besides the fact that you can take advantage of this for drop pods or the salamander special formation.
I would say +45 to 50 is about right considering you have to pay a 70 to 140 tax to buy the devastator

Currenly going MSU size:
110 for HB for 24 S5 shots or MM for 4 S8 shots.
130 for ML with 4 S8 shots or 4 blast templates
150 for LC
210 for GC that oh by the way get to reroll to wound rolls.
my modification of cost only costs 270 to do the MSU

perhaps the easiest fix to reduce effectiveness is to remove the grav amp and turn it into fluff instead of affecting the power of Grav weapons and/or add a tax by requiring the separate purchase of the grav amp.

The biggest problem with grav is that all the other options are pretty much foolish to take. Not one of them is the least bit decent of performing it's supposed role. Make the other weapons good at their rolls. Then and only then could you nerf grav or get me say okay to nerfing it. In which case make it a GMC/MC hunter weapon and make it pretty much useless vs SHV/vehicles. But only after making the other stuff good. I want to take meltas and plasma, but if I do that I won't stand a chance. It would be shooting myself in the foot. And IMO the rof on grav is fine the way it is.

Grav should shoot 1 shot blast but do multiple wounds vs anything Bulky or larger. That way you can still kill obnoxious MCs but you're not murderizing whole squads of armored infantry (that's what plasma is for).

 Abadabadoobaddon wrote:
Grav should shoot 1 shot blast but do multiple wounds vs anything Bulky or larger. That way you can still kill obnoxious MCs but you're not murderizing whole squads of armored infantry (that's what plasma is for).

No blasts.
There's a reason Plasma Cannons aren't taken versus Grav weapons. It's not just because they're overcosted for what they are(small blast for how many points, with Gets Hot? no thanks!), it's because of Blast weapons not being able to fire in Overwatch or Snap Shooting.
Contrast that with Grav, which can fire in Overwatch and as Snap Shots.

Also: Plasma doesn't have a defined role and hasn't had one for a long while. At best it's for taking down TEQs, at worst it's taken because you have some kind of perk like ignoring Gets Hot.
Really though, why are we trying to 'fix' Grav weapons? Why aren't we trying to raise up the other options instead?

Droping grav amps off the cannons would be a good start. When you aren’t re-rolling to wound, suddenly they become less good vs. the things they are supposed to be bad against.

If lascannons actually hurt tanks or MCs, I'd be a lot more open to this.

 Kanluwen wrote:

Contrast that with Grav, which can fire in Overwatch and as Snap Shots.

Even worse if you consider Salvo models usually don't move in the same turn they Overwatch (FAQ Draft ruling), so use full RoF for that.

That is something that should be addressed for Salvo rules as well, imo.

One of the easier fixes for Plasma Cannons and ML's is to fix the small blast rules. If you didn't HAVE to center it over a model, you'd hit a lot more.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
One of the easier fixes for Plasma Cannons and ML's is to fix the small blast rules. If you didn't HAVE to center it over a model, you'd hit a lot more.

You don't have to center blasts over a model. You have to center the blast marker over either 1. some point of the hull of a vehicle or 2. some part of the base of the model.

Traditio wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
One of the easier fixes for Plasma Cannons and ML's is to fix the small blast rules. If you didn't HAVE to center it over a model, you'd hit a lot more.

You don't have to center blasts over a model. You have to center the blast marker over either 1. some point of the hull of a vehicle or 2. some part of the base of the model.

#2 is what he wants to get rid of.

I've not come up against much grav weaponry, but my thoughts on 'fixing it' would be

Remove grav amps from non-centurion devs (why should they get the same weapon as centurion suits?)
Remove the hull point loss from vehicles, and make them Crew Stunned instead of Immobilised, even if immune to Crew Stunned
Cause D3 wounds for every unsaved wound (no overspill from model to model)
Auto-Ground FMCs / FGCs

Yeah... I'm just going to go ahead and disagree with making it wound on 5+.
Why? Because I play Harlequins with 0 armor so it all wounds on 6's. This just adds more grief onto my shoulders as its already hard enough to fight any type of space marine for me as it is.

Against the objector who brought up MC squadrons:

Yes, it would nerf grav in that respect, but it would still leave grav much more effective than lascannons, missile launchers, etc.

I don't see this as problematic, given that MCs have multiple wounds.

MCs need to die faster, not slower.

Martel732 wrote:
MCs need to die faster, not slower.

And MEQs and TEQs need to die slower, not faster.

Traditio wrote:
Answer:

Revise the rules for graviton to read as follows: "All wounds accrued by a single volley of fire by a graviton weapon must be resolved against only a single model. Any wounds in excess of the number of wounds possessed by that model shall not be resolved against another model."

Further revise it to read: "A volley of graviton fire may, at most, only strip a single HP from a vehicle or produce the 'immobilized' result. Once a vehicle has been immobilized, it cannot be targeted by further volleys of graviton fire."

feth man, you're brilliant.

Traditio wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
MCs need to die faster, not slower.

And MEQs and TEQs need to die slower, not faster.

I've accepted them as throw away units.

Martel732 wrote:

Traditio wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
MCs need to die faster, not slower.

And MEQs and TEQs need to die slower, not faster.

I've accepted them as throw away units.

Does that mean the rest of us have to? Or that this should be the case?

I'm not saying I necessarily disagree with you (since Tac and Crusader Squads are cannon fodder at least 7 times out of 10), but TEQ's should not fall in this category.

TEQs are the worst offenders. They are less durable than tacs vs anything other than AP 3.

I think if you follow the idea that grav rerolls all dice when trying to wound as opposed to only rerolling the failures it pretty easily solves it's capabilities versus light infantry.

That and it should not be able to wound things without an armor save. Let daemons and Harlequins be a hard counter to keep it honest in a pickup game scenario.

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:
I think if you follow the idea that grav rerolls all dice when trying to wound as opposed to only rerolling the failures it pretty easily solves it's capabilities versus light infantry.

That and it should not be able to wound things without an armor save. Let daemons and Harlequins be a hard counter to keep it honest in a pickup game scenario.

Most people don't and won't follow that idea.Light infantry has a zillion other ways to die anyway.