This is a simple one. Do you think Grav guns in its current form will survive the 8th edition ( whenever it comes out)

Genie's out of the bottle.

I can't imagine GW doing a serious shake-up of recosting and re-sizing the scale of the game, so I'd bet grav stays in as some sort of 'attempt' to balance out the ever growing number of big gribblies.

If anything, I'd wager more armies get access to a similar mechanic.

I would like a big shake up, but i don't see it happen. So grav will stay nearly like it is. All they are gonna do, will be advancing the plot, do daemon primarchs and other big stuff no one can afford (but everyone will buy!) and that's it.

As much as people hate grav, I actually think the concept behind it is kind of cool. I've been on the receiving end of Grav spam while playing everything from Nids to KDK to IF. I think it's one of the few things that keeps MCs in check. I would however, like Grav ability to damage vehicles beyond a single immobilized result and a HP neutered. Coming from someone who plays with grav, and against spammed grav, I personally think people are making a mountain out of a molehill. IMO Grav is pretty far down the list of in-game mechanics that need tweaking.

Grav is what Space Marines get instead of Strength D weaponry. Grav is our answer to big things like Wraithknights, Riptides, and Stormsurges. It has to stay.

 casvalremdeikun wrote:
Grav is what Space Marines get instead of Strength D weaponry. Grav is our answer to big things like Wraithknights, Riptides, and Stormsurges. It has to stay.

Cans my Guard trade our D for your Grav?

No, I do not think that grav will change. As others have said GW is far to busy pushing the plot at us and introducing new things. Also, as much as I hate to say this, Grav is needed. It is the one thing that holds MC's and GMC's in check. Without it they would have free reign on the board.

 master of ordinance wrote:

 casvalremdeikun wrote:
Grav is what Space Marines get instead of Strength D weaponry. Grav is our answer to big things like Wraithknights, Riptides, and Stormsurges. It has to stay.

Cans my Guard trade our D for your Grav?

Probably not. But you should have been able to use D more effectively. And my Grav doesn't do squat against Necrons, whereas your D does.

Maybe they change the point costs or the grav amp, but other than that I don' think they'll change a lot about grav weapons. Still surprised the Wolves didn't get them.

Sgt. Cortez wrote:
Maybe they change the point costs or the grav amp, but other than that I don' think they'll change a lot about grav weapons. Still surprised the Wolves didn't get them.

It is already 35 pts! A unit of Grav Devastators is approaching the price of a Riptide and not nearly as mobile or effective.

 Blacksails wrote:
Genie's out of the bottle.

I can't imagine GW doing a serious shake-up of recosting and re-sizing the scale of the game, so I'd bet grav stays in as some sort of 'attempt' to balance out the ever growing number of big gribblies.

If anything, I'd wager more armies get access to a similar mechanic.

Except Chaos. because Chaos can't innovate.

 Selym wrote:
Except Chaos. because Chaos can't innovate.

Well, of course. Such an obvious exception should hardly need to be stated. What would 40k be if Chaos was actually good? There'd be mayhem, and...errr...chaos?

 Selym wrote:

 Blacksails wrote:
Genie's out of the bottle.

I can't imagine GW doing a serious shake-up of recosting and re-sizing the scale of the game, so I'd bet grav stays in as some sort of 'attempt' to balance out the ever growing number of big gribblies.

If anything, I'd wager more armies get access to a similar mechanic.

Except Chaos. because Chaos can't innovate.

Which is kind of stupid, since HH Chaos has Grav weaponry. Hopefully when Chaos gets an overhaul(allegedly happening soon), they will get Grav weapons.

Grav isn't needed at all. Its bringing a Kill all gun in a rock paper scissors fight. SM need some anti monster gun they don't need a high rate of fire anti-TEQ-MEQ-Vehicle-monster gun.

 oldzoggy wrote:
Grav isn't needed at all. Its bringing a Kill all gun in a rock paper scissors fight. SM need some anti monster gun they don't need a high rate of fire anti-TEQ-MEQ-Vehicle-monster gun.

D-Weapons. The game will not be balanced until everyone has D. Much better than Grav.

 oldzoggy wrote:
Grav isn't needed at all. Its bringing a Kill all gun in a rock paper scissors fight. SM need some anti monster gun they don't need a high rate of fire anti-TEQ-MEQ-Vehicle-monster gun.

That is neither here nor there. As of right now, it is what we've got to deal with MCs/GCs. They could maybe dial back its vehicle hunting ability, but they definitely need to leave the rest as is.

 casvalremdeikun wrote:

 oldzoggy wrote:
Grav isn't needed at all. Its bringing a Kill all gun in a rock paper scissors fight. SM need some anti monster gun they don't need a high rate of fire anti-TEQ-MEQ-Vehicle-monster gun.

That is neither here nor there. As of right now, it is what we've got to deal with MCs/GCs. They could maybe dial back its vehicle hunting ability, but they definitely need to leave the rest as is.

The problem is that MC's and GMC's are designed in suh a way that anything that can kill them also has the firepower to kill everything else.

Methods boil down to this:

1) Shot spam. Bring as much dakka as possible, hope for a wound. Also great against light infantry and TEQ.

2) High Strength, Low Ap spam. Also great against MEQ and vehicles.

3) Grav. Good against literally everything with better than a 5+ save.

4) Tar pitting. Also works against anything of significant value.

5) Ignore it. Problem unresolved.

6) Multi-wound per hit (such as D). Obvious consequences.

Designing anti monster weapons is childish simple.

Just give it some ability to cause multiple wounds per unsaved wound that don't carry on other models and you are done. It has worked in WFB for ages I see no reason at all why it would not work in 40k as well.

Here is an example the "monster be gone 9000 rifle"
Heavy 1 36" S1 AP2 Fleshbane, Toxic*
Toxic : Unsaved wounds will result in 3 wounds who can't carry on to other models.

Or you could make it even simpler by simply naming the rule Monsterbane and choose to let it work only on monsters.
Monsterbane: Unsaved wounds will result in 3 wounds that can only be allocated to monsters or gargantuan monstrous creatures.

 casvalremdeikun wrote:
And my Grav doesn't do squat against Necrons, whereas your D does.

Yes it does. Grav hurts literally everything. The only thing Grav doesn't hurt are the targets that Bolters can easily hurt.

 krodarklorr wrote:

 casvalremdeikun wrote:
And my Grav doesn't do squat against Necrons, whereas your D does.

Yes it does. Grav hurts literally everything. The only thing Grav doesn't hurt are the targets that Bolters can easily hurt.

Bolters can hurt 20 man units of Warriors with 2-4up saves piece? They can hurt lychguard and Wraiths with a 3 up 4 up? Absolute news to me. The only necron units I can think of off the top of my head that it's actually scary against are destroyers and Immortals. Even then it only takes them down to a single save... kind of like almost every other unit in the game. Grav against necrons is a terrible investment.

Most people in favor of grav seem to say that it's required to "keep MCs in check".
To me it's a sign of a flawed system: MCs have been made too powerful by the rule system, so in order to balance it, they had to introduce a very powerful weapon as a quick fix. But this introduces new imbalances (for the other factions that now get slaughtered by it, while not having a decent way to deal with MCs on their own).

That's why I think the best way forward would be a huge overhaul of the rules: if you nerf grav, you also need to nerf MCs/GMCs, and then need to adjust many other things as a consequence and so on. However, I'm not convinced that we're going to see this in the near future. The more I hear about 8th edition, the more I'm convinced that "streamlining" mostly refers to rules being centralized in way fewer books, and maybe in an app (à la AoS).

Dantes_Baals wrote:

 krodarklorr wrote:

 casvalremdeikun wrote:
And my Grav doesn't do squat against Necrons, whereas your D does.

Yes it does. Grav hurts literally everything. The only thing Grav doesn't hurt are the targets that Bolters can easily hurt.

Bolters can hurt 20 man units of Warriors with 2-4up saves piece? They can hurt lychguard and Wraiths with a 3 up 4 up? Absolute news to me. The only necron units I can think of off the top of my head that it's actually scary against are destroyers and Immortals. Even then it only takes them down to a single save... kind of like almost every other unit in the game. Grav against necrons is a terrible investment.

Destroyers, Immortals, Deathmarks, Praetorians, non-shield Lychguard, Spyders, Any of their vehicles, and the fact that they bring warriors down to a single save means that they'll start dropping pretty fast. Sure, it's not the best choice of weapon against Necrons, but that goes for anything except D-weapons. Grav is still valid.

I didn't say it was invalid. Just not worth 35 points per model and how often do you see deathmarks? Beating necrons through attrition is a ill advised and difficult for pretty much everyone but eldar.

Dantes_Baals wrote:
I didn't say it was invalid. Just not worth 35 points per model and how often do you see deathmarks? Beating necrons through atricion is a ill advised and difficult for pretty much everyone but eldar.

Then how else do you intend to beat them? Attrition is main way I've lost units, short of D-weapons or Sweeping advances.

No, "Grav Guns" are not going anywhere, but we could see them seriously revised.

The primary idea of Grav is cool. "Anti-Big Stuff, Poor Little-Stuff". Done better, Grav would be just as interesting as the choice between Plasma, Melta, or Flamer - my personal favourite choice in the game. But currently it's simply better than all of them, so why not except for points?

I think Grav should wound based on actual size category though, not based on armour save.

Infantry 6+
Bulky 5+
Very Bulky 4+
Monstrous 3+
Gargantuan 2+

This let's them be better than Melta or Plasma when targeting things like Monstrous Creatures, but poor against basic infantry. Slightly better against Terminators than against basic Infantry, but worse than Plasma at that job.

If Vehicles get changed to Toughness values with saves, Vehicles get wounded like Monstrous, and Super-Heavies like Gargantuan, with Open-Topped Vehicles getting a -1 to the roll.

If Vehicles don't get changed from currently, Grav should just inflict a Crew Stunned result instead, immobilizing them for a single turn, but also causing them to Snap Shoot for the turn too.

I've been beating then via objectives by a landslide when I play them with any of my armies but nids. I guess if you only play KPs then if the SM player runs grav he better hope the crons run either vehicle heavy or hope to see the aforementioned units on the field in larger than average numbers. I mean when I run marines I usually find a way to tarpit the Wraiths and crush everyone else in CC (absent sword and board lychguard) if I'm running marines in a Kill Point game against crons. Might take grav on a unit of bikes or two, but that's 6 shots of Grav inside the crons threat range per turn. 9 shots twice per game. Definitely not spamming it and definitely not paying for cannons either.

 casvalremdeikun wrote:

 master of ordinance wrote:

 casvalremdeikun wrote:
Grav is what Space Marines get instead of Strength D weaponry. Grav is our answer to big things like Wraithknights, Riptides, and Stormsurges. It has to stay.

Cans my Guard trade our D for your Grav?

Probably not. But you should have been able to use D more effectively. And my Grav doesn't do squat against Necrons, whereas your D does.

'D' would be a lot more effective if there was not a 1 in 6 chance for anything under it to be fine. Dropping the 'D' plate on a unit of Sisters or Marines should be utterly devastating, but a bad role can lead to several surviving. Likewise, a hit to a tank should annihilate it, but unless you get a '6' on the damage roll your chances of killing it are reduced to 1 in 3 (or none if it is a HP 4 vehicle).
Now if 'D' was like it used to be - IE automatically killed any none SH or GMC beneath it, and dealing multiple wounds/hits to SH and GMC's it would be worth it. Liewise, if wounds spilled over it might feel a little more devastating.

Better idea, on how to shake things up.

Remove all D weapons form non apoc games

Honestly im of the mind set still that super heavy walkers, and super heavy tanks in non apoc games are a dumb idea, because then you get what we have now.

Wraith knight, riptide, and D weapon tom gakery

The fact i can field titans now in standard non apoc game seems....wrong.

 krodarklorr wrote:

Dantes_Baals wrote:
I didn't say it was invalid. Just not worth 35 points per model and how often do you see deathmarks? Beating necrons through atricion is a ill advised and difficult for pretty much everyone but eldar.

Then how else do you intend to beat them? Attrition is main way I've lost units, short of D-weapons or Sweeping advances.

I intend to lose vs Necrons, as GW intended.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 master of ordinance wrote:

 casvalremdeikun wrote:

 master of ordinance wrote:

 casvalremdeikun wrote:
Grav is what Space Marines get instead of Strength D weaponry. Grav is our answer to big things like Wraithknights, Riptides, and Stormsurges. It has to stay.

Cans my Guard trade our D for your Grav?

Probably not. But you should have been able to use D more effectively. And my Grav doesn't do squat against Necrons, whereas your D does.

'D' would be a lot more effective if there was not a 1 in 6 chance for anything under it to be fine. Dropping the 'D' plate on a unit of Sisters or Marines should be utterly devastating, but a bad role can lead to several surviving. Likewise, a hit to a tank should annihilate it, but unless you get a '6' on the damage roll your chances of killing it are reduced to 1 in 3 (or none if it is a HP 4 vehicle).
Now if 'D' was like it used to be - IE automatically killed any none SH or GMC beneath it, and dealing multiple wounds/hits to SH and GMC's it would be worth it. Liewise, if wounds spilled over it might feel a little more devastating.

D weapons are plenty devastating as is. No need to make them any better.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

fresus wrote:
Most people in favor of grav seem to say that it's required to "keep MCs in check".
To me it's a sign of a flawed system: MCs have been made too powerful by the rule system, so in order to balance it, they had to introduce a very powerful weapon as a quick fix. But this introduces new imbalances (for the other factions that now get slaughtered by it, while not having a decent way to deal with MCs on their own).

That's why I think the best way forward would be a huge overhaul of the rules: if you nerf grav, you also need to nerf MCs/GMCs, and then need to adjust many other things as a consequence and so on. However, I'm not convinced that we're going to see this in the near future. The more I hear about 8th edition, the more I'm convinced that "streamlining" mostly refers to rules being centralized in way fewer books, and maybe in an app (à la AoS).

It also doesn't do much to keep daemon MCs in check at all. It's basically a hail mary vs Riptide and WK. Because Riptides survive the grav barrage more often than not.

Martel732 wrote:

 krodarklorr wrote:

Dantes_Baals wrote:
I didn't say it was invalid. Just not worth 35 points per model and how often do you see deathmarks? Beating necrons through atricion is a ill advised and difficult for pretty much everyone but eldar.

Then how else do you intend to beat them? Attrition is main way I've lost units, short of D-weapons or Sweeping advances.

I intend to lose vs Necrons, as GW intended.

Or you could play objectives and whoop their ass.

 krodarklorr wrote:

Martel732 wrote:

 krodarklorr wrote:

Dantes_Baals wrote:
I didn't say it was invalid. Just not worth 35 points per model and how often do you see deathmarks? Beating necrons through atricion is a ill advised and difficult for pretty much everyone but eldar.

Then how else do you intend to beat them? Attrition is main way I've lost units, short of D-weapons or Sweeping advances.

I intend to lose vs Necrons, as GW intended.

Or you could play objectives and whoop their ass.

Heh. Sure, sure.

Martel732 wrote:

 krodarklorr wrote:

Dantes_Baals wrote:
I didn't say it was invalid. Just not worth 35 points per model and how often do you see deathmarks? Beating necrons through atricion is a ill advised and difficult for pretty much everyone but eldar.

Then how else do you intend to beat them? Attrition is main way I've lost units, short of D-weapons or Sweeping advances.

I intend to lose vs Necrons, as GW intended.

You are supposed to ally with them, because that pleases him.

 krodarklorr wrote:

 casvalremdeikun wrote:
And my Grav doesn't do squat against Necrons, whereas your D does.

Yes it does. Grav hurts literally everything.

Which is kind of ridiculous to me. There's plenty of weapons in the game that have an upper limit to what they can hurt. Grav should not be able to wound models that don't have an armor save, plain and simple.

I'd rather Grav didn't stay. Along with a few other things.

I would be fine with giving up grav, if it meant the imperium finally figured out how to install a heat sink on a plasma gun so it does not blow up in my face.

I'm pretty certain a nerf is coming. I would imagine the Immobilized result will get removed, as its one of the biggest reasons vehicles are so useless.

I wouldn't mind AP3.

 Runic wrote:
I'm pretty certain a nerf is coming. I would imagine the Immobilized result will get removed, as its one of the biggest reasons vehicles are so useless.

I wouldn't mind AP3.

That would make no sense though. You'd have a weapon that is better at wounding terminators than power armored units because it uses the bulk of soldiers' armor against them. Yet somehow terminator armor protects you from it while power armor doesn't?

Grav is overpowered because it has a ridiculous rate of fire. Why should it shoot faster than miniguns and heavy machine guns? The whole idea behind assault cannons, heavy bolters and multi/scatter lasers is that they have a high rate of fire with relatively low damage and penetrating power. Then suddenly along comes this weapon that hurts more WITH a higher rate of fire. Give grav fewer shots and you have a weapon that actually fits into the meta.

 KharnsRightHand wrote:

 krodarklorr wrote:

 casvalremdeikun wrote:
And my Grav doesn't do squat against Necrons, whereas your D does.

Yes it does. Grav hurts literally everything.

Which is kind of ridiculous to me. There's plenty of weapons in the game that have an upper limit to what they can hurt. Grav should not be able to wound models that don't have an armor save, plain and simple.

Wanna know why?

Because GW.

Real News wrote:

 Runic wrote:
I'm pretty certain a nerf is coming. I would imagine the Immobilized result will get removed, as its one of the biggest reasons vehicles are so useless.

I wouldn't mind AP3.

That would make no sense though. You'd have a weapon that is better at wounding terminators than power armored units because it uses the bulk of soldiers' armor against them. Yet somehow terminator armor protects you from it while power armor doesn't?

Grav is overpowered because it has a ridiculous rate of fire. Why should it shoot faster than miniguns and heavy machine guns? The whole idea behind assault cannons, heavy bolters and multi/scatter lasers is that they have a high rate of fire with relatively low damage and penetrating power. Then suddenly along comes this weapon that hurts more WITH a higher rate of fire. Give grav fewer shots and you have a weapon that actually fits into the meta.

Grav is where it should be.

Assault Cannons, Heavy Bolters, Multi/Scatter Lasers are still using the old measure of things. You want to find the issue? It's relic rules.

Rapid Fire is a joke. It has been for editions. Rapid Fire needs to be dramatically changed and put in line with Salvo and Assault weapons.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Runic wrote:
I'm pretty certain a nerf is coming. I would imagine the Immobilized result will get removed, as its one of the biggest reasons vehicles are so useless.

"Vehicles" aren't useless. Vehicles with no saves are useless, and will continue to be useless even if Grav loses its Immobilized results.

Why? Simple: It's easier to glance a vehicle to death than it is to actually penetrate it for the Explodes result. Hull Points are a joke, Tanks are a joke, Jink is king.

 Kanluwen wrote:


Assault Cannons, Heavy Bolters, Multi/Scatter Lasers are still using the old measure of things. You want to find the issue? It's relic rules.

Rapid Fire is a joke. It has been for editions. Rapid Fire needs to be dramatically changed and put in line with Salvo and Assault weapons.

It would be easier to change the one new rule than to change every single old rule that's been around since 3rd edition to balance out a single new weapon.

If you're advocating for GW to wipe the slate clean and start fresh, then I agree. But if they aren't going to, then they're obviously not going to change every single legacy weapon. Either we get a reboot that invalidates all old codices (with another "get you by" codex for everybody in the meantime) or we get a new edition that temporarily uses the old codex books.

 casvalremdeikun wrote:
Grav is what Space Marines get instead of Strength D weaponry. Grav is our answer to big things like Wraithknights, Riptides, and Stormsurges. It has to stay.

Oh so it's just for SM then. What about Nids. Orks? Any other unit than SM that get the easy button?

Davor wrote:

 casvalremdeikun wrote:
Grav is what Space Marines get instead of Strength D weaponry. Grav is our answer to big things like Wraithknights, Riptides, and Stormsurges. It has to stay.

Oh so it's just for SM then. What about Nids. Orks? Any other unit than SM that get the easy button?

It's pretty much just SM and Eldar. To a lesser extent DA and BA. Best thing is to chop both factions easy buttons off.

pm713 wrote:

Davor wrote:

 casvalremdeikun wrote:
Grav is what Space Marines get instead of Strength D weaponry. Grav is our answer to big things like Wraithknights, Riptides, and Stormsurges. It has to stay.

Oh so it's just for SM then. What about Nids. Orks? Any other unit than SM that get the easy button?

It's pretty much just SM and Eldar. To a lesser extent DA and BA. Best thing is to chop both factions easy buttons off.

Eldar would still be nuts, Tau would go from very good to rofl stomp ungodly, necrons would be back to release level power, Knight Armies would consistently make top tables and Nids, Orks, DE, CSM would still be garbage, and this would be the tier SM would drop down into.

If you nerf grav down to even where it goes from auto-include to niche Space Marines become dogsh**. The only models you would ever see in power armor are Twolves, Dark Angels Black Knights, Libcon, and a few powerful melee characters. That's it. Marines have nothing else to shoot. Melta is MAYBE 2 shots per squad, Plasma is and has always been freaking terrible, LasCannons are so 5th ed it hurts to bring them, heavy bolters are a joke, missle launchers are the worst weapon in the codex. The only list I could even see MAYBE working would some kind of Sternguard spam.

If you don't play SM competitively, make a list with plasma/lasconnons whereever grav would go and play against an eldar or Tau player and see how much fun that would be.

Real News wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:


Assault Cannons, Heavy Bolters, Multi/Scatter Lasers are still using the old measure of things. You want to find the issue? It's relic rules.

Rapid Fire is a joke. It has been for editions. Rapid Fire needs to be dramatically changed and put in line with Salvo and Assault weapons.

It would be easier to change the one new rule than to change every single old rule that's been around since 3rd edition to balance out a single new weapon.

If you're advocating for GW to wipe the slate clean and start fresh, then I agree. But if they aren't going to, then they're obviously not going to change every single legacy weapon. Either we get a reboot that invalidates all old codices (with another "get you by" codex for everybody in the meantime) or we get a new edition that temporarily uses the old codex books.

My codices don't have the rules for "Rapid Fire", "Assault", "Salvo", or "Heavy" weapons in them. Did you get a special edition codex?

Sarcasm aside, it's just as easy to change "the one old rule" as it is "the one new rule".

Here let me demonstrate! This is a rough concept I've had floating around in my head for awhile:

Rapid Fire
Rapid Fire weapons can put forth a prodigious amount of shots. The accuracy and number of those shots is dependent upon how close the targets are to the firer and whether or not the firing unit has moved. As the distance reduces so does the number of shots, however the accuracy increases.

Rapid Fire weapons can fire using the following profiles if they have moved, based upon the distance between the shooter and the target.
3-11 inches: 1 shot, +1 BS
12-19 inches: 2 shots, no modifier
20-27 inches: 3 shots, -1 BS
28+ inches: 4 shots, -2 BS

Rapid Fire weapons can fire using the following profiles if they have not moved, based upon the distance between the shooter and the target.
3-11 inches: 2 shots, +2 BS
12-19 inches: 3 shots, +1 BS
20-27 inches: 4 shots, no modifier
28+ inches: 5 shots, -1 BS

You'll notice that yes, it does reward units for "gunlining" by altering the penalties and adding an additional shot--however it also makes it so Rapid Fire weapons which tend towards low Strength and low AP are actually going to be utilized properly--by spraying shots down range and hoping for the best.

 Kanluwen wrote:

Rapid Fire weapons can fire using the following profiles if they have moved, based upon the distance between the shooter and the target.
3-11 inches: 1 shot, +1 BS
12-19 inches: 2 shots, no modifier
20-27 inches: 3 shots, -1 BS
28+ inches: 4 shots, -2 BS

Rapid Fire weapons can fire using the following profiles if they have not moved, based upon the distance between the shooter and the target.
3-11 inches: 2 shots, +2 BS
12-19 inches: 3 shots, +1 BS
20-27 inches: 4 shots, no modifier
28+ inches: 5 shots, -1 BS

You'll notice that yes, it does reward units for "gunlining" by altering the penalties and adding an additional shot--however it also makes it so Rapid Fire weapons which tend towards low Strength and low AP are actually going to be utilized properly--by spraying shots down range and hoping for the best.

More complicated rules in an already bloated system.

I'm really not sure why grav gets so much hate. Do you people not play against Necron, or daemons any? Guess what - grav is practically useless vs them. I'm not even going to mention horde armies as I'm sure most of you have never seen one before - but they are actually VERY strong right now and grav sucks vs them.

Heres what grav also sucks against. Anything rerolling an invo save. Because grav is VERY expensive. Up your game...Theres a lot more scary things out there than Grav cannons...like D weapons...ap2 torrent flamers - mass str 6-7 firepower from out of your grav range....invisibility...rerolling 2++ saves. Like I just don't get the grav hate.

 Xenomancers wrote:
I'm really not sure why grav gets so much hate. Do you people not play against Necron, or daemons any? Guess what - grav is practically useless vs them. I'm not even going to mention horde armies as I'm sure most of you have never seen one before - but they are actually VERY strong right now and grav sucks vs them.

Heres what grav also sucks against. Anything rerolling an invo save. Because grav is VERY expensive. Up your game...Theres a lot more scary things out there than Grav cannons...like D weapons...ap2 torrent flamers - mass str 6-7 firepower from out of your grav range....invisibility...rerolling 2++ saves. Like I just don't get the grav hate.

Just because there are other OP stuff in the game that Grav isn't the best against doesn't make Grav any less OP. The fact that it has so many shots, further invalidates vehicles, and shreds through anything with an armor save, makes it worth it's points. You wanna know what you do with your grav when you go up against a horde army? You don't shoot it at the horde, and let your bolters take care of it. Wanna know what to do against a Invis-star? Don't shoot at it.

 krodarklorr wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

Rapid Fire weapons can fire using the following profiles if they have moved, based upon the distance between the shooter and the target.
3-11 inches: 1 shot, +1 BS
12-19 inches: 2 shots, no modifier
20-27 inches: 3 shots, -1 BS
28+ inches: 4 shots, -2 BS

Rapid Fire weapons can fire using the following profiles if they have not moved, based upon the distance between the shooter and the target.
3-11 inches: 2 shots, +2 BS
12-19 inches: 3 shots, +1 BS
20-27 inches: 4 shots, no modifier
28+ inches: 5 shots, -1 BS

You'll notice that yes, it does reward units for "gunlining" by altering the penalties and adding an additional shot--however it also makes it so Rapid Fire weapons which tend towards low Strength and low AP are actually going to be utilized properly--by spraying shots down range and hoping for the best.

More complicated rules in an already bloated system.

How many Rapid Fire weapons out there are 28+ inches in range? How about 20-27 inches?

It isn't hard to do rote memorization for the armies you play or play against commonly.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 krodarklorr wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

Rapid Fire weapons can fire using the following profiles if they have moved, based upon the distance between the shooter and the target.
3-11 inches: 1 shot, +1 BS
12-19 inches: 2 shots, no modifier
20-27 inches: 3 shots, -1 BS
28+ inches: 4 shots, -2 BS

Rapid Fire weapons can fire using the following profiles if they have not moved, based upon the distance between the shooter and the target.
3-11 inches: 2 shots, +2 BS
12-19 inches: 3 shots, +1 BS
20-27 inches: 4 shots, no modifier
28+ inches: 5 shots, -1 BS

You'll notice that yes, it does reward units for "gunlining" by altering the penalties and adding an additional shot--however it also makes it so Rapid Fire weapons which tend towards low Strength and low AP are actually going to be utilized properly--by spraying shots down range and hoping for the best.

More complicated rules in an already bloated system.

How many Rapid Fire weapons out there are 28+ inches in range? How about 20-27 inches?

It isn't hard to do rote memorization for the armies you play or play against commonly.

But the game doesn't need any complex rules like this. Rapidfire is fine as it is right now. Maybe there could be some tweaks, sure. But adding all of this is a bit much. I can't even imagine what you would do to Heavy and Salvo weapons.

 krodarklorr wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 krodarklorr wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

Rapid Fire weapons can fire using the following profiles if they have moved, based upon the distance between the shooter and the target.
3-11 inches: 1 shot, +1 BS
12-19 inches: 2 shots, no modifier
20-27 inches: 3 shots, -1 BS
28+ inches: 4 shots, -2 BS

Rapid Fire weapons can fire using the following profiles if they have not moved, based upon the distance between the shooter and the target.
3-11 inches: 2 shots, +2 BS
12-19 inches: 3 shots, +1 BS
20-27 inches: 4 shots, no modifier
28+ inches: 5 shots, -1 BS

You'll notice that yes, it does reward units for "gunlining" by altering the penalties and adding an additional shot--however it also makes it so Rapid Fire weapons which tend towards low Strength and low AP are actually going to be utilized properly--by spraying shots down range and hoping for the best.

More complicated rules in an already bloated system.

How many Rapid Fire weapons out there are 28+ inches in range? How about 20-27 inches?

It isn't hard to do rote memorization for the armies you play or play against commonly.

But the game doesn't need any complex rules like this. Rapidfire is fine as it is right now.

Do you play any armies with Rapid Fire?

No, it isn't fine right now. It hasn't been fine for a looooooooooong time.

Maybe there could be some tweaks, sure.

That's like saying "Well, you have a flat tire but with some tweaks we can get you driving still." Sure you can keep limping around on a flat tire by patching it and filling it back up with air, but why would you do that if you have a spare tire?

But adding all of this is a bit much. I can't even imagine what you would do to Heavy and Salvo weapons.

Nothing. Heavy and Salvo weapons are fine. Rapid Fire is realistically the only one that needs to be addressed.

Rapid Fire, as I mentioned before, isn't. It's an additional shot at half range--whoopity doo! If it were "an additional shot at half range, and two additional shots at a quarter range"--we might not be having this conversation. But we probably still would be, because the vast majority of Rapid Fire weapons are dumpster fires to begin with.

Grav needs a RoF reduction. I hope they reduce the number of shots a Heavy Grav gun can put out.

 krodarklorr wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
I'm really not sure why grav gets so much hate. Do you people not play against Necron, or daemons any? Guess what - grav is practically useless vs them. I'm not even going to mention horde armies as I'm sure most of you have never seen one before - but they are actually VERY strong right now and grav sucks vs them.

Heres what grav also sucks against. Anything rerolling an invo save. Because grav is VERY expensive. Up your game...Theres a lot more scary things out there than Grav cannons...like D weapons...ap2 torrent flamers - mass str 6-7 firepower from out of your grav range....invisibility...rerolling 2++ saves. Like I just don't get the grav hate.

Just because there are other OP stuff in the game that Grav isn't the best against doesn't make Grav any less OP. The fact that it has so many shots, further invalidates vehicles, and shreds through anything with an armor save, makes it worth it's points. You wanna know what you do with your grav when you go up against a horde army? You don't shoot it at the horde, and let your bolters take care of it. Wanna know what to do against a Invis-star? Don't shoot at it.

But you still paid for it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Xerics wrote:
Grav needs a RoF reduction. I hope they reduce the number of shots a Heavy Grav gun can put out.

When MCs get a wound reduction.

I love it how in another thread, people INSIST there is nothing wrong with the Riptide,yet a weapon class that is practically required to kill them at range is the devil. Grav shreds terminators because terminators lack the durability of Riptide. Yet grav must be able to engage Riptide (Riptide still shrugs off DOZENS of grav shots), so terminators become a casualty. Not that anyone should be using them anyway.

Martel732 wrote:

When MCs get a wound reduction.

As long as Chapter Masters get a Wound reduction also.

 krodarklorr wrote:

Martel732 wrote:

When MCs get a wound reduction.

As long as Chapter Masters get a Wound reduction also.

Maybe. Although chapter master are more vulnerable to a wider range of weapons already than MCs. Generic chapter masters die 4X faster to bolters than Riptide. By the time you get to Iron Hand biker guy, it's about the same, but that's very specific.

5 shots on an AP2 weapon? That's too many shots for a weapon with that kind of AP.

 Xerics wrote:
5 shots on an AP2 weapon? That's too many shots for a weapon with that kind of AP.

Not, it really isn't. The AP 2 is just knocking out armor. Fortunately for MCs, they are also rocking a combination of cover, invulns, and FNP. You need the ROF to clear enough wounds to matter. And even then, grav falls short quite often. The wound clearage against the top MCs isn't even that great. Yeah, it butchers units that are already unplayably bad. Big deal. It's 85% of my codex, but how's that different than being scatterbiked off the table?

If they kept the shots at 5 with the special wound mechanic but reduced the AP to 5 like the scatter laser. Even 4 would not be too bad in my opinion. But AP2 is ridiculous.

 Xerics wrote:
If they kept the shots at 5 with the special wound mechanic but reduced the AP to 5 like the scatter laser. Even 4 would not be too bad in my opinion. But AP2 is ridiculous.

Riptide exists. It must be AP 2. Non AP 2 weapons use useless against Riptide and DK. If we get rid of all 2+ armor MCs, then yes, fine. The jump from 3+ armor to 2+ on an MC is insanely good.

Scatter Lasers aren't AP2 though. Eldar have AP 2 in the form of a starcannon for multiple shots and that's only 2 shots. Their D weapons (while very powerful) are all 1 shot each. Nothing like these centurions that can drop pod behind you so you can't get cover and just grav the ever living piss out of you.

Scatterlasers also can't engage Riptide effectively. Riptide and DK are two of the few targets that scatterlasers don't shred at will. With most targets, 2+ armor wont' save you from scatterlasers. But the combo of T6 and 2+ blunts the scatterlaser badly.

Don't let centurions drop behind you. By placing your units, YOU decide where the pods can land. I've been doing this vs SW since 5th ed.

well they either drop behind you so you cant get a cover save from the terrain your standing behind or if you set your stuff up at the edge of your board you most likely dont have any terrain there either. Drop pods cant mishap and half come down on the first turn. unless you are running guardian blobs (why?) then you are probably not gunna get them to not be able to shoot at what they want to shoot at. I have never seen terrain set up where you can get 360 cover around a unit like a wraithknight.

Relentless platforms is the big problem with Grav. Nobody really has issues with Grav on things like Tac Marines or Sternguard, but on things like Bikes and Centurions, where they work at max shots and max range with full mobility all the time, their supposed balancing factors inherent in the Salvo weapon type just go out the window and you get bike units running around toasing out 6 AP2 shots a turn with a 30" threat range or Centurions that deploy and dump 30 AP2 shots on a unit.

Also the cannon needs to be toned down. Drop it to Salvo 2/4 and drop the Grav Amp.

Finally, remove Grav's ability to affect vehicles. Being high RoF with AP2 and being able to kill 98% of vehicles with a couple of lucky 6's is a bit much, and negates the usefulness of Plasma having a relevant S value over Gravs bypassing of AV completely.

Make those changes and Grav will be useful, but not broken spam option it is now on some platforms.

That said, it was something of an answer to an unasked question in the first place to, doing what Plasma already did...but better.

 Xerics wrote:
well they either drop behind you so you cant get a cover save from the terrain your standing behind or if you set your stuff up at the edge of your board you most likely dont have any terrain there either. Drop pods cant mishap and half come down on the first turn. unless you are running guardian blobs (why?) then you are probably not gunna get them to not be able to shoot at what they want to shoot at. I have never seen terrain set up where you can get 360 cover around a unit like a wraithknight.

You shouldn't be able to hide your Wraithknight. And grav cannons are worked as intended if your WK get smoked. Because there's almost no other way to do it.

and if you try and get cover from a guardian blob to a wraithknight you are most likely gunna get laughed at.

 Vaktathi wrote:
Relentless platforms is the big problem with Grav. Nobody really has issues with Grav on things like Tac Marines or Sternguard, but on things like Bikes and Centurions, where they work at max shots and max range with full mobility all the time, their supposed balancing factors inherent in the Salvo weapon type just go out the window and you get bike units running around toasing out 6 AP2 shots a turn with a 30" threat range or Centurions that deploy and dump 30 AP2 shots on a unit.

Also the cannon needs to be toned down. Drop it to Salvo 2/4 and drop the Grav Amp.

Finally, remove Grav's ability to affect vehicles. Being high RoF with AP2 and being able to kill 98% of vehicles with a couple of lucky 6's is a bit much, and negates the usefulness of Plasma having a relevant S value over Gravs bypassing of AV completely.

Make those changes and Grav will be useful, but not broken spam option it is now on some platforms.

That said, it was something of an answer to an unasked question in the first place to, doing what Plasma already did...but better.

This is only acceptable is additional tools for dealing with MCs are introduced. Giving stronger heavy weapons the ability to cause multiple wounds would be a good start.

Dropping 30 shots on a wraithknight with grav amps is a 99% kill rate to a wraithknight. And its not preventable. Grav should be strong like it is, but you shouldnt be able to just drop in and put the target on full blast from the distance grav gets. At least with melta you had to be in their face to a vehicle. Grav combines so much power from so far away with such a huge amount of shots. SOMETHING about the grav weapons needs to be toned down. Either the RoF goes down or the AP goes up a couple of notches. Drop the salvo and just make it 3 shots or keep the salvo but change salvo so that if a unit moves (relentless or not) it gets the reduced RoF.

ERJAK wrote:

pm713 wrote:

Davor wrote:

 casvalremdeikun wrote:
Grav is what Space Marines get instead of Strength D weaponry. Grav is our answer to big things like Wraithknights, Riptides, and Stormsurges. It has to stay.

Oh so it's just for SM then. What about Nids. Orks? Any other unit than SM that get the easy button?

It's pretty much just SM and Eldar. To a lesser extent DA and BA. Best thing is to chop both factions easy buttons off.

Eldar would still be nuts, Tau would go from very good to rofl stomp ungodly, necrons would be back to release level power, Knight Armies would consistently make top tables and Nids, Orks, DE, CSM would still be garbage, and this would be the tier SM would drop down into.

If you nerf grav down to even where it goes from auto-include to niche Space Marines become dogsh**. The only models you would ever see in power armor are Twolves, Dark Angels Black Knights, Libcon, and a few powerful melee characters. That's it. Marines have nothing else to shoot. Melta is MAYBE 2 shots per squad, Plasma is and has always been freaking terrible, LasCannons are so 5th ed it hurts to bring them, heavy bolters are a joke, missle launchers are the worst weapon in the codex. The only list I could even see MAYBE working would some kind of Sternguard spam.

If you don't play SM competitively, make a list with plasma/lasconnons whereever grav would go and play against an eldar or Tau player and see how much fun that would be.

Mmmm feel that flawed logic. You can get toned down Eldar too you know.

My point still stands. The best way of fixing the game at present is removing the problems through nerfs or removal rather than some ludicrous buff everything idea. Grav is a good start.

 Xerics wrote:
Dropping 30 shots on a wraithknight with grav amps is a 99% kill rate to a wraithknight. And its not preventable. Grav should be strong like it is, but you shouldnt be able to just drop in and put the target on full blast from the distance grav gets. At least with melta you had to be in their face to a vehicle. Grav combines so much power from so far away with such a huge amount of shots. SOMETHING about the grav weapons needs to be toned down. Either the RoF goes down or the AP goes up a couple of notches. Drop the salvo and just make it 3 shots or keep the salvo but change salvo so that if a unit moves (relentless or not) it gets the reduced RoF.

Only until the primary targets are toned down as well. Not having grav cannons makes it impossible for BA to deal with the WK. Not having grav cannons makes it impossible to deal with Riptide.

 Xenomancers wrote:
Up your game...

LMFAO. Really? Up your game? So how come SM couldn't up their game then? Why should they get the "easy button" while a lot of other armies don't? Easy to say "up your game" when one army is given the tools and a lot of other armies don't have options to up their game.

 casvalremdeikun wrote:

 master of ordinance wrote:

 casvalremdeikun wrote:
Grav is what Space Marines get instead of Strength D weaponry. Grav is our answer to big things like Wraithknights, Riptides, and Stormsurges. It has to stay.

Cans my Guard trade our D for your Grav?

Probably not. But you should have been able to use D more effectively. And my Grav doesn't do squat against Necrons, whereas your D does.

why does your grav stop hurting vehicles just because they are necron vehicles? why does your grav not ignore armour saves on necron troops the way the do every other infantry in the game? Because where i play, grav most certainly can hurt necrons. It is still just as effective vs crons as every other army in the game. I dont run with any expensive vehicles or single point cost models in my armies (typically), and to me there is no question grav is far superior to D weapons. Grav is so good i cant remember the lastime i saw a plasmagun or meltagun in a space marine army. Why bring that stuff when grav can and will kill everything in the game. (and please dont bring up how it "struggles" vs hordes, hordes suck in this game and are a complete non factor in high level play.

PyrhusOfEpirus wrote:

 casvalremdeikun wrote:

 master of ordinance wrote:

 casvalremdeikun wrote:
Grav is what Space Marines get instead of Strength D weaponry. Grav is our answer to big things like Wraithknights, Riptides, and Stormsurges. It has to stay.

Cans my Guard trade our D for your Grav?

Probably not. But you should have been able to use D more effectively. And my Grav doesn't do squat against Necrons, whereas your D does.

why does your grav stop hurting vehicles just because they are necron vehicles? why does your grav not ignore armour saves on necron troops the way the do every other infantry in the game? Because where i play, grav most certainly can hurt necrons. It is still just as effective vs crons as every other army in the game. And when combined with the hunters eye or new space marine powers to ignore cover, makes it just as OP as D weapons.

You should ask why your Necron players can't play if Grav is just as good against them as other infantry.

pm713-I dont understand the point your trying to make.

ignoring armour of enemy units is amazing any way you slice it esecially when that gun benefits from re-rolls to hit and wound thanks to chapter tactics and grav amps. The gun has zero weakness in todays meta.

Martel732 wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
Relentless platforms is the big problem with Grav. Nobody really has issues with Grav on things like Tac Marines or Sternguard, but on things like Bikes and Centurions, where they work at max shots and max range with full mobility all the time, their supposed balancing factors inherent in the Salvo weapon type just go out the window and you get bike units running around toasing out 6 AP2 shots a turn with a 30" threat range or Centurions that deploy and dump 30 AP2 shots on a unit.

Also the cannon needs to be toned down. Drop it to Salvo 2/4 and drop the Grav Amp.

Finally, remove Grav's ability to affect vehicles. Being high RoF with AP2 and being able to kill 98% of vehicles with a couple of lucky 6's is a bit much, and negates the usefulness of Plasma having a relevant S value over Gravs bypassing of AV completely.

Make those changes and Grav will be useful, but not broken spam option it is now on some platforms.

That said, it was something of an answer to an unasked question in the first place to, doing what Plasma already did...but better.

This is only acceptable is additional tools for dealing with MCs are introduced. Giving stronger heavy weapons the ability to cause multiple wounds would be a good start.

I'd be prefer to see the problem MC's toned down. Drop a wound and FNP ability from the Riptide and suddenly Plasma guns are far more effective again for example. Stat and special rule inflation is what really needs to be reigned in.


Not that I think multiwound heavy weapons are a bad concept, but I just dont trust GW to manage that execution and additional layer of complexity at this point.

30 grav shots? I suppose you are talking about a squad of 6 centurions? Which can't ride in a pod and require at minimum at 125 point HQ with gates to be effective - then there are still cover saves (which are made 2+ with relative ease). Yep - thats a 700 point squad- IT SHOULD destroy things. Guess how many wounds that does vs a flying MC with 2+ cover? welp 1 in 6 shots hit and wounds gets passed the saves...so less than 1.

How about a squad of thunder-wolves with FNP and storm sheilds ? Averages less than a single dead wolf...and that's just with 4+ fnp...no librarius rerolling saves - no invisibility ether.

I'm to the point if you are complaining about anything other than rerolling saves and OP deathstars and psychic powers you are just a troll. Heck for the points of those centurains I can put 20 sterngard in 2 pods with combi meltas and destroy 2+ titans with ease...I guess meltas are OP huh?

Also another thing thats funny to me about grav is - it's hardly even use. There are 2 reasonable platforms to run them on...centurian deathstars and space marine bikes (and these are just grav guns - no reroll) Not that scary - your lists should be built to make bikes disappear or you aren't actually playing 40k and centurions aren't scary for their price because they have no mobility..

 Xenomancers wrote:
30 grav shots? I suppose you are talking about a squad of 6 centurions? Which can't ride in a pod and require at minimum at 125 point HQ with gates to be effective - then there are still cover saves (which are made 2+ with relative ease). Yep - thats a 700 point squad- IT SHOULD destroy things. Guess how many wounds that does vs a flying MC with 2+ cover? welp 1 in 6 shots hit and wounds gets passed the saves...so less than 1.

How about a squad of thunder-wolves with FNP and storm sheilds ? Averages less than a single dead wolf...and that's just with 4+ fnp...no librarius rerolling saves - no invisibility ether.

I'm to the point if you are complaining about anything other than rerolling saves and OP deathstars and psychic powers you are just a troll. Heck for the points of those centurains I can put 20 sterngard in 2 pods with combi meltas and destroy 2+ titans with ease...I guess meltas are OP huh?

Also another thing thats funny to me about grav is - it's hardly even use. There are 2 reasonable platforms to run them on...centurian deathstars and space marine bikes (and these are just grav guns - no reroll) Not that scary - your lists should be built to make bikes disappear or you aren't actually playing 40k and centurions aren't scary for their price because they have no mobility..

A post from someone doing the math.

ITT: People complaining about something that isn't even broken.

If Grav were as OP as people make it out to be, SM Gladius would be winning every event... yet it is Chaos and Eldar who seem to dominate consistently. The only SM lists that win regularly are deathstar based. Kinda pokes holes in the Grav is OP conversation....

Also, Grav is horrible against light tanks, horrible against light infantry and ATROCIOUS vs Daemons. Daemons are arguably the best faction (look at GT wins, in the last 2-3 years I am almost positive Daemons have the most wins) and are a hard counter to any list that relies on spamming Grav. Grav is also short-ranged and immobile considering its most effective form is the Grav Cannon, which, BTW, costs almost as much as a Necron Wraith and is generally taken by a 1W T4 model.

Anyone who has issues with Grav needs to get better at the game, it is exceedingly easy to premeasure the ranges on Grav and stay out of the first turn alpha. If the opponent is relying on Deepstriking Grav, well, he probably wont win too often because that list is pretty well countered by all the Ripwings and double Storm Surge armies.

Davor wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
Up your game...

LMFAO. Really? Up your game? So how come SM couldn't up their game then? Why should they get the "easy button" while a lot of other armies don't? Easy to say "up your game" when one army is given the tools and a lot of other armies don't have options to up their game.

Do you know what a D weapon is? Most armies have access to these in some way. Much better than grav.

Let me put this in perspective. BA have few problems with grav unitl invis or draigo or libby conclave get involved.

 LValx wrote:
ITT: People complaining about something that isn't even broken.

If Grav were as OP as people make it out to be, SM Gladius would be winning every event... yet it is Chaos and Eldar who seem to dominate consistently. The only SM lists that win regularly are deathstar based.

You mean like Centstars with Grav Cannons...?

Also, Grav is horrible against light tanks, horrible against light infantry and ATROCIOUS vs Daemons.

the first two of which are not significant meta challenges and all 3 are things which other common SM weaponry, including small arms, are often quite effective against.

Grav is also short-ranged and immobile

not if its on a Bike, Centurion, or Skyhammer Devastator.

considering its most effective form is the Grav Cannon, which, BTW, costs almost as much as a Necron Wraith and is generally taken by a 1W T4 model.

Not the T5 W2 iteration...?

Anyone who has issues with Grav needs to get better at the game, it is exceedingly easy to premeasure the ranges on Grav and stay out of the first turn alpha.

So drop pods, bikes, etc dont exist?

If the opponent is relying on Deepstriking Grav, well, he probably wont win too often because that list is pretty well countered by all the Ripwings and double Storm Surge armies.

which is great for Tau if they survive that turn 1 alpha strike which will likely target such units, but...for IG or CSM's or Grey Knights or Sisters or...?

Being in any kind of transport blunts grav alpha horribly. Also shw's eat up grav lists.

Martel732 wrote:
Let me put this in perspective. BA have few problems with grav unitl invis or draigo or libby conclave get involved.

Aboslutely - then - you stop and think a little bit. Figure with those combos of units you are capalbe of first turn charging half an army with invsible thunderwolves/wolfen/vangards/deathcompany....and you start to wonder why you would even bother with a unit that struggles to kill single models (aka riptide) and focus on destroying entire armies on turn 1.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Xerics wrote:
and if you try and get cover from a guardian blob to a wraithknight you are most likely gunna get laughed at.

Why do you think Eldar players take riptide wings? They do it so they can ensure their wraithknight gets into CC before someone tries to DP grav on it. Because interceptor hard counters grav.

PyrhusOfEpirus wrote:
pm713-I dont understand the point your trying to make.

ignoring armour of enemy units is amazing any way you slice it esecially when that gun benefits from re-rolls to hit and wound thanks to chapter tactics and grav amps. The gun has zero weakness in todays meta.

My point is that Grav is way less effective against necrons like every other armour ignoring weapon because Necrons are probably going to ignore half the wounds while nobody else will.

pm713 wrote:

PyrhusOfEpirus wrote:
pm713-I dont understand the point your trying to make.

ignoring armour of enemy units is amazing any way you slice it esecially when that gun benefits from re-rolls to hit and wound thanks to chapter tactics and grav amps. The gun has zero weakness in todays meta.

My point is that Grav is way less effective against necrons like every other armour ignoring weapon because Necrons are probably going to ignore half the wounds while nobody else will.

Grav vs Necron? Better off with heavy bolters. Thats what I put on my devs in my gladius - 4 heavy bolters. Good vs cron and deamon and bikes...its a gak weapon but all my weapons are gak compared to xenos - I have to bring free weapons just to be able to compete.

As a SM player I'd be happy to get rid of Grav Guns if all of our other heavy weapons weren't so painfully useless in the current meta. Missile launchers don't do squat, Plasma Cannons are arguably worse than Plasma Guns (!), Multi-Meltas both require you to stand still and move up with them (Wtf?!) and Lascannons don't pump out enough shots.

And let's not even talk heavy bolters.

 Ashiraya wrote:
And let's not even talk heavy bolters.

My god those things are op.

Xenomancers wrote:

Davor wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
Up your game...

LMFAO. Really? Up your game? So how come SM couldn't up their game then? Why should they get the "easy button" while a lot of other armies don't? Easy to say "up your game" when one army is given the tools and a lot of other armies don't have options to up their game.

Do you know what a D weapon is? Most armies have access to these in some way. Much better than grav.

Uhm, Tyranid player here. There is a reason why I gave up making Orks for my wife.

 Ashiraya wrote:
And let's not even talk heavy bolters.

Hey, there is a very specific build for Imperial Fists that let's you give all your Heavy Bolters twin-linked! How bad can things really be?!

But really though, if they overhauled the Space Marine heavy weapons to make the other weapons actually useful, I could handle Grav being taken down a little (get rid of the Immobilised for vehicles).

 Yarium wrote:

I think Grav should wound based on actual size category though, not based on armour save.

Infantry 6+
Bulky 5+
Very Bulky 4+
Monstrous 3+
Gargantuan 2+

This is worse than the current system It actively helps Space Marines and Tau while Hurting Tyranids and Daemons.

The reason I field Grav weapons in my force is to drop MEQ and TEQ.

 Vaktathi wrote:

Martel732 wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
Relentless platforms is the big problem with Grav. Nobody really has issues with Grav on things like Tac Marines or Sternguard, but on things like Bikes and Centurions, where they work at max shots and max range with full mobility all the time, their supposed balancing factors inherent in the Salvo weapon type just go out the window and you get bike units running around toasing out 6 AP2 shots a turn with a 30" threat range or Centurions that deploy and dump 30 AP2 shots on a unit.

Also the cannon needs to be toned down. Drop it to Salvo 2/4 and drop the Grav Amp.

Finally, remove Grav's ability to affect vehicles. Being high RoF with AP2 and being able to kill 98% of vehicles with a couple of lucky 6's is a bit much, and negates the usefulness of Plasma having a relevant S value over Gravs bypassing of AV completely.

Make those changes and Grav will be useful, but not broken spam option it is now on some platforms.

That said, it was something of an answer to an unasked question in the first place to, doing what Plasma already did...but better.

This is only acceptable is additional tools for dealing with MCs are introduced. Giving stronger heavy weapons the ability to cause multiple wounds would be a good start.

I'd be prefer to see the problem MC's toned down. Drop a wound and FNP ability from the Riptide and suddenly Plasma guns are far more effective again for example. Stat and special rule inflation is what really needs to be reigned in.


Not that I think multiwound heavy weapons are a bad concept, but I just dont trust GW to manage that execution and additional layer of complexity at this point.

Hit the nail in the head. When MCs got crazy, there needed to be a balancer. When MCS got gak like FNP, shrouded etc, that need became even more apparent. Grav is what does that. The effect it has on vehicles is just poor rule implementation. And a single Grav cannon costs as much as a damn drop pod (not counting the marine) unless you're running centurions (which are fairly easy to outplay) or bikes (who have 9 shots for 1 turn, 6 rest of the game, none rerolling ) you aren't getting the full shot output unless your opponent is dumb enough to let you stand still and hit him with a full salvo.

If people can't outplay grav, that's not the Grav players problem. I've been doing it with CSM for years and I can do it pretty well with bugs and I've only been running them for a few months. Grav serves a purpose. It's powerful on a very limited amount of platforms and once you've developed a counter-strategy to those platforms they become a lot less scary. If you want to whine about the damage output go ahead, but keep in mind a single Grav cent costs 15 points less than a flippin dreadnought. Stands to reason that a unit would have a ridiculous damage output against heavy infantry because grav was DESIGNED to take down anything wearing too much armor for its own good.

Now if you want to get rid of grav, I suggest you let marines replace them with plasma culverins/cavaliers and their heavy counterparts. I'd bet serious money there would be a whine thread about that in a week or so as well, even though it technically serves the same anti-mc anti-heavy infantry purpose.

That said there is some absolutely broken BS like gravstars and skyhammer that abuses the hell out of grav. In those cases bad rules design is to blame for the unit/formations, not the Grav rule itself.

Bottom line, if I have to deal with your infantry with 3 different saves, your riptide wings and GCs carrying ranged D well... when it comes to Grav that is much more situational than anything I just mentioned you can suck it up buttercup. If I can learn to counter the relentless units, anyone can.

I love all this advice as a GK player, apparently I just need to get good with my army. I had no idea.

Grav is broken because it 1 gun will ALWAYS get its points back. Grav just needs to have -1 shot on every current iteration AND pay for grav amps separately on Centurions. Bikes need to have a points increase for grav.

If you have to quote a universally acclaimed OP unit as why grav needs to exist you're an idiot. That unit just needs to be rebalanced itself.

It's not just the stupidly OP MC/GCs. It's all MCs worth their points that SM have trouble with if they don't have access to grav. I mean if it's a ranged SM army. I can go psykers /CC heavy and drop MCs, but that isn't very characteristic of IF or any shoot marines. You run GK? Ally in a detatchment of IG. Tarpit the cents and try to stay in cover (from bikes) until you can assault them. Or ally in Admech and laugh as your grav out-Gravs SM grav or wound spam the units to death with castellans. Or use your psychic advantage and shriek the scary units to death and buff your invulns.

I agree with you on the cost of Grav for bikes. It could use a 5 or 10 points increase per grav gun. Right now with them being the same price as plasma guns they are pretty much an auto include

 Quickjager wrote:
I love all this advice as a GK player, apparently I just need to get good with my army. I had no idea.

Grav is broken because it 1 gun will ALWAYS get its points back. Grav just needs to have -1 shot on every current iteration AND pay for grav amps separately on Centurions. Bikes need to have a points increase for grav.

If you have to quote a universally acclaimed OP unit as why grav needs to exist you're an idiot. That unit just needs to be rebalanced itself.

Yes My advice to you as a Greyknight player is to play a different army. Thatbis what I did as I started as a Greyknight player. Greyknights are not a stand alone army - they are an allied force at best in this edition. Being an army that is composed mostly of 2+ saves I understand your frustration with grav. To be quite honest though - you should be using grav yourself in the form of cent stars - you do it better than a marine army can.

Lol its the gravway or the highway
And termies are just acceptable collateral damage apparently : P

 oldzoggy wrote:
Lol its the gravway or the highway
And termies are just acceptable collateral damage apparently : P

And anything else with good armour. But SM's are happy at least.

 Quickjager wrote:
I love all this advice as a GK player, apparently I just need to get good with my army. I had no idea.

Grav is broken because it 1 gun will ALWAYS get its points back. Grav just needs to have -1 shot on every current iteration AND pay for grav amps separately on Centurions. Bikes need to have a points increase for grav.

If you have to quote a universally acclaimed OP unit as why grav needs to exist you're an idiot. That unit just needs to be rebalanced itself.

Then shave two wounds off your broken Dreadknight.

For 8th edition I would like to see 40k divided into the standard game and apoc level game - rules of which can be in the same book. Then things like D weapons and GMC and super heavies can be moved to apoc rules and grav weapons as well. Of course serious effort will need to be applied to balancing the game so that all armies can compete at each level. It would also mean that in standard 40K it would be easier to balance things so that basic units such as troops can be decent units to take.

I picture an old man in a chair telling tales when that was how things worked.

They need to shake up the rules. If they don't people won't buy any new models for their armies because their armies will already be perfect. People who don't buy models aren't making GW any money. Hard for me to talk though as I have at least 3 of all the units in my book except for 2. So unless they make howling banshees and shining spears amazing I won't need to buy anything for my Eldar regardless of how they change up the meta.

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Quickjager wrote:
I love all this advice as a GK player, apparently I just need to get good with my army. I had no idea.

Grav is broken because it 1 gun will ALWAYS get its points back. Grav just needs to have -1 shot on every current iteration AND pay for grav amps separately on Centurions. Bikes need to have a points increase for grav.

If you have to quote a universally acclaimed OP unit as why grav needs to exist you're an idiot. That unit just needs to be rebalanced itself.

Yes My advice to you as a Greyknight player is to play a different army. Thatbis what I did as I started as a Greyknight player. Greyknights are not a stand alone army - they are an allied force at best in this edition. Being an army that is composed mostly of 2+ saves I understand your frustration with grav. To be quite honest though - you should be using grav yourself in the form of cent stars - you do it better than a marine army can.

With some armies, this might be structurally true (e.g. Inquisition), but when the suggestions for playability for armies that really were designed as complete and whole armies is to play something else, at least in part, the game has broken and is in need of repair.

 Xerics wrote:
They need to shake up the rules. If they don't people won't buy any new models for their armies because their armies will already be perfect. People who don't buy models aren't making GW any money. Hard for me to talk though as I have at least 3 of all the units in my book except for 2. So unless they make howling banshees and shining spears amazing I won't need to buy anything for my Eldar regardless of how they change up the meta.

Here's the problem, at least from my perspective. Since they started dramatically ramping up absurd power levels, my purchasing has inversely dropped. I bought lots of stuff when I thought I could try out lots of different background concepts and force compositions and figured I could at least stand a chance with any of them in most situations, but now that it's just an arms race to pack in the biggest gun and who can field the most absurdly powerful stuff, I have zero desire to play that game and my purchasing has likewise dropped to zero.

Although if the rules shake up reduced the power levels wouldn't that increase your buying again?

pm713 wrote:
Although if the rules shake up reduced the power levels wouldn't that increase your buying again?

Sure, but not really for the same reasons, as the expected future would be far more stable. If pretty much everything was good and it just stayed *relatively* static, I'd probably buy tons more stuff to play around with. The constant flux and dramatic power swings and insane overpowering, coupled with the expectation that that'll be the norm for the foreseeable future, is what kills the desire to invest in more models. There's ways to get people with large collections to buy more stuff that doesn't involve directly mucking with unit power level. Introduce alternate army lists (e.g. Krieg Siege Regiment vs Codex Imperial Guard), campaign & mission rules which organically promote different unit types, and simply ensuring that all units are viable to encourage experimentation.

 Quickjager wrote:
I love all this advice as a GK player, apparently I just need to get good with my army. I had no idea.

Grav is broken because it 1 gun will ALWAYS get its points back. Grav just needs to have -1 shot on every current iteration AND pay for grav amps separately on Centurions. Bikes need to have a points increase for grav.

If you have to quote a universally acclaimed OP unit as why grav needs to exist you're an idiot. That unit just needs to be rebalanced itself.

Terminators die easily to other weapons anyway. Grav isn't special here. Terminators need a fix to their offensive capabilities anyway to have anyone take them. Grey Knights have what is almost the perfect Terminator, but it isn't enough.

Orks laugh at your grav guns !!!

I don't see them going anywhere in 8th.

We got Grav and Conversion beamers back from their hiatis. They'll likely ressurect some other 2nd edition weapon that got forgotten about in later editions.

Didn't Termagants have a web gun of some sort ?

I'm pretty sure they still have it. It's just terrible.

 adamsouza wrote:
Orks laugh at your grav guns !!!

Do they ? My MANZ, Transports and MEGA warbozzes are not a fan. My grots on the other hand are all for it.

 oldzoggy wrote:

 adamsouza wrote:
Orks laugh at your grav guns !!!

Do they ? My MANZ, Transports and MEGA warbozzes are not a fan. My grots on the other hand are all for it.

Your Manz, Transports, and Mega Warbozzes die to Plasma, Melta, and Lascannons, as well, which is what they'd be using if they didn't have Grav.

Your Boyz and Grotz bubble wrap on the other hand prefers the warm shower that Grav Guns deliver to them,

 adamsouza wrote:
[
Your Manz, Transports, and Mega Warbozzes die to Plasma, Melta, and Lascannons, as well, which is what they'd be using if they didn't have Grav.

No they don't and this is the real issue with grav. Grav is hyper efficient in killing TEQ on top of being good at monsters and vehicles. A melta or a lascannon will only kill 1 TEQ max while a grav amp cannon will do 5 wounds max with a single cannon.

Your Boyz and Grotz bubble wrap on the other hand prefers the warm shower that Grav Guns deliver to them,

No they don't at all. Boyz and Grots aren't viable as a bubble wrap at all for MANZ in this meta of high rate of fire and the limited amount of time your boyz and MANZ are allowed to be in the open. And it doesn't even protect them vs grav it just gives them a 5+ cover save thats all those cannons are still opeing fire right trough those grots. Bubble wrapping is vs assault or short range Melta tricks not mid range grav.

Martel732 wrote:

 Quickjager wrote:
I love all this advice as a GK player, apparently I just need to get good with my army. I had no idea.

Grav is broken because it 1 gun will ALWAYS get its points back. Grav just needs to have -1 shot on every current iteration AND pay for grav amps separately on Centurions. Bikes need to have a points increase for grav.

If you have to quote a universally acclaimed OP unit as why grav needs to exist you're an idiot. That unit just needs to be rebalanced itself.

Then shave two wounds off your broken Dreadknight.

How many wounds do you think a Dreadknight has? 6?

 Quickjager wrote:

Martel732 wrote:

 Quickjager wrote:
I love all this advice as a GK player, apparently I just need to get good with my army. I had no idea.

Grav is broken because it 1 gun will ALWAYS get its points back. Grav just needs to have -1 shot on every current iteration AND pay for grav amps separately on Centurions. Bikes need to have a points increase for grav.

If you have to quote a universally acclaimed OP unit as why grav needs to exist you're an idiot. That unit just needs to be rebalanced itself.

Then shave two wounds off your broken Dreadknight.

How many wounds do you think a Dreadknight has? 6?

How many does it have?

pm713 wrote:

 Quickjager wrote:

Martel732 wrote:

 Quickjager wrote:
I love all this advice as a GK player, apparently I just need to get good with my army. I had no idea.

Grav is broken because it 1 gun will ALWAYS get its points back. Grav just needs to have -1 shot on every current iteration AND pay for grav amps separately on Centurions. Bikes need to have a points increase for grav.

If you have to quote a universally acclaimed OP unit as why grav needs to exist you're an idiot. That unit just needs to be rebalanced itself.

Then shave two wounds off your broken Dreadknight.

How many wounds do you think a Dreadknight has? 6?

How many does it have?

4. With T7 and 4++

 Selym wrote:

pm713 wrote:

 Quickjager wrote:

Martel732 wrote:

 Quickjager wrote:
I love all this advice as a GK player, apparently I just need to get good with my army. I had no idea.

Grav is broken because it 1 gun will ALWAYS get its points back. Grav just needs to have -1 shot on every current iteration AND pay for grav amps separately on Centurions. Bikes need to have a points increase for grav.

If you have to quote a universally acclaimed OP unit as why grav needs to exist you're an idiot. That unit just needs to be rebalanced itself.

Then shave two wounds off your broken Dreadknight.

How many wounds do you think a Dreadknight has? 6?

How many does it have?

4. With T7 and 4++

Take one off it.

No its T6 with a 5++, then a 4++ if you get sanctuary off.

Where the hell did you get T7?

Googling. Three pages on dakka said T7.

His opponents dread knights look might look like this, and could be fan of forging the "rule of common sense" ; )

 Quickjager wrote:
No its T6 with a 5++, then a 4++ if you get sanctuary off.

Where the hell did you get T7?

The original leak for the 5E 5010 GK codex had those stats, it was an early production draft that leaked a month or two before the codex came out with the toned down revised stats.

 oldzoggy wrote:
His opponents dread knights look might look like this, and could be fan of forging the "rule of common sense" ; )

Yanno, I have never seen a Dreadknight irl.

 Yarium wrote:
No, "Grav Guns" are not going anywhere, but we could see them seriously revised.

The primary idea of Grav is cool. "Anti-Big Stuff, Poor Little-Stuff". Done better, Grav would be just as interesting as the choice between Plasma, Melta, or Flamer - my personal favourite choice in the game. But currently it's simply better than all of them, so why not except for points?

I think Grav should wound based on actual size category though, not based on armour save.

Infantry 6+
Bulky 5+
Very Bulky 4+
Monstrous 3+
Gargantuan 2+

This let's them be better than Melta or Plasma when targeting things like Monstrous Creatures, but poor against basic infantry. Slightly better against Terminators than against basic Infantry, but worse than Plasma at that job.

While I know this is from the front page, I had to exalt it and say I think this would be just about the perfect solution. It keeps in line with what gravs were in theory supposed to do without the extra collateral damage.

Without this change my best suggestion would be to make them AP4 or 5, they'd need a large point drop with that to compensate though.

AP4 or AP5 would kill the gun, it needs to keep AP2 but the volume of shots it has is ridiculous.

I have toyed with alternatives besides the one above. With GW pushing 32mm bases for SM it opened up a new idea of wounding based off of base size.

Wounding based off toughness was another idea, but that is just wonky. Why should a Nurgle unit take more wounds?

It all came down to me just wishing cover worked like it should, as a stacking save or as a BS modifier.

 oldzoggy wrote:
This is a simple one. Do you think Grav guns in its current form will survive the 8th edition ( whenever it comes out)

I hope not, Spammable AP2 is getting ridiculous.

I think based off size it could work, but you people are trying to kill it with your suggestions.

Swarms are wounded on 6+
Infantry 5+
Bulky 4+
Very Bulky 3+
Everything else 2+
6's strip a HP off a vehicle but don't immobilize it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 oldzoggy wrote:
His opponents dread knights look might look like this, and could be fan of forging the "rule of common sense" ; )

People can hate on the concept of allies all they want, but we can get some pretty fething fantastic pieces like this.

Just your friendly neighborhood Tyranid player with a short (by which I mean comprehensive) list of Monstrous Creatures. The list is divided up by "Competitive in spite of Grav" and "Noncompetitive (for reasons)" and does not include named MC or Gargantuan Creatures cause I don't feel like it...except for Wraithknights because screw them.

Competitive in spite of Grav:
Wraithknight
Riptide
Flying Hive Tyrant (but only because of the 'Hard to Hit' rule)
Flying Daemon Princes (but only because of the 'Hard to Hit' rule)
Canoptek Spyder (but only because of the Canoptek Harvest formation)

Noncompetitive (for reasons):
Bloodthirsters (all types)
Walking Daemon Princes
Keeper of Secrets
Lord of Change
Great Unclean One
Kastelan
Cronos
Talos
Wraithlord
Dreadknight
C'tan Shard (all types)
Transcendent C'tan
Walking Hive Tyrants
Tervigon
Tyrannofex
Haruspex
Maleceptor
Harpy
Hive Crone
Carnifex
Exocrine
Mawloc (except in the one meta-breaker Lictor Shame list that is no longer relevant)
Sporocyst
Tyrannocyte
Toxicrene
Trygon and Prime

While I'm sure I've forgotten an MC here or there, this the best list that a 10 minute search on Army Builder came up with. Needless to say if I've forgotten one then there's a good chance it's going in the Noncompetitive list. So let's take a look.

- I spy 5 competitive MC's that are 'Competitive'. 1, the Canoptek Spyder, is only competitive due to its role in a powerful formation. 2, the flying Hive Tyrant and Daemon Prince, are competitive due solely to the "Hard to Hit" rule in the main rulebook. Now the "Hard to Hit" rule is not the only thing they bring to the table, BUT neither MC is competitive without it. That leaves 2, the Wraithknight and Riptide, that are competitive on their own merits.
- 25 MC's, not including variations of Bloodthirsters, C'tans, etc, that are not competitive 'for reasons'. Those reasons come down to points cost, purpose or lack thereof, weak or even self-destructive rules, and an inability to stay alive long enough to serve any purpose due to weapons like grav among others. So we're left with 7-20% of the available MCs that are worth fielding in a given competitive game.

tl;dr - MCs are not broken. Wraithknights and Riptides are broken. MCs are not overpowered because they are better than vehicles. The rules for vehicles are weak and poorly designed. Any weapon that can take out a Wraithknight or Riptide in a single turn will slaughter all other MCs so efficiently that the dice rolling is almost superfluous. The weapon is not balanced. The weapon is not necessary. The weapon needs to be nerfed just as badly as those Wraithknights and Riptides that it kills so well.

MCs are pretty strong. They stand up against a lot more enemies than vehicles or infantry do.

Grav is extremely necessary againt elite mcs and gmcs. One can't spam grav guns because they are so bad vs vehicles. Cannons are much more spammable

You don't know what you're talking about, as you listed ALL Bloodthristers as uncompetitive, ignored that Mawlocs ARE competitive, said Dreadknights are not competitive, and that Ctan shards are used in that Conclave which actually helps them.

Also doesn't matter if the target is ONLY competitive because it's hard to hit, it's still competitive and high shots are necessary to kill it.

Of course the list is subject to change based on variations in people's local metas. However even if you accept that ALL Bloodthirsters are competitive, along with Mawlocs, Dreadknights, and ALL C'tan variants...that comes to 12 out of 33. Just over 1/3 of MC's that are competitive. 2/3 that have no place in any competitive list.

That situation is not even in the same county as 'balanced'. That is grotesquely skewed and that's for the unit type that is supposedly broken. Who knows what the situation is for infantry or, God help us, vehicles.

Hmm, not a bad list. Just missing the Avatar of Khaine and the Ghostkeel I think.
A bunch of others if also including forgeworld stuff. Pretty much all of which live on the non-competitive side, except for riptide variants.

 Quickjager wrote:
AP4 or AP5 would kill the gun, it needs to keep AP2 but the volume of shots it has is ridiculous.

I have toyed with alternatives besides the one above. With GW pushing 32mm bases for SM it opened up a new idea of wounding based off of base size.

Wounding based off toughness was another idea, but that is just wonky. Why should a Nurgle unit take more wounds?

It all came down to me just wishing cover worked like it should, as a stacking save or as a BS modifier.

You understand to get that amount of shots people pay a premium for relentless platform. The day people quit spamming bikes is the day the grav whining stops. Centurions minus gate are stupid easy to counter or kill and are balls expensive on top of it.

What I find bitterly funny about this...

Back in fifth edition, I made a Sisters of Battle fandex, with a vehicle mounted rotary heavy bolter called the Boltcannon. People made fun of me for it, saying it was ridiculous to try to have a bolt weapon. These days, there are two of these things (rotary version on the Avenger, and a regular version on the Castigator), and people just casually accept them as additions to the game.

A pity we won't be seeing them added to Sisters stuff any time soon.

Might as well add my ideas of melta-shells for an MBT's cannon, have the option of turning the exorcist into skyfire air unit annihilator, amongst the many other things that my fandex included, because even WITH all of them added in, it would still be pretty damn tame by seventh edition standards, with no really new concepts introduced, merely expanded upon.

Even worse: go back and tell people in 6th that scatterbikes will be a thing. They'd have had you committed to the looney bin.

Martel732 wrote:
Even worse: go back and tell people in 6th that scatterbikes will be a thing. They'd have had you committed to the looney bin.

This is true of so many things since about the end of 2013, stuff that was once the realm of late night 4chan hyperbole are now common reality. 2+ rerollable invul saves, scatterbikes, 35pt T6 Fearless infantry with D weapons, armies comprised of units from 3 different books getting all their upgrades and weapons options for free, etc ad nauseum.

Martel732 wrote:
Some MCs are pretty strong.

I fixed that for you.

The grav is out of the bag and included in the brand new Space Marine tactical squad box.

It isn't going anywhere.

The thing is, grav cannons are a really neat tool, gameplaywise, in how they function so differently than normal weapons. They need tweaking, IMO, not removal.

I can agree to that.

 Melissia wrote:
The thing is, grav cannons are a really neat tool, gameplaywise, in how they function so differently than normal weapons. They need tweaking, IMO, not removal.

I'd rather tweak invisibility and many other things first. It's not like grav is the only thing making terminators terrible.

I'd rather tweak 7th edition as a whole in a book burning and just play 5th edition, but to each their own.

Martel732 wrote:

 Melissia wrote:
The thing is, grav cannons are a really neat tool, gameplaywise, in how they function so differently than normal weapons. They need tweaking, IMO, not removal.

I'd rather tweak invisibility and many other things first. It's not like grav is the only thing making terminators terrible.

I've always found that argument hilarious. Grav didn't make your Terminators less durable or have gak damage output. They aren't used for a reason!

Also grav wouldn't be necessary if there weren't 200 pt models with the durability of a warhound titan. Or more durability even.

Martel732 wrote:
Also grav wouldn't be necessary if there weren't 200 pt models with the durability of a warhound titan. Or more durability even.

the problem there is that even with Grav, a lot of these units are absurdly hard to take down. Stuff like Necron Wraiths and TWC's, and even Riptides, can be stupidly immune to Grav, D, high S, AP2, and sheer volume of fire to boot.

Yeah. TBH grav is a good mechanic, it's just coming in at a bad time balance-wise.

 Melissia wrote:
Yeah. TBH grav is a good mechanic, it's just coming in at a bad time balance-wise.

I'm not sure I can even agree with this. 2+ and 3+ infantry are already in deep trouble in the meta. You need multi-wound models with invuln saves to survive. Grav is hilariously poor vs something like Wulfen.

Martel732 wrote:

 Melissia wrote:
Yeah. TBH grav is a good mechanic, it's just coming in at a bad time balance-wise.

I'm not sure I can even agree with this. 2+ and 3+ infantry are already in deep trouble in the meta.

Infantry in general are in deep trouble, aside from those that have ridiculous ways to avoid damage. But that has nothing to do with gravguns.

Martel732 wrote:

 Melissia wrote:
Yeah. TBH grav is a good mechanic, it's just coming in at a bad time balance-wise.

I'm not sure I can even agree with this. 2+ and 3+ infantry are already in deep trouble in the meta. You need multi-wound models with invuln saves to survive. Grav is hilariously poor vs something like Wulfen.

High ROF wounding on 4+ (often with rerolls) does not seem so bad?

Sure, they get a 3+ save if they buy storm shields, but whoever thinks it is hard to kill T4 3+ save infantry with high ROF weapons clearly has never faced tactical marines.

 Melissia wrote:

Martel732 wrote:

 Melissia wrote:
Yeah. TBH grav is a good mechanic, it's just coming in at a bad time balance-wise.

I'm not sure I can even agree with this. 2+ and 3+ infantry are already in deep trouble in the meta.

Infantry in general are in deep trouble, aside from those that have ridiculous ways to avoid damage. But that has nothing to do with gravguns.

The high shot ap2 stupidly easy to wound gun isn't a problem for infantry?

 Ashiraya wrote:

Martel732 wrote:

 Melissia wrote:
Yeah. TBH grav is a good mechanic, it's just coming in at a bad time balance-wise.

I'm not sure I can even agree with this. 2+ and 3+ infantry are already in deep trouble in the meta. You need multi-wound models with invuln saves to survive. Grav is hilariously poor vs something like Wulfen.

High ROF wounding on 4+ (often with rerolls) does not seem so bad?

Sure, they get a 3+ save if they buy storm shields, but whoever thinks it is hard to kill T4 3+ save infantry with high ROF weapons clearly has never faced tactical marines.

Wulfen have FNP and 2 wounds as well.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

pm713 wrote:

 Melissia wrote:

Martel732 wrote:

 Melissia wrote:
Yeah. TBH grav is a good mechanic, it's just coming in at a bad time balance-wise.

I'm not sure I can even agree with this. 2+ and 3+ infantry are already in deep trouble in the meta.

Infantry in general are in deep trouble, aside from those that have ridiculous ways to avoid damage. But that has nothing to do with gravguns.

The high shot ap2 stupidly easy to wound gun isn't a problem for infantry?

At least it has less range than the scatterlaser.

Martel732 wrote:


Wulfen have FNP and 2 wounds as well.

So a wulfen with a SS is 2.66 tactical marines.

They are not much cheaper than 2.66 tactical marines and can be IDed, so I still don't see the problem.

Against a grav gun, a wulfen w/SS is actually 10.6 tactical marines.

So against one unit it's slightly less good. Whoopty freaking do. That doesn't mean that gravguns, with their unique to-wound feature, have no place in 40k.

 Melissia wrote:
So against one unit it's slightly less good. Whoopty freaking do. That doesn't mean that gravguns, with their unique to-wound feature, have no place in 40k.

What place would you give it?

 Melissia wrote:
So against one unit it's slightly less good. Whoopty freaking do. That doesn't mean that gravguns, with their unique to-wound feature, have no place in 40k.

I never said that. I was just pointing out how they are not a cure-all.

Martel732 wrote:

 Melissia wrote:
So against one unit it's slightly less good. Whoopty freaking do. That doesn't mean that gravguns, with their unique to-wound feature, have no place in 40k.

I never said that. I was just pointing out how they are not a cure-all.

Which I wasn't saying, so why are you arguing with me?

I wasn't trying to argue. I thought you were arguing with me.