Would Grav still be good but less OP if instead of having AP2, it had AP - and part of it's special rule was that Armour saves taken against Grav wounds was at -2.

It would still wound vs Armour save and Immobilize AV on a 6, just as now, but it would not straight ignore Armour
A model with a 2+ armour, would need a 4+ to save a wound caused by Grav, 3+ needs 5+ and so on.

Is this a concise rule, or too many layers, a good fix or utterly pointless?
The goal is to balance Grav against Melta & Plasma making it still usefull, but not an auto-take over the other choices like it is now.
This might come with a slight points decrease for Grav Cannons
Thoughts?

-

Do this and give Riptides a 3+ and you have something going.

I won't disagree with that. Riptide should have 3+ armour basesd solely on the fact that every other Jet-pack suit is a 3+. Broadsides have a 2+ armour at the cost of NOT being Jet-pack.
It would be interesting if the Riptide could choose between being 2+, or 3+ with Jet-pack

But aside from the external balance of certain units, would this change to Grav keep it still viable yet give Melta & Plasma a reason to be taken as well?


-

I feel that Grav is fine at AP2, but the way it wounds should be different. It should wound base on the actual size of the target:

Infantry & Swarms: 6+
Bulky (Jump Infantry, Terminators, etc.): 5+
Very Bulky (Bikes, Ogryn, etc.): 4+
Monstrous Creatures: 3+
Gargantuan Creatures: 2+

In effect, this makes it be something very unique compared to the other weapons. It's very good (still) against big stuff, but very weak (but still serviceable) against small stuff.

That's an awful chart and makes it effectively useless against even regular Monstrous Creatures.

6+ for swarms
5+ for infantry
4+ for Bulky
3+ for Very Bulky
2+ for anything bigger

 Ashiraya wrote:
Do this and give Riptides a 3+ and you have something going.

And Dreadknights. Or increase both of their costs by a huge amount.

 Galef wrote:
Would Grav still be good but less OP if instead of having AP2, it had AP - and part of it's special rule was that Armour saves taken against Grav wounds was at -2.

It would still wound vs Armour save and Immobilize AV on a 6, just as now, but it would not straight ignore Armour
A model with a 2+ armour, would need a 4+ to save a wound caused by Grav, 3+ needs 5+ and so on.

Is this a concise rule, or too many layers, a good fix or utterly pointless?
The goal is to balance Grav against Melta & Plasma making it still usefull, but not an auto-take over the other choices like it is now.
This might come with a slight points decrease for Grav Cannons
Thoughts?

-

I honestly think it'd be cool to see Rend in 40k. As a universal rule. It'd be uncommon-but I think it'd be a nice addition.

So yes, I think that'd be cool.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
That's an awful chart and makes it effectively useless against even regular Monstrous Creatures.

6+ for swarms
5+ for infantry
4+ for Bulky
3+ for Very Bulky
2+ for anything bigger

How is that useless against Monstrous Creatures? Most, though not all, MC's are armour save 3+. This means this change would make them nearly exactly the same effectiveness against Monstrous Creatures. Besides, I think that Grav is broken anyways, so I'm all for weakening it (and it's fine to give it a points discount in doing so).

Wounding on Armour save is already unique and 40K has enough charts. The reason I am against Grav having AP is that AP is Armour PIERCING value. How do waves of blunt energy "peirce" anything. Weaken the armour, sure, but pierce it, no.

But if you want to wound vs unit type, than I'd base if off Bulky only
5+ against all normal units
4+ if Bulky
3+ if Very Bulky
2+ if Extremely Bulky

That keeps it simple, yet specializes it to large things

-

 Galef wrote:
Wounding on Armour save is already unique and 40K has enough charts. The reason I am against Grav having AP is that AP is Armour PIERCING value. How do waves of blunt energy "peirce" anything. Weaken the armour, sure, but pierce it, no.

But if you want to wound vs unit type, than I'd base if off Bulky only
5+ against all normal units
4+ if Bulky
3+ if Very Bulky
2+ if Extremely Bulky

That keeps it simple, yet specializes it to large things

-

Counter-argument, how does armor protect you from increased gravity?

Depends on the gravity. If your armour is really strong it will just weigh you down, but not actually be crushed.
But I can see the merits your counter-argument and overall, GW chose the simplest possible solution. But AP2 on something that often wounds on 2+/3+ and re-rolls to wound with lots of shots is a bit much.

Maybe Grav-amps are the real problem. Take those away and Grav-cannons suddenly aren't that effective.

-

 Galef wrote:
Depends on the gravity. If your armour is really strong it will just weigh you down, but not actually be crushed.

Can't believe I'm seeing the day I defend grav. I'd agree that your really strong armor is weighing you down, and I'd further say that is what the wound is. Keep in mind, reducing a model to 0 wounds doesn't necessarily mean it's dead, just that it's a casualty and can't fight any longer. Would a space marine really kill itself landing on terrain with a bike? Maybe, but it's more likely he just got some rocks kicked up and damaged the bike, or hit some unevenness and wiped out and messed up the frame or broke a component. The marine is fine, but he's out of action. Same for terminator armor; it's super heavy, and suddenly it's even heavier. That terminator isn't going anywhere the rest of the battle, but he's still alive in there and the armor may even be undamaged and usable again. I'll grant this explanation really only works for 1W models, but that's just the limitation of the game system.

Martel732 wrote:

 Ashiraya wrote:
Do this and give Riptides a 3+ and you have something going.

And Dreadknights. Or increase both of their costs by a huge amount.

Dreadknights at least have to get very close to do their damage. Riptides can shoot you from a table away.

 Galef wrote:

Maybe Grav-amps are the real problem. Take those away and Grav-cannons suddenly aren't that effective.

-

We have a winner.

 Ashiraya wrote:

Martel732 wrote:

And Dreadknights. Or increase both of their costs by a huge amount.

Dreadknights at least have to get very close to do their damage. Riptides can shoot you from a table away.

DreadKnights aren't even in the same class as Riptides. Both cost around 220-225 pts when optimally decked out, yet the DK does NOT have FNP, has 1 less wound and no way to access a 3++
I would agree that DKs are just as deadly in CC as Riptides are at range, and I'd even go so far as to say the DKs are better at range than Riptides are at CC, but the shorter range at which the DK needs to be to do any kind of damage plus the ease at which it can be killed, easily makes the Riptide a better overall choice.

Back on topic though, I concede that Grav being AP2 makes sense, but Grav-amps need to go the way of the Squats.

-

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
That's an awful chart and makes it effectively useless against even regular Monstrous Creatures.

6+ for swarms
5+ for infantry
4+ for Bulky
3+ for Very Bulky
2+ for anything bigger

This is the direction I'd kind of like to see grav weapons go. It steps on plasma's toes less, is still better at killing MCs than melta, but isn't anywhere near as good at hurting small stuff as other weapons. The -2 to armor saves idea might not be a bad thing to mix with this. Sure, carapace armor should basically crumple the guy inside, but I could see something like terminator armor being designed with enough structural integrity to not crush its wearer when in areas of increased gravity.

I'd argue that this chart is not, in fact, all that unwieldy as you basically just start with a base to-wound (6+ in this case), and then add one for every degree of bulky. Are you bulky? +1 to the to-wound roll. Very bulky? +2. Bigger? +3. Although I think I'd go with Galef's chart where you start at 5+ for everything that isn't bulky, but that's mostly a nitpick.

Under this system, how about simply having grav amps count the target as being one size larger?

Any T6 2+ model should be very expensive, but the Riptide should be considerably more than a DK, I agree. FNP Riptide should be around 300 pts easy, if not more.

Wyldhunt wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
That's an awful chart and makes it effectively useless against even regular Monstrous Creatures.

6+ for swarms
5+ for infantry
4+ for Bulky
3+ for Very Bulky
2+ for anything bigger

This is the direction I'd kind of like to see grav weapons go. It steps on plasma's toes less, is still better at killing MCs than melta, but isn't anywhere near as good at hurting small stuff as other weapons. The -2 to armor saves idea might not be a bad thing to mix with this. Sure, carapace armor should basically crumple the guy inside, but I could see something like terminator armor being designed with enough structural integrity to not crush its wearer when in areas of increased gravity.

I'd argue that this chart is not, in fact, all that unwieldy as you basically just start with a base to-wound (6+ in this case), and then add one for every degree of bulky. Are you bulky? +1 to the to-wound roll. Very bulky? +2. Bigger? +3. Although I think I'd go with Galef's chart where you start at 5+ for everything that isn't bulky, but that's mostly a nitpick.

Under this system, how about simply having grav amps count the target as being one size larger?

And if the target is wounded on a 2+ you get the reroll.

Now it just strips HP on a 6 and I'm still taking them always but they're less bad.

Hey, lets make a topic about subtle, or maybe not so subtle changes to grav weapons to make them more in-line with game standard weapons.

RIPTIDES SUCK, YEAH SCREW RIPTIDES! OP undercostsed...

go make another riptides op thread to beat that dead horse.

Personally, Galef, i think your change goes a bit to far on grav, by allowing 2+ armor a 4+ save, it makes it lose its purpose, making it overwhelming versus armor 5+, which doesn't need anymore help beating down 5+ armor.

grav amps maybe could extend the range 3-6" instead of re-rolling wounds?

Riptides are of direct relevance here as they are one of the top justifications for grav being in the game. Along with the WK, DK and Stormsurge. Those models simply aren't vulnerable to regular imperial heavy weapons on the time scale of a 40K game.

Riptides are WHY we can't nerf grav weapons back towards standard weapons, because Riptides are functionally immune to said standard weapons.

I am not so sure that grav need a nerf. As is it is not even a flat upgrade on the bolter like a plasma gun is.

Martel732 wrote:
Riptides are of direct relevance here as they are one of the top justifications for grav being in the game. Along with the WK, DK and Stormsurge. Those models simply aren't vulnerable to regular imperial heavy weapons on the time scale of a 40K game.

Riptides are WHY we can't nerf grav weapons back towards standard weapons, because Riptides are functionally immune to said standard weapons.

Yes, because Plasma, Melta, Assault Cannons, Sniper Rifles, Sternguard SIA all do nothing to a Riptide. Silly us, thinking Riptides are vulnerable to more than just Grav.

 JNAProductions wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Riptides are of direct relevance here as they are one of the top justifications for grav being in the game. Along with the WK, DK and Stormsurge. Those models simply aren't vulnerable to regular imperial heavy weapons on the time scale of a 40K game.

Riptides are WHY we can't nerf grav weapons back towards standard weapons, because Riptides are functionally immune to said standard weapons.

Yes, because Plasma, Melta, Assault Cannons, Sniper Rifles, Sternguard SIA all do nothing to a Riptide. Silly us, thinking Riptides are vulnerable to more than just Grav.

You ever try drowning a 3++ Stimtide with just the weapons you listed? Mathematically it takes a staggering amount.

Also Assault Cannons are terrible against Riptides LOL

Plasma takes 5*1.5*3*1.5*1.5 shots, or 50.625 to take him down. That's 25 Plasma Guns-not really feasible.

Melta takes 5*1.5*3*(6/5)*1.5 shots, or 40.5 shots to take him down. That's 40 Meltas-not really feasible.

Hellfire Rounds take 5*1.5*6*(6/5)*1.5 shots, or 81 shots to take him down. That's 40 Sternguard-actually not bad at all. It's more points than a Riptide, but it'll delete a Riptide a turn, and most other units too.

Assault Cannons and Snipers wound and save the same, and I outsourced that math. But it takes 202.5 shots from them on average. That's 202 Scouts-yeah, not really feasible.

Switching wholesale from AP over to save mods would make almost everything less OP.

 JNAProductions wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Riptides are of direct relevance here as they are one of the top justifications for grav being in the game. Along with the WK, DK and Stormsurge. Those models simply aren't vulnerable to regular imperial heavy weapons on the time scale of a 40K game.

Riptides are WHY we can't nerf grav weapons back towards standard weapons, because Riptides are functionally immune to said standard weapons.

Yes, because Plasma, Melta, Assault Cannons, Sniper Rifles, Sternguard SIA all do nothing to a Riptide. Silly us, thinking Riptides are vulnerable to more than just Grav.

That's actually not too far off the truth. Which is the exact problem. DKs are similar, but lack FNP and 3++, which makes them easier.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 JNAProductions wrote:
Plasma takes 5*1.5*3*1.5*1.5 shots, or 50.625 to take him down. That's 25 Plasma Guns-not really feasible.

Melta takes 5*1.5*3*(6/5)*1.5 shots, or 40.5 shots to take him down. That's 40 Meltas-not really feasible.

Hellfire Rounds take 5*1.5*6*(6/5)*1.5 shots, or 81 shots to take him down. That's 40 Sternguard-actually not bad at all. It's more points than a Riptide, but it'll delete a Riptide a turn, and most other units too.

Assault Cannons and Snipers wound and save the same, and I outsourced that math. But it takes 202.5 shots from them on average. That's 202 Scouts-yeah, not really feasible.

No list will have 40 sternguard survive to double tap range. Out of 40, you'd be lucky to get to shoot with 25 because of interceptor.

That means Riptides are the problem, not Grav. Saying something broken can't be fixed because you need that broken thing to help control another broken thing just proliferates the problem - it doesn't solve it. Fixing grav is fine, AND fixing Riptides would be fine.

 Yarium wrote:
Fixing grav is fine, AND fixing Riptides would be fine.

I think the simplest fix for both (without bumping points cost, games are inflated enough) would be to drop Grav-Amps out of existence and make Riptides have 3+ armour.

Although bumping the cost of EWO for Riptides would also really help. It's a 5pt upgrade that drastically improves the manner at which the Riptide defends itself.
Similar to how Stims cost differently for Riptides, so should EWO. I'm thinking 20pts at least

Grav is the Marine answer to Riptides & WKs. I get that, but it shouldn't be their answer to everything else too. Dropping Grav-Amps would make Meltas/Multi-meltas more appealing since Grav cannons would no longer get to re-roll against Armour.
Grav would still be better than Plasma sadly....unless we find a way to not have Grav be AP2. Oh yeah, AP- & Armour saves -2 since the armour is weakened by the extra gravity.

I love bringing it full circle

-

 Yarium wrote:
That means Riptides are the problem, not Grav. Saying something broken can't be fixed because you need that broken thing to help control another broken thing just proliferates the problem - it doesn't solve it. Fixing grav is fine, AND fixing Riptides would be fine.

Grav is the product of swallow-the-spider-to-catch-the-fly balancing, yes. Given that Riptides and Dreadknights are dramatically more of a problem that Wraithlords, Daemon Princes, and Carnifexes I will hazard a guess and say that the key points of divergence from the MC norm are 2+ armour, Inv. and high mobility put together on a cheap platform with highly-effective ranged weapons.

Quick-and-dirty suggestions: Riptide loses jump/shoot/jump, gets pushed to somewhere between 220-250pts starting, and can't use stimulant injectors. I can't give quick-and-dirty fixes for the Dreadknight since it's in a book with such terrible internal balance, any nerf probably has to come with a more comprehensive overhaul (though pushing it to at least 150pts starting and tearing up the concept of giving it a shunt move would be a great start).

(Addendum: the 1d4chan Angry Initiative's alpha draft made the Riptide a 12-11-11 5-HP Walker with a 6++ and dropped the Dreadknight to T5, both interesting ideas even if not good final answers)

As far as grav if giant armoured MCs and absurdly-cheap GCs (*cough*Wraithknights*coughcough*) didn't exist it would be completely unnecessary in its current form and could be replaced with Forge World/2e grav that actually adds another thing to do with special weapons instead of partially/wholly overriding melta and plasma with a more efficient tool for the same tasks.

Grav Cannons are a "Heavy" and fire a number of shots equal to the unit's majority toughness minus 2; versus Vehicles, Hull Points minus 1. So versus Space Marines, they fire twice. Versus Wraithknights, 6 times. Versus Rhinos, 2 times. Versus Land Raiders, 3 times. Etc.

This makes them more the specialized "Monster-Killer" rather than the "Delete armies" option.

I think lots of these ideas are good in conjuction with getting rid of 2+ armor MCs. And maybe get rid of free FNP for GMCs or make GMCs far more expensive.

Martel732 wrote:
I think lots of these ideas are good in conjuction with getting rid of 2+ armor MCs. And maybe get rid of free FNP for GMCs or make GMCs far more expensive.

Most GMCs are fine. Most GMCs aren't Wraithknights.

(If Wraithknights were 450-500ish points they'd be reasonable too)

 AnomanderRake wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
I think lots of these ideas are good in conjuction with getting rid of 2+ armor MCs. And maybe get rid of free FNP for GMCs or make GMCs far more expensive.

Most GMCs are fine. Most GMCs aren't Wraithknights.

(If Wraithknights were 450-500ish points they'd be reasonable too)

Supremacy armor is a problem for sure.

Personally, I would prefer:

-Instant Death/Vehicle Destroyed-Explodes/effects replaced with "Massive Damage" (An extra D3 wounds/HP with no FNP/saves of any kind).
-Rework the Stomp Mechanic. I'll post that separately.

 Yarium wrote:
I feel that Grav is fine at AP2, but the way it wounds should be different. It should wound base on the actual size of the target:

Infantry & Swarms: 6+
Bulky (Jump Infantry, Terminators, etc.): 5+
Very Bulky (Bikes, Ogryn, etc.): 4+
Monstrous Creatures: 3+
Gargantuan Creatures: 2+

In effect, this makes it be something very unique compared to the other weapons. It's very good (still) against big stuff, but very weak (but still serviceable) against small stuff.

I like this in general, but why not go further?

Make both the AP AND the to-wound based on the target.

Infantry and swarms: 6+ to wound, AP 6
Bulky: 5+ to wound, AP 5
Very Bulky: 4+ to wound, AP 4
Monstrous Creatures: 3+ to wound, AP 3
GMCs: 2+ to wound, AP 3

And then just stipulate in advance that no monstrous creature or GMC may have an armor save better than 3+. If you want 2+ armor, then get TEQ infantry.

You want to kill MEQs and TEQs? Then take plasma weapons.

If you further get rid of the grav amp and stipulate that grav weapons cannot deal hull points of damage to vehicles, I think that you end up with a fairly reasonable, well balanced weapon.

And then nobody takes Grav weapons because your suggestion is terrible, as is most of them.

If MCs/GMCs are capped at 3+ and lose FNP, then you can get rid of grav.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
And then nobody takes Grav weapons because your suggestion is terrible, as is most of them.

Why would nobody take grav? Why is this too big of a nerf? Why is the suggestion terrible?

Give reasons. Use your words.

In defense of my proposal:

It would leave grav as the best weapon against its designated target (MCs and GMCs) and make it less effective against the things that its not supposed to be shooting against.

Sure, it would suck against MEQs, TEQs, etc., but then that's what other weapons are for.

If you think that it would suck against MCs and GMCs without the grav amp, then simply insert a rule that says that grav weapons get the shred special rule against MCs and GMCs.

 Traditio wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
And then nobody takes Grav weapons because your suggestion is terrible, as is most of them.

Why would nobody take grav? Why is this too big of a nerf? Why is the suggestion terrible?

Give reasons. Use your words.

In defense of my proposal:

It would leave grav as the best weapon against its designated target (MCs and GMCs) and make it less effective against the things that its not supposed to be shooting against.

Sure, it would suck against MEQs, TEQs, etc., but then that's what other weapons are for.

It would be because the weight of fire wouldn't make it viable over just taking Plasma Guns. You're lacking this thought.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:It would be because the weight of fire wouldn't make it viable over just taking Plasma Guns. You're lacking this thought.

Let's do the math. Assuming 12 inch range and that both have moved, and assuming further that no 1s are rolled (a big disadvantage for plasma guns):

Roughly 4 plasma shots vs. 3 grav shots against a T8 GMC:

The plasma shots would deal:

4/1 X 2/3 X 1/3 = 8/9 wounds

Vs:

3/1 X 2/3 X 5/6 = 30/18 wounds

Grav would be better against wraithknights.

You are cherry picking the best example there. You double your wounds on a GMC with T6, like the Stormsurge, and while Wraithknights are annoyingly common nowadays, not nearly as common as ordinary monstrous creatures.

 JNAProductions wrote:
You are cherry picking the best example there. You double your wounds on a GMC with T6, like the Stormsurge, and while Wraithknights are annoyingly common nowadays, not nearly as common as ordinary monstrous creatures.

Solution: Replace the salvo profile with an assault profile, and give it a number big enough to justify using it over a plasma cannon vs something like a storm surge or a carnifex, but not big enough that it's an auto take.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Assuming a 30 point grav cannon of the kind I have described with an Assault 4 profile vs a carnifex. And also assuming that no 1s are rolled:

4 plasma shots vs. a carnifex:

4/1 X 2/3 X 2/3 = 16/9 wounds

4 grav shots vs. a carnifex:

4/1 X 2/3 X 2/3 = 16/19 wounds

Ok, so there you go.

Assault 4 would make plasma and grav exactly equivalent vs. something like a carnifex at 12 inch range.

Grav would get twice the shots at 24 inches of range.

Just get rid of it and make MCs as vulnerable as vehicles.

Martel732 wrote:
Just get rid of it and make MCs as vulnerable as vehicles.

You can't get rid of grav at this point. The bits exist and they are ubiquitous in peoples' armies.

I agree that at least certain (G)MCs should be more vulnerable, but that's with or without grav.

Getting rid of grav cannons would be like getting rid of missile launchers. I'd be enormously PO'ed because I have 10 of them in my main army.

What's needed is a re-balance, not a squatting.

Unlike the Tau. They just flat out need a squatting.

You can absolutely get rid of grav. There are alternate configurations for every unit that has access to grav.

Martel732 wrote:
You can absolutely get rid of grav. There are alternate configurations for every unit that has access to grav.

You don't understand what I'm saying.

What are you going to tell the people who have already glued grav cannons onto their marines?

"You can't use that model any more"?

"You can use it, but youll have to snap off that bit and replace it with something else"?

What about people who specifically purchased a bunch of grav cannons bits on ebay, or purchased new devastator kits specifically for the grav cannons?

They tolerate all manner of other abuses from GW. I'd happily remodel all my grav units for the good of the game. I hate using BA devastators anyway. I don't think BA should even have devastator marines to begin with. They are the antithesis of how BA operate.

Martel732 wrote:
They tolerate all manner of other abuses from GW. I'd happily remodel all my grav units for the good of the game. I hate using BA devastators anyway. I don't think BA should even have devastator marines to begin with. They are the antithesis of how BA operate.

You are very much in the minority. Most of us LIKE our models.

What does remodeling have to do with liking the models? I have to remodel every time they change editions. My 5th ed army is practically unused at this point because it all sucks now.

Martel732 wrote:
What does remodeling have to do with liking the models? I have to remodel every time they change editions. My 5th ed army is practically unused at this point because it all sucks now.

You don't have to win every game. What about people who just think Grav-Cannons look cool?

 JNAProductions wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
What does remodeling have to do with liking the models? I have to remodel every time they change editions. My 5th ed army is practically unused at this point because it all sucks now.

You don't have to win every game. What about people who just think Grav-Cannons look cool?

Maybe plasma cannons LOOK cool, but I can't use them because GW made them awful.

Martel732 wrote:
Maybe plasma cannons LOOK cool, but I can't use them because GW made them awful.

Or you can, you know, use them anyway. Martel, the game is about having fun-and most people have fun just by playing it. You don't need to win every game.

I'm struggling to be on the table by turn 4 most games. Winning is usually a fool's quest. I can't afford "rule of cool" models.

Martel732 wrote:Maybe plasma cannons LOOK cool, but I can't use them because GW made them awful.

I don't think that plasma cannons are awful. They are useful enough in their intended roles. Against a terminator squad that just deepstruck? Plasma cannons rock. Against a terminator squad that just fell out of an exploded landraider? Plasma cannons rock.

Against a space marine bike squad that you need to force to jink? Plasma cannons are great.

Plasma cannons should and could be a lot better, but I don't think it's fair to say that they're awful. They're awful relative to competitive metas.

Against the whole spectrum of warhammer 40k, I think that they're ok.

Every small template weapon is awful. Because small templates suck. Except for TFC and Wyvern, because they fire a ton of them.

Let's put it this way. I'm stuck with the BA armory, and I wouldn't consider touching plasma cannons. They don't get it done vs enemy #1: MCs/GMCs.

Martel732 wrote:
Every small template weapon is awful. Because small templates suck. Except for TFC and Wyvern, because they fire a ton of them.

Let's put it this way. I'm stuck with the BA armory, and I wouldn't consider touching plasma cannons.

Ok. I tell you what. You run a boat load of deep striking terminators. I'll run a boat load of plasma cannons.

Tell me how bad you think small templates after after you lose.

Martel732 wrote:
I'm struggling to be on the table by turn 4 most games. Winning is usually a fool's quest. I can't afford "rule of cool" models.

What army do you play? And, probably more importantly, what's your local meta like? Because I can think of a few reasons why that is.

1-You play a really weak army like CSM. In which case, ask your opponents to bring softer lists-unless they're butts, they should be fine with it.

2-You play in a crazy competitive meta, in which case, you can either get on their level or try to find a new gaming space.

I play BA. Which might as well be CSM.

There's one main place in town, and people like their cuthroat lists. Which BA can't really dent, even with new book.

Here's the situation: there is no list tailoring. So everyone comes with a list and gets a random opponent. There is no changing the list after opponent assignment. So the Eldar have to assume they are playing other Eldar or Tau.

I also wish to point out that people expect way too much of their models, and that this is just symptomatic of how bad power creep is.

A marine with plasma cannon is 29 points. If you kill a single terminator, you've made the points back for that marine.

Martel732 wrote:
I play BA. Which might as well be CSM.

There's one main place in town, and people like their cuthroat lists. Which BA can't really dent, even with new book.

You... You really shouldn't be getting TABLED. Not unless you're really bad at the game. BA aren't good, but they certainly aren't either CSM or get tabled every game bad.

Edit: Saw your edit. That sounds like a constant tournament, not regular pick-up gaming.

 Traditio wrote:
I also wish to point out that people expect way too much of their models, and that this is just symptomatic of how bad power creep is.

A marine with plasma cannon is 29 points. If you kill a single terminator, you've made the points back for that marine.

There's a lot more to the game than making points back. There's a good chance that marine will never even get to fire the plasma cannon since scatbikes can first strike plasma cannons.

 Traditio wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Every small template weapon is awful. Because small templates suck. Except for TFC and Wyvern, because they fire a ton of them.

Let's put it this way. I'm stuck with the BA armory, and I wouldn't consider touching plasma cannons.

Ok. I tell you what. You run a boat load of deep striking terminators. I'll run a boat load of plasma cannons.

Tell me how bad you think small templates after after you lose.

He wouldn't lose because Plasma Cannons are that awful. As someone that's proxied a MT force several times and used Deep Strike, I wouldn't be afraid whatsoever of Plasma Cannons.

Hell, I'd thank you for bringing a lousy list to make it easier for me to win.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 JNAProductions wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
I play BA. Which might as well be CSM.

There's one main place in town, and people like their cuthroat lists. Which BA can't really dent, even with new book.

You... You really shouldn't be getting TABLED. Not unless you're really bad at the game. BA aren't good, but they certainly aren't either CSM or get tabled every game bad.

Edit: Saw your edit. That sounds like a constant tournament, not regular pick-up gaming.

As someone that plays in a similar area, it isn't hard to table CSM, Dark Eldar, and Blood Angels.

Considering the other weapons around the game that ruin balance, I think grav is needed. If you have to change it though, all units hit by grav can make a 6+ saving throw against it and the to wound roll is still based on the saving throw.

Makes it still stagger in it's power, being more deadly against tough targets than weak units yet gives some save.

You know, what inspired this idea is one of the old mission supplements. There are rules for fighting in a vaccum. Basically all weapons gained Rending due to the pressure being released if even a small breech was made.
I really think that -2 to armour save is just as unique an affect for Grav as "wounding on the armour save". It represenst the affect of the increased gravity exerting more pressure, thus weakening the armour.

GW seems to be bringing back lots of old rules and I seem to remember armour save modifiers being more common at some point (just before my time though). What makes Grav so much better than Melta or Plasma is that it has the shots to do enough HPs that Melta is less useful, yet also has more shots than Plasma while having the same AP.

If you want Grav to be Mairne's "jack-of-all-trades" weapon, that is fine, but "master-of-none" is the second part of that expression and no one seems to have informed the design team.
Which is why I originally suggest AP-, with -2 to armour, as this makes Plasma now better at taking out 2+-/3+ armour targets. Remove Grav Amps, and Melta takes the edge back against AV. Now you can lower the cost of Grav-Cannons by 5-10 pts, since it will take more of a hit here than the Grav gun.

-

 JNAProductions wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
I play BA. Which might as well be CSM.

There's one main place in town, and people like their cuthroat lists. Which BA can't really dent, even with new book.

You... You really shouldn't be getting TABLED. Not unless you're really bad at the game. BA aren't good, but they certainly aren't either CSM or get tabled every game bad.

Edit: Saw your edit. That sounds like a constant tournament, not regular pick-up gaming.

It's how we eliminate the kind of list tailoring that causes disputes.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Galef wrote:
You know, what inspired this idea is one of the old mission supplements. There are rules for fighting in a vaccum. Basically all weapons gained Rending due to the pressure being released if even a small breech was made.
I really think that -2 to armour save is just as unique an affect for Grav as "wounding on the armour save". It represenst the affect of the increased gravity exerting more pressure, thus weakening the armour.

GW seems to be bringing back lots of old rules and I seem to remember armour save modifiers being more common at some point (just before my time though). What makes Grav so much better than Melta or Plasma is that it has the shots to do enough HPs that Melta is less useful, yet also has more shots than Plasma while having the same AP.

If you want Grav to be Mairne's "jack-of-all-trades" weapon, that is fine, but "master-of-none" is the second part of that expression and no one seems to have informed the design team.
Which is why I originally suggest AP-, with -2 to armour, as this makes Plasma now better at taking out 2+-/3+ armour targets. Remove Grav Amps, and Melta takes the edge back against AV. Now you can lower the cost of Grav-Cannons by 5-10 pts, since it will take more of a hit here than the Grav gun.

-

Save modifiers were a nightmare. Loyalist marines were completely unplayable.

Martel732 wrote:
Save modifiers were a nightmare. Loyalist marines were completely unplayable.

That sounds more like an argument for implementing save mods intelligently than for not having them, at least to me.

I don't think slotting save mods into one spot in 40k and walking away is the answer, but if implemented correctly they could make high AP values/high armour saves a lot more relevant.

It's almost impossible to cost correctly. By the time you have a modest -2 to the save, you've turned power armor into flak armor.

You'd have to go to a D10 system, at a minimum to make it work. It's unworkable on a D6.

Martel732 wrote:
It's almost impossible to cost correctly. By the time you have a modest -2 to the save, you've turned power armor into flak armor.

You'd have to go to a D10 system, at a minimum to make it work. It's unworkable on a D6.

...It's easier to cost correctly than all-or-nothing AP is. When an AP2 weapon is six times as effective as an AP3 weapon against 2+ armour and exactly as effective against anything else trying to find a general solution for cost-effectiveness isn't going to happen.

That said I've been working on a save mod system for my skirmish-game project and I have come across the stat range problem you're talking about, I've had to make extensive modifications to other basic assumptions to compensate (In brief armour is usually better, AP is usually worse, and in the spirit of making more of your stuff relevant more of the time I've replaced Invulnerable saves with effects that negate some or all of incoming AP).

Martel732 wrote:
It's almost impossible to cost correctly. By the time you have a modest -2 to the save, you've turned power armor into flak armor.

Flak armour vs. AP- is still 33% chance to live. Power Armour vs Ap2 is hoping you have cover.

It's is important to note that his would have little affect against Riptides. Currently, they are forced to take their 3++. With armour -2, they would still take their 3++ over the 4+ armour save.
It also would change very little against WKs, who would either take a 5+ armour, or their 5++.

Only against Riptides that (for some reason) did not Nova Charge their ++, or WKs without the shield, would my version of Grav be worse than it is now.
But since in both those cases, Plasma/Melta still wouldn't be any better, I'll concede the point. Armour modifiers would be cool in small doses, but simplicity wins out
I'd be happy if Grav-Amps go extinct. With tactical doctrines and the Demi-company bonuses, Marines get to re-roll hits for 2+ turns and then re-roll wound with Grav-Amps. Guaranteed, no psychic powers needed. It sucks that the have that ability, but it sucks even more that they need it to compete with Eldar & Tau.

-

 Galef wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
It's almost impossible to cost correctly. By the time you have a modest -2 to the save, you've turned power armor into flak armor.

Only against Riptides that (for some reason) did not Nova Charge their ++, or WKs without the shield, would my version of Grav be worse than it is now.


-

say the riptide decided it wanted a 4d6" assault thrust, or wanted/needed to nova for best chance to crack armor 14 at any range beyond 9" from crisis suit? or rolled a 2? or a 1 and not within 6" of another riptide in the formation? or is really close to a tank and wanted to double tap its meltas trying to explode that land raider? there are quite a few occasions to have 5++ over 3++

 Yarium wrote:
I feel that Grav is fine at AP2, but the way it wounds should be different. It should wound base on the actual size of the target:

Infantry & Swarms: 6+
Bulky (Jump Infantry, Terminators, etc.): 5+
Very Bulky (Bikes, Ogryn, etc.): 4+
Monstrous Creatures: 3+
Gargantuan Creatures: 2+

In effect, this makes it be something very unique compared to the other weapons. It's very good (still) against big stuff, but very weak (but still serviceable) against small stuff.

We've been down this road before.

Absolutely not. That's great in theory, but in practice? It won't really do what you want it to.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Yarium wrote:
I feel that Grav is fine at AP2, but the way it wounds should be different. It should wound base on the actual size of the target:

Infantry & Swarms: 6+
Bulky (Jump Infantry, Terminators, etc.): 5+
Very Bulky (Bikes, Ogryn, etc.): 4+
Monstrous Creatures: 3+
Gargantuan Creatures: 2+

In effect, this makes it be something very unique compared to the other weapons. It's very good (still) against big stuff, but very weak (but still serviceable) against small stuff.

We've been down this road before.

Absolutely not. That's great in theory, but in practice? It won't really do what you want it to.

Oh? Why not? As you say, it sounds great in theory. It makes grav really solid for taking down big stuff but less good at taking on little things or vehicles. So it's not stepping on the toes of melta (dedicated anti-tank), high rate of fire weapons (heavy bolters, etc. are better against infantry), and wounds more often against big things than plasma but less often against small things than plasma. Why doesn't this work out in practice?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Martel732 wrote:
It's almost impossible to cost correctly. By the time you have a modest -2 to the save, you've turned power armor into flak armor.

You'd have to go to a D10 system, at a minimum to make it work. It's unworkable on a D6.

If you had armor reduction be confined pretty much just to grav weapons (and maybe the occassional other special weapon), then a flat -2 to armor saves is pretty easy to keep balanced. It's not as good against 3+ or worse armor as AP3, but it's better than AP3 against 2+ saves. It's worse against terminators than plasma, but better against Wraith Knights due to its volume of fire and lack of gets hot. This isn't my favorite solution, but having armor reduction as a special rule on specific weapons (rather than making it a thing on all weapons all the time like back in the day) seems easy enough to do.

And, not to derail the thread into yet another armor reduction discussion, but there are ways to make armor reduction work in a d6 system. For instance, give various suits of armor a "Fortitude" stat or whatever you want to call it. For instance, power armor might have Fortitude 1. Fortitude would be a modifier of another weapon's armor reduction. So if a power sword had armor reduction 2 but power armor has Fortitude 1, the marine being attacked would have a 4+ save instead of a 3+. Against relatively small arms fire with only a small amount of armor reduction (like a shuriken catapult with armor reduction 1, for instance), Fortitude would essentially cancel out the armor reduction.

Maybe make Gravs a default AP 4 or 3 and Grav amount improve it to 3 or 2 if the unit remains stationary, this would give Centurions a slightly different role to their power armoured equivalents.

Also agree that MC and GMC should be limited to SV3+ unless they are very encumber slow (like a superheavy tank is)

Wyldhunt wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Yarium wrote:
I feel that Grav is fine at AP2, but the way it wounds should be different. It should wound base on the actual size of the target:

Infantry & Swarms: 6+
Bulky (Jump Infantry, Terminators, etc.): 5+
Very Bulky (Bikes, Ogryn, etc.): 4+
Monstrous Creatures: 3+
Gargantuan Creatures: 2+

In effect, this makes it be something very unique compared to the other weapons. It's very good (still) against big stuff, but very weak (but still serviceable) against small stuff.

We've been down this road before.

Absolutely not. That's great in theory, but in practice? It won't really do what you want it to.

Oh? Why not? As you say, it sounds great in theory. It makes grav really solid for taking down big stuff but less good at taking on little things or vehicles. So it's not stepping on the toes of melta (dedicated anti-tank), high rate of fire weapons (heavy bolters, etc. are better against infantry), and wounds more often against big things than plasma but less often against small things than plasma. Why doesn't this work out in practice?

The whole reason why is that grav is, as it stands, the only "modern" weapon in the Imperial arsenal. Basically everything else is designed with the earlier rules sets as the basis.

Grav is intended to be a weapon that:
A) Has a high ROF
B) Is meant to put Wounds down range on targets with high Armor saves and Toughness; often times with many Wounds. Also can potentially mess with vehicles.
C) Has a high points cost
D) Has a high opportunity cost(Salvo being affected quite heavily by moving)

There is no reason for it to not be good at "taking on little things or vehicles". The whole basis of Grav is a fluff point, it uses the mass of a target(represented by the save of the target) against it. The table given does nothing to really solve the issue of Grav being so heavily prevalent in Imperial armies that have access to it.

That issue? The other options are, putting it politely, absolutely useless for what they are. Why would I put a Lascannon on a Devastator when I could take a Grav Cannon instead?

 Kanluwen wrote:
Why would I put a Lascannon on a Devastator when I could take a Grav Cannon instead?

That's EXACTLY why Grav needs to be changed. The issue isn't that Grav kills big things too well, it's that it kills EVERYTHING too well. It'd be much simpler to nerf Grav (and hey, reduce the points, that's fine too!) with this change so that it's not the only weapon necessary. The game's list design, and the impact of that list design on game-play, is intrinsically an economic problem. Like economic problems, everything has an opportunity cost. Take, for example, a simple question:

"Which heavy weapon do I give my Devastator?"

There's a few of potential ways to view the opportunity cost here. First, there's the points cost. If I take the highest cost item, it means I've got less points in my army to spend on other things. Second, there's the cost of not taking ANY weapon, meaning that you save on points, but then you're playing with one less heavy weapon. There's the cost of having the wrong weapon in the wrong situation; a Lascannon is great against a vehicle, but a Heavy Bolter is much better when shooting at Eldar Guardians due to the Heavy Bolter's higher rate of fire. At the same time, it really sucks to have that Heavy Bolter when shooting at a Battle Tank.

In the real world economy, it's very rare that something happens which completely displaces all other mediums of exchange. It doesn't matter how good you are at one thing, you still need other things to achieve equilibrium (no matter how good you are at mining iron, you can't eat iron, and no matter how good you are at growing potatoes, you can't build structures out of potatoes). In a game with reasonable and strategically complex and rewarding choices, the question of "which weapon do I take?" has to be a real question, and not one with a single correct answer. This forces players to always use a mix of options and rewards skilled players for making better guesses as to the correct answer, while also insuring that their best guess will not always be correct. Personally, I feel that the balance between Flamers, Plasma, and Melta are one of the best pieces of balance in gaming.

- Flamers are good versus Hordes and classic Deep Strike where you were forced to "bunch up". It has the shortest range, meaning it was more a defensive weapon, or one that needed to be on a very fast platform. It has the most narrow of uses. It has the lowest points cost (and some editions/codexes even gave it for free).
- Meltaguns are good versus Tanks and enemies with very high toughness values. It has short range, but enough that it could still cause harm by units that were aggressive and on the go. It could kill almost anything though, so had a less narrow range. It had an in-between points cost.
- Plasma Guns are good versus Heavy Infantry, and can function reasonably against both hordes and the big stuff, though doesn't do so as well as Flamers and Meltaguns. This gives it the largest range of uses. It has an in-built weakness as well though (Gets Hot), yet still has the highest points cost.

Between these three, there was no single "correct" option. Plasma was somewhat the default, but you were always over-paying, and would often lose these models over the course of the game to their own attacks. Worst of all, there were plenty of opponents where either the standard bolter was quite nearly just as good (Guardsmen, Gaunts, Orks), and other situations where Plasma was useless (Land Rainders, Leman Russ Tanks, AV13 or better really). This meant that even if you went all-plasma, you were easily punished for doing so.

Now, Grav is a problem, because grav is generally just the "best" choice, with no real downside. It does cost more points, but that's generally negated by being the best weapon for the job, and thus being worth those extra points. There's nearly no battlefield where you would rather you took a Flamer, a Meltagun, or a Plasma Gun when instead you took a Grav Gun. Against Heavy Infantry you get more shots than a Plasma Gun, making it better (and without the chance of burning your own face off). Against really big things, it's as good or better than Meltaguns, totally wasting the point of a Meltagun against everything but a super-heavy. The only thing Grav isn't good against are the very weakest troops in the game (things with 5+ and 6+ armour), but even in that situation, you're engaging them at a longer range than a Flamer can, and you're still getting enough shots for it to matter.

So, saying that the other options are bad, and that's why grav shouldn't be nerfed, isn't an answer. As I've stated many times before; saying you need something broken in order to deal with broken things doesn't reduce the amount of broken things in a game. You just proliferate it instead.


PS. Grav has a very low opportunity cost, as it still has a high rate of fire even if it moved, which is pretty rare in today's environment as so, SO many things don't even count as moving when firing grav. It's almost a joke how Salvo is one of the most do-nothing rules in the game given how most things with Salvo don't suffer from Salvo.

 Yarium wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
Why would I put a Lascannon on a Devastator when I could take a Grav Cannon instead?

That's EXACTLY why Grav needs to be changed. The issue isn't that Grav kills big things too well, it's that it kills EVERYTHING too well. It'd be much simpler to nerf Grav (and hey, reduce the points, that's fine too!) with this change so that it's not the only weapon necessary.

That's a nonsense answer, putting it politely. The reason Grav kills everything so well is because it is a weapon platform which was designed by the current design philosophies.

The game's list design, and the impact of that list design on game-play, is intrinsically an economic problem. Like economic problems, everything has an opportunity cost. Take, for example, a simple question:

"Which heavy weapon do I give my Devastator?"

There's a few of potential ways to view the opportunity cost here. First, there's the points cost. If I take the highest cost item, it means I've got less points in my army to spend on other things. Second, there's the cost of not taking ANY weapon, meaning that you save on points, but then you're playing with one less heavy weapon. There's the cost of having the wrong weapon in the wrong situation; a Lascannon is great against a vehicle, but a Heavy Bolter is much better when shooting at Eldar Guardians due to the Heavy Bolter's higher rate of fire. At the same time, it really sucks to have that Heavy Bolter when shooting at a Battle Tank.

Lascannons are not great against vehicles. 1 shot with AP2 and the potential to fail an Armor Penetration roll is not great.
Heavy Bolters are better when shooting at Eldar Guardians not only because of the Heavy Bolter's "higher rate of fire" but also because it does not have the rule of wounding based on armor saves.

In the real world economy, it's very rare that something happens which completely displaces all other mediums of exchange. It doesn't matter how good you are at one thing, you still need other things to achieve equilibrium (no matter how good you are at mining iron, you can't eat iron, and no matter how good you are at growing potatoes, you can't build structures out of potatoes). In a game with reasonable and strategically complex and rewarding choices, the question of "which weapon do I take?" has to be a real question, and not one with a single correct answer. This forces players to always use a mix of options and rewards skilled players for making better guesses as to the correct answer, while also insuring that their best guess will not always be correct. Personally, I feel that the balance between Flamers, Plasma, and Melta are one of the best pieces of balance in gaming.

- Flamers are good versus Hordes and classic Deep Strike where you were forced to "bunch up". It has the shortest range, meaning it was more a defensive weapon, or one that needed to be on a very fast platform. It has the most narrow of uses. It has the lowest points cost (and some editions/codexes even gave it for free).
- Meltaguns are good versus Tanks and enemies with very high toughness values. It has short range, but enough that it could still cause harm by units that were aggressive and on the go. It could kill almost anything though, so had a less narrow range. It had an in-between points cost.
- Plasma Guns are good versus Heavy Infantry, and can function reasonably against both hordes and the big stuff, though doesn't do so as well as Flamers and Meltaguns. This gives it the largest range of uses. It has an in-built weakness as well though (Gets Hot), yet still has the highest points cost.

Between these three, there was no single "correct" option. Plasma was somewhat the default, but you were always over-paying, and would often lose these models over the course of the game to their own attacks. Worst of all, there were plenty of opponents where either the standard bolter was quite nearly just as good (Guardsmen, Gaunts, Orks), and other situations where Plasma was useless (Land Rainders, Leman Russ Tanks, AV13 or better really). This meant that even if you went all-plasma, you were easily punished for doing so.

Well except when you're playing Guard, because of the fact that now your Plasma and Meltaguns are priced the same as Space Marines for some reason, despite not having the same delivery methods etc.

Now, Grav is a problem, because grav is generally just the "best" choice, with no real downside. It does cost more points, but that's generally negated by being the best weapon for the job, and thus being worth those extra points. There's nearly no battlefield where you would rather you took a Flamer, a Meltagun, or a Plasma Gun when instead you took a Grav Gun. Against Heavy Infantry you get more shots than a Plasma Gun, making it better (and without the chance of burning your own face off). Against really big things, it's as good or better than Meltaguns, totally wasting the point of a Meltagun against everything but a super-heavy. The only thing Grav isn't good against are the very weakest troops in the game (things with 5+ and 6+ armour), but even in that situation, you're engaging them at a longer range than a Flamer can, and you're still getting enough shots for it to matter.

So, saying that the other options are bad, and that's why grav shouldn't be nerfed, isn't an answer. As I've stated many times before; saying you need something broken in order to deal with broken things doesn't reduce the amount of broken things in a game. You just proliferate it instead.

And as I've stated many times before, pretending that everything else is fine is pure ridiculousness.

Grav outshines those other options because it is a weapon built under the current design philosophies. It is a weapon which actually has the ROF necessary to be competitive in the current climate. Unless you overhaul every single rule within the game, tweak MCs and buff vehicles? There's no point to taking anything not Grav, unless the other weapons see a buff or Grav sees a nerf to the point where Marines and Cult Mechanicus will just find some other 'magic bullet' option.

PS. Grav has a very low opportunity cost, as it still has a high rate of fire even if it moved, which is pretty rare in today's environment as so, SO many things don't even count as moving when firing grav. It's almost a joke how Salvo is one of the most do-nothing rules in the game given how most things with Salvo don't suffer from Salvo.

Bikes and Centurions are the only things which "don't even count as moving when firing grav".

Devastators, Tactical Squads, and Sternguard Veteran Squads(the only other platforms which can take Grav) do not have a rule allowing them to count as stationary beyond Psyker buffs or unique one off rules.

And guess what? Not every Marine army has access to Centurions as part of their "super detachments". Raven Guard can only take Grav in their Pinion Demi-Companies(a single Devastator Squad) or in the other formations with Tactical/Sternguard Squads--or Grav Pistols in the myriad of Assault and Vanguard formations.

I'm not sure I understand your "current design philosophies". Do you mean that we need to learn to accept the way GW designs things right now? A sort of "live with things as they are" approach? Or do you mean that GW's current designs, in your opinion, result in better gameplay practices? A sort of "this is how I want things to be" approach?

In the first case, I'd say that I understand where you're coming from - but hey, so long as we're making up rules in this forum anyways, there's no reason to not live the dream and imagine that things will stop getting more broken. I don't agree with their current design philosophies, so for me, a weapon designed using those philosophies is something definitely worth nerfing.

In the latter case, I'd say that I disagree with your opinion. GW's current design philosophies result in a game that is less enjoyable and is not the game that I learned to love playing.

As to your other points; saying that Lascannons aren't good against vehicles is ignoring the point. The point is that, according the the design philosophy I believe results in strong gameplay, it's healthy to have weapons do different kinds of things and to be better choices in different situations. Having any weapon being better at everything destroys that. And sure, there's a number of units that suffer from Salvo. However, as I stated, that is a result of "today's environment", meaning that it's a weakness that is very easily managed. I find that Tacticals are generally a "I'm taking this because I have to" unit, rather than a unit taken because the player enjoys tacticals. Same goes for Devastators. Sternguard, admittedly, are taken outside of that, but hey, players seem to take them for the Special Ammo anyways.

He means you can't nerf grav in a vacuum. Their overall point assignment system is much worse than grav alone.

I think what Kanluwen is saying basically boils down to:

1. "Old" weapons like lascannons are bad because they were designed for editions with different assumptions. Lascannons specifically kind of stink because you can only ever deal a single hull point of damage despite its high cost unless you get lucky enough to score an explodes result.

2. Grav doesn't need to be nerfed despite being the best choice because being the "best" is the result of the weapon being designed with current forms of gameplay in mind. A lascannon only doing 1 wound or HP stinks, but a gun that can hurt GMCs while also helping against vehicles or heavy infantry is quite potent.

Personally, I lean towards your view of things, Yarium. Flamers, plasma, melta, etc. all being more or less balanced against one another and all having their own roles makes for interesting and fun decisions as a gamer. Grav weapons, for whatever reason, overshadow several other options making them a "must take" and thus making it a "bad idea" to take anything else form a mechanics point of view.

Personally, I think that grav, the new kid on the block who's ruffling the feathers of people he hasn't figured out how to get along with, should find its own niche. If flamers kill light infantry and ignore cover, melta kills vehicles, and plasma offers something close to melta but without quite as much effect against vehicles, I think grav should be restructured to focus on killing big things.

And that's why I like the idea of it wounding based on size. It gives it a niche the others don't fill (it will be better versus GMCs and riptides and so forth than plasma). It doesn't step on the toes of plasma as much (plasma would be better against heavy infantry), but they can both still be used against a variety of targets.

TLDR; While some imperial weapons could probably stand to be buffed to reflect the current game, it doesn't mean that grav should overshadow all other options just by virtue of being new.

Wyldhunt wrote:
I think what Kanluwen is saying basically boils down to:

1. "Old" weapons like lascannons are bad because they were designed for editions with different assumptions. Lascannons specifically kind of stink because you can only ever deal a single hull point of damage despite its high cost unless you get lucky enough to score an explodes result.

2. Grav doesn't need to be nerfed despite being the best choice because being the "best" is the result of the weapon being designed with current forms of gameplay in mind. A lascannon only doing 1 wound or HP stinks, but a gun that can hurt GMCs while also helping against vehicles or heavy infantry is quite potent.

Correct. It's also not necessary to nerf Grav weapons by themselves since the weapons are really only available to Codex: Astartes units and Cult Mechanicus Kataphron servitors.

If Grav was in every single army? Different story.

Personally, I lean towards your view of things, Yarium. Flamers, plasma, melta, etc. all being more or less balanced against one another and all having their own roles makes for interesting and fun decisions as a gamer. Grav weapons, for whatever reason, overshadow several other options making them a "must take" and thus making it a "bad idea" to take anything else form a mechanics point of view.

Personally, I think that grav, the new kid on the block who's ruffling the feathers of people he hasn't figured out how to get along with, should find its own niche. If flamers kill light infantry and ignore cover, melta kills vehicles, and plasma offers something close to melta but without quite as much effect against vehicles, I think grav should be restructured to focus on killing big things.

Grav's schtick is dealing with heavily armored things reliably, while being wildly ineffective against lightly armored, non-vehicle models.


You want to know how to fix the 'legacy' weapons? Actually get someone to sit down and think about them. Don't just halfcock a nerf to grav to try to artificially boost up the others.

To give an example, let's look at Plasma Cannons.
Who realistically uses Plasma Cannons?
They're a Small Blast weapon that can potentially blow your models up and are fairly expensive, while unable to be Snap Fired because of the Blast.
The same thing goes with Plasma Guns and Plasma Pistols; they're Rapid Fire(but not really because Rapid Fire is an archaic rule at this point; Salvo is everything that Rapid Fire should have been) and distinctly "Meh".

That's not even going into the fact that Plasma weapons (and Melta, Lascannon, Rocket Launcher, and Heavy Bolters and all the melee options...) are obscenely expensive for Guard for whatever reason now.

How do we fix Plasma? We look at the role we want it to have.
We want something that can deal with heavy infantry and light vehicles and middle of the road monsters, right?
Variable modes are a way to do so:

Plasma Cannon (Overcharged): S9 AP1 Large Blast, Heavy 1, Gets Hot, Critical Overload[When you fail a Gets Hot save; place the Large Blast marker over the wielder and resolve the hits against], Plasma Discharge[Successful To Wound rolls with Plasma weapons cause surrounding models to be injured by the discharging energies. Resolve a Wound against models(friend or foe) within 2" of the unit using the Plasma Cannon's weapon profile.]
Plasma Cannon (Stable): S7 AP2 Large Blast, Heavy 3 Plasma Discharge
Plasma Cannon (Suppressive Fire): S4 AP4 Salvo 3/5 Gets Hot, Plasma Discharge


All of a sudden, Plasma Cannons actually start to sound interesting don't they?

And that's why I like the idea of it wounding based on size. It gives it a niche the others don't fill (it will be better versus GMCs and riptides and so forth than plasma). It doesn't step on the toes of plasma as much (plasma would be better against heavy infantry), but they can both still be used against a variety of targets.

TLDR; While some imperial weapons could probably stand to be buffed to reflect the current game, it doesn't mean that grav should overshadow all other options just by virtue of being new.

I get that you really want the "size" thing to become a thing, but I don't. It makes no realistic sense. It just happens to align to the whole Bulky thing...but why would it be great against those "size" targets but not great against vehicles?

The point of Grav, fluffwise, is it uses the mass of the target against itself. A lightly armored huge target is going to be less affected by Grav than a heavily armored small target would be.

 Kanluwen wrote:
All of a sudden, Plasma Cannons actually start to sound interesting don't they?

That's one way of putting it. A plasma cannon with three large blast shots would be blatantly overpowered. Remember, a 3-shot small blast plasma cannon is considered powerful enough to be the main gun on a heavy tank (LR Executioner). A 3-shot plasma cannon with large blasts is the main gun on a superheavy tank (Macharius Omega). And your proposed version is even better, with no "gets hot" and extra wounds from "plasma discharge". As an infantry heavy weapon your proposed plasma cannons are an automatic win against anything short of high-AV tanks.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kanluwen wrote:
I get that you really want the "size" thing to become a thing, but I don't. It makes no realistic sense. It just happens to align to the whole Bulky thing...but why would it be great against those "size" targets but not great against vehicles?

Because a heavily-armored infantry target can fall and break a leg because of too much weight on a joint. A tank that suddenly weighs more than it normally does is just going to sit there on its tracks, and maybe dig into the ground a bit more. You're not going to inflict meaningful damage against vehicles until you get into "make it heavier" levels that make grav an auto-kill fluff-wise against every possible target.

 AnomanderRake wrote:
Switching wholesale from AP over to save mods would make almost everything less OP.

I agree with this a lot. AoS feels great when weapons cause multiple wounds with varying amounts of Rend values. The hit/wound still feels wonky, but it's passable.

@Kanluwen: I see your point. I absolutely support going through and looking at buffing up the "legacy" weapons the imperium has access to. By all means, let's go through and do that (in another thread). I just also want to make sure that grav is filling a niche after that rebalance rather than being the best choice like it is now. And with that in mind, grav might need to possibly be tweaked or nerfed at that point.

So let's boost the weak weapons up to reasonable levels, but let's also make sure grav has a specific role.

As for why grav would work well against larger creatures but not necessarily against vehicles, I figured that was the result of vehicles being relatively mechanically sound. Their structures are designed to take a ton of weight. You might break your suspension or whatever (immobilized result), but the thing is designed to take rockets to the face and shake them off by virtue of its sturdy build. Meanwhile a wraith knight that suddenly weighs a lot more has to worry about snapping its knee when it takes an ill-advised high-gravity step. That's how I see it in my head anyway.

Wyldhunt wrote:
...As for why grav would work well against larger creatures but not necessarily against vehicles, I figured that was the result of vehicles being relatively mechanically sound. Their structures are designed to take a ton of weight. You might break your suspension or whatever (immobilized result), but the thing is designed to take rockets to the face and shake them off by virtue of its sturdy build. Meanwhile a wraith knight that suddenly weighs a lot more has to worry about snapping its knee when it takes an ill-advised high-gravity step. That's how I see it in my head anyway.

The problem with this one is that the distinction between 'Monstrous Creature' and 'Walker' is frequently pretty arbitrary. Why is a Dreadknight more likely to snap its knee than a Sentinel? Why is a Wraithlord more likely to snap its knee than a War Walker?

Grav guns I think are fine although maybe they could use a slight points increase to 20 points. Grav cannons I think are the bigger problem which I think could be easily fixed by simply removing grav-amps and the ability to reroll wounds/armor pens.

Grav guns should stay 15 pts. The other ones should get cheaper.

 AnomanderRake wrote:

Wyldhunt wrote:
...As for why grav would work well against larger creatures but not necessarily against vehicles, I figured that was the result of vehicles being relatively mechanically sound. Their structures are designed to take a ton of weight. You might break your suspension or whatever (immobilized result), but the thing is designed to take rockets to the face and shake them off by virtue of its sturdy build. Meanwhile a wraith knight that suddenly weighs a lot more has to worry about snapping its knee when it takes an ill-advised high-gravity step. That's how I see it in my head anyway.

The problem with this one is that the distinction between 'Monstrous Creature' and 'Walker' is frequently pretty arbitrary. Why is a Dreadknight more likely to snap its knee than a Sentinel? Why is a Wraithlord more likely to snap its knee than a War Walker?

I think we're treading near the "why isn't the storm surge a vehicle" territory with that one. Personally, I kind of like the idea of getting rid of AV entirely and switching over to a toughness system, essentially turning walkers into MCs with the "vehicle (walker)" rule.

 NInjatactiks wrote:
Grav cannons I think are the bigger problem which I think could be easily fixed by simply removing grav-amps and the ability to reroll wounds/armor pens.

Martel732 wrote:
Grav guns should stay 15 pts. The other ones should get cheaper.

I support both of these statements

I don't think grav guns/cannons need nerfs at all.

Grav cannons should be Necron weapons

Seriously. There's no way a plasma gun is worth 15 pts anymore. Not when there are troops getting 4+ reanimation vs them. And MCs that need 40 plasma guns worth of firepower to die.

I've actually been playtesting a dynamic 40k points system that rebalances every cost based on community feedback. IMO, it should be:
- Flamers: 5
- Plasmagun: 10
- Melta: 10
- Grav-gun: 15
- Heavy Bolter: 5
- Heavy Flamer: 10
- Multi-Melta: 10
- Missile Launcher: 15 w/flakk
- Plasma Cannon: 15
- Lascannon: 20
- Grav-cannon: 40 or maybe 45

Nothing can really be drastically changed in a vacuum. That's the problem. Under the current rules, a lascannon is 10 pts tops. Maybe 5.

I wouldn't be that dramatic about it. Lascannons still have a place thanks to range and high strength. Unless you're fighting on a table with a ton of LoS blocking terrain or constant drop pods. Maybe the other problem is people are playing with too much terrain.

 NInjatactiks wrote:
I wouldn't be that dramatic about it. Lascannons still have a place thanks to range and high strength.

Low ROF completely kills them. High STR means nothing, the AP means little. MCs laugh all day and super heavies don't care either. Even the predator squadron rules can't get it done in 7th ed. And my preds are FAST.

Yeah, if you take one single lascannon it doesn't matter, but consider you can multiply the number of shots for every points saved and the fact your opponent has distance to cover before they get to you.

 NInjatactiks wrote:
Yeah, if you take one single lascannon it doesn't matter, but consider you can multiply the number of shots for every points saved and the fact your opponent has distance to cover before they get to you.

You can't get enough. You need like 30 lascannons to get anything done in 7th.

I fought 3 wraithknights at 1850 once and got it done with 4 and a few more krak missiles. Had no grav in that list at all, either.

 NInjatactiks wrote:
I fought 3 wraithknights at 1850 once and got it done with 4 and a few more krak missiles. Had no grav in that list at all, either.

Once. Try it again. The WK is considerably more vulnerable after the FAQ, but still quite undercosted. There also too much T5 w/FNP now for lascannons to be remotely scary.

Maybe I'm just a superior tactician.

 NInjatactiks wrote:
I've actually been playtesting a dynamic 40k points system that rebalances every cost based on community feedback. IMO, it should be:
- Flamers: 5
- Plasmagun: 10
- Melta: 10
- Grav-gun: 15
- Heavy Bolter: 5
- Heavy Flamer: 10
- Multi-Melta: 10
- Missile Launcher: 15 w/flakk
- Plasma Cannon: 15
- Lascannon: 20
- Grav-cannon: 40 or maybe 45

SO... are you avoiding unusual numbers (like 12) for book keeping purposes? because opening up more scoring options between 5's would balance more dynamically/accurately.

I could do that actually. I was just being more or less OCD and wanting to keep it simple, but I'm open to suggestions.

Yeah, the costs need to be more granular. Combis and storm bolters probably need a cost adjustment too.

Combi-Weapons should be 5, Pistols should be 5, and Storm Bolters need to be adjusted with their stats. I always propose S5 to make them more unique.

 NInjatactiks wrote:
I've actually been playtesting a dynamic 40k points system that rebalances every cost based on community feedback. IMO, it should be:
- Flamers: 5
- Plasmagun: 10
- Melta: 10
- Grav-gun: 15
- Heavy Bolter: 5
- Heavy Flamer: 10
- Multi-Melta: 10
- Missile Launcher: 15 w/flakk
- Plasma Cannon: 15
- Lascannon: 20
- Grav-cannon: 40 or maybe 45

Grav does not need to be repointed. People need to get over their whining about Grav and accept that it's going to be a permanent fixture in the Imperial arsenal until everything else is made to not suck.

Grav by itself is not that bad, and my original proposal was less about balancing it, and more about making it make more sense. How does increased gravity penetrate armour? Make it weaker, sure, but penetrate it?

Anyway. From a balance standpoint, it has been said enough that removing Grav amps would pretty much fix it. Salvo weapons are already a sort of nerf for most weapons (looking at you, Psycannons & Splinter cannons). Another issue might be that 5 Marines can take a Grav cannon, instead of 10, but when every Windrider can take a Scatterlaser, 1 in 5 Marines should be able to take whatever they want out of their weapon choices.

-

 Galef wrote:
Grav by itself is not that bad, and my original proposal was less about balancing it, and more about making it make more sense. How does increased gravity penetrate armour? Make it weaker, sure, but penetrate it?

Armor penetration, as a mechanic, is kind of weird.

Look at Warp Spiders' equipment or the Webber that the GSC got. Neither of them really "penetrate" the armor, but rather they use the armor against you. The same thing happens in the case of a Grav weapon.
It crushes you inside of the armor you are wearing. If you're wearing thicker layers of armor/chitin/whatever? That's more pressure being exerted on the squishy goobits of your actual body,

Anyway. From a balance standpoint, it has been said enough that removing Grav amps would pretty much fix it. Salvo weapons are already a sort of nerf for most weapons (looking at you, Psycannons & Splinter cannons). Another issue might be that 5 Marines can take a Grav cannon, instead of 10, but when every Windrider can take a Scatterlaser, 1 in 5 Marines should be able to take whatever they want out of their weapon choices.
-

I legitimately do not expect Tactical Squads to retain the ability to take Grav Cannons. I think it was a mistake that they got allowed them, both in terms of the designers' intentions and in terms of them being allowed to take it period.

I expect them to remain Centurion and Devastator only. My understanding is that the new Blood Angels stuff actually restricts them to Devastator Squads in the first place, and the Deathwatch book flatout does not get Grav Cannons period.

Honestly, I am a little annoyed that a tactical squad and even devastaors can buy a grav amp and cannon, where my admech kataphron destroyers can't. In all semblence of fluff, a fully made battle serivtor capable of fielding larger weapons that even marines can't carry and the fact that it is admech itself can seem to find a way to place a grav amp onto a model that has nearly three times as much mass as a standard marine does.

Tactical Marines also aren't relentless and you forgot that tradeoff to complain.

 Longshadow7 wrote:
Honestly, I am a little annoyed that a tactical squad and even devastaors can buy a grav amp and cannon, where my admech kataphron destroyers can't. In all semblence of fluff, a fully made battle serivtor capable of fielding larger weapons that even marines can't carry and the fact that it is admech itself can seem to find a way to place a grav amp onto a model that has nearly three times as much mass as a standard marine does.

Sure you don't get amps but you also don't pay to replace a Plasma Culverin with a Heavy Grav Cannon.
So while you don't get to reroll failed To Wound rolls natively(Canticles does that for you instead), you do get a 30" Salvo 4/6 Grav Cannon at no points cost and on a Relentless platform.

One thing I'm contemplating is:

"Gravitron:" Gravitron wounds based on the target's armor save + 1, to a minimum of 6+. For example, models with a 2+ are wounded on a 3+, models with a 3+ are wounded on a 4+, etc. When rolling to damage vehicles, the vehicle suffers a single Penetrating hit on a roll of 6." (Remove the "Immobilized" aspect)

"Mass-Dependent: Gravitron Weapons don't have a fixed number of shots. Rather, they fire "T +- X" shots, where T is the majority toughness of the target being shot at, or half the front armor of the vehicle being shot at. For example, a Grav Gun is Assault T - 3, while a Grav-Cannon is Heavy T - 1. This means a Grav Gun would fire one shot against a Tactical Squad (4 - 3 = 1), two shots against a Bike squad (5 - 3 = 1), and 5 shots against a Wraithknight."

The Grav Pistol is just a Pistol and doesn't do Mass-Dependent.
The Grav Gun is Assault T - 3
The Grav Cannon is Heavy T - 1
The Heavy Grav Cannon is Heavy T + 1

Then you remove Grav Amps from non-Centurion Grav Cannons and you're good.

My opinion, just remove the grav amp from the grav cannon.

Ya know, I never realized it before, but if Grav was str4 and used armour saves like T values, the wound roll would be exactly the same.
So why not make all Grav weapons str3, wounds against armour save, and 6's auto Pen. Basically a cleaner version of Magic Juggler's suggestion.

So against a WK or MEQ, Grav would wound on 4+ (str3 vs 3+ armour) Riptides & Teminators would be wounded on 3+ and so on. At that rate the Grav amps aren't that bad

 Galef wrote:
Ya know, I never realized it before, but if Grav was str4 and used armour saves like T values, the wound roll would be exactly the same.
So why not make all Grav weapons str3, wounds against armour save, and 6's auto Pen. Basically a cleaner version of Magic Juggler's suggestion.

So against a WK or MEQ, Grav would wound on 4+ (str3 vs 3+ armour) Riptides & Teminators would be wounded on 3+ and so on. At that rate the Grav amps aren't that bad

so basically again MEQ i would have the same kill rate as a boltgun wounding on 4s, and they still get an armor save. Might as well just take a plasma gun at that point.

 Backspacehacker wrote:

 Galef wrote:
Ya know, I never realized it before, but if Grav was str4 and used armour saves like T values, the wound roll would be exactly the same.
So why not make all Grav weapons str3, wounds against armour save, and 6's auto Pen. Basically a cleaner version of Magic Juggler's suggestion.

So against a WK or MEQ, Grav would wound on 4+ (str3 vs 3+ armour) Riptides & Teminators would be wounded on 3+ and so on. At that rate the Grav amps aren't that bad

so basically again MEQ i would have the same kill rate as a boltgun wounding on 4s, and they still get an armor save. Might as well just take a plasma gun at that point.

No, they would be AP2 with the change proposed above, as well as salvo 2/3 or 3/5

 Galef wrote:

 Backspacehacker wrote:

 Galef wrote:
Ya know, I never realized it before, but if Grav was str4 and used armour saves like T values, the wound roll would be exactly the same.
So why not make all Grav weapons str3, wounds against armour save, and 6's auto Pen. Basically a cleaner version of Magic Juggler's suggestion.

So against a WK or MEQ, Grav would wound on 4+ (str3 vs 3+ armour) Riptides & Teminators would be wounded on 3+ and so on. At that rate the Grav amps aren't that bad

so basically again MEQ i would have the same kill rate as a boltgun wounding on 4s, and they still get an armor save. Might as well just take a plasma gun at that point.

No, they would be AP2 with the change proposed above, as well as salvo 2/3 or 3/5

Ok so we are still saying they are AP 2 ok the way you had it worded they would still get an armor save.