Would increasing Grav by 5 points and reducing the other options by 10 points make to other weapons as more viable or would Grav still reign default?

What would you consider to make the other alternatives viable as Grav?

As long as Grav has more shots than the anti-horde weapons and can cripple vehicles and MCs easier than anti-tank weapons I don't see much, if anything ending the grav spam.

Make the other options more potent.

They should be paying 35 for them but the issue comes from that the Heavy Bolter itself isn't good.
Once they get 4 shots it still won't be enough as you can get cheaper Heavy Bolters elsewhere.

Actually that's th3 primary issue. Why am I wanting 3 Heavy Bolters on Centurions when I can get like almost twice the amount elsewhere?

I agree, HBs should be at least Salvo 3/5 weapons with Rending.

Martel732 wrote:
Make the other options more potent.

Agreed. I think the main issue when it comes to grav vs not-grav is that grav performs most jobs about as well as other options if not better. So it's extremely versatile while still being great at its niche. Among the jobs it doesn't do as well as other guns is killing lightly armored stuff, but the rest of your army is going to be perfectly good for exploding poor guardsmen and kabalites.

Grav is too good against too many things. Make it work like pre-7e grav (30k, 2e), blast weapons that roll to wound based on the target's Strength with no AP and make people move as if through terrain, and it might end up having a niche of its own rather than being better against everything.

Martel732 wrote:
Make the other options more potent.

Isn't that basically adding to the power creep? Surely the better option is to nerf grav RoF/graviton rule, e.g. wounds infantry on a 6+, bulky models 5+, v. bulky 4+, extremely bulky 3+, MCs/GCs 2+, vehicles same effect as now (but fewer shots per grav weapon), maybe without stripping the HPs.

 hippyjr wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Make the other options more potent.

Isn't that basically adding to the power creep? Surely the better option is to nerf grav RoF/graviton rule, e.g. wounds infantry on a 6+, bulky models 5+, v. bulky 4+, extremely bulky 3+, MCs/GCs 2+, vehicles same effect as now (but fewer shots per grav weapon), maybe without stripping the HPs.

This is Martel. He thinks the Riptide Wing and Scatterbikes need to be the baseline everything should be balanced around.

 AnomanderRake wrote:

 hippyjr wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Make the other options more potent.

Isn't that basically adding to the power creep? Surely the better option is to nerf grav RoF/graviton rule, e.g. wounds infantry on a 6+, bulky models 5+, v. bulky 4+, extremely bulky 3+, MCs/GCs 2+, vehicles same effect as now (but fewer shots per grav weapon), maybe without stripping the HPs.

This is Martel. He thinks the Riptide Wing and Scatterbikes need to be the baseline everything should be balanced around.

At the same time, the Heavy Bolter has never been good. What will nerfing grav do other than make both options bad?

 hippyjr wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Make the other options more potent.

Isn't that basically adding to the power creep? Surely the better option is to nerf grav RoF/graviton rule, e.g. wounds infantry on a 6+, bulky models 5+, v. bulky 4+, extremely bulky 3+, MCs/GCs 2+, vehicles same effect as now (but fewer shots per grav weapon), maybe without stripping the HPs.

No, that's not the better option. Power creep is here. Lascannons shouldn't be worthless. They are. They need fixed. Imperial heavy weapons in general are trash. Autocannons are okayish.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 AnomanderRake wrote:

 hippyjr wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Make the other options more potent.

Isn't that basically adding to the power creep? Surely the better option is to nerf grav RoF/graviton rule, e.g. wounds infantry on a 6+, bulky models 5+, v. bulky 4+, extremely bulky 3+, MCs/GCs 2+, vehicles same effect as now (but fewer shots per grav weapon), maybe without stripping the HPs.

This is Martel. He thinks the Riptide Wing and Scatterbikes need to be the baseline everything should be balanced around.

Until there is a legal restriction on those units, why not? I can't stop my opponents from using them. And they are ubiquitous.

Martel732 wrote:
Make the other options more potent.

Really this, anything else is just crappy in comparison. It's gotten to the point now where it's I have 10 tac marines, 1 grav cannon, 1 grav gun, and 8 other guys to soak up wounds for them.

The whole Bolter family need to be upgraded to make them worth while, plasma needs to have a better gimic, Imo make plasma cannon a large blast, and plasma gun an assault. Melta I'm not sure what to do with.

 Backspacehacker wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Make the other options more potent.

Really this, anything else is just crappy in comparison. It's gotten to the point now where it's I have 10 tac marines, 1 grav cannon, 1 grav gun, and 8 other guys to soak up wounds for them.

The whole Bolter family need to be upgraded to make them worth while, plasma needs to have a better gimic, Imo make plasma cannon a large blast, and plasma gun an assault. Melta I'm not sure what to do with.

Cause multiple wounds to MCs. Because it burns a hole straight fething through them. MCs are why melta and lascannons suck.

True, then again the laz cannon is also a joke as well. But I say meltas could cause d3 wounds on a 6 to wound, and a multi melta can either do that at a greater range or add d6 wounds on a 6, d 3 normally

" But I say meltas could cause d3 wounds on a 6 to wound"

That's way too inconsistent to be useful. Buckets of dice is still much better.

Grav weapons should be single shots IMHO, grav cannon 2/3 or small blast, definitely not 3/5. Maybe with the gets hot special rule.

 Blackie wrote:
Grav weapons should be single shots IMHO, grav cannon 2/3 or small blast, definitely not 3/5. Maybe with the gets hot special rule.

That neuters them as anti-mc. And that's the whole point. If you want a useful nerf, make vehicles immune to grav.

Backspacehacker wrote:True, then again the laz cannon is also a joke as well. But I say meltas could cause d3 wounds on a 6 to wound, and a multi melta can either do that at a greater range or add d6 wounds on a 6, d 3 normally

I don't like Tesla's ability to add Wounds on a roll of 6, and I do not like this here. It should provide Dx Wounds consistently. Leave ID out the mix for these Weapons and just use that option to be consistent. If it can do that many Wounds to a Character via ID, it should be able to do that many Wounds to larger creatures. This would compensate Vehicles for their lack of Hull Points.

Blackie wrote:Grav weapons should be single shots IMHO, grav cannon 2/3 or small blast, definitely not 3/5. Maybe with the gets hot special rule.

Grav Guns should be either Rapid Fire or Salvo 2/1. I do like your Grav Cannon setup, but Heavy Bolters should be changed to either Salvo 2/4, 3/4, to 3/5.

I am debating on the usefulness of changing the Storm Bolter to 2/3 or not. Largely because we need to be consider how a Sternguard/Sergeant can use it as well as Terminators.

 Backspacehacker wrote:
...The whole Bolter family need to be upgraded to make them worth while...

Bolters are fine if you're in a game where infantry exists. They're only bad if you're operating under the assumption that the entire game has been reduced to Monstrous Creatures, free-vehicle-spam, 100%-heavy-weapon-density jetbikes, rerollable-2+ bikestars, and superheavies.

Personally I'd rather design to a game where you can use more than a quarter of the available models/Codexes, infantry are a necessary component of the game, and Monstrous Creatures are a destructive big support tool available in limited quantities rather than the core of your army, instead of taking basic infantry weapons and pumping them up to the point where you can't actually use basic infantry because they're too easily destroyed by basic infantry weapons so you need to start pumping durability, which makes basic infantry weapons bad again, all the way until the feedback loop gives us Space Marines with the stats of Riptides, but apparently this makes me weird.

 AnomanderRake wrote:

 hippyjr wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Make the other options more potent.

Isn't that basically adding to the power creep? Surely the better option is to nerf grav RoF/graviton rule, e.g. wounds infantry on a 6+, bulky models 5+, v. bulky 4+, extremely bulky 3+, MCs/GCs 2+, vehicles same effect as now (but fewer shots per grav weapon), maybe without stripping the HPs.

This is Martel. He thinks the Riptide Wing and Scatterbikes need to be the baseline everything should be balanced around.

Scatter bikes with soul burst are actually over twice as strong as before because they are even shooting back at you in your shooting phase. Power level is going UP not DOWN.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Grav cannons have a significant weakness in that they can't hurt things that don't have an armor save - good armies don't make themselves vunerable to grav - their power units ether have low invo saves or no armor save at all.

The real issue with grav cannons is causeing immobilized results on vehical damage table - if they didn't do this - they would be very weak anti tank options and would be spammed less.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
furthermore - cents with missile and laz cannon aren't that bad - I've used them before and they have done well for me. They don't need an IC escort and can just sit in the back hammering stuff - at that range nothing can really do significant damage to them because they have t5 2W and 2+ saves sitting in 4+ cover. I like to use them in combination with a thunder-fire cannon to increase that cover save even more.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Backspacehacker wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Make the other options more potent.

Really this, anything else is just crappy in comparison. It's gotten to the point now where it's I have 10 tac marines, 1 grav cannon, 1 grav gun, and 8 other guys to soak up wounds for them.

The whole Bolter family need to be upgraded to make them worth while, plasma needs to have a better gimic, Imo make plasma cannon a large blast, and plasma gun an assault. Melta I'm not sure what to do with.

Overheat on blast weapons is really bad. Ontop of being hard to hit with there is a 1/6 chance you don't even get to shoot at all whilst possibly killing yourself. Twin linked plasma Cannons aren't that bad though if you ever have the opportunity to use them. (devestator doctorine skyhammer plasma cannons - can really do some damage)

In the case of both the Heavy Bolters and Lascannons, how about this:
Just make it two guns, instead of one twin-linked gun. Let the Centurion fire all of its weapons. (Or, give them special varieties that fire two shots, if you want to stick to the 'Can only fire two weapons' rule.)
A HB Centurion goes from getting 2.6 hits on average to 4 hits, and a Lascannon Centurion goes from .89 hits to 1.3.
Plus, Devestator Doctrines become genuinely useful for them, which is nice.

"They're only bad if you're operating under the assumption that the entire game has been reduced to Monstrous Creatures, free-vehicle-spam, 100%-heavy-weapon-density jetbikes, rerollable-2+ bikestars, and superheavies. "

It's not an assumption. It's a reality.

"but apparently this makes me weird."

Just not in tune with what GW is actually doing.

Waaaghpower wrote:
In the case of both the Heavy Bolters and Lascannons, how about this:
Just make it two guns, instead of one twin-linked gun. Let the Centurion fire all of its weapons. (Or, give them special varieties that fire two shots, if you want to stick to the 'Can only fire two weapons' rule.)
A HB Centurion goes from getting 2.6 hits on average to 4 hits, and a Lascannon Centurion goes from .89 hits to 1.3.
Plus, Devestator Doctrines become genuinely useful for them, which is nice.

I've made the same argument about the TL weapons on the Cents. It would be much more appealing if it were 2 LC.

 Xenomancers wrote:
...Scatter bikes with soul burst are actually over twice as strong as before because they are even shooting back at you in your shooting phase. Power level is going UP not DOWN...

So I know I'm a broken record screaming into the darkness here, but is that the game you want to be playing? This is Proposed Rules. Where is it written that we're obligated to take a look at GW's mistakes and declare that they justify making the same mistakes, instead of trying to fix things?

 AnomanderRake wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
...Scatter bikes with soul burst are actually over twice as strong as before because they are even shooting back at you in your shooting phase. Power level is going UP not DOWN...

So I know I'm a broken record screaming into the darkness here, but is that the game you want to be playing? This is Proposed Rules. Where is it written that we're obligated to take a look at GW's mistakes and declare that they justify making the same mistakes, instead of trying to fix things?

While true, we got people that are buffing things that don't need buffing and people nerfing things that don't need nerfing.
In this particular case, no amount of nerfing will ever make Centurions with Heavy Bolters or Lascannons appealing. Instead, we make Grav function as intended (which I'll present in a moment) and actually buff the Heavy Bolter, which has not been appealing since I started playing in 4th edition.
Grav wounds Swarms on a 6, Infantry on a 5+, Bulky on a 4+, very bulky on a 3+, everything bigger on a 2+, stripping a HP on a 6 and D3 HP on a Super Heavy.

Simple as that.

 hippyjr wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Make the other options more potent.

Isn't that basically adding to the power creep? Surely the better option is to nerf grav RoF/graviton rule, e.g. wounds infantry on a 6+, bulky models 5+, v. bulky 4+, extremely bulky 3+, MCs/GCs 2+, vehicles same effect as now (but fewer shots per grav weapon), maybe without stripping the HPs.

it is but when you have power creep you have two options to handle it, the first is to beat stuff with a nerf stick, the second is to buff other things to compensate for it. honestly I think re grav you need a bit of both. grav is supposed to be an anti-MC weapon, it's as pwoerful as it is because well.. you need something like that to take down MCs. eaither MCs need a change, and thus gravs can be nerfed, other weapons simply need to be buffed so grav is no longer an auto-pick... or grav weapons need to be changed so that they are kings of "inflicting multiple wounds with one shot" make grav weapons "roll 1d6, inflicting 1 wound for every point above the targets armor save value you roll...." So, let's say my grav gun shoots a MC with a 2+ save, I roll 1d6, and get a 4, that 4 then deals 2 damage to the opponent. you could then make a grav gun a single shot, and a grav cannon rapid fire (better yet have the cannon roll 2d6 instead of 1d6 for wounding) and I think it;d work nicely. Plasma would likely be a more points relevant way to handle heavy infantry forces, and grav would be best used against singular MCs.

Make grav inflict multiple wounds but only fire one shot. Then it will be anti-mc.

like D3 wounds for grav-gun, D6 for cannon.

You won't even need special chart for bulky models etc. as few models outside of mcs have multiple wounds.

Sonic Keyboard wrote:
Make grav inflict multiple wounds but only fire one shot. Then it will be anti-mc.

like D3 wounds for grav-gun, D6 for cannon.

You won't even need special chart for bulky models etc. as few models outside of mcs have multiple wounds.

This and the possibility of hurting vehicle removed would be fair. I totally like it.

 AnomanderRake wrote:

 Backspacehacker wrote:
...The whole Bolter family need to be upgraded to make them worth while...

Bolters are fine if you're in a game where infantry exists. They're only bad if you're operating under the assumption that the entire game has been reduced to Monstrous Creatures, free-vehicle-spam, 100%-heavy-weapon-density jetbikes, rerollable-2+ bikestars, and superheavies.

Personally I'd rather design to a game where you can use more than a quarter of the available models/Codexes, infantry are a necessary component of the game, and Monstrous Creatures are a destructive big support tool available in limited quantities rather than the core of your army, instead of taking basic infantry weapons and pumping them up to the point where you can't actually use basic infantry because they're too easily destroyed by basic infantry weapons so you need to start pumping durability, which makes basic infantry weapons bad again, all the way until the feedback loop gives us Space Marines with the stats of Riptides, but apparently this makes me weird.

QFT

Forget about fixing grav, Centurions, scatbikes, wraithknights, riptides, etc., on an ad hoc or isolated basis.

Instead, rewrite codexes to be infantry-centric with action movie-level ICs (but not Smashfucker-level ICS). Make bog-standard Space Marines at the 70th percentile in terms of effectiveness -- only 30% at most of models on the tabletop at any time will be better in statlines/saves. Ensure synergy is vital to listbuilding, but by making combined arms key to an effective force and recasting shooting/assault to be equally necessary, instead of packing stacking buffs/rerolls/cheese into deathstars. Go back to the holy trinity of tac/devastator/assault (or the equivalents for other armies) where each has a vital role on the battlefield that can't be covered at 80% efficiency by another squad type.

Power creep is inevitable. But the cat has to be walked pretty far back or we'll be at some unbalanced meta soon after each revision.

Um...end rant?

I would love this, I never liked immortal units that do the entire job alone, IMHO 70-80% of the army should be composed by average units. And the best units should not win the games alone.

Things like meganobz, thunderwolves, land raiders, stormravens, leman russ, talos, tyranids ground MCs.. should be among the best units in the game. And I think about them with the current rules. Anything that is more powerful should be nerfed very badly, and with them the chance of spamming units like those ones that I mentioned before.

Make the game more tactical and without no brainer stuff.

Eldar Shortseer wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:

 Backspacehacker wrote:
...The whole Bolter family need to be upgraded to make them worth while...

Bolters are fine if you're in a game where infantry exists. They're only bad if you're operating under the assumption that the entire game has been reduced to Monstrous Creatures, free-vehicle-spam, 100%-heavy-weapon-density jetbikes, rerollable-2+ bikestars, and superheavies.

Personally I'd rather design to a game where you can use more than a quarter of the available models/Codexes, infantry are a necessary component of the game, and Monstrous Creatures are a destructive big support tool available in limited quantities rather than the core of your army, instead of taking basic infantry weapons and pumping them up to the point where you can't actually use basic infantry because they're too easily destroyed by basic infantry weapons so you need to start pumping durability, which makes basic infantry weapons bad again, all the way until the feedback loop gives us Space Marines with the stats of Riptides, but apparently this makes me weird.

QFT

Forget about fixing grav, Centurions, scatbikes, wraithknights, riptides, etc., on an ad hoc or isolated basis.

Instead, rewrite codexes to be infantry-centric with action movie-level ICs (but not Smashfucker-level ICS). Make bog-standard Space Marines at the 70th percentile in terms of effectiveness -- only 30% at most of models on the tabletop at any time will be better in statlines/saves. Ensure synergy is vital to listbuilding, but by making combined arms key to an effective force and recasting shooting/assault to be equally necessary, instead of packing stacking buffs/rerolls/cheese into deathstars. Go back to the holy trinity of tac/devastator/assault (or the equivalents for other armies) where each has a vital role on the battlefield that can't be covered at 80% efficiency by another squad type.

Power creep is inevitable. But the cat has to be walked pretty far back or we'll be at some unbalanced meta soon after each revision.

Um...end rant?

They did, a number of armies got supplements with infantry centric formations, people whinge about them almost as much as they do Wraithknights.

Isn't the biggest problem with Grav the stupid number of attacks you get along with Grav Amps allowing you to re-roll failed to wounds? Fix (aka nerf) the weapon profiles and suddenly the other options look better.

Grav Guns are Rapid Fire
Grav Cannons are Heavy 2
Grav Amps don't exist

Charistoph wrote: Largely because we need to be consider how a Sternguard/Sergeant can use it as well as Terminators.

We really don't, because there's no sane reason to ever give one to a sternguard sergeant, since he loses special ammo.

alextroy wrote:Isn't the biggest problem with Grav the stupid number of attacks you get along with Grav Amps allowing you to re-roll failed to wounds?

Not really, the fact it wounds based on armor save comes up the primary issue, rate of fire and rerolls are secondary issues, if that.

 Battlegrinder wrote:

Charistoph wrote: Largely because we need to be consider how a Sternguard/Sergeant can use it as well as Terminators.

We really don't, because there's no sane reason to ever give one to a sternguard sergeant, since he loses special ammo.

There is a slash ("/") between Sternguard and Sergeant. Some Sergeants it makes sense to give a Storm Bolter to.

 Battlegrinder wrote:

alextroy wrote:Isn't the biggest problem with Grav the stupid number of attacks you get along with Grav Amps allowing you to re-roll failed to wounds?

Not really, the fact it wounds based on armor save comes up the primary issue, rate of fire and rerolls are secondary issues, if that.

Actually that is what gives it the pain. If it was a single shot, it would be fine. But being able to provide a higher volume of fire over even the Assault Cannon AND rerolls its damage is what makes Grav Cannons a no-brainer. Grav Guns are just as bad being able to put more shots down field than any other Special Weapon.

 AnomanderRake wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
...Scatter bikes with soul burst are actually over twice as strong as before because they are even shooting back at you in your shooting phase. Power level is going UP not DOWN...

So I know I'm a broken record screaming into the darkness here, but is that the game you want to be playing? This is Proposed Rules. Where is it written that we're obligated to take a look at GW's mistakes and declare that they justify making the same mistakes, instead of trying to fix things?

In the end we want the same thing - a balanced game. The nerf grav crowd just kind of irritates me because #1 Grav isn't really any better than other weapons Xenos use - (Scatter lasers, D scythes, Ion Accelerators, ect.) It is just on their level. #2 You take Grav away and marines lose their best weapon. Everyone should have their super weapons and I even think that everything should measure up to them properly points wise too.

I also think with the current iteration of releases - determining the direction the game is going. We should balance to that direction - not away from it. It would be a lot easier I think to buff the things lagging behind than nerfing the things that are ahead of the curve at this point. It just makes more sense - short of a complete rework of the game.

 Charistoph wrote:

There is a slash ("/") between Sternguard and Sergeant. Some Sergeants it makes sense to give a Storm Bolter to.

Ah, I missed that.

Charistoph wrote:Actually that is what gives it the pain. If it was a single shot, it would be fine. But being able to provide a higher volume of fire over even the Assault Cannon AND rerolls its damage is what makes Grav Cannons a no-brainer. Grav Guns are just as bad being able to put more shots down field than any other Special Weapon.

Eh, maybe so. I barely use mine as it is (they're really not that great to take if you're fighting nothing but IG infantry and orks), so maybe my view of what it's issues are aren't in line with someone in a more competive mindset sees. Though I suspect that while grav might be tweaked, it's still going to do roughly what it does, and grav amps are staying in general.

 Xenomancers wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
...Scatter bikes with soul burst are actually over twice as strong as before because they are even shooting back at you in your shooting phase. Power level is going UP not DOWN...

So I know I'm a broken record screaming into the darkness here, but is that the game you want to be playing? This is Proposed Rules. Where is it written that we're obligated to take a look at GW's mistakes and declare that they justify making the same mistakes, instead of trying to fix things?

In the end we want the same thing - a balanced game. The nerf grav crowd just kind of irritates me because #1 Grav isn't really any better than other weapons Xenos use - (Scatter lasers, D scythes, Ion Accelerators, ect.) It is just on their level. #2 You take Grav away and marines lose their best weapon. Everyone should have their super weapons and I even think that everything should measure up to them properly points wise too.

I also think with the current iteration of releases - determining the direction the game is going. We should balance to that direction - not away from it. It would be a lot easier I think to buff the things lagging behind than nerfing the things that are ahead of the curve at this point. It just makes more sense - short of a complete rework of the game.

Agreed. The problem is that some nerf grav people want some hope of using their terminators (protip: grav doesn't prevent this by itself), but others just want their Riptides to be even more immortal. (protip: full barrages of grav can still fail to kill Riptides)

If you want to reduce grav dependancy, use the 30k rules for them instead of 40k rules.

 Glitcha wrote:
If you want to reduce grav dependancy, use the 30k rules for them instead of 40k rules.

Dependency is the wrong word then. If Cents are Dependent on grav and you take away a the only "viable" option - that would make them - worthless.

Martel732 wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
...Scatter bikes with soul burst are actually over twice as strong as before because they are even shooting back at you in your shooting phase. Power level is going UP not DOWN...

So I know I'm a broken record screaming into the darkness here, but is that the game you want to be playing? This is Proposed Rules. Where is it written that we're obligated to take a look at GW's mistakes and declare that they justify making the same mistakes, instead of trying to fix things?

In the end we want the same thing - a balanced game. The nerf grav crowd just kind of irritates me because #1 Grav isn't really any better than other weapons Xenos use - (Scatter lasers, D scythes, Ion Accelerators, ect.) It is just on their level. #2 You take Grav away and marines lose their best weapon. Everyone should have their super weapons and I even think that everything should measure up to them properly points wise too.

I also think with the current iteration of releases - determining the direction the game is going. We should balance to that direction - not away from it. It would be a lot easier I think to buff the things lagging behind than nerfing the things that are ahead of the curve at this point. It just makes more sense - short of a complete rework of the game.

Agreed. The problem is that some nerf grav people want some hope of using their terminators (protip: grav doesn't prevent this by itself), but others just want their Riptides to be even more immortal. (protip: full barrages of grav can still fail to kill Riptides)

These last two guys get it.

Still I support changing HOW Grav wounds things as the intention was probably based off size but it didn't work that way and GW decided using the Armor save value was easier for calculation.

 Battlegrinder wrote:

Charistoph wrote:Actually that is what gives it the pain. If it was a single shot, it would be fine. But being able to provide a higher volume of fire over even the Assault Cannon AND rerolls its damage is what makes Grav Cannons a no-brainer. Grav Guns are just as bad being able to put more shots down field than any other Special Weapon.

Eh, maybe so. I barely use mine as it is (they're really not that great to take if you're fighting nothing but IG infantry and orks), so maybe my view of what it's issues are aren't in line with someone in a more competive mindset sees. Though I suspect that while grav might be tweaked, it's still going to do roughly what it does, and grav amps are staying in general.

Agreed. I doubt we are going to see huge changes to Grav unless the game gets transformed to an AoS format. That is why addressing the individual Weapons that are in just a few codices would be more likely to happen.

Martel732 wrote:
"They're only bad if you're operating under the assumption that the entire game has been reduced to Monstrous Creatures, free-vehicle-spam, 100%-heavy-weapon-density jetbikes, rerollable-2+ bikestars, and superheavies. "

It's not an assumption. It's a reality.

"but apparently this makes me weird."

Just not in tune with what GW is actually doing.

Hahahaha. I get why you say the things you say now. The game you want to be playing would be terrible lol.

I don't imagine what my Tau opponents play with. They really play with Riptide wing dual Stormsurge.

What if Grav would have to individually hit to be able to roll for the next shoot, would of course rely on individual roll per model?

 Bishop F Gantry wrote:
What if Grav would have to individually hit to be able to roll for the next shoot, would of course rely on individual roll per model?

Are you trolling your own post?

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Bishop F Gantry wrote:
What if Grav would have to individually hit to be able to roll for the next shoot, would of course rely on individual roll per model?

Are you trolling your own post?

In what manner would that be? With this if you fail to continuously hit you would loose the remaining shots for that model and proceed to the next model capable of firing grav and repeat. mostly inspired where grav is depicted as a beam weapon in eternal crusade I belive

Martel732 wrote:
I don't imagine what my Tau opponents play with. They really play with Riptide wing dual Stormsurge.

I am sorry you play with dickheads?

 Lance845 wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
I don't imagine what my Tau opponents play with. They really play with Riptide wing dual Stormsurge.

I am sorry you play with dickheads?

Is fielding a legal army really being a dill weed? I blame GW, not the players.

Martel732 wrote:
Is fielding a legal army really being a dill weed?

A stupidly broken or OP one, outside of a tournament where WAAC is the expected mindset? Yes.

Martel732 wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
I don't imagine what my Tau opponents play with. They really play with Riptide wing dual Stormsurge.

I am sorry you play with dickheads?

Is fielding a legal army really being a dill weed? I blame GW, not the players.

GW fethed up when they gave them the options. Your dill weed friends became dill weed friends when they picked those options instead of all the other options that are reasonable.

GW didn't kick down their door and force them to buy those models and build that list.

 Battlegrinder wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Is fielding a legal army really being a dill weed?

A stupidly broken or OP one, outside of a tournament where WAAC is the expected mindset? Yes.

If the only community nearby is full of WAACs...there is an old saying about beggars not being choosers.
Still, balance makes the WAAC guys less obvious.

 Dakka Wolf wrote:

 Battlegrinder wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Is fielding a legal army really being a dill weed?

A stupidly broken or OP one, outside of a tournament where WAAC is the expected mindset? Yes.

If the only community nearby is full of WAACs...there is an old saying about beggars not being choosers.
Still, balance makes the WAAC guys less obvious.

That is true to an extent. On the other hand i get the impression from mertels posts that hes not a big fan of it and its eating into his fun. So, if it was me, and my choices were playing WAAC nonsense everytime or doing something else, i would go do something else. No reason to play when its just an exercize in frustration.

I made them two individual guns instead of twin linked versions.

With their ability to fire two weapons, it made them much more flexible as a weapon platform.

Dakka Wolf wrote:They did, a number of armies got supplements with infantry centric formations, people whinge about them almost as much as they do Wraithknights.

I love the Eldar Aspect Hosts. They might be a little OP, perhaps they should be limited in number a bit, but it's mostly a moot point. Is there much reason to have more than a few Fire Dragons when I can be buying Scatbikes? Or, I really like WraithDudes. But unless I want to take a Wraithknight and a Wraithlord, I have to take a CAD detachment to field them. The wraithhost formation legitimizes the power creep. If formations and detachments really incented people to take balanced armies through a combination of buffs &/or discounts (= lower taxes), then they'd be great. But many of them don't.

Xenomancers wrote:In the end we want the same thing - a balanced game. The nerf grav crowd just kind of irritates me because #1 Grav isn't really any better than other weapons Xenos use - (Scatter lasers, D scythes, Ion Accelerators, ect.) It is just on their level. #2 You take Grav away and marines lose their best weapon. Everyone should have their super weapons and I even think that everything should measure up to them properly points wise too.

I think a couple of the main issues people like me have are: (a) Grav/scatbikes/D-guns/Riptides/WKs/whatever have a place in the game, but bolters ought to as well. Do SMs with bolters serve any purpose except ablative wounds? (b) Grav may be nice but I can buy a scatbike for 27 points and have zero real tax on it; I'm not paying for dudes holding bolters. Codexes are unbalanced. Is the issue that Grav is too good, or that Grav specifically is considered a must-take because of what you know you'll face on the battlefield? I think it's the latter.

Lance845 wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
"They're only bad if you're operating under the assumption that the entire game has been reduced to Monstrous Creatures, free-vehicle-spam, 100%-heavy-weapon-density jetbikes, rerollable-2+ bikestars, and superheavies. "...It's not an assumption. It's a reality...

Hahahaha. I get why you say the things you say now. The game you want to be playing would be terrible lol.

Xenomancers wrote:I also think with the current iteration of releases - determining the direction the game is going. We should balance to that direction - not away from it. It would be a lot easier I think to buff the things lagging behind than nerfing the things that are ahead of the curve at this point. It just makes more sense - short of a complete rework of the game.

I think it's important to note that not everyone wants to go back to a "low-power-creep" version of the game. There are players who want to see how many WKs they can pack into a list and that's OK; just because I don't want to play that way doesn't change the fact it's a valid way to play the game.

There is way to pack in all the wraith knights you want without unbalancing the basic structure of the game. Its called unbound.

People have been free to do exactly that since day one. Having unbound be the LESS cheesy way to bring all the wk you want is a real big problem.

GW are the real donkey-caves, imo. Not players playing legal lists.

My solution give grav to orks

 Xenomancers wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
...Scatter bikes with soul burst are actually over twice as strong as before because they are even shooting back at you in your shooting phase. Power level is going UP not DOWN...

So I know I'm a broken record screaming into the darkness here, but is that the game you want to be playing? This is Proposed Rules. Where is it written that we're obligated to take a look at GW's mistakes and declare that they justify making the same mistakes, instead of trying to fix things?

In the end we want the same thing - a balanced game. The nerf grav crowd just kind of irritates me because #1 Grav isn't really any better than other weapons Xenos use - (Scatter lasers, D scythes, Ion Accelerators, ect.) It is just on their level. #2 You take Grav away and marines lose their best weapon. Everyone should have their super weapons and I even think that everything should measure up to them properly points wise too.

I also think with the current iteration of releases - determining the direction the game is going. We should balance to that direction - not away from it. It would be a lot easier I think to buff the things lagging behind than nerfing the things that are ahead of the curve at this point. It just makes more sense - short of a complete rework of the game.

The fact that grav-weapons aren't better than a set of other too-powerful weapons doesn't excuse keeping them that way. It serves as an argument for doing something about scatter lasers, distortion weapons, ion accelerators, et cetera.

I don't disagree with you as to trying to balance proposed rules to keep up with the game, my issue is trying to balance proposed rules based around the peak of the game. There are a lot of Codexes, units, weapons, armies, et cetera in 40k that we could be using as a baseline to try and design things to the middle, such that they're not going to make existing balance problems worse, but these discussions invariably circle back to "this unit is worse than the most powerful thing in the game, therefore it's terrible and you should never use it."

Things like scatterbikes, Riptide Wings, the free Razorbacks formation, and distortion weaponry are mistakes. They're there because GW is better at thinking up cool ideas than testing them to see if they're actually stupid ideas in disguise, not because there's some secret master plan to create steady power creep. If we intentionally choose to design to the power level of the mistakes we're screwing over balance, not fixing it.

Also this section of the forum isn't just a collection of though experiments, on occasion someone might want to take something they found here and actually try playing a game with it. And it'll be much, much easier for them to walk into their gaming group or FLGS and say "Hey, I've got this bit of homebrew I want to try out, anyone up for it?" if we can tell them we're making material designed to the mid-tier so it can be worked into a variety of play environments/local metas rather than telling them we're making material designed to the most hardcore tournament standard designed to compete with the top units in the game.

There are still people who play Orks, and who don't have the time or inclination to try rewriting their Codex. And the last thing we should be doing is walking up to them and telling them "Hey, you know that Codex you thought was pretty fair when we played last time? I've returned it to trounce tournament Eldar. You up for a game?"


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Eldar Shortseer wrote:
...I think it's important to note that not everyone wants to go back to a "low-power-creep" version of the game. There are players who want to see how many WKs they can pack into a list and that's OK; just because I don't want to play that way doesn't change the fact it's a valid way to play the game...

It is a valid way to play the game. The problem is when it bumps into someone else playing the game in an equally valid yet different way that doesn't really mesh with it and you end up with a short one-sided slaughterfest that leaves both sides annoyed and frustrated, because in their heads they were playing 'correctly' and the other guy was playing some sort of weird silly game.

(This is why MTG's 'format' structure is such a brilliant idea, because it would give us a nice, easy shorthand to say "I happen to feel like playing '40k with lots of superheavies' today" or "I happen to feel like playing 40k with masses of infantry today". Currently the only solution in 40k is to spend time negotiating which units you're going to use, which ends up starting the whole thing off on a frustrated/confrontational note before even starting to roll dice.)

On to the original topic.

How do we reduce the Centurion dependency on grav? Your answer can't be to nerf the grav cannon - all that does is make the centurion more desperate (this time for a weapon worth taking) aside from the rocket and laz setup (which is about on par with a land speeder with TML with added suriviability) - Maybe making the Cent's twin linked options 2 weapons could help in this case. I know for sure I would take a 2 LC and ML Cent of over a grav cannon any day for comparable cost. I want my big guns safe in the back - laying down fire all game - I don't want them on the front lines in charging range of a host of gak that will destroy them easily.

 Xenomancers wrote:
On to the original topic.

How do we reduce the Centurion dependency on grav? Your answer can't be to nerf the grav cannon - all that does is make the centurion more desperate (this time for a weapon worth taking) aside from the rocket and laz setup (which is about on par with a land speeder with TML with added suriviability) - Maybe making the Cent's twin linked options 2 weapons could help in this case. I know for sure I would take a 2 LC and ML Cent of over a grav cannon any day for comparable cost. I want my big guns safe in the back - laying down fire all game - I don't want them on the front lines in charging range of a host of gak that will destroy them easily.

The answer i want to give i cant really give because its not viable. Get rid of cents all together, and buff terminators since they should be filling the same role.

 Backspacehacker wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
On to the original topic.

How do we reduce the Centurion dependency on grav? Your answer can't be to nerf the grav cannon - all that does is make the centurion more desperate (this time for a weapon worth taking) aside from the rocket and laz setup (which is about on par with a land speeder with TML with added suriviability) - Maybe making the Cent's twin linked options 2 weapons could help in this case. I know for sure I would take a 2 LC and ML Cent of over a grav cannon any day for comparable cost. I want my big guns safe in the back - laying down fire all game - I don't want them on the front lines in charging range of a host of gak that will destroy them easily.

The answer i want to give i cant really give because its not viable. Get rid of cents all together, and buff terminators since they should be filling the same role.

I am with you there except I wouldn't get rid of cents.

At the current cost of cents - make them 11/11/10 walkers with 2 HP. Give them Access to the same weapons. Keep their cost the same but let them come in groups of 1-3.

Terms should gain the cent statline with a 5++ save but only have access to terminator weapons. Except - like cents - they can upgrade any term to use a heavy weapon / storm shield / thunder hammer. They would come stock with a power fist and storm bolter OFC. Except the storm bolter gains access to sterngard ammo types and replaces the firing mode with assault 2 (this is actually the change I would make with all storm bolters)

Not sure about points cost but I think the centurian base is roughly what these terminator base cost should be.

 Xenomancers wrote:
On to the original topic.

How do we reduce the Centurion dependency on grav? Your answer can't be to nerf the grav cannon - all that does is make the centurion more desperate (this time for a weapon worth taking) aside from the rocket and laz setup (which is about on par with a land speeder with TML with added suriviability) - Maybe making the Cent's twin linked options 2 weapons could help in this case. I know for sure I would take a 2 LC and ML Cent of over a grav cannon any day for comparable cost. I want my big guns safe in the back - laying down fire all game - I don't want them on the front lines in charging range of a host of gak that will destroy them easily.

To be fair, the Grav Cannon needs to be nerfed because of its own imbalance, not just because it is carried by Centurions.

 Charistoph wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
On to the original topic.

How do we reduce the Centurion dependency on grav? Your answer can't be to nerf the grav cannon - all that does is make the centurion more desperate (this time for a weapon worth taking) aside from the rocket and laz setup (which is about on par with a land speeder with TML with added suriviability) - Maybe making the Cent's twin linked options 2 weapons could help in this case. I know for sure I would take a 2 LC and ML Cent of over a grav cannon any day for comparable cost. I want my big guns safe in the back - laying down fire all game - I don't want them on the front lines in charging range of a host of gak that will destroy them easily.

To be fair, the Grav Cannon needs to be nerfed because of its own imbalance, not just because it is carried by Centurions.

Would you be satisfied if the Grav Cannon got a 10 point cost increase and the TL Laz upgrade and TL HB stock loadout were dual weapons and cost 10 more points?

I say split the gav cannon and amp into two items.

30 for the grav cannon another 10 for the amp limited to only the Sgt for the amp

 Xenomancers wrote:

Would you be satisfied if the Grav Cannon got a 10 point cost increase and the TL Laz upgrade and TL HB stock loadout were dual weapons and cost 10 more points?

The highest rate of fire available to an Infantry model. Special Rules designed to decimate heavy armor associated with that same rate of fire. Can reroll the damage affect.

No, that is insufficient.

 Backspacehacker wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
On to the original topic.

How do we reduce the Centurion dependency on grav? Your answer can't be to nerf the grav cannon - all that does is make the centurion more desperate (this time for a weapon worth taking) aside from the rocket and laz setup (which is about on par with a land speeder with TML with added suriviability) - Maybe making the Cent's twin linked options 2 weapons could help in this case. I know for sure I would take a 2 LC and ML Cent of over a grav cannon any day for comparable cost. I want my big guns safe in the back - laying down fire all game - I don't want them on the front lines in charging range of a host of gak that will destroy them easily.

The answer i want to give i cant really give because its not viable. Get rid of cents all together, and buff terminators since they should be filling the same role.

That's a personal problem. Terminators were already meant for the shock troop role; they simply didn't do it well. Anyone trying to use them as a wall never got that result because it wasn't what they were made for, nor were they ever made for the wall role.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
...That's a personal problem. Terminators were already meant for the shock troop role; they simply didn't do it well. Anyone trying to use them as a wall never got that result because it wasn't what they were made for, nor were they ever made for the wall role.

So what should Terminators be for?

As I've mentioned before I got put on "ignore", there is no mathematical space in the game for terminators. So that means they aren't "for" anything. Walking over and punching with a powerfist isn't a niche; it's suicide.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Backspacehacker wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
On to the original topic.

How do we reduce the Centurion dependency on grav? Your answer can't be to nerf the grav cannon - all that does is make the centurion more desperate (this time for a weapon worth taking) aside from the rocket and laz setup (which is about on par with a land speeder with TML with added suriviability) - Maybe making the Cent's twin linked options 2 weapons could help in this case. I know for sure I would take a 2 LC and ML Cent of over a grav cannon any day for comparable cost. I want my big guns safe in the back - laying down fire all game - I don't want them on the front lines in charging range of a host of gak that will destroy them easily.

The answer i want to give i cant really give because its not viable. Get rid of cents all together, and buff terminators since they should be filling the same role.

That's a personal problem. Terminators were already meant for the shock troop role; they simply didn't do it well. Anyone trying to use them as a wall never got that result because it wasn't what they were made for, nor were they ever made for the wall role.

They should be shock troopers, but that's a conversation for another thread.

I'm just telling you one way to fix cents is get rid of them, they were a ham fisted unit into the game that only serve the purpose of a grav platform

That said grav does not inharently have a problem, it's the amp that's the cause of so much of the issues.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

Martel732 wrote:
As I've mentioned before I got put on "ignore", there is no mathematical space in the game for terminators. So that means they aren't "for" anything. Walking over and punching with a powerfist isn't a niche; it's suicide.

QFT but man, you feel like a. Bad ass when you death and glory a tank with a chain fist let me tell you what lol

Power fists are actually pretty good vs vehicles. It's against everything else that they are very poor.

Martel732 wrote:
Power fists are actually pretty good vs vehicles. It's against everything else that they are very poor.

True, it's that unwieldy, I wish relentless also negates unwieldy, I think terminators striking at I4 would be ALOT more scare but again we are way off subject lol

 Backspacehacker wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Power fists are actually pretty good vs vehicles. It's against everything else that they are very poor.

True, it's that unwieldy, I wish relentless also negates unwieldy, I think terminators striking at I4 would be ALOT more scare but again we are way off subject lol

Not really. Centurions and terminators are forever a related topic. Every time I look at centurions, I die a little more on the inside.

Martel732 wrote:

 Backspacehacker wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Power fists are actually pretty good vs vehicles. It's against everything else that they are very poor.

True, it's that unwieldy, I wish relentless also negates unwieldy, I think terminators striking at I4 would be ALOT more scare but again we are way off subject lol

Not really. Centurions and terminators are forever a related topic. Every time I look at centurions, I die a little more on the inside.

As a Deathwing player when I saw custodies I thought...well that's the final nail

 AnomanderRake wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
...That's a personal problem. Terminators were already meant for the shock troop role; they simply didn't do it well. Anyone trying to use them as a wall never got that result because it wasn't what they were made for, nor were they ever made for the wall role.

So what should Terminators be for?

Shock Troopers. It was what they were always meant for. People think otherwise because they see the 2+ and decided the role from there, as opposed to actually reading the unit entry and deciding after that. You have storm bolters, Assault Cannons, Heavy flamers (with only the CML not fitting the mold), Deep Strike, and having Land Raiders as their transport option.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
...That's a personal problem. Terminators were already meant for the shock troop role; they simply didn't do it well. Anyone trying to use them as a wall never got that result because it wasn't what they were made for, nor were they ever made for the wall role.

So what should Terminators be for?

Shock Troopers. It was what they were always meant for. People think otherwise because they see the 2+ and decided the role from there, as opposed to actually reading the unit entry and deciding after that. You have storm bolters, Assault Cannons, Heavy flamers (with only the CML not fitting the mold), Deep Strike, and having Land Raiders as their transport option.

But alas the problem is always getting them in there and then keeping them alive long enough to not die.

Which cent make a better shock trooper role because they can actually survive and strike back with all the attacks.

That's why cents fill the same role as terminators but better because they can be dropped in via drop pod, LR or storm Raven and take a round of shooting and not loose 2 models and be dicks

The shock trooper role is undermined by the D6 severely. 2+ only being twice as good as 3+ vs AP 4 or worse is miserable. Especially when dealing with high ROF that wounds on a 2+. This mathematical phenomenon is the cause of all the half-baked reroll fixes and arbitrary toughness increases. They're all trying to fix this one shortcoming that is built into the base rulebook.

The other end of this is that the 5++ is not adequate on a one wound model when shot by AP 2. Yeah, its better than say sanguinary guard, but realize the sanguinary guard get shot at approximately half as much because they are twice as fast. And no one is mistaking SG for a good unit in 7th ed.

Assault centurions a) accomplish a lot more the turn they arrive via pod and b) have defensive stats that are objectively more useful in 7th ed.

My apologies for contributing to/conflagrating the OT diversion. So, back on topic:

Blackie wrote:Grav weapons should be single shots IMHO, grav cannon 2/3 or small blast, definitely not 3/5. Maybe with the gets hot special rule.

Charistoph wrote:Grav Guns should be either Rapid Fire or Salvo 2/1. I do like your Grav Cannon setup, but Heavy Bolters should be changed to either Salvo 2/4, 3/4, to 3/5.

alextroy wrote:Isn't the biggest problem with Grav the stupid number of attacks you get along with Grav Amps allowing you to re-roll failed to wounds? Fix (aka nerf) the weapon profiles and suddenly the other options look better. Grav Guns are Rapid Fire. Grav Cannons are Heavy 2. Grav Amps don't exist

Backspacehacker wrote:I say split the gav cannon and amp into two items. 30 for the grav cannon another 10 for the amp limited to only the Sgt for the amp

Putting these ideas together and labeling each line for reference, some thoughts:

Grav-cannon, unchanged except for: a) Range 18" . b) Salvo 2/4. c) Graviton weapons: Against vehicles, the first Immobilize result from a Graviton weapon does not also inflict 1 HP (but subsequent ones do). (Also, Graviton becomes AP 1)
Heavy Weapon substitutions; Centurions: d) Centurion: Replace TL HB for Grav-cannon for 15 points. e) Heavy Weapon substitution: Replace boltgun for Grav-cannon for 15 points. f) Centurions and Heavy Weapon substitutions can't get Grav-amps.
Centurion Sergeant: g) Replace TL HB for Grav-cannon and Grav-amp for 20 points. h) Grav-amp only works vs. vehicles or MCs at close range

Reasoning:
a) The reduction in Grav-cannon range offsets a Centurion's Slow & Purposeful, negating some of the range considerations (for Tac Squads & variants, it just increases the risk half of the risk/reward on the weapon). Lowered weapon range makes Lascannons/Multi-meltas somewhat more desirable (and slightly more effective in relative terms for Multi-meltas)
b) Change to Salvo 2/4 lowers fire rate by one at any range and reduces chance of at least one vehicular immobilize effect to 52%/31% at close/long range.
c) Reduces some of the anti-armor effect from Grav-cannon to make Lascannons/melta weapons somewhat more desirable. Change of AP 2->AP 1 in response to various ideas around a "1+ save" allowing models with 2+ saves to get a 5+ save [or whatever] against AP 2.
d), e), & f) Point reduction to reflect lessened effectiveness of Grav-cannon. Grav-amp is a nominal +5 point upgrade but for Sarges only
f) & g) Limiting Grav-amps to Centurion Sarges reduces the "inevitability" of massive effects from squad-wide rerolls.
h) Grav-amp's effect vs. usual bike/infantry grav targets isn't a huge change (wound 2+: 83%->97%; 3+: 66%->89%) so the reroll can work at any range. Vs. vehicles or MCs, requires squad get stuck in. Not sure if this is strictly necessary

Random thoughts about other ideas proposed: Terrain effects are fluffy but seem too fiddly to use. Perhaps exchanging some lethality for a Fearless-irrelevant pinning effect based on something besides Ld is a workable possibility?

Not worrying much about Grav-pistols and Grav-guns because we're talking about Centurions. Change Grav-guns to Rapid Fire instead of Salvo 2/3? Range seems OK in light of Grav Cannon's range change and vs. Melta-guns/Plasma-guns/Flamers. For Grav-pistols, who cares? It's a pistol.

Opinions? I know Grav weapons can't be fully fixed in a vacuum but are these ideas at least on the right track to providing reasons to look at using other weapons on Centurions?

Any grav fix has to come in context of other problem units. You can full grav broadside a Riptide or Magnus and have them come away just fine.

Martel732 wrote:
Any grav fix has to come in context of other problem units. You can full grav broadside a Riptide or Magnus and have them come away just fine.

I don't dispute that. But I believe proposing how to get Centurions fielded with loadouts that don't automatically include Grav is a worthwhile exercise. (And point changes alone won't solve the issue if grav is so much better than the other options.)

Of course, you are right as well that comprehensive fixes don't take place in a vacuum.

I completely agree that grav is a terrible patch on the game, but it is really an indictment of high str, low ROF weapons. Why only marines got the "fix" is very dubious as well.

Only because this is a thread about grav centurions, and only SM rely on grav so much. There are other fix to make in order to balance the game of course, but grav weapons should be nerfed badly, no matter what.

SM with no grav weapons at all are still among the top 2 armies.

Make foot infantry troops the only unit that can capture and contest objectives, make wipe out no more a victory condition, get back to different level of victory each depending on the number of obj you control.
In an environment like this army lists should be more troops centric, and the room for deathstar or special units will shrink, giving to them the support role that they should have.

About Grav. I think that would be sufficient (and rather ffluffy) make these weapons totally useless against vehicles. SM would keep grav for dealing with MC and heavy infantry but will be obliged to field a good number of anti tank weapons too, balancing the mix.

The Deer Hunter wrote:
Make foot infantry troops the only unit that can capture and contest objectives, make wipe out no more a victory condition, get back to different level of victory each depending on the number of obj you control.
In an environment like this army lists should be more troops centric, and the room for deathstar or special units will shrink, giving to them the support role that they should have.

About Grav. I think that would be sufficient (and rather ffluffy) make these weapons totally useless against vehicles. SM would keep grav for dealing with MC and heavy infantry but will be obliged to field a good number of anti tank weapons too, balancing the mix.

As such they should lower the firerate as well.
As is they have the firerate to even retain use against light infantry, and make an absolute mockery of heavy infantry.

The Deer Hunter wrote:
Make foot infantry troops the only unit that can capture and contest objectives, make wipe out no more a victory condition, get back to different level of victory each depending on the number of obj you control.
In an environment like this army lists should be more troops centric, and the room for deathstar or special units will shrink, giving to them the support role that they should have.

About Grav. I think that would be sufficient (and rather ffluffy) make these weapons totally useless against vehicles. SM would keep grav for dealing with MC and heavy infantry but will be obliged to field a good number of anti tank weapons too, balancing the mix.

Might make something useful in the vehicle department.
I do hope making foot infantry troops the only objective grabbers means no bikes, no cavalry, no jumpers, nothing embarked.

Foot slogging troops or bust.

 kirotheavenger wrote:

The Deer Hunter wrote:
Make foot infantry troops the only unit that can capture and contest objectives, make wipe out no more a victory condition, get back to different level of victory each depending on the number of obj you control.
In an environment like this army lists should be more troops centric, and the room for deathstar or special units will shrink, giving to them the support role that they should have.

About Grav. I think that would be sufficient (and rather ffluffy) make these weapons totally useless against vehicles. SM would keep grav for dealing with MC and heavy infantry but will be obliged to field a good number of anti tank weapons too, balancing the mix.

As such they should lower the firerate as well.
As is they have the firerate to even retain use against light infantry, and make an absolute mockery of heavy infantry.

Yes, but being useless against vehicles means that the number of grav on the field will be much lower than now.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Dakka Wolf wrote:

The Deer Hunter wrote:
Make foot infantry troops the only unit that can capture and contest objectives, make wipe out no more a victory condition, get back to different level of victory each depending on the number of obj you control.
In an environment like this army lists should be more troops centric, and the room for deathstar or special units will shrink, giving to them the support role that they should have.

About Grav. I think that would be sufficient (and rather ffluffy) make these weapons totally useless against vehicles. SM would keep grav for dealing with MC and heavy infantry but will be obliged to field a good number of anti tank weapons too, balancing the mix.

Might make something useful in the vehicle department.
I do hope making foot infantry troops the only objective grabbers means no bikes, no cavalry, no jumpers, nothing embarked.

Foot slogging troops or bust.

No bikes, no cavalry, no embarked, only foot slogging, that's what I meant. Foot troop infantries are the units less pumped by power creep and armies where the backbone must be of such units will make for a more balanced game.

 Blackie wrote:
Only because this is a thread about grav centurions, and only SM rely on grav so much. There are other fix to make in order to balance the game of course, but grav weapons should be nerfed badly, no matter what.

SM with no grav weapons at all are still among the top 2 armies.

Well the reason we rely on grav so much is because of how good it is in comparison to everything else. If they made plasma on par with grav or brought grav down a peg it would not be a problem I mean, Grav gun cost the same as a plasma and there is no reason to not take it at that point.

So the only 2 opetion are make other weaons more appealing, which means the army gets stronger as a whole, or nerf grav to make other options appealing, which results in the army balanced.

We would still be top 2 because of the stupid formations

The Deer Hunter wrote:

 kirotheavenger wrote:

The Deer Hunter wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Dakka Wolf wrote:

The Deer Hunter wrote:
Make foot infantry troops the only unit that can capture and contest objectives, make wipe out no more a victory condition, get back to different level of victory each depending on the number of obj you control.
In an environment like this army lists should be more troops centric, and the room for deathstar or special units will shrink, giving to them the support role that they should have.

About Grav. I think that would be sufficient (and rather ffluffy) make these weapons totally useless against vehicles. SM would keep grav for dealing with MC and heavy infantry but will be obliged to field a good number of anti tank weapons too, balancing the mix.

Might make something useful in the vehicle department.
I do hope making foot infantry troops the only objective grabbers means no bikes, no cavalry, no jumpers, nothing embarked.

Foot slogging troops or bust.

No bikes, no cavalry, no embarked, only foot slogging, that's what I meant. Foot troop infantries are the units less pumped by power creep and armies where the backbone must be of such units will make for a more balanced game.

I'm all for that.

Reply by: Slayer-Fan123 - click to view full reply 

90435

Reduce Centurions grav dependancy  @ 2017/03/05 00:27:57

Post by: Slayer-Fan123

But why would footslogging infantry be the only ones able to capture objectives for any reason?

Reply by: Dakka Wolf - click to view full reply 

104305

Reduce Centurions grav dependancy  @ 2017/03/05 01:12:03

Post by: Dakka Wolf

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
But why would footslogging infantry be the only ones able to capture objectives for any reason?

Believe it or not foot sloggers are actually fairly balanced across armies.
Fluffwise most fiction revolves around footsloggers.

Reply by: Martel732 - click to view full reply 

11860

Reduce Centurions grav dependancy  @ 2017/03/05 02:32:34

Post by: Martel732

 Blackie wrote:
Only because this is a thread about grav centurions, and only SM rely on grav so much. There are other fix to make in order to balance the game of course, but grav weapons should be nerfed badly, no matter what.

SM with no grav weapons at all are still among the top 2 armies.

I disagree.

Reply by: Dakka Wolf - click to view full reply 

104305

Reduce Centurions grav dependancy  @ 2017/03/05 03:16:36

Post by: Dakka Wolf

Martel732 wrote:

 Blackie wrote:
Only because this is a thread about grav centurions, and only SM rely on grav so much. There are other fix to make in order to balance the game of course, but grav weapons should be nerfed badly, no matter what.

SM with no grav weapons at all are still among the top 2 armies.

I disagree.

That would make five armies in the top two.
Vanilla Marines
Dark Angels
Space Wolves
Blood Angels
Eldar

Blood Angels drop-podding massed first turn threats can and will cripple any army that isn't 100% prepared to deal with it but if they can't cripple on the first turn they lose. It's impressive when it works but any army that can cover the majority of their deployment zone will laugh at the tactic and there isn't any backup play for the Angels, they're relying on glass canons.

Reply by: Martel732 - click to view full reply 

11860

Reduce Centurions grav dependancy  @ 2017/03/05 03:50:09

Post by: Martel732

I still don't see why BA doing it is any better than skyhammer lists.

Reply by: Dakka Wolf - click to view full reply 

104305

Reduce Centurions grav dependancy  @ 2017/03/05 04:03:05

Post by: Dakka Wolf

Martel732 wrote:
I still don't see why BA doing it is any better than skyhammer lists.

Blood Angels do it with Dreadnoughts.
Massed Heavy Flamers, Plasma Canons and other Heavy Weapons that aren't snap-firing on entry.

Reply by: Blackie - click to view full reply 

108848

Reduce Centurions grav dependancy  @ 2017/03/05 08:13:03

Post by: Blackie

 Dakka Wolf wrote:


That would make five armies in the top two.
Vanilla Marines
Dark Angels
Space Wolves
Blood Angels
Eldar

I think that SM stupid and overpowered formations keep them tied with eldar even without taking a single grav weapon in their list. With grav spam SM are the most overpowered army in the game, better than eldar. SW and DA are not that competitive, BA while not being that bad are not at the same level of these two chapters.

A skilled player can surely win a tournament with SM even without grav weapons, gladius and skyhammer formations.

Reply by: Slayer-Fan123 - click to view full reply 

90435

Reduce Centurions grav dependancy  @ 2017/03/05 08:24:25

Post by: Slayer-Fan123

 Blackie wrote:

 Dakka Wolf wrote:


That would make five armies in the top two.
Vanilla Marines
Dark Angels
Space Wolves
Blood Angels
Eldar

I think that SM stupid and overpowered formations keep them tied with eldar even without taking a single grav weapon in their list. With grav spam SM are the most overpowered army in the game, better than eldar. SW and DA are not that competitive, BA while not being that bad are not at the same level of these two chapters.

A skilled player can surely win a tournament with SM even without grav weapons, gladius and skyhammer formations.

Your logic is terrible because Dark Angels and the regular codex are almost completely identical for what's competitive. Your post reeks of butthurt and not understanding the rankings.

Reply by: Dakka Wolf - click to view full reply 

104305

Reduce Centurions grav dependancy  @ 2017/03/05 08:45:46

Post by: Dakka Wolf

 Blackie wrote:

 Dakka Wolf wrote:


That would make five armies in the top two.
Vanilla Marines
Dark Angels
Space Wolves
Blood Angels
Eldar

I think that SM stupid and overpowered formations keep them tied with eldar even without taking a single grav weapon in their list. With grav spam SM are the most overpowered army in the game, better than eldar. SW and DA are not that competitive, BA while not being that bad are not at the same level of these two chapters.

A skilled player can surely win a tournament with SM even without grav weapons, gladius and skyhammer formations.

A skilled player can. Funny thing I've noticed is that skilled players tend to buy the competitive armies anyway.
I can only think of one player who I would consider skilled beyond his army - he plays Guard.

Reply by: Blackie - click to view full reply 

108848

Reduce Centurions grav dependancy  @ 2017/03/05 09:50:33

Post by: Blackie

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Blackie wrote:

 Dakka Wolf wrote:


That would make five armies in the top two.
Vanilla Marines
Dark Angels
Space Wolves
Blood Angels
Eldar

I think that SM stupid and overpowered formations keep them tied with eldar even without taking a single grav weapon in their list. With grav spam SM are the most overpowered army in the game, better than eldar. SW and DA are not that competitive, BA while not being that bad are not at the same level of these two chapters.

A skilled player can surely win a tournament with SM even without grav weapons, gladius and skyhammer formations.

Your logic is terrible because Dark Angels and the regular codex are almost completely identical for what's competitive. Your post reeks of butthurt and not understanding the rankings.

Yes but you don't buy a DA army only to have a SM one painted with DA colours. If you go with DA that's because you like ravenwing or/and deathwing. I've never seen a DA list that is just identical to a vanilla marine one.

Reply by: Dakka Wolf - click to view full reply 

104305

Reduce Centurions grav dependancy  @ 2017/03/05 12:02:27

Post by: Dakka Wolf

Butthurt is funny.
He runs Wolves, Dark Eldar and Orks. All of them have t-shirt saves and laugh at Grav.

Reply by: Blackie - click to view full reply 

108848

Reduce Centurions grav dependancy  @ 2017/03/05 13:00:20

Post by: Blackie

Actually grav weapons can hurt badly my armies. SW are probably the ones that care less as they've got tons of 3+ invulns and no vehicles.

Orks have BWs and meganobz that are scared by massive grav shooting, DE have talos.

But yes, scatter bikes, D weapons, tau shoooing... are way more terrible for my armies than grav spam but I think the abundance of those ignores armor and toughness shots needs to be nerfed in order to make a better game. Of course other things should be nerfed too but that's completely off topic, I think SM can be quite competitive even without ALL their cheesy tricks.

SM have lots of other effective options, the thread was about reducing centurions grav dependancy and I think there is only one way to do it, which is increasing significantly the cost of grav weapons, or maybe reducing their number of shots.

Alternatively cut any possibility to give grav guns to different units than devastators and centurions. This way centurions would be even more grav dependant but it would be justified.

Reply by: Slayer-Fan123 - click to view full reply 

90435

Reduce Centurions grav dependancy  @ 2017/03/05 15:47:21

Post by: Slayer-Fan123

 Blackie wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Blackie wrote:

 Dakka Wolf wrote:


That would make five armies in the top two.
Vanilla Marines
Dark Angels
Space Wolves
Blood Angels
Eldar

I think that SM stupid and overpowered formations keep them tied with eldar even without taking a single grav weapon in their list. With grav spam SM are the most overpowered army in the game, better than eldar. SW and DA are not that competitive, BA while not being that bad are not at the same level of these two chapters.

A skilled player can surely win a tournament with SM even without grav weapons, gladius and skyhammer formations.

Your logic is terrible because Dark Angels and the regular codex are almost completely identical for what's competitive. Your post reeks of butthurt and not understanding the rankings.

Yes but you don't buy a DA army only to have a SM one painted with DA colours. If you go with DA that's because you like ravenwing or/and deathwing. I've never seen a DA list that is just identical to a vanilla marine one.

Ya know, outside the people running Green Marines and doing their version of the Gladius and getting tournament wins that way. You can ignore that if you decide it hurts your argument too much though.

Reply by: Martel732 - click to view full reply 

11860

Reduce Centurions grav dependancy  @ 2017/03/05 16:46:32

Post by: Martel732

Grav is the only effective heavy weapon in the marine arsenal. All the others are jokes in 7th ed. IG at least have multilasers. 80% of the marine codex is not good because that's the 80% the ba get. So no, they don''t have many other good options. Marines aren't good; marine gimmicks are good.

Reply by: Blackie - click to view full reply 

108848

Reduce Centurions grav dependancy  @ 2017/03/05 17:19:15

Post by: Blackie

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Ya know, outside the people running Green Marines and doing their version of the Gladius and getting tournament wins that way. You can ignore that if you decide it hurts your argument too much though.

People can do whatever they want. If you play DA with gladius maybe it's 100 legal (I don't know because I've never seen DA playing this way but I trust you) but you're playing SM not DA. Yes technically they're DA but they can win tournaments even with their typical stuff and if someone brings a SM list painted with DA colours it's ok, but allow me to think that the dude has picked up the wrong army. Independent codexes for different chapters are there to give variety to the game.

Even dark eldar can be top tiers with some wraitknight, scatter bikes and farseer allied but are they really DE? Technically yes, if the DE units are more than 50% of the list but IMHO they're not. A DA, BA, SW list with 90% or more of SM stuff (I mean units and wargear that are in common among different chapters, I'm not considering alliances) is a SM list.

Rankings are also not objective at all since there are a lot of lists full of alliances that are not taken into account (most of the SW victories in tournaments are lists with a lot of other stuff for example) and they are also dependant on what players bring. If there are 100 SM players and 10 DE ones you'll see a lot of SM victories but that' not only because of the superiority of the SM codex but also because there are many more players. Never rely on rankings, rely on your experience.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Martel732 wrote:
Grav is the only effective heavy weapon in the marine arsenal. All the others are jokes in 7th ed. IG at least have multilasers. 80% of the marine codex is not good because that's the 80% the ba get. So no, they don''t have many other good options. Marines aren't good; marine gimmicks are good.

With blasters, haywire blasters, poisoned shots or S5-7-8 of ork shooting, and of course the rest of DE and Orks abilites (without forgetting their disadvantages like AV10 and 5+ or 6+ saves), you can defeat the top tier armies. So SM can win competitive games even without their gimmicks, maybe not a tournament as winning a game is possible and even with good odds, but winning 4-5 in a row is the real issue. Stll not impossible though.

Reply by: Martel732 - click to view full reply 

11860

Reduce Centurions grav dependancy  @ 2017/03/05 17:44:57

Post by: Martel732

I disagree. Orks and de and gimmickless marines are not truly competitive. I don't think ba mass dread thing will hold up for long. It's too hard to overcome scatterlasers and riptides. Too much math against the have nots.

Reply by: Slayer-Fan123 - click to view full reply 

90435

Reduce Centurions grav dependancy  @ 2017/03/05 18:20:40

Post by: Slayer-Fan123

 Blackie wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Ya know, outside the people running Green Marines and doing their version of the Gladius and getting tournament wins that way. You can ignore that if you decide it hurts your argument too much though.

People can do whatever they want. If you play DA with gladius maybe it's 100 legal (I don't know because I've never seen DA playing this way but I trust you) but you're playing SM not DA. Yes technically they're DA but they can win tournaments even with their typical stuff and if someone brings a SM list painted with DA colours it's ok, but allow me to think that the dude has picked up the wrong army. Independent codexes for different chapters are there to give variety to the game.

Even dark eldar can be top tiers with some wraitknight, scatter bikes and farseer allied but are they really DE? Technically yes, if the DE units are more than 50% of the list but IMHO they're not. A DA, BA, SW list with 90% or more of SM stuff (I mean units and wargear that are in common among different chapters, I'm not considering alliances) is a SM list.

Rankings are also not objective at all since there are a lot of lists full of alliances that are not taken into account (most of the SW victories in tournaments are lists with a lot of other stuff for example) and they are also dependant on what players bring. If there are 100 SM players and 10 DE ones you'll see a lot of SM victories but that' not only because of the superiority of the SM codex but also because there are many more players. Never rely on rankings, rely on your experience.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Martel732 wrote:
Grav is the only effective heavy weapon in the marine arsenal. All the others are jokes in 7th ed. IG at least have multilasers. 80% of the marine codex is not good because that's the 80% the ba get. So no, they don''t have many other good options. Marines aren't good; marine gimmicks are good.

With blasters, haywire blasters, poisoned shots or S5-7-8 of ork shooting, and of course the rest of DE and Orks abilites (without forgetting their disadvantages like AV10 and 5+ or 6+ saves), you can defeat the top tier armies. So SM can win competitive games even without their gimmicks, maybe not a tournament as winning a game is possible and even with good odds, but winning 4-5 in a row is the real issue. Stll not impossible though.

I don't care if you think they bought the wrong codex. The Lions Blade is basically Gladius except you get BS4 Overwatch instead of Doctrines.

Reply by: Martel732 - click to view full reply 

11860

Reduce Centurions grav dependancy  @ 2017/03/05 18:48:31

Post by: Martel732

"Never rely on rankings, rely on your experience. "

So data doesn't matter? Your personal experience trumps all? Yeah, we're done here.

The answer to the thread is to make other weapons worth having. They aren't. It takes 30+ lascannon shots to kill Riptide. Why would I ever bring a lascannon?

Reply by: Blackie - click to view full reply 

108848

Reduce Centurions grav dependancy  @ 2017/03/05 19:58:10

Post by: Blackie

As I said before you have to take into account the alliances and how many people bring the low tier armies. If there are 10 DE players every 100 SM ones of course they win in very few occasions, regardless of their real efficiency.

When it comes to orks or DE players take a look at the average lists that you see in tournaments, I've barely seen a few times some really competitive lists (considering how competitive they can be with their stuff), most of the time players use a lot of fluffy units. That's another reason why they don't place at all.

Many armies that are considered mid tiers relying on tournaments placements have some allied which are usually the most competitive part of the list. Most of the SW victories are made with lists that also include SM librarians conclave. SW are considered mid tiers but without alliances how would they place in tournaments? That's why data shouldn't be read as the bible.

Rankings are influenced by many factors.

Cut ALL the overpowered stuff in the game (not more than 5-6 things overall) and lascannons would be a nice weapon again. I think game changes should be done simultaneously, nerfing grav is necessary but nerfing other stuff (yes, also riptides) is necessary too.

Reply by: Martel732 - click to view full reply 

11860

Reduce Centurions grav dependancy  @ 2017/03/05 20:55:49

Post by: Martel732

You're gonna cut every mc in the game? Because the lascannon sucks vs all of them. As does melta. As do krak missiles.

Reply by: Blackie - click to view full reply 

108848

Reduce Centurions grav dependancy  @ 2017/03/05 21:16:45

Post by: Blackie

Not the MCs, just giving them the appropriate cost and nerfing some wargear. Only 4-5 MCs are really powerful, there are 20+ of them.

Reply by: Martel732 - click to view full reply 

11860

Reduce Centurions grav dependancy  @ 2017/03/05 21:32:07

Post by: Martel732

But they all only take a single wound from the strongest weapons in the game.

Reply by: Dakka Wolf - click to view full reply 

104305

Reduce Centurions grav dependancy  @ 2017/03/05 21:40:58

Post by: Dakka Wolf

Martel732 wrote:
I disagree. Orks and de and gimmickless marines are not truly competitive. I don't think ba mass dread thing will hold up for long. It's too hard to overcome scatterlasers and riptides. Too much math against the have nots.

Tau and Eldar are two of the the armies that die easiest to the Dreads Party.
Scatterlasers die without resistance when you put a Flame Template or two over them on your first turn. A Librarius Dread with Pyromancy and a Heavy Flamer will monster most Eldar Units.
Tau strength against this list comes from EWO, that can also be a weakness to the Tau.
Riptides rely heavily on Marker Lights, two Marker Lights usually get used to ignore Shrouded from each targeted Lucius Pod before the raising of BS even starts. Then the pod itsself has to be destroyed before the Dread can be targeted. It's a lot of shots being applied to non-threatening pods. The Marker Lights applied to the pod don't transfer to the embarked unit so it's use or lose, meaning the Tau player has to balance probability of destruction before they even start shooting with the Marker Drones. This puts the initiative back with the BA player to ignore units that used all available weaponry during EWO and psychic/shoot at units that didn't participate.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Martel732 wrote:
But they all only take a single wound from the strongest weapons in the game.

Most of those 20+ can be put down by Boltguns.

Reply by: Martel732 - click to view full reply 

11860

Reduce Centurions grav dependancy  @ 2017/03/05 21:47:41

Post by: Martel732

"Most of those 20+ can be put down by Boltguns."

No, they really can't, unless you have hundreds of bolters in your list. At the numbers bolters actually show up in, MCs are effectively immune.

"Tau and Eldar are two of the the armies that die easiest to the Dreads Party. "

I'm gonna have to see this. WK stomps all over dreads like tissue paper. Tau do struggle a bit against vehicles sometimes, and I know that the super multimissle thing on the Stormsurge can't hurt dreads.

Reply by: Blackie - click to view full reply 

108848

Reduce Centurions grav dependancy  @ 2017/03/05 21:49:26

Post by: Blackie

"But they all only take a single wound from the strongest weapons in the game."

Like any T6 biker character in the game, or any T5 common biker that is wounded by anything but S10. Even grotesques can be T6 with their formation.

Most of the MCs are good or average units, some of them are not better than land raiders. Carnifexes are MCs and mostly used as pure distractions.

Grav weapons are too powerful, mostly because a SM list can have a ton of shots. Just like scatter lasers, S6 are not superscary, but a huge amount of shots of that weapon surely is. Grav centurios are clearly a mistake that needs to be fixed.

Reply by: Martel732 - click to view full reply 

11860

Reduce Centurions grav dependancy  @ 2017/03/05 21:51:11

Post by: Martel732

All of them are better than land raiders. Your lack of perception as to how incredibly gakky the land raider is makes me question all of your other positions. And given MC is almost always better than any given non-skimmer vehicle. Because base rule book says so. When you bring a land raider, you are spotting your opponent 250 pts. That's the reality of how 7th ed plays. It's hands down the worst unit in C:BA, which is a dumpster fire codex to begin with. It's in contention for worst unit in the game simply because of paying 250 pts to do NOTHING.

Reply by: Blackie - click to view full reply 

108848

Reduce Centurions grav dependancy  @ 2017/03/05 21:56:03

Post by: Blackie

A land raider has the same cost as 2 talos which can only fire 8/12 poisoned TL shots and get obliterated by a single round of grav shooting, what about carnifexes? or Necrons spiders? Cronos only serve the purpose of buffing FNP of friendly units, orks big squiggoth?

Reply by: Martel732 - click to view full reply 

11860

Reduce Centurions grav dependancy  @ 2017/03/05 21:59:10

Post by: Martel732

 Blackie wrote:
A land raider has the same cost as 2 talos which can only fire 8/12 poisoned TL shots and get obliterated by a single round of grav shooting, what about carnifexes? or Necrons spiders? Cronos only serve the purpose of buffing FNP of friendly units, orks big squiggoth?

Those all do something and cost less than 250 and can't immobilize themselves on a shrub. Land raider is the worst. I prove it every time my opponents bring one. A single grav effect completely defeats the whole purpose of the LR. More than likely that can come from a single tac squad of vanilla marines.

Bottom line to me: grav weapons are slightly too good, and other marine heavy weapons are all basically trash. Good lists don't care about lascannons and heavy bolters. The math isn't there.

Reply by: Blackie - click to view full reply 

108848

Reduce Centurions grav dependancy  @ 2017/03/05 22:05:54

Post by: Blackie

Martel732 wrote:


Bottom line to me: grav weapons are slightly too good.

I think grav spam is the most broken thing in the entire 40k world, along with D weapons and free vehicles.

Reply by: Martel732 - click to view full reply 

11860

Reduce Centurions grav dependancy  @ 2017/03/05 22:08:20

Post by: Martel732

Well you would be very, very wrong.

At this point, D weapons are a blessing.

Again, your analysis of the land raider does not inspire confidence. I think you're overreacting to grav.

Reply by: Dakka Wolf - click to view full reply 

104305

Reduce Centurions grav dependancy  @ 2017/03/05 23:02:23

Post by: Dakka Wolf

Martel732 wrote:
"Most of those 20+ can be put down by Boltguns."

No, they really can't, unless you have hundreds of bolters in your list. At the numbers bolters actually show up in, MCs are effectively immune.

Most of those 20+ MCs are Tyranids that cost over 200pts have 6" movement, T6 and a 3+ save to cover three wounds. Fourteen Space Marines with Boltguns will just move the same 6" as the MC and keep pumping shots into it. Even if they only wound on a 6+ it's not immune.

"Tau and Eldar are two of the the armies that die easiest to the Dreads Party. "

I'm gonna have to see this. WK stomps all over dreads like tissue paper. Tau do struggle a bit against vehicles sometimes, and I know that the super multimissle thing on the Stormsurge can't hurt dreads.

So are we talking WK spam or Scatbike spam or a combination of both?

The podded Libby Dreads will cripple the Scatbikes before they even get a shot in response. Pyromancy and Heavy Flamers.
WraithKnights I didn't get to watch against the Party but I was told the BA player won off the back of one of the new Space Marine psychic disciplines - podded in with regular Dreads and killed the Eldar psykers then podded in the Libby Dreads and eliminated the WKs.

Reply by: Martel732 - click to view full reply 

11860

Reduce Centurions grav dependancy  @ 2017/03/05 23:05:13

Post by: Martel732

"So are we talking WK spam or Scatbike spam or a combination of both? "

Every Eldar player I know knows the "skyhammer drill" now, except it works ever BETTER against regular drop lists. Leave the hard targets on the table, and reserve the bikes. Bring a cheap autarch for reserve manipulation.

The drop pods land, do nothing useful, and then the bikes come in far away from the dreads that now only move 6".

"Even if they only wound on a 6+ it's not immune. "

Those are 14 marines not shooting something they can actually hurt in a 5 turn time scale.

Reply by: Dakka Wolf - click to view full reply 

104305

Reduce Centurions grav dependancy  @ 2017/03/05 23:31:42

Post by: Dakka Wolf

Martel732 wrote:
"So are we talking WK spam or Scatbike spam or a combination of both? "

Every Eldar player I know knows the "skyhammer drill" now, except it works ever BETTER against regular drop lists. Leave the hard targets on the table, and reserve the bikes. Bring a cheap autarch for reserve manipulation.

The drop pods land, do nothing useful, and then the bikes come in far away from the dreads that now only move 6".

Drop them on objective markers and they don't even have to move out of their Lucius Pods.

"Even if they only wound on a 6+ it's not immune. "

Those are 14 marines not shooting something they can actually hurt in a 5 turn time scale.

Those are 14 marines that cost less than the MC in question.

Reply by: Martel732 - click to view full reply 

11860

Reduce Centurions grav dependancy  @ 2017/03/05 23:33:55

Post by: Martel732

 Dakka Wolf wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
"So are we talking WK spam or Scatbike spam or a combination of both? "

Every Eldar player I know knows the "skyhammer drill" now, except it works ever BETTER against regular drop lists. Leave the hard targets on the table, and reserve the bikes. Bring a cheap autarch for reserve manipulation.

The drop pods land, do nothing useful, and then the bikes come in far away from the dreads that now only move 6".

Drop them on objective markers and they don't even have to move out of their Lucius Pods.

"Even if they only wound on a 6+ it's not immune. "

Those are 14 marines not shooting something they can actually hurt in a 5 turn time scale.

Those are 14 marines that cost less than the MC in question.

Maybe. Those lucious pods won't last long vs scatterlasers. Crack open pod, and then d-blast of D-slap the dread inside. BA start off scoring points, but by turn 3 or so, the Eldar is doing all scoring.

Reply by: Dakka Wolf - click to view full reply 

104305

Reduce Centurions grav dependancy  @ 2017/03/06 00:28:50

Post by: Dakka Wolf

Martel732 wrote:

 Dakka Wolf wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
"So are we talking WK spam or Scatbike spam or a combination of both? "

Every Eldar player I know knows the "skyhammer drill" now, except it works ever BETTER against regular drop lists. Leave the hard targets on the table, and reserve the bikes. Bring a cheap autarch for reserve manipulation.

The drop pods land, do nothing useful, and then the bikes come in far away from the dreads that now only move 6".

Drop them on objective markers and they don't even have to move out of their Lucius Pods.

"Even if they only wound on a 6+ it's not immune. "

Those are 14 marines not shooting something they can actually hurt in a 5 turn time scale.

Those are 14 marines that cost less than the MC in question.

Maybe. Those lucious pods won't last long vs scatterlasers. Crack open pod, and then d-blast of D-slap the dread inside. BA start off scoring points, but by turn 3 or so, the Eldar is doing all scoring.

Then the other Dreads arrive and flame out the Scattbikes. BA don't have Skyhammer - everything arrives first turn they have the regular half drop pods rounded up.

Reply by: Martel732 - click to view full reply 

11860

Reduce Centurions grav dependancy  @ 2017/03/06 02:09:24

Post by: Martel732

Yes, which means they can jink half the drops by starting in reserve. Sure, drop on top of my WK.

Reply by: Dakka Wolf - click to view full reply 

104305

Reduce Centurions grav dependancy  @ 2017/03/06 03:06:06

Post by: Dakka Wolf

Martel732 wrote:
Yes, which means they can jink half the drops by starting in reserve. Sure, drop on top of my WK.

So you'd leave WraithKnights on the field for your first turn? D-Canons or Sword and Shield?

Reply by: Martel732 - click to view full reply 

11860

Reduce Centurions grav dependancy  @ 2017/03/06 03:10:50

Post by: Martel732

 Dakka Wolf wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Yes, which means they can jink half the drops by starting in reserve. Sure, drop on top of my WK.

So you'd leave WraithKnights on the field for your first turn? D-Canons or Sword and Shield?

I don't know. Probably depends on the rest of my list. Eldar are undercosted, so they might have other hard targets like a wave serpent or something. They can afford it.

Skyhammer is much trickier, actually. They usually reserve many bikes but hide a few, since Skyhammer can definitely remove a WK. Dreadnought party can't even get close. I really don't see how Eldar using the skyhammer drill don't hard counter the dreadnought party.

Reply by: Dakka Wolf - click to view full reply 

104305

Reduce Centurions grav dependancy  @ 2017/03/06 03:36:37

Post by: Dakka Wolf

Martel732 wrote:

 Dakka Wolf wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Yes, which means they can jink half the drops by starting in reserve. Sure, drop on top of my WK.

So you'd leave WraithKnights on the field for your first turn? D-Canons or Sword and Shield?

I don't know. Probably depends on the rest of my list. Eldar are undercosted, so they might have other hard targets like a wave serpent or something. They can afford it.

Skyhammer is much trickier, actually. They usually reserve many bikes but hide a few, since Skyhammer can definitely remove a WK. Dreadnought party can't even get close. I really don't see how Eldar using the skyhammer drill don't hard counter the dreadnought party.

Criminally undercosted - no way I'm arguing that.
Libby Dreads with Flamers won't be much use against the D-canon WK but a couple of Dreads with Plasma Canons can off the D Canon WK.
The WKs with the shield/gun shield/sword combos are the two I have no idea about, how he could have scrubbed them is outside my ken - I know Psychic shenanigans from the Space Marine psyker cards but I don't own them myself so the discipline mentioned went in one ear and out the other.

Reply by: Martel732 - click to view full reply 

11860

Reduce Centurions grav dependancy  @ 2017/03/06 04:33:11

Post by: Martel732

I'm seeing the sword one more and more because it's got layered saves vs AP2. Init 5 D strength swings are brutal.

Reply by: Slayer-Fan123 - click to view full reply 

90435

Reduce Centurions grav dependancy  @ 2017/03/06 05:39:19

Post by: Slayer-Fan123

I literally lol'd at the notion that Plasma Cannon Dreads were in any way effective against a Wraithknight, even without an Invuln. Anyone want to do the math on that?

Reply by: Sonic Keyboard - click to view full reply 

100253

Reduce Centurions grav dependancy  @ 2017/03/06 05:54:04

Post by: Sonic Keyboard

6 * 3/2 for FnP * 3 (5+ to wound) = 27 plasma hits
So 990 points of plasma dreads hitting every other time would kill it over 6 turns

Reply by: Dakka Wolf - click to view full reply 

104305

Reduce Centurions grav dependancy  @ 2017/03/06 06:17:35

Post by: Dakka Wolf

I've seen it done with 680pts over two rounds. Four Dreads, Lucius pods and Lady Luck in the back pocket.

Reply by: Martel732 - click to view full reply 

11860

Reduce Centurions grav dependancy  @ 2017/03/06 13:56:02

Post by: Martel732

 Dakka Wolf wrote:
I've seen it done with 680pts over two rounds. Four Dreads, Lucius pods and Lady Luck in the back pocket.

That doesn't really mean much. You can just as easily get unlucky and never kill it.

Reply by: Blackie - click to view full reply 

108848

Reduce Centurions grav dependancy  @ 2017/03/06 14:21:12

Post by: Blackie

WK is by far the most competitive unit in the entire 40k world, it needs to be nerfed too. It just should have an IK profile, AV13 and 5-6 HPs, an invuln save, but no FNP (maybe replaced with It Will Not Die), and an appropriate points value, which is around 350-400 points.

Nerfing grav and only grav would clearly upset SM players, I think nerfing one of the most overpowered thing and only one is still something, but honestly 4-5 things should be nerfed along with grav weapons. Right now grav spam is abused beacuse there are overpowered units that are too tough to kill otherwise. Making them more balanced would disappear the need of taking grav weapons everywhere so those weapons could be nerfed without destroying the SM potential.

And then other Centurions' options become more viable and common.

Reply by: Slayer-Fan123 - click to view full reply 

90435

Reduce Centurions grav dependancy  @ 2017/03/06 15:29:47

Post by: Slayer-Fan123

 Dakka Wolf wrote:
I've seen it done with 680pts over two rounds. Four Dreads, Lucius pods and Lady Luck in the back pocket.

You hear that guys? If you always roll significantly above average, you too can be successful!

Reply by: Martel732 - click to view full reply 

11860

Reduce Centurions grav dependancy  @ 2017/03/06 15:32:42

Post by: Martel732

 Blackie wrote:
WK is by far the most competitive unit in the entire 40k world, it needs to be nerfed too. It just should have an IK profile, AV13 and 5-6 HPs, an invuln save, but no FNP (maybe replaced with It Will Not Die), and an appropriate points value, which is around 350-400 points.

Nerfing grav and only grav would clearly upset SM players, I think nerfing one of the most overpowered thing and only one is still something, but honestly 4-5 things should be nerfed along with grav weapons. Right now grav spam is abused beacuse there are overpowered units that are too tough to kill otherwise. Making them more balanced would disappear the need of taking grav weapons everywhere so those weapons could be nerfed without destroying the SM potential.

And then other Centurions' options become more viable and common.

So at that point, we might as well go total rewrite. You can't fix grav in a vacuum. Quit trying. Lascannons would still suck. Missile launchers would still suck. The other options are still worthless.

Reply by: Xenomancers - click to view full reply 

91128

Reduce Centurions grav dependancy  @ 2017/03/06 15:43:03

Post by: Xenomancers

Or we could just buff the other options -

Las cannons on a roll of a 6 to hit get armorbane/fleshbane/instant death/ and AP1.

Something like this would make single shot weapons high risk high reward and actually worth taking.

Reply by: Martel732 - click to view full reply 

11860

Reduce Centurions grav dependancy  @ 2017/03/06 15:45:30

Post by: Martel732

 Xenomancers wrote:
Or we could just buff the other options -

Las cannons on a roll of a 6 to hit get armorbane/fleshbane/instant death/ and AP1.

Something like this would make single shot weapons high risk high reward and actually worth taking.

That's still crappy because of low rate of fire. They need to be consistently better. Like they cause 2 wounds/hull points all the time. And T6 can't use FNP against them because it burns a hole straight through them. As long as lascannons can't beat the layered saves consistently, there will be no reason to take them. Fishing for 6's is a good way to lose.

Reply by: Xenomancers - click to view full reply 

91128

Reduce Centurions grav dependancy  @ 2017/03/06 16:04:36

Post by: Xenomancers

Martel732 wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
Or we could just buff the other options -

Las cannons on a roll of a 6 to hit get armorbane/fleshbane/instant death/ and AP1.

Something like this would make single shot weapons high risk high reward and actually worth taking.

That's still crappy because of low rate of fire. They need to be consistently better. Like they cause 2 wounds/hull points all the time. And T6 can't use FNP against them because it burns a hole straight through them. As long as lascannons can't beat the layered saves consistently, there will be no reason to take them. Fishing for 6's is a good way to lose.

It's just an idea. I like the long range risk reward vs short range reliablity that LC and Melta used to create. When they added hullpoints though - the lower reliablity of a LC just became such an off chance at a good damage result that they became useless. I think making results of 6 to hit with these type weapons a nearly assured kill after a failed save would go a long way to help them be viable.

Reply by: Blackie - click to view full reply 

108848

Reduce Centurions grav dependancy  @ 2017/03/06 17:56:14

Post by: Blackie

Martel732 wrote:


So at that point, we might as well go total rewrite. You can't fix grav in a vacuum. Quit trying. Lascannons would still suck. Missile launchers would still suck. The other options are still worthless.

Not a total rewrite, I think only 5-6 things should be changed in the entire 40k world, considering core rules, codexes and supplements. If you make other centurions' options more appealing you're just adding another problem as SM are still one the most competitive armies and surely don't need other helps. S8 ap3 and S9 ap2 weapons are powerful enough against 98% of the possibile enemy units. You take grav mostly to kill those 3-4 overpowered MCs but if you also nerf them as they surely deserve the abuse of grav wouldn't be necessary and the entire game would be more balanced.

Reply by: Martel732 - click to view full reply 

11860

Reduce Centurions grav dependancy  @ 2017/03/06 17:58:20

Post by: Martel732

That's where you are dead wrong. Even my ba largely don't care about single shot weapons like lascannons. They suck in 7th and can't be fixed by changing 5-6 things. The game is way sicker than you think. Marines suck without their gimmicks. Hell ba have grav but we can't use it effectively because our tacs can't have it and we get no skyhammer and no cents. If grav was as great as you say, ba should at least be good. Right? But they're not.

I never voluntarily bring lascannons because they suck in almost every matchup. I have many ba lists with nk heavy support at all, because it all sucks for the ba.

Reply by: Naaris - click to view full reply 

93366

Reduce Centurions grav dependancy  @ 2017/03/07 15:44:04

Post by: Naaris

Keep the price the same. Get rid of grav-amp. Depending on the version of grav weapons - 3/5/6 shots on a relentless platform which they all are generally on, should not also get to reroll wounds.

Reply by: Xenomancers - click to view full reply 

91128

Reduce Centurions grav dependancy  @ 2017/03/08 19:56:04

Post by: Xenomancers

Make it a twinlinked Grav cannon then - since all the others are twinlinked also.