Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

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.