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.

Traditio wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

 TheCustomLime wrote:

Traditio wrote:

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

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

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

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

I'm up for that.

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

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

Traditio wrote:

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

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

I meant the plasma cannon.

pm713 wrote:I meant the plasma cannon.

Oh.

I understand. Scatter and all.

True that.

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

Martel732 wrote:

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

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


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 IllumiNini wrote:

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

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

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

No RoF decrease unless you massively nerfing Riptide and WK.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I like this idea!

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

pm713 wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

 Kanluwen wrote:

pm713 wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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


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

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

The best fix to Graviton?

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

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

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


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

In either combination leave the effects the same.

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

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


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

In either combination leave the effects the same.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 Kanluwen wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Traditio wrote:

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

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

#2 is what he wants to get rid of.

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

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