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.

What are your ideas about how to alter grav rules in mundane or exotic ways to make it fit better in the game? If you don't think it needs to be changed, cool, but that's boring, so let's see some ideas.

Here's mine to get it started. AP2. Cannon changes to Salvo 2/3, other versions stay the same. 9 - (target toughness) = to wound roll needed (1 always fails). Every wound allows shooter to roll an additional to wound dice. Get rid of grav amps.

My thought is that many discussions suggest the primary role of grav should be taking down monstrous creatures. This will be very effective against most of them, but with fewer shots will be less effective against non-intended targets. It will become a poor tool for dealing with something like terminators and meganobs, but that is what plasma is for, so so what. Grots are immune which is a nice result.

Please keep comments about whether grav does or does not need to be changed to a minimum. There is an active post in general 40k that does that. I'd like to see other ideas and brief comments about what is good or bad about a particular idea on its own, not whether the current rule should or should not be altered.

The main problem with grav weapons is that they have a high rate of fire on relentless platforms. Reducing how man shots they can put out and removing grav amps will reduce their ability to automatically delete anything they shoot at.

I think Grav should be a different metric. I like the "bigger you are, the harder you fall" theme present with grav, and that is present in the apparent intent with the way the rule is written. But in practice, it functions almost identically to plasma. So, if we were to take a look at strictly what grav weapons are "supposed" to do and how that translates to the TT mechanics, there is nothing wrong per say because grav is one of the last things that really represents its fluff well.

On a mechanic/ design level, it is totally bonkers because it does the exact same thing as plasma, but is better because it doesn't get hot or have any real drawback. It also kills me because plasma is something that has been around since rogue trader (Citation?) and deserves a spot in everyone's hearts. Grav needs a totally different niche. Grav should be good at something that even plasma is mediocre at. I would say a similar mechanic to the one it does now, but scaling with strength or toughness and then make it cost more than plasma across the board. Now Grav would be mediocre versus infantry in general and only slightly better versus T4 marines than it is against T3 guardsmen. But your T7 Monstrous creature? Grav always wins. And as far as I know, this is a niche that nothing else has really filled. Plasma works, but it works better against heavy infantry, melta works, but you waste ant- vehicle utility when you aim melta at non- AV targets.

What I would like to see is how to implement this? A simple modifier works, like "7- toughness = to wound," or some easy way to "invert" the to- wound chart could work, perhaps?

I would prefer it to work better the higher the toughness or armor value is. Having it work on armor save seems odd. If it is using the mass of the target against it why is a toughness 3 Inquisitor in TDA more vulnerable than a Toxicrene TMC?

I think id like to see it based off of size instead of armor saves.

5+Infantry
4+Bulky
3+Very Bulky
(i forget if there is one after that)
2+MC

Though i think a reconsidering of the weapons fluff would be in order. what exactly does the weapon do and how would that effect everything else. ya know?

the size is also a cool idea.

@ Desubot Extremely Bulky comes after very bulky. But I think like three units are extremely bulky that aren't also MCs.

 Powerfisting wrote:
I think Grav should be a different metric. I like the "bigger you are, the harder you fall" theme present with grav, and that is present in the apparent intent with the way the rule is written. But in practice, it functions almost identically to plasma. So, if we were to take a look at strictly what grav weapons are "supposed" to do and how that translates to the TT mechanics, there is nothing wrong per say because grav is one of the last things that really represents its fluff well.

On a mechanic/ design level, it is totally bonkers because it does the exact same thing as plasma, but is better because it doesn't get hot or have any real drawback. It also kills me because plasma is something that has been around since rogue trader (Citation?) and deserves a spot in everyone's hearts. Grav needs a totally different niche. Grav should be good at something that even plasma is mediocre at. I would say a similar mechanic to the one it does now, but scaling with strength or toughness and then make it cost more than plasma across the board. Now Grav would be mediocre versus infantry in general and only slightly better versus T4 marines than it is against T3 guardsmen. But your T7 Monstrous creature? Grav always wins. And as far as I know, this is a niche that nothing else has really filled. Plasma works, but it works better against heavy infantry, melta works, but you waste ant- vehicle utility when you aim melta at non- AV targets.

What I would like to see is how to implement this? A simple modifier works, like "7- toughness = to wound," or some easy way to "invert" the to- wound chart could work, perhaps?

I think we're on the same page. That is what I proposed except I chose 9-T instead of 7. With 7 it's wounding T3 on 4+. Shouldn't work that well against T3. Using 9 makes it lousy against terminators letting Plasma shine for that role. 9 may not work great against T6, but Plasma works there as do other options with varying degrees of success. So grav really shines where plasma begins to fade.

 Desubot wrote:
I think id like to see it based off of size instead of armor saves.

Though i think a reconsidering of the weapons fluff would be in order. what exactly does the weapon do and how would that effect everything else. ya know?

Darnit... you ninja'd me.
I'd be supportive of a change to the different sizes as well.

Gwaihirsbrother wrote:

 Powerfisting wrote:
I think Grav should be a different metric. I like the "bigger you are, the harder you fall" theme present with grav, and that is present in the apparent intent with the way the rule is written. But in practice, it functions almost identically to plasma. So, if we were to take a look at strictly what grav weapons are "supposed" to do and how that translates to the TT mechanics, there is nothing wrong per say because grav is one of the last things that really represents its fluff well.

On a mechanic/ design level, it is totally bonkers because it does the exact same thing as plasma, but is better because it doesn't get hot or have any real drawback. It also kills me because plasma is something that has been around since rogue trader (Citation?) and deserves a spot in everyone's hearts. Grav needs a totally different niche. Grav should be good at something that even plasma is mediocre at. I would say a similar mechanic to the one it does now, but scaling with strength or toughness and then make it cost more than plasma across the board. Now Grav would be mediocre versus infantry in general and only slightly better versus T4 marines than it is against T3 guardsmen. But your T7 Monstrous creature? Grav always wins. And as far as I know, this is a niche that nothing else has really filled. Plasma works, but it works better against heavy infantry, melta works, but you waste ant- vehicle utility when you aim melta at non- AV targets.

What I would like to see is how to implement this? A simple modifier works, like "7- toughness = to wound," or some easy way to "invert" the to- wound chart could work, perhaps?

I think we're on the same page. That is what I proposed except I chose 9-T instead of 7. With 7 it's wounding T3 on 4+. Shouldn't work that well against T3. Using 9 makes it lousy against terminators letting Plasma shine for that role. 9 may not work great against T6, but Plasma works there as do other options with varying degrees of success. So grav really shines where plasma begins to fade.

Oh, I guess I should have read the entire OP! At least this way, grav has a mechanical niche to fill and isn't stepping on any other item's shoes so to speak.

Desubot wrote:I think id like to see it based off of size instead of armor saves.

5+Infantry
4+Bulky
3+Very Bulky
(i forget if there is one after that)
2+MC

Though i think a reconsidering of the weapons fluff would be in order. what exactly does the weapon do and how would that effect everything else. ya know?

Powerfisting wrote:the size is also a cool idea.

@ Desubot Extremely Bulky comes after very bulky. But I think like three units are extremely bulky that aren't also MCs.

I like the change to wounding based on size. Extremely Bulky and MCs can be wounded on a 2+. The models that are Extremely Bulky in the game also happen to be multiwound models.

I would like to keep grav's ability to hurt vehicles by immobilizing them. After all, it is a strong localized gravity field; that could cause some serious damage to certain parts of a vehicle.

Here's my contribution to reducing the effectiveness of grav while keeping its niche:

Grav Pistol:
Range 8" S- AP2 Pistol, Graviton

Grav Gun:
Range 18" S- AP2 Salvo 2/3 Graviton

Grav Cannon:
Range 24" S- AP2 Salvo 3/4 Graviton

Grav Amp: A unit equipped with a Grav Amp may re-roll to hit when firing a grav weapon.

Hopefully, this will somewhat lesson gravcannons' ability to cause absurd amounts of damage with grav amps.

Like the Salvo change.

What would you go about changing grav against vehicles, if at all?

EDIT: I skimread, I see you wouldn't change it.

I think grav should be single-shot weapons. It makes more sense for a weapon that generates a gravity pulse to require stabilization and bracing than for it to be mobile and have a higher ROF than an assault cannon.
I'd propose either the current rules for grav, or wounding on toughness since it's more readily available and familiar than size (bulky, etc) with the following profiles:

Grav gun: Assault 1, AP2, 18", graviton
Grav Cannon: Heavy 1, AP2, 36", graviton

Get rid of pistols, then make them cost less...10 pts for the gun, 15 for the cannon. Then you have a weapon that doesn't have the stopping power of a lascannon combined with the ROF of a heavy bolter, you have something that fits in between. It also makes it a weapon you specifically take to deal with big nasties, not an everyday run-of-the-mill gun.

Those weapons you proposed are useless against MCs. Add instant death, maybe and it would be fine.

 greyknight12 wrote:
I think grav should be single-shot weapons. It makes more sense for a weapon that generates a gravity pulse to require stabilization and bracing than for it to be mobile and have a higher ROF than an assault cannon.
I'd propose either the current rules for grav, or wounding on toughness since it's more readily available and familiar than size (bulky, etc) with the following profiles:

Grav gun: Assault 1, AP2, 18", graviton
Grav Cannon: Heavy 1, AP2, 36", graviton

Get rid of pistols, then make them cost less...10 pts for the gun, 15 for the cannon. Then you have a weapon that doesn't have the stopping power of a lascannon combined with the ROF of a heavy bolter, you have something that fits in between. It also makes it a weapon you specifically take to deal with big nasties, not an everyday run-of-the-mill gun.

Well those guns suck.


Really were going from salvo to heavy and reducing the firepower to 1/5th and make it cost the same as a plasma gun.

If anything it should work like those Necron guns where you draw a line and it hits every unit under it the x times where x is the number of models under it.

But that would be OP as hell.

Hmm, quite easy actually:

Make the grav cannon a heavy 2, blast profile instead of the salvo it is now. Give the blasts haywire on a 4+. Grav amps can add barrage to the cannons. Leave the grav gun as it is.

It will be catastrophic against monstrous creatures and tanks, as it should because that's what gravity should do to heavy things. Smaller stuff like terminators can still spread out and suffer much less hits, because regardless of how well armored they are, they do not weight as much as a freaking tank and they should not be punished accordingly.

How is the blast devastating to MCs? That's a maximum of 2 hits, except against things like squads of Talos or Carnifex, where maybe you could luck into multiple hits per blast.

Martel732 wrote:
Those weapons you proposed are useless against MCs. Add instant death, maybe and it would be fine.

Effectiveness doesn't have to mean "can kill a MC with one gun in a single volley", like the current iteration.

 greyknight12 wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Those weapons you proposed are useless against MCs. Add instant death, maybe and it would be fine.

Effectiveness doesn't have to mean "can kill a MC with one gun in a single volley", like the current iteration.

Yeah, it pretty needs to. WKs have IWND, so you can't let them hang around, and DKs usually start off 3 inches from your lines after they teleport. You can't let them get into hand to hand unless you are a horde army with wounds to give. And let's not forget Riptides that are melting your list one pie plate at a time with no cover save. They all need to go. Yesterday. Or they all need to be walkers and join the rest of us mortal lists. MCs are, in general, one of the most broken mechanics in the game, and they need a super hard counter. Free AP2? Sure, why not? Shrug off melta all day because of low ROF? Sure, why not? Armor saves? Sure, why not? Access to STR 10 melee attacks? Sure, why not?

The other option is appropriately costing MCs given the current rules set. That means they all get a hefty price hike.

From a thread a few months ago:

 Matt.Kingsley wrote:

Grav-pistol: The same stats. Points decrease to 10pts as long as the same happens to the Plasma pistol.

Grav-gun: Range 18"|Str *|AP 2|Heavy 1; Concussive; Graviton; The Bigger They Are...|15pts

Grav-cannon: Range 24"|Str *|AP 2|Heavy 2; Concussive; Graviton; The Bigger They Are...|40pts with Grav-amp on the Heavy Weapons List (Now available for BA and SW), 30pts on Centurion Devastators.

Heavy Grav-cannon: Range 30"|Str *|AP 2|Heavy 2; Blast; Concussive; Graviton; The Bigger They Are...|10/15pts for Kataphron Destroyers (as opposed to free, like they were before. Remember this replaces their default Plasma Culverin)

The Bigger They Are...: If the hit model is Toughness 6 or higher and suffers an unsaved wound, this weapon causes D3 wounds instead of 1.

That's fine because MCs still die.

 Matt.Kingsley wrote:
From a thread a few months ago:

 Matt.Kingsley wrote:

Grav-pistol: The same stats. Points decrease to 10pts as long as the same happens to the Plasma pistol.

Grav-gun: Range 18"|Str *|AP 2|Heavy 1; Concussive; Graviton; The Bigger They Are...|15pts

Grav-cannon: Range 24"|Str *|AP 2|Heavy 2; Concussive; Graviton; The Bigger They Are...|40pts with Grav-amp on the Heavy Weapons List (Now available for BA and SW), 30pts on Centurion Devastators.

Heavy Grav-cannon: Range 30"|Str *|AP 2|Heavy 2; Blast; Concussive; Graviton; The Bigger They Are...|10/15pts for Kataphron Destroyers (as opposed to free, like they were before. Remember this replaces their default Plasma Culverin)

The Bigger They Are...: If the hit model is Toughness 6 or higher and suffers an unsaved wound, this weapon causes D3 wounds instead of 1.

I suppose if you think the appropriate response is to make sure no one ever runs grav again...

The point is so people don't run Grav for everything. MCs and GMCs (and other multiwound T6+ models) still feel the pain and drop like flies, but the number of shots is no longer enough to super effectively wipe out an entire squad.

Seriously Grav costs as much as a Plasma and is way better against everything. Now Grav is more for big scary MCs/GMCs/T6+ Multiwounds and Plasma is more for Elite Infantry because of the number of shots.

Grav also has incredibly short range. If it's on a quick relentless platform, it's an issue, but standard infantry mounted grav is hard to use.