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.

If they gave Plasma weapons a "restrained" profile, it'd have to be S5 AP2. Otherwise, you're making Plasma simply better than its Xenos equivalents (which are S6 AP2 with no option for S7 Gets Hot).

A PG on a Tac marine has a 1/18 chance, per shot, of boiling himself. Its too bad when it happens, but unless you're rapid firing more than once a turn, he survives the average encounter. Every eighteen shots, or nine doubletaps, you lose one.

Its not Gets Hot that makes Plasma lackluster. Primarily it's:
-5 W on the t6 2+/5++ Riptide
-6 W on the T8 3+/FNP Wraithknight
-4 W on the 2+/5++ DK
-Explodes! now needing a 6 with Plasma

Plasma is actually viable against things like Wraithlords or DPs, and certainly against things like Honor Guard and Tac Termies. Its nice against MEQ too.

The problem is that Grav handles those targets *even better*.

I'd love to see Grav nerfed, but that doesn't mean I wouldn't also love to see D and SL Spam nerfed too.

So, yes, nerf Grav. The game would be better, IMO. But nerfing those super durable MCs and blindingly crazy shooting options of other races would do even more.

If this game were more about Tacs with a MG and LC versus Guardians with an EML, I think that'd be swell. But that'd take more changes than just Grav.

Bharring wrote:
If they gave Plasma weapons a "restrained" profile, it'd have to be S5 AP2. Otherwise, you're making Plasma simply better than its Xenos equivalents (which are S6 AP2 with no option for S7 Gets Hot).

15 points for S7 AP2 Rapid Fire, Gets Hot versus 15 points for S6 AP2 Rapid Fire in the case of the Tau(the only 1:1 time you can find a "Plasma Rifle" and a "Plasma Gun").

Plasma Calivers for Skitarii are 30 points for 18" S7 AP2 Assault 3.

Plasma is pointed very strangely in some cases.

Its not Gets Hot that makes Plasma lackluster.

Plasma GUNS aren't considered lackluster. Plasma CANNONS are. Nobody wants to deal with that small blast template crap.

Plasma is actually viable against things like Wraithlords or DPs, and certainly against things like Honor Guard and Tac Termies. Its nice against MEQ too.

Wraithlords are wildly subpar and considered a "tax" unit when required.

The problem is that Grav handles those targets *even better*.

Again, Grav is meant to handle things like that. The higher your save, the more vulnerable you are.

I'd love to see Grav nerfed, but that doesn't mean I wouldn't also love to see D and SL Spam nerfed too.

So, yes, nerf Grav. The game would be better, IMO. But nerfing those super durable MCs and blindingly crazy shooting options of other races would do even more.

Yeah, the game would be better for anyone who has to play against Marines.

If this game were more about Tacs with a MG and LC versus Guardians with an EML, I think that'd be swell. But that'd take more changes than just Grav.

Yeah...it would take people to stop reading what weapons do.

I think the issue with grav is they just have too many shots to try to compensate for infantry with bad armour and really they work as is just need a few less shots in places per weapon. For example the 6 shot one would probably be better at 4.

Kanl,
Why do you think Tacs with MG/LC vs Guardians with EML?

At the very least, why is that a worse matchup than going up against WKs and SL bike spam, even if you had Grav?

If Grav is supposed to be better than Plas at all those targets, what should Plasma's role be?

Plasma Cavaliers aren't Xenos. Eldar plasma (Star Cannons) and Tau plasma are both S6 AP2.

To start, what about removing grav amps? You're already wounding on a 2+ with an AP2 concussive weapon against that MC or TEQ, and a 6 against a vehicle immobilizes and takes a hull point, no questions asked. Still very usable.
From there, keep a good rate of fire, just slightly reduced. Perhaps 2/2 and 3/4, ranges unaltered, to test.
Finally, and this might be getting just a tad wonky, but make it AP 3, with added caveat that a to wound roll of 4+ is AP2. Against MC and TEQ units you're still wounding on a 2+ at AP3, AP2 on a to wound roll of 4 or better. WK's and other 3+ armor critters it's just the same, and still good against Riptides and NDK without just hosing them off the board.
With all the changes I would also argue for reducing their cost. A grav gun and pistol at 10, the cannon at 25. Cheaper units that are still effective and point efficient, just not quite the cheese fest they are right now.

N0t_u,
IIRC, Grav Guns are salvo 2/3, and Cannons are salvo 3/5.

Grav cannons on non-skyhammer Devs don't seem to be crazy. Grav Guns, and maybe even Grav Cannons, on Tac squads don't seem so crazy, either. An expensive weapon with tradeoffs.

Skyhammer, Grav Bikes, and Grav Cents are where it gets crazy. All of which treat Salvo as Assault with the better number of shots.

Perhaps, therefore, the change should happen to make it not as attractive to those options, while retaining most of its viability to the other options. That is where going to something like Salvo 2/2 and Salvo 3/3 might be a good change.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
ThequietK,
I like the first and last parts of your suggestion.

How does:
-Lose Grav Amps
-Salvo 2/2 and Salvo 3/4
-Pistol at 5 pts, Gun at 15, Cannon at 25

sound? The whole AP3 thing sounds odd.

To me those sound reasonable.

TheQuietK wrote:
To start, what about removing grav amps? You're already wounding on a 2+ with an AP2 concussive weapon against that MC or TEQ, and a 6 against a vehicle immobilizes and takes a hull point, no questions asked. Still very usable.
From there, keep a good rate of fire, just slightly reduced. Perhaps 2/2 and 3/4, ranges unaltered, to test.
Finally, and this might be getting just a tad wonky, but make it AP 3, with added caveat that a to wound roll of 4+ is AP2. Against MC and TEQ units you're still wounding on a 2+ at AP3, AP2 on a to wound roll of 4 or better. WK's and other 3+ armor critters it's just the same, and still good against Riptides and NDK without just hosing them off the board.
With all the changes I would also argue for reducing their cost. A grav gun and pistol at 10, the cannon at 25. Cheaper units that are still effective and point efficient, just not quite the cheese fest they are right now.

Grav amps were a stupid idea, I agree. Hey 4+ armor guys! You all die now!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Bharring wrote:
N0t_u,
IIRC, Grav Guns are salvo 2/3, and Cannons are salvo 3/5.

Grav cannons on non-skyhammer Devs don't seem to be crazy. Grav Guns, and maybe even Grav Cannons, on Tac squads don't seem so crazy, either. An expensive weapon with tradeoffs.

Skyhammer, Grav Bikes, and Grav Cents are where it gets crazy. All of which treat Salvo as Assault with the better number of shots.

Perhaps, therefore, the change should happen to make it not as attractive to those options, while retaining most of its viability to the other options. That is where going to something like Salvo 2/2 and Salvo 3/3 might be a good change.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
ThequietK,
I like the first and last parts of your suggestion.

How does:
-Lose Grav Amps
-Salvo 2/2 and Salvo 3/4
-Pistol at 5 pts, Gun at 15, Cannon at 25

sound? The whole AP3 thing sounds odd.

Grav bikes aren't THAT good because they lack grav amps and can only have two per squad. Trust me, I've been using them and they don't help that much in the scheme of things. Not when Black Knights are rolling dirty with all TL plasma all the time and rending on their S5 CC weapons.

"what should Plasma's role be? "

Kiling high T stuff with little armor.

Bharring wrote:
Kanl,
Why do you think Tacs with MG/LC vs Guardians with EML?

If I have any inkling of what I'm going up against and it includes a number of units on foot, I'm not going to be bringing meltaguns or lascannons.

At the very least, why is that a worse matchup than going up against WKs and SL bike spam, even if you had Grav?

You're using a VERY specialized unit(Tacticals with Meltaguns and Lascannons are a very weirdly specific setup only really usable for vehicle hunting) versus a generalist unit(Guardians with EMLs)

If Grav is supposed to be better than Plas at all those targets, what should Plasma's role be?

Truthfully? I don't know. But remember that not everyone has access to Grav or the "bike spam" version of Grav. The Raven Guard detachment, for example, only has access to at best two units of Devastators if you take a pair of Pinion Demi-Companies. And the only way for them to get Centurions is to take a Battle Demi-Company.

Additionally, they get NO access to Librarians without going outside of that detachment.

Plasma Cavaliers aren't Xenos. Eldar plasma (Star Cannons) and Tau plasma are both S6 AP2.

I used the example of Plasma Calivers to show how Imperial plasma tends to be higher S, same AP, but with the addition of Gets Hot and at the same(or in the case of the Plasma Caliver--DOUBLE) pricetag.

If anything, Eldar and Tau should be paying MORE for S6 AP2 with no downsides or Imperials should be paying LESS for S7 AP2 with the chance to blow yourself up. Because remember that 15 points? That's across ALL of the Imperial armies. Guard and Marines both pay 15 points for Plasma Guns.

Bharring wrote:
N0t_u,
IIRC, Grav Guns are salvo 2/3, and Cannons are salvo 3/5.

Grav cannons on non-skyhammer Devs don't seem to be crazy. Grav Guns, and maybe even Grav Cannons, on Tac squads don't seem so crazy, either. An expensive weapon with tradeoffs.

Skyhammer, Grav Bikes, and Grav Cents are where it gets crazy. All of which treat Salvo as Assault with the better number of shots.

Perhaps, therefore, the change should happen to make it not as attractive to those options, while retaining most of its viability to the other options. That is where going to something like Salvo 2/2 and Salvo 3/3 might be a good change.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
ThequietK,
I like the first and last parts of your suggestion.

How does:
-Lose Grav Amps
-Salvo 2/2 and Salvo 3/4
-Pistol at 5 pts, Gun at 15, Cannon at 25

sound? The whole AP3 thing sounds odd.

I do think those are fair changes. However - I think as a whole imperial weapons lack mobility - that needs to change. Probably all power armor units should be considered relentless - thats a good place to start if changes like this went through.

I think we're closer to agreement than it seems.

The specific weapons were just kinda pulled out, but the general idea is basic Tac squad with specials and/or heavies, minus Grav, vs basic Xeno squad with a "standard" heavy. It could have been a HB/Flamer Tac squad vs Xenos with a SC. Or any combination, really.

The difference between S6 and S7 doesn't always matter, but can be huge. Look at some of these units:
-WK - S7 does twice the wounds
-Wave Serpents/Falcons/Drop Pods/etc - S7 strips twice the HP, and half of those are +1 Pens
-Ghost Arcs - S7 can actually hurt it, S6 cannot
-Necron Wraiths - S7 wounds on 2+, S6 wounds on 3+
-Wraithguard/Riptides/DKs - S7 wounds on 3+, s6 wounds on 4+

Only against Termies and Marines and less is S6 equal to S7. The difference in S is actually significant much of the time, often to substantial effect. Not the biggest jump from +1 S, but certainly something.

So is that benefit worth Gets Hot? Seems about even, to me. My Marines still pack lots of Plasma.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I like that my Tacs and Devs aren't natively Relentless (although I do miss the old Dev CT).

It means my Devs need to really consider where they want to stand.

For my Tacs, as I like to take 10mans with a Heavy as well for fluff reasons, it means I need to consider either staying put instead of repositioning, or snap firing the heavy if I want to move up/back.

I'd rather the game were balanced around a "demi company style" CAD. That means, around a list who's core is a CAD with 20-30 Tac Marines, a Dev squad, and an ASM squad. Obviously, that would take a lot of nerfs to the top stuff to make that happen.

Prior to the 7e CWE book, however, if you didn't look at the top 2%, the rest of the game was about there. Scorpions were ASM equivalents. Reapers were Dev equivalents. Most of it was right.

But then they buffed up even the reasonable CWE options, and just kept going crazy.

The game has never been balanced around tactical marines. They've always been terrible units. Maybe not in 3rd. Maybe.

In the 4th edition codex you were at least able to choose a trait that let them take more Special Weapons. At least there's a little specialization there...

There was a suggestion in first or second post about size classes. I like it. My proposal

Swarms; 6+
Regular troops; 5+
Bulky/2+ armour saves; 4+
Very Bulky; 3+
Extremely Bulky (including monstrous creatures and gargantuan creatures); 2+
Vehicles; as current, but Crew Stunned instead of immobilised
SHV; as current but without Crew Stunned
FMC take a grounded test instead of rolling to wound, then act as MC.

Honestly I hate what grav does to vehicles. Two sixes and 90% of the vehicles in the game are done. The ones that survive are screwed in their purpose (looking at you Land Raiders).

Also grav is just too cost-efficient. It ignores armor, it ignores toughness, in the more net-lists it easily ignores cover. I mean, I'm not salty in the least about it wounding everything in my army on at least a 3+.

For grav to be truly balanced, suggestions like basing it off class sizes needs to be seriously looked at.