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.

I think lots of these ideas are good in conjuction with getting rid of 2+ armor MCs. And maybe get rid of free FNP for GMCs or make GMCs far more expensive.

Martel732 wrote:
I think lots of these ideas are good in conjuction with getting rid of 2+ armor MCs. And maybe get rid of free FNP for GMCs or make GMCs far more expensive.

Most GMCs are fine. Most GMCs aren't Wraithknights.

(If Wraithknights were 450-500ish points they'd be reasonable too)

 AnomanderRake wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
I think lots of these ideas are good in conjuction with getting rid of 2+ armor MCs. And maybe get rid of free FNP for GMCs or make GMCs far more expensive.

Most GMCs are fine. Most GMCs aren't Wraithknights.

(If Wraithknights were 450-500ish points they'd be reasonable too)

Supremacy armor is a problem for sure.

Personally, I would prefer:

-Instant Death/Vehicle Destroyed-Explodes/effects replaced with "Massive Damage" (An extra D3 wounds/HP with no FNP/saves of any kind).
-Rework the Stomp Mechanic. I'll post that separately.

 Yarium wrote:
I feel that Grav is fine at AP2, but the way it wounds should be different. It should wound base on the actual size of the target:

Infantry & Swarms: 6+
Bulky (Jump Infantry, Terminators, etc.): 5+
Very Bulky (Bikes, Ogryn, etc.): 4+
Monstrous Creatures: 3+
Gargantuan Creatures: 2+

In effect, this makes it be something very unique compared to the other weapons. It's very good (still) against big stuff, but very weak (but still serviceable) against small stuff.

I like this in general, but why not go further?

Make both the AP AND the to-wound based on the target.

Infantry and swarms: 6+ to wound, AP 6
Bulky: 5+ to wound, AP 5
Very Bulky: 4+ to wound, AP 4
Monstrous Creatures: 3+ to wound, AP 3
GMCs: 2+ to wound, AP 3

And then just stipulate in advance that no monstrous creature or GMC may have an armor save better than 3+. If you want 2+ armor, then get TEQ infantry.

You want to kill MEQs and TEQs? Then take plasma weapons.

If you further get rid of the grav amp and stipulate that grav weapons cannot deal hull points of damage to vehicles, I think that you end up with a fairly reasonable, well balanced weapon.

And then nobody takes Grav weapons because your suggestion is terrible, as is most of them.

If MCs/GMCs are capped at 3+ and lose FNP, then you can get rid of grav.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
And then nobody takes Grav weapons because your suggestion is terrible, as is most of them.

Why would nobody take grav? Why is this too big of a nerf? Why is the suggestion terrible?

Give reasons. Use your words.

In defense of my proposal:

It would leave grav as the best weapon against its designated target (MCs and GMCs) and make it less effective against the things that its not supposed to be shooting against.

Sure, it would suck against MEQs, TEQs, etc., but then that's what other weapons are for.

If you think that it would suck against MCs and GMCs without the grav amp, then simply insert a rule that says that grav weapons get the shred special rule against MCs and GMCs.

 Traditio wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
And then nobody takes Grav weapons because your suggestion is terrible, as is most of them.

Why would nobody take grav? Why is this too big of a nerf? Why is the suggestion terrible?

Give reasons. Use your words.

In defense of my proposal:

It would leave grav as the best weapon against its designated target (MCs and GMCs) and make it less effective against the things that its not supposed to be shooting against.

Sure, it would suck against MEQs, TEQs, etc., but then that's what other weapons are for.

It would be because the weight of fire wouldn't make it viable over just taking Plasma Guns. You're lacking this thought.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:It would be because the weight of fire wouldn't make it viable over just taking Plasma Guns. You're lacking this thought.

Let's do the math. Assuming 12 inch range and that both have moved, and assuming further that no 1s are rolled (a big disadvantage for plasma guns):

Roughly 4 plasma shots vs. 3 grav shots against a T8 GMC:

The plasma shots would deal:

4/1 X 2/3 X 1/3 = 8/9 wounds

Vs:

3/1 X 2/3 X 5/6 = 30/18 wounds

Grav would be better against wraithknights.

You are cherry picking the best example there. You double your wounds on a GMC with T6, like the Stormsurge, and while Wraithknights are annoyingly common nowadays, not nearly as common as ordinary monstrous creatures.

 JNAProductions wrote:
You are cherry picking the best example there. You double your wounds on a GMC with T6, like the Stormsurge, and while Wraithknights are annoyingly common nowadays, not nearly as common as ordinary monstrous creatures.

Solution: Replace the salvo profile with an assault profile, and give it a number big enough to justify using it over a plasma cannon vs something like a storm surge or a carnifex, but not big enough that it's an auto take.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Assuming a 30 point grav cannon of the kind I have described with an Assault 4 profile vs a carnifex. And also assuming that no 1s are rolled:

4 plasma shots vs. a carnifex:

4/1 X 2/3 X 2/3 = 16/9 wounds

4 grav shots vs. a carnifex:

4/1 X 2/3 X 2/3 = 16/19 wounds

Ok, so there you go.

Assault 4 would make plasma and grav exactly equivalent vs. something like a carnifex at 12 inch range.

Grav would get twice the shots at 24 inches of range.

Just get rid of it and make MCs as vulnerable as vehicles.

Martel732 wrote:
Just get rid of it and make MCs as vulnerable as vehicles.

You can't get rid of grav at this point. The bits exist and they are ubiquitous in peoples' armies.

I agree that at least certain (G)MCs should be more vulnerable, but that's with or without grav.

Getting rid of grav cannons would be like getting rid of missile launchers. I'd be enormously PO'ed because I have 10 of them in my main army.

What's needed is a re-balance, not a squatting.

Unlike the Tau. They just flat out need a squatting.

You can absolutely get rid of grav. There are alternate configurations for every unit that has access to grav.

Martel732 wrote:
You can absolutely get rid of grav. There are alternate configurations for every unit that has access to grav.

You don't understand what I'm saying.

What are you going to tell the people who have already glued grav cannons onto their marines?

"You can't use that model any more"?

"You can use it, but youll have to snap off that bit and replace it with something else"?

What about people who specifically purchased a bunch of grav cannons bits on ebay, or purchased new devastator kits specifically for the grav cannons?

They tolerate all manner of other abuses from GW. I'd happily remodel all my grav units for the good of the game. I hate using BA devastators anyway. I don't think BA should even have devastator marines to begin with. They are the antithesis of how BA operate.

Martel732 wrote:
They tolerate all manner of other abuses from GW. I'd happily remodel all my grav units for the good of the game. I hate using BA devastators anyway. I don't think BA should even have devastator marines to begin with. They are the antithesis of how BA operate.

You are very much in the minority. Most of us LIKE our models.

What does remodeling have to do with liking the models? I have to remodel every time they change editions. My 5th ed army is practically unused at this point because it all sucks now.

Martel732 wrote:
What does remodeling have to do with liking the models? I have to remodel every time they change editions. My 5th ed army is practically unused at this point because it all sucks now.

You don't have to win every game. What about people who just think Grav-Cannons look cool?

 JNAProductions wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
What does remodeling have to do with liking the models? I have to remodel every time they change editions. My 5th ed army is practically unused at this point because it all sucks now.

You don't have to win every game. What about people who just think Grav-Cannons look cool?

Maybe plasma cannons LOOK cool, but I can't use them because GW made them awful.

Martel732 wrote:
Maybe plasma cannons LOOK cool, but I can't use them because GW made them awful.

Or you can, you know, use them anyway. Martel, the game is about having fun-and most people have fun just by playing it. You don't need to win every game.

I'm struggling to be on the table by turn 4 most games. Winning is usually a fool's quest. I can't afford "rule of cool" models.

Martel732 wrote:Maybe plasma cannons LOOK cool, but I can't use them because GW made them awful.

I don't think that plasma cannons are awful. They are useful enough in their intended roles. Against a terminator squad that just deepstruck? Plasma cannons rock. Against a terminator squad that just fell out of an exploded landraider? Plasma cannons rock.

Against a space marine bike squad that you need to force to jink? Plasma cannons are great.

Plasma cannons should and could be a lot better, but I don't think it's fair to say that they're awful. They're awful relative to competitive metas.

Against the whole spectrum of warhammer 40k, I think that they're ok.

Every small template weapon is awful. Because small templates suck. Except for TFC and Wyvern, because they fire a ton of them.

Let's put it this way. I'm stuck with the BA armory, and I wouldn't consider touching plasma cannons. They don't get it done vs enemy #1: MCs/GMCs.

Martel732 wrote:
Every small template weapon is awful. Because small templates suck. Except for TFC and Wyvern, because they fire a ton of them.

Let's put it this way. I'm stuck with the BA armory, and I wouldn't consider touching plasma cannons.

Ok. I tell you what. You run a boat load of deep striking terminators. I'll run a boat load of plasma cannons.

Tell me how bad you think small templates after after you lose.

Martel732 wrote:
I'm struggling to be on the table by turn 4 most games. Winning is usually a fool's quest. I can't afford "rule of cool" models.

What army do you play? And, probably more importantly, what's your local meta like? Because I can think of a few reasons why that is.

1-You play a really weak army like CSM. In which case, ask your opponents to bring softer lists-unless they're butts, they should be fine with it.

2-You play in a crazy competitive meta, in which case, you can either get on their level or try to find a new gaming space.

I play BA. Which might as well be CSM.

There's one main place in town, and people like their cuthroat lists. Which BA can't really dent, even with new book.

Here's the situation: there is no list tailoring. So everyone comes with a list and gets a random opponent. There is no changing the list after opponent assignment. So the Eldar have to assume they are playing other Eldar or Tau.

I also wish to point out that people expect way too much of their models, and that this is just symptomatic of how bad power creep is.

A marine with plasma cannon is 29 points. If you kill a single terminator, you've made the points back for that marine.

Martel732 wrote:
I play BA. Which might as well be CSM.

There's one main place in town, and people like their cuthroat lists. Which BA can't really dent, even with new book.

You... You really shouldn't be getting TABLED. Not unless you're really bad at the game. BA aren't good, but they certainly aren't either CSM or get tabled every game bad.

Edit: Saw your edit. That sounds like a constant tournament, not regular pick-up gaming.