Author |
Message |
 |
|
 |
Advert
|
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. |
|
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2016/10/04 04:02:55
Subject: Grav AP -, saves -2
|
 |
Locked in the Tower of Amareo
|
Traditio wrote: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.
There's a lot more to the game than making points back. There's a good chance that marine will never even get to fire the plasma cannon since scatbikes can first strike plasma cannons.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2016/10/04 06:27:34
Subject: Grav AP -, saves -2
|
 |
Decrepit Dakkanaut
|
Traditio wrote: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.
He wouldn't lose because Plasma Cannons are that awful. As someone that's proxied a MT force several times and used Deep Strike, I wouldn't be afraid whatsoever of Plasma Cannons.
Hell, I'd thank you for bringing a lousy list to make it easier for me to win. Automatically Appended Next Post: JNAProductions wrote: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.
As someone that plays in a similar area, it isn't hard to table CSM, Dark Eldar, and Blood Angels.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/10/04 06:29:40
CaptainStabby wrote:If Tyberos falls and needs to catch himself it's because the ground needed killing.
jy2 wrote:BTW, I can't wait to run Double-D-thirsters! Man, just thinking about it gets me Khorney.
vipoid wrote:Indeed - what sort of bastard would want to use their codex?
MarsNZ wrote:ITT: SoB players upset that they're receiving the same condescending treatment that they've doled out in every CSM thread ever. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2016/10/04 12:11:18
Subject: Re:Grav AP -, saves -2
|
 |
Stubborn Dark Angels Veteran Sergeant
|
Considering the other weapons around the game that ruin balance, I think grav is needed. If you have to change it though, all units hit by grav can make a 6+ saving throw against it and the to wound roll is still based on the saving throw.
Makes it still stagger in it's power, being more deadly against tough targets than weak units yet gives some save.
|
My hobby instagram account: @the_shroud_of_vigilance
My Shroud of Vigilance Hobby update blog for me detailed updates and lore on the faction:
Blog |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2016/10/04 12:52:22
Subject: Grav AP -, saves -2
|
 |
Powerful Phoenix Lord
|
You know, what inspired this idea is one of the old mission supplements. There are rules for fighting in a vaccum. Basically all weapons gained Rending due to the pressure being released if even a small breech was made. I really think that -2 to armour save is just as unique an affect for Grav as "wounding on the armour save". It represenst the affect of the increased gravity exerting more pressure, thus weakening the armour. GW seems to be bringing back lots of old rules and I seem to remember armour save modifiers being more common at some point (just before my time though). What makes Grav so much better than Melta or Plasma is that it has the shots to do enough HPs that Melta is less useful, yet also has more shots than Plasma while having the same AP. If you want Grav to be Mairne's "jack-of-all-trades" weapon, that is fine, but "master-of-none" is the second part of that expression and no one seems to have informed the design team. Which is why I originally suggest AP-, with -2 to armour, as this makes Plasma now better at taking out 2+-/3+ armour targets. Remove Grav Amps, and Melta takes the edge back against AV. Now you can lower the cost of Grav-Cannons by 5-10 pts, since it will take more of a hit here than the Grav gun. -
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/10/04 12:54:51
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2016/10/04 13:41:51
Subject: Grav AP -, saves -2
|
 |
Locked in the Tower of Amareo
|
JNAProductions wrote: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.
It's how we eliminate the kind of list tailoring that causes disputes. Automatically Appended Next Post: Galef wrote:You know, what inspired this idea is one of the old mission supplements. There are rules for fighting in a vaccum. Basically all weapons gained Rending due to the pressure being released if even a small breech was made.
I really think that -2 to armour save is just as unique an affect for Grav as "wounding on the armour save". It represenst the affect of the increased gravity exerting more pressure, thus weakening the armour.
GW seems to be bringing back lots of old rules and I seem to remember armour save modifiers being more common at some point (just before my time though). What makes Grav so much better than Melta or Plasma is that it has the shots to do enough HPs that Melta is less useful, yet also has more shots than Plasma while having the same AP.
If you want Grav to be Mairne's "jack-of-all-trades" weapon, that is fine, but "master-of-none" is the second part of that expression and no one seems to have informed the design team.
Which is why I originally suggest AP-, with -2 to armour, as this makes Plasma now better at taking out 2+-/3+ armour targets. Remove Grav Amps, and Melta takes the edge back against AV. Now you can lower the cost of Grav-Cannons by 5-10 pts, since it will take more of a hit here than the Grav gun.
-
Save modifiers were a nightmare. Loyalist marines were completely unplayable.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/10/04 13:42:41
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2016/10/04 14:09:47
Subject: Grav AP -, saves -2
|
 |
Gore-Soaked Lunatic Witchhunter
|
Martel732 wrote:Save modifiers were a nightmare. Loyalist marines were completely unplayable.
That sounds more like an argument for implementing save mods intelligently than for not having them, at least to me.
I don't think slotting save mods into one spot in 40k and walking away is the answer, but if implemented correctly they could make high AP values/high armour saves a lot more relevant.
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2016/10/04 14:15:35
Subject: Grav AP -, saves -2
|
 |
Locked in the Tower of Amareo
|
It's almost impossible to cost correctly. By the time you have a modest -2 to the save, you've turned power armor into flak armor.
You'd have to go to a D10 system, at a minimum to make it work. It's unworkable on a D6.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2016/10/04 14:34:24
Subject: Grav AP -, saves -2
|
 |
Gore-Soaked Lunatic Witchhunter
|
Martel732 wrote:It's almost impossible to cost correctly. By the time you have a modest -2 to the save, you've turned power armor into flak armor.
You'd have to go to a D10 system, at a minimum to make it work. It's unworkable on a D6.
...It's easier to cost correctly than all-or-nothing AP is. When an AP2 weapon is six times as effective as an AP3 weapon against 2+ armour and exactly as effective against anything else trying to find a general solution for cost-effectiveness isn't going to happen.
That said I've been working on a save mod system for my skirmish-game project and I have come across the stat range problem you're talking about, I've had to make extensive modifications to other basic assumptions to compensate (In brief armour is usually better, AP is usually worse, and in the spirit of making more of your stuff relevant more of the time I've replaced Invulnerable saves with effects that negate some or all of incoming AP).
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2016/10/04 14:51:39
Subject: Grav AP -, saves -2
|
 |
Powerful Phoenix Lord
|
Martel732 wrote:It's almost impossible to cost correctly. By the time you have a modest -2 to the save, you've turned power armor into flak armor.
Flak armour vs. AP- is still 33% chance to live. Power Armour vs Ap2 is hoping you have cover.
It's is important to note that his would have little affect against Riptides. Currently, they are forced to take their 3++. With armour -2, they would still take their 3++ over the 4+ armour save.
It also would change very little against WKs, who would either take a 5+ armour, or their 5++.
Only against Riptides that (for some reason) did not Nova Charge their ++, or WKs without the shield, would my version of Grav be worse than it is now.
But since in both those cases, Plasma/Melta still wouldn't be any better, I'll concede the point. Armour modifiers would be cool in small doses, but simplicity wins out
I'd be happy if Grav- Amps go extinct. With tactical doctrines and the Demi-company bonuses, Marines get to re-roll hits for 2+ turns and then re-roll wound with Grav- Amps. Guaranteed, no psychic powers needed. It sucks that the have that ability, but it sucks even more that they need it to compete with Eldar & Tau.
-
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2016/10/04 15:46:08
Subject: Grav AP -, saves -2
|
 |
Shas'la with Pulse Carbine
|
Galef wrote:Martel732 wrote:It's almost impossible to cost correctly. By the time you have a modest -2 to the save, you've turned power armor into flak armor.
Only against Riptides that (for some reason) did not Nova Charge their ++, or WKs without the shield, would my version of Grav be worse than it is now.
-
say the riptide decided it wanted a 4d6" assault thrust, or wanted/needed to nova for best chance to crack armor 14 at any range beyond 9" from crisis suit? or rolled a 2? or a 1 and not within 6" of another riptide in the formation? or is really close to a tank and wanted to double tap its meltas trying to explode that land raider? there are quite a few occasions to have 5++ over 3++
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2016/10/04 15:50:51
Subject: Re:Grav AP -, saves -2
|
 |
Ollanius Pius - Savior of the Emperor
Gathering the Informations.
|
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.
We've been down this road before.
Absolutely not. That's great in theory, but in practice? It won't really do what you want it to.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2016/10/04 16:44:31
Subject: Re:Grav AP -, saves -2
|
 |
Fixture of Dakka
|
Kanluwen wrote: 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.
We've been down this road before.
Absolutely not. That's great in theory, but in practice? It won't really do what you want it to.
Oh? Why not? As you say, it sounds great in theory. It makes grav really solid for taking down big stuff but less good at taking on little things or vehicles. So it's not stepping on the toes of melta (dedicated anti-tank), high rate of fire weapons (heavy bolters, etc. are better against infantry), and wounds more often against big things than plasma but less often against small things than plasma. Why doesn't this work out in practice? Automatically Appended Next Post: Martel732 wrote:It's almost impossible to cost correctly. By the time you have a modest -2 to the save, you've turned power armor into flak armor.
You'd have to go to a D10 system, at a minimum to make it work. It's unworkable on a D6.
If you had armor reduction be confined pretty much just to grav weapons (and maybe the occassional other special weapon), then a flat -2 to armor saves is pretty easy to keep balanced. It's not as good against 3+ or worse armor as AP3, but it's better than AP3 against 2+ saves. It's worse against terminators than plasma, but better against Wraith Knights due to its volume of fire and lack of gets hot. This isn't my favorite solution, but having armor reduction as a special rule on specific weapons (rather than making it a thing on all weapons all the time like back in the day) seems easy enough to do.
And, not to derail the thread into yet another armor reduction discussion, but there are ways to make armor reduction work in a d6 system. For instance, give various suits of armor a "Fortitude" stat or whatever you want to call it. For instance, power armor might have Fortitude 1. Fortitude would be a modifier of another weapon's armor reduction. So if a power sword had armor reduction 2 but power armor has Fortitude 1, the marine being attacked would have a 4+ save instead of a 3+. Against relatively small arms fire with only a small amount of armor reduction (like a shuriken catapult with armor reduction 1, for instance), Fortitude would essentially cancel out the armor reduction.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/10/04 16:51:49
ATTENTION. Psychic tests are unfluffy. Your longing for AV is understandable but misguided. Your chapter doesn't need a separate codex. Doctrines should go away. Being a "troop" means nothing. This has been a cranky service announcement. You may now resume your regularly scheduled arguing.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2016/10/04 17:41:24
Subject: Grav AP -, saves -2
|
 |
Death-Dealing Devastator
|
Maybe make Gravs a default AP 4 or 3 and Grav amount improve it to 3 or 2 if the unit remains stationary, this would give Centurions a slightly different role to their power armoured equivalents.
Also agree that MC and GMC should be limited to SV3+ unless they are very encumber slow (like a superheavy tank is)
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2016/10/04 17:50:30
Subject: Re:Grav AP -, saves -2
|
 |
Ollanius Pius - Savior of the Emperor
Gathering the Informations.
|
Wyldhunt wrote: Kanluwen wrote: 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.
We've been down this road before.
Absolutely not. That's great in theory, but in practice? It won't really do what you want it to.
Oh? Why not? As you say, it sounds great in theory. It makes grav really solid for taking down big stuff but less good at taking on little things or vehicles. So it's not stepping on the toes of melta (dedicated anti-tank), high rate of fire weapons (heavy bolters, etc. are better against infantry), and wounds more often against big things than plasma but less often against small things than plasma. Why doesn't this work out in practice?
The whole reason why is that grav is, as it stands, the only "modern" weapon in the Imperial arsenal. Basically everything else is designed with the earlier rules sets as the basis.
Grav is intended to be a weapon that:
A) Has a high ROF
B) Is meant to put Wounds down range on targets with high Armor saves and Toughness; often times with many Wounds. Also can potentially mess with vehicles.
C) Has a high points cost
D) Has a high opportunity cost(Salvo being affected quite heavily by moving)
There is no reason for it to not be good at "taking on little things or vehicles". The whole basis of Grav is a fluff point, it uses the mass of a target(represented by the save of the target) against it. The table given does nothing to really solve the issue of Grav being so heavily prevalent in Imperial armies that have access to it.
That issue? The other options are, putting it politely, absolutely useless for what they are. Why would I put a Lascannon on a Devastator when I could take a Grav Cannon instead?
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2016/10/04 19:08:36
Subject: Re:Grav AP -, saves -2
|
 |
Longtime Dakkanaut
|
Kanluwen wrote:Why would I put a Lascannon on a Devastator when I could take a Grav Cannon instead?
That's EXACTLY why Grav needs to be changed. The issue isn't that Grav kills big things too well, it's that it kills EVERYTHING too well. It'd be much simpler to nerf Grav (and hey, reduce the points, that's fine too!) with this change so that it's not the only weapon necessary. The game's list design, and the impact of that list design on game-play, is intrinsically an economic problem. Like economic problems, everything has an opportunity cost. Take, for example, a simple question:
"Which heavy weapon do I give my Devastator?"
There's a few of potential ways to view the opportunity cost here. First, there's the points cost. If I take the highest cost item, it means I've got less points in my army to spend on other things. Second, there's the cost of not taking ANY weapon, meaning that you save on points, but then you're playing with one less heavy weapon. There's the cost of having the wrong weapon in the wrong situation; a Lascannon is great against a vehicle, but a Heavy Bolter is much better when shooting at Eldar Guardians due to the Heavy Bolter's higher rate of fire. At the same time, it really sucks to have that Heavy Bolter when shooting at a Battle Tank.
In the real world economy, it's very rare that something happens which completely displaces all other mediums of exchange. It doesn't matter how good you are at one thing, you still need other things to achieve equilibrium (no matter how good you are at mining iron, you can't eat iron, and no matter how good you are at growing potatoes, you can't build structures out of potatoes). In a game with reasonable and strategically complex and rewarding choices, the question of "which weapon do I take?" has to be a real question, and not one with a single correct answer. This forces players to always use a mix of options and rewards skilled players for making better guesses as to the correct answer, while also insuring that their best guess will not always be correct. Personally, I feel that the balance between Flamers, Plasma, and Melta are one of the best pieces of balance in gaming.
- Flamers are good versus Hordes and classic Deep Strike where you were forced to "bunch up". It has the shortest range, meaning it was more a defensive weapon, or one that needed to be on a very fast platform. It has the most narrow of uses. It has the lowest points cost (and some editions/codexes even gave it for free).
- Meltaguns are good versus Tanks and enemies with very high toughness values. It has short range, but enough that it could still cause harm by units that were aggressive and on the go. It could kill almost anything though, so had a less narrow range. It had an in-between points cost.
- Plasma Guns are good versus Heavy Infantry, and can function reasonably against both hordes and the big stuff, though doesn't do so as well as Flamers and Meltaguns. This gives it the largest range of uses. It has an in-built weakness as well though (Gets Hot), yet still has the highest points cost.
Between these three, there was no single "correct" option. Plasma was somewhat the default, but you were always over-paying, and would often lose these models over the course of the game to their own attacks. Worst of all, there were plenty of opponents where either the standard bolter was quite nearly just as good (Guardsmen, Gaunts, Orks), and other situations where Plasma was useless (Land Rainders, Leman Russ Tanks, AV13 or better really). This meant that even if you went all-plasma, you were easily punished for doing so.
Now, Grav is a problem, because grav is generally just the "best" choice, with no real downside. It does cost more points, but that's generally negated by being the best weapon for the job, and thus being worth those extra points. There's nearly no battlefield where you would rather you took a Flamer, a Meltagun, or a Plasma Gun when instead you took a Grav Gun. Against Heavy Infantry you get more shots than a Plasma Gun, making it better (and without the chance of burning your own face off). Against really big things, it's as good or better than Meltaguns, totally wasting the point of a Meltagun against everything but a super-heavy. The only thing Grav isn't good against are the very weakest troops in the game (things with 5+ and 6+ armour), but even in that situation, you're engaging them at a longer range than a Flamer can, and you're still getting enough shots for it to matter.
So, saying that the other options are bad, and that's why grav shouldn't be nerfed, isn't an answer. As I've stated many times before; saying you need something broken in order to deal with broken things doesn't reduce the amount of broken things in a game. You just proliferate it instead.
PS. Grav has a very low opportunity cost, as it still has a high rate of fire even if it moved, which is pretty rare in today's environment as so, SO many things don't even count as moving when firing grav. It's almost a joke how Salvo is one of the most do-nothing rules in the game given how most things with Salvo don't suffer from Salvo.
|
Galef wrote:If you refuse to use rock, you will never beat scissors. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2016/10/04 19:20:33
Subject: Re:Grav AP -, saves -2
|
 |
Ollanius Pius - Savior of the Emperor
Gathering the Informations.
|
Yarium wrote: Kanluwen wrote:Why would I put a Lascannon on a Devastator when I could take a Grav Cannon instead? That's EXACTLY why Grav needs to be changed. The issue isn't that Grav kills big things too well, it's that it kills EVERYTHING too well. It'd be much simpler to nerf Grav (and hey, reduce the points, that's fine too!) with this change so that it's not the only weapon necessary.
That's a nonsense answer, putting it politely. The reason Grav kills everything so well is because it is a weapon platform which was designed by the current design philosophies. The game's list design, and the impact of that list design on game-play, is intrinsically an economic problem. Like economic problems, everything has an opportunity cost. Take, for example, a simple question: "Which heavy weapon do I give my Devastator?" There's a few of potential ways to view the opportunity cost here. First, there's the points cost. If I take the highest cost item, it means I've got less points in my army to spend on other things. Second, there's the cost of not taking ANY weapon, meaning that you save on points, but then you're playing with one less heavy weapon. There's the cost of having the wrong weapon in the wrong situation; a Lascannon is great against a vehicle, but a Heavy Bolter is much better when shooting at Eldar Guardians due to the Heavy Bolter's higher rate of fire. At the same time, it really sucks to have that Heavy Bolter when shooting at a Battle Tank.
Lascannons are not great against vehicles. 1 shot with AP2 and the potential to fail an Armor Penetration roll is not great. Heavy Bolters are better when shooting at Eldar Guardians not only because of the Heavy Bolter's "higher rate of fire" but also because it does not have the rule of wounding based on armor saves. In the real world economy, it's very rare that something happens which completely displaces all other mediums of exchange. It doesn't matter how good you are at one thing, you still need other things to achieve equilibrium (no matter how good you are at mining iron, you can't eat iron, and no matter how good you are at growing potatoes, you can't build structures out of potatoes). In a game with reasonable and strategically complex and rewarding choices, the question of "which weapon do I take?" has to be a real question, and not one with a single correct answer. This forces players to always use a mix of options and rewards skilled players for making better guesses as to the correct answer, while also insuring that their best guess will not always be correct. Personally, I feel that the balance between Flamers, Plasma, and Melta are one of the best pieces of balance in gaming. - Flamers are good versus Hordes and classic Deep Strike where you were forced to "bunch up". It has the shortest range, meaning it was more a defensive weapon, or one that needed to be on a very fast platform. It has the most narrow of uses. It has the lowest points cost (and some editions/codexes even gave it for free). - Meltaguns are good versus Tanks and enemies with very high toughness values. It has short range, but enough that it could still cause harm by units that were aggressive and on the go. It could kill almost anything though, so had a less narrow range. It had an in-between points cost. - Plasma Guns are good versus Heavy Infantry, and can function reasonably against both hordes and the big stuff, though doesn't do so as well as Flamers and Meltaguns. This gives it the largest range of uses. It has an in-built weakness as well though (Gets Hot), yet still has the highest points cost. Between these three, there was no single "correct" option. Plasma was somewhat the default, but you were always over-paying, and would often lose these models over the course of the game to their own attacks. Worst of all, there were plenty of opponents where either the standard bolter was quite nearly just as good (Guardsmen, Gaunts, Orks), and other situations where Plasma was useless (Land Rainders, Leman Russ Tanks, AV13 or better really). This meant that even if you went all-plasma, you were easily punished for doing so.
Well except when you're playing Guard, because of the fact that now your Plasma and Meltaguns are priced the same as Space Marines for some reason, despite not having the same delivery methods etc. Now, Grav is a problem, because grav is generally just the "best" choice, with no real downside. It does cost more points, but that's generally negated by being the best weapon for the job, and thus being worth those extra points. There's nearly no battlefield where you would rather you took a Flamer, a Meltagun, or a Plasma Gun when instead you took a Grav Gun. Against Heavy Infantry you get more shots than a Plasma Gun, making it better (and without the chance of burning your own face off). Against really big things, it's as good or better than Meltaguns, totally wasting the point of a Meltagun against everything but a super-heavy. The only thing Grav isn't good against are the very weakest troops in the game (things with 5+ and 6+ armour), but even in that situation, you're engaging them at a longer range than a Flamer can, and you're still getting enough shots for it to matter. So, saying that the other options are bad, and that's why grav shouldn't be nerfed, isn't an answer. As I've stated many times before; saying you need something broken in order to deal with broken things doesn't reduce the amount of broken things in a game. You just proliferate it instead.
And as I've stated many times before, pretending that everything else is fine is pure ridiculousness. Grav outshines those other options because it is a weapon built under the current design philosophies. It is a weapon which actually has the ROF necessary to be competitive in the current climate. Unless you overhaul every single rule within the game, tweak MCs and buff vehicles? There's no point to taking anything not Grav, unless the other weapons see a buff or Grav sees a nerf to the point where Marines and Cult Mechanicus will just find some other 'magic bullet' option. PS. Grav has a very low opportunity cost, as it still has a high rate of fire even if it moved, which is pretty rare in today's environment as so, SO many things don't even count as moving when firing grav. It's almost a joke how Salvo is one of the most do-nothing rules in the game given how most things with Salvo don't suffer from Salvo.
Bikes and Centurions are the only things which "don't even count as moving when firing grav". Devastators, Tactical Squads, and Sternguard Veteran Squads(the only other platforms which can take Grav) do not have a rule allowing them to count as stationary beyond Psyker buffs or unique one off rules. And guess what? Not every Marine army has access to Centurions as part of their "super detachments". Raven Guard can only take Grav in their Pinion Demi-Companies(a single Devastator Squad) or in the other formations with Tactical/Sternguard Squads--or Grav Pistols in the myriad of Assault and Vanguard formations.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/10/04 19:21:55
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2016/10/04 19:58:54
Subject: Grav AP -, saves -2
|
 |
Longtime Dakkanaut
|
I'm not sure I understand your "current design philosophies". Do you mean that we need to learn to accept the way GW designs things right now? A sort of "live with things as they are" approach? Or do you mean that GW's current designs, in your opinion, result in better gameplay practices? A sort of "this is how I want things to be" approach?
In the first case, I'd say that I understand where you're coming from - but hey, so long as we're making up rules in this forum anyways, there's no reason to not live the dream and imagine that things will stop getting more broken. I don't agree with their current design philosophies, so for me, a weapon designed using those philosophies is something definitely worth nerfing.
In the latter case, I'd say that I disagree with your opinion. GW's current design philosophies result in a game that is less enjoyable and is not the game that I learned to love playing.
As to your other points; saying that Lascannons aren't good against vehicles is ignoring the point. The point is that, according the the design philosophy I believe results in strong gameplay, it's healthy to have weapons do different kinds of things and to be better choices in different situations. Having any weapon being better at everything destroys that. And sure, there's a number of units that suffer from Salvo. However, as I stated, that is a result of "today's environment", meaning that it's a weakness that is very easily managed. I find that Tacticals are generally a "I'm taking this because I have to" unit, rather than a unit taken because the player enjoys tacticals. Same goes for Devastators. Sternguard, admittedly, are taken outside of that, but hey, players seem to take them for the Special Ammo anyways.
|
Galef wrote:If you refuse to use rock, you will never beat scissors. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2016/10/04 21:50:53
Subject: Grav AP -, saves -2
|
 |
Locked in the Tower of Amareo
|
He means you can't nerf grav in a vacuum. Their overall point assignment system is much worse than grav alone.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2016/10/04 22:17:53
Subject: Grav AP -, saves -2
|
 |
Fixture of Dakka
|
I think what Kanluwen is saying basically boils down to:
1. "Old" weapons like lascannons are bad because they were designed for editions with different assumptions. Lascannons specifically kind of stink because you can only ever deal a single hull point of damage despite its high cost unless you get lucky enough to score an explodes result.
2. Grav doesn't need to be nerfed despite being the best choice because being the "best" is the result of the weapon being designed with current forms of gameplay in mind. A lascannon only doing 1 wound or HP stinks, but a gun that can hurt GMCs while also helping against vehicles or heavy infantry is quite potent.
Personally, I lean towards your view of things, Yarium. Flamers, plasma, melta, etc. all being more or less balanced against one another and all having their own roles makes for interesting and fun decisions as a gamer. Grav weapons, for whatever reason, overshadow several other options making them a "must take" and thus making it a "bad idea" to take anything else form a mechanics point of view.
Personally, I think that grav, the new kid on the block who's ruffling the feathers of people he hasn't figured out how to get along with, should find its own niche. If flamers kill light infantry and ignore cover, melta kills vehicles, and plasma offers something close to melta but without quite as much effect against vehicles, I think grav should be restructured to focus on killing big things.
And that's why I like the idea of it wounding based on size. It gives it a niche the others don't fill (it will be better versus GMCs and riptides and so forth than plasma). It doesn't step on the toes of plasma as much (plasma would be better against heavy infantry), but they can both still be used against a variety of targets.
TLDR; While some imperial weapons could probably stand to be buffed to reflect the current game, it doesn't mean that grav should overshadow all other options just by virtue of being new.
|
ATTENTION. Psychic tests are unfluffy. Your longing for AV is understandable but misguided. Your chapter doesn't need a separate codex. Doctrines should go away. Being a "troop" means nothing. This has been a cranky service announcement. You may now resume your regularly scheduled arguing.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2016/10/05 03:17:56
Subject: Grav AP -, saves -2
|
 |
Ollanius Pius - Savior of the Emperor
Gathering the Informations.
|
Wyldhunt wrote:I think what Kanluwen is saying basically boils down to:
1. "Old" weapons like lascannons are bad because they were designed for editions with different assumptions. Lascannons specifically kind of stink because you can only ever deal a single hull point of damage despite its high cost unless you get lucky enough to score an explodes result.
2. Grav doesn't need to be nerfed despite being the best choice because being the "best" is the result of the weapon being designed with current forms of gameplay in mind. A lascannon only doing 1 wound or HP stinks, but a gun that can hurt GMCs while also helping against vehicles or heavy infantry is quite potent.
Correct. It's also not necessary to nerf Grav weapons by themselves since the weapons are really only available to Codex: Astartes units and Cult Mechanicus Kataphron servitors.
If Grav was in every single army? Different story.
Personally, I lean towards your view of things, Yarium. Flamers, plasma, melta, etc. all being more or less balanced against one another and all having their own roles makes for interesting and fun decisions as a gamer. Grav weapons, for whatever reason, overshadow several other options making them a "must take" and thus making it a "bad idea" to take anything else form a mechanics point of view.
Personally, I think that grav, the new kid on the block who's ruffling the feathers of people he hasn't figured out how to get along with, should find its own niche. If flamers kill light infantry and ignore cover, melta kills vehicles, and plasma offers something close to melta but without quite as much effect against vehicles, I think grav should be restructured to focus on killing big things.
Grav's schtick is dealing with heavily armored things reliably, while being wildly ineffective against lightly armored, non-vehicle models.
You want to know how to fix the 'legacy' weapons? Actually get someone to sit down and think about them. Don't just halfcock a nerf to grav to try to artificially boost up the others.
To give an example, let's look at Plasma Cannons.
Who realistically uses Plasma Cannons?
They're a Small Blast weapon that can potentially blow your models up and are fairly expensive, while unable to be Snap Fired because of the Blast.
The same thing goes with Plasma Guns and Plasma Pistols; they're Rapid Fire(but not really because Rapid Fire is an archaic rule at this point; Salvo is everything that Rapid Fire should have been) and distinctly "Meh".
That's not even going into the fact that Plasma weapons (and Melta, Lascannon, Rocket Launcher, and Heavy Bolters and all the melee options...) are obscenely expensive for Guard for whatever reason now.
How do we fix Plasma? We look at the role we want it to have.
We want something that can deal with heavy infantry and light vehicles and middle of the road monsters, right?
Variable modes are a way to do so:
Plasma Cannon (Overcharged): S9 AP1 Large Blast, Heavy 1, Gets Hot, Critical Overload[When you fail a Gets Hot save; place the Large Blast marker over the wielder and resolve the hits against], Plasma Discharge[Successful To Wound rolls with Plasma weapons cause surrounding models to be injured by the discharging energies. Resolve a Wound against models(friend or foe) within 2" of the unit using the Plasma Cannon's weapon profile.]
Plasma Cannon (Stable): S7 AP2 Large Blast, Heavy 3 Plasma Discharge
Plasma Cannon (Suppressive Fire): S4 AP4 Salvo 3/5 Gets Hot, Plasma Discharge
All of a sudden, Plasma Cannons actually start to sound interesting don't they?
And that's why I like the idea of it wounding based on size. It gives it a niche the others don't fill (it will be better versus GMCs and riptides and so forth than plasma). It doesn't step on the toes of plasma as much (plasma would be better against heavy infantry), but they can both still be used against a variety of targets.
TLDR; While some imperial weapons could probably stand to be buffed to reflect the current game, it doesn't mean that grav should overshadow all other options just by virtue of being new.
I get that you really want the "size" thing to become a thing, but I don't. It makes no realistic sense. It just happens to align to the whole Bulky thing...but why would it be great against those "size" targets but not great against vehicles?
The point of Grav, fluffwise, is it uses the mass of the target against itself. A lightly armored huge target is going to be less affected by Grav than a heavily armored small target would be.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2016/10/05 03:45:17
Subject: Grav AP -, saves -2
|
 |
Douglas Bader
|
Kanluwen wrote:All of a sudden, Plasma Cannons actually start to sound interesting don't they?
That's one way of putting it. A plasma cannon with three large blast shots would be blatantly overpowered. Remember, a 3-shot small blast plasma cannon is considered powerful enough to be the main gun on a heavy tank ( LR Executioner). A 3-shot plasma cannon with large blasts is the main gun on a superheavy tank (Macharius Omega). And your proposed version is even better, with no "gets hot" and extra wounds from "plasma discharge". As an infantry heavy weapon your proposed plasma cannons are an automatic win against anything short of high- AV tanks. Automatically Appended Next Post: Kanluwen wrote:I get that you really want the "size" thing to become a thing, but I don't. It makes no realistic sense. It just happens to align to the whole Bulky thing...but why would it be great against those "size" targets but not great against vehicles?
Because a heavily-armored infantry target can fall and break a leg because of too much weight on a joint. A tank that suddenly weighs more than it normally does is just going to sit there on its tracks, and maybe dig into the ground a bit more. You're not going to inflict meaningful damage against vehicles until you get into "make it heavier" levels that make grav an auto-kill fluff-wise against every possible target.
|
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/10/05 03:48:32
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2016/10/05 03:52:36
Subject: Grav AP -, saves -2
|
 |
Trigger-Happy Baal Predator Pilot
|
AnomanderRake wrote:Switching wholesale from AP over to save mods would make almost everything less OP.
I agree with this a lot. AoS feels great when weapons cause multiple wounds with varying amounts of Rend values. The hit/wound still feels wonky, but it's passable.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2016/10/05 15:21:42
Subject: Grav AP -, saves -2
|
 |
Fixture of Dakka
|
@Kanluwen: I see your point. I absolutely support going through and looking at buffing up the "legacy" weapons the imperium has access to. By all means, let's go through and do that (in another thread).  I just also want to make sure that grav is filling a niche after that rebalance rather than being the best choice like it is now. And with that in mind, grav might need to possibly be tweaked or nerfed at that point.
So let's boost the weak weapons up to reasonable levels, but let's also make sure grav has a specific role.
As for why grav would work well against larger creatures but not necessarily against vehicles, I figured that was the result of vehicles being relatively mechanically sound. Their structures are designed to take a ton of weight. You might break your suspension or whatever (immobilized result), but the thing is designed to take rockets to the face and shake them off by virtue of its sturdy build. Meanwhile a wraith knight that suddenly weighs a lot more has to worry about snapping its knee when it takes an ill-advised high-gravity step. That's how I see it in my head anyway.
|
ATTENTION. Psychic tests are unfluffy. Your longing for AV is understandable but misguided. Your chapter doesn't need a separate codex. Doctrines should go away. Being a "troop" means nothing. This has been a cranky service announcement. You may now resume your regularly scheduled arguing.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2016/10/05 16:04:17
Subject: Grav AP -, saves -2
|
 |
Gore-Soaked Lunatic Witchhunter
|
Wyldhunt wrote:...As for why grav would work well against larger creatures but not necessarily against vehicles, I figured that was the result of vehicles being relatively mechanically sound. Their structures are designed to take a ton of weight. You might break your suspension or whatever (immobilized result), but the thing is designed to take rockets to the face and shake them off by virtue of its sturdy build. Meanwhile a wraith knight that suddenly weighs a lot more has to worry about snapping its knee when it takes an ill-advised high-gravity step. That's how I see it in my head anyway.
The problem with this one is that the distinction between 'Monstrous Creature' and 'Walker' is frequently pretty arbitrary. Why is a Dreadknight more likely to snap its knee than a Sentinel? Why is a Wraithlord more likely to snap its knee than a War Walker?
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2016/10/05 18:26:20
Subject: Grav AP -, saves -2
|
 |
Stalwart Ultramarine Tactical Marine
|
Grav guns I think are fine although maybe they could use a slight points increase to 20 points. Grav cannons I think are the bigger problem which I think could be easily fixed by simply removing grav-amps and the ability to reroll wounds/armor pens.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2016/10/05 23:08:34
Subject: Grav AP -, saves -2
|
 |
Locked in the Tower of Amareo
|
Grav guns should stay 15 pts. The other ones should get cheaper.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2016/10/06 00:02:37
Subject: Grav AP -, saves -2
|
 |
Fixture of Dakka
|
AnomanderRake wrote:Wyldhunt wrote:...As for why grav would work well against larger creatures but not necessarily against vehicles, I figured that was the result of vehicles being relatively mechanically sound. Their structures are designed to take a ton of weight. You might break your suspension or whatever (immobilized result), but the thing is designed to take rockets to the face and shake them off by virtue of its sturdy build. Meanwhile a wraith knight that suddenly weighs a lot more has to worry about snapping its knee when it takes an ill-advised high-gravity step. That's how I see it in my head anyway.
The problem with this one is that the distinction between 'Monstrous Creature' and 'Walker' is frequently pretty arbitrary. Why is a Dreadknight more likely to snap its knee than a Sentinel? Why is a Wraithlord more likely to snap its knee than a War Walker?
I think we're treading near the "why isn't the storm surge a vehicle" territory with that one. Personally, I kind of like the idea of getting rid of AV entirely and switching over to a toughness system, essentially turning walkers into MCs with the "vehicle (walker)" rule.
|
ATTENTION. Psychic tests are unfluffy. Your longing for AV is understandable but misguided. Your chapter doesn't need a separate codex. Doctrines should go away. Being a "troop" means nothing. This has been a cranky service announcement. You may now resume your regularly scheduled arguing.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2016/10/06 20:30:22
Subject: Grav AP -, saves -2
|
 |
Powerful Phoenix Lord
|
NInjatactiks wrote:Grav cannons I think are the bigger problem which I think could be easily fixed by simply removing grav- amps and the ability to reroll wounds/armor pens.
Martel732 wrote:Grav guns should stay 15 pts. The other ones should get cheaper.
I support both of these statements
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2016/10/06 21:46:12
Subject: Grav AP -, saves -2
|
 |
Omnipotent Necron Overlord
|
I don't think grav guns/cannons need nerfs at all.
|
If we fail to anticipate the unforeseen or expect the unexpected in a universe of infinite possibilities, we may find ourselves at the mercy of anyone or anything that cannot be programmed, categorized or easily referenced.
- Fox Mulder |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2016/10/06 22:02:27
Subject: Grav AP -, saves -2
|
 |
Shas'la with Pulse Carbine
|
Grav cannons should be Necron weapons
|
|
 |
 |
|
|