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.

 Backspacehacker wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
On to the original topic.

How do we reduce the Centurion dependency on grav? Your answer can't be to nerf the grav cannon - all that does is make the centurion more desperate (this time for a weapon worth taking) aside from the rocket and laz setup (which is about on par with a land speeder with TML with added suriviability) - Maybe making the Cent's twin linked options 2 weapons could help in this case. I know for sure I would take a 2 LC and ML Cent of over a grav cannon any day for comparable cost. I want my big guns safe in the back - laying down fire all game - I don't want them on the front lines in charging range of a host of gak that will destroy them easily.

The answer i want to give i cant really give because its not viable. Get rid of cents all together, and buff terminators since they should be filling the same role.

I am with you there except I wouldn't get rid of cents.

At the current cost of cents - make them 11/11/10 walkers with 2 HP. Give them Access to the same weapons. Keep their cost the same but let them come in groups of 1-3.

Terms should gain the cent statline with a 5++ save but only have access to terminator weapons. Except - like cents - they can upgrade any term to use a heavy weapon / storm shield / thunder hammer. They would come stock with a power fist and storm bolter OFC. Except the storm bolter gains access to sterngard ammo types and replaces the firing mode with assault 2 (this is actually the change I would make with all storm bolters)

Not sure about points cost but I think the centurian base is roughly what these terminator base cost should be.

 Xenomancers wrote:
On to the original topic.

How do we reduce the Centurion dependency on grav? Your answer can't be to nerf the grav cannon - all that does is make the centurion more desperate (this time for a weapon worth taking) aside from the rocket and laz setup (which is about on par with a land speeder with TML with added suriviability) - Maybe making the Cent's twin linked options 2 weapons could help in this case. I know for sure I would take a 2 LC and ML Cent of over a grav cannon any day for comparable cost. I want my big guns safe in the back - laying down fire all game - I don't want them on the front lines in charging range of a host of gak that will destroy them easily.

To be fair, the Grav Cannon needs to be nerfed because of its own imbalance, not just because it is carried by Centurions.

 Charistoph wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
On to the original topic.

How do we reduce the Centurion dependency on grav? Your answer can't be to nerf the grav cannon - all that does is make the centurion more desperate (this time for a weapon worth taking) aside from the rocket and laz setup (which is about on par with a land speeder with TML with added suriviability) - Maybe making the Cent's twin linked options 2 weapons could help in this case. I know for sure I would take a 2 LC and ML Cent of over a grav cannon any day for comparable cost. I want my big guns safe in the back - laying down fire all game - I don't want them on the front lines in charging range of a host of gak that will destroy them easily.

To be fair, the Grav Cannon needs to be nerfed because of its own imbalance, not just because it is carried by Centurions.

Would you be satisfied if the Grav Cannon got a 10 point cost increase and the TL Laz upgrade and TL HB stock loadout were dual weapons and cost 10 more points?

I say split the gav cannon and amp into two items.

30 for the grav cannon another 10 for the amp limited to only the Sgt for the amp

 Xenomancers wrote:

Would you be satisfied if the Grav Cannon got a 10 point cost increase and the TL Laz upgrade and TL HB stock loadout were dual weapons and cost 10 more points?

The highest rate of fire available to an Infantry model. Special Rules designed to decimate heavy armor associated with that same rate of fire. Can reroll the damage affect.

No, that is insufficient.

 Backspacehacker wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
On to the original topic.

How do we reduce the Centurion dependency on grav? Your answer can't be to nerf the grav cannon - all that does is make the centurion more desperate (this time for a weapon worth taking) aside from the rocket and laz setup (which is about on par with a land speeder with TML with added suriviability) - Maybe making the Cent's twin linked options 2 weapons could help in this case. I know for sure I would take a 2 LC and ML Cent of over a grav cannon any day for comparable cost. I want my big guns safe in the back - laying down fire all game - I don't want them on the front lines in charging range of a host of gak that will destroy them easily.

The answer i want to give i cant really give because its not viable. Get rid of cents all together, and buff terminators since they should be filling the same role.

That's a personal problem. Terminators were already meant for the shock troop role; they simply didn't do it well. Anyone trying to use them as a wall never got that result because it wasn't what they were made for, nor were they ever made for the wall role.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
...That's a personal problem. Terminators were already meant for the shock troop role; they simply didn't do it well. Anyone trying to use them as a wall never got that result because it wasn't what they were made for, nor were they ever made for the wall role.

So what should Terminators be for?

As I've mentioned before I got put on "ignore", there is no mathematical space in the game for terminators. So that means they aren't "for" anything. Walking over and punching with a powerfist isn't a niche; it's suicide.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Backspacehacker wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
On to the original topic.

How do we reduce the Centurion dependency on grav? Your answer can't be to nerf the grav cannon - all that does is make the centurion more desperate (this time for a weapon worth taking) aside from the rocket and laz setup (which is about on par with a land speeder with TML with added suriviability) - Maybe making the Cent's twin linked options 2 weapons could help in this case. I know for sure I would take a 2 LC and ML Cent of over a grav cannon any day for comparable cost. I want my big guns safe in the back - laying down fire all game - I don't want them on the front lines in charging range of a host of gak that will destroy them easily.

The answer i want to give i cant really give because its not viable. Get rid of cents all together, and buff terminators since they should be filling the same role.

That's a personal problem. Terminators were already meant for the shock troop role; they simply didn't do it well. Anyone trying to use them as a wall never got that result because it wasn't what they were made for, nor were they ever made for the wall role.

They should be shock troopers, but that's a conversation for another thread.

I'm just telling you one way to fix cents is get rid of them, they were a ham fisted unit into the game that only serve the purpose of a grav platform

That said grav does not inharently have a problem, it's the amp that's the cause of so much of the issues.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

Martel732 wrote:
As I've mentioned before I got put on "ignore", there is no mathematical space in the game for terminators. So that means they aren't "for" anything. Walking over and punching with a powerfist isn't a niche; it's suicide.

QFT but man, you feel like a. Bad ass when you death and glory a tank with a chain fist let me tell you what lol

Power fists are actually pretty good vs vehicles. It's against everything else that they are very poor.

Martel732 wrote:
Power fists are actually pretty good vs vehicles. It's against everything else that they are very poor.

True, it's that unwieldy, I wish relentless also negates unwieldy, I think terminators striking at I4 would be ALOT more scare but again we are way off subject lol

 Backspacehacker wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Power fists are actually pretty good vs vehicles. It's against everything else that they are very poor.

True, it's that unwieldy, I wish relentless also negates unwieldy, I think terminators striking at I4 would be ALOT more scare but again we are way off subject lol

Not really. Centurions and terminators are forever a related topic. Every time I look at centurions, I die a little more on the inside.

Martel732 wrote:

 Backspacehacker wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Power fists are actually pretty good vs vehicles. It's against everything else that they are very poor.

True, it's that unwieldy, I wish relentless also negates unwieldy, I think terminators striking at I4 would be ALOT more scare but again we are way off subject lol

Not really. Centurions and terminators are forever a related topic. Every time I look at centurions, I die a little more on the inside.

As a Deathwing player when I saw custodies I thought...well that's the final nail

 AnomanderRake wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
...That's a personal problem. Terminators were already meant for the shock troop role; they simply didn't do it well. Anyone trying to use them as a wall never got that result because it wasn't what they were made for, nor were they ever made for the wall role.

So what should Terminators be for?

Shock Troopers. It was what they were always meant for. People think otherwise because they see the 2+ and decided the role from there, as opposed to actually reading the unit entry and deciding after that. You have storm bolters, Assault Cannons, Heavy flamers (with only the CML not fitting the mold), Deep Strike, and having Land Raiders as their transport option.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
...That's a personal problem. Terminators were already meant for the shock troop role; they simply didn't do it well. Anyone trying to use them as a wall never got that result because it wasn't what they were made for, nor were they ever made for the wall role.

So what should Terminators be for?

Shock Troopers. It was what they were always meant for. People think otherwise because they see the 2+ and decided the role from there, as opposed to actually reading the unit entry and deciding after that. You have storm bolters, Assault Cannons, Heavy flamers (with only the CML not fitting the mold), Deep Strike, and having Land Raiders as their transport option.

But alas the problem is always getting them in there and then keeping them alive long enough to not die.

Which cent make a better shock trooper role because they can actually survive and strike back with all the attacks.

That's why cents fill the same role as terminators but better because they can be dropped in via drop pod, LR or storm Raven and take a round of shooting and not loose 2 models and be dicks

The shock trooper role is undermined by the D6 severely. 2+ only being twice as good as 3+ vs AP 4 or worse is miserable. Especially when dealing with high ROF that wounds on a 2+. This mathematical phenomenon is the cause of all the half-baked reroll fixes and arbitrary toughness increases. They're all trying to fix this one shortcoming that is built into the base rulebook.

The other end of this is that the 5++ is not adequate on a one wound model when shot by AP 2. Yeah, its better than say sanguinary guard, but realize the sanguinary guard get shot at approximately half as much because they are twice as fast. And no one is mistaking SG for a good unit in 7th ed.

Assault centurions a) accomplish a lot more the turn they arrive via pod and b) have defensive stats that are objectively more useful in 7th ed.

My apologies for contributing to/conflagrating the OT diversion. So, back on topic:

Blackie wrote:Grav weapons should be single shots IMHO, grav cannon 2/3 or small blast, definitely not 3/5. Maybe with the gets hot special rule.

Charistoph wrote:Grav Guns should be either Rapid Fire or Salvo 2/1. I do like your Grav Cannon setup, but Heavy Bolters should be changed to either Salvo 2/4, 3/4, to 3/5.

alextroy wrote:Isn't the biggest problem with Grav the stupid number of attacks you get along with Grav Amps allowing you to re-roll failed to wounds? Fix (aka nerf) the weapon profiles and suddenly the other options look better. Grav Guns are Rapid Fire. Grav Cannons are Heavy 2. Grav Amps don't exist

Backspacehacker wrote:I say split the gav cannon and amp into two items. 30 for the grav cannon another 10 for the amp limited to only the Sgt for the amp

Putting these ideas together and labeling each line for reference, some thoughts:

Grav-cannon, unchanged except for: a) Range 18" . b) Salvo 2/4. c) Graviton weapons: Against vehicles, the first Immobilize result from a Graviton weapon does not also inflict 1 HP (but subsequent ones do). (Also, Graviton becomes AP 1)
Heavy Weapon substitutions; Centurions: d) Centurion: Replace TL HB for Grav-cannon for 15 points. e) Heavy Weapon substitution: Replace boltgun for Grav-cannon for 15 points. f) Centurions and Heavy Weapon substitutions can't get Grav-amps.
Centurion Sergeant: g) Replace TL HB for Grav-cannon and Grav-amp for 20 points. h) Grav-amp only works vs. vehicles or MCs at close range

Reasoning:
a) The reduction in Grav-cannon range offsets a Centurion's Slow & Purposeful, negating some of the range considerations (for Tac Squads & variants, it just increases the risk half of the risk/reward on the weapon). Lowered weapon range makes Lascannons/Multi-meltas somewhat more desirable (and slightly more effective in relative terms for Multi-meltas)
b) Change to Salvo 2/4 lowers fire rate by one at any range and reduces chance of at least one vehicular immobilize effect to 52%/31% at close/long range.
c) Reduces some of the anti-armor effect from Grav-cannon to make Lascannons/melta weapons somewhat more desirable. Change of AP 2->AP 1 in response to various ideas around a "1+ save" allowing models with 2+ saves to get a 5+ save [or whatever] against AP 2.
d), e), & f) Point reduction to reflect lessened effectiveness of Grav-cannon. Grav-amp is a nominal +5 point upgrade but for Sarges only
f) & g) Limiting Grav-amps to Centurion Sarges reduces the "inevitability" of massive effects from squad-wide rerolls.
h) Grav-amp's effect vs. usual bike/infantry grav targets isn't a huge change (wound 2+: 83%->97%; 3+: 66%->89%) so the reroll can work at any range. Vs. vehicles or MCs, requires squad get stuck in. Not sure if this is strictly necessary

Random thoughts about other ideas proposed: Terrain effects are fluffy but seem too fiddly to use. Perhaps exchanging some lethality for a Fearless-irrelevant pinning effect based on something besides Ld is a workable possibility?

Not worrying much about Grav-pistols and Grav-guns because we're talking about Centurions. Change Grav-guns to Rapid Fire instead of Salvo 2/3? Range seems OK in light of Grav Cannon's range change and vs. Melta-guns/Plasma-guns/Flamers. For Grav-pistols, who cares? It's a pistol.

Opinions? I know Grav weapons can't be fully fixed in a vacuum but are these ideas at least on the right track to providing reasons to look at using other weapons on Centurions?

Any grav fix has to come in context of other problem units. You can full grav broadside a Riptide or Magnus and have them come away just fine.

Martel732 wrote:
Any grav fix has to come in context of other problem units. You can full grav broadside a Riptide or Magnus and have them come away just fine.

I don't dispute that. But I believe proposing how to get Centurions fielded with loadouts that don't automatically include Grav is a worthwhile exercise. (And point changes alone won't solve the issue if grav is so much better than the other options.)

Of course, you are right as well that comprehensive fixes don't take place in a vacuum.

I completely agree that grav is a terrible patch on the game, but it is really an indictment of high str, low ROF weapons. Why only marines got the "fix" is very dubious as well.

Only because this is a thread about grav centurions, and only SM rely on grav so much. There are other fix to make in order to balance the game of course, but grav weapons should be nerfed badly, no matter what.

SM with no grav weapons at all are still among the top 2 armies.

Make foot infantry troops the only unit that can capture and contest objectives, make wipe out no more a victory condition, get back to different level of victory each depending on the number of obj you control.
In an environment like this army lists should be more troops centric, and the room for deathstar or special units will shrink, giving to them the support role that they should have.

About Grav. I think that would be sufficient (and rather ffluffy) make these weapons totally useless against vehicles. SM would keep grav for dealing with MC and heavy infantry but will be obliged to field a good number of anti tank weapons too, balancing the mix.

The Deer Hunter wrote:
Make foot infantry troops the only unit that can capture and contest objectives, make wipe out no more a victory condition, get back to different level of victory each depending on the number of obj you control.
In an environment like this army lists should be more troops centric, and the room for deathstar or special units will shrink, giving to them the support role that they should have.

About Grav. I think that would be sufficient (and rather ffluffy) make these weapons totally useless against vehicles. SM would keep grav for dealing with MC and heavy infantry but will be obliged to field a good number of anti tank weapons too, balancing the mix.

As such they should lower the firerate as well.
As is they have the firerate to even retain use against light infantry, and make an absolute mockery of heavy infantry.

The Deer Hunter wrote:
Make foot infantry troops the only unit that can capture and contest objectives, make wipe out no more a victory condition, get back to different level of victory each depending on the number of obj you control.
In an environment like this army lists should be more troops centric, and the room for deathstar or special units will shrink, giving to them the support role that they should have.

About Grav. I think that would be sufficient (and rather ffluffy) make these weapons totally useless against vehicles. SM would keep grav for dealing with MC and heavy infantry but will be obliged to field a good number of anti tank weapons too, balancing the mix.

Might make something useful in the vehicle department.
I do hope making foot infantry troops the only objective grabbers means no bikes, no cavalry, no jumpers, nothing embarked.

Foot slogging troops or bust.

 kirotheavenger wrote:

The Deer Hunter wrote:
Make foot infantry troops the only unit that can capture and contest objectives, make wipe out no more a victory condition, get back to different level of victory each depending on the number of obj you control.
In an environment like this army lists should be more troops centric, and the room for deathstar or special units will shrink, giving to them the support role that they should have.

About Grav. I think that would be sufficient (and rather ffluffy) make these weapons totally useless against vehicles. SM would keep grav for dealing with MC and heavy infantry but will be obliged to field a good number of anti tank weapons too, balancing the mix.

As such they should lower the firerate as well.
As is they have the firerate to even retain use against light infantry, and make an absolute mockery of heavy infantry.

Yes, but being useless against vehicles means that the number of grav on the field will be much lower than now.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Dakka Wolf wrote:

The Deer Hunter wrote:
Make foot infantry troops the only unit that can capture and contest objectives, make wipe out no more a victory condition, get back to different level of victory each depending on the number of obj you control.
In an environment like this army lists should be more troops centric, and the room for deathstar or special units will shrink, giving to them the support role that they should have.

About Grav. I think that would be sufficient (and rather ffluffy) make these weapons totally useless against vehicles. SM would keep grav for dealing with MC and heavy infantry but will be obliged to field a good number of anti tank weapons too, balancing the mix.

Might make something useful in the vehicle department.
I do hope making foot infantry troops the only objective grabbers means no bikes, no cavalry, no jumpers, nothing embarked.

Foot slogging troops or bust.

No bikes, no cavalry, no embarked, only foot slogging, that's what I meant. Foot troop infantries are the units less pumped by power creep and armies where the backbone must be of such units will make for a more balanced game.

 Blackie wrote:
Only because this is a thread about grav centurions, and only SM rely on grav so much. There are other fix to make in order to balance the game of course, but grav weapons should be nerfed badly, no matter what.

SM with no grav weapons at all are still among the top 2 armies.

Well the reason we rely on grav so much is because of how good it is in comparison to everything else. If they made plasma on par with grav or brought grav down a peg it would not be a problem I mean, Grav gun cost the same as a plasma and there is no reason to not take it at that point.

So the only 2 opetion are make other weaons more appealing, which means the army gets stronger as a whole, or nerf grav to make other options appealing, which results in the army balanced.

We would still be top 2 because of the stupid formations

The Deer Hunter wrote:

 kirotheavenger wrote:

The Deer Hunter wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Dakka Wolf wrote:

The Deer Hunter wrote:
Make foot infantry troops the only unit that can capture and contest objectives, make wipe out no more a victory condition, get back to different level of victory each depending on the number of obj you control.
In an environment like this army lists should be more troops centric, and the room for deathstar or special units will shrink, giving to them the support role that they should have.

About Grav. I think that would be sufficient (and rather ffluffy) make these weapons totally useless against vehicles. SM would keep grav for dealing with MC and heavy infantry but will be obliged to field a good number of anti tank weapons too, balancing the mix.

Might make something useful in the vehicle department.
I do hope making foot infantry troops the only objective grabbers means no bikes, no cavalry, no jumpers, nothing embarked.

Foot slogging troops or bust.

No bikes, no cavalry, no embarked, only foot slogging, that's what I meant. Foot troop infantries are the units less pumped by power creep and armies where the backbone must be of such units will make for a more balanced game.

I'm all for that.

But why would footslogging infantry be the only ones able to capture objectives for any reason?

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
But why would footslogging infantry be the only ones able to capture objectives for any reason?

Believe it or not foot sloggers are actually fairly balanced across armies.
Fluffwise most fiction revolves around footsloggers.

 Blackie wrote:
Only because this is a thread about grav centurions, and only SM rely on grav so much. There are other fix to make in order to balance the game of course, but grav weapons should be nerfed badly, no matter what.

SM with no grav weapons at all are still among the top 2 armies.

I disagree.