Will Grey Knights be fixed by the March FAQ?

[Gentlemanloser]

Multi meltas effective range is 24".

 

They get a small average damage boost at 1/2 range, but remain fully effective at 24".

 

The Psycanno was (from its ward inception, not its original hand gun form) nothing more than an assault cannon with +1S. And a firing mode that allowed it to be useable when moving. At reduced efficiency.

 

It should retain the assault cannons current stats, with +1S.

 

All it needs is a firing mode with reduced shots that negates the -1 hit penalty for moving a heavy weapon.

 

Not 1/2 shots as the bonus is no longer that good. You can move and fire every heavy now anyway.

 

Maybe

 

Heavy 6, S7 AP-1 D1 or

Heavy 4, S7 AP-1 D1 no penalty to hit if moved

 

Heck Just keep it as is and bake in the no hit penalty.

[Schlitzaf]

Gentle that was my intention with having Pyscannons become Rapid 3 just for clarity sake. But your way works too.

[Gentlemanloser]

Rapid 3 is ok, but changes the design from static/movement to get in close.

 

Thinking about it, my suggestion doesn't work either. There would rarely be the time you'd want to choose the 4 shot mode without penalty.

 

Hmmm.

 

I think a better solution would be Assault 3 with a special rule to shoot twice if you stand still. Much like nids have.

 

That would being it back to the 6 shots of an AC, and let you shoot when moving without penalty.

[Schlitzaf]

Isn’t that a rule for their Russ Equivalent?

If we wanted to stick your idea honestly Heavy 5 or Assault 3 if moving likely be the best solution.

[Gentlemanloser]

Yeah Russes also have it for thier main gun.

[Capt. Mytre]

Nothing here solves the lack of ranged anti-tank. You're just killing more MEQ/TEQ.

[Gentlemanloser]

The Psycannon wasn't ranged anti tank.

 

What we should be asking for is psybolt autocannons back.

 

And access to Mortis Dreads, which GW have denied us.

 

Edit. As for the Psilencer id rip the old Psycannon rule from the Daemonhunter Codex and let it ignore Invulnerable saves.

 

It shoots pure mind bullets. And with a low S isn't obnoxious if it ignored I saves.

[Schlitzaf]

Gentle that rule is a rule only given to an army “Battle Tank” (ironically GK version be either Dreadknight or a Dreadnought). Not to a weapon itself.

[Gentlemanloser]

It does the same as the nids weapon beast rule (or whatever it's name is).

 

Remain stationary, shoot twice.

 

Easy to add to the weapon itself, instead of a units datasheet.

 

I feel it's currently the closest way to get back to the old dual profile of the ward dex psycannon.

 

Doesn't even need a name. Just a property of the weapon.

[Schlitzaf]

Gentle, because the Nid units that have it, Tyrannofex and DakkaFexes are Tyranid “Line Tanks”. I’d need to double check, but I am pretty sure no BS3+ army gets that rule. And it’ll be a dangerous route to go down to give that to a weapon.

[Gentlemanloser]

Why? No different if the psycannon was 48" rapid fire 3.

 

except That's miles better than what I'm suggesting.

[Schlitzaf]

I mean I dunno as said I’d prefer 24 Rapid 3 just for simplicity or Assault 3 Heavy 5. The latter so you can advance and shoot.

[Capt. Mytre]

GM, ignore what psycannons used to be. New edition, new rules, new fluff.

 

They can be whatever we want them to be, your limiting yourself to past editions. You can't fix GK with that thinking, when other armies are getting total rewrites of rules.

[Reclusiarch Darius]

Just make psycannons Damage 2. Doesn't need anything else really.

 

Psilencer is fine IMO. It's a horde clearer that still threatens 2-3W infantry like Primaris or Terminators if they fail their save. It's like a ranged force weapon, which was the intention last edition. 'Psychic Onslaught' and 'Psybolt Ammunition' just need to be 1CP instead of 2CP.

[Capt. Mytre]

Just make psycannons Damage 2. Doesn't need anything else really.

 

Psilencer is fine IMO. It's a horde clearer that still threatens 2-3W infantry like Primaris or Terminators if they fail their save. It's like a ranged force weapon, which was the intention last edition. 'Psychic Onslaught' and 'Psybolt Ammunition' just need to be 1CP instead of 2CP.

Again, this is the issue. 2 dmg makes the psycannon the go to choice for anti-TEQ over the psilencer. It still leaves us with no ranged anti-tank that isn't vehicle mounted.

 

Both weapons need distinct roles with minimal overlap.

[Reclusiarch Darius]

As it should be, psycannon was always for killing tougher infantry and for light vehicle killing.

 

Psilencer will still be taken because D3 has the potential to blow out to 3 damage, it has two more shots and its cheaper.

 

We always had that issue in every edition, even 5th. Daemons aren't vehicles, they require overwhelming brute force and magick to destroy. Our infantry warfare doctrines represent this. Incinerator is for burning down swarms, psilencer is for tearing down tough infantry, psycannon for bringing down larger daemons. Anti-tank has always been either allied-in or brought on our vehicle pool. 

[Gentlemanloser]

Except for they daemon engines. They're daemon vehicles. ;)

[Waking Dreamer]

As it should be, psycannon was always for killing tougher infantry and for light vehicle killing.

 

Psilencer will still be taken because D3 has the potential to blow out to 3 damage, it has two more shots and its cheaper.

 

We always had that issue in every edition, even 5th. Daemons aren't vehicles, they require overwhelming brute force and magick to destroy. Our infantry warfare doctrines represent this. Incinerator is for burning down swarms, psilencer is for tearing down tough infantry, psycannon for bringing down larger daemons. Anti-tank has always been either allied-in or brought on our vehicle pool. 

 

I'm hoping they change the Psycannon to D2 just like the Heavy Psycannon. If they do that I would believe that their new feedback system CAN work.

 

I agree that this slight (but hope fulfilling) change, would make all the Infantry models equipped with a psycannon (and that's a lot of models) have some actual potential on the tabletop! The Psilencer definitely has it's place against the (hopefully) new D2 Psycannon because the former's D1d3 STILL averages the same Damage per shot, but has 2 extra shots while it is 50%-83% cheaper. 

 

As mentioned, I will definitely be smiling if the Psycannon becomes D2 but personally, I would love for them to tweak it to AP-2 as well. Not in lascannon territory, but keeping with its traditional S7 and having multiple shots (4 shots and 6 shots for the H.Psyc), AP-2 is alright. It forces most vehicles to make 5+ armour save without having to burn 2CPs, and for 24" range c'mon its fair...

[Capt. Mytre]

As it should be, psycannon was always for killing tougher infantry and for light vehicle killing.

 

Psilencer will still be taken because D3 has the potential to blow out to 3 damage, it has two more shots and its cheaper.

 

We always had that issue in every edition, even 5th. Daemons aren't vehicles, they require overwhelming brute force and magick to destroy. Our infantry warfare doctrines represent this. Incinerator is for burning down swarms, psilencer is for tearing down tough infantry, psycannon for bringing down larger daemons. Anti-tank has always been either allied-in or brought on our vehicle pool.

 

So we should have no ranged counter to kill high toughness, high armour models? Vehicles are just one example (which some demons are). Demon Engines, Primarch's and also just big demons such as Greater Demons.

 

People don't understand that right now, psilencers and psycannons do the exact same thing in a different way. They fill the exact same role. That's stupid as . There's no contest between which one you pick because one is always just a little more superior - and no one here understands that because they don't actually look at the hard math, it's all based on "feels".

 

Lets take a look at a purgation squad. 4x special weapons. These are the targets: GEQ, MEQ, TEQ, Land Speeder, Rhino, Land Raider, Knight

 

Average wounds per turn:

 

Math wise, a psycannon does about the same amount of damage as a psilencer. However, once you factor in points (unit+upgrades), the psilencer is vastly more efficient against everything:

 

 

Changing the damage to flat 2 for the psycannon results in it swinging the other way.

 

 

This change leaves psilencers as only effective choices verse light infantry, which is a stupid when we already have hoards of anti-light infantry with stormbolters.

 

Hopefully now you guys will understand that each weapon is too similar in the role it performs right now, and slight changes aren't enough to make them worthwhile.

[STTAB]

With the smite beta rule being quite painful for an all psychic army with only 6 other powers, perhaps many of the issues could be fixed by expanding the sanctic discipline or allowing the use of the librarius discipline.

 

Psilencer and Psycanon could have a power that buffs them. Some kind of wound re-roll or +1 to wound would be nice.

[Reclusiarch Darius]

Psycannon being Damage 2 means they can perform as anti-tank with 'Psychic Onslaught' buff, at that point it's a cheaper autocannon with Strength 8. I'd also probably make it AP-2 base, so it's basically an Overcharged plasma gun with 'Psychic Onslaught'. 

 

You are correct that currently psilencer and psycannon directly compete, but that's only because psycannon is Damage 1 and AP-1 (meaning it only really works against 1 wound infantry).

 

The design decision to only allow us anti-tank via vehicles or nemesis hammers isn't my decision, it is GW. Take it up with them. I'm just describing our design as is. I would like a psi-lance or something similar as a 'anti-daemon' option. As is, GW has decided our hard counter to Daemons is 3 damage Smite. For anti-tank, you need Venerables or a way to get DK's/hammers into melee range.

 

I would be in favour of allowing our Librarians access to Librarius Discipline. The Index Librarian has it, but I don't know if we're allowed to take Index entries anymore for units that are in the codex. Bit of a grey area.

[Capt. Mytre]

Psycannon being Damage 2 means they can perform as anti-tank with 'Psychic Onslaught' buff, at that point it's a cheaper autocannon with Strength 8. I'd also probably make it AP-2 base, so it's basically an Overcharged plasma gun with 'Psychic Onslaught'. 

 

You are correct that currently psilencer and psycannon directly compete, but that's only because psycannon is Damage 1 and AP-1 (meaning it only really works against 1 wound infantry).

 

The design decision to only allow us anti-tank via vehicles or nemesis hammers isn't my decision, it is GW. Take it up with them. I'm just describing our design as is. I would like a psi-lance or something similar as a 'anti-daemon' option. As is, GW has decided our hard counter to Daemons is 3 damage Smite. For anti-tank, you need Venerables or a way to get DK's/hammers into melee range.

 

I would be in favour of allowing our Librarians access to Librarius Discipline. The Index Librarian has it, but I don't know if we're allowed to take Index entries anymore for units that are in the codex. Bit of a grey area.

 

A 4x S7 AP-2 2D weapon is crazy OP for its cost. It would be the most point efficient weapon in the game against all target types. You may as well delete the psilencer at that point.

 

As for competing, check the third table. Increasing the damage to 2 makes the psilencer irrelevant in all fields but light infantry. Again, that's not a role that needs to be fulfilled given the prevalence of stormbolters. Psilencers need to have a role, and I'd suggest that would be anti-medium/heavy infantry.

 

Since we're talking about changing the stats for weapons, you can change anything. Why limit yourself to what you think GW might do, when this problem cannot be fixed by some minor statline adjustments.

 

The following statlines would be well balanced and have clear roles:

 

Psilencer (15pts):

6 x S4 AP 0 1 dmg Note: When targetting INFANTRY, BIKE or CAVALRY, increase the AP value of this weapon to -3. Invulnerable saves cannot be taken against this weapon.

 

This represents the psychic nature of the rounds effecting living beings more so than metal (ignore necrons).

 

Psycannon (30pts):

2 x S9 AP -2 3 dmg Note: For each unsaved wound this weapon does, roll a D6. On a 4+, it deals an additional mortal wound.

[Schlitzaf]

I’d change the Pyscannon to if this weapon caused an unsaved wound on a 2+ or 3+ cause an additional Mortal wound. Or it becomes a silly kill anti-infantry and change can chain wounds with how you worded it. And change the Psilencer to AP -2 when targeting certain units.

 

And is this an PAGK Point or Pre-Reduction Points

[Waking Dreamer]

 

Lets take a look at a purgation squad. 4x special weapons. These are the targets: GEQ, MEQ, TEQ, Land Speeder, Rhino, Land Raider, Knight

 

Average wounds per turn:

 

Math wise, a psycannon does about the same amount of damage as a psilencer. However, once you factor in points (unit+upgrades), the psilencer is vastly more efficient against everything:

 

 

Changing the damage to flat 2 for the psycannon results in it swinging the other way.

 

 

This change leaves psilencers as only effective choices verse light infantry, which is a stupid when we already have hoards of anti-light infantry with stormbolters.

 

Hopefully now you guys will understand that each weapon is too similar in the role it performs right now, and slight changes aren't enough to make them worthwhile.

 

 

Based on this, CURRENTLY the psycannon is worse at causing wounds for it's points value than the psilencer against ANY and ALL targets - even against T8 units like the Landraider and IKnights.

 

However with D2 for the psycannon, it becomes significantly more better at damaging (and cost-effective) against those same Landraiders, Kinghts and Termies, while the Psilencer remains more cost-effective against light & medium Infantry. Sure, there is overlap with many of the targets (and not enough overall increase in anti-tank damage), but technically...the psycannon getting D2 is hands down better for our infantry than what we have right now. It makes shooting the Psycannon actually better against heavy infantry and all vehicles (our weakness for infantry at range) than the psilencer for how much it costs, where as now the pscannon is less cost-effective against everything. The one change (while minimal) would be a clear improvement of our codex even if overshadows the psilencer....

 

Also, I presume you've sent all this number crunching and reasoning to GW's official feedback channels? I recommend you also send your hammered-out special weapon profiles as well. March is just around the corner.

[TheCastigator]

On the psychic front I don’t think librarius is a great discipline. Psykana is better for the defensive buffs which provide a greater utility and synergy with our units. Null zone is awesome, but a wc 8 your not getting it off as reliably as you need. The +1 to all saving throws and -1 to hit powers are much more useful.