Its a support weapon that requires skill to use, its powerful against vehicles and elites, but quite weak against infantry, although its slow makes it a great support weapon.

But that's the problem that's not what the Grav guns is ment to be it's ment to be anti infantry armour the better the targets armour the more damaging the Grav guns. So in this game that would mean the more armour they have the more it hurts them

And I'm shore it only glanceshows on a 6 on tanks that's not good at all

Hence why I said it deals increased damage equal to a % of the targets armor.

What would that mean in EC?
A glancing hit in a shooter doesn't mean anything.

It means plasma guns are better at tank hunting than gravs.

I like the slowing affect and it's good that the damage increased equal to a % of the targets armor but the gun should not really do a lot to tanks less that a plasma anyway

Of course they are, the Grav is a support weapon, designed to slow down and destroy over time.

Yep, thats the idea.

Ok that sounds about right but why weekend than a bolter and not equall to one when it all ready has less range than one

Sorry was meant to be weeker

Of course, people complaining already about the damage the gravgun does even though they haven't even put it on for testing and the damage shown in the stream was clearly placeholder.

Then they are complaining that the gravgun isn't portrayed correctly when in all sources it is said to be a beam weapon as shown.

Never change LSM, never change.

On a very real note however, I fear the gravgun will end up being useless against infantry if it does not reduce the range of melee lunges. Because if it does not then why walk or run when you can RMB your way towards your enemy?