More from Jervis Johnson...

[- 7eAL -]

You realize the two main sticking points as to why daemonhunters and witch hunters don't sell are because...

 

A: they are out of date?

B: they are all metal armies?

They didn't sell when they were up-to-date five years ago, metal or not.

 

Fantasy players buy metal by the truckload, and only recently have they seen larger and more detailed models coming out in plastic. The plastic Stegadon that Games Workshop is releasing sometime next year is a very big deal, just as all the plastic dragons have been in the last year and a half. 40K players are somewhat spoiled in that almost all of our basic troops come in plastics, almost all of the Space Marine line come in plastics, and all our large models such as vehicles also come in plastics. Where every other army and every other game system is forced to deal with metal as the standard material, we 40K players behave as though plastic is the standard when it is in fact the exception.

[Kettu]

@7eAL:

 

As far as 40k goes, plastic is the norm and so we treat it as such.

 

And also, when they were released five years ago they were already over-specialised, single focus armies without a shred of plastic support (Not even IST plastics, come on, they are Imps with thicker armour) There was no special army deals on release (as far as I know in Australia anyway) No battleforce boxes to add several squads to your force quickly and for less expense then usual, they have yet to cover even some basic wargear models (Brazier of flame, combi-weapons, INFERNO PISTOL SERAPHIM), very little in the way of miniature releases and they even axed several of the sister models (Cannoness with combi-flamer, standard bearer and one or two other I can't remember at this point).

 

The armies have massive tactical flaws running ripe throughout with games workshop telling us that if we want better balance we have to sacrifice fluff and army purity.

 

And there was inclusion of units that were broken before it even hit the shelves; repentia, arcos and penitents sucked in third, third and a half, fourth, and now in fifth. (Daemonhosts? What are they? Must've struck their fail from my memory)

 

The codices were not written with the new edition (4th) in mind (Mixed armour in =][= retinues for starters)

Rules outdated before the codex was even finished (What the hell was a 'minor psychic power' and did such a thing ever even exist?)

 

Then there is the matter of our MBT the Exorcist. (I never even saw this on the shelves in store, EVER!)

 

The Codex was released with as little fanfare as possible. (Compared to their usual advertising and promotional activity with ABSOLUTELY EVERYONE AND EVERTHING ELSE)

 

Adding evil units to the book? (When I first picked it up I thought it was another mixed codex like Armageddon, Eye of Terror and the such)

And has anyone ever even used them?

 

I don't even inform my opponents of what’s written at the back of my codex and if it weren't for the fact I don't like to deface my books I would've torn them out ages ago.

 

How about we even talk about the gimped special rules that the GKs received to help them die quicker against anything with the word daemon used in relation to it.

[Grand Master Tyrak]

Kettu Posted Today, 06:20 AM

The armies have massive tactical flaws running ripe throughout with games workshop telling us that if we want better balance we have to sacrifice fluff and army purity.

 

Do Tau have massive tactical flaws running ripe throughout because they only have one dedicated CC unit? A balanced list does not equal a jack-of-all-trades list. You can be good at one thing, and as a result worse at another, and still have a balanced list. Balance does not equal easier to use. I have done perfectly well with my all-GK army against even an Armoured Company, it just takes practice and they are a little harder to use. That does not equal imbalance.

[Gaz1858]

To be honest im getting a bit bored of people moaning about Daemonhunters. Im a pure Grey Knight player and as such there are going to be things i have to work around, lack of anti-tank, expensive troop squads, wargear which isnt very good etc

 

But also we get good things!!!!! The best Force weapon rules, very versatile troops, a fun good looking army IMHO.

 

Every army has good an bad points, as Grand Master Tyrak points out Tau have a single cc unit and they have to compensate for that. Daemonhunters as a whole are actually a very playable and succesful army if played right and well, just compensate for where you think the army lacks in your army list unit and wargear choices.

[Grand Master Tyrak]

Gaz1858 Posted Today, 10:03 AM

Daemonhunters as a whole are actually a very playable and succesful army if played right and well, just compensate for where you think the army lacks in your army list unit and wargear choices.

 

Exactly. We shouldn't confuse a lack of love in GW's updates department with an unplayable army.

[Kettu]

I didn't say broken (Sans a few units) but nearly single tactic armies. Both pure Grey Knights and pure Sisters of Battle have less viable tactics then most.

Yes, Tau suck in Close Combat but there is still an enormous array of strategy that can be utilised, they haven’t got a single broken unit in their army although some are less useful then others but that is to be expected in every army.

 

No, Sisters lack any decent CC unit Sans Seraphim who have basically one key use anyway. Lack any decent ranged weapon sans one tank and their greatest anti-tank weapon is rather limited in range.

Sisters only work in the 12" range with far to few exceptions.

 

Grey Knights can be devastating in the right hands but, again, you have to realise that with the limitations placed against you are exceptionally limited in various strategies, more so then any other army out there. And against Daemons? Can you name a single way you are still one up on or even equal to the army you are specialised in killing?

 

What I was saying wasn't that we were all playing broken armies but pointing out factors into why people ignore our armies.

 

When I look at Space Marines I can't see a single metal model that can't be converted from plastic in next to no time at all from just mixing parts from one or two kits. You don't even need to be all that skilled.

But how do you get to the stage that one army, most popular or not, has absolutely every option covered whilst there is still several others floundering by the wayside without a thought or care given to them for the next several years.

[Gaz1858]

Can you name a single way you are still one up on or even equal to the army you are specialised in killing?

 

1. All daemons count as I1 when assaulting Grey Knights. With Sacred Incense if you want to charge then they will be at minus 1I.

2. Psycannons/Incinerators are devestating to most Daemons as they have only Inv saves.

3. Our Force Weapon ignores their Eternal Warrior rule

4. Daemonhammer(when cobined with Daemons striking at I1 means even a Greater Daemon will rarely get even a chance to atttack)

 

Off the top of my head and without a codex to hand thats what i can come up with. And besides, GW arent going to make it too easy for us as then the competitve side is gone and GK against Daemons would just be a formality.

[Gentlemanloser]

And the only reason we have those is GW took the lame route of not even trying to bring balance to older rules, and told us all to shut up and use outdated rules.

 

Which had the byproduct of breaking our Force Weapons versus Eternal Warrior (in our Favour) and confusing the pro/anti Dameon stuff we get.

 

We are now *exactly* what the original codex didn't want us to be. Check out Daemonic Infestation.

 

We truely are the Rock - Paper - Scissors to 40K, that 40K was never designed to be. We are penalised when fighting non-daemonic opposition, while having considerable advantages when fighting Daemons.

 

Our current state of woefully outdated rules has borken the balance our Codex was originally designed around.

[boreas]

Can you name a single way you are still one up on or even equal to the army you are specialised in killing?

 

1. All daemons count as I1 when assaulting Grey Knights. With Sacred Incense if you want to charge then they will be at minus 1I.

2. Psycannons/Incinerators are devestating to most Daemons as they have only Inv saves.

3. Our Force Weapon ignores their Eternal Warrior rule

4. Daemonhammer(when cobined with Daemons striking at I1 means even a Greater Daemon will rarely get even a chance to atttack)

 

Off the top of my head and without a codex to hand thats what i can come up with. And besides, GW arent going to make it too easy for us as then the competitve side is gone and GK against Daemons would just be a formality.

 

1: that wasn't true under 4th ed...

2: In 4th ed, daemons where backed by CSM.

3: Again, that very new (since C:Daemon is out)

4: One per army, easily avoidable

 

So ok, GK are better in 5th ed.... Against Daemons....

 

Do Tau have massive tactical flaws running ripe throughout because they only have one dedicated CC unit? A balanced list does not equal a jack-of-all-trades list. You can be good at one thing, and as a result worse at another, and still have a balanced list. Balance does not equal easier to use. I have done perfectly well with my all-GK army against even an Armoured Company, it just takes practice and they are a little harder to use. That does not equal imbalance.

 

That, my friend, is called Jovialism. Pure GK get destroyed in tournements. I might think of one guy in Australia that won a few years ago. But, generally, GKs are nowhere to be seen in the top-20 places. GK are not agood army. Against an equally good opponent, you'll get crushed 75% of the time. Not so with Tau. you can get a decent 50-50 w/l ratio with Tau.

 

The only exception, is the so-called water warrior thingy. But really, it's more of a cheesy "Three Land Raiders in a 1000 pts list" kind of thing. Who plays 1000 pts anyways?

 

Phil

[Gaz1858]

We are penalised when fighting non-daemonic opposition, while having considerable advantages when fighting Daemons

 

So far ive played around 12-13 games with pure GK and not lost one(And no i dont have a single Land Raider in my list). Drew once against Chaos but if id used the correct Force Weapon rules and ignored Eternal Warrior id have won by one Kill Point. Any army in 40K can take on any other army. If your finding it more difficult to win against any army other than Daemons then maybe the list needs tweaking or just more practice.

 

Pure GK get destroyed in tournements

 

Got to 99th in GT final. 99th out of 450 aint bad. And i dont think there were that many pure GK players out there. So there hasnt been a GK winner in a few years, should we stop using them, bang on about the rules we have or just get in there and do what we can to win!!!!!

 

Whatever way you cut it we can, and do, win against other armies.

[Utsujin]

How does it ignore eternal warrior? Eteranl warrior is immune to instant death. Unless they're talking about a strength 10 rail gun shot to the head. A force weapon is a special attack..

[Gaz1858]

Force Weapons as with all psychic powers use codex rules if differing from the rulebook. Its in the first couple of paragraphs about psychic powers.

 

Daemonhunter force weapons cause a model wounded but not killed by it to lose all wounds if the user passes a psychic test. Not Instant Death.

[Gentlemanloser]

Whatever way you cut it we can, and do, win against other armies.

 

Of course.

 

No one disputes that.

 

But it's harder to do so than with any other army out there. And I play 40K for fun and enjoyment, not to martyr myself playing an underdog.

 

All armies should be (potentially) equally balanced versus each other. And it's quite obvious this isn't the currently the case.

[boreas]

So far ive played around 12-13 games with pure GK and not lost one(And no i dont have a single Land Raider in my list). Drew once against Chaos but if id used the correct Force Weapon rules and ignored Eternal Warrior id have won by one Kill Point. Any army in 40K can take on any other army. If your finding it more difficult to win against any army other than Daemons then maybe the list needs tweaking or just more practice.

 

The only things I can surmise about that is either: a) You're a tactical genius or :P You're opponents a really bad at 40K. Because really, even with a good balanced army, dice will not permit a 100% win ratio (let's say you had used that FW rule). Winning 100% of your games is really an exception in WH40k. My gaming group has pretty much the same overall strength. We're pretty good. In the local equivalent of 'Ard Boyz, (but teams of 4), we placed first as a team. Individually, my friend was first was first overall, I came in second (out of 28 players). Yet, even with the army I'm most used to (WH), I have a 40%-40%-20% W/D/L ratio.

 

So, even while you get a (roughly) 100% win ratio (so are a very very good player), you got 99th in the GT? 99Th is very good. You have to admit that the reason you didn't place higher is that you went in with a crippled army.

 

GK, with all the "tweaks" (à la "our FW don't cause ID"), is a bit better under 5th than 4th. OK. Against Daemons, the whole Ini 1 for Daemons make us good against them. Ok. But is playing with pure GK at 1500-2000 pts still starting the game with 2 strikes? Yes... Saying otherwise is putting on pink-colored glasses.

 

Gentlemanloser (which was already a reference on the boards when I started playing DH a few years ago) is right: being a martyr is not a fun way to play WH40k.

 

Phil

[Gaz1858]

I would never think of myself as a martyr. To do so would be hypocritical as i would then be saying i am winning with an underdog army.

 

My point is that i dont think GK are underdogs. I chose GK as i liked the fluff behind them and think the models are great. I enjoy playing them and when i first went to my gaming club people always looked at me funny for taking pure GK, needless to say they dont now. Same with the GT, when they find out youve got pure GK a few couldnt hide their happiness(although tried to politely). After the game was always a different story.

 

I feel other people view them as underogs, which is fine by me. Means theyll underestimate what they can do.

 

And yeh a 100% win record is by far the best thing ive done so far. I played DA before GK and did alright. But i cant remember ever having a streak like this. I am expecting to be beaten soon. Once or twice ive came close to it, but until i am i'll keep playing the pure GK and always defend the list when described as underpowered or the like.

[Melissia]

And personally, I just want them to expand the Sisters line. Same thing that we're attempting to do in 7eal's multiple codices forum:

 

1: Revamp certain units to make them work their points cost.

2: Give the Sisters new units which allow them more tactical/strategic choices.

3: Give the units that the Sisters already have new options, so that they have more tactical/strategic choices.

 

Basicly, what I'd ask of GW is that they give me more reason to buy more models.

[Utsujin]

Thank you for the clarification gaz, I haven't played a game of 5th yet since it came out. I'll probably be doing that tonite.

[Gaz1858]

Good luck, hope it goes well.

[jakehunter52]

Gaz1858, it makes me really happy that you have done so well with the army we all hold near and dear to us and that you continue going to GTs so that one day, you will be the only one left standing. And I am really curious to what kinda list you run because I don't own any LRs and so opt for the Dreadnought lists and was hoping to get some pointers. That besides, I have to disagree with you on the point of Grey Knights being on equal ground. True, with time, patience, skill and tactics, you can go far with them. But inherently, they are lacking in the variety that other armies enjoy. A quick look at our fast attack choices can tell you the situation (Oh, you couldn't find it? Well, it's a little box on the upper right hand corner in the troops section :) ). More so, we have to deal with a lack of specialization and I am talking more than just about our shooting and CC abilities. The costs we pay for our Aegis and Shrouding (instability modifiers and difficult terrain tests for daemons were negated by the endless horde rule) are not reliable or even used sometimes, we can really only trust our NFW. The best way I think of this is comparing PAGKs to Noise Marines and Sternguard. Both have near equal cost and stats but when you look at their special abilities (Noise marines can become a huge firebase or quick hitting CC unit, Sternguard being able to be customized or even on a basic level able to deal with any kind of threat), they have the edge that they can count on and fill the role that they should: Support. Really, it plays back to our lack of variety, that we are an army made of support troops. But I still am not going to allow something like that dissuade me from playing, enjoying and hopefully winning with my Grey Knights.

 

Kinda going off of what Mellisa was saying, I doubt they are going to change the feel of being mid-range for Sisters or water for Grey Knights and I don't want them too. I think that would ruin the spirit of the army, it would be like making Ninja Tau (WS 10 poisoned Attacks that cause instant death with a 4+ invo save cause they are sooooo tricky) or something like that. Also, I am not sure how much they are going to expand into new units for sisters because they already have a lot of diversity but maybe, something like the Repressor or Sister Scouts could be interesting. But your third point definately, I would love to see our own version of combat squads implemented and the ability to take drop pods. I think we will get a better idea of what Sisters will get after we see how they redo (if at all) the rules for Stormtroopers oddly enough. I think they are a good comparison since them and sisters are so close in cost and stats. As for DH, I think that expanding our Fast Attack is essential because it really would make sense since they are supposed to strike quick to quell Daemonic outbreaks or make us more like BA where the standard for FA is our standard for troops (like letting our PAGKs always have the option to DS and count as troops). So I guess "Lancers" would be cool, I would actually like to see Assault Grey Knights more (I love the idea of having mid air battles with furies). Also as far as the three plastics (cause new releases always comes out in threes right?), I would think PAGK for sure but the other two would be hard: Lancers, Brother Captain/Grand Master kit, Terminators, other new unit....And as far as sisters go, I really hope they do Serephim, I loves them so much....

[Melissia]

For the Sisters, they need to do a few things at least IMO:

 

 

Revamp Repentia entirelly (seriously, they suck. Completely and utterly suck) Give me a reason to buy the beautiful Repentia models.

 

Buff Celestians (close combat specialists... who cannot take close combat weapons) Woudl go a long way to add variety if the Celestians were made to be both capable and equipped for close combat.

 

Buff Dominians (exactly like normal Battle Sisters, except 5-10 per squad, and four special weapons which they pay double the price for each) No real reason to take them over normal Battle Sisters in a rhino.

 

Give more options to Retributors (currently, they have one-- heavy bolters) Would make them more viable a choice over Exorcists. Maybe a 36" lance weapon (making Repentia able to do anti-tank as well as anti-infantry, but not giving them long ranged anti-tank).

 

Give more vehicle options in general (for example, a Sororitas version of the IG Hellhound would be nice and fluffy, as would a leman russ, land raide, or baneblade variant-- preferably not a predator variant, as that would once again blur the lines between sisters and marines)

 

Give us more special characters. We have one in our codex, one in a very old citadel journal article from back in third edition.

 

Make Penitant Engines a bit more viable per cost. They're deadly, sure, but they have to be taken en masse to actually do anything... which amounts to being very expensive.

 

 

Kinda wishlisty, but that would really make the arm have more variety.

[Pyriel]

Naturally.

Lets keep the same low point costs on everything as well or lower the point costs despite all the added buffs (repentia), we wouldnt want to risk having the sisters loosing the occasional battle now would we or being worse then SM at something.

 

...is a reason to why I take a break from the wish list want-it-all project.

[Gaz1858]

A quick look at our fast attack choices can tell you the situation (Oh, you couldn't find it? Well, it's a little box on the upper right hand corner in the troops section ).

 

Have to say did make me laugh!!! Although very true. A FA option would be good to have, although what im not sure, assault marines seem to samey. Lancers yes and no. If they went with it fair enough but it would have to be jetbikes like Sammael. The coolness of it would outweigh the ridicoulas.

 

Guess we need to wait and see what GW do with our army, until then im not going to knock it and keep on trying to win!!!!

[Chengar Qordath]

A quick look at our fast attack choices can tell you the situation (Oh, you couldn't find it? Well, it's a little box on the upper right hand corner in the troops section ).

 

Have to say did make me laugh!!! Although very true. A FA option would be good to have, although what im not sure, assault marines seem to samey. Lancers yes and no. If they went with it fair enough but it would have to be jetbikes like Sammael. The coolness of it would outweigh the ridicoulas.

 

Guess we need to wait and see what GW do with our army, until then im not going to knock it and keep on trying to win!!!!

Yeah, IMO the biggest weakness of the Inquisition armies is the relative lack of variety in unit choice, either because there aren't enough options or because the options that exist simply aren't worth their point cost. Fixing broken models like Repentia and Daemonhosts, as well as adding some new choices like actually giving the GKs a Fast Attack section (I spent a good couple minutes trying to find it when I got my copy of the Daemonhunter Codex) would do a lot to increase the armies' popularity.

[iamnothere]

One thing I think we can look forward to is cheeper troops in one way or another. Either a points break like on Jumptroops or free special weapons ala SM.

[Coppella]

Naturally.

Lets keep the same low point costs on everything as well or lower the point costs despite all the added buffs (repentia), we wouldnt want to risk having the sisters loosing the occasional battle now would we or being worse then SM at something.

 

...is a reason to why I take a break from the wish list want-it-all project.

 

No one said to lower any point costs. As for Repentia, a revamp for them is needed. Even if they were dropped to 10 points each I'd have absolutely no use for them. They're abilities would still be useless, as they simply fall over from Heavy bolters, and an average dedicated assault squad will butcher them completely.

Celestians could use something a little more just to bring them a little higher than a regular Sisters troop choice. Not sure what that would be though.

So "want-it-all project" no, fixing things that are just plain stupid, yes.

We will most likely see a point reduction though. Every other army that has been given a new codex has indeed become slighty cheaper points wise. Or they got something added pretty much for free. I'm gonna blame GW's marketing department for this though. ^_^