Using Storm Troopers

[mlund]

I'll address this first because it isn't subjective.

 

Also, a rules error that needs correcting.

 

Daemonhunter Smoke Launchers aren't redundant with Cover Saves for Vehicles. Instead you have a 4+ cover save AND -2 to all results on the damage table for the shots that do connect.

Codex overrules BRB. It does not stack or enhance BRB rules. You must choose to either play pure RAW -- and DH smoke launchers will force all hits against the vehicle to be glancing -- or you must decide to play by a house rule where the BRB instead takes precedence, and smoke launchers will give the vehicle a 4+ cover save. You don't get to benefit from both; it's either one or the other.

 

I think you've misunderstood. I know those rules quite well, and expected the gentle reader to do so as well. My post never claimed or implied that the Daemonhunters smoke launchers granted Cover Saves. The Codex is perfectly clear as to what they do. I suppose it would help to read the sentence that directly proceeds this one, since that's how paragraphs work and all:

 

As an added bonus, the Rhinos can provide a screen for the Land Raider's initial approach vector. Daemonhunter Smoke Launchers aren't redundant with Cover Saves for Vehicles.

 

The screen provides a Cover Save, unless I've misunderstood the rules for granting vehicles Cover. The Daemonhunters Smoke Launchers convert Glancing Hits. "Modern" smoke launchers just provide the same 4+ cover save, so Cover/Screen + "Modern" Smoke Launchers is redundant while Cover/Screen + Daemonhunters Smoke Launchers is a stacked benefit.

 

However, I take strong exception with assessments like "they make lousy Troops choices" or that their shooting capability is so crippling that they have "severe problems in firefights against MEQ units". Or even that "they have a ton of points sunk into superior close combat ability". Neither of the first two statements is true at all, and the last one I quoted is very misleading.

 

I certainly respect your right to an opinion. I think you are wrong, which is quite different from calling your opinions "untrue" and "misleading."

 

GKs actually make excellent footslogging (unmounted) Troops choices. Plain vanilla, no modifications, they create a constant 24"-30" threat bubble (when you include movement) because of their stormbolters.

 

Having everyone armed with a Storm Bolter is certainly a great boon when you are walking around. The shots from a Storm Bolter, however, don't threaten the target unit with any more damage than bolter rounds, though.

 

(Obviously a double plasma unit will likely shoot down more terminator-equivalent or monstrous creature units, but those aren't the majority of enemies you face, and as you rightly note, GKs do have other tools in their toolbox to deal with even those kinds of threats.)

 

You don't need Terminators or Monstrous creatures to score superior kills in shooting

 

Double Plasma + 8 Hellguns cost 120 points and kills 1.97 MEQ at 24" / 3.94 MEQ at 12"

 

10 Storm Bolters cost 275 points and kills 2.67 MEQ at 24"

 

Storm Bolters have the advantage of being able to move a full speed and still shoot 24". They have the distinct disadvantage of coming in Squads that have no weapon upgrades that deny Power Armor Saves.

 

The largest contingent of enemies I see are MEQ forces: Necrons, Space Marines, Chaos Space Marines.

 

And yes, some of the expense of a GK's points cost is True Grit and S6. But to consider them nothing but assault troops is to completely ignore the not insignificant investment put into the stormbolter and the shrouding.

 

Sorry, but I also consider Sternguard Veterans to be at their best when used as nothing but short-ranged shooting troops - completely ignoring the 2nd attack in their profile and the ability to purchase Heavy Weapons.

 

GKs are balanced.

 

"Balanced" units are terrible competitive choices unless they receive a steep discount on their abilities, since you are only ever using half their capacity in a give battlefield role.

 

To focus nigh exclusively on just one half of their capabilities is wasteful and inefficient.

 

The value of their various capabilities in in my environment are heavily weighted based on their ability to kill MEQ and survive against MEQ. Grey Knights in Power Armor give me the highest pay-out in both categories when they get into Assault or Deep Strike, not when they walk from my deployment zone hoping a Vindicator doesn't drive up and park a Pie-Plate on them or some Assault Troops don't get the jump on them.

 

Your Mileage May Vary.

 

- Marty Lund

 

Edited for spelling

[number6]

I think you've misunderstood. I know those rules quite well, and expected the gentle reader to do so as well. [...] I suppose it would help to read the sentence that directly proceeds this one, since that's how paragraphs work and all

I did read it, and I've read it again, and I still don't read it the way you say you meant it. [shrug] All I care is that nobody else thought it was meant in the way I read it. Your clarification (below) is the part I never grasped out of your initial post on the subject.

The screen provides a Cover Save, unless I've misunderstood the rules for granting vehicles Cover.

Depends on positioning, but it's definitely possible for a Rhino to obscure enough of a land raider's hull to grant a 4+ cover save. Fail that cover save, and indeed the smoke you previously launched from the raider will reduce the hit to glancing.

I certainly respect your right to an opinion. I think you are wrong, which is quite different from calling your opinions "untrue" and "misleading."

Heh. :lol: Your "opinion" is that GKs make lousy Troops choices. Such a statement is untrue because it's merely your opinion. That nature of your initial factually-phrased statement is why I responded that way. I described why I disagree with you. You and anyone else are more than free to disagree with my assessment without bringing "truth" into it.

 

Similarly, I find such statements "misleading" because my own experience and others' experiences, sometimes described in battle reports on this very site, describe games and situations where using GKs as the only Troops works out perfectly fine and is a key support underpinning victory. You may not like using GKs as Troops -- and have perfectly valid, personal reasons for doing so -- but it is definitely misleading to suggest that GKs are not capable of holding their own in that role when clearly, they can.

 

I appreciate pointing out the GKs are not the only useful Troops choice in the DH codex. I agree wholeheartedly, in fact. I don't think it's unfair to insist that the reverse also be acknowledged. Namely, that ISTs are not the only useful Troops choice in the DH codex. :lol:

 

Storm Bolters have the advantage of being able to move a full speed and still shoot 24". They have the distinct disadvantage of coming in Squads that have no weapon upgrades that deny Power Armor Saves.

As your own mathhammer points out, the units do entirely different things whether moving or not moving, and all for varying costs. They're entirely different platforms with different stats, abilities, special rules, and points costs. You are not comparing apples to apples when you are comparing GKs to ISTs for any purpose whatsoever. It's all in how you employ the units in the context of your entire army that makes them useful for one task or another. No amount of mathhammer will demonstrate how ISTs are "better" than GKs.

 

Similarly, no amount of mathhammer will demonstrate how GKs are "better" than ISTs. My point about GKs is only that you were completely dismissing fully half of their capability for no good reason that I could discern. I still think that.

The largest contingent of enemies I see are MEQ forces: Necrons, Space Marines, Chaos Space Marines.

And that automatically means GKs are useless as Troops? Even from your own posts, this does not follow logically. Out of the 15 regular opponents I face at the game store, eight (!!) play Chaos Marines, three play loyalist marines of one stripe or another, and one plays Necrons.

 

Just because you're facing MEQs doesn't mean GKs are useless. I certainly haven't missed my ISTs. :D

"Balanced" units are terrible competitive choices unless they receive a steep discount on their abilities, since you are only ever using half their capacity in a give battlefield role.

I'm surprised you see things this way. GKs are unique in 40K precisely because they are one of the few units not obviously specialized for a specific battlefield role. Recognizing that they are balanced -- which you seem to do -- should you not also expect to have to play them differently as well? If they're different, they demand a different approach. It's only logical. If you haven't already done so, have a look through the various tacticas posted in the Online Resources topic pinned to the top of this forum. (Chief among them would have to be The way of the water warrior, of course.

Your Mileage May Vary

Obviously, it does. ;)

 

By all means, continue to promote how you use ISTs and GKs in the context of your army lists and games. Just don't expect people to limit their employment of those units to exactly your recommendations and none other.

[mlund]

Heh. :D Your "opinion" is that GKs make lousy Troops choices. Such a statement is untrue because it's merely your opinion. That nature of your initial factually-phrased statement is why I responded that way.

 

I disagree. "Lousy," is always going to be a subjective evaluation, just like "beautiful," or "delicious." Trying to accuse people of being "untruthful" and "deceptive" because you disagree with their opinions so strongly is poor form. (See how I don't have to attach "in my opinion" to qualify "poor form" since it is innately subjective?) Someone's only being deceptive when offering an opinion if they are lying about what they actually believe or feel and I firmly believe it was never your intention to insinuate that I was a liar. Wrong? Sure. Liar? No, sir.

 

I described why I disagree with you. You and anyone else are more than free to disagree with my assessment without bringing "truth" into it.

 

I'm afraid you're the party who injected the words "truth" into a purely subjective discussion, not me.

 

but it is definitely misleading to suggest that GKs are not capable of holding their own in that role when clearly, they can.

 

Here's the trick. That's your personal opinion, not a fact. Even the definition of "holds their own" is going to vary based on how competitive their environment is.

 

I appreciate pointing out the GKs are not the only useful Troops choice in the DH codex. I agree wholeheartedly, in fact. I don't think it's unfair to insist that the reverse also be acknowledged. Namely, that ISTs are not the only useful Troops choice in the DH codex.

 

"Useful" is subjective. I don't think Grey Knights are an optimal competitive choice as Troops in an All-Comer's competitive environment. They don't burst into flames if you take them on your army list by any means, but they aren't optimal, in my opinion. They make a much better Fast Attack choice, being your only Fast Attack option in a pure Daemonhunters force and all.

 

Similarly, no amount of mathhammer will demonstrate how GKs are "better" than ISTs.

 

Yes, if your opponents only run Orks with no Kustom Force Fields and 5+ Armor Tyrannids on empty board the Storm Bolter will win every time. You can find a hedge case to make almost any generally sub-optimal unit earn a gold star over a better all-purpose or Anti-MEQ configuration.

 

I'm surprised you see things this way. GKs are unique in 40K precisely because they are one of the few units not obviously specialized for a specific battlefield role. Recognizing that they are balanced -- which you seem to do -- should you not also expect to have to play them differently as well? If they're different, they demand a different approach. It's only logical.

 

There's one problem. The game's objectives don't change based on what units you buy. Playing Grey Knights differently does not, in my experience, make up for the fact that you can play an entirely different unit in that FOC Slot and achieve better results.

 

If you haven't already done so, have a look through the various tacticas posted in the Online Resources topic pinned to the top of this forum. (Chief among them would have to be The way of the water warrior, of course.

 

Yes. I've read the a few times before. I don't agree with everything in it, and while I find many parts of it insightful and useful when playing pure Grey Knights I don't believe it stacks up against simply not shoe-horning Grey Knights into that role and letting ISTs do the grunt work in the troops role.

 

By all means, continue to promote how you use ISTs and GKs in the context of your army lists and games.

 

It seems to make sense, seeing that the original post asked: "do you guys use Storm Troopers? I'm trying to build the toughest GK list I can and am thinking about all the options in the codex. If you do use them, what do you use them for? Thanks in advance!"

 

Just don't expect people to limit their employment of those units to exactly your recommendations and none other.

 

I never came here to tell anyone what models they can and cannot play - only to answer a question by offering my opinions and experiences.

 

- Marty Lund

[Marid]

Ahem. No need to get testy, folks. ;)

 

Don't get me wrong. It is nice to see staunch defenders of IST. Sometimes people get a bit too puritanical about Grey Knights and miss out on the many other options that Inquisition forces have.

[DevianID]

I played a DoW killpoint game with my 3 big units of termies yesterday, but took plasma ISTs instead of my usual flamer ones, versus Eldrad mech eldar. The Mech eldar stayed very far away from the potential 8 rapid fire plasma shots, and at 24 inches the 4 plasma shots still bagged a wave serpent. I only lost cause 2 GKT squads died from deepstrike mishap, the game ended 3 kill points to him and 2 to me. So from my experience there, since he was playing an anti MEQ list my IST were just as survivable as any power armor unit, cause all his attacks were either S8 AP3 or S6 AP2. In my other games, where the enemy has anti horde options, IST get annihilated and I wish I had some kind of power armor.

 

I think the important thing is that IST versus PAGK represent a different style--its not that one is better than the other, its more like they both have different roles and playstyles which will mesh or clash with the controlling player.

 

Since PAGK have been thrown into the lot, I will say IMHO PAGK are best in the assault role in 5th edition. This is because the abundance of cover means that hordes retain their save versus the storm bolter, and other non-horde shooty infantry deal shooting damage faster than the stormbolters dish to them. Backpedaling, a very effective tactic versus armies with close combat elements, has been weakened greatly because of the run rule. Finally, close combat results now only consider wounds done, so the relatively low PAGK model count no longer hinders combat resolution results, and their elite nature mean they take less wounds than more 'hordy' close combat troops, further enhancing combat resolution results.

 

Now remember I speak of PAGK from a tourney perspective, not a casual game perspective, so I am comparing PAGK to things like mech lists/horde orks/nob bikers/twin lash princes, ect, so it should be obvious why the storm bolters do nothing.

[mlund]

So from my experience there, since he was playing an anti MEQ list my IST were just as survivable as any power armor unit, cause all his attacks were either S8 AP3 or S6 AP2. In my other games, where the enemy has anti horde options, IST get annihilated and I wish I had some kind of power armor.

 

Sometimes I wish my ISTs had power armor like Chaos Space Marines squads did, but that's the price you pay for getting a 3:2 advantage in Squads over the Chaos Marines w/ 2x Plasma Guns. In general I stick my Stormtroopers into Vehicles or 4+ Cover unless they are making a Kamikaze run on something more expensive them themselves. I'm happy to sacrifice a 70 point 2x Melta Squad to bring down a Leman Russ. Likewise I don't mind exposing 120 points of guys to concentrated fire if I need to get off 4 plasma shots at a high value target. Ideally, though, units of ISTs extended deep that far into your enemy's field of fire got there via a Rhino and are using it as terrain to help their saves or limit field of fire.

 

I find my ISTs are more prone to getting run over in Assault than shot up. Loota Spam is a world of hurt for them, though.

 

I think the important thing is that IST versus PAGK represent a different style--its not that one is better than the other, its more like they both have different roles and playstyles which will mesh or clash with the controlling player.

 

The represent a difference in battlefield capabilities. They are better in specific roles against specific targets. ISTs are generally better at short-range fire fights to take out MEQ and vehicles. They also have Rhinos that PA Grey Knights. PA Grey Knights can be taken as FA to give them Deep Strike, which ISTs lack. They also have S6 CC weapons, True Grit, and a Justicar with the equivalent of a Relic Blade, and thus are excellent in Assault.

 

Since PAGK have been thrown into the lot, I will say IMHO PAGK are best in the assault role in 5th edition. This is because the abundance of cover means that hordes retain their save versus the storm bolter, and other non-horde shooty infantry deal shooting damage faster than the stormbolters dish to them. Backpedaling, a very effective tactic versus armies with close combat elements, has been weakened greatly because of the run rule. Finally, close combat results now only consider wounds done, so the relatively low PAGK model count no longer hinders combat resolution results, and their elite nature mean they take less wounds than more 'hordy' close combat troops, further enhancing combat resolution results.

 

Those are all very good points. I have to admit that they have suffered a bit, though, from the way Fearless now interacts with close combat resolution. They don't enjoy those automatic extra hits in a lost combat resolution.

 

Now remember I speak of PAGK from a tourney perspective, not a casual game perspective, so I am comparing PAGK to things like mech lists/horde orks/nob bikers/twin lash princes, ect, so it should be obvious why the storm bolters do nothing.

 

Yeah, I think we're on the same page here.

 

- Marty Lund

[DevianID]

ISTs are generally better at short-range fire fights to take out MEQ and vehicles.

 

PAGK in assault deal with MEQ and vehicles very well, and while rhinos are good, you can get rhinos for grey knights if you work at it. Thus both IST and PAGK can deal with most of the same stuff, its the how that each deals with it and what the player likes that ultimately define what you consider better at each roll.

[Gentlemanloser]

GW have FAQed that dedicated transports remain dedicated.

 

I can't think of any way you could get a non dedicated Rhino to allow your PAGK to ride in it.

[Grand Master Tchezzarus]

GW have FAQed that dedicated transports remain dedicated.

 

I can't think of any way you could get a non dedicated Rhino to allow your PAGK to ride in it.

 

by making an SM mother list, with allied GK : the GK could ride in the "non-dedicated" SM Rhinos.

That's the only way i could think of.

[Marid]

Or you could do it with WH forces. Still, it seems like a lot of points to pay for a Rhino when you have to buy troops you didn't intend on buying.