Fixing Daemonhunters

[Drazzo]

quick question - why is orbital strike limited to inquisitors and inquisitor lord only? would not a GK hero have access to this also? Since it was moved from HC to Wargear it kinda limits choices in the list.

[wingedwarrior73]

Forgive me if I'm speaking a bit out of turn here... But I don't quite grasp why you would change rules set out for an army you chose... Which won't be accepted by really any good gaming club.

 

It's roughly like saying "OK... I know GW balanced this SM codex, but I think they did a :cussty job. Me and three of my friends decided it would be a better idea if storm bolters counted as lascannons, instead. I know it's not in the rulebook for the game we're playing, but I decided to give them wings, too"

 

If you picked the army, you picked the rules. Can't take the good apples, then take the bad apples and replace 'em with good apples.

 

My 2 cents.

[gil galed]

Forgive me if I'm speaking a bit out of turn here... But I don't quite grasp why you would change rules set out for an army you chose... Which won't be accepted by really any good gaming club.

 

It's roughly like saying "OK... I know GW balanced this SM codex, but I think they did a :cussty job. Me and three of my friends decided it would be a better idea if storm bolters counted as lascannons, instead. I know it's not in the rulebook for the game we're playing, but I decided to give them wings, too"

 

If you picked the army, you picked the rules. Can't take the good apples, then take the bad apples and replace 'em with good apples.

 

My 2 cents.

 

this is an idiotic thing to say,

 

it is commonly accepted that a certain amount of escalation happens with the release of each new codex (GW need a draw to the new army), this means that as codex's get older they typically tend to get worse in terms of being able to compete with the new shiny codices. How many people play things like necrons and DH? not many because they are viewed as having 'weak' and old codexs, this project is trying to make the old C:DH fairer. The SM codex was not balanced against everything, indeed it's arguable whether anything can ever be said to be perfectly balanced.

 

Your references to lascannon storm bolters and wings are completely irrelevant and you clearly haven't read the topic if you think that these guys are only trying to make Grey Knights into some uber unbeatable force.

 

Yeh you picked the army and the rules, but it doesn't mean that you can't come up with ways to make the game better. It's like saying that if GW discontinued a race (Say DE) but you wanted to play with your old army but we were into 6th ed. and your rules no longer worked or were just not allowing you to compete with the new armys then its your fault you picked DE (which it is) but also saying that they don't deserve to have rules that are better.

 

O and whats this about any 'good' gaming club not accepting these rules, how would you know? most gaming clubs i know allow fluffy rules and if they decided the end product of this was balanced and fair they may well let you play them. Your argument has the weight of a three year old.

 

RRRAAGGHHH :lol:

[Red Lost Soldier]

wingedwarrior73:

 

The Codex was balanced when it came out, seven years ago. The SM codex came out a few months back and it is well balanced for the current game. If you compare the two, you can see the vast differences the game has undergone since Codex:DH was published, and the reason for a project such as this.

 

I see this project more like an extended FAQ, seeing as GW fail consistently at making decent FAQs. Most of the so called 'changes' in this project are merely updates taken from other GW codices for identical wargear. Which is what an FAQ is supposed to fix. If GW FAQ'd better, this thread would most likely not exist. I can understand long delays between codices that do not sell well, but a few words released over the internet is not a hard ask.

 

I'd like to think many reasonably gaming clubs would accept this project after it passes the playtesting stage. I think if you surveyed many 40k players you'd find most of them would agree DH are well behind the power curve and something like this is a great idea to pass the time until GW makes the official codex update.

 

It's roughly like saying "OK... I know GW balanced this SM codex, but I think they did a :cussty job. Me and three of my friends decided it would be a better idea if storm bolters counted as lascannons, instead. I know it's not in the rulebook for the game we're playing, but I decided to give them wings, too"

Wow talk about hyperbole. Did you read the first page of this thread? We're all entitled to our opinions, but I think you should flick through the hard work that has been put into this before you make a statement such as this.

 

Some of us chose this army many years ago, and have waited all too patiently for GW to update this themselves. Some of us chose this army for it's background, uniqueness, and character rather than it's (very outdated) rules.

 

Nothing we are doing here is for tournament or competitive play, or to power it up to the max. This is to simply make a weak army more fun to play.

[Grey Mage]

Forgive me if I'm speaking a bit out of turn here... But I don't quite grasp why you would change rules set out for an army you chose... Which won't be accepted by really any good gaming club.

 

It's roughly like saying "OK... I know GW balanced this SM codex, but I think they did a :cussty job. Me and three of my friends decided it would be a better idea if storm bolters counted as lascannons, instead. I know it's not in the rulebook for the game we're playing, but I decided to give them wings, too"

 

If you picked the army, you picked the rules. Can't take the good apples, then take the bad apples and replace 'em with good apples.

 

My 2 cents.

Im not really working on this project, so forgive me for speaking out of turn.... but why do you care? If you think its dumb, and wouldnt use it then by all means dont. Perhaps however these good people play with folks who are willing to experiment with the rules a bit, who remember that its a game, and one where frankly even the designers have said "houserule to your hearts content".

 

My gaming group is pretty cool. Wed atleast try it before saying "sorry man, but no go". Its not like theyre going to try taking these lists to tournament or anything.

 

To Quote Depthcharge "If you can't post anything helpful, get the hell out."

[Zebub]

There is an issue that doesn't seem to have been addressed yet, correct me if I am wrong. Our Psychic Hood: Should it continue to have unlimited range or should it be reduced to 24"?

 

And another thing. This have been discussed so i hope you don't mind me bringing it up again: What about our Force Weapon. I would of course like it to keep ignoring Eternal Warrior, but should it? As far as I can tell everything we were behind in has been streamlined, shouldn't this be too?

 

If not, then shouldn't it at least be limited to the NFW force weapon? Then the regular force weapon is still just a force weapon and only the NFW is the special one. Just some thoughts.

[Gentlemanloser]

If the NFW loses it's ability to kill outright, and instead inflicts Instant Death, you lose the ability to kill outright every Daemon.

 

It was a silly move to make them all Eternal Warriors (guess it was some kind of fluff gesture), but you'd expect the DaemonHunters to at least have a way of slaying Daemons outright.

[gil galed]

If the NFW loses it's ability to kill outright, and instead inflicts Instant Death, you lose the ability to kill outright every Daemon.

 

It was a silly move to make them all Eternal Warriors (guess it was some kind of fluff gesture), but you'd expect the DaemonHunters to at least have a way of slaying Daemons outright.

 

this is an important point, for this reason alone NFW 'should' be able to kill anything outright, infact all force weapons should be, EW is becoming over used

[jeffersonian000]

I agree that we really do need to bring our psychic hood in-line with the hoods in other codecii, just to keep things fair (i.e., taking the bad with the good). I'm also of the mind to go ahead and update our force weapon to BRB standard. As it stands now, our Nemesis Weapons are better (+2 Str, 1-handed) than any other comparable weapon in the game, yet only our GM and BC Stern can truly benefit from the "kills outright" rule with out dishing out for an overly expensive Force Weapon.

 

To compensate, maybe we should include a Daemonhunter HQ only special rule of being able to kill models with multiple wounds outright after a successful roll-off + LD when using a force weapon effect? It keeps our special status without giving up too much.

 

SJ

[Aidoneus]

A bit of an idea on the perils of the warp- it only takes on to screw it up, so why do you need to take more than one wound? Just take one wound on the squad, thats a penalty on par with the single wound on a 3 wound librarian. A GKT is 45pts, a SM Libby is say 120pts with any weapon options you might want.... true the ratio is a little better with PAGK but I think it evens out.

 

Also, theres the precident of dangerous terrain tests for bikers and JPers, and Warp Spiders.... you take one wound if you mess up in a squad.... not 10.

This is kind of what we ended up doing by saying the squad takes D3 automatic wounds. Seems like a good compromise.

 

quick question - why is orbital strike limited to inquisitors and inquisitor lord only? would not a GK hero have access to this also? Since it was moved from HC to Wargear it kinda limits choices in the list.

I forgot that our orbital strike wasn't like the WH one, in that theirs has to be "unlocked" by an inquisitor. Easy fix though: instead of making it Inquisitors and Inquisitor Lords only, we also allow GMs and BCs to take it. Stern won't have it, but I think that's a small price to pay for all the improvements we've given it. The important reason why I want to keep it as wargear though is the special rules for targeting that we gave it.

 

There is an issue that doesn't seem to have been addressed yet, correct me if I am wrong. Our Psychic Hood: Should it continue to have unlimited range or should it be reduced to 24"?

Probably, I suppose. I hate doing it, because it makes us weaker, and that's sort of against the point of this project. At the same time though, Jeffersonian is right that we need to take the good with the bad.

 

Interesting thought: since the psychic hood is a limited-range effect, why not use it to replace Aegis? It's basically the same effect anyway, except that it'd be a 24" bubble instead of any power that directly targets the unit. It is a power increase, but then again Aegis as it stands is a pretty weak ability, as most of the really good psychic powers don't directly target enemy units. We could basically remove the Aegis special rule, but give every Justicar a free Psychic Hood.

 

And another thing. This have been discussed so i hope you don't mind me bringing it up again: What about our Force Weapon. I would of course like it to keep ignoring Eternal Warrior, but should it? As far as I can tell everything we were behind in has been streamlined, shouldn't this be too? If not, then shouldn't it at least be limited to the NFW force weapon? Then the regular force weapon is still just a force weapon and only the NFW is the special one. Just some thoughts.

It has been discussed, and the decision was to keep it the way it's written. We are DAEMON hunters, and when every daemon in the game has Eternal Warrior, this is exactly the sort of thing we need to a) stay competitive, and b} fit our own fluff. Also, I don't want to limit it to the GM's NFW, because after all, our inquisitors are Daemon Hunters too, so they should also be powerful against daemons (although they suck in CC anyway, so it's probably not going to actually come up all that often).

 

To compensate, maybe we should include a Daemonhunter HQ only special rule of being able to kill models with multiple wounds outright after a successful roll-off + LD when using a force weapon effect? It keeps our special status without giving up too much.

I don't understand how this isn't the way it works already? As far as I know, only inquisitors and inquisitor lords (possibly GK heros) can take force weapons, which is pretty limiting already. I guess your suggestion would eliminate Elite inquisitors, but let's be honest, how many of those do you see running around carrying force weapons? I think it's a moot point, and we might as well just leave things as they are.

[Zebub]

Probably, I suppose. I hate doing it, because it makes us weaker, and that's sort of against the point of this project. At the same time though, Jeffersonian is right that we need to take the good with the bad.

 

Interesting thought: since the psychic hood is a limited-range effect, why not use it to replace Aegis? It's basically the same effect anyway, except that it'd be a 24" bubble instead of any power that directly targets the unit. It is a power increase, but then again Aegis as it stands is a pretty weak ability, as most of the really good psychic powers don't directly target enemy units. We could basically remove the Aegis special rule, but give every Justicar a free Psychic Hood.

 

Well since the Justicar can be killed and the squad then looses the ability, thus compensating for the power increase, I think it's a great idea.

 

To compensate, maybe we should include a Daemonhunter HQ only special rule of being able to kill models with multiple wounds outright after a successful roll-off + LD when using a force weapon effect? It keeps our special status without giving up too much.

I don't understand how this isn't the way it works already? As far as I know, only inquisitors and inquisitor lords (possibly GK heros) can take force weapons, which is pretty limiting already. I guess your suggestion would eliminate Elite inquisitors, but let's be honest, how many of those do you see running around carrying force weapons? I think it's a moot point, and we might as well just leave things as they are.

 

I think he means that to ignore Eternal Warrior, a leadership contest must be won. The same way it works for nullifying psychic powers with a psychic hood.

[Corpse.]

Uh, NFW to ignore eternal warrior, perhaps give it an eternal warrior only anti rule. Just an example, dont take it seriously (just to display what I mean).

 

NFW:

Any model with the Eternal Warrior Rule suffers wounds totalling its current wound for every successful wound the model takes.

(Example)

A model takes a wound, and fails its Inv save (or whatever its allowed). It must take a save for every wound it has left, like a bloodcrusher got wounded, it suffers another wound it has to save. If a prince took a wound, it suffers 3 more wounds it has to save.

 

Sounds ok? It might seem weird that calagar suffers additional wounds but its a steady compromise that can always be relied upon.

 

Its just an idea, I dont mean to crash anything. =p

 

Might I add something on the whole daemon+anti Daemon thing, just as a fun side project for the thread to think over. (From a daemon players point of view).

 

Say DH are in the game, and daemons are in the game, 1v1, the DH would have a special rule where there would be an endless assault. Two D3's worth in extra turns after the game would end, note down the victory, all units picked by each owning player would arrive via reserves, if they have the deep strike option (like daemons) they may use it, or move on from their table edge. Their armies play out the turns trying to re-obtain a secondary victory under the same rules as before. Each unit may be removed and re-newed, (even immobilised vehicles). For the sake of being able to reuse tanks, they are assumed to be detonated/abandoned (like in vehicle squadron rules) and suffer a explosion results (placing a crater in each spot where a tank was).

 

Doesnt sound clear I know, but its just a thought. Agreed on by both sides before the second sub-game is played, all units come on from reserves endlessly when destroyed/near dead and re-used like that new IG conscript abusing special character.

[Drazzo]

A question on Teleport Assault. Will TA apply to the whole GK force or just to the GKT and Heroes? The way the rule is currently written it looks like it applys only to models in Terminator Armor.

 

Just asking to clear up some things before I present these to my group and get to playtesting them, don't want any weird questions I can't answer.

 

Love the work done so far in bringing DH in line with the new rules, keep it up.

[Zebub]

The added Deep Strike special rule allows any character or unit with the Grey Knight special rule to teleport, so any one of these units or characters may, according to the wording of Teleport Assault, be included in the Teleport Assault.

 

Hope this helps.

[Melissia]

Yeah, NFWs should definitely ignore eternal warrior. Any other wording (kills daemonic creatures for example) would be insufficient, people would try and weasel their way out of it-- I've heard someone try and argue that units from C:Chaos Daemons are not type daemon, for example.

[wingedwarrior73]

You all took the time to think out and answer my objection. I will try to offer you the same courtesy.

 

this is an idiotic thing to say,

 

Thanks for the input.

 

it is commonly accepted that a certain amount of escalation happens with the release of each new codex (GW need a draw to the new army), this means that as codex's get older they typically tend to get worse in terms of being able to compete with the new shiny codices. How many people play things like necrons and DH? not many because they are viewed as having 'weak' and old codexs, this project is trying to make the old C:DH fairer. The SM codex was not balanced against everything, indeed it's arguable whether anything can ever be said to be perfectly balanced.

 

And I can completely understand and appreciate this point of view. However, you chose to play this army, knowing full well the disadvantages you had to face.

 

I guess where I'm coming from is having pride in the army you chose, and picking an army because of it's flaws AND strengths, and using both to help you win. Personally, I took up the Grey Knights knowing damn well how old the codex was, and the rules against me. Having only 23 models on the table, with archaic, slightly cryptic rules INTRIGUED me... Not dissuaded me.

 

So because of this, I guess I'm wondering about the appeal of this thread. Not the function, or the use... But why you would change an army you chose for it's fundamental strengths and weaknesses.

 

Looking back, I failed to make this point clear in my first post.

 

Your references to lascannon storm bolters and wings are completely irrelevant and you clearly haven't read the topic if you think that these guys are only trying to make Grey Knights into some uber unbeatable force.

 

It was more of a sensationalist POV for my argument, than thinking you actually wanted wings. :P And yes, I had the common decency to read through this thread -- or a large portion of it -- Before I posted my comment.

 

Yeh you picked the army and the rules, but it doesn't mean that you can't come up with ways to make the game better. It's like saying that if GW discontinued a race (Say DE) but you wanted to play with your old army but we were into 6th ed. and your rules no longer worked or were just not allowing you to compete with the new armys then its your fault you picked DE (which it is) but also saying that they don't deserve to have rules that are better.

 

I could understand this argument. However, Grey Knights and DH still "compete" with multiple lists. I'm running 5-0 on wins right now with a Grey Knight list I've gotten numerous critiques on. And I've seen Sisters of Battle lists dominate, as well.

 

I'm not saying Daemonhunters are an overpowered, or even fairly balanced list... But as far as them unable to compete? I don't believe this as fact.

 

O and whats this about any 'good' gaming club not accepting these rules, how would you know? most gaming clubs i know allow fluffy rules and if they decided the end product of this was balanced and fair they may well let you play them. Your argument has the weight of a three year old.

 

RRRAAGGHHH :unsure:

 

Thanks for having a grown-up conversation.

 

wingedwarrior73:

 

The Codex was balanced when it came out, seven years ago. The SM codex came out a few months back and it is well balanced for the current game. If you compare the two, you can see the vast differences the game has undergone since Codex:DH was published, and the reason for a project such as this.

 

I believe I've addressed this above. Hopefully to an adequate extent.

 

I see this project more like an extended FAQ, seeing as GW fail consistently at making decent FAQs. Most of the so called 'changes' in this project are merely updates taken from other GW codices for identical wargear. Which is what an FAQ is supposed to fix. If GW FAQ'd better, this thread would most likely not exist. I can understand long delays between codices that do not sell well, but a few words released over the internet is not a hard ask.

 

Now this I can fully understand. And I believe the thread is generally intended to do good, instead of harm. But you've read my arguments already. Thank you for the explination.

 

I'd like to think many reasonably gaming clubs would accept this project after it passes the playtesting stage. I think if you surveyed many 40k players you'd find most of them would agree DH are well behind the power curve and something like this is a great idea to pass the time until GW makes the official codex update.

 

I believe you pick an underdog army to play the underdog. And making the underdog bite as hard as the current champion... Well... It kind of takes the "skill" of the player out of account.

 

I, personally, chose GK to win with a more beautiful, elite, underdog army... Because I played superiorly. Nothing more, nothing less. This is where I am coming from.

 

Wow talk about hyperbole. Did you read the first page of this thread? We're all entitled to our opinions, but I think you should flick through the hard work that has been put into this before you make a statement such as this.

 

It is most definitely hyperbole. Glad you noticed :) You are fully entitled to your opinions, and I read through this thread... However, so am I. And this is my opinion, expressed exceptionally clearly.

 

Some of us chose this army many years ago, and have waited all too patiently for GW to update this themselves. Some of us chose this army for it's background, uniqueness, and character rather than it's (very outdated) rules.

 

Nothing we are doing here is for tournament or competitive play, or to power it up to the max. This is to simply make a weak army more fun to play.

 

And I can appreciate that.

 

 

Im not really working on this project, so forgive me for speaking out of turn.... but why do you care? If you think its dumb, and wouldnt use it then by all means dont. Perhaps however these good people play with folks who are willing to experiment with the rules a bit, who remember that its a game, and one where frankly even the designers have said "houserule to your hearts content".

 

It's more about taking pride in an army you selected. You didn't have to choose DH, or GK. There are a dozen or so armies out there to choose from.

 

You chose DH, or you chose GK... And you chose the codex and the rules, knowing full well what you got yourself into. I'm not against balancing things out, but I believe it's left best to the game designers, and I perceive "fixing" this codex as taking out the nuances in tactic and strategy which makes our codex and rule-set unique, when compared to others.

 

Simply that. Nothing more.

 

My gaming group is pretty cool. Wed atleast try it before saying "sorry man, but no go". Its not like theyre going to try taking these lists to tournament or anything.

 

To Quote Depthcharge "If you can't post anything helpful, get the hell out."

 

Thanks for the input. The tone was... Well... Noted.

[number6]

This is your friendly neighborhood moderator stepping in to say, overall, this topic has remained on track and civil. Kudos to you all.

 

That said, a few of the recent posts nearly cross that line of civility. Please keep in mind my notes on this topic way back at the beginning: IMHO, the OI has had more than its fair share of "DH Codex stinks/needs new rules/let's make new rules!" topics, so I will suffer this one to live only so long as the contributing members stringently maintain their good graces.

 

The issue I have with these topics is aptly demonstrated by this very page of posts. The slightest "provocation" can get one's hackles up, and suddenly posts get far more heated, personal, and even mildly insulting.

 

IMHO, some of the posts here responded to what I believe to be a fairly mild -- and mildly put -- criticism considerably more harshly than was merited. This criticism has been voiced in other similar topics ... it was only a matter of time before it got brought up here. How the membership deals with critiques like this will determine the ultimate fate of this and other topics like it. You have been warned.

 

Posts that do not lead to productive development of a topic are not permitted under the B&C rules. What qualifies as "unproductive" is, admittedly, very subjective. Ultimately we moderators are responsible for determining what does and does not qualify as "productive". If you believe a post contributes nothing, then the proper response is to say nothing and instead REPORT the possible offense. Marshal Paul, myself, and/or possibly other moderators will take it from there.

 

Finally, note that criticism itself, if appropriately couched, will often qualify as "productive". So be willing to consider it politely, even if it is ultimately rejected.

 

And now back to your regularly scheduled topic of discussion.

[Melissia]

You chose DH, or you chose GK... And you chose the codex and the rules, knowing full well what you got yourself into.

I choose the army, not the rules. I play Sisters because I love the Sisters of bAttle as an army, not because I love their army list's playstyle or all the outdatedness of it. Let's face it, the codices are no longer balanced-- they were created in third edition, not fifth, and they are not balanced for fifth edition. The fact that many rules don't even work in fifth edition anymore (especially on the DH/GK side) is evidence enough of this.

 

Desiring the rules to be updated with each new release is not greedy. It's fully understandable. If GW took your attitude we'd still be stuck in rogue trader, or at least second edition.

 

Thank the Emperor that they do not see things your way-- and neither do I.

[Drazzo]

The added Deep Strike special rule allows any character or unit with the Grey Knight special rule to teleport, so any one of these units or characters may, according to the wording of Teleport Assault, be included in the Teleport Assault.

 

Hope this helps.

 

Helps lots, thanks. It also helps to Read the rule in full instead of skimming them....

[wingedwarrior73]

My apologies, I didn't know my comments would be taken on such a personal nature. It wasn't their intention. Simply put, I wanted you to take a look at why this topic was going on, and consider - for yourself - Whether or not you agreed with having new rules.

 

Because when you choose an army, but choose not to pick it on play-style, I assume you chose it for fluff, or for model quality... Or any other decision, besides using it as a competitive army. However, when you look to change the rules of play, in order to make your army "competitive"... I think it's odd, because I chose this army for it's playstyle, and for the rules + point values associated with each model.

 

It's up to you to make your own choice, but without a contrary voice, it's nearly impossible for a dissenting opinion to form in your OWN mind. So... Let's not get this thread closed down for stupid little reasons. :)

[Aidoneus]

It's up to you to make your own choice, but without a contrary voice, it's nearly impossible for a dissenting opinion to form in your OWN mind. So... Let's not get this thread closed down for stupid little reasons. :D

Well put sir!

 

Look guys, this is a perfectly valid concern. It's one I happen (obviously) to disagree with, but where is it writ that we can't be civil in disagreement? Let's stay classy. :)

 

In response to the criticism itself, here's my point of view. I chose the Daemonhunters two years ago, when the codex was one edition out of date. At the time, they were already slightly, though not unworkably, behind the power curve. I chose them for two reasons: I liked their models, of course, and I liked not so much their power but their style of play. Basically, I happened upon Silent Requiem's Water Warrior tactica, got engaged in discussion there, decided I wanted to play like that, and picked up Daemonhunters to do so.

 

Fast forward two years. Since then, we have seen the advent of new Space Marine, new IG, new Chaos, and new Orks. All of these codices are more powerful than their predecessors. What this means is that, even in relation to when I started playing DH two years ago, they are further behind the curve power-wise. I didn't chose to play them yesterday, I chose to play them winter of '07, and lately (particularly, since the new space marines), I have been having more and more trouble winning games with them. This is frustrating, not because I don't have fun if I lose (I like a close, competitive, fun game where I lose more than a slaughter where I win), but because my strategies and tactics simply don't have an effect any more, and I just get steam-rolled by new, powerful codices. That, to me, isn't fun.

 

Now clearly, these rules aren't going to see any more than casual play. Perhaps they'll influence GW in their new codex, but not only is that another story entirely (it avoids your criticism), it's also very unlikely. The main point is to give us rules we can use in fun games, with our opponents' permission, that let us compete at the same level as newer codices. This will let us field our beloved Knights more often, and have fun, competitive, engaging games with our friends. Isn't that a worthy goal?

 

If you still don't think this project is a worthwhile venture, that is of course your right. However, having considered your opinion, I still feel like this project is worthwhile for me, and I'm sure others here will agree. At that point, I suppose there's nothing to do but for us to go on as before, and for you to decide whether to ignore us, or to perhaps change your own mind.

 

Is that a satisfactory resolution?

[wingedwarrior73]

Extremely :D I've noticed most of the responses had a similar thread as "I've played DH / GK for X years... And now the new Codex waves are getting ridiculous." I think I've joined the fray too late to be able to understand this point of view. Because I picked up GK after the 5th edition was published, maybe I just don't understand the evolution of the rules and tactics over the years. And of course, it's a very valid point, on both sides.

 

As far as this thread being a noble cause? Sure. Go nuts. It's the internet, and a bunch of like-minded people with a need banding together to fulfill it is beautiful in it's own right. I guess my main "criticism" isn't a criticism at all. It's simply that, with new eyes to this whole situation, I guess I see a few tactics you may miss, in exploiting our codex. I find it to be extremely competitive, although you will not make ANY friends, when playing it to win.

 

As far as The Way Of The Water Warrior, I thought it was an amazing read. Although I do believe there are some minor tactical flaws there, and a fair few things he may have missed in it's writing. Of course, that's coming from my play style... And hell, maybe I'll write this all up in a tactica post, to share. :)

[jeffersonian000]

Well, I'm recent to DH, and I play them probably for a different reason than just about everyone else; i.e., the high point cost = low model count = cheaper to field than updating any of my 2nd Ed armies to 5th Ed standards. Other than that, I love the Sisters of Battle fluff, and Grey Knights have comparable fluff, so no problem.

 

What I've found since choosing to play them is that I really love their overall strategy. The rules as written for them are good enough for now, can be better, could be worst, and my rare participation on this thread has more to do with posting my opinion with a project I think has merit. It’s not like I'll be using these rules a tournament. Yet for fun, I’m cool with trying out some alternate rules that may add to the game for my opponents and me.

 

SJ

[Grey Mage]

Im not really working on this project, so forgive me for speaking out of turn.... but why do you care? If you think its dumb, and wouldnt use it then by all means dont. Perhaps however these good people play with folks who are willing to experiment with the rules a bit, who remember that its a game, and one where frankly even the designers have said "houserule to your hearts content".

 

It's more about taking pride in an army you selected. You didn't have to choose DH, or GK. There are a dozen or so armies out there to choose from.

 

You chose DH, or you chose GK... And you chose the codex and the rules, knowing full well what you got yourself into. I'm not against balancing things out, but I believe it's left best to the game designers, and I perceive "fixing" this codex as taking out the nuances in tactic and strategy which makes our codex and rule-set unique, when compared to others.

 

Simply that. Nothing more.

 

My gaming group is pretty cool. Wed atleast try it before saying "sorry man, but no go". Its not like theyre going to try taking these lists to tournament or anything.

 

To Quote Depthcharge "If you can't post anything helpful, get the hell out."

 

Thanks for the input. The tone was... Well... Noted.

Eh, sorry if I came off a bit harsh.... your initial post came off as a bit insulting. *spreads hands*

 

Ive been playing since the last days of 2nd ed and Ive seen the Grey Knights go from whats basicly special character status, to an army, to rarely seen support thats generally considered to be over price... as an opponent. I can understand alot of their frustration- in 3rd edition the codices came out fairly quickly and fairly regularly... about every 3 months really. GW stated at that time that this would continue, that codices would get updated reliably, etc. It didnt happen. Because of that some armys have been "left behind". And while yes, GK are definitely a viable army they are certainly now a more challenging army than they were previously- though they always had a rep of being a little fragile its gotten alot worse over the last few years. So when you brought out your example, wich was probly just the first thing that popped into your head, it came off as ludicrous and flavored your post as insulting... especially as I couldnt see any commentary that was questioning the effort, just saying it was worthless.

 

To be honest, I often think the same thing- why are people bothering with project ______. But the idea of going and asking them seems.... well rude. Wich is why I brought up that quote *from a man I respect alot Ill note* wich I find is a good guide in these situations- do I see something I think they arent thinking off? Then I have a reason to post, and if I feel I can do so politely, Ill ask why they feel they need to do this project ______.

 

In any case, Ill stop taking up space now. Good hunting to all of you.

[wingedwarrior73]

Eh, sorry if I came off a bit harsh.... your initial post came off as a bit insulting. *spreads hands*

 

I can for sure see how it did. Sorry about that. :P

 

Simply put: I think the insights in your posts were awesome. I came into this thread MAINLY for two reasons:

 

1) I've already discussed my views on GK and tactic

 

2) But to figure out how other people saw the new army I picked up.

 

Idk... I don't want to beat a dead point, because I feel it's been sufficiently stated, but I believe great ideas come with a "devil's advocate" attached, many times. ;)