How do we fight the Grey Knights?

[Vindicatus]

I'm personally not too worried about the psychotroke grenades, the effects are too random and I can't see my opponent rolling a 6 too many times. Besides, you need to fail your Initiative test to be affected, so only a small handful of Marines should be affected.

 

 

I believe you confused 'Psychotroke Grenades' with 'Empyrean Brain Mine'. Psychotroke's go off no matter what, and the only way your unit isn't affect is if the controlling player rolls a 1.

 

Brain mines require an Initiative test or you sit there and drool for a round.

 

And I wouldn't count PG's as being 'meh' worthy as far as danger is concerned. In my last game, I had two things that completely changed the direction the game was headed.

 

1. Full strength unit of Bloodcrushers charges Grandmaster - PG's go off. Roll a 6. Unit does 11 wounds to itself, followed by 13 wounds from the GM and his GKT bodyguards. He ate it.

 

2. GM and GKT go up against a Bloodthirster with that silly Collar that gives him a 2++ against force weapons. On the charge, PG's go off, roll a 4 (LD2 for the remainder of the phase). Every SINGLE model in my GM+GKT unit scores a wound. That 2++ saves all but one. Because one wound made it through from a NFW, he has to roll and pass a leadership test (which he does, and fails trying to pass it on a 2), bye-bye Bloodthirster.

 

Granted, these are situational (like everything), but they have the ability to be particularly devastating in certain circumstances, when combined with other affects.

[Shadowstalker Grim]

I find it a little weird how they are almost bias to taking out a certain faction, maybe GW felt that was a little too much and renamed them so that they were more 'against everyone' even so....it still seems like they have a fun time smashing daemons faces in..

[DarkGuard]

I'm personally not too worried about the psychotroke grenades, the effects are too random and I can't see my opponent rolling a 6 too many times. Besides, you need to fail your Initiative test to be affected, so only a small handful of Marines should be affected.

 

 

I believe you confused 'Psychotroke Grenades' with 'Empyrean Brain Mine'. Psychotroke's go off no matter what, and the only way your unit isn't affect is if the controlling player rolls a 1.

 

Brain mines require an Initiative test or you sit there and drool for a round.

 

And I wouldn't count PG's as being 'meh' worthy as far as danger is concerned. In my last game, I had two things that completely changed the direction the game was headed.

 

1. Full strength unit of Bloodcrushers charges Grandmaster - PG's go off. Roll a 6. Unit does 11 wounds to itself, followed by 13 wounds from the GM and his GKT bodyguards. He ate it.

 

2. GM and GKT go up against a Bloodthirster with that silly Collar that gives him a 2++ against force weapons. On the charge, PG's go off, roll a 4 (LD2 for the remainder of the phase). Every SINGLE model in my GM+GKT unit scores a wound. That 2++ saves all but one. Because one wound made it through from a NFW, he has to roll and pass a leadership test (which he does, and fails trying to pass it on a 2), bye-bye Bloodthirster.

 

Granted, these are situational (like everything), but they have the ability to be particularly devastating in certain circumstances, when combined with other affects.

 

Nope, I didn't get them wrong, I was just replying to the comment about the effect that has the squad kill themselves if they fail an initiative test. I was simply saying I'm personally not too worried as the effects are random. If we then take into account all the other effects, then psychotroke grenades start to be a concern worth worrying about.

[DarkGuard]

Well I finally got to play Grey Knights last night, 1750pts each. The result was a solid 1-0 win to me on objectives, and I made some observations, all of which have pretty much been made already.

 

For starters, Grey Knights don't really operate well at long range, but at mid range they start to get dangerous. My opponent was hoping to draw me towards his objective and then counter-attack. Unfortunately, the plan didn't pay off as I took out his transports before he could take his objective back from my Tactical squad.

 

Also, the other observation I've made it that everyone seems to prefer power armoured Grey Knights. This is most likely to the fact that mech is top of the metagame at the moment, and mech GKT will be very expensive with all those Land Raiders. Plus it'll be short range unless you shell out lots of points on Venerable psyfleman Dreads. However, most of the Grey Knight HQs are in Terminator armour, necessitating a Terminator squad for them to run in, giving a hybrid list, or for them to sit on their own, vulnerable to Instant Death. If they want to run everything in a Rhino, Razorback etc, they need to take a Brotherhood Champion or Inquisitor, but this gives no Grand Strategy, which is a very useful ability. Something else to think about, as it seems that the list has to either be hybrid or weaker.

 

All in all, I didn't get to see Grey Knights in combat, which is good. At range they didn't impress me, even with psyfleman Dreads and Orbital Bombardments. They are as fragile as Marines, but are more expensive, especially when outfitted with halberds. All in all, if we can keep them at range, take out their transports and try to shut down their long-range firepower we can play things the way we want, and pick them apart. Will be interested to see what more games reveal.

[Something Wycked]

No offense to your opponent, DarkGuard, but it seems to me that he didn't capitalize on GK strengths and minimize their weaknesses. He chose to play a full length board rather than closing the distance- he allowed you to dictate the range of the fight, and you dictated that it take place in the GK weak spot.

 

Well played, sir!

[DarkGuard]

No offense to your opponent, DarkGuard, but it seems to me that he didn't capitalize on GK strengths and minimize their weaknesses. He chose to play a full length board rather than closing the distance- he allowed you to dictate the range of the fight, and you dictated that it take place in the GK weak spot.

 

Well played, sir!

 

I don't think that's an unfair comment, after the game he himself admitted I had the better tactics. I gave him my opinion on what I would have done had I been his shoes, which would have been to leave my two scoring psyfleman Dreads on the objective (stupid Grand Strategy) and push my Strike Squads forwards, perhaps using the Purgation squad in Razorback as mobile counter-attack unit. In the end we all learn something from the game, and who knows, it could be completely different next time. All I know is that apart from combat, Grey Knights seem to have most of a normal Space Marine's faults, and as C:SM players who is better at exploiting those faults than us?

[Something Wycked]

It sounds like he had the first turn and sat back on his side of the board with his troops inside his Rhinos. Is that correct? How would the game have changed if he had capitalized on having the first turn and zipped across the board, deploying his troops behind Rhino bunkers, ready to open fire on turn 2?

[Brother Dylan]

The walkers can't score even with the grand strategy.

[TyrionTheImp]

The walkers can't score even with the grand strategy.

 

I disagree. The BRB says that Troops do not count as scoring if they are vehicles, etc. However, the Grand Strategy can claim objective as if it were Troops. I would rule that walkers can score because of the wording in both the BRB and Codex.

[maxkool]

The walkers can't score even with the grand strategy.

 

I disagree. The BRB says that Troops do not count as scoring if they are vehicles, etc. However, the Grand Strategy can claim objective as if it were Troops. I would rule that walkers can score because of the wording in both the BRB and Codex.

 

 

Nope, if you follow the logical order..

 

Dread is Vehicle BRB says Vehicles cant score.

Grand Stratagy makes it so things can claim objective "AS IF THEY ARE TROOPS" This is the important part, if it just used the wording like sternG and said "Scoring" this would be the end of the chain.

Back to BRB Troops count as scoring unless they are vehicles so the dread is a Troop but because its a Vehicle it cant ever score.

 

 

Like I noted, if they had used the working "Counts as scoring" then the dread could hold objectives. But as it stands they become troops, and troops that are V cant hold objectives.

 

I would assume they would errata the wording to scoring if they want scoring dreads... otherwise RAW dreads can never score as troops, just as a scoring Elite.

[TyrionTheImp]

Okay, the BRB pg. 90 reads "There are a few exceptions, however, when a unit of Troops does not count as scoring: If it is a vehicle..."

 

It says "unit of Troops", nothing about "vehicles can never score".

 

The Grand Strategy rule reads "The nominated units can claim objectives as if they were Troops."

 

Dreadnoughts in this case are not Troops, however, using Grand Strategy, they can be made to claim Objective as if they were Troops, but this does not make them Troops, merely counting as though they were. If the Grand Strategy had said "These units become Troops and remain so until the end of the game." or "These units count as Troops until the end of the game" I would agree, but as it stands it does not make them Troops, merely able to claim objectives as if they were. Therefore, the BRB does not inhibit them from scoring because they are not Troops.

[greatcrusade08]

codex always trumps rulebook, they may claim the onjectives as noted in the codex

[appiah4]

Codex trumps the rulebook.. But Codex says they 'claim objectives as if they were Troops', but does not elaborate on what

 

a) Scoring

:D Troops

 

mean, so in that regard, you have to go back to the BRB and check. And the BRB tells you Troops can claim objectives, unless they are vehicles.

 

Even if the Dreadnoughts 'can claim objectives as if they were Troops', they won't be able to clain objectives because as Troops, they are not entitled to the benefit.

 

The Codex never at any point states vehicles with this rule are an exception to the BRB claiming objectives rules or Troops descriptions.

[TyrionTheImp]

Even if the Dreadnoughts 'can claim objectives as if they were Troops', they won't be able to clain objectives because as Troops, they are not entitled to the benefit.

 

They are NOT Troops, they only gain the ability to claim objectives as if they WERE Troops.

[appiah4]

Even if the Dreadnoughts 'can claim objectives as if they were Troops', they won't be able to clain objectives because as Troops, they are not entitled to the benefit.

 

They are NOT Troops, they only gain the ability to claim objectives as if they WERE Troops.

 

Yeah, but they do not gain the ability 'to claim objectives' they gain the ability 'to claim objectives as if they were TROOPS'. And if you check what it means to 'claim objectives as if they were TROOPS' you have to go to the BRB and see that 'to claim objectives as TROOPS' is denied to Vehicles.

 

This is not the place for the discussion I presume.. But to say they gain the ability is MISLEADING, because they don't just gain the ABILITY, the gain the ABILITY of a certain FOC SLOT, and what the FOC SLOT'S ABILITY IS is laid out in the BRB, not the codex.

[greatcrusade08]

even if that wordsmithery were correct, your ignoring the main part of the quote... "may claim objectives"..

regardless of the confusion caused by the mechanic.. the intent is obvious

 

"claim objectives" means scoring..

[appiah4]

even if that wordsmithery were correct, your ignoring the main part of the quote... "may claim objectives"..

regardless of the confusion caused by the mechanic.. the intent is obvious

 

"claim objectives" means scoring..

 

Unfortunately for you, the book does not say 'may claim objectives' it says 'may claim objectives like TROPPS' so it specifically injects the restrictions posed by TROOPS status. If it had meant to say 'may clain objectives' ti would have said so and we would not have had this argument. But it adds 'like TROOPS' which sends us back to the BRB, which tells us 'Troops may claim objectives.' with the exception listed 'Vehicles can not claim objectives.'

 

I'm sorry but to me, RAW, there is n oway this will pass. I wouldn't play against a scoring GK vehicle.

[Hellios]

even if that wordsmithery were correct, your ignoring the main part of the quote... "may claim objectives"..

regardless of the confusion caused by the mechanic.. the intent is obvious

 

"claim objectives" means scoring..

 

Unfortunately for you, the book does not say 'may claim objectives' it says 'may claim objectives like TROPPS' so it specifically injects the restrictions posed by TROOPS status. If it had meant to say 'may clain objectives' ti would have said so and we would not have had this argument. But it adds 'like TROOPS' which sends us back to the BRB, which tells us 'Troops may claim objectives.' with the exception listed 'Vehicles can not claim objectives.'

 

I'm sorry but to me, RAW, there is n oway this will pass. I wouldn't play against a scoring GK vehicle.

 

 

I'm not saying you are wrong... and maybe GW didn't plan on dreads being scoring but to allow them to use some of the other abilities... However they would not be the only vehicles in the game that can score...

[Brother Valerius]

even if that wordsmithery were correct, your ignoring the main part of the quote... "may claim objectives"..

regardless of the confusion caused by the mechanic.. the intent is obvious

 

"claim objectives" means scoring..

 

Unfortunately for you, the book does not say 'may claim objectives' it says 'may claim objectives like TROPPS' so it specifically injects the restrictions posed by TROOPS status. If it had meant to say 'may clain objectives' ti would have said so and we would not have had this argument. But it adds 'like TROOPS' which sends us back to the BRB, which tells us 'Troops may claim objectives.' with the exception listed 'Vehicles can not claim objectives.'

 

I'm sorry but to me, RAW, there is n oway this will pass. I wouldn't play against a scoring GK vehicle.

 

First of all, not all vehicles are eligible. Second of all, the intended rule behavior is very obvious. Why does it matter so much that the wording can be argued some (and I think your argument is pretty shaky, the "as if they were troops" bit isn't strong enough to negate the "may claim objectives" bit)?

[appiah4]

First of all, not all vehicles are eligible. Second of all, the intended rule behavior is very obvious. Why does it matter so much that the wording can be argued some (and I think your argument is pretty shaky, the "as if they were troops" bit isn't strong enough to negate the "may claim objectives" bit)?

 

It matters because the rule is supposed to be read as written not as intended, therefore the 'as if they were troops' bit is every bit as important as 'may claim objectives', and if they had intended it to be without the regular restrictions to Troops, they would have worded it only as 'may claim objectives' which they do in many units in many codices.

[greatcrusade08]

i for once agree with valerius ( ) you cant use the "as troops" part to negate the "may claim objectives" part.. your putting the cart before the horse..

if they couldnt claim objectives becuase they are vehicles then the whole rule makes no sense.. in the event that a rule is rendered obsolete by an interpretation then its always the case that the interpretation is wrong and not the rule..

 

your argument rests on the distinction that they arent troops but vehciles.. however the rules arent saying they become troops, it states they may "claim objectives" in the same way as troops.

 

a man may sit sidesaddle on a horse as a woman does... it doesnt make him a woman

 

to explain the rule, the "may claim objectives" is the rule "as if they are troops" is the mechanic.. its like saying a DP with wings cant move 12" becuase hes not jump infantry despite him having the rule that allows him to move as if he were jmp infantry.

 

does that make sense?

 

Can troops claim objectives..... yes

so anything that is treated like troops for the purpose of claiming objectives can claim objectives..

 

especially when codex overrules the BRB

[Hellios]

i for once agree with valerius ( :D ) you cant use the "as troops" part to negate the "may claim objectives" part.. your putting the cart before the horse..

if they couldnt claim objectives becuase they are vehicles then the whole rule makes no sense.. in the event that a rule is rendered obsolete by an interpretation then its always the case that the interpretation is wrong and not the rule..

 

your argument rests on the distinction that they arent troops but vehciles.. however the rules arent saying they become troops, it states they may "claim objectives" in the same way as troops.

 

a man may sit sidesaddle on a horse as a woman does... it doesnt make him a woman

 

to explain the rule, the "may claim objectives" is the rule "as if they are troops" is the mechanic.. its like saying a DP with wings cant move 12" becuase hes not jump infantry despite him having the rule that allows him to move as if he were jmp infantry.

 

does that make sense?

 

Can troops claim objectives..... yes

so anything that is treated like troops for the purpose of claiming objectives can claim objectives..

 

especially when codex overrules the BRB

 

Not saying your wrong but isn't the rule written in such a way that a number of unit types can claim various special rules... So while it is possible the RAI was that vehicles can't score it wouldn't have made mention walkers could benefit from grand stratergy pointless as they could benefit from other things such as scout.

 

In my case I would allow someone to have scoring walkers but I wanted to put a balanced case forward.... I mean he could be right that it says as troops to stop walker from scoring and that otherwise it could have just said makes the chosen units count as scoring for the game.

[Brother Valerius]

First of all, not all vehicles are eligible. Second of all, the intended rule behavior is very obvious. Why does it matter so much that the wording can be argued some (and I think your argument is pretty shaky, the "as if they were troops" bit isn't strong enough to negate the "may claim objectives" bit)?

 

It matters because the rule is supposed to be read as written not as intended, therefore the 'as if they were troops' bit is every bit as important as 'may claim objectives', and if they had intended it to be without the regular restrictions to Troops, they would have worded it only as 'may claim objectives' which they do in many units in many codices.

 

No, the rule is supposed to be read as intended. RAW is only something you fall back on when the intent isn't clear, but it's very clear in this case.

[appiah4]

to explain the rule, the "may claim objectives" is the rule "as if they are troops" is the mechanic.. its like saying a DP with wings cant move 12" becuase hes not jump infantry despite him having the rule that allows him to move as if he were jmp infantry.

 

NO. It's more like saying this:

 

A Blood Angels Librarian with Wings of Sanguinus can move as if he was jump infantry, but he CAN NOT use Descent of Angels because he is not equipped with a Jump Pack.

 

Your argument is a strawman. You are bending my words way out of context. The next poster has it spot on:

 

 

In my case I would allow someone to have scoring walkers but I wanted to put a balanced case forward.... I mean he could be right that it says as troops to stop walker from scoring and that otherwise it could have just said makes the chosen units count as scoring for the game.

 

And SINCE we can't agree on the intention we HAVE TO fall back on as written.

[greatcrusade08]

Yes but what rules as written..

it clearly says they may claim objectives.. your arguing over whether or not they can count as troops.

 

the steak is cooked and your arguing over the peas... "may claim objectives" is the rule... "as troops" is the mechanic.

it doesnt say they are troops it doesnt say they stop being walkers, it says they may claim objectives as if they were troops... you know troops, the guys that walk around and claim objectives.

 

this argument is getting really old.. if it werent meant to allow them to claim objectives it wouldnt say "may claim objectives" its basic english really

 

Your argument is a strawman.

And yours makes no sense, this rule clearly states may claim objectives.. so to borrow from your analogy he has the jumpo pack but your refusing the DoA regardless