GK Strike Squads

[TyrionTheImp]

Decimate the Grey Hunters then get shot to pieces by the 3 or 4 other units nearby? Sounds super.

 

Those Grey Hunters cost significantly less than your Strike Squad, even without the Falchions. You can still shoot them, charge them, and decimate them without the Falchions anyways, though you really don't need to assault them, you can just blow up the transport and kite them and they can't do anything against you. 24" assault > 12" Rapid Fire.

 

While I agree that field experience is better than theory, I can't even imagine that Falchions are remotely a worthwhile upgrade for Strike Squads, or any unit really, when compared to a Daemon Hammer or Halberd. +1 Attack (and maybe even +2 if GW FAQs it that way) just doesn't seem worth it, it doesn't make the squad any more effective against anything else other than what it's already effective against.

[BLACK BLΠFLY]

More attacks = More killy

 

Nuff said .

 

G ;)

[greatcrusade08]

More attacks = More killy

 

Nuff said .

 

G :P

 

to an extent id agree with that, but youd get extra attacks by spending the points on more models.. that way when you take casualties youll lose less attacks per missing model.. AND youd get extra attacks from the charge bonus.

 

theres more than one school of thought, and id have to agree with some of your detractors.. spending 50 points to get 5 more attacks on strike squads seems overly wasteful

[Captain Idaho]

I think the key issue isn't whether points are better spent on other models for assault and keeping the Strike Squads away from being a dedicated assault unit, but something more abstract than that.

 

There is definitely a method of cost saving by taking Strike squads geared towards assault over Purifiers since you save points and still have a powerful enough unit to kill opposing infantry barring the really good assaulters.

 

However, there is the question of objectives. Having a Troops choice great at killing opposing models in assault is cool until the squad has to sit on the objective and resort to shooting at the unit within 12" because it is turn 5 and you just don't know how long you have to leave the objective etc.

 

This happened to my opponent in the recent ToS. He was the top GK player in the end, so wasn't just a mug, and his list was ok. Unfortunately he only had Terminators and 1 unit of Strike GKs as Troops and even with Grand Strategy making a Dreadknight and Purifier squad troops, was out of options other than to leave his Terminators in cover hiding from my shooting for 4 turns or so, especially after I killed the Purifiers and Strike Squad...

[BLACK BLΠFLY]

I dont think anyone can say that the more versatile a unit is somehow is suddenly a deficit. I dont really follow what you were trying to say there.

 

G :P

[greatcrusade08]

I dont think anyone can say that the more versatile a unit is somehow is suddenly a deficit. I dont really follow what you were trying to say there.

 

G :D

 

i understood what idaho was saying, but i usually fail to explain myself properly.. ill try anyway

strike squads are already 'good' in assault, but are pretty good at shooting, they are already versatile.. by spending alot of points to make them better at assault your in essence turning them into as assault orientated unit.. under the premise that you have to get the most out of your units, youd want these guys in cc where they perform better than shooting.

IMO you havent made them more versatile.

If your coming up against a unit that requires more than 20 force/power weapon attacks to deal with, then your using tghem incorrectly.. leave those tough units for halberd wielding purifier squads and GKTs.

 

There ahs to be a balance between shooting and assault, leave the strike squads as they are and pimp out some smaller purifiers and GKT to do the damage..

strike squads arent going to be bullied in the same was as tactical marines, they dont need the falchions

[Lord Cuthbert]

You're a competitive tourney player advocating spending excessive points on a basic troop unit? What? :D

 

Strike Squads aren't a CC unit, and very few Grey Knight units in the codex can claim they are. Increasing the number of attacks strike squads get in close combat won't mean crap as dedicated CC units will still rip through you, and non-Dedicated CC units you should be able to kill without the extra attacks. In fact giving them extra attacks just means you're more likely to kill them on the turn you charge, and then you're stuck in the open getting shot up.

 

If you want to beat top tier armies using the Grey Knight codex, giving falchions to increase your CC power to any unit (unless they DO give +2 attacks in which case I will be stunned) is not the way. Grey Knights lack good enough invuln saves (in ANY unit) to actually be able to stand up to other armies' CC-units. The only way to counter-act that is to give halberds so you're hitting before most other armies or hitting at the same time. There's a reason why purifiers and GKT's are seen as the "close combat" units of the army, if such a thing actually exists in the book.

 

As for not "Taking advantage" of force weapons, they all have force weapons, not taking advantage of that fact would be saying "never charge with your Grey Knights!" which is stupid as they can maul most other armies' troops easily. I'm not advocating avoiding assault with your Strike Squads, but I am advocating not tooling them up with unneeded weaponry to superfluously increase their ability in assault.

 

Basically to sum up:

 

Strike Squads with falchions will still lose to dedicated CC-units, but Strike Squads without falchions will still easily handle non-dedicated CC units, so you're spending 50 points to make them better against something they're already good against.

 

If I were to take 4 Strike Squads using 5 falchions as you suggest, that's 200 points. 10% of your army in 2000 points, that's a unit of terminators who can output more attacks at I6 than you've gained, and give extra 2+ save bodies, or even another Strike Squad of 10, who can put out more attacks, more shooting, and very important in GK armies, more bodies.

 

 

Absolutley 100% correct! GK are not CC orientated, they excell at mid-field fire saturation. It's all about the Psycannon, and don't forget the little brother the psilencer (have had great use of that gem).

 

I play BA in addtion to GK and several other armies; in a game with a GK player at my LGS a unit of Interceptors wiped out one of my Razors from behind. One the next turn I assaulted them with 5 Assault Marines and 1 Sang Priest, straight up BP & CS. Wiped them out prior to their attacks. The only thing that would have helped them was Halberds at +2 Initiative. I also charge Mephy into 10 Purifiers with halberds and two psycannons. The Psyke-out grenades allowed them to strike first but that Toughness 6 was hard to crack, 1 wound and my PsyHood saved the instant death. Three rounds and they were gone with only 1 wound on Mephy to show for it.

 

Playing GK I got 5 Purifiers with halberds and 1 hammer assaulted by a Trygon. Failed the force test thanks to the "Shadows of the Warp", did 2 wounds and died not so heroically. Kiled another with psycannon fire though ;).

 

Also as GK I got into a combat with a GM (MC Halberd), 7 Paladins (1 with hammer the rest with halberds), and 1 Libby (sword) against 3 TH/SS Termies, 2 LC Termies, and 1 Libby with force sword. Got both LC Termies but the remaining 3 hammers smushed the Paladins, hard to rely on 5+ saves. Even the GM and Libby failed thier 4+ saves in the second round of combat.

 

Point is that even the "best" assault GK units are owned in combat by dedicated combat units. Even with force weapons the GK strike like vanilla Marines, you'll ill what you are supposed to and die to what you are supposed to no matter what gear you give them. You wanna play to the GK strength? Then take lots of S 7 rending and S 8 autocannon. Bring 1 combat unit and keep it where it can prevent your opponent from taking advantage of your need to be a mid field for shooting your weapons.

[Captain Idaho]

I dont think anyone can say that the more versatile a unit is somehow is suddenly a deficit. I dont really follow what you were trying to say there.

 

G :(

 

Yeah sorry I didn't put a summary on the end of my post as was rushed at home and just plain forgot! greatcrusade08 understands what I meant though.

 

Basically, given what I said earlier, a Strike squad is fairly versatile already and there is no cheaper Troops choice in the Codex barring Coteaz and his buddies. Since 40k games boil down to objectives 2/3 of the time, using a Troops choice to hold an objective often means using a Troops choice to hang back and shoot.

 

In an army full of expensive choices, those units which are hanging back to hold objectives become a vaccuum for your vital points if you start upgrading them to perform roles they simply aren't going to be acting in when objective camping.

 

Personally, I'm sure after playtesting you will have come to the same conclusion (as a respected competetive gamer) but we just thought we would spare you the time and money :(

[BLACK BLΠFLY]

At one attack apiece I would not consider them adequate at close combat. If they are charged that is around 11 attacks - 6 six hit and 3 wound versus T4... nothing special there.

 

G :(

[greatcrusade08]

but then they are capable of charging and shooting before they do so..

given they have storm bolters theres no reason NOT to charge an enemy in range.. they dont have the same considerations as say tac marines who have a choice of one or the other.

[BLACK BLΠFLY]

Its situational - sometimes you can charge, sometimes you will take the charge.

 

G ^_^

[Captain Idaho]

At one attack apiece I would not consider them adequate at close combat. If they are charged that is around 11 attacks - 6 six hit and 3 wound versus T4... nothing special there.

 

G ^_^

 

Yeah but pumping points into them just to make them keener in assault is points down the drain most games.

 

Picture this; you stick 10 on your objective inside a wood in your deployment zone. They have all those points spent on those Falchions for the extra attacks. I decide to try and push them off the objective so fire 2 Typhoons at them, using frag missiles and heavy bolters to force saves on the unit. I might fire my Thunderfire, or vinidcator at them and maybe the odd plasma cannon.

 

After suitably weaking the unit for a turn, I move in a Tactical squad to rapid fire and finish the unit off.

 

Ignoring probability or chances etc, what has that Strike Squad contributed to the battle? It will certainly not have included assault therefore the points spent on the assault upgrades were excessive.

 

It's like putting a powerfist and melta bombs on a Devastator squad Sergeant. Sure there might be the odd game when that power fist saves the day, or melta bombs wreck a Landraider, but would you really want to pay points for that unlikely eventuallity?

[number6]

Its situational - sometimes you can charge, sometimes you will take the charge.

Many of us, myself included, miss the old GKs to some extent. They were units that almost never cared whether they initiated or received the charge. A constant two attacks (3 on the Str 6 power-weapon Justicar!) went a long way toward making that unit so assault-neutral.

 

But it does sound like you're trying to play the new GKs as if they were the old GKs. Giving them falchions would go most of the way toward replicating the old GKs. Except that the old GKs, for 25 pts apiece, got you WS 5 and Str 6 along with those 2 attacks apiece. The new GKs with falchions cost you 30 pts for those two attacks apiece, yet are only WS 4 and Str 4.

 

Doesn't strike me as very points-efficient....

[Ashe Darke]

I also charge Mephy into 10 Purifiers with halberds and two psycannons. The Psyke-out grenades allowed them to strike first but that Toughness 6 was hard to crack, 1 wound and my PsyHood saved the instant death. Three rounds and they were gone with only 1 wound on Mephy to show for it.

Mephiston only goes to I1 when he gets charges not when he charges.

[BLACK BLΠFLY]

I will be fielding one unit in a rhino as one of my troop choices. They need to be more versatile as design by the army list. No6 you have made a good point in terms of them having been two attacks indeed - all armed with force weapons to me is better than WS5 S6 though and I aim to exploit that new aspect.

 

G :P

[TyrionTheImp]

Taking advantage of their Force Weapon nature doesn't require you to pump 50 points into 5 attacks to them, what it does require is a little finesse in your use of them.

 

My points have been reiterated and supported enough times I feel little motivation for bringing them up again, but obviously your mindset is completely different from mine. I don't see how such a unit could fit in any sort of list, but good luck with it and let us know because I honestly would be interested to hear that spending 50 points on falchions is worth it.

 

However, your thought process of "taking advantage of force weapons" seems a bit odd to me. How many multi-wound models do you fight against in an average game? Not a lot. Maybe an IC here, an MC there, on occasion some Thunder Wolf Cavalry or something, but focusing on that SINGLE point in the ENTIRE army is going to make your army suffer, and suffer hard against most TAC lists. Personally, I'd rather take advantage of an entire army armed with storm bolters and psycannons than focus on the fact they can instant death a fraction of your opponent's army.

[AoC]

Taking advantage of their Force Weapon nature doesn't require you to pump 50 points into 5 attacks to them, what it does require is a little finesse in your use of them.

10 additional attacks for 50 points. 10, not 5. Taking 1-2 might be useful, you still need ablative wounds.

 

@nr6: 3 a piece.

[BLACK BLΠFLY]

This is a I'm right you're wrong thread. No need tO beat my head against a brick wall.

 

G :)

[Brother Valerius]

Taking advantage of their Force Weapon nature doesn't require you to pump 50 points into 5 attacks to them, what it does require is a little finesse in your use of them.

10 additional attacks for 50 points. 10, not 5. Taking 1-2 might be useful, you still need ablative wounds.

 

@nr6: 3 a piece.

 

That's only one possible interpretation of the rules, it really needs a FAQ before the falchions' usefulness can be effectively judged. I'm pretty leery of modeling them on any GKs I get because of this. If they turn out to be +2 attacks, they're worth it. If it's only +1, not so much.

[greatcrusade08]

i dont agree that falchions give +2 attacks, the wording of the rules state a model gets only +1A for two hand weapons, you cant get the same benefit twice regardless of how its worded.

[BLACK BLΠFLY]

I agree ... It's a natural extension of of having two single handed weapons. I'm sure this will be addressed in the FAQ.

 

G :huh:

[greatcrusade08]

exactly, falchions are a special close combat weapons not noted under the rulebook, the codex has to establish if they count for additional attacks..

the codex allows them to have an extra attack for having two (like lightening claws).. but as noted above, they cant get the same bonus twice.

[lorider2]

exactly, falchions are a special close combat weapons not noted under the rulebook, the codex has to establish if they count for additional attacks..

the codex allows them to have an extra attack for having two (like lightening claws).. but as noted above, they cant get the same bonus twice.

 

Thee codex never says the +1 attack has anything to do with the fact they come in a pair. Unlike lighting claws, their special rule simply state they get an extra attack. It might be stating the obvious (two sword equal one extra attack, duh!), or it might be you get two extra attacks. Its sad GW can not FAQ a few things at a time, really shouldn't be this hard.

[Brother Valerius]

i dont agree that falchions give +2 attacks, the wording of the rules state a model gets only +1A for two hand weapons, you cant get the same benefit twice regardless of how its worded.

 

It's not getting the same benefit twice. The question hinges upon whether the extra attack mentioned in the codex is the bonus attack for two CCWs, or if it is a special bonus the falchions give. If it's the former, you get +1A. If it's the latter, +2A.

 

I don't think that one could prove the question either way, hence why we need a FAQ. If I had to guess, I'd say they're meant to be +2A (else there's no reason to take them over other options), but we shall hopefully see.

[greatcrusade08]

I don't think that one could prove the question either way, hence why we need a FAQ. If I had to guess, I'd say they're meant to be +2A (else there's no reason to take them over other options), but we shall hopefully see.

 

other options dont get the +1 for 2 ccw as they have storm bolters not pistols..

the wording to me implies they get an extra attacks for having two falchions.. its much more 'realistic' to take this as the two ccw rule.. given this is a rules query youd have to argue over the tabletop its far better to assume that than try and push for an extra extra attack

 

edit: it specifically mentions a "pair" of falchions getting +1A.. i.e +1A for having two... you can only get this bonus once