Jump to content

GK Strike Squads


Master Exorcist

Recommended Posts

Anyway, topic at hand seems to have boiled down to this:

 

10PAGK, Psycannons, MCHammer and Bolts. Maybe with a rhino as a mobile wall but don't get in - your guys cant shoot all those lovely Storm bolters.

 

Or:

 

5PAGK, psycannon, Razor to tast but mainly with a lascannon to compensate for our range problem.

 

Anyone seriously run anything different on strike squads?

Whatever. >.<

 

G :HQ:

 

 

My overall tournament record is in my sig. I'm happy with it. I like to think outside the box.

Haha, you want me to seriously reply to this? Your tournament record? It's a joke:

-Most people in this game aren't competitive, even not on tourneys. Records don't say much because of that: Sealclubbing!

-Most tournaments use non-competitive setups. Now it means even less.

-My record would be much and much better, but I'm aware records are rather meaningless and therefore don't put in my signature. Why would you anyway?

 

I argue with logic and examples, you apparantly need 'records' to gain some authority? Don't make me laugh. Well I'm not surprised when I see this 'argument':

To me 50 points well spent is 50 points well spent. Nothing more to say really.

I think you got me here!

@Brother Darius - I can't disagree more about the Dreadknights guns. Experience has taught me they suck without guns lol! Everytime I run mine without guns and go transport hunting I get tarpitted by infantry after taking one out!

 

My opponents have learn't that the tarpit is the wy to nutralise the DK. When I go guns (Incinerator and Psycannon) they take handfulls of models off.

 

Very true. The DK sucks against hordes.

 

I like mine with incinerator and either cannon/psilencer and greatsword. When he deepstrikes in, he immediately causes a lot of disruption :)

 

Once you have a incinerator+greatsword+transporter your DK is easily pushing landraider point levels for a much less durable platform :(

 

Not to mention it melts to any plasma or melta pointed at it.

Most people have weapons specifically for LR's should they rear their head in a game. MC's are a bit trickier to prepare for. Tyranid MC's lack Invulnerable Saves so melta and plasma really do a number on them, and Daemon MC's lack armor saves so they generally go down to torrent of fire. The cool thing about Dreadknights are the fact they have both, so they don't have to scramble for cover like Tyranids, and don't go down as easily to torrented fire.

 

Sure, Land Raiders are invulnerable to small arms fire, but a Dreadknight is T6 with 6 Wounds, 2+ armor and 5+ invulnerable, I'd say it's pretty sturdy against most things, and that's why you bring 2. :D

 

We're getting a bit off topic though talking about Dreadknights. Might want to go back to Strike Squads.

more like 4 wounds, but yea, this is a bit OT.

 

The only weapons really specific to take down LR are melta and to some extent lances. Lances are still only 50% and melta you have to get close... I guess Tau railguns count too.

 

I haven't been able to count on that DK 5++ for anything ;) haven't gotten it once yet.

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.

 

 

It's funny you point that out. In an effort to utilize the old metal minis, I've opted to go with the NFH configuration with GKSS. I plan on converting the Justicar with a NFH as well (I have a few figs without the NFS glued on yet and extra NFH arms). Even with 1A each, if striking first and rolling lucky, they'll even the odds quick enough. I'm not keen on spending the points (or money on the plastic 5-man box) for falchion configuration. I'd rather utilize the plastic box (x2) to build an Interceptor unit. \m/;)\m/

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.

 

I must be missing something here. :huh:

pg54 in Nemesis Force Weapons section, it state "The wielder of a pair of Nemesis falchions has +1 attack."

What's the problem?

Whether you want to call them 2 normal CCWs or 2 of the same special CCW, the rulebook states in either case, there is 1 additional attack conveyed. Where's the debate?

 

If you wield 1 sword, you have 1 attack (assuming the base attacks = 1, of course).

You wield 2 swords, you have 2 attacks (i.e. 1 additional attack for the additional CCW).

 

Why the need for an FAQ?

You see easteregg hunting with every new codex so nothing new there. I'm chuffed with all this bandwagoneering as it means that ebay will be full of stuff by the end of the summer.

 

I'm on the side of +2 A and hope the faq will back this up - rules and points cost suport this imo but I'm not looking for a debate here so wont derail the thread.

 

Our only real combat options (PUREGK) are Purifiers and Paladins, of which purifiers come out better due to cost per attack and some nifty abilities; lets face it you can get 2 per paladin.

Why the need for an FAQ?

 

Because people are idiots who try to cheat the system any way they can.

 

Yeah, not so much. There's a legitimate question here: is the +1A mentioned in the Nemesis Falchion entry a special rule for being Nemesis Falchions, or is it just a re-statement of the rules for having two CCWs? Simply because you feel certain it's the latter doesn't make it so, nor does that make anyone who doesn't share your certainty a cheater or an idiot.

Yeah, not so much. There's a legitimate question here: is the +1A mentioned in the Nemesis Falchion entry a special rule for being Nemesis Falchions, or is it just a re-statement of the rules for having two CCWs? Simply because you feel certain it's the latter doesn't make it so, nor does that make anyone who doesn't share your certainty a cheater or an idiot.

 

im definately on the side of the +1A only.. i dont necessarily consider the detractors as cheaters (certainly not idiots). but too many people get hung up on RAW interpretation..

theres a practical element to rules.. if the majority of your opponents see it as +1A only, then at some point your going to have to accept that.

i always say hope for the best but plan for the worst.

 

anyone who says 10 points buys you two extra force weapon attacks is a wishful thinker IMO.

 

when i saw this argument for the first time, the thing i noted was the fact the rules said "a pair of falchions grants +1A".. given that falchions are taken as a pair (for a single upgrade) the wording here would be unnecessary unless it was the 'pair' that was giving you the bonus... which is the same rule in the BRB people are also trying to claim.

 

You see easteregg hunting with every new codex

true but it goes both ways, codex users will try to get every bonus they can, whilst ive found alot of non codex users argue that other rules 'dont count'

like the dreadnought not being able to score, despite the fact the rule clearly states "may claim objectives as if it were troops"

RAW here says that for the purposes of claiming objectives they are treated as troops and troops alone (as per the rules).. but some people want a song and dance with the RAW to show its not possible.

there must come a point when your playing a game of 40k that you stop being so picky with the rules.. the rule says they can score, lets not delve into whether or not the BRB wording means the rule

is self defeating (which is quite frankly stupid) and play the game as it was meant

Except, you're not the Codex writer (if you ARE Matt Ward, I have some sharp objects that would like to meet you), so you don't actually know the intent of the writing team.

 

Grand Strategy says you allow a unit to claim objectives as if it were a Troops choice. Cool; awesome ability that I use a lot on my Purifiers and Dreadknights. The big rulebook says that Troops can't claim objectives if they are a vehicle, so Troops Dreadnoughts can't score, simple as that.

 

I'll put it this way - if a Dreadnought can score with Grand Strategy, then so can the dedicated transports of my Purifier Squads and Henchmen. They're a vehicle, right, so if a Dreadnought can score, so can a tank?

 

I didn't think so. If they wanted to make Dreadnoughts scoring, then all it would take is one sentence: "Dreadnoughts and Venerable Dreadnoughts may claim objectives as if they were not a Vehicle". Solves all the problems with the issue. But it's not there, so you go by the rules of the game which say that Troops Vehicles cannot claim.

The specific overrides the general, a maxim to live by. In this case, grand strategy is very specific, it states that it can be used to convey ANY of following rules upon any "infantry, jump infantry, monstrous creature or WALKER" excluding independent characters, inquisitorial warbands or Mordrak's ghost knights.

 

This is perfectly clear, walkers, being listed as acceptable for granting any of the grand strategy special rules may score as if they were troops if Unyeilding Anvil is taken and applied to them. Dreadnoughts are walkers, therefore using this ability dreadnoughts can score. If this were not supposed to work then unyielding anvil would have been written with an exclusion of walkers.

 

Thus vehicles like dedicated transports cannot score, using your example above, as they are not listed among the units to which grand strategy can be applied. They cannot receive any of the grand strategy boons. Dreadnoughts, being walkers are eligible for grand strategy, therefore if the scoring grand strategy option is utilised they may score.

 

This is perfectly clear in both writing and function. There are enough poorly written rule ambiguities without us arguing over one that doesn't exist.

Yeah, not so much. There's a legitimate question here: is the +1A mentioned in the Nemesis Falchion entry a special rule for being Nemesis Falchions, or is it just a re-statement of the rules for having two CCWs? Simply because you feel certain it's the latter doesn't make it so, nor does that make anyone who doesn't share your certainty a cheater or an idiot.

 

im definately on the side of the +1A only.. i dont necessarily consider the detractors as cheaters (certainly not idiots). but too many people get hung up on RAW interpretation..

theres a practical element to rules.. if the majority of your opponents see it as +1A only, then at some point your going to have to accept that.

i always say hope for the best but plan for the worst.

 

anyone who says 10 points buys you two extra force weapon attacks is a wishful thinker IMO.

 

when i saw this argument for the first time, the thing i noted was the fact the rules said "a pair of falchions grants +1A".. given that falchions are taken as a pair (for a single upgrade) the wording here would be unnecessary unless it was the 'pair' that was giving you the bonus... which is the same rule in the BRB people are also trying to claim.

 

Oh, absolutely you need to hope for the best but plan for the worst. That's why I'm not going to equip a single model with falchions until such time as we get a FAQ (since I don't feel comfortable insisting it's +2A, and I consider +1A to be an incredible rip-off for the price). I'm just saying that you can't throw out such black and white terms as "cheating" and "idiot" as Galadren did. There are two legitimate schools of thought here, and I don't feel that either has grounds to disrespect the other. It's just a difference of opinion.

The specific overrides the general, a maxim to live by. In this case, grand strategy is very specific, it states that it can be used to convey ANY of following rules upon any "infantry, jump infantry, monstrous creature or WALKER" excluding independent characters, inquisitorial warbands or Mordrak's ghost knights.

 

This is perfectly clear, walkers, being listed as acceptable for granting any of the grand strategy special rules may score as if they were troops if Unyeilding Anvil is taken and applied to them. Dreadnoughts are walkers, therefore using this ability dreadnoughts can score. If this were not supposed to work then unyielding anvil would have been written with an exclusion of walkers.

 

Thus vehicles like dedicated transports cannot score, using your example above, as they are not listed among the units to which grand strategy can be applied. They cannot receive any of the grand strategy boons. Dreadnoughts, being walkers are eligible for grand strategy, therefore if the scoring grand strategy option is utilised they may score.

 

This is perfectly clear in both writing and function. There are enough poorly written rule ambiguities without us arguing over one that doesn't exist.

 

Wow and there was me trying not to derail this thread. Any other walkers in troops choices score? How about Death Company Dreads? Nope.

 

How about Deff Dreads when you take a Big Mek? Nope.

 

What's the wording on Grand Strategy again? "May score as if they were troops" Sounds to me like there's a caveat in that sentence, sounds to me like you need to read the BRB and find out if walkers that are troop choices can score; otherwise why not just say somthing like "Are scoring units" or "May claim objectives".

 

That "As if they were troops" part is massive and you're deluding yourself and on a big easteregg hunt if you think otherwise.

Wow and there was me trying not to derail this thread. Any other walkers in troops choices score? How about Death Company Dreads? Nope.

 

Then why bring it up if you didn't want a response?

Death company dreads, and indeed death company infantry are specifically prohibited from scoring as per their special rules. Therefore your example is moot.

How about Deff Dreads when you take a Big Mek? Nope.

 

What's the wording on Grand Strategy again? "May score as if they were troops" Sounds to me like there's a caveat in that sentence, sounds to me like you need to read the BRB and find out if walkers that are troop choices can score; otherwise why not just say somthing like "Are scoring units" or "May claim objectives".

 

That "As if they were troops" part is massive and you're deluding yourself and on a big easteregg hunt if you think otherwise.

 

Personally I won't be taking any dreadnoughts in my grey knights, and even if I was I wouldn't waste grand strategy making then scoring, so no Easter egg hunting for me. I wouldn't object to an opponent doing so however.

 

The phrase "as if they were troops" is a superfluous descriptive comment, that neither enhances nor detracts from the rule in question. It simply illustrates that any unit that may be subjected to the grand strategy (I.e. Infantry, jump infantry, monstrous creatures and WALKERS) will possess the ability to score, just like troops do.

I brought it up because I think some people are wrong in this instance and it's not the only part of Grand Strategy that shouldn't apply to Walkers - or do you think that counter attack (a leadership based test) applies as well. Bear in mind that Dreads only have a leadership for Psychic tests.

 

The "As if they were troops" line is the pivotal crux of this debate; it's very relevant and not just a "superfluous descriptive comment" when the very units we're discussing are directly effected by it.

I brought it up because I think some people are wrong in this instance and it's not the only part of Grand Strategy that shouldn't apply to Walkers - or do you think that counter attack (a leadership based test) applies as well. Bear in mind that Dreads only have a leadership for Psychic tests.

 

The "As if they were troops" line is the pivotal crux of this debate; it's very relevant and not just a "superfluous descriptive comment" when the very units we're discussing are directly effected by it.

 

One could still give the dreadnoughts counter-attack if so inclined. It would be a waste, as they would never be able to use it due to their lack of a leadership value, but nevertheless it can be done.

 

All as if they were troops does is describe how the rule operates, nothing more.

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.