No challenge, it is too easy

[Notanoob]

I'm split on this dex. From a fluff view I really dislike it a lot. I don't like just about anything that's been added. Draigo, Crowe, the whole sisters thing, Malcador etc. are either poorly written or utter heresy in my mind.

 

This extends to the table top, where I find that GKs aren't what they should be. Basic Marine profiles? Really?

 

 

However, if I just ignored that they were grey knights and pretended they were some other faction entirely, I'd say that this was a pretty well made codex, with a good number of playable options and decent internal balance. Plenty of stinker units and upgrades, but not enough to hurt it that badly.

 

I can't say that I like it more than I hate it, so whatever, I guess.

[Gentlemanloser]

You see, I feel the internal balance is terrible, and there's there's only two real 'stinkers' in the Codex.

 

Psilencers and Falchions.

 

As for internal Balance, just look at Terminators versus Strikes... ;)

[Lord Sirrion]

what's to look at? Both units are awesome and fill different roles. I don't get the terminator hate I've been reading.

[Gentlemanloser]

Strike surpass Terminators in just about every situation.

 

More durable (unless you face only AP3 weapons), more attacks, Transports, can deepstrike, sweeping advance, cheaper upgrades.

 

There is next to nothing in favour of ever taking Terminators over strikes, unless you're trying something themed. Which is great and all, but not really pertinent.

[thade]

Devil's advocate time!

 

2+/5++ is pretty nice; I wouldn't so quickly underestimate it. I believe by "more durable" you mean "more numerous" given the points difference.

 

Also, the Relentless Psycannons are nice.

 

Though honestly, if push came to shove, I would bring Paladins instead of Terminators.

[Gentlemanloser]

Same.

 

And yeah, more durable, as there's more of them to kill.

 

As for Relentless Psycannons, the point is moot. Actually it's in favour of the Strikes.

 

The Strikes can have twice as many Psycannons for the same points, so *always* get the same number of Psycanon shots as Relentless Termies. More if the Strikes don't move.

 

The *only* real thing Termies have (over the 2+/5++ save) is they don't lose their NFW when takign a Psycannon (oh and they get to actually use a NFW...). But that's not worth costing double, and losing Transports.

[Adir]

Init 6 termies usually hitting at S5... yes please. GKT vs GKSS is not an apples to apples comparison. They play very different roles. I use a 10 man GKT squad with a librarian to anchor my line while the GKSS run around in rhinos playing mop up.

 

GKT were awesome in the previous book and their retain their awesome in this one!

[Lord Sirrion]

Yes sir! besides that they have a nice psychological effect. I've never had an opponent go "Crap! Terminators!" When my 10 man GKT unit drops on the table.

[BrotherWasted]

Free halberds aren't really that much of a reason to take normal terminators. most things you will be assaulted by will ignore your armor anyway, so just take a squad or two of Purifiers. you'll get more attacks, Cleansing Flame, more Psycannons and more ablative wounds, plus you can take a transport.

[Lord Sirrion]

I'm just not instantly swayed by the transport argument. i've played footslogging/teleporting Grey Knights for years and done fine. I haven't found that they really need transports in this edition either. they give up easy killpoints and then leave your dudes stranded. If you plan for transports you usually aren't prepared to suddenly be footslogging.

 

but hey, that's just me. ;)

[BrotherWasted]

That's cool. Footslog your Purifiers instead. They'll still be better in CC than Terminators.

[greatcrusade08]

for me to field a tactical squad with no upgrades, i pay 165 points. for grey knights it is around 200 points.

then dont try to play green wing because it sucks or if you do use the sm dex . Want to play DA spam cyclons TH/SS termis. spam bikers with scoring landspeeders for late turn objective grabs .

 

this is about as much help as a chocolate fireguard tbh..

i dont want it to seem like im attacking the jeske again, but this attitude is part of the reason why im seeing a big decline in 'friendly' games.

the last few releases of BA/SW and GK have all upped the ante on competative gaming.. granted they all have weaknesses, but if you compare each one to the generic SM dex, youll find that they are quite a bit better.

 

now i realise the arguments would be that certain builds are best to defeat these armies, but thats not what friendly gaming is all about..

i was playing a SW dude the other day at my LGS and he said, i have normal marines but dont play them anymore becuase SW wins more... its very sad that outside of tournaments winning is taking priority over the fun of the game..

it seems everywhere i go people pull out GK and SW lists becuase they are inherantly more capable of winning than most armies.

 

a tac marine is 17 points..

grey hunter is 16?

a GK strike knight with force weapon and storm bolter (and psychic abilites) is 20..

 

the only reason people lose with GK and BA armies in particular is becuase they fall into the trap of taking too many shiny toys.. if you were to build a C:SM type army using any of the newer dexes youd find they were alot better than thier generic counterparts.

Now a part of me agrees that any new dex is hard to beat during its honeymoon period, but ive found GK to be one of the toughest armies to break.. they dont seem to have many abusable weaknesses, and thats a definate balance issue

[Adir]

grey hunter is 16?

a GK strike knight with force weapon and storm bolter (and psychic abilites) is 20..

 

A Grey Hunter is one point cheaper than that. I think the wolves have a slight advantage in terms of a lower point cost plus the Counter Attack and extra CCW. They are one of the few generalist troop choices that can take a charge as good as they can give it. I do agree though that the basic GKSS is an excellent "value" and works well in the overall point costing of the game.

 

The problem fundamentally is that there is no true "balance" across books and what is there is seemingly arbitrary. For example, why are GKT 40 points? Because that what a basic terminator now costs in every marine book. There is no apparent parity between said terminators but by golly they all cost 40 points :lol:

 

I also think your point is well taken regarding the lack of "friendly" games. People get really wrapped around making this game competitive and start losing the focus on hobby and fun.

 

I have gathered a little group of 40k tournament expatriates who have decided that competitive 40k is basically ruining the game. We have branched out into some other games but more importantly there is a tacit agreement that when we play 40k we play lists that are fun to play AGAINST. I think most folks have forgotten the importance of that last point.

 

Finally, re: terminators versus purifiers - GKT just look awesome on the board and 2+/5++ means A LOT more survivability when you are foot slogging across the board. Add the librarian in as a force multiplier and now you have Steathed terminators. Purifiers are awesome too - for me they gun it down field to sow the seeds of destruction in my enemies line!

[number6]

I have gathered a little group of 40k tournament expatriates who have decided that competitive 40k is basically ruining the game. We have branched out into some other games but more importantly there is a tacit agreement that when we play 40k we play lists that are fun to play AGAINST. I think most folks have forgotten the importance of that last point.

I know I get irked when people try and tell somebody -- anybody -- what is or isn't "fun". ^_^ Maybe competitive gaming IS fun gaming, too? The common insistence that there is an objectively invioble divide between being competitive and being fun is hogwash.

 

All that makes a game fun is the attitude of the players. It has nothing to do with army lists. At all. So long as the players are on the same page of expectations, all will be well and "fun".

 

I am also surprised that this far into the history of our new codex people are still claiming that there is an objective superiority among units. Strikers are "always" better than terminators. Purifers are "always" better than strikers. Paladins are "always" better than terminators.

 

Just more opinionated hogwash. GW may make a lot of boneheaded mistakes, but one thing they have been doing exceptionally well ever since 5th edition is creating codexes where virtually every unit can be put to good use ... in the context of an entire army list. You cannot compare units together in a vacuum. You can only compare entire army lists. Which one works more efficiently? Which one carries out its tactical plan better? Etc.

 

Compare the two infantry-only army lists I made as examples in this recent topic. One is based around delivering thunder hammer death to the midfield. And you'd think terminators (or even paladins) would be the best units for that. But you'd be wrong. It's actually interceptors. And the 2nd list in that post -- the 100% terminator list -- does not work with any unit other than basic terminators. Strikers and purifiers aren't resilient enough and paladins are too pricy (you can't get enough of them to make the list resilient enough to function).

 

All units in the codex have a purpose. It's all about making the right army list to include them.

[thade]

All that makes a game fun is the attitude of the players. It has nothing to do with army lists. At all. So long as the players are on the same page of expectations, all will be well and "fun".

This is very important. The last few lists I've gone against have been built with "cheesed-out for tournies" in their mission statements, including a Dante DOA Sanguinary Guard spam list. Each time I've pulled at least a Draw - no losses - and all with tacticals and Devastators. Lessons I've learned: 1. Cheese isn't auto-win, 2. Positive attitude is auto-win.

[Adir]

All that makes a game fun is the attitude of the players. It has nothing to do with army lists. At all. So long as the players are on the same page of expectations, all will be well and "fun".

This is very important. The last few lists I've gone against have been built with "cheesed-out for tournies" in their mission statements, including a Dante DOA Sanguinary Guard spam list. Each time I've pulled at least a Draw - no losses - and all with tacticals and Devastators. Lessons I've learned: 1. Cheese isn't auto-win, 2. Positive attitude is auto-win.

Perhaps my greatest frustration locally has been the statement, "I am getting my list ready for an upcoming tournament. Would you mind getting in a practice game with me?". I don't get enough time to game as it is so the prospect of facing a no-holds-barred list leaves me pretty cold. I understand that this is the natural progression of things as tournaments become more and more widespread (generally a good thing as it encourages participation in the hobby) but this just emphasizes the need for me personally to gather likeminded folks together to enjoy the game as a hobby and not a sport... or heaven forbid - a job!

 

Seriously, I am not denigrating competitive play or people who play tournaments. In fact, I will be one of the rules judges at the upcoming NOVA Open. I firmly believe that the players choose to make the game what it is (in spite of what GW thinks) and do I what I do to enjoy the hobby and not try to take away from anyone's enjoyment - regardless of their style of play!

[Gentlemanloser]

I am also surprised that this far into the history of our new codex people are still claiming that there is an objective superiority among units. Strikers are "always" better than terminators. Purifers are "always" better than strikers. Paladins are "always" better than terminators.

 

If you notice Number6, I tend to add a caveat to my 'always'. That Terminators would be used in themed lists.

 

Which is exactly what you're advocating.

 

Use GKT in a themed 'all termy' list.

 

Fine. No issue with that.

 

For every other entry into an army list, they are out performed by their Strike counterparts.

 

And that's terrible balance and design.

 

You should want to use GKT because of the unit, and what the unit brings or plays like. In any list you want to make (And how you make your army work together as a whole, that's the tactics of your list building and general-ship). This should apply to all units in the codex. When you have to go out of your way to theme a list just to make a unit workable, well, then that's bad design.

 

Purgation Squads are another fine example. You have to theme build around them, just to give them a place in your army.

 

Edit: As for fun, it's totally subjective. One mans fun is anothers unhappiness. That being said, as a competitive wargame and not an narative RPG, the 'fun' of 40K revolves aorund winning. That's what it's designed to do. As subjective as fun is, I doubt anyone would deny that winning plays at least a small part.

 

That said, I must totally agree with;

 

but more importantly there is a tacit agreement that when we play 40k we play lists that are fun to play AGAINST

 

I've been there. for years.

 

Using the DH codex to play GKs. No Transports bar Raiders. And facing either a pre nerf Tri Falcon/Harlie Flying Circus. Or a tri Reaper Footdar list. Or even a Flamer heavy Chaos Daemon List.

 

All of these were unfun to face. The Harlies consolidated from unit to unit, rending everything in sight. The Reapers removed entires Squads of ultra expensive PAGK (in cover) per turn. The Flamers DSed off of DPN and 3 of them killed entire PAGK squads (in cover) turn after turn.

 

With *nothing* the army could do to face this (with the exception of going down the stupid route of using Sanctuary versus the Flamers).

 

This lead to a total desire not to play.

 

The game was unfun.

 

My opponent had to decide whether he should change his list to field something that was fun to face (and removing entire squads each turn with nothing you could do isn't fun in the slightest), or we simply stop playing.

 

I'm happy to say he realised his lists needed to change.

 

And 40k became fun again.

[Fred Johnson the 3rd jr]

Use GKT in a themed 'all termy' list.

 

Fine. No issue with that.

 

For every other entry into an army list, they are out performed by their Strike counterparts.

 

And that's terrible balance and design.

 

Alright, hold on now. Are you making this complaint specific to the GK codex or to codexes in general? Which codexes can run super competitive lists with terminators in them that aren't "themed" lists? One maybe? I know for Space Wolves and Chaos, terminators are pretty meh. At least GK termies are a better deal than those...

[Gentlemanloser]

Just the GK 'dex.

 

It's only the internal balance I'm concerned about.

 

Ward could have given Strikes Infiltrate/Scout over DS, to keep the theme and feel of the unit, while giving GKT the place of the rapid insertion Teleport Assault strike unit.

 

But Strikes do that as well. :)

 

Edit:

 

Thinking about it, I think the largest problem with the dex is the increase in units. It's something we desperately needed, but the units aren't distinct enough from each other.

 

Ward tried using the Psychic Powers to achieve this, but fell flat.

 

Now if only GKT had Hammerhand, Astral Aim was actually useful, and the breakdown was something like;

 

Puri: CF

Pally: Holo & HH

Termy: HH

Strike: WQ

Interceptor: (something new)

Purg: AA

 

Then the units would begin to look and feel more distinct, each with their own role and reason to take.

 

As it is, Puri's are too close to Strikes and especially Purgators. GKT are more expensive Strikes, but are outclassed in nearly every facet by thier half as expensive Strike counterparts.

 

While Interceptors and Paladin remain the two most 'unique' GK units in the Dex. You might not want to include them in every list you make, but they have a niche the other units can't fill and therefore can't replace them.

 

Edit 2: Don't get me wrong, I totally agree with;

 

Which one works more efficiently? Which one carries out its tactical plan better? Etc.

 

But that's just it.

 

When you sit down with your GKT and think "What will I do with these, how will I use them?". Points for Points, you get more out of using Strikes than you do GKT, in the roles you would want to use the GKT in. (Edit: Obviously unless your theming a list to footslog versus mass AP3 weapons...)

[Something Wycked]

What you may be missing, Gentleman, is that they each have their place.

 

If you want a lot of Psycannons cheaply, bring Purgators.

 

If you want mobility, bring Interceptors.

 

If you want a lot of infantry, bring Strikes.

 

If you want a few tough infantry, bring Termies.

 

If you want a very Water unit that can both shoot and assault, bring Purifiers.

 

If you want a very Water unit that is also very tough, bring Paladins.

 

There are only 2 cases where one unit completely outshines another (Paladins vs Terminators, and Purifiers vs Purgators/Strikes) and in both cases you pay significantly more for the extra oomph.

[Gentlemanloser]

If you want a few tough infantry, bring Termies.

 

Tough? Are 10 Termies tougher than 20 Strikes? That's the problem.

 

What you may be missing, Gentleman, is that they each have their place.

 

Ah, but now we're fully back to;

 

Which one works more efficiently? Which one carries out its tactical plan better? Etc.

 

Sure, for cheapness, getting 4 Psycannons on 5 Purgators is cheaper than getting them on 10 Puris.

 

But would it work better to get those Puris and Combat Squad them? Are you really going to get the full use out of 4 Psycannons? Or is 2 the better choice and use them from inside a Rhino? If so, why not take 5 puri's with 2 over 5 Purgators with 2?

 

Etc, Etc. :P

[THE PORTCULLIS]

Going back to the earlier debate of the apparent pointlessness of choosing strikes ahead of terminators. At the basic level what you get for double the points on a terminator may not seem all that great but for me having access to the Brotherhood Banner gives me plenty to think about when choosing a Troops.

 

for the extra 20 pts you 2+/5++

Relentless

+1A

Discount CC weapon upgrades

Ranged weapon does not remove CC weapon

Potential access to B Banner

Access to Thawn

A psychological edge - everyone treats terminators with a bit of respect!

The potential to survive a perils of the warp - rare but still a difference.

 

You loose

Rhino/Razorback

Capacity penalty for other vehicles

Sweeping Advance

 

In my book I nearly always opt for basic terminators for a compromise of value and effect between paladins and strikes.

 

I'll let you weight it up.

Warp Quake

[Gentlemanloser]

You miss the point costs there.

 

10 Termies net you;

 

10 Wounds.

20 SB shots

20 CC attacks

 

For the same cost you get 20 Strikes, which net you;

 

20 Wounds

40 SB Shots

20 CC attacks

[Grey Mage]

Thats not a problem. Since its not all that effective against a good opponent.

your opinion mage , but then again you claim that razor builds are not viable , yet they still score high on main land europe tournaments. Or by good do you mean playing SW ?

I dont see how Razorspam is viable, because in my area it isnt- they dont move fast enough to be truely mobile, they have to expose themselves more often to get shots in, and in general they are more expensive than just taking firepower elsewhere in your army.

 

There are more efficient ways to spend your points that provide better firepower or arent as fragile. Mainland europe can have its own meta, thats fine- but Id like to see anyone try it here with the same luck.

 

GKs might be able to pull it- they have an advantage in that its incredibly difficult to stunlock them. The GK lists I see doing well in this area are mostly Strike Squads and TDA to be honest.

 

You miss the point costs there.

 

10 Termies net you;

 

10 Wounds.

20 SB shots

20 CC attacks

 

For the same cost you get 20 Strikes, which net you;

 

20 Wounds

40 SB Shots

20 CC attacks

That die twice as often...

Though the shooting is a fair point I admit.

[Something Wycked]

If you want a few tough infantry, bring Termies.

 

Tough? Are 10 Termies tougher than 20 Strikes? That's the problem.

If AP3 is your problem, of course they are.

 

Which one works more efficiently? Which one carries out its tactical plan better? Etc.

 

Sure, for cheapness, getting 4 Psycannons on 5 Purgators is cheaper than getting them on 10 Puris.

 

But would it work better to get those Puris and Combat Squad them? Are you really going to get the full use out of 4 Psycannons? Or is 2 the better choice and use them from inside a Rhino? If so, why not take 5 puri's with 2 over 5 Purgators with 2?

Let me fix my statement for you then:

 

What you may be missing, Gentleman, is that they each have their place in each person's list.

Each player has a different play style. The various units suit each play style to differing degrees. In the GK book, this is especially true due to the huge array of possible army builds. Comparing each unit against the others in a vacuum does not give us a true evaluation of their effectiveness. What we are forced to do is examine the basic strengths of each unit and see how they might work with our desired army make up.

 

Without a heavily biased perspective (in favor of the desired army list) all we are left with is math hammer; then all that remains is number crunch the efficiency of each unit, point for point, and take the most mathematically optimized list possible.

 

This cuts out the heart of the game, for me. Internal balance be damned, a cohesive army list sends the mathematical efficiency of each unit right out the window in favor of teamwork between the units winning games for you.