Grey Knights All TDA Armies

[Fred Johnson the 3rd jr]

If you don't want to take terminators take either strikes or paladins they are mathmatically are better option in my opinion.

 

Joy, a useful, reality based comment.

 

GK Terminators, I am sad to say, aren't as good for the points as Strike Squads in many instances. Consider the equally costed 10 man SS squad and the 5 man GKT squad. GKTs are actually less durable overall than SSs. They are even per point against AP4-AP6, Strike Squads are better versus AP1 and AP2, and Termies are better versus AP3. In shooting, Strike Squads have just as many psycannon shots, and 8 more stormbolter shots. If they stand still, they have twice as many psycannon shots as the Terminator squad.

 

So far termies are less durable to shooting attacks and not as good at shooting. What about assault? In assault Termies get 'free' halberds and hammers and such so that helps, but remember, they have less attacks per point than Strike Squads. Again remember that a 10 man Strike Squad costs as much as a 5 man Termie squad. On the charge, 5 Termies get 15 attacks (2 each base for 10, plus 1 more each (5) for charging) while a 10 man Strike Squad gets 20 attacks. And just like with shooting durability, Termies tie Strike Squads against normal attacks, and are worse against armor ignoring attacks than Strike Squads, per point.

 

With all that said, I am still going to field a good chunk of Terminators in my eventual GK army, because the models look damn cool. I'd rather not do pure Paladins as the model count is too low...

[thade]

Terminators have 2+/5++ saves and Relentless Psycannons, which are kind of nice. They do fill a niche that Strikes don't; not a complete loss.

[Crynn]

If you don't want to take terminators take either strikes or paladins they are mathmatically are better option in my opinion.

 

Joy, a useful, reality based comment.

 

GK Terminators, I am sad to say, aren't as good for the points as Strike Squads in many instances. Consider the equally costed 10 man SS squad and the 5 man GKT squad. GKTs are actually less durable overall than SSs. They are even per point against AP4-AP6, Strike Squads are better versus AP1 and AP2, and Termies are better versus AP3. In shooting, Strike Squads have just as many psycannon shots, and 8 more stormbolter shots. If they stand still, they have twice as many psycannon shots as the Terminator squad.

 

So far termies are less durable to shooting attacks and not as good at shooting. What about assault? In assault Termies get 'free' halberds and hammers and such so that helps, but remember, they have less attacks per point than Strike Squads. Again remember that a 10 man Strike Squad costs as much as a 5 man Termie squad. On the charge, 5 Termies get 15 attacks (2 each base for 10, plus 1 more each (5) for charging) while a 10 man Strike Squad gets 20 attacks. And just like with shooting durability, Termies tie Strike Squads against normal attacks, and are worse against armor ignoring attacks than Strike Squads, per point.

 

With all that said, I am still going to field a good chunk of Terminators in my eventual GK army, because the models look damn cool. I'd rather not do pure Paladins as the model count is too low...

Wow not everyone slams me for writing posts like this based around numbers, I am some what surprised.

 

I didn't really want to go into the math but ideally yes, oh and strikes on the charge have 21 attacks, remember the justicar!

 

Thade I do realize terminators have a small neish, free hammers and halbards and they do look cool. I just generally only speak from a pure competitive point of view and even then it is only my own point of view, granted hopefully backed up by a few others.

 

Regards,

Crynn

[thade]

I see Terminators having competitive viability. Spamming Terminators with a GM and/or Librarian will probably work very well in many applications. Cheaper and thus more numerous than Paladins (not only in body cost but in sheer number of upgrades) means it hurts less to lose them to the ID weapons people will be spamming to account for Draigo and LR spam at tournaments. I don't have the models to try it out, but some people are building these armies now, I understand.

[Crynn]

I see Terminators having competitive viability. Spamming Terminators with a GM and/or Librarian will probably work very well in many applications. Cheaper and thus more numerous than Paladins (not only in body cost but in sheer number of upgrades) means it hurts less to lose them to the ID weapons people will be spamming to account for Draigo and LR spam at tournaments. I don't have the models to try it out, but some people are building these armies now, I understand.

 

I feel that if that is the list you are going for you are better off spamming strike knights, as was described, more firpower, more resiliant, more CC attacks, more body, more warpquake, can run units down. Anyway I've said my piece, each to there own I guess.

[Fred Johnson the 3rd jr]

Well there are quite a few armies which have lots of missiles. In those cases Terminators would probably work out better than Strike Squads. And sometimes having almost everyone striking at Initiative 6 in CC is what wins you the game. Other than those two points, I don't see any competitive advantages to them. They are much cooler looking than PAGK though....

[Crynn]

Well there are quite a few armies which have lots of missiles. In those cases Terminators would probably work out better than Strike Squads. And sometimes having almost everyone striking at Initiative 6 in CC is what wins you the game. Other than those two points, I don't see any competitive advantages to them. They are much cooler looking than PAGK though....

 

If you put the GK strike in cover they are still slightly tougher versus missiles.

[Reclusiarch Darius]

I don't why anyone would ever field 5-man Terminator squads. They're way too easily taken down. Paladins at least have WS5, two wounds and double psycannon at 5-man, so they work fine (I would argue they're overkill at 10-man, so I would combat squad if I do take the Paladin Deathstar). If you're going to bother with Terminators at all, it's 10-man blob or nothing. They actually outfight Paladins if you include the Bro Banner, and are easier to fit into most lists (they live in Troops, scoring by default, not overly expensive for a Deathstar etc).

 

I'm also not a fan of Inquisitors. In smaller games, I guess you're forced to by the lack of available points, but if you can, take Librarian every time. He outperforms all the other HQ's by such a wide margin. 'Sanctuary' and 'Shrouding' in particular are a god-send to such an infantry-focused army, slowing or screwing enemy assaults and boosting your survivability against the dreaded AP2 that will come your way.

 

Thawn is a one-trick pony. It's amusing to bring him back to life nearly every turn, but his extra power for the squad is largely irrelevant. Terminator blobs should always be accompanied by your HQ anyway, either Libby for powers or Grandmaster for grenade hax, and either one of those characters can cast 'Hammerhand' whilst the squad uses the Bro Banner ability. Especially in an all-TDA list, where points are so tight, I don't think blowing 75 on a glorified Terminator Sarge is such a good idea. For 50pts less, you rob one Termie of his power weapon, but everyone gets +1A (including characters attached) and free ID on their close-combat attacks (not for attached characters, but not such a huge deal).

 

TL;DR here are the units you should field in any TDA list you try to make;

 

Librarian w/stave, 'Might', 'Sanctuary', 'Shrouding'

(200 points)

 

Grandmaster w/psychostroke or rad (I like crazy nades but some people swear by rad)+blind grenades

(195 points)

 

2 x Paladins w/halberd+psycannon, Paladin w/hammer, 2 x Paladins w/halberds

(315 points)

 

Justicar w/halberd, Terminator w/Bro Banner, 2 x Terminators w/hammers

2 x Terminators w/halberd+psycannon, 4 x Terminators w/halberds

(475 points)

 

Some combination of those units (obviously two Terminator blobs minimum for Troops) is pretty much ideal. Staves don't matter on anyone bar the Librarian (Grandmaster gets 3+ invul in combat for free, individual Terminators make no difference), psybolt is pretty meaningless next to what the Bro Banner does for you (you dominate close-combat far more than shooting anyway).

[whiteridder]

Well, I've tried this list, and for me it works, but haven't faced dark eldar yet. The list works for me fine, but at 1700 points you only got 16 minis. So expensive and tricky, but a lot of fun to play with.

 

Liberian

-3 servo skulls

- Summoning

-Quicksilver

-Might of Titan

-Shrouding

-Sanctuary

-master crafted weapon

195 points

 

Terminator squad

-1 x psycannon

-1x deamonhammer

-3x halbard

225 points

 

Terminator squad

-1 x psycannon

-1x deamonhammer

-3x halbard

225 points

 

Terminator squad

-1 x incarator

-1x deamonhammer

-3x halbard

205 points

 

Landraider Crusader

-multi melta

-extra amour

280 points

 

Landraider

-multi melta

-extra amour

-Warp Stabilisation field

285 points

 

Landraider

-multi melta

-extra amour

-warp stabilisation field

285 points

[Brother Captain Kezef]

I don't subscribe to combat squadding termies.

 

My 2k list is a 10 man pallie deathstar backed up by two 10 man GKT squads. I find that it's better to keep them in squads of ten. But that's personal opinion backed up by game play experience.

[BLACK BLΠFLY]

I run an all TDA list along with a couple of dreads. It has done really well so far. I find GKT to be the best troop for the points. Sure Pallies are the bomb but not needed to fill up an entire army IMO.

 

G :)

[thade]

Much of the theory I've read on GKT (at least, on this site) has a negative slant...while much of the self-reporting from players using GKT has all been positive, at least what I've seen. I've yet to see anybody say "I've been fielding an all GKT force and getting my butt kicked."

[number6]

This topic moves fast! :lol:

 

On the subject of "GKTs are mathematically inferior":

 

Actually, they're just different. I feel like they are a great bargain at the points cost. But they serve a different purpose than Strikers and even Paladins, with whom they have the most similarities. They have their own unique strengths and weaknesses when you compare them with all other codex units. The way several of you have talked about why you like Strikers better, or what you feel is the proper "niche" for GKTs, only proves this point.

 

I think the only point where I disagree with any of what's been stated is the degree to which GKTs are useful. I disagree completely with sweeping statements that GKTs are "always" inferior to units X, Y, and/or Z. (And similarly, though nobody has yet stated this way, I would equally refute anybody that wished to claim that GKTs were "always" superior to ... whatever.)

 

For instance, my example 1500 pt all TDA list with 30 GKTs in it. I feel like it's a valid, competitive all-comer's list. It's very resilient and has just enough shooting and assault capability to put the hurt on just about anybody. I would NOT, however, consider an army that has any HQ you like and then nothing but 10-model Strike units to be a valid, competitive all-comer's list. It's hardly any different than a SM player spamming nothing but Tacticals, or a BA player spamming nothing but Assault squads, or a SW player spamming nothing but Grey Hunters. Such armies would be total FAIL. I hope that is obvious ... and equally obvious why it's possible to make all GKT armies work. After all, it's based on virtually the same principles that allow DA Deathwing armies to function competitively, an example we should all be well familiar with by now.

 

Given that, I think it's conclusively proven that GKTs simply cannot be "always" inferior. They are useful, they are competitive. But you have to utilize them in an army built around maximizing their strengths and minimizing their weaknesses. Just like every other unit in any codex. No unit is a priori "good", "better", or "best". Units are only "good" insofar as a list is properly constructed to get the most out of them. Some lists really should have some GKTs in it. Others should not. Some lists really should have some Strikers in it. Others should not. And so on and so forth....

 

Similarly, I am going to disagree with the sweeping statement that 10-man GKT (or Paladin) units should "never" combat squad. Again, that depends on the army list. If you don't combat squad the GKT units in the army list I built, you will probably lose more games than not. The reason is because even in a mere 1500 pts game, you simply must have more than 3 points of offense and defense. By the same token, I acknowledge that for some lists, your 10-model units may not need to -- perhaps even should not -- combat squad. But it depends on the list, not on sweeping generalizations based on nothing concrete.

 

The list is what matters. Nothing else does.

[thade]

...further staggering genius in text...

[BLACK BLΠFLY]

ermmm... ermmm...

 

:lol:

[thade]

So...I just summarized this discussion for a buddy of mine and I'd like to do it again here.

 

One side insists that GKT are mathematically inferior to all other units in the codex and thus should never be taken.

 

The other side submits that they do take GKT in mass quantities and that they do very well.

 

I think, respectfully, that the "theory" side of this discussion should consider taking into account the steadily mounting empirical evidence that some part of their analysis is faulty.

 

:lol:

 

EDIT: Typoz. Winkiez.

[Fred Johnson the 3rd jr]

So...I just summarized this discussion for a buddy of mine and I'd like to do it again here.

 

One side insists that GKT are mathematically inferior to all other units in the codex and thus should never be taken.

 

The other side submits that they do take GKT in mass quantities and that they do very well.

 

I think, respectfully, that the "theory" side of this discussion should consider taking into account the steadily mounting empirical evidence that some part of their analysis is faulty.

 

Well I don't know what "sides" you are talking about but I never claimed GKTs should never be taken. I just outlined how they have less shooting power per point than a Strike Squad, and less overall durability (ranged and CC) per point, with them only coming out ahead when taking AP3 fire. Those are things called facts, and there is nothing faulty about them. Also, I thought I was quite clear that assaulting ability was harder to measure, although again, it is a fact that assaulting Strikers have more attacks per point than Terminators.

 

Now, as others have noted those aren't the *only* factors which need to be considered. But to imply the math is wrong is silly.

[thade]

Fred, man, no need to take on the offensive. By "sides" I meant the two sides of the argument; I didn't mean to draw a line in in the sand and force people to stand on either side of it.

 

Here are some smilies and winkies. ;) ;) :) :)

 

Those are things called facts, and there is nothing faulty about them.

I submit said-mounting empirical evidence.

 

But to imply the math is wrong is silly.

The math is valid but I submit that it's likely not sound; i.e. something (I don't know what, and it seems nobody does) is being left out of the analysis. Whatever it is probably accounts for why all of these GKT army players are not failing at every game they play.

[Fred Johnson the 3rd jr]

I would NOT, however, consider an army that has any HQ you like and then nothing but 10-model Strike units to be a valid, competitive all-comer's list. It's hardly any different than a SM player spamming nothing but Tacticals, or a BA player spamming nothing but Assault squads, or a SW player spamming nothing but Grey Hunters. Such armies would be total FAIL. I hope that is obvious ... and equally obvious why it's possible to make all GKT armies work. After all, it's based on virtually the same principles that allow DA Deathwing armies to function competitively, an example we should all be well familiar with by now.

 

LOL, whut? :)

 

Total fail? And your examples are troops who carry no stormbolters or powerweapons standard? And then you cite Deathwing, where most termies get a 3+ invulnerable, whereas GKTs do not? Methinks your dubious comparisons do no one good here. There is a world of difference between having a crap ton of Grey Hunters (lots of attacks, very few power weapons, a tiny number of very short ranged anti-tank) and Grey Knights (less attacks, all power weapons, all storm bolters, longer range anti-tank which doubles as anti-infantry.... plus powers to raise CC attacks to S5/S10 and ability to deep strike). Sorry dude, you cannot get away with calling GKSS spam a 'FAIL' - that's just an assertion.

 

A Strike Squad spam list will put out significantly more firepower than a GKT spam list. This is a fact. It will also be just as durable or more durable per point, against everything in shooting and CC except for AP3 fire. This is another fact. To call it a 'FAIL' while singing the praises of a GKT force is to ignore the facts. Now remember this is coming from someone who is going to be running a mix of Pallies and Terminators, likely heavy on the Terminators. I know a decent list can be made with them (and more importantly a fun list for me). But I am not going to pretend Terminators are a better value for the points than Strike Squads. Because in most cases they will not be.

[Fred Johnson the 3rd jr]

The math is valid but I submit that it's likely not sound; i.e. something (I don't know what, and it seems nobody does) is being left out of the analysis. Whatever it is probably accounts for why all of these GKT army players are not failing at every game they play.

 

No, the math is valid and sound. The data says Strike Squads are better in many respects, this does not mean that terminators are auto-lose! LOL, what a crazy logic jump! Kinda like saying that since 10 million dollars is better than 7 million, 7 million sucks. No no no, GKTs are good. Strike Squads are likely better in most cases. In a spam list this is very likely to be true. In a list where a Rock / Deathstar is required, well then no, GKSS would be terrible in that role.

 

10 man Strike Squad with 2 psycannons and a hammer is 230 points. 6 units, 60 guys, is 1380. That's 120 points left over in 1500 point list. 48 stormbolters, 12 psycannons, 54 power weapons, 6 hammers. I think that could do well against a good chunk of opponents.

[thade]

So you're saying that "mathematically-better" is not the same as saying "GKT will do poorly"? More to the point, you seem to be saying that GKT can both do consistently very well and still be mathematically inferior.

 

It makes me wonder what value there is to even saying that they're mathematically better at all. :) Is the "better" significant? Math isn't magic. You can show expected outcomes for vacuum situations which are useful insofar as guiding snap-decisions on the table, but that's as far as the value goes. That's really my message: math is not your end all/be all in Warhammer. If you agree with that, then there's nothing to argue further.

 

As for a Strike-spam list and it's viability, I think it's unfair to compare them to tactical squad spam lists. Whereas the latter is a tricky game, it's definitely doable; Tac Squads are nicely versatile with free heavy weapons and their sergeant upgrades (combis, fists, etc.). GK are more expensive per body but are also more versatile, as each model as 24" shots on the move and is packing power weapons, meaning they out-shoot tacticals and out-melee assault teams, toe-to-toe. I definitely see merit to an all Strike Squad list, even foot-slogging. Indeed, the guys capitalize well on their massive threat range when they're not embarked.

 

EDIT: broken tag

[number6]

Deathwing armies do cost a bit more in points to field. And they typically aren't spammed with TH/SS models. In fact, you need the stormbolter fire quite badly ... not to mention the cyclone launchers. So the prevalence of TH/SS termies -- in an all Deathwing army, mind you -- is actually pretty low. Hence the survivability between all GKTs and all DW termies is nearly identical. And in a 2000 pt list, you may be able to field a few to several more GKTs than DW termies, depending on how you spend your ponts.

 

On the subject of your "facts": vacuum analysis is utterly meaningless. Strikers are more survivable per wound/point than GKTs ... except against AP 3 firepower. Mmm-hmm. I don't know about you, but most enemies I play against field metric crap tons of AP3 or better firepower. Against 15 long fangs, I know for damned sure which models are more surivavable per point/wound ... and it ain't Strikers. ;)

 

Again, it's all about the list as a whole. At 1500 pts, 31 TDA models are hella more difficult to remove than the 50-ish Strikers you'd be able to field in their stead. Because, you know, there's a whole game beyond simple math. Terrain, variable game objectives, ... an actual physical space that impacts the nice purely logical number-crunching you are championing.

 

It's not that your math is faulty. In fact, it's absolutely true! ... if we accept all the unsaid premises that underly your calculations! :) Premises such as: there is no board, all theortical models will work at peak efficiency at exactly the time and place you desire them to, there are no mission objectives that might make choosing one unit over another more or less desirable, etc, etc. And thus it's the absolute conclusions you are drawing from your "math facts" that are faulty. If math was truly all that mattered, there would be no reason whatsoever to put models on the table. Everything could be played out in simulation.

 

As I stated earlier, it's the difference in capabilities between units that matter in the context of an entire army list. I guess I also need to add: in the context of an actual game that is played on an actual boad with actual terrain and not in a virtual space built upon artificial constraints that don't match the real world.

 

Math in context. Not math by itself. The former has meaning. The latter does not, no matter what statistics you want to throw out. It's well known that statistics on their own can be tweaked to prove any point. Well done, you proved your point. Now let's move on because your argument is invalid. :)

 

George Canning: "I can prove anything by statistics except the truth."

[thade]

Yea, plasma and Manticores are very popular around where I play.

[Fred Johnson the 3rd jr]

So you're saying that "mathematically-better" is not the same as saying "GKT will do poorly"? More to the point, you seem to be saying that GKT can both do consistently very well and still be mathematically inferior.

 

Having 10 million dollars is better than having 7, remember? If one is inferior relative to the other, it does not mean it is poor. I mean come on man....

 

Math is not your end all/be all in Warhammer. If you agree with that, then there's nothing to argue further.

 

Of course Math isn't the end all be all. It is a tool.

[breng77]

I think that is the point, just because there is something better than a unit does not make that unit bad. It simply makes that unit "sub-optimal". Much of this depends on your environment. Terminators become a much better buy if you play on tables with little cover, and all of your opponents spam missiles. The other thing to consider is that at least in close combat the terminators are better. People can claim more attacks all they want, but Terminators will be strikes hands down point for point. Free Halberds, invul saves, and all models having power weapons goes a long way in this discussion.

 

People are quoting 21 attacks for strikes on the charge and only 15 for Termies. It is important to remember in this case that the strikes are only gettting 17 power weapon attacks (2 more) and all of these are I 4 or less. Termies could field 15 I 6 power weapons for the same price (5 points less in actuallity assuming people are taking a hammer on the justicar for strikes).

 

Against said Power weapons the termies get a save where the strikes just die (you can claim more strikes which helps, but also does not really matter if you lose combat and get walked off the table.)

 

IF the units dont charge the terminators have the advantage with 10 PW attacks Vs 11 (9 PW) attacks.

 

If getting charged the high I of the termies will help more as the strikes will get hit first by units with I 5 or I 4 and Furious charge. If you pay for halberds on strikes they are no longer better than termies point for point.