Grey Knights All TDA Armies

[Fred Johnson the 3rd jr]

There you go again....

 

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.

 

If you don't start somewhere solid, you just start with feelings. Feelings which often do not match up with reality. Math gives a solid foundation for us all to start with.

 

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

 

Again, WTH else are you going to start with? Math tells you the damage output of both units in ideal circumstances, and their durability against all types of shooting and CC. (Something I did not mention yet, if GKSS can get cover saves their durability per point is way better than Terminators). You *have* to start there, otherwise human biases and wishful thinking rule the day.

 

And thus it's the absolute conclusions you are drawing from your "math facts" that are faulty.

 

HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA. :lol: Oh dear, this is what happens when nuance appears online. Thade thinks when I say "not as good as in most cases" equals "golly terrible" and you ignore all of the hedging words like "mostly" "most cases" "likely" and proclaim I make absolutist type statements. Quite sad really

 

If math was truly all that mattered

 

NO ONE IS SAYING THIS IS ALL THAT MATTERS, ESPECIALLY ME. Please, pretty please, strawmen are beneath you. Even indirect ones by heavy implication.

[thade]

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....

Alright, I will take this contrived analogy of yours and use it to illustrate my position. I'll keep it simple for you.

 

You have 10 million dollars and you buy two yahcts and split time between cruising around Hawaii and burning cash in Las Vegas on shows, girls, and gambling over the course of ten years.

 

I have 7 million dollars which I invest; half in stable mutual funds (backed by bonds issued by world governments and blue chip corps) and half in more aggressive funds (a few start-ups and some growing but reputedly stable small companies).

 

For those ten years, your income is $0.

 

For those ten years, my income will be something like 7% (490k). What's more is that if I cut down on what I take out and let some of it vest, the amount I make per year is gonna grow. That's what investing is all about.

 

So, tell me something? Which is better? Ten million squandered? Or seven million well-used?

[thade]

If you don't start somewhere solid, you just start with feelings.

Actually, number6 is one of a few players on here that uses a GKT army and does very well with it. He's actually got evidence to back-up his claims...something which you lack.

 

You're being a bit abusive, whether you mean to be or not. This is worsened by the fact you're slinging math against people with real evidence that shows somewhere you've made a mistake, all the while waving your hands saying "I"m not actually saying you're wrong." Well then, what are you saying? Are you posting just to post?

[Fred Johnson the 3rd jr]

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.

 

Thank you. At least someone else gets this stunningly obvious point right away.

 

 

 

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.

 

Minor quibble. Terminators can be better in CC than Strikers (and more often are considering what most people play) - they also can be worse, per point. If I have to charge Orks I'd rather have 10 Strikers than 5 Termies.

 

 

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.)

 

True. I only did simple math. Figuring out likelihood of losing combat and running / taking more wounds is too much work for me.

 

If you pay for halberds on strikes they are no longer better than termies point for point.

 

Double True. Halberds are an awful, awful return on investment for GKSS.

[thade]

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.

 

Thank you. At least someone else gets this stunningly obvious point right away.

Remember when I commented you came off as being abusive? ;) Chill it out, man. This is a constructive conversation you might get locked on us.

[BLACK BLΠFLY]

That's is awesome but 40k games don't work like that. Sounds awesome though.

 

;)

[Fred Johnson the 3rd jr]

If you don't start somewhere solid, you just start with feelings.

Actually, number6 is one of a few players on here that uses a GKT army and does very well with it. He's actually got evidence to back-up his claims...something which you lack.

 

*facepalm* I will say this again, slowly. Please, please, PLEASE pay attention to what I am actually going to say, not what you imagine I am saying. Number6 flippantly dismissed my math. Because it did not take into account other considerations. I countered that math is a good base to start with. I imagine he and you agree with this. Yes? How about you specifically respond to this paragraph so I can know for sure.

 

Ok? Now, second point. What claim of number6's are you talking about? That GKT can perform well? I didn't say they couldn't! Remember the bit about 10 and 7 million dollars? I never said GKT would perform poorly. We already went over this thade! Again, for a refresher, I only laid out the math which shows the advantages of GKSS in many situations. I also mentioned the disadvantages they have and have agreed with others when additional ones were pointed out. SO what is your problem?

 

This is worsened by the fact you're slinging math against people with real evidence that shows somewhere you've made a mistake,

 

WHAT MISTAKE. Note again, I did not say GKT were poor, just that the math says GKSS are better in many respects. So how is a GKT list winning a mistake on my part? I mean come on dude, how many times do I have to explain this to you?

[breng77]

If I have to charge Orks I'd rather have 10 Strikers than 5 Termies.

 

While True, I'd rather not do it with either and opt for purifiers, as bot 10 strikes and 5 termies are both likely to get stomped by Boyz in CC. With either choice I'd rather move and shoot at which point the Stikes are better.

 

Stikes Vs Orks: Strikes Kill 7.58 orks on the charge, Orks Kill 5.08 in retaliation. Orks lose ~ 2 more to resolution, but win in round 2 (Kill 4.75 strikes while losing 3.23 more orks).

Termies Vs Orks: Termies kill 5 Orks, orks kill 3.25 termies. Termies lose in Round 2.

[Fred Johnson the 3rd jr]

Alright, I will take this contrived analogy of yours and use it to illustrate my position. I'll keep it simple for you.

 

You have 10 million dollars and you buy two yahcts and split time between cruising around Hawaii and burning cash in Las Vegas on shows, girls, and gambling over the course of ten years.

....

So, tell me something? Which is better? Ten million squandered? Or seven million well-used?

 

*Facepalm part deux*

 

You really, really really don't get what I am saying, or are you trolling me? My point, which you missed the first 3 times, is that "not as good as in most cases" does not equal horrible. I think we can, dare I hope, that we can agree on this? That is ALL, and I mean ALL my analogy was demonstrating. 10 million in hand is better than 7 million, but 7 million is still just dandy. I can't believe you went off on a wild tangent talking about investing. Jesus.

 

So, with that in mind, if people like number6 and soon hopefully me, win a lot with TDA Grey Knights, that has no bearing on the relative strengths per point between one unit and another. Emphasis on the word RELATIVE. 10 GKSS may be better than 5 GKT in many cases, but that does not make GKT bad. Or un-winnable.

[Fred Johnson the 3rd jr]

If I have to charge Orks I'd rather have 10 Strikers than 5 Termies.

 

While True, I'd rather not do it with either and opt for purifiers, as bot 10 strikes and 5 termies are both likely to get stomped by Boyz in CC. With either choice I'd rather move and shoot at which point the Stikes are better.

 

Stikes Vs Orks: Strikes Kill 7.58 orks on the charge, Orks Kill 5.08 in retaliation. Orks lose ~ 2 more to resolution, but win in round 2 (Kill 4.75 strikes while losing 3.23 more orks).

Termies Vs Orks: Termies kill 5 Orks, orks kill 3.25 termies. Termies lose in Round 2.

 

True, Purifiers rule all. :P

 

Still, don't forget the charging Strikers get to fire more bullets right before they charge into combat. Orks will still probably mess them up, sure. But the disparity of dead orks between GKSS and GKT going up against them is even greater. Of course we can just as easily pick an example where GKTs will perform better in CC... they will certainly do better against marines and any high Initiative opponents.

[thade]

Please, please, PLEASE pay attention to what I am actually going to say, not what you imagine I am saying.

Okay, I'm ready.

 

Number6 flippantly dismissed my math.

This is purely pejorative. It's also wrong. He rightfully and correctly dismissed your math. Why? Because it's a poor predictor for actual game outcome.

 

Because it did not take into account other considerations.

I suspected this of you as well, honestly. But I will accept that you do take other considerations into account, by your own admission. I shall do so on good faith.

 

I countered that math is a good base to start with. I imagine he and you agree with this. Yes?

As I've been saying in this thread (and many others for the past year now, especially the past month or so) I agree that math is a useful tool for on-the-spot calls on the table. I've got Unit X engaged with Enemy A and Unit Y in a melee tarpit with Enemy B. What should I do with Unit Z? Math suddenly becomes very useful because I can use expected outcomes considering both X and Y to be in vacuums for that brief moment and - based on my estimations - I can decide whether Unit Z should help X, Y, or do something else entirely.

 

I do not agree that math is a good basis for list design, as it depends too much on vacuum analysis and in the past has precluded people from taking units that can be extremely useful when they are not in a vacuum. The game is not a vacuum, on which you agree. Thus I assert math should not be used exclusively in list design.

 

How about you specifically respond to this paragraph so I can know for sure.

I have done this.

 

Remember the bit about 10 and 7 million dollars?

Irony here. I actually responded directly to this (above). You must not have read it. Given how much offense you've taken at assuming I've not read or responded to your posts, this is a bit surprising. ADDENDUJM: I see that you did read this after all. You should stop hitting yourself in the face, man. It's unbecoming.

 

SO what is your problem?

Honestly? I'd still like you to cool down. Recall we're talkin' about little plastic army men.

 

Note again, I did not say GKT were poor, just that the math says GKSS are better in many respects.

Better in many respects...in a 1v1 vacuum analysis. Just like those frictionless environments in Physics class, these are great as exercises to learn the basics...however, those environments are pretty hard to find around here.

 

It sounds like we actually agree insofar as GKT be viable. I can't tell if you agree on this last point or not: that math is good for on-the-spot field calls but poor for list design as it's a bad game outcome predictor.

 

EDIT: Somehow the last sentence was omitted; I have fixed this.

[number6]

All right, all right, everybody! No need to take everything so personally! I will close this topic if calmer heads won't prevail. :P

 

@Fred: Do you not see the irony in your last several posts since my "outright dismissal"? You are against absolutes in the form of absolutely discounting your "facts", but exactly as absolutist in asserting their primacy and accuracy ... their status as "facts". As I tried to point out, your math isn't "factual" at all. It is, as you put it yourself, merely a guideline. That's the end all and be all of it. I will never accept your math or similar calculations to be "facts". They are interesting, they are useful, they are, as you said, starting points of analytical discussion ... and that's quite literally as far as it goes. To continue asserting your math as "facts" is to put an end to any discussion, which you also claim is not what you were doing.

 

Well, be consistent! Which way is it? :P

 

I mean, if we want to continue quibbling over minutiae: I take issue with the assumptions underlined by your "in most cases" qualifier. As I said earlier, "in most cases" assumes all the cases that, for example, you admit you did not. See all the posts above regarding GKT vs Striker assaults, and the odds of breaking of combat, etc., etc. Since you acknowledge there are common and important variables that you simply didn't include in your math because you were too lazy (and I don't blame you! :lol: ), then you can't honestly claim that your math is "factual in most cases". You aren't even including all the variables required to define the minimal rules involved in 40K close combat! ;)

 

That's ALL I'm getting at. You took my previous post as an absolute dismissal. When, in fact, it was only a dismissal of your absolutism.

[nurglez]

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

 

I love this, math's is useful, but it is only a small part of one side of a one sided coin, or something :P

 

I love terminators. I really really love them, I also love small armies, having more units gives more options, that is for sure, but as so many armies are marine armies, having things that can survive better vs ap3 weapons (my imperial guard opponent hates my terminators, they make his leman russ's pretty useless) is rather good and can put your opponent on the back foot.

 

Are terminators better then strikes? I don't know. is an army of them viable? yes :P

[Fred Johnson the 3rd jr]

It sounds like we actually agree insofar as GKT be viable.

 

This is the problem I am having here. After all these posts, you've only got to a "sounds like ... GKT [can] be viable." Only sounds like? I am actually quite insulted you take so little care when reading my posts. After essentially using a verbal sledgehammer and explicitly stating a dozen or so times that I think GKT are decent / good, that I want to run GKTs, I find you only kinda sorta thinking [edit - that I think] GKT are ok. Jesus Xavier Christ.

 

This is purely pejorative. It's also wrong. He rightfully and correctly dismissed your math. Why? Because it's a poor predictor for actual game outcome.

 

He dismissed the math, as a solid base for which to determine combat effectiveness of units? No. And neither do you. And that's what I was doing. For some reason when math got thrown around here, some people started imagining things that were never said. I mean look at you, after all these posts, and only know are you kinda figuring out what I've said, explicitly. Over and over again.

 

ADDENDUJM: I see that you did read this after all. You should stop hitting yourself in the face, man. It's unbecoming.

 

You missed the point of my analogy (7 million is good even if 10 is better) and went off into places unknown with yours. Best we just ignore that.

 

 

Note again, I did not say GKT were poor, just that the math says GKSS are better in many respects.

Better in many respects...in a 1v1 vacuum analysis. Just like those frictionless environments in Physics class, these are great as exercises to learn the basics...however, those environments are pretty hard to find around here.

 

They are better versus AP 1+2. In cover this advantage grows incredibly. They are equal in AP4-AP6. They are worse against AP3, but in cover by not as much. They shoot far, far better. Their transports are cheaper, and dedicated.

 

At 1500:

60 GKSS is: 12 Psycannons, 48 stormbolters, 48 Power Weapons. With 150 points left over.

30 GKTs (w/ a TDA Inq) is: 6+1 Psycannons, 24 stormbolters, 31 Power Weapons (many at I6) with no points left over.

 

Will the top list, after adding 150+ points of stuff, perform better against more opponents? Probably. The GKSS after all are more points efficient in many areas. Does that make the all GKT list bad? Hells no. That's the type I am going to run....

 

 

I can't tell if you agree on this last point or not: that math is good for on-the-spot field calls but poor for list design as it's a bad game outcome predictor.

 

This is too simple. Math has obvious uses in list design, as terrible units shouldn't be included in lists. Ditto with terrible upgrades to units. Knowing which units are 'sub-optimal' in a given metric is also useful. But of course the list plays as a whole and synergies and strategies are important. For example, if a Rock Assaulty type unit is desired, 10 GKTs can fit that roll. GKSS cannot. (20 GKSS is in invaild squad size, no cheap halberds, etc; )

[thade]

I read something on another WH forum recently that made me chuckle, and it's become my rallying cry. I will share it here and perhaps it will infect you all as well, as it did me:

 

I don't get angry over Warhammer. It's a game. Playing it doesn't make me money or get me any dates. I see nothing to get mad about.

 

So, I submit: don't ever get angry over Warhammer. <3

 

You took my previous post as an absolute dismissal. When, in fact, it was only a dismissal of your absolutism.

I really enjoyed reading this passage here; I sort of nerded out over it. "Not absolute dismissal, but a dismissal of your absolutism." You, sir, are a word-ninja.

[Fred Johnson the 3rd jr]

You took my previous post as an absolute dismissal. When, in fact, it was only a dismissal of your absolutism.

I really enjoyed reading this passage here; I sort of nerded out over it. "Not absolute dismissal, but a dismissal of your absolutism."

 

The problem is, I took great pains to not make absolutist statements. I could, but won't, go back through and find all of the hedging words modifying my statements. Considering how hard it was for you to determine that I LIKE GKTs FINE and think they are AOK, even though I've said it almost every post, I am not surprised that the nuance of saying "mostly" "most likely" "usually" "probably" is lost on you. Nor is the nuance of (gasp! shock! horror!) pointing out the negatives of GKSS relative to GKTs as well.

[thade]

This thread's out of hand. I hold myself responsible (at least in part) and I apologize for it. I'll step out of it now. <3

[Fred Johnson the 3rd jr]

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

 

You know what, I was skimming over the thread again and this caught my eye, because I don't think it is correct. Termies have a 1/6 chance of dying from an AP3 shot. In cover, PAGK have a 1/2 chance. PAGK cost half as much as Termies, so multiply their 1/2 by 1/2 to get 1/4. 1/4 chance of dying per equal point value is worse than 1/6. In cover, PAGK still are less durable against AP3 compared to Termies.

 

 

Anywhoo, I think we beat the PA v/ TDA horse to death. GK TDA forces are viable. All TDA forces likely less so. But if we stick on the theme, what's better, footslogging TDA, or TDA with a transport or two?

[Inquisitor Fox]

You also must consider deep striking TDA who can then fire to full effect including numerous amounts of psycannons :ph34r:

[BLACK BLΠFLY]

Here is my analysis of GKT vs Pallies vs Purifiers:

 

Note:

OTM = On the Move

OTC = On the Charge

 

 

I decided to choose my squads for this exercise in analysis based upon points per squad. That is each of the three squads presented here cost roughly the same number of points. I like this approach the best since it shows you how each unit will perform overall in a realistic sense of an actual game. Note though that the five man squad of GKT weighs in at roughly 100 points less than the other two squads - this is how I play them... If i wanted to increase their overall size I would simply double the exact squad and break them into two identical combat squads. They would then weigh in at roughly 100 more points than the Paladins (5 man squad) or Purifiers (10 man squad).

 

As a counter example sure I could list the many many advantages of a 10 man squad of Paladins equipped with four psycannons, all weapons master crafted to the nth degree plus fully complex for wound allocations, a Standard Bearer and an Apothecary but that unit roughly fills a very large chunk of a 2000 point army - so of course it's going to perform a whole heck of a lot better... that should be obvious to everyone !!!

 

 

Grey Knight Terminators

Justicar - halberd & stormbolter

Terminator #1 - halberd & stormbolter

Terminator #2 - halberd & stormbolter

Terminator #3 - halberd & psycannon

Terminator #4 - daemonhammer & stormbolter

Psybolt Ammo

 

* Shooting at full strength OTM - 4x S7 AP4 rending & 8x S5 AP5

* Attacks in melee OTC (Hammerhand activated) - 12x I6 S5 force weapons & 3x S10 force weapons

 

Cost = 245

 

Advantages

• Troop choice (no special character or Grand Strategy required)

• Cheapest unit

• Same ballistic skill as Paladins

• Daemonhammers and halberds are free

• Deep Strike

• Relentless

• Invulnerable save

 

 

Paladins

Paladin #1 - halberd & psycannon

Paladin #2 - master crafted halberd & psycannon

Paladin #3 - daemonhammer & stormbolter

Paladin #4 - warding stave & stormbolter

Standard Bearer - Brotherhood Banner & stormbolter

Psybolt Ammo

 

* Shooting at full strength OTM - 8x S7 AP4 rending & 6x S5 AP5

* Attacks in melee OTC (Hammerhand activated) - WS5 8x I6 S5 force weapons, 4x I4 S5 force weapons & 4x S10 force weapons + 4x S5

 

The Paladins will inflict more wounds in melee overall as compared to the GKT due to their higher number attacks (Brotherhood Banner) and intrinsic WS5 - and of course if a Grand Master and|or Librarian is attached then they go way over the top... More attacks plus if you field a generic Grand Master you can take psykotropic and rad grenades - it's really crazy.

 

Cost = 360

 

Advantages

• 2 wounds/model

• Fully Complex

• WS5

• Daemonhammers and halberds are free

• Deep Strike

• Relentless

• Invulnerable save

 

 

Purifiers

Knight of the Flame - halberd & stormbolter

Purfier #1 - halberd & stormbolter

Purifier #2 - halberd & stormbolter

Purifier #3 - halberd & stormbolter

Purifier #4 - halberd & stormbolter

Purifier #5 - halberd & stormbolter

Purifier #6 - daemonhammer & stormbolter

Purifier #7 - daemonhammer & stormbolter

Purifier #8 - psycannon

Purifier #9 - psycannon

Psybolt Ammo

Rhino

 

* Shooting at full strength OTM - 4x S7 AP4 rending & 16x S5 AP5

* Attacks in melee OTC (Hammerhand activated) - 18x I6 S5 force weapons & 6x S10 force weapons + 6x S5

 

Note - You can forgo the use of Hammerhand in favor of Cleansing Flame such as if you're fighting horde (Nids or Orks predominantly)

 

They will inflict more wounds in melee overall as compared to the GKT and Paladins due to their sheer volume of basic attacks - of course that is assuming you've still got a full squad by the time they are in position to engage in melee

 

Cost = 342

 

Advantages

• Can be broken into combat squads

• Highest volume of attacks total for both shooting & melee

• Same ballistic skill as Paladins

• Rhino included

• Fearless

• Cleansing Flame

 

 

Advantages of the Three Squads versus Each Other

• Both the GKT and Paladins are Relentless. OTM Paladins can lay down the most psycannon shots while the GKT can lay down as many shots as the Purifiers.

• The Purifiers can lay down the most stormbolter shots and when combined with Psybolt Ammo this can be quite punishing depending upon their target... The Purfiers will lay waste to units such as gaunts and guardsmen plus the stormbolters can penetrate AV10 and glance AV11.

• Versus small arms fire the Paladins are the most durable - taking into account the number of all overall wounds and an invulnerable save (more on the value of an invulnerable save below).

 

 

Which is the Best Unit

My top choice are the GKT. They are an intrinsic troop choice, cost the least amount of points and have an invulnerable save. I've played my share of large scale games (5000+ points) and something that's always caught my attention is that a unit with an invulnerable save tends to last the longest. Couple that with a 2+ armor save and you have a hardened unit. The Purifiers are my second choice - they can inflict the most damage as a whole and if split into combat squads they are still quite punishing. The Paladins are my favorite unit but fielded as such they provide a more dedicated role and as such are not as versatile... For example you definitely don't want to use them as a throw away unit and you should be more careful how you deploy the Paladins. On the other hand you can deep strike the GKT behind most vehicles or a walker and stand a good chance of popping it.

 

 

Conclusions

If you decide to field a deathstar unit consisting of 10 Paladins they are hands the best but it obviously eats up a lot more points from your army list as a whole. I think most players are not going to be that comfortable fielding a unit of 10 Paladins and there are plenty of good reasons not to do so for many of the reasons already presented. I also think that GKT are presently very underrated - mine have always done amazing things for me.

[number6]

Considering how hard it was for you to determine that I LIKE GKTs FINE and think they are AOK, even though I've said it almost every post, I am not surprised that the nuance of saying "mostly" "most likely" "usually" "probably" is lost on you.

Kettle? Pot? I'm losing track, here! :tu:

 

I am accused of inferring things you didn't say.

And in return you infer things I know I didn't say. ;)

 

I never once even acknowledged -- positively or negatively -- your views on GKTs. I merely wanted to discuss your assertion that Strikers are mathematically -- provably -- superior to GKTs.

 

If you wish to continue this discussion, you must at least be consistent and follow your own debating rules! ;)

[Fred Johnson the 3rd jr]

Considering how hard it was for you to determine that I LIKE GKTs FINE and think they are AOK, even though I've said it almost every post, I am not surprised that the nuance of saying "mostly" "most likely" "usually" "probably" is lost on you.

Kettle? Pot? I'm losing track, here! :lol:

 

You also lost track of the obvious. Those comments of mine were in response to THADE. You know, the guy I was talking with back and forth for an hour today. Remember, it is not all about you. Even if thade quoted you once to make a point.

 

I never once even acknowledged -- positively or negatively -- your views on GKTs.

 

No, but Thade did, the guy I was talking to there. Gosh this is complicated, isn't it? I only wish quote blocks would show who is being quoted. Wait a minute, they do! Tsk tsk tsk number6!

 

 

I merely wanted to discuss your assertion that Strikers are mathematically -- provably -- superior to GKTs.

 

What does this even mean? Mathematically they are better in many cases. That's not up for debate. More durable or as durable against all but AP3, and they rain down a lot more bullets. Most of the time not as good in CC due to the GKTs free special weapons, but sometimes better against hordes. These are obvious facts using very simple math. Far from any kind of assertion. Does this mean that GKT are always a worse choice in an army list? Hells no. And I've said that repeatedly. For Pete's sake I am going to be fielding tons of them. So I am not sure why your underwear is tied up in knots. I started with obvious, indisputable points, using math. I reckon most people start with math, if not they go off aesthetics, and that's completely outside the scope of what I've been talking about. So if starting with general durability and combat offensive power is ok, then again, what the heck is the problem here? I mean obviously you consider points efficiency, everyone does. But remember, math isn't the end all be all. I've said this more than once. With this in mind, your problem is... what exactly?

 

 

If you wish to continue this discussion, you must at least be consistent and follow your own debating rules! ;)

 

Oh ha ha ha ha! Look at me I am laughing! Tee hee! ;) /sarcasm. Please spare me the nonsense. And read more carefully next time... unless you and thade are the same person using two accounts. ;)

[Fred Johnson the 3rd jr]

You also must consider deep striking TDA who can then fire to full effect including numerous amounts of psycannons :lol:

 

The thing is, per points spent, TDA firing on the move have as many shots per point as GKSS firing on the move. Remember 10 GKSS costs as much as 5 GKT. 2 psycannons versus 1. On the move, both squads fire 4 shots. Standing still the GKSS fire 8 (and also, don't forget have 4 more stormbolters for 8 more regular shots), while the termies still only fire 4. GKSS come out ahead here.

[Inquisitor Fox]

The thing is, per points spent, TDA firing on the move have as many shots per point as GKSS firing on the move. Remember 10 GKSS costs as much as 5 GKT. 2 psycannons versus 1. On the move, both squads fire 4 shots. Standing still the GKSS fire 8 (and also, don't forget have 4 more stormbolters for 8 more regular shots), while the termies still only fire 4. GKSS come out ahead here.

Except that models that have just deep struck count as having moved, ergo the GKSS has less shots on the turn it drops down, whereas the GKT squad does not due to relentless. In additional turns, the GKSS must remain stationary to employ a larger shooting advantage, whereas the GKT can now advance to additional positions firing to full effect while it does so. I don't see how a GKSS has an advantage in a deep strike situation. In addition, the GKT with their heavier armor have a better chance at absorbing incoming firepower, as we don't tend to deep strike into terrain that would provide a cover save. Deep striking landing zones tend to be in the open.

 

While a GKSS often is used to claim an objective, a GKT unit is better for an offensive deep strike with the intention of eliminating something or to threaten enemy lines.

 

EDIT: Which is to say, both are equally useful in various situations, depending upon the goal you want accomplished. One unit is not inherently better or worse than the other. The point I am trying to make is there are other deployment options than walking across the board, or riding in a vehicle that need to be considered.

[Fred Johnson the 3rd jr]

Except that models that have just deep struck count as having moved, ergo the GKSS has less shots on the turn it drops down, whereas the GKT squad does not due to relentless.

 

Stop right there. The GKSS don't shoot at their maximum potential, but, here's the important thing, for the same points, they put out the *same* number of psycannon shots as GKTs if they have moved that turn. And more bolter shots. If they don't move, they actually put out more psycannon shots along with their more bolter shots. This is because a 10 GKSS with 2 psycannons costs as much as 5 GKT with 1 psycannon.

 

While a GKSS often is used to claim an objective, a GKT unit is better for an offensive deep strike with the intention of eliminating something or to threaten enemy lines.

 

See, but that's because the goal would be to assault. GKSS actually perform much better at shooting, per points spent. When I say equal points of GKSS are better at shooting than GKTs, that is true no matter what. Still, like you said, depending on the situation GKTs can be more desirable. If worse shooting but better assault is needed, sure go for it. However, if there is a lot of plasma around, GKSS could be a better option for DS / Shoot, then next turn Shoot / Assault. It all depends.