Grey Knights All TDA Armies

[BrotherWasted]

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

 

Sorry, but that's not the case, Inquisitor.

 

When 10 GKSS deep strike (or move) and shoot, they're firing 16 Storm Bolter shots and 4 Psycannon shots.

When 5 GKT deep strike (or move) and shoot, they're firing 8 Storm Bolter shots and 4 Psycannon shots. The same applies when stationary.

 

When both Squads stand still, the GKSS beat the GKT shooting hands down with 8 Psycannon shots. You can't get 8 Psycannon shots into a GKT squad of equal points.

 

Point for point, GKSS are almost exactly twice as effective at shooting as GKTs in pretty much all circumstances.

[Inquisitor Fox]

I meant less shots than it's stationary value.. i.e., the turn that they drop down they count as moving so they're firing less than when they were standing still. Whereas the Terminator squad fires the same number of shots, all the time, no matter what they were doing.

 

I had figured anyone reading the thread knew that point for point you have more stormbolters on power armored guys.. with Terminators you're trading damage output for survivability <_<

 

I apologize for any confusion that may have caused :P

[BLACK BLΠFLY]

Well said indeed.

 

G <_<

[Fred Johnson the 3rd jr]

I had figured anyone reading the thread knew that point for point you have more stormbolters on power armored guys.. with Terminators you're trading damage output for survivability :)

 

See this is what gets me about the GK codex. Since PAGK come standard with stormbolters and power weapons, the damage / survivability trade isn't nearly as good as it would be in another codex, simply because PAGK can dish out far more damage than the usual PA troops choice, in shooting. Don't get me wrong, I love GKTs, but in the shooting phase, their survivability is only better against AP3, worse or equal against anything else, and they shoot significantly less well. Contrast that with Space Wolves - 33 points for a TDA Wolf Guard with a power weapon and storm bolter - 2 Grey Hunters (30 pts) is not going to outperform the Terminator in the shooting phase except when rapid firing (often they will be on the move and may not get to fire at all if the enemy is more than 12" away), and they'll perform worse in CC against most things as they have no power weapons, unless they spend a lot of points for one.

 

On the other hand, GKTs are troops without needing any special character shenanigans, have assault grenades and I6 attacks. Making terminators troops is costly in other codices so that cannot be ignored.

[Inquisitor Fox]

... Don't get me wrong, I love GKTs, but in the shooting phase, their survivability is only better against AP3, worse or equal against anything else, and they shoot significantly less well. ...

I fail to see how a 16.67% chance to die to a bolter shot is worse than a 33.33% chance to die to a bolter shot :) Yes the PAGK have more bodies to absorb the fire, but those same greater losses will impact their shooting ability which as you state is the primary reason to take a PAGK. The Terminators also have a chance to absorb any armor penetrating shot with their invulnerable save without taking a loss to damage output, whereas the PAGK have no such chance. Any man down will begin to take a toll on their shooting, whereas Terminators will maintain their damage output for longer. After a deep strike you are exposed in the open... I'd much rather be in Terminator Armor than Power Armor in that situation ;)

[Something Wycked]

It could be said that the survivability against bolter fire is equal when you consider that PAGK will bring twice as many bodies to the fight to account for them being twice as likely to fail the armor save, and you gain the firepower advantage purely as icing on the cake. :)

[Crynn]

... Don't get me wrong, I love GKTs, but in the shooting phase, their survivability is only better against AP3, worse or equal against anything else, and they shoot significantly less well. ...

I fail to see how a 16.67% chance to die to a bolter shot is worse than a 33.33% chance to die to a bolter shot ;) Yes the PAGK have more bodies to absorb the fire, but those same greater losses will impact their shooting ability which as you state is the primary reason to take a PAGK. The Terminators also have a chance to absorb any armor penetrating shot with their invulnerable save without taking a loss to damage output, whereas the PAGK have no such chance. Any man down will begin to take a toll on their shooting, whereas Terminators will maintain their damage output for longer. After a deep strike you are exposed in the open... I'd much rather be in Terminator Armor than Power Armor in that situation ;)

 

Yes but even with the terminators invuln they still aren't as strong to AP2 fire. The thread has already been through all this.

On that note I made a mistake before before saying PAGKs could be as tough as the terminators in cover against AP 3 which is completely incorrect, it's 2/3rds as durabl;e. My appologies. I am use to taking many strike knights and people asking me why over terminators and then explaining how with cover they are always as tough if not tougher. This is because I use shrouding and bolster to help out. My appologies none the less. When I make a mistake, I'm happy to say so :)

 

Regards,

Crynn

[Inquisitor Fox]

Yes but even with the terminators invuln they still aren't as strong to AP2 fire. The thread has already been through all this.

Except it hasn't though. There has been no empiracal or mathmatical evidence to support this claim. The only origin of this statement is the following:

 

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.

 

Where is the data to back this up? I have seen no comparison of any such point for point shooting, so I can't honestly say the thread has been over that and demonstrated anything other than one persons opinion :)

 

EDIT:

It could be said that the survivability against bolter fire is equal when you consider that PAGK will bring twice as many bodies to the fight to account for them being twice as likely to fail the armor save, and you gain the firepower advantage purely as icing on the cake. ;)

That firepower advantage rapidly drops as you start losing PAGKS to failed saves though. For every one Terminator you lose 2 PAGKs.. meaning that with 1 "loss" the GKT are now at 6 shots and 4 psycannon on the move, where the PAGK are down to 12 and 4. 2 losses brings the numbers to 4 shots and 4 psycannon for the termie, 8 and 4 for the pagk. 3 is 2 shots and 4, compared to 4 and 4. You reach parity at 1 "man" remaining. This advantage rapidly dwindles as you lose men, which means the advantage basically goes away as your numbers start to drop. Or the Terminators maintain a better "percentage" of their firepower where the PAGK squad's output drops significantly faster in terms of number of shots.

 

Another way of looking at it is this:

 

0 "losses" means the PAGK have a 8 bolter shot advantage.

1 "loss" mean the PAGK have a 6 bolter shot advantage.

2" losses" mean the PAGK have a 4 bolter shot advantage.

3 "losses" mean the PAGK have a 2 bolter shot advantage.

4 "losses" mean the PAGK no longer have an advantage.

5 "losses" mean both units are wiped out.

 

As you can see, the superior firepower argument, while being true, rapidly dwindles in significance as losses are accumulated.

[Crynn]

With no respect to anybody I am personally agreeing with what Fred Johnson is saying or trying to say as many people here I don't think are fully grasping what he has been saying. I think some of you guy guys have taken things he has said offensively when no such intention was there and I also believe you have misconstrued his words in many cases making him come across a fool, maybe not intentionally but that is what I am getting. I don't mean any disrespect by anyone I just want Fred to know his arguements have support from others bar himself.

 

Also Fred maybe take a look at top tournament tables with GKs playing on them, you will notice a trend which is no terminator units unless acompanied by thawn. I am probably the highest ranked (as in tournaments attended devided by tournament placings) player in my state and I generally do not like them over other units and it is a trend I am seeing in my country with competitive GK lists, but that could be meta who knows, it's not concrete evidence just a trend I have noticed.

I would argue that an all teminator army is viable but not as competitive as a strike based army. This is because I believe strikes are better in more cases or scenarios over the terminators, that doesn't mean all, it means more. There are definately times where the terminators are what you want.

 

Hopefully I haven't offended anyone here, I think some of us need to not tke offence to things so easily, or maybe thats just me being an aussie and not caring.

 

Peace out brothers,

Crynn

[Crynn]

Yes but even with the terminators invuln they still aren't as strong to AP2 fire. The thread has already been through all this.

Except it hasn't though. There has been no empiracal or mathmatical evidence to support this claim. The only origin of this statement is the following:

 

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.

 

Where is the data to back this up? I have seen no comparison of any such point for point shooting, so I can't honestly say the thread has been over that and demonstrated anything other than one persons opinion :)

 

Yes there has, just read back a bit. I'll provide one set of stats for AP 2 though I think it's common knowledge the terminators aren't as strong here.

 

A BS 4 lascannon has a 55% chance of killing a strike knight outside of cover it has a 36.3% chance to kill a terminator.

You get 2 strike knights for every terminator, eg 10 strikes with 2 psycannons =220 5 terminators with 1 psycannon = 220

 

To kill off all 5 terminator it takes 13.77 shots, to kill off the strike knights it requires on average 18.2 shots, so we can see that it requires more AP2 shots to kill the same points value of strike.

 

If we put them both in cover then it starts to favour the strikes further taking 18.2 lascannon shots to kill the terminator and 36.4 to kill the strikes.

 

Now I am not saying that this makes terminators non viable I am just showing how in one case (as is the case most of the time) terminators are less durable point for point than strikes. Obviously both units have advantages passed this, strikes have more shooting and can combat squad to take multiple objectives/threaten multiple targets, terminators can have a free hammer and i6 and can thus kill opponents before they strike, they are plenty of advantages and disadvantages eaither way. My personal vote is with the strikes, for general durability, offensive power and warp quake, but sometime you need a rock or troops that can attack before the enemy like when charged by str 5 i5 BAs so I se there uses.

 

Regards,

Crynn

[Inquisitor Fox]

@Crynn: I did read the entire thread... twice... and a third time after your post. Your's is the first mathmatical evidence of any kind that I see involving shooting durability. Thank you for providing a basework for the comments concerning Strike Squads durability versus Terminators versus lascannons for this discussion ;)

 

I also posit that a game of Warhammer is between 5 and 7 turns. How often is one unit suffering 14 or more lascannon shots in a single game? :) That's what I thought...

 

In my experience, this is the more telling part of the numbers you presented:

 

A BS 4 lascannon has a 55% chance of killing a strike knight outside of cover it has a 36.3% chance to kill a terminator.

 

Given that in the bound duration of a single game we are not dealing with en masse lascannon shots on a unit, but are instead dealing with odd shots going at infantry after various other tanks and threats are destroyed, I don't think the number of shots to annihilate a unit is as good of a comparison... especially when the comparison of 4 shots difference is what we're looking at. It takes roughly 13.77 shots to kill 5 men, or 18.2 shots to kill ten. This means it takes 2.754 shots to kill one Terminator, or 1.82 shots to kill a PAGK. We are more likely to suffer 2 lascannon shots in the span of a single game, than we are to suffer 3 lascannon shots in the span of a single game (given typical target priority of lascannons). This seems to still put the advantage to the Terminators, especially considering the diminishing effects of the firepower advantage to the Strike Squad as I demonstrated.

 

Essentially, my economist and statistican brain is interpreting the numbers and not finding the benefits large enough to want to go with the Strike Squad for in the open durability. Now in cover, the situation changes entirely! In cover I agree with the Strike Squad entirely being superior... but not in the open.

[Something Wycked]

As you can see, the superior firepower argument, while being true, rapidly dwindles in significance as losses are accumulated.

The question then revolves around tactics and the opponent. Does your opponent bring a lot of AP3/2 weaponry? Is there a lot of cover on the table that you are able to use effectively? Do you have a mobility advantage such that you have effected an asymmetrical fight in your favor, putting your firepower to use while limiting what you receive in return?

 

Or are you just spending the extra points on the Terminators and letting them waltz around in the open because that's where they're superior to Strikes?

[BLACK BLΠFLY]

Missiles are very popular now (e.g., SW razor spam). An all GK TDA army has a big advantage over a predominantly heavy GK SS army in this regard. Of course that is just one case though in terms of popular armies. Most of the analysis so far presented has been purely in terms of shooting (at & against). If we take a look at melee then you'd see that GKT have a clear advantage over SS. I prefer GKT over SS because I find them to be a more well rounded unit in general. SS are best utilized sitting on an objective and shooting. GKT can also sit on an objective and shoot though plus they have other advantages as well.

 

G :)

[Fred Johnson the 3rd jr]

Where is the data to back this up? I have seen no comparison of any such point for point shooting, so I can't honestly say the thread has been over that and demonstrated anything other than one persons opinion :)

 

You are right, I did not go through the math in this thread. No one was contesting the math, I thought, just it's real world value. Or some such. So I didn't think I needed to write it all out. Also, since a Strike Squad member costs exactly half as much as a Terminator, it is pretty easy to figure out. At least roughly. For example, Terminators fail normal saves 1/6 of the time, GKSS 1/3. Since 2 GKSS need to be killed to equal the cost of 1 termie, or to put it a better way, a GKSS is only worth half a termie, you multiple the GKSS failed save probability by it's value relative to a termie: 1/3 * 1/2. That equals 1/6 - same as the termie. Equally as durable to AP4-AP6. For termies to win out on durability, they have to be more than twice as survivable as PAGK. This only happens with AP3.

 

 

 

0 "losses" means the PAGK have a 8 bolter shot advantage.

1 "loss" mean the PAGK have a 6 bolter shot advantage.

2" losses" mean the PAGK have a 4 bolter shot advantage.

3 "losses" mean the PAGK have a 2 bolter shot advantage.

4 "losses" mean the PAGK no longer have an advantage.

5 "losses" mean both units are wiped out.

 

As you can see, the superior firepower argument, while being true, rapidly dwindles in significance as losses are accumulated.

 

Don't forget the ability of GKSS to stand still and pump out DOUBLE the psycannon shots. This will be true for almost the whole time the squad is in existence, as no sane person would kill off their psycannon toting marines early. So if you get them into cover and hunker down, you have a huge advantage over a GKT squad. Extra bolter shots can certainly help, but 4 extra psycannon shots help usually more so....

[Fred Johnson the 3rd jr]

Also Fred maybe take a look at top tournament tables with GKs playing on them, you will notice a trend which is no terminator units ...

 

The net consensus by super duper competitive folk is that GK Terminators aren't worth it. Partly for the reasons we went over (GKSS better in more cases) but I bet mostly because MSU (Multiple Small Units) is what most often wins. And GKT don't do MSU well since they cost so much more and have no cheap and dedicated transport. People mech up, spam henchmen and/or small squads of Strikers or Purifiers... blah blah blah. I have a meched up army with Space Wolves already, so I have no desire to do it again. However, I recognize that usually MSU Mech is almost always the way to go with marines if the sole goal is to win.

 

Now people have had great success with Paladins in a force, which has surprised some, and is a bit of a counter-argument to the MSU business above, but I seriously doubt that a Terminator heavy force rather than a Paladin deathstar, will do well at a very high level of gameplay. It will be viable enough for me since I am not trying to win it all, but I recognize it is not the best use of points.

[nurglez]

So do you feel that the main benefit of draigo wing is the pally deathstar? It sure is awesome, and fun to use too :)

 

This thread seems to have gone off topic from if terminators are viable to are terminators equal to strikes...

 

I feel that all of the "pure" terminator armies have their uses, and can do well. Of course, for logan wing, it is best to add some long fangs (partly due to logan's abilities, and also because massed missiles are useful against almost all lists apart from "pure" terminator lists) and maybe some scouts for back field distractions, or some TWC along too. I haven't played with a deathwing list yet, but I'm pretty sure they work best with bike/speeder support as well.

 

Paladin's and terminators in a grey knight force work best when supported by other units, however, there are some of us, who just LOVE using a whole army of terminators. There is something very satisfying to put down a very small, even more elite then space marines army. Where you are vastly out numbered, yet still win, or even just have fun taking as many down with you as you can.

 

Is a terminator only force viable, yes, is it considered top tier, no. Will you have fun playing it, yes :D

 

Edited for spelling ^_^

[Crynn]

Is a terminator only force viable, yes, it is considered top tier, no. Will you have fun playing it, yes ^_^

 

+1 Pretty much exactly how I see it.

[BLACK BLΠFLY]

I beat a Black Templar army in the Ard Boyz prelim last month with a GK TDA list. The only real threat was from a Vindicator but it is just as much a threat and even more so versus PA GK. it was a killpoint mission and I was always able to stay comfortably ahead on kps each turn. The BT player was no slouch either. The second game was versus Necrons - another win. These two wins alone were more than enough to ensure I'd be invited to the semi finals. I've been playing all TDA lists all along and do very well with only one loss and none of the wins were versus any scrubs. I prefer the ability to move and shoot to full effect when necessary to having to play more conservatively.

 

G ^_^

[Crynn]

I beat a Black Templar army in the Ard Boyz prelim last month with a GK TDA list. The only real threat was from a Vindicator but it is just as much a threat and even more so versus PA GK. it was a killpoint mission and I was always able to stay comfortably ahead on kps each turn. The BT player was no slouch either. The second game was versus Necrons - another win. These two wins alone were more than enough to ensure I'd be invited to the semi finals. I've been playing all TDA lists all along and do very well with only one loss and none of the wins were versus any scrubs. I prefer the ability to move and shoot to full effect when necessary to having to play more conservatively.

 

G ^_^

 

How would a vindicator have been more of a threat to power armoured grey knights?

 

Why would you have to play conservatively when the strikes knights even when moving put out more fire power than your terminators becasue your 'full effect' is less effective that their sub optimal shooting mode being moving and shooting. Don't get me worng I am not against TDA armies but the two points you raised are two points where the strikes would have performed better in.

 

Regards,

Crynn

[Inquisitor Fox]

It is a mathematical consequence of smaller base sizes that more models would be covered by the same blast template. I.e., the Vindicator hits more PAGK than GKT in the same 5" template (25mm bases vs 40mm bases). Ergo, the Vindicator would kill more models of the PAGK and thus be more of a threat. In addition, the PAGK do not have an invulnerable save to try and mitigate the damage.

 

If you argue that cover helps the PAGK be better defensively, you must remain in cover to get the benefit. This is a more conservative play style as you are hampering your ability to move. Terminators do not require cover to protect them as much, and thus are a bit more offensive and able to move. In addition, if you are trying to maximize the firepower of the PAGK, you likewise are not able to move where you are able to maintain movement with the GKT.

 

Two very different playstyles ^_^

[Crynn]

It is a mathematical consequence of smaller base sizes that more models would be covered by the same blast template. I.e., the Vindicator hits more PAGK than GKT in the same 5" template (25mm bases vs 40mm bases). Ergo, the Vindicator would kill more models of the PAGK and thus be more of a threat. In addition, the PAGK do not have an invulnerable save to try and mitigate the damage.

 

If you argue that cover helps the PAGK be better defensively, you must remain in cover to get the benefit. This is a more conservative play style as you are hampering your ability to move. Terminators do not require cover to protect them as much, and thus are a bit more offensive and able to move. In addition, if you are trying to maximize the firepower of the PAGK, you likewise are not able to move where you are able to maintain movement with the GKT.

 

Two very different playstyles :tu:

 

You keep missing the point, the strikes are tougher against a vindicator including the fact the terminators have a 5+ save because that save does not make up for having twice the bodies! If it was objectives I would imagine that the strikes would be split into units of five and if not the simple fact of them spreading out would mean it would get no more than it would from the terminators, also their return fire would be twice as likely to kill the vindicator meaning it might not even decide to get within their psycannons range. The point is the strikes are tougher against a vindi or any ap 2 whether it be my 20 lascannons before which said you will never see, rapid fire plasma guns and melta guns, the strikes we be tougher. It is fact.

 

Regards,

 

Crynn

[BLACK BLΠFLY]

It sounds like you have whatever you need when you need it - nice.

 

The terms are better due to the 5+ save. And as our Inquisitor stated it's harder to get the big blast over as many 40mm bases as the 25mm bases. There was not much terrain on the table as well and the Vindi had PotMS.

 

G ^_^

[Interrogator-Chaplain Ezra]

*popcorn*

 

No, no, keep going. This is giving me food for thought.

[Fred Johnson the 3rd jr]

Is a terminator only force viable, yes, is it considered top tier, no. Will you have fun playing it, yes :P

 

WORD. :D

 

Nice summary.

[breng77]

Just some math to think about for this I went with

 

5 Termies (4 Halberds, Psycannon, Hammer) 225 points

 

VS

 

10 Strikes (Hammer, 2 Psycannons, Psybolts) 250 points

 

As that is how I would probably run these squads if you wanted more point equivalence you could either add psybolts to the termies, or drop it form the strikes.

 

Shooting against MEQ

 

Termies kill .008 marines per point

Strikes kill either .013 (moving) or .017 (not moving) per point

 

so strikes are 61 -108% better at shooting against marines.

 

Wounds in CC against marines

 

Charging

Termies deal 5.25 wounds (0.023 per point)

Strikes deal 6.36 wounds (0.025 per point)

 

Getting Charged

Termies deal 3.5 wounds (0.016 per point)

Strikes deal 3.39 wounds (0.014 per point)

 

So charging strikes are 9% better per point, getting charged termies are 14.75% better against marines. This shows that strikes have more to be gained from charging (due to the bodies) and that termies will fair better in drawn out combats due to higher number of base attacks.

 

Durability Vs shooting (By 10 Grey Hunters with 2 Melta guns)

Terminators take on average 1.185 wounds, Strikes take an average of 2.

So this kills an average of 53.3 points worth of termies (likely only 40), where as it kills 50 points worth of strikes, strikes are ~6.7% better.

 

Durability in CC (vs 10 Grey Hunters with one Power fist)

If the Gks Charge

Termies take an average of 1.06 wounds (47.5 points worth) Strikes take an average of 3.08 (77 points worth)

 

IF the Grey hunters charge The termies take 1.3 wounds (58.75 points), and the strikes still take 3.08 (77)

 

So if charging termies are ~ 38.4% more durable, and if charged the number drops to 23.8%. This is due to the termies killing opponents prior to the opponents getting to swing.

 

Given that this is only a small sample of game situations, but from this I can conjecture that it appears that.

1.) Strikes are better at shooting, in almost every case.

2.) Terminators are better in close combat against MEQ, I don't think either fights hordes very well, but the strikes have a small advantage in that area.

3.)Strikes are a little mroe durable in the shooting phase, but not by a ton.

 

Other considerations to take into account is that strikes have more useful psychic abilities (both have hammer hand, but warp quake is better than nothing.) Strikes can take transports for cheaper, and at 10 strong can combat squad. All in all though both choices are realatively similar as far as overall effectiveness.