Should Paladins Be Used In 1850pts Game?

[Red Lost Soldier]

I take both GKT and GKSS in my lists, and placed 5th in the last competitive tournament I played. To be honest, I found the GKT incredibly useful. I have run Paladins before, but in my footslogging lists they die just as quick due to instant deaths. Without my GKT, my GKSS would be lost. They provide the counter charge threat that GKSS simply lack, to put it blunt, GKSS suck in combat while GKT rock.

 

5 GKT, 1 Psycannon: 225

5 2+ Wounds, 10 SB Shots, 4 Psycannon shots, 10 Attacks (15 on the Charge).

 

10 Strikes, 2 Psycannon: 220

10 3+ Wounds, 20 SB Shots, 4-8 Psycannon Shots, 11 Attacks (21 on the Charge), Sweeping Advance, Warp Quake.

 

Unless you *need* Halberds, or face a lot of AP3 (and not AP1-2), there's no comparison. Both Squads score, can Deep Strike, and the Strikes have the added benefit of being able to ride in Transports you don't need to purchase a Henchman squad to get.

 

While not needing halberds, there is a good reason GKSS don't take them when GKT/Paladins/Purifiers do, cost and usage. You also get the Daemonhammer for free on the GKT and LD9 across the board (very valuable in case of perils.) Lets be honest, who doesn't take a vehicle for their GKSS, or psybolts? Changes the points cost a bit, I never see any lists with GKSS like the example you mentioned. GKT also provide for me a place for my GKGM to sit. Strikes often have to buy a transport, which doubles their kill points, and quite often doesn't last as long. GKT are fine without a ride.

 

Strikes are (overall) more durable than an equivalent cost of Terminators.

 

5 2+ wounds are mathematically are identical to 10 3+ saves, as all other things being equal you should fail twice as many 3+ saves as 2+ saves. Cover, AP3/2 and power weapons change the equations greatly, each side gaining small advantages but I think durability is quite close really.

 

I do agree that GKSS shoot better than GKT, no contest. GKT fight better, as they have invulnerable saves and free weapon swaps. They do different jobs, hence why I take both. Sum is more than the whole of its parts. My own personal experience with Paladins has shown them to be less useful to me than GKT. I win games somehow despite this. I'm not sure where the mathematical proof of GKT's supposed inferiority is. I find GKT tend to stick to objectives better than GKSS, but maybe that is because I disdain the use of Rhinos/Razorbacks.

 

It may not count for this discussion, but GKT models beat GKSS models in my book, even with the new plastics.

 

When it comes to TGS, I find the most useful one beind Scouts. I can remember many games that have been decided by a flanking attack on a vulnerable target by GKI/Dreadknight or even GKSS.

 

GKT and Paladins can both fit in 1850, the diversity and flexibility of our codex is one of its many fantastic features. Paladins have many strengths compared to GKT, but if you want them scoring they quickly become considerably more expensive.

[Crynn]

I take both GKT and GKSS in my lists, and placed 5th in the last competitive tournament I played. To be honest, I found the GKT incredibly useful. I have run Paladins before, but in my footslogging lists they die just as quick due to instant deaths. Without my GKT, my GKSS would be lost. They provide the counter charge threat that GKSS simply lack, to put it blunt, GKSS suck in combat while GKT rock.

 

5 GKT, 1 Psycannon: 225

5 2+ Wounds, 10 SB Shots, 4 Psycannon shots, 10 Attacks (15 on the Charge).

 

10 Strikes, 2 Psycannon: 220

10 3+ Wounds, 20 SB Shots, 4-8 Psycannon Shots, 11 Attacks (21 on the Charge), Sweeping Advance, Warp Quake.

 

Unless you *need* Halberds, or face a lot of AP3 (and not AP1-2), there's no comparison. Both Squads score, can Deep Strike, and the Strikes have the added benefit of being able to ride in Transports you don't need to purchase a Henchman squad to get.

 

While not needing halberds, there is a good reason GKSS don't take them when GKT/Paladins/Purifiers do, cost and usage. You also get the Daemonhammer for free on the GKT and LD9 across the board (very valuable in case of perils.) Lets be honest, who doesn't take a vehicle for their GKSS, or psybolts? Changes the points cost a bit, I never see any lists with GKSS like the example you mentioned. GKT also provide for me a place for my GKGM to sit. Strikes often have to buy a transport, which doubles their kill points, and quite often doesn't last as long. GKT are fine without a ride.

 

Strikes are (overall) more durable than an equivalent cost of Terminators.

 

5 2+ wounds are mathematically are identical to 10 3+ saves, as all other things being equal you should fail twice as many 3+ saves as 2+ saves. Cover, AP3/2 and power weapons change the equations greatly, each side gaining small advantages but I think durability is quite close really.

 

I do agree that GKSS shoot better than GKT, no contest. GKT fight better, as they have invulnerable saves and free weapon swaps. They do different jobs, hence why I take both. Sum is more than the whole of its parts. My own personal experience with Paladins has shown them to be less useful to me than GKT. I win games somehow despite this. I'm not sure where the mathematical proof of GKT's supposed inferiority is. I find GKT tend to stick to objectives better than GKSS, but maybe that is because I disdain the use of Rhinos/Razorbacks.

 

It may not count for this discussion, but GKT models beat GKSS models in my book, even with the new plastics.

 

When it comes to TGS, I find the most useful one beind Scouts. I can remember many games that have been decided by a flanking attack on a vulnerable target by GKI/Dreadknight or even GKSS.

 

GKT and Paladins can both fit in 1850, the diversity and flexibility of our codex is one of its many fantastic features. Paladins have many strengths compared to GKT, but if you want them scoring they quickly become considerably more expensive.

 

You asked where the mathamatical evidence was, well you already quoted it in your post. Also saying you came 5th at a competetive tournament is no justification that terminators are superior or even as good as strikes. Also I run strikes without psybolt ammo or a transport so there goes that point as well. Having acces to effective psybolt ammo and a transport isn't a negative as much as you have tried to suggest it is also you terminators aren't better in combat infact they lose to strikes in combat on more occasions than they win. if the terminators charge they win however if they don't charge or are charged they will be whiped out before the strikes.

Terminators have other dissadvantages such as not being able to combat squad into two scoring nits unless you pay 400+ points for 10, 5 wounds puts wounds on a psycannon in strike you need nine or 10 if you want to target both. the strikes are all tougher due to cover meaning low AP weapons will hit your terminators and strikes with the same effect. 2+ to wound 4+ cover save, strikes have twice the bodies, against such weapons it is also harder to cause the strikes to take a moral check for loosing 25% of the unit.

 

There is no mathamatical evidence to support terminators unless the specific situation requires halberds eg you get attacked by 7 incubi with assault grenades and you are going to loose every model so you need the initiative boost to save yourself or strike at the same time.

 

If you are taking terminators for competetive reasons you must be wanting Thawn otherwise just take strikes. If you fell different that is fine and you are more than welcome to take what ever you like. Just don't do so under the guise you are doing it to make your army stronger.

 

The reason Paladins are dying so easily in your list is because it's foot slogging and you have no transports so all the anti tank weapons are targeting them. Your hatred of rhinos and razorbacks means paladins are not going to work as well in one of your lists.

 

Regards,

Crynn

[Lady_Canoness]

The reason Paladins are dying so easily in your list is because it's foot slogging and you have no transports so all the anti tank weapons are targeting them. Your hatred of rhinos and razorbacks means paladins are not going to work as well in one of your lists.

 

I disagree.

 

Firstly, I despise taking Rhinos and Razorbacks for Grey Knights as I don't play my army like they were space marines with force weapons and storm bolters. Secondly, I run 5 paladins at 1500pts and I have no thoughts about doing otherwise. Thirdly, math goes out the window for me in place of tactics - sure, he might have anti-tank weapons, but that doesn't mean I'm gonna plonk my units right down in front of him and start math-hammering. To me, experience means more in this game than math and theory ever could.

 

Terminators as troops are a strong unit with tactical flexibility - a flexibility that I, and likely others as well, think makes them as useful (or more useful) than Strikers. Tactically, I expose my troops to as little fire as possible via deployment options (since we have lots of those in our book) before engaging, and a 2+ save makes all the difference in that regard.

 

My Paladins are usually alive at the end of the reason because I don't 'foot-slog' across the table - instead I Deep Strike with the aid of servo-skulls, outflank thanks to TGS, hold them back field until a librarian can summon them into position, or otherwise take fire that would otherwise be hitting my more vulnerable units.

 

Believe it or not, there is more to Grey Knights than rhinos, razorbacks, and ingnoring terminator armour.

[Crynn]

The reason Paladins are dying so easily in your list is because it's foot slogging and you have no transports so all the anti tank weapons are targeting them. Your hatred of rhinos and razorbacks means paladins are not going to work as well in one of your lists.

 

I disagree.

 

Firstly, I despise taking Rhinos and Razorbacks for Grey Knights as I don't play my army like they were space marines with force weapons and storm bolters. Secondly, I run 5 paladins at 1500pts and I have no thoughts about doing otherwise. Thirdly, math goes out the window for me in place of tactics - sure, he might have anti-tank weapons, but that doesn't mean I'm gonna plonk my units right down in front of him and start math-hammering. To me, experience means more in this game than math and theory ever could.

 

Terminators as troops are a strong unit with tactical flexibility - a flexibility that I, and likely others as well, think makes them as useful (or more useful) than Strikers. Tactically, I expose my troops to as little fire as possible via deployment options (since we have lots of those in our book) before engaging, and a 2+ save makes all the difference in that regard.

 

My Paladins are usually alive at the end of the reason because I don't 'foot-slog' across the table - instead I Deep Strike with the aid of servo-skulls, outflank thanks to TGS, hold them back field until a librarian can summon them into position, or otherwise take fire that would otherwise be hitting my more vulnerable units.

 

Believe it or not, there is more to Grey Knights than rhinos, razorbacks, and ingnoring terminator armour.

 

Well considering I have no rhinos or razorbacks in my 1750pt GK list I am very aware of this however the rest of your post actually has no substance at all. It is asll I think, in my experience, you provide no evidence to anything you write. I never said Palaidns were bad without vehicles they are just more effective with them. I deep strike Paladins as well and they are great for it however when you land you still are open to being shot and if you have no vehicles they now have a target, it doesn't make them bad it just comes down to armour saturation. You say that the termiantors ar flexible but why are they more flexible? Just saying they are isn't so. having a 2+ save is fine but with half the ammount of guys in the unit you are still weaker to fire than the strikes. Experience may mean more to you than math as you have said however this doesn't change the fact that the math still is what it is, even if less important that experience it still impacts every game.

 

Regards,

Crynn

[Lady_Canoness]

Well considering I have no rhinos or razorbacks in my 1750pt GK list I am very aware of this however the rest of your post actually has no substance at all. It is asll I think, in my experience, you provide no evidence to anything you write. I never said Palaidns were bad without vehicles they are just more effective with them. I deep strike Paladins as well and they are great for it however when you land you still are open to being shot and if you have no vehicles they now have a target, it doesn't make them bad it just comes down to armour saturation. You say that the termiantors ar flexible but why are they more flexible? Just saying they are isn't so. having a 2+ save is fine but with half the ammount of guys in the unit you are still weaker to fire than the strikes. Experience may mean more to you than math as you have said however this doesn't change the fact that the math still is what it is, even if less important that experience it still impacts every game.

 

Regards,

Crynn

 

How about this for substance:

 

Your conclusions are based on the only constant in 40k: numbers. My conclusions, and the conclusions of others, are based on the variable in 40k: choices made by the player. Numberwise, I am sure the Strikers look more appealing, but since Warhammer has more to it that comparing lists and deducing the victor mathematically, I would say that player choice factors in a lot more than unit numbers.

My evidence: often times gamers in my club will swap armies with their opponent just to see what it is like from the other side of the table. When playing with the other person's army, units that shine for one player with be different than units that shine for another based on tactical preferences. The unit with math on its side isn't always the best. Terminators, for what I've seen (and this is evidence offered by the player, who is the variable in every army) stand just as tall - if not taller - that Strikers as their 2+ save, varrier weapons, and invulnerables make them a force to be reckoned with. Math cannot account for luck either (sometimes rolls can be THAT bad), and every gamer should know how much a difference luck can make.

Deployed properly using the battlefield to your advantage, a unit of Terminators or Strikers should be able to engage one unit at a time (lets remember that it is players, not math, that alloy such tactics as engaging a small portion of the enemy's army with the entirity of your own) in which case the durability of a terminator squad is preferable to the MEQ Strikers.

MEQ killing weapons are more numerous than terminator killing weapons, and can often kill in larger numbers.

Face down a squad of Dark Reapers, Guard Basilisks, Leman Russ, and others, and the durability of terminators will be even more valuable then before, as let us not forget the amount of long-range squad-killing AP3 exceeds the amount of long-range AP2 (even though those plasma cannons seem to show up more often than not).

[Gentlemanloser]

Your conclusions are based on the only constant in 40k: numbers. My conclusions, and the conclusions of others, are based on the variable in 40k: choices made by the player.

 

I'm sorry, but this statement is so biased it's shocking.

 

Do you think that we don't play 40k as well?

 

How can our conclusions also *not* come from the 'variable', just like yours and others?

 

MEQ killing weapons are more numerous than terminator killing weapons

 

And that really depends on the opponents you face. If your opponents are very 'meta' heavy, and run lots of Melta, then that's 'Terminator Killing' heavy.

 

5 2+ wounds are mathematically are identical to 10 3+ saves, as all other things being equal you should fail twice as many 3+ saves as 2+ saves. Cover, AP3/2 and power weapons change the equations greatly, each side gaining small advantages but I think durability is quite close really.

 

Yeah, it's becuase of those, and looking at durability across the whole AP range, that makes Strikes more durable. Someone posted the maths on this in one of the older threads, much easier to digest than anything I could manage! :P

[Archon_77]

Let's stay civil folks. That being said, I think the main benefits to terms over strikers are the free S9 hammer, and the 4 shots even If I move psycannon.

[RedemptionNL]

Let's stay civil folks. That being said, I think the main benefits to terms over strikers are the free S9 hammer, and the 4 shots even If I move psycannon.

 

Note that a 10 man Striker squad with 2 Psycannon also has 4 Psycannon shots if they move. And that doubles to 8 shots if they stay stationary.

 

But basically, when comparing an equal cost of Strikes vs Terminators, the benefits of Strikes over Terminators are:

- Up to twice as much firepower.

- 1 to 6 more attacks in close combat.

- Warp Quake.

- More transport options.

- More durable against anything but AP3 weapons and some effects that cause damage based on the number of models.

- Can Combat Squad into 2 scoring units.

- Easier to distinguish from your Paladins.

 

And benefits of Terminators over Strikes:

- Free/cheaper special close combat weapons.

- Leadership 9 on all models.

- Smaller footprint when Deep Striking.

- Ability to upgrade to a larger, more expensive squad which can then combat squad, taking up less Troops FOC slots.

- Look cooler.

 

Also note that a Daemon Hammer on a S4 model is S8 without Hammerhand, and S10 with Hammerhand, as the extra Strength is applied before any other modifiers (see the Hammerhand power on page 25).

[Red Lost Soldier]

You asked where the mathamatical evidence was, well you already quoted it in your post.

That GKSS shoot better point for point than GKT? This is known. GKT hit just as hard as GKSS in combat, but hit first and have invulnerable saves. This is useful against everything that is I5 or less, which I would wager is the vast majority of the games models. I supposed mathematically they put out the same damage in combat also, but how do you factor initiative and invulnerable saves into the equation? You could theoretically calculate every enemy unit hitting both and see the differences. I've found my GKSS getting hammered in combat and my GKT winning, mostly due to the inherant differences that GKT bring.

 

Also saying you came 5th at a competetive tournament is no justification that terminators are superior or even as good as strikes.

Here I was responding to the notion put forward that no one takes GKT to competitive tournaments and wins with them. I managed to take some with me and win 5/6 games, not saying it proves GKT are superior or equal just saying that they do see action at tournaments and do perform well, if only for me.

 

Also I run strikes without psybolt ammo or a transport so there goes that point as well.

My apologies, I stand corrected. Does this not invalidate either of our opinions in the last point and this though, about people taking certain units to tournaments and winning with them being essentially meaningless?

 

Having acces to effective psybolt ammo and a transport isn't a negative as much as you have tried to suggest it is

Nothing optional is a negative by definition. Apologies if I inferred that. But once you take a transport it greatly changes annihilation conditions.

 

also you terminators aren't better in combat infact they lose to strikes in combat on more occasions than they win. if the terminators charge they win however if they don't charge or are charged they will be whiped out before the strikes.

Ignoring charges as this gives a inherant advantage that changes results, GKT versus GKSS is about the same. GKT (with halberds) strike first, and have saves, but the GKSS lose less combat potential with each model lost. It is when comparing them to other units that I find the I6 brings the greatest advantage.

 

Terminators have other dissadvantages such as not being able to combat squad into two scoring nits unless you pay 400+ points for 10, 5 wounds puts wounds on a psycannon in strike you need nine or 10 if you want to target both. the strikes are all tougher due to cover meaning low AP weapons will hit your terminators and strikes with the same effect. 2+ to wound 4+ cover save, strikes have twice the bodies, against such weapons it is also harder to cause the strikes to take a moral check for loosing 25% of the unit.

GKT do have disadvantages compared to GKSS, I mentioned GKSS benefiting more from cover. GKSS need 8 wounds to be taking a save on psycannon (assuming 2 psycannon and Justicar), compared to GKT 5, but as the GKSS will fail their saves twice as often as GKT, mathematically here the GKSS lose their first psycannon first but the GKT only have the one to lose. Also once you get above 8 wounds in a single salvo the GKSS suffer more, being 4 times more likely to lose a psycannon and potentially losing LD9 from the Justicar dying. LD8 means GKSS run rather more often than I like.

 

There is no mathamatical evidence to support terminators unless the specific situation requires halberds eg you get attacked by 7 incubi with assault grenades and you are going to loose every model so you need the initiative boost to save yourself or strike at the same time.

How about being attacked by DE witches, FC marines, bloodletters, or any of the multitude of I5 models in the game? Striking first means less attacks and wounds on your GKT compared to your GKSS. Even striking at same time versus I6 like genestealers has saved my GKT compared to smashing my GKSS.

 

If you are taking terminators for competetive reasons you must be wanting Thawn otherwise just take strikes. If you fell different that is fine and you are more than welcome to take what ever you like. Just don't do so under the guise you are doing it to make your army stronger.

I guess we have different notions of competitve. I do take my GKT to be more competitve that another GKSS squad in their place, and have yet to try Thawn so have no experience to comment on him. Not a fan of his rules on paper though. I disagree that there is only one way to be competitave with any unit in our codex, something your list would assert.

 

The reason Paladins are dying so easily in your list is because it's foot slogging and you have no transports so all the anti tank weapons are targeting them. Your hatred of rhinos and razorbacks means paladins are not going to work as well in one of your lists.

I fully acknowledged that in my post. Didn't say Paladins are bad, just that I tried them and due to the army I take, they don't work for me and that GKT perform their duties better in my situation. You are correct here and my not using transports will affect the outcome. I don't hate transports, just prefer this particular army without them. Something I'm sure you can appreciate.

 

 

I acknowledge that mathematically comparing only damage output the GKSS win hands down in the shooting department, and by virtue of having 1 more attack standing still slightly win out in the pure damage output (ignoring initiative). They don't win in having the free/cheaper weapon swaps, the leadership and the invlunerable saves. The latter compenents being important enough for me to take them, and indicating to me that GKSS and not simply better than GKT in every way. I guess I was wrong after all, mathematically GKSS do look better in every way, just there are harder to quantify differences that I find make GKT worthwhile as a unit choice in of themselves.

[RedemptionNL]

That GKSS shoot better point for point than GKT? This is known. GKT hit just as hard as GKSS in combat, but hit first and have invulnerable saves. This is useful against everything that is I5 or less, which I would wager is the vast majority of the games models. I supposed mathematically they put out the same damage in combat also, but how do you factor initiative and invulnerable saves into the equation? You could theoretically calculate every enemy unit hitting both and see the differences. I've found my GKSS getting hammered in combat and my GKT winning, mostly due to the inherant differences that GKT bring.

 

Actually, the invulnerable save is a moot point, as the Strike Knights have twice as many wounds, and unless the Terminators carry Swords, the invulnerable save only saves 1/3rd of armour ignoring wounds, which puts the Strikes in the advantage.

 

And for I4 models, Halberds only make a difference to I4, 5 and 6. Against all other Initiative values, Swords are better either due to cheaper point cost or improved invulnerable saves. Of course, I4-6 still pretty much includes all the assault units except Orks, Thunderhammer/Powerfist wielders and some characters.

 

So the most important difference is that Strikes are generally more resilient against shooting, and have more shooting themselves, while Terminators are generally more resilient in close combat.

[number6]

Using basic statistics to determine what differentiates unit capabilities is smart.

 

Using only those statistics to declare with finality which units are "better" than others is ignorant.

 

As even the rabid supporters of Pallies and Strikers have been saying: selecting these units over other units (usually GKTs in this discussion) alters the types of valid unit selections you can make to create a competitive list.

 

Selecting the GKGM or Draigo (or Mordrak) as your HQ informs and directs the types of units you should also select in order to maintain a holistic, self-supporting, synergistic army list.

 

The reason the GKT haters continue hating is because it has never once occurred to them to attempt using a list without Draigo, or without a GKGM. As in: using the whole GK codex to see what is possible.

 

There are more things in Codex: Grey Knights, Crynn and Gentlemanloser, than are dreamt of in your philosophy.

 

Taking Draigo and/or a GM makes taking Pallies more valid for a list than if you elect NOT to do so.

 

There is far more to making a cohesive and competitive army list than basic algebra. If you choose to limit yourself to a fraction of the codex's potential, you are most welcome to it. But the absolute insistence upon your ways being the only ways is at least mildly insulting.

 

I mean, I'm glad your tournament results "prove" everything with finality for you. Therefore I suppose my recent tournament success with GKs (2nd place) and my winning record at my game club count for nothing? Y'all should know that I never use a GM, and only rarely run a Draigo list for yuks.

 

Different strokes for different folks. :lol:

[breng77]

I guess when I look at termies Vs paladins it comes down to this. For their points Paladins are better unless you want a scoring unit (i.e. you need to take Draigo/GM) Paladins are better at shooting and CC than standard termies. Having played both I do agree that paladins are subject to instant death, but the ability to take 2 psycannons in a 5 man unit is huge IMO. Whereas 5 termies to me always seem like a psycannon and 4 guys who many games don't do much. IN addition WS 5 is a huge upgrade (IMO), many other dedicated assault units are WS 5 and so you are more durable against those units. The biggest advantages for termies are 1.) Natural Scoring. 2.) Deployment options (if they have a GM they can gain scouts etc. IN Dawn they can deploy on the board where as Paladins (without draigo) cannot.

 

As to Strikes vs. termies, that for me comes more down to your list, and playstyle. While Stikes are "more optimal" (niether unit is all that good in the assault for the points you spend, and strikes shoot a bit better.), I can see uses for both, espeically in missile heavy environments termies are more survivable on foot

[Lady_Canoness]

I'm sorry, but this statement is so biased it's shocking.

 

Do you think that we don't play 40k as well?

 

How can our conclusions also *not* come from the 'variable', just like yours and others?

 

Because when someone says, 'look at the numbers' as their primary argument, then you might as well not play the game. Anyone with a calculator could come to the same conclusion, I'm sure.

 

+1 for Number6 as well - that was very well said.

[Gentlemanloser]

The reason the GKT haters continue hating is because it has never once occurred to them to attempt using a list without Draigo, or without a GKGM. As in: using the whole GK codex to see what is possible.

 

Wow. Generalisation much?

 

I've run Coteaz lists with Pallies and no Termies. I've done the same with Crowe.

 

I'm afraid you're terribly wrong there Number6. :D

 

Really, the majority of anti-anti-GKT (pro-GKT? ^_^) debate seems to be sweeping generalisations and ad homenien about the players skills or list building attitudes.

 

Can we move away form that please? It's not helpful and it's not constructive. :)

 

Because when someone says, 'look at the numbers' as their primary argument, then you might as well not play the game. Anyone with a calculator could come to the same conclusion, I'm sure.

 

I once had an old GKT squad that never rolled anything but a 6 to save. I frequently lose entire GKT squads to 4+ 1's to save from Lasguns. Random is random. (That was rather a comment aobut an earlier post, as tactics are difficult to debate on the internet, as it comes down to perfect move countering perfect move, and my list is better than yours...)

 

There are more things in Codex: Grey Knights, Crynn and Gentlemanloser, than are dreamt of in your philosophy.

 

I'd ask you to retract that Number6, you know nothing of me, my philospohy, or how I play. I've put up discussions and lists aobut using GKTs (with 6th in mind), and I explore mostly all the otpions fromt he 'dex. Apart from henchmen, who although they bring 'power' to builds, I've no desire to use, form a purely astchtic PoV.

[number6]

I'd ask you to retract that Number6, you know nothing of me, my philospohy, or how I play. I've put up discussions and lists aobut using GKTs (with 6th in mind), and I explore mostly all the otpions fromt he 'dex. Apart from henchmen, who although they bring 'power' to builds, I've no desire to use, form a purely astchtic PoV.

All I know is that in this discussion, you've hardlined: "GKTs should never be used, period." If that isn't a limited philosophy, I don't know what is.

[Gentlemanloser]

So for me, Pallies over GKT any day.

 

Unless you're planning something specific. /shrug

 

As for the 'something specific' I was refered to (not all inclusive);

 

Themed lists

Ghost Knights

Builds for 6th Edition CC

 

etc.

 

But I'm definitley of the line of thought that *generally* GKT sohuldn't be used. They're badly internally balanced, and both Pallies (with assistance form the freed up points) and Strikes *generally* out perform them.

 

But in return I've been subjected to;

 

because it has never once occurred to them to attempt using a list without Draigo, or without a GKGM.

 

There are more things in Codex: Grey Knights, Crynn and Gentlemanloser, than are dreamt of in your philosophy.

 

Your conclusions are based on the only constant in 40k: numbers. My conclusions, and the conclusions of others, are based on the variable in 40k: choices made by the player.

 

Where as I've been discussing the Codex and the Units, not the players behind the discussion.

 

Edit: I think I should clarify my OP in this thread, as it seems to have been misunderstood.

 

It was a light hearted poke against the negativity being shown to Paladin.

 

Assume for a minute, that you're *not* going to use Driago. For whatever reason (Maybe you don't like his fluff and refuse to use him, maybe SCs are barred where you play, maybe you want Grandmaster <insert your name here> your Fluff leader of the GK Chapter to run your army, you just don't have the points to inlcude Driago over a GKGM, or perhaps you just dislike the Driago mini and won't use him becuase of it. Or any other reason you can think of) you've already decided to use a GKGM.

 

And that decision is set.

 

From there, if you include some Paladin, you have the potential to make them scoring, for no extra cost.

 

As you've already decided to use a GKGM.

 

That was the feeling and intent behind my OP.

 

Personally, Troops make or break a Codex in this edition. And not only do we have some of the best choices available to us, what stick out for me in our 'dex is we have a cheat code if you will.

 

TGS is *so* amazing for scoring abilities, it puts other Dexs to shame.

 

Which other Dex can choose to make nearly all thier other infantry units scoring, if necessary? Let alone a MC or even a Walker! And that's ignoring Assasins as well.

 

TGS I feel really defines our Dex in the Troop dominated era of 5th edition.

 

(Heh, not really sure how that fits into the topic overall, but wanted to add it! ^_^ )

[number6]

@Gentlemanloser: I still don't understand

 

A. Why you must take a GKGM

 

B. Why taking a GKGM still limits you to taking Paladins over GKTs no matter what

 

:tu:

 

Neither of these assertions are objectively true. You can definitely build quality GK lists without a GKGM that use GKTs, and you can run quality GK lists with a GKGM that use GKTs.

[Gentlemanloser]

A. Why you must take a GKGM

 

You don't.

 

But for when you've already decided you are...

 

B. Why taking a GKGM still limits you to taking Paladins over GKTs no matter what

 

It doesn't.

 

But I'd still take Pallies over GKT.

 

*Unless* you're building specifically for the GKT.

[number6]

But I'd still take Pallies over GKT.

 

*Unless* you're building specifically for the GKT.

I guess the point I'm trying to make is:

 

It seems to me that you're specifically building for Paladins. :)

[Lady_Canoness]

A. Why you must take a GKGM

 

You don't.

 

But for when you've already decided you are...

 

B. Why taking a GKGM still limits you to taking Paladins over GKTs no matter what

 

It doesn't.

 

But I'd still take Pallies over GKT.

 

*Unless* you're building specifically for the GKT.

 

So, if you take a list that *includes* GKT, and you like it and do well with it, your list (intentional or otherwise) is built specifically for GKT? Is that what I am hearing?

If that is a case, I see what you did there :)

 

Strikers are better than GKT, unless you take GKT and like them (and therefor your list is built specifically for GKT) at which point GKT are better than Strikers.

 

Very diplomatic. I approve.

[Gentlemanloser]

LoL.

 

Nope. :)

 

It's all down to list building.

 

You want to build a list that supports Mordrak, you include Interceptors and NDK wth PTs.

 

You want to include GKT over Strikes, Puri's or Pallies, then in a similar vein, you realy need to build your list around that.

 

For whatever reason. Be it fluff, or planning for potential changes in 6th. Whatever.

 

If you're not building your list around the GKT, then I'd argue you'd get better performance from Pallies, Strikes, Puri's or even DCA. Depending.

 

Hell, it could be purely theme building. You want to represnt a company of only GKT. You want to have one of each unit type of GK in your army. Whatever floats your boat.

[number6]

You want to include GKT over Strikes, Puri's or Pallies, then in a similar vein, you realy need to build your list around that.

The reverse is exactly as true.

 

If you're not building your list around the GKT, then I'd argue you'd get better performance from Pallies, Strikes, Puri's or even DCA.

Again, your biases here are probleatic. You presuppose that it is factually true that GKT are somehow not as good as any of the other units, and thus require a special build to accommodate.

 

I believe that to be a priori faulty and untrue.

[Inquisitor Fox]

*massive amount of reading to be caught up*

 

*puts on Economist hat*

 

Alright, how about I phrase it like this...

 

"Each and every unit in Codex: Grey Knights has the potential to be as much or more useful than any other unit in Codex: Grey Knights, given a specific set of circumstances. Therefore each player should select units based upon their own personal preferences with an end goal of Personal Utility Maximization."

 

*takes of Economist hat*

 

:)

[Gentlemanloser]

Again, your biases here are probleatic. You presuppose that it is factually true that GKT are somehow not as good as any of the other units, and thus require a special build to accommodate.

 

I believe that to be a priori faulty and untrue.

 

OK.

 

I've done the comparison of GKT to Strikes. The advantages are in favour of the Strikes. There's realitively few instances where GKT would outperform Strikes.

 

The same can be achived using a combination of Pallies and other units (Strikes or even Puri's).

 

I don't think there's any need to relist any of this here.

 

You disagree, that's fine.

 

What's not fine is to start insinuating that my grasp of the dex or the GK army is faulty, at best. That's got no basis in this thread, ruins your side of the discussion, and quite frankly isn't a style of debating I enjoy.

 

If you want to go back to the comparison of units, I'll happily carry on with this thread.

 

But if it's just going to carry on about how I've not considered how to build any other type of army, I think I'll just bow out now and save everyones dignity.

[Gentlemanloser]

(Sorry if this is agianst forum rules, I'll happily edit it back into the post above if it is, but I wanted to focus on this point seperately to the one above)

 

The reverse is exactly as true.

 

This is one of the largest complaints about the GK dex I've had to face.

 

That the 'dex is 'user friendly' or 'plug and play' if you will.

 

That an inexperienced player (to the army) could just pick up the dex and drop units into thier list, seemingly at random, and still come out with a powerful enough army to give most folk a challenge.

 

No, obviosuly not as good as an army you've built, and synergise well. But an army that is head and shoulders above someone doing the same thing with another 'dex.

 

I don't think you really do need to tailor a list around including strikes, if you want to use strikes, as they're that good a unit in themselves, you can get away with just dropping them in. Same with Puri's and Paladin.

 

And while GKT are similiar, I still feel with if you *are* designing a list, and not just dropping units in either randomly, or for specific theme, the internal balance of our units is such that you would get better performance unsing another unit in thier place.

 

Edit: And that makes me sad. There were numerous ways MW could have tweaked the internal balance to remove this. From making Strikes slightly more expensive, or GKT slightly less. Or taking DS away from Strikes and giving them the better suiting Scout/Infiltrate (from the units fluff) instead. Or a host of other tweaks he could have used.