Should Paladins Be Used In 1850pts Game?

[Crynn]

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.

 

We just have to give up. When Number 8 is stating things like ' you are presuming that GKT are not as good as strikes or Paladins' you ahve to realize what you are dealing with. The fact that theya re not as good based on 99% of Mechanics in the game isn't enough to sway them because 'they've played the game' unlike the rest of us regular tournament goers (and winners) and therefore that is a logical arguement for them being better than strikes, pallies, purifers etc.

 

What they don't understand is that GKT are a 'good' unit and having them in your army is not a bad thing, it won't make your army perform badly it will just make it perofrm optimally. They will still win games, and as good players they will still use GKT to perform game winning manouvers however this doesn't mean that another unit couldnt' have done it better. So the point is this. You can run GKT, have heaps of fun with them and no doubt do well with them but you could do 'better' by taking a different unit in their place.

 

There is really nothing more I can add to this argument. The math and mechanics of the game can easily prove what units are superior and which units fall behind and we have shown that in some ways. Terminators are definately not a bad unit they are just outclassed by other units in the codex that do the same or similar jobs most cost effectively. You can definately win games and play well using termiantors and it doesn't make a list bad just not optimal.

 

Regards,

Crynn

[Red Lost Soldier]

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.

Except when I'd rather lose combat by 1/3 less against power weapons, 1/2 less against normal wounds, or potentially win, instead of losing more wounds and taking more fearless saves. Also yes I have saved against perils with a 5+ invulnerable save, tiny chance I'll accept, but better than no chance at all for GKSS. So I'm not saying it's not moot, more like useful in different situations. I even taking a warding stave on my GKT squad on occassion, and this supposedly sub par upgrade I've found incredibly useful.

 

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.

Mostly yeah. They do different jobs for me, complementing each others role in a way that other units don't do as well or do no better for more points, and don't score. GKT hold the line for me when GKSS crumble, and provide counter charge when my GKSS are crumbling. Paladins could do the same but don't score (an ability which I use alot), and when I do take a GM I use TGS for other uses.

 

We just have to give up. When Number 8 is stating things like ' you are presuming that GKT are not as good as strikes or Paladins' you ahve to realize what you are dealing with. The fact that theya re not as good based on 99% of Mechanics in the game isn't enough to sway them because 'they've played the game' unlike the rest of us regular tournament goers (and winners) and therefore that is a logical arguement for them being better than strikes, pallies, purifers etc.

This us versus them arguement helps nothing. Putting yourself in an elite catagory that I could never hope to achieve is bad form. As I've said, I do go to tournaments and win the vast majortiy of my games there. No I've never come first in a tournament before, I guess that makes my opinions completely invalid?

 

We are not saying that GKT are better, that is what you are trying to say about GKSS. Our position is that they are different, and that GKT can do some things better than GKSS, while the opposite is also true.

 

What they don't understand is that GKT are a 'good' unit and having them in your army is not a bad thing, it won't make your army perform badly it will just make it perofrm optimally. They will still win games, and as good players they will still use GKT to perform game winning manouvers however this doesn't mean that another unit couldnt' have done it better. So the point is this. You can run GKT, have heaps of fun with them and no doubt do well with them but you could do 'better' by taking a different unit in their place.

I still disagree, for what my apparently non tournament goer and winner opinion is worth. I still believe that GKT perform a role that GKSS do not, and I've tried to argue as such. Assumptions about lack of understanding is a personal insinuation that has no place in a debate.

 

There is really nothing more I can add to this argument. The math and mechanics of the game can easily prove what units are superior and which units fall behind and we have shown that in some ways. Terminators are definately not a bad unit they are just outclassed by other units in the codex that do the same or similar jobs most cost effectively. You can definately win games and play well using termiantors and it doesn't make a list bad just not optimal.

 

Regards,

Crynn

Your exasperation is matched by our own, Crynn. Maths can show which units should on average put out more damage, and how much they should take. Much harder to quantify leadership, options, movement, IC protection and the rest of the army that surrounds the unit. While on maths, can you back up that 99% of the mechanics quote? You are presuming that GKT are not as good as GKSS or other units. In regards to the former I disagree, and I've tried to list why. In regards to the latter, they are not troops and are usually more expensive so it's not exactly a fair comparison. Saying I should take an certain HQ doesn't even the comparison, and adds assumptions to the direction of the whole army.

[Crynn]

I never said you should take any specific HQ so youa re quoting the wrong person there and I did mention for counter charge ie having halbards and hammers free the terminators have a use, yes I did actually mention this. In regards to loosing combat that is absolutely true but sometimes it works the other way due to the strikes having more attacks , they can also sweeping advance so combat is close in terms of anything bast dmg dealt to dmg taken. As I and gentlemen have said, there are a couple of cases where the terminators will out perform the strikes however they are very few, yes you ahve correctly pointed them out.

 

I do not think that your opinion is invalid more that you are finding these slight advantages the terminators have as a way of saying that they can be as if not more optimal than strikes which is where we differ. Yes you have better counter charge but I would argue you will have less terminators left to counter charge with preportionally to strikes most times because they are not as tough, and this is something that comes down to arguing in a vacuum which unfortunatel we all have to do. as for 99% clearly I was being facetious however I could argue strikes to be better in we'll say 90% of game mechanics, sweeping advance is a very simple one, zone denial another easy one (obviously zone denial only works against certain things) but I could list and prove more than you could imagine. Despite what peopl are lead to believe the game is based on the fundemntals of math, probability, trigenometry and other such numerical principles.

 

Generalmanship is still exceedingly important and in many ways encompases these principles and puts them into a practical application. I honestly put down many of my win's over players to having a better grasp of these things than they do. The fact that I can use trig in my head to work out exactly how far I am from an enemy unit is invluable as is doing calculations to work out averages or probability of success with any move I choose to make. The free thinking side comes down to things like do I deep strike, spacing my models to protect other, deployment and other less statistical procedures however even they are governed to some degrees by the in game math. For example, I choose to deepstrike my Paladins because by turn to I will have on average only 3 psycannons left shooting if he pours all his str8 AP2 weapons into my unit and I want to be able to get the jump with my psycannons first. So because I base many of my decisions on these kinds of thought patterns I find strikes and when applicable paladins and purifiers a better all round choice than GKT. Your thinking comes from a different mind set than my own so we'll just ahve to agree to disagree.

 

Regards,

Crynn

[BLACK BLΠFLY]

A Strike squad is not a good melee unit - that is the major advantage of GKT. You can post math hammer showing a Strike squad to be superior but seriously no one I know who is having success with the codex is using 10 man Strike squads. GKT also have an advantage that the entire unit is Ld9... Competitive player field five man Purfier squads so they can max out on Keepers of the Flame for the main purpose of Ld9. To me the only competitive advantage of a Strike squad is Warp Quake and you don't need a ten man squad. It is what it is.

 

G :lol:

[Gentlemanloser]

Competitive player field five man Purfier squads so they can max out on Keepers of the Flame for the main purpose of Ld9

 

Why?

 

They're fearless.

 

Unless it's for the extra Ld for casting a Power when instead of combat squadding?

 

I missed a point earlier from you about using 5 man strikes. And it's totally a bargin. I used to detest the GK Justicar I was forced to take, and now the Strike Justicar is pure awesome.

 

But, there are pro's and con's for both.

 

2 x 5 Man

 

Extra Ld9 for Power Tests.

Extra 1A in CC (Strike only)

 

1 x 10 Man

Cheaper Psybolts

Can get two units with TGS if you Combat Squad.

 

A Strike squad is not a good melee unit - that is the major advantage of GKT. You can post math hammer showing a Strike squad to be superior

 

GKT only advantage over Strikes in CC is the free Weapon options. Other than that, Strikes have more attacks and are more durable. Horses for courses. You can't really claim they are any worse than GKT in CC, or that this outwieghts the massive shooting advantage they have over GKT either.

[breng77]

no purifiers are LD 9 across the board, so people have no reason to want more Knight of the flames, people spam 5 man squads to get as many Psybacks and psycannons on the table for as few points as possible.

[Crynn]

A Strike squad is not a good melee unit - that is the major advantage of GKT. You can post math hammer showing a Strike squad to be superior but seriously no one I know who is having success with the codex is using 10 man Strike squads. GKT also have an advantage that the entire unit is Ld9... Competitive player field five man Purfier squads so they can max out on Keepers of the Flame for the main purpose of Ld9. To me the only competitive advantage of a Strike squad is Warp Quake and you don't need a ten man squad. It is what it is.

 

G :P

 

I use 10 strikes competetively. larger squads are also better for synergising with Grand Stratergy and lowering Kill Points.

 

Regards,

Crynn

[number6]

Except when I'd rather lose combat by 1/3 less against power weapons, 1/2 less against normal wounds, or potentially win, instead of losing more wounds and taking more fearless saves. Also yes I have saved against perils with a 5+ invulnerable save, tiny chance I'll accept, but better than no chance at all for GKSS. So I'm not saying it's not moot, more like useful in different situations. I even taking a warding stave on my GKT squad on occassion, and this supposedly sub par upgrade I've found incredibly useful.

+1 :tu:

 

Mostly yeah. They do different jobs for me, complementing each others role in a way that other units don't do as well or do no better for more points, and don't score. GKT hold the line for me when GKSS crumble, and provide counter charge when my GKSS are crumbling. Paladins could do the same but don't score (an ability which I use alot), and when I do take a GM I use TGS for other uses.

+2 :tu:

 

This us versus them arguement helps nothing. Putting yourself in an elite catagory that I could never hope to achieve is bad form. As I've said, I do go to tournaments and win the vast majortiy of my games there. No I've never come first in a tournament before, I guess that makes my opinions completely invalid?

 

We are not saying that GKT are better, that is what you are trying to say about GKSS. Our position is that they are different, and that GKT can do some things better than GKSS, while the opposite is also true.

+3 :tu:

 

I still believe that GKT perform a role that GKSS do not, and I've tried to argue as such. Assumptions about lack of understanding is a personal insinuation that has no place in a debate.

+4 :tu:

 

Your exasperation is matched by our own, Crynn. Maths can show which units should on average put out more damage, and how much they should take. Much harder to quantify leadership, options, movement, IC protection and the rest of the army that surrounds the unit. While on maths, can you back up that 99% of the mechanics quote? You are presuming that GKT are not as good as GKSS or other units. In regards to the former I disagree, and I've tried to list why. In regards to the latter, they are not troops and are usually more expensive so it's not exactly a fair comparison. Saying I should take an certain HQ doesn't even the comparison, and adds assumptions to the direction of the whole army.

+infinity :tu:

 

The entire basis of my disagreement with the absolutism concerning anti-GKT sentiment has everything to do with game mechanics as they interact with actual game boards in real-world games. All the numerous things that simply aren't mathematically reducible to one or more equations, but which nevertheless can be understood given enough experience/experimentation.

 

IMHO, your analysis is too simplistic -- too unrealistic -- to be valid.

 

Which is not the same as saying that Paladins or Strikers are inferior units in any way. It seems to me that this is what you've been implying, and at no point in this discussion have I ever tried to make that claim.

[BLACK BLΠFLY]

Success with Strikes doesn't equate to them being superior to GKT.

 

G :tu:

[Gentlemanloser]

I still believe that GKT perform a role that GKSS do not

 

What role is that, that Strikes don't outperform them in?

 

Beating FC Marines/Deldar in CC due to Halberds? OK, GKT have the edge there. And let's throw in facing AP3 shooting attacks as well.

 

Strikes have the edge everywhere else. Even when facing power weapons in CC.

[RedemptionNL]

Beating FC Marines/Deldar in CC due to Halberds?

Don't forget I4 opponents (which a lot of assault units, bar Orks, are at a minimum); while striking simultaniously with other I4 models will still do as much damage as when using halberds, you'll get more damage in return as well.

[Gentlemanloser]

:P

 

OK, facing I4-6 in Melee due to Halberds. :huh:

[BLACK BLΠFLY]

I still believe that GKT perform a role that GKSS do not

 

What role is that, that Strikes don't outperform them in?

 

Beating FC Marines/Deldar in CC due to Halberds? OK, GKT have the edge there. And let's throw in facing AP3 shooting attacks as well.

 

Strikes have the edge everywhere else. Even when facing power weapons in CC.

 

It's nice to ignore battle cannons. And no they are not better or as good in melee - that is their main weakness while GKT excel in melee at no added cost.

 

G :whistling:

[Inquisitor Fox]

I'd also add deep striking into open terrain while facing a lot of anti-MEQ weaponry (plasma, melta, and an abundance of AP3 firepower) gives Terminators an edge as well. Strikes excel in more terrain heavy / cover heavy environments where armor is of slightly less importance (but not entirely negated) or maneuverability is important.

 

Each unit has advantages and disadvantages.. it's all about picking the one that's right for your situation, preferences, and the way you play.

[the jeske]

It's nice to ignore battle cannons.

which no one uses . because its either plasma lemans[ap2] or demo cannons[ap1] or the battle cannon charges you in hth with fists[defiler] . they on the other hand do work better against 3xLF SW set ups . but so do paladins[only better] .

[BLACK BLΠFLY]

Some people use them. They are cheap and for some that is appealing.

 

G :D

[Crynn]

I'd also add deep striking into open terrain while facing a lot of anti-MEQ weaponry (plasma, melta, and an abundance of AP3 firepower) gives Terminators an edge as well. Strikes excel in more terrain heavy / cover heavy environments where armor is of slightly less importance (but not entirely negated) or maneuverability is important.

 

Each unit has advantages and disadvantages.. it's all about picking the one that's right for your situation, preferences, and the way you play.

 

Except that against every wepon you named minus the AP3 ones the strikes are actually tougher than the terminators here. so unless it's an abundance of missile launchers then this comment is actually untrue.

[BLACK BLΠFLY]

Why would a Strike squad offer more resilience? More bodies or a cheap transport?

 

GKT are a true elite choice you can field as a troop choice. I remember when I first read the new codex I thought they were just not worth the cost but with free I6 and S5/S10 they are a great choice. Both units can be very tactical and I can see a lot of value in a squad of 10 for Strikes. They are both very good at what they do. There is only so many points to go around if you're playing pure GK. Don't discount GKT - mine have never failed yet. I suppose they don't get much of the lime light with Paladins but I think if 6th edition nerfs complex wound allocation everyone will suddenly be saying how awesome are GKT.

 

G :D

[number6]

Except that against every wepon you named minus the AP3 ones the strikes are actually tougher than the terminators here. so unless it's an abundance of missile launchers then this comment is actually untrue.

You know. You're right. Nobody who plays any Marine armies ever takes multiple units of devastators/long fangs/whatever and packs them full of missile launchers. :tu:

 

Also, there is no such thing as lance spam in Dark Eldar armies, fortunately an incredibly unpopular army so you'll probably never face it. :D

 

I've also never heard of IG armies packing themselves full of melta guns, plasma guns, plasma cannons, battle cannons, demolisher cannons, demolition charges, and/or lascannons. It's nearly always the trusty lasgun on nothing but foot troops and nothing else. :rolleyes:

 

Also....

[Red Lost Soldier]

Except that against every wepon you named minus the AP3 ones the strikes are actually tougher than the terminators here. so unless it's an abundance of missile launchers then this comment is actually untrue.

GKSS are tougher in the sense they have more bodies to lose, but what If I don't want to lose more bodies and have to take a LD check, possibly running from an objective?

 

I never said you should take any specific HQ so youa re quoting the wrong person there

I was responding to this:

They will still win games, and as good players they will still use GKT to perform game winning manouvers however this doesn't mean that another unit couldnt' have done it better. So the point is this. You can run GKT, have heaps of fun with them and no doubt do well with them but you could do 'better' by taking a different unit in their place.

GKT can fight, hold an objective, shoot, and are relatively inexpensive (in our codex). GKSS only do the latter 3. Another unit to me implies using something like paladins, which involves an almost 600pt initial investment to get the most common loadout (Draigo + 5GKP + 2Psycannon) for your first troop choice plus HQ. You also specifically mention paladins and purifiers later on, who do not score. Scoring is part of the role I take GKT for, so to compare them to either of those two to perform the same role implies taking a GKGM, Draigo, or Crowe.

 

I do not think that your opinion is invalid more that you are finding these slight advantages the terminators have as a way of saying that they can be as if not more optimal than strikes which is where we differ. Yes you have better counter charge but I would argue you will have less terminators left to counter charge with preportionally to strikes most times because they are not as tough, and this is something that comes down to arguing in a vacuum which unfortunatel we all have to do.

I guess the crux of the arguement here is our interpretations of the magnitude of the advantages that GKT have. I think we could both argree that while Psilencers have a very specific zone of advantage (shooting units from a particular codex), they are for all intents and purposes a sub optimal choice that no one should take in an all comers list. GKT have enough advantages (and disadvantages) to differentiate them from GKSS for me, as I understand it you believe that the advantages are not significant enough to ever warrant taking them over other units.

 

as for 99% clearly I was being facetious however I could argue strikes to be better in we'll say 90% of game mechanics, sweeping advance is a very simple one, zone denial another easy one (obviously zone denial only works against certain things) but I could list and prove more than you could imagine.

...just saying they are isn't so. Your own words. Hard to justify accusing someone else of not backing up their statements and then expecting us to believe yours in the same thread.

 

Generalmanship is still exceedingly important and in many ways encompases these principles and puts them into a practical application. I honestly put down many of my win's over players to having a better grasp of these things than they do. The fact that I can use trig in my head to work out exactly how far I am from an enemy unit is invluable as is doing calculations to work out averages or probability of success with any move I choose to make. The free thinking side comes down to things like do I deep strike, spacing my models to protect other, deployment and other less statistical procedures however even they are governed to some degrees by the in game math. For example, I choose to deepstrike my Paladins because by turn to I will have on average only 3 psycannons left shooting if he pours all his str8 AP2 weapons into my unit and I want to be able to get the jump with my psycannons first.

All excellent things to consider in a game and is probably a significant reason why you perform so well.

 

So because I base many of my decisions on these kinds of thought patterns I find strikes and when applicable paladins and purifiers a better all round choice than GKT. Your thinking comes from a different mind set than my own so we'll just ahve to agree to disagree.

 

Regards,

Crynn

Agree to disagree then. I can live with that. :tu:

 

I still believe that GKT perform a role that GKSS do not

 

What role is that, that Strikes don't outperform them in?

 

Beating FC Marines/Deldar in CC due to Halberds? OK, GKT have the edge there. And let's throw in facing AP3 shooting attacks as well.

 

Strikes have the edge everywhere else. Even when facing power weapons in CC.

:D

 

OK, facing I4-6 in Melee due to Halberds. :rolleyes:

Facing I4-6 in melee is huge. How many combats don't involve I4-6?. I picked two examples in FC Marine/Deldar, but they are two examples of a much greater set of combat opponents. GKSS do not have the edge against power weapons, as I've stated earlier, more bodies to lose means greater loss by combat resolution and extra saves. LD 9 only on one character who is perhaps more vulnerable than any other sergeant character in the game due to perils and no invulnerable save is a big loss compared to LD9 across the board. A warding stave often means I win combats that I would not normally, and is great against the many hidden fist/rending opponents that get into combat.

 

Remember also that while GKSS have 1 extra attack compared to GKT, 2 of those attacks are non power weapon if you upgrade to Psycannons, while you lose nothing upgrading a GKT to a Psycannon.

 

I needed a troop choice that could handle themselves in combat while being able to support in the shooting phase. Emphasis in that order as I already had 2 ten man GKSS who shoot really well but get slaughtered in combat. Since the inclusion of GKT that role has been fufilled. Also I needed somewhere for my GKGM or Termie Inquisitor to go, and GKT was the logical choice for them. The former I needed on the board in order to use communion as I often to to bring in outflankers early, and he needed a combat capable squad that could push forward, win a combat and claim an enemy objective. Lastly I needed a troop choice that would not run from an objective as often as GKSS had been doing, and as missile equivalent spam was everywhere GKT had superior durability. Taking Rhinos for my GKSS reduced shooting and increased vunlerability to Annhilation missions, while taking GKT increased my ability to claim objectives and fight in objective based missions.

 

This could be an isolated case but it appears I'm not the only one who has found a useful role that GKT perform for me and my army, that no other unit does. It comes down to how we judge a particular unit, what criteria we make a decision on inclusion.

[Archon_77]

... kay

 

 

Can we all at least agree that GKT look cooler?

[RedemptionNL]

Can we all at least agree that GKT look cooler?

And benefits of Terminators over Strikes:

- Look cooler.

Most definitely! ;)

[Gentlemanloser]

Facing I4-6 in melee is huge. How many combats don't involve I4-6?.

 

Er, anytime you face sisters, nids, IG, Orks, Necrons...

 

Or when you get assaulted in cover and the assulting unit doesn't have Frags.

 

GKSS do not have the edge against power weapons, as I've stated earlier, more bodies to lose means greater loss by combat resolution and extra saves.

 

You can take wounds, and still win the combat.

 

Sure, if you lose by 6, then that's a -6 to your leadership roll, or you take 6 extra wounds (you can take an armor save versus) Where as the GKT are all dead.

 

Strikes are more durable in CC.

 

LD 9 only on one character who is perhaps more vulnerable than any other sergeant character in the game due to perils and no invulnerable save is a big loss compared to LD9 across the board. A warding stave often means I win combats that I would not normally, and is great against the many hidden fist/rending opponents that get into combat.

 

I hope Leadership is made more important in 6th.

 

Remember also that while GKSS have 1 extra attack compared to GKT, 2 of those attacks are non power weapon if you upgrade to Psycannons, while you lose nothing upgrading a GKT to a Psycannon.

 

Very True. ;)

 

But the strikes gain more PW attacks when they charge.

 

This could be an isolated case but it appears I'm not the only one who has found a useful role that GKT perform for me and my army, that no other unit does. It comes down to how we judge a particular unit, what criteria we make a decision on inclusion.

 

Sure.

 

But would you disagree with the following;

 

In the majority of situations, Strikes outperform GKT

 

Can we all at least agree that GKT look cooler?

 

Honestly, I'm not just being contrary.

 

I *love* the old metal GKT minis. And hate the old metal PAGK ones. But with the new range, I find the new plastic Strikes to be much better than the plastic GKT. There's just something, off, with them.

 

The old metal GKT are still the best GK minis ever made though! :tu:

 

Why would a Strike squad offer more resilience? More bodies or a cheap transport?

 

More Boides.

[BLACK BLΠFLY]

Boides?

 

* shakes head *

[Gentlemanloser]

Hah!

 

That's what I get for typing hastily at work.