So how OP are we anyway?

[Stormshadow]

Well, bringing a knife to a gun fight is just asking for trouble… And I would say that it is easier for other codex to make inferior army builds. Unless you are playing 1750pts of mystics in a GK army, it’s hard not to have a good one.

 

My first army was Daemonhunters and I started my Warhammer career in an extremely competitive environment, getting slaughtered by some of my countries best players on a daily bases. I think it took a year before I won a single game at my club. I did better at tournaments when I met less experienced players, but as I said, it probably took a year before I could give the players at my club some proper resistance. And as I recall, no one there talked about OP codexes, just superior and inferior builds and strategies. Yes, I have been stomped to the ground by third edition Necrons and just about any other codex considered being “outdated”. They didn’t have many builds that could do it, but the once that could, did.

 

One Ultra Marine with bolter is not as good as one BA Marine with bolter or a SW Marine with bolter. One Ultra Marine with jump pack is not as good as a BA with jump pack. But you do not beat BA ore SW with UM by spamming footslogging, bolter wielding Tactical marines. You throw some Thunderfire cannons, Telion scouts, Van-/stern guards, Ironclad Dreadnoughts, honor guards, command squads and perhaps some special characters in the mix.

 

But I must say. If your friends don’t what to face your Grey Knights, you are doing some ting wrong…

Playing for the fun of it is not about crushing a friend, it is about having fun with a friend, isn’t it? You have to be able to look at the battlefield and see “ok, all I have to do is to move my Stormraven to contest that objective and I will win the game” but instead of doing this you move the other way with the raven and disembark your paladins to engage your friends deathstar in a fun battle of the Titans, and then call it a draw in objectives.

 

On a finishing note I would like to say that it is rely hard to play and win with Greatcrusade08’s Scout army in a competitive environment. But any 14 year old can pick up a Gk codex and immediately star to defend humanity from the foul demons of chaos. I would not call this a bad thing, and I hope that GW continues to make codexes with the same balance as the GK codex.

[Brother-Captain Stacius]

Ok, so after 12 years as a Dark Angel player, and 10 with World Eaters, 8 as an Eldar guy, (see the pattern yet?), 4 as a Black Legion player I started a new army, Grey Knights. Now I still play all my other forces and like playing them, but find it fun to make a fluffy Grey Knight list.

Yes, you can play a hideously overpowered list, and it's easy to make them. The true challenge lies in NOT being drawn in by those auto win lists.

The most overpowered I think is Cortez and his henchmen list. My friend only runs this list, with a psyfileman dread. And a vindicaire. And a stormraven. And a raider red emmer. With tech grenade caddys. It's a really nasty list to play against.

So yeah, with that build the dex is overpowered.

Now I use 10 terms, 10 strikes, a GM, 2 stormravens and a Libby. This little lot have lost to nids and Tau.

But then, I enjoy those games more then spamming henchies! :P

[Jacinda]

This may or may not mean anything, but here is some raw data from Adeptacon.

 

Warhammer 40K Championships (Qualifier)

Best Overall Showing – Nick Nanavati (Grey Knights)

Best Imperial Showing – Paul Murphy (Grey Knights)

Best Heretical Showing – Ragnar Arneson (Chaos Daemons)

Best Xenos Showing – Ricky Johnson (Orks)

Best Sportsman – Noah Schmelzer

Best Appearance – James Wappel

Player’s Choice – Richard Coles

Get A New Game – Lukcan Cleveland

 

Warhammer 40K Championships (Top 16) -- not in any order (sorry about that, Stacius)

Alexander Fennell – Necrons

Tony Grippando – Grey Knights

Mike Mutscheller – Space Wolves

Justin Cook – Grey Knights

Bill Kim – Chaos Daemonsk

Jose Mendez – Dark Angels

Joakim Engstrom – Grey Knights

Doug Johnson – Orks

Brett Perkins – Imperial Guard

Paul Murphy – Grey Knights

Tony Kopach – Space Wolves

Dave Ankarlo – Grey Knights

Brad Chester – Grey Knights

Nick Nanavati – Grey Knights

Reece Robbins – Eldar

Tim Gorham – Grey Knights

 

So of the Top 16, half of them were GK.

[Brother-Captain Stacius]

Lol but top were Necrons!!! I honestly feel that wolves are a better force overall then (non spam) Grey Knights. I think that there are loads of GK players now as its so cheap, money wise, to get a force together.

[Morollan]

Lol but top were Necrons!!! I honestly feel that wolves are a better force overall then (non spam) Grey Knights. I think that there are loads of GK players now as its so cheap, money wise, to get a force together.

 

That top 16 are not in order. Necrons were in the last 8 though I think, losing to the eventual winner.

[Vesper]

The guy who won is a GK player.

And there are loads of GK in the hobby atm because they are an easy army to play (read win) with.

[Jacinda]

The only thing we can really infer from that list is that GK are a popular army. Speculating in why they are popular is ... speculation :)

 

But in general, people will take the path of least resistance. Grey Knights are versatile, easy to make viable lists and fewer models to buy/paint. I would go so far as say they are "perceived" to be OP, but really, if you gave them all a score of power with 50 being balanced, I would put GK at about 55. Just a little higher but hardly game breaking.

[Leksington]

The only thing we can really infer from that list is that GK are a popular army. Speculating in why they are popular is ... speculation :P

Popular... among the players who are the most competitive and successful in that competitive environment). We can't even venture a guess as to why that crowd finds it popular. ;) ;)

 

The winner, in his post game interview, was asked why he picked GK to play. His answer was that they don't really have any weaknesses, whereas the builds in all the other codexes have to overcome some sort of deficiency.

 

In case you are interested, here is the list he ran:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/2qlkksa6ypap1fy/B...Knights.pdf.pdf

[RedemptionNL]

So of the Top 16, half of them were GK.

 

It was 7 out of 16 to be precise, as one of the Ork players couldn't play so a GK player took part in his place.

[Zeratil]

Ugh, hate those sorts of lists, anytime I see '3 Warrior Acolyte + transport' I weep a little, Coteaz is so under costed IMO. But Brad is right, GKs are generalists, very, very good generalists and coteaz gets around a lot of the higher PPM that was supposed to be a disadvantage. I honestly don't think GK are 'overpowered' compared to other 5th ed codices as a whole (obv there are some very strong units, but most books have a few of those). I think the issue is they are the easiest army to play reasonably well. It's hard to make catastrophic mistakes because your units are not awful at anything, there are fewer in-built weaknesses for your opponent to exploit. Of course, if that is your definition of over-powered, then GK fit the bill.

 

It should be said however that the Adepticon missions heavily favour coteaz/GKGM/Draigowing because of the 'all three missions' format. GK armies generally have fewer kill points than most (esp. draigowing) and more scoring (thanks to cheap inq units and Grand Strategy) and I suspect the results reflect that advantage. One of the reasons only 1 guard and no blood angels made it in is likely the fact that both of them tend to do badly where kill points are concerned.

[RedemptionNL]

Aye, killpoint games are almost automatic wins for low kill point lists like Draigowing, as an opponent usually has easily twice the kill points. It usually boils down to that the low kill point list can only lose if they're tabled.

 

But I see that more an issue with the kill points rule than with low kill point armies. I hope 6th edition gets rid of kill points again. Killing a 600+ points squad of Paladins should not have the same victory condition value as killing a 35 point Rhino or Trukk.

[adamv6]

That list is a cheese fest, and is everything bad that guys at the local stores and clubs complain about. 3 warriors and Pysbacks / Chimeras galore, with Purifiers.

 

Its a tournament winning list, just not a friend winning one...

[Brother Captain Kezef]

Allot of people forget the economic aspects.

 

Money-wie, GK are the cheapest and easiest army to collect and happen to be one of the best balanced. In an international recession, money will play a large part in collecting an army.

 

I'm getting into warhammer and doing ogres for that reason. I can't afford to build armies based on units of 20 to 40 models when a pack of 10 costs nearly £20.

[greatcrusade08]

Money-wie, GK are the cheapest and easiest army to collect and happen to be one of the best balanced.

sanctuary

draigo

psyflemen

rad grenades

 

yes this codex definately has the best balance.. /sarcasm

 

tbh i think youve failed to heed this entire thread, if GK were balanced this thread wouldnt exist.

people can claim they are or arent overpowered, but balance is the one thing they dont have, they dont have any real weaknesses, without them how can we claim theres balance?

[dswanick]

Allot of people forget the economic aspects.

 

Money-wie, GK are the cheapest and easiest army to collect and happen to be one of the best balanced. In an international recession, money will play a large part in collecting an army.

 

I'm getting into warhammer and doing ogres for that reason. I can't afford to build armies based on units of 20 to 40 models when a pack of 10 costs nearly £20.

I don't know how much water that argument holds. The army you already have is cheaper than than the army you build for a hyper-competative tournament. If cash were an issue I suspect you would find more experienced players winning with whichever army they already own and fewer winners who built their army for the tournament. That the majority of the winners spent money to build a force for this tournament tells me that the codex is unbalanced enough that they felt the additional investment was a benefit to get an "easy-win" army.

 

But, like politics and religion, Codex OP will always be a hot-button debate that no one ever "wins" - as everyone will see what they want to see in anecdotal evidence.

[The Holy Heretic]

I'm getting into warhammer and doing ogres for that reason. I can't afford to build armies based on units of 20 to 40 models when a pack of 10 costs nearly £20.

 

Sorry disappoint you there, but your plastic crack will cost you just as much no matter the army, spending 50£ a month on ogres cost just as much as spending 50£ on orcs'n'gubbins. You might reach your point goal sooner, but you'll still be spending those 50£ a month on expanding the collection - if not on ogres, then on the next 'big thing' :(

[Hellios]

I'm getting into warhammer and doing ogres for that reason. I can't afford to build armies based on units of 20 to 40 models when a pack of 10 costs nearly £20.

 

Sorry disappoint you there, but your plastic crack will cost you just as much no matter the army, spending 50£ a month on ogres cost just as much as spending 50£ on orcs'n'gubbins. You might reach your point goal sooner, but you'll still be spending those 50£ a month on expanding the collection - if not on ogres, then on the next 'big thing' ;)

 

Not everyone expands their collection... I know a guy who has had the same 2,000pts of Chaos for 10~ years. It has only grown/changed as rules/points have changed so that he could keep it valid... It is still less than 3,000pts. While I'm on the other end... I've been collecting 40K for about 15~ years and have over 50Kpts with the largest army being about 20Kpts.

[breng77]

I don't know how much water that argument holds. The army you already have is cheaper than than the army you build for a hyper-competative tournament. If cash were an issue I suspect you would find more experienced players winning with whichever army they already own and fewer winners who built their army for the tournament. That the majority of the winners spent money to build a force for this tournament tells me that the codex is unbalanced enough that they felt the additional investment was a benefit to get an "easy-win" army.

 

The issue I have with that argument is if GKs are so OP, why don't they win every major event? They are top teir, but no moreso than IG or Space Wolves in many cases. I think the biggest reason GKs do so well is that many people have not adapted to fight against them. The argument that $ matters is more of a reason as to why so many players have opted to pick up GKs, whereas when IG was in its Heyday, not as many people switched to that army. In addition given the army builds it is really easy to switch cheaply when you already have an IG army (build Cotaez, and you can pretty much just buy Dreads) or Marine army (if you already have transports it is very easy to cheaply buy troops.). Or if you want a Cheap army and have neither, then buy Draigo.

 

That said, I am in no way arguing that GKs are not powerful, but when they compete against other top armies (like IG, or Wolves, or some Necrons) it usually results in a close game. The issue is that the are just so powerful against some other armies that , the game is not even close. The other issue is that most of the things that would be tough for GKs to fight (Tau, some Nid builds, Often Land Raider Spam, Footdar in some builds) are totally hosed by the other top armies.

 

It comes down to the fact that the game itself is not balanced, and right now as long as people are playing Mech Marines as the most common build, the army that is best at dealing with that build (GKs) will win more games than not.

[number6]

But Brad is right, GKs are generalists, very, very good generalists and coteaz gets around a lot of the higher PPM that was supposed to be a disadvantage. I honestly don't think GK are 'overpowered' compared to other 5th ed codices as a whole (obv there are some very strong units, but most books have a few of those). I think the issue is they are the easiest army to play reasonably well. It's hard to make catastrophic mistakes because your units are not awful at anything, there are fewer in-built weaknesses for your opponent to exploit. Of course, if that is your definition of over-powered, then GK fit the bill.

 

That said, I am in no way arguing that GKs are not powerful, but when they compete against other top armies (like IG, or Wolves, or some Necrons) it usually results in a close game. The issue is that the are just so powerful against some other armies that , the game is not even close. The other issue is that most of the things that would be tough for GKs to fight (Tau, some Nid builds, Often Land Raider Spam, Footdar in some builds) are totally hosed by the other top armies.

 

This is exactly what I said at the top of this topic. In the context of 5e codexes (leaving aside Tyranids), the GK codex is just one peer among equals.

 

The problem with this is that close to half of the armies are still left in pre-5e state, and virtually all of those are Xenos. (And then there's the Tyranids problem, which, despite having a 5e codex, is as bad or worse than some of the older codexes!) So all you're going to see played at and winning tournament events are 5e Imperials. It'll be IG chimera spam vs SW razorspam vs GK Coteaz spam for the forseeable future. At least until GW gets its act together and starts caring about the rules more than they currently do.

 

This is GW's fault. They have always over-focused on Imperials. Beyond that, they have always over-focused on Space Marines. They need to produce more codexes like DE and Necrons. The fact that in all 4 years of 5th edition, they gave us just two quality non-Imperial codexes is :) .

 

This is a real problem. However, just because GW is flawed, and the game is flawed ... this does not mean the game is not fun to play.

 

Nobody is forcing you to play in tournaments. And nobody is forcing you to run the strongest MSU build possible out of your codex, whether it's GK, SW, or even Orks. If that's what you want to run, more power to you. But playing games outside of a tournament format is a give-and-take endeavor. If your friendly opponents have no interest in trying to build out their own top-tier list from their own codex to fight your top-tier tournament build from your codex ... well. You might not get in a lot of practice for your tournament. :)

[Stormshadow]

sanctuary

draigo

psyflemen

rad grenades

 

yes this codex definately has the best balance.. /sarcasm

 

Hmmm…

 

We may not be talking about the same thing here. What do you mean when you say balanced?

[greatcrusade08]

sanctuary

draigo

psyflemen

rad grenades

 

yes this codex definately has the best balance.. /sarcasm

 

Hmmm…

 

We may not be talking about the same thing here. What do you mean when you say balanced?

 

 

In game design, balance is the concept and the practice of tuning a game's rules, usually with the goal of preventing any of its component systems from being ineffective or otherwise undesirable when compared to their peers. An unbalanced system represents wasted development resources at the very least, and at worst can undermine the game's entire ruleset by making important roles or tasks impossible to perform

 

Balancing does not necessarily mean making a game fair. This is particularly true of action games: Jaime Griesemer, design lead at Bungie, said in a lecture to other designers that "every fight in Halo is unfair". This potential for unfairness creates uncertainty, leading to the tension and excitement that action games seek to deliver.

 

In these cases balancing is instead the management of unfair scenarios, with the ultimate goal of ensuring that all of the strategies which the game intends to support are viable. The extent to which those strategies are equal to one another defines the character of the game in question.

 

there are some aspects of the GK codex, shortlisted previously which make GK too diffocult to beat, in short if they have no weaknesses it createsan inbalance within the game.

its easy to suggest that prior codexs are inbalanced when compared to the newer GK dex, but thats not how GW releases work ('codex creep', has become 'codex leap' of late).

as pointed out the game doesnt necessarily need to be fair, paladins on thier own are fine, they create a tense sense of achievement in trying to kill them off, which isnt always possible.

but you add libby with sanctuary and/or kaldor "im chuck norris" draigo and they become too hard to beat.

 

in my opinion its not that GK are inherantly inbalanced or overpowerful on thier own, but the dex itself allows for the army to be built that way with readily available upgrades and force multipliers.

in short its down to the player to moderate the balance of his own army in comparison to the environment he plays in.

The guy at my 'friendly' club who runs a MSU/long fang SW list might win most of his matches, but he doesnt win himself many willing opponents, if you get my meaning.

[Captain Idaho]

The problem isn't whether GK can compete with other top tier armies, it's how much competetion the lower tiered armies can raise against the GK.

 

Being overpowered is nothing to do with top tier vs top tier, as I actually think Imperial Guard can trump GK prettily easily with their sumpreme firepower (40k is usually won by shooting in competetive games). Being overpowered is about whether other armies can even fight an up hill battle against an army.

 

In actual fact, the word overpowered is inapprorpriate because every army can lose, it's probably better to say "balanced". Several Codex books are imbalanced and considered over the top by players of all the rest. This imbalance needs to be addressed, either by a quicker turn around of Codex books, active amendments to existing Codex books or a complete overhaul in game mechanics so games are won by decisions on the table rather than army list before the game began.

 

Ideally all three would work well together.

 

(hope this post serves to be an imbetween, moderate middle ground post)

[the jeske]

If your friendly opponents have no interest in trying to build out their own top-tier list from their own codex to fight your top-tier tournament build from your codex ... well.

problem is at least in europe I see more tournament builds played outside of tournaments , then non tournament builds played at all. People dont want to risk spending money [and with w40k not being a skirmish game it is always a lot] on an army that will make them lose all the time , because they decided to go with the looks and not build efficiency [as kind of a not all dex have cool+good looking in the same slots].

 

I seen people start up and quit fast , just because their small gaming group went GK, SW, IG and one poor sucker picks nids .

And its not like his friends full draigon/leef/razor-jaws on him , even on casual level the good dex are just better . In fact it is worse on the starting/casual level , because good dex even with worse units [in some cases it is realy hard to pick bad units from GK or SW] still get carried by superior rules . A nid player doesnt get that . Other xeno armies like DE or necron ar fine , for tournament players/gamers who know what they do . I seen a met my friend in Berlin and his son started a DE hth army , we both told him it is not a good idea [bought army with his own money] . He still did it . Played the game for about 4 months , then sold , because the army wasnt working [not just because it is bad , but because the level of using such an army is that much higher then with a meq army].

[greatcrusade08]

In actual fact, the word overpowered is inapprorpriate because every army can lose, it's probably better to say "balanced". Several Codex books are imbalanced and considered over the top by players of all the rest. This imbalance needs to be addressed, either by a quicker turn around of Codex books, active amendments to existing Codex books or a complete overhaul in game mechanics so games are won by decisions on the table rather than army list before the game began.

 

Ideally all three would work well together.

 

(hope this post serves to be an imbetween, moderate middle ground post)

 

QFT, my post could have said mor i guess.

 

ignoring the strange 'internal balance' issue, balance itself is a game wide phenomenon, not a codex wide one.

a new codex if 'more powerful' than its predecessors creates an inbalance within the game as a whole, we often refer to this is codex creep, newer codexes often appear more powerful, cheaper, less weaknessess than the ones before.

case in point C:SM < C:BA < C:SW/C:GK, all being 5th ed codexes too, any older dexes suffer even more.

 

we all know what we mean by overpowered, so it doesnt matter if its inaccurate, the meaning it brings is poignant.

 

tbh i hav to agree with Idaho, horrendous luck aside quite often a game is won by the army lists, and tbh my issues with GK have always been about how easy it is to create really great lists with minimum effort.

i used to think superb list building was a skill, or at least it was when using dexes like C:SM, nid dex and whatnot, sadly its just too easy know..

most BA competative lists will use mephy, all Sw lists spam long fangs, most GK lists are either purifier spam, or draigowing.

 

IMO its not good for the hobby

[Stormshadow]

In game design, balance is the concept and the practice of tuning a game's rules, usually with the goal of preventing any of its component systems from being ineffective or otherwise undesirable when compared to their peers. An unbalanced system represents wasted development resources at the very least, and at worst can undermine the game's entire ruleset by making important roles or tasks impossible to perform

 

Balancing does not necessarily mean making a game fair. This is particularly true of action games: Jaime Griesemer, design lead at Bungie, said in a lecture to other designers that "every fight in Halo is unfair". This potential for unfairness creates uncertainty, leading to the tension and excitement that action games seek to deliver.

 

In these cases balancing is instead the management of unfair scenarios, with the ultimate goal of ensuring that all of the strategies which the game intends to support are viable. The extent to which those strategies are equal to one another defines the character of the game in question.

 

That’s what I thought, we are talking about two different things :).

 

I am calling the codex balanced, not in comparisons to other codex or 40k as a hole. I’m only looking at the codex. There are some cc options, long-range options, mid-range options, AT options. Some rely tough units and some really cheap units, some fast and sneaky, some slow and resistant. But there are no “must have”, “never use”, “always bring tis weapon”, “never use that upgrade”. Anyone can throw together a list of GK and it will still be playable, you can build complete fluff armies ore only use the models you think are/look cool, and you will still be able to give your friend /opponent a good fight.

 

This is what I call a balanced codex… this will also lead people to believe that the codex is without weaknesses (which I don’t agree with, but Terminators are never so scary as when it is your opponent controlling them ;)).

 

I guess you could say that the fact that other codex lack this balance make the game of 40k imbalanced, and I agree with that. As a GK player you have the luxury to play with whatever units you want and still be able to win. The other armies have to bring psychic defenses as well as a score of long-range, high strength and low AP weapons. A GK player can fill his army with Terminators just because he likes the models and still be competitive, but the Tyranid player fighting him that loves stealers will not have the same luxury…

 

I Don’t think that it was wrong of GW to give GK such a Codex, but I hope they continue the trend with the codex to come.