Gk synergy

[mmgood]

The water warrior is back! Several years ago ther was a topic posted on here called, "the way of the water warrior". It was a vert well written piece on the concept of reactionary warfare, especially as it applies to gaming. It spoke if balanced effects across your army, and units creating a particular synergy within an individual unit as well as between units. It also discussed in great detail, the concept of allowing your opponent the illusion of controlling the pace of the game while reacting to what he did from a position of strength. Following that advice I was able to play the old Daemon Hunter dex right up ruthlessly, right up until our current dex was released.

Now I am not explaining that article well, but my point is this: when you build a unit, what is your goal? Do you consider its effect on both friendly and enemy units? Do you build a list based on the current meta? Are you looking to maximize points/pound? What are acceptable losses and why? What is the Grey Knights worst match up?

What is the best? I find for myself, that as we move further into 6th Ed and some of the newer codices, that our options are expanding and allowing for greater diversity. Thoughts?

[thade]

Here's Silent Requiem's original set of posts: http://www.bolterandchainsword.com/topic/101214-the-way-of-the-water-warrior

It is a remarkably well thought out tactica. It's rooted in 4th Ed., so some of his practices are no longer effective, but the general ideas are still applicable. It's a good read if you haven't done it yet. Just bear in mind that it's two editions old now.

My goal in building a unit is to compliment whatever kind of force I'm building: general needs to be met (anti-vehicle, something to deal with focused melee) and what I'm feeling that day (do I want a very mobile list, do I want to use a fun model that's not as dumbly effective as others, etc.).

"Acceptable losses" is "None" but, of course, losses can't be helped. I don't put models into a list to purposefully be sacrificial lambs, but I do try to maintain a certain number of legs in a list: I don't just put the bare minimum of troops into a list so I can get tons of elites and heavies; troop units tend to be the most generalist in the force, are often among the cheapest (or at least the most cost-effective) so I take lots of those.

Others here have played more 6th Ed. with their knights than I, so they'll have more thoughts on match-ups; my current understanding is that - due to our force's mobility, threat radius, and general mettle - that we are a better-than-decent match for all of the other army books. We tend to be outnumbered due to points-per-model costs, but we can hit hard pretty early, and are generally rather beefy, so that's the balance there. Ostensibly. <3

[AnImA8]

Now I am not explaining that article well, but my point is this: when you build a unit, what is your goal? Do you consider its effect on both friendly and enemy units? Do you build a list based on the current meta? Are you looking to maximize points/pound? What are acceptable losses and why? What is the Grey Knights worst match up?
What is the best? I find for myself, that as we move further into 6th Ed and some of the newer codices, that our options are expanding and allowing for greater diversity. Thoughts?

You've got a lot of questions here that I'm going to try and unpack thoroughly, so I hope you don't mind how long this post is going to be

Since I wasn't sure how exactly your reference to the Water Warrior related to your questions I'm just going to assume it as the basis of the army style your questions are geared towards.

Water Warrior Premise
To me the Way of the Water Warrior tactica was all about flexibility. Your generalists had to be capable enough and the structure of your list allowed enough fluidity that you had an appropriate answer to any given opponents particular tactic (Fire, Air, Earth, or even Water). With such an expansive toolkit at your disposal the goal was to create an ebb and flow to the game necessary to frustrate the enemy's aim and wear them down.

So, assuming that we're talking exclusively about a Knight list--or a "Puritan" list back in the day--the inclusion of a specific unit, for me, is made with an eye to the needs of the list. My lists aren't based on a meta because they're constructed to be as flexible of "all-comers" lists as possible, consistent with the Water Warrior tactic.

List and Unit Construction
Since 6th is far more objective-oriented, I always start with a core of 3-4 troop choices. While Strikes and Terminators may be generalists they still have "specializations" to a degree: Strikes simply have more shooting to dole out, and along with Warpquake and the discouraging prices of their Assault weapons their specialty lies in the Shooting phase; Terminators meanwhile have the discount on their assault weapons, access to the BroBanner, and sit in TDA--which became substantially better with the differentiation of Power Weapons--so their specialty clearly lies in the Assault phase.

So I take a mix of the two giving me a broad base of generalists who can double as decent "specialists" to cover each others weaknesses as the situation calls for it. From there it becomes a matter of selecting upgrades that are cost-effective and promote that specialty, i.e. Strikes with 2 PsyCans and PsyAmmo, and Terminators with Ward Stave and/or BroBanner--this logic also means I have no reservations about taking an Incinerator on the Terminators as a way to soften the enemy before an Assault.

With the core established, I look at what I need to maintain my ebb and flow reactions. The Strikes and Termies can naturally Deepstrike which is useful in exploiting certain army weaknesses, but a Grand Master will provide the army with the possibility of Scouting for more opportune positioning, and providing transports for all our bodies will give them the mobility to enter or stay in the distance that allows us optimal ability to react.

Meanwhile we can take Stormravens for AA and either Dreadnoughts for long-ranged AT or Dreadknights for close-assault AT. The first two are essential for locking down the enemy's mobility, which disrupts the flow of Air or highly mobile Fire types, or picks off high priority threats in Earth type armies. The DK acts like a Rook that we can slam into the cracks of an Earth type formation or use to corral Fire and Air types by dissuading them from going near it. All of these units can also potentially threaten the backfield putting the enemy between these guns and our mobile core. This last reason is why I prefer PTs on the Dreadknights and the AC/HPB/PsyAmmo loadout on the Raven, since these options allow both units to combine high mobility with enormous power and contribute to the lists overall flexibility in what it can fight. To this end, the normal Land Raider variant also shines for the same reason it did when Silent Requiem wrote his tactica: mobile AT platform, and allows Assaults to occur--especially important now that normal Transports prohibit that. Only complaint about the LR is it's carrying capacity of 10 guys (why couldn't we just squeeze a GM or OMI in there with the squad?)

I'm considering those units almost exclusively because I find Purifiers, Paladins, Interceptors, and Purgators too restrictive in cost or the slot they occupy to replace the units we've discussed. Purifiers are almost prohibitively expensive and I find myself consistently wanting to specialize them in order to reduce their price-tag, but the Crowe-tax tends to tip the scale for me. Paladins are also extremely expensive, and 2 wounds sadly isn't up to snuff anymore with a 5++ and the sheer amount of AP 2- and Str 8+ weapons around, nevermind that Draigo is himself a hefty tax and his AP 3 weapon that is tailored against Daemons and Psykers exclusively leaves something to be desired. And finally Interceptors and Purgators suffer from a combination of not being scoring, and either occupying a hyper-competitive slot or just simply costing too much.

Other Questions
like Thade put it, there really are no acceptable losses. There will always be a Knight or two picked off here or there leading up to the most critical junctures of the game, but the only things that I can hope for are that when those critical moments arrive the models I do lose will either have destroyed the highest priority targets in the process or will have bitten the bullet shielding the greater majority of my army from serious harm.

For the worst matchup, I think it depends more upon the players and play-styles, even though certain codices do have fairly objective advantages over others. For me, my worst matchup was against Tyranids: my friend's Hive Guard would cripple my mobility by targeting my Rhinos/RBacks, his Trygon Primes would siege-break my lines just as his hormagaunts and termagaunts would flood in, and all the while Tervigons would be supporting the forward units, pressing my infantry with that large blast attack, and spitting out termagaunt squads at any unclaimed objective on the map. In this regard, I know many GK players might scratch their heads, and many claim that Tyranids are extremely weak against GKs, but these players never played the people I did, on the tables I did, and with the particular style I use.

I probably did make some very serious mistakes in my games with my friend, and I wouldn't be surprised if many of the GK players I'm talking about are indeed better players than I am. But I know enough other GK players who suffer similarly to me, and enough Tyranid players who claim they stomp GKs handily, that I think the player is the most important factor in match-ups, not the books.

Anyhow, I hope my perspective is helpful and if you took the time to read all that, then I thank you for your incredible patience

[Reclusiarch Darius]

Quote

 

Now I am not explaining that article well, but my point is this: when you build a unit, what is your goal? Do you consider its effect on both friendly and enemy units? Do you build a list based on the current meta? Are you looking to maximize points/pound? What are acceptable losses and why? What is the Grey Knights worst match up?

What is the best? I find for myself, that as we move further into 6th Ed and some of the newer codices, that our options are expanding and allowing for greater diversity. Thoughts?

'Water Warrior' was a misguided attempt to make a failed codex workable. Silent Requiem tried his hardest to argue for Tri-Raider way back in the hellish days of 3rd/4th edition. I think he had some good ideas, but the tactica was outdated in 4th, nevermind now.

 

 

In answer to your question, here is my usual thought process when building a unit (regardless of codex)

 

- The price

- The max unit size, whether it affords me more options or less (ie what is the tradeoff between min or max)

- Role (does it shoot well? Does it melee well? Is it mobile, or slow? Does it tank damage well, or is it fragile?)

- Competition (ie what could I field in this slot as an alternative? Are other options better at doing the role this unit has?)

- Meta (ie what range of enemies can the unit engage? Does it kill one thing well, or handle several things reasonably well? What can't it stand up to/kill at all?)

 

You should always be looking to get bang for you buck. Ignore people who claim otherwise, everyone does this. It's a reasonable expectation your opponents don't field Grot lists.

 

Acceptable losses relate to how well the unit trades. In general, you should accept the death of everything but your Troops and other scoring. Aside from them, everything else is expendable. Ideally, you kill enough of the enemy before losing the unit that you stay ahead. Remember, its scoring units on objectives at dice down. Even if they have Linebreaker, First Blood and Warlord, you can beat them on objectives still. In 'Purge', just trade well and stay ahead in it.

 

I'd say our worst matchups are CSM, IG and Tau. CSM have Heldrakes, dirt-cheap Havoks, Oblits, Plague Marines and Ecto-Fiends. IG bring battle cannons, Vendettas, demo-charges, plasma guns, melta and jamming/scoring that we struggle to eliminate quickly enough. Tau bring ion accelerators to wipe out our infantry, then blow up PsyDreads and Ravens with Broadsides. Necrons can annoy us with AV13 wall or Flyer spam, but their awful Troops and expensive units let them down in the piece trade.

 

Our best matchups are xenos, TBH. Regular Marines are aged but still good all-rounders, BA lost their teeth but have better Ravens, Dreads and still have Stormhammers to wipe us out with. Space Wolves have cheaper Troops, great psykers we can no longer shut down, and Long Fangs. Templars are the only Marine faction I'd judge as being weak against us.

[thade]

'Water Warrior' was a misguided attempt to make a failed codex workable. Silent Requiem tried his hardest to argue for Tri-Raider way back in the hellish days of 3rd/4th edition. I think he had some good ideas, but the tactica was outdated in 4th, nevermind now.

He won a *lot* of games; his bat reps are on the boards still, I think, some of which are featured in that tactica. Outdated now, surely; at the time they were rather effective.

 

The Water Warrior philosophy suffers from some gross reductionism, trying to categorize all playstyles into only four schools of thought: Fire = aggressive, often melee-centric (BA); Air = mobility and misdirection (Eldar); Earth = low mobility and hard, long-ranged firepower (Tau); Water = reactive (Sil. Req. asserted that GK were best played in this way).

 

Not only do the four categories simply not cover all of the complexities of a playstyle, but the categories aren't even mutually exclusive; both of these weaknesses were addressed by Silent Requiem: the philosophy wasn't meant to be an end-all/be-all breakdown of 40k...rather it was an attempt to formalize lingo that he could use to discuss how he played and why he felt it worked.

 

My best comparison these days to "water warrior" gameplay would be to how I tend to play anything that's turn-based and tactical. Every turn you have some number of assets in various states and positions, confronting various threat assets in various states and positions: every action I commit my forces to will elicit a response from my opponent (and his models); if by my actions I can make my opponent's decisions 1. fall into a subset that I can enumerate and 2. be very difficult, involving one or more risks (or at least perceived risks) then I can gain an advantage. I try to step into my opponent's shoes and decide what would I could do that would serve them the best, and either not do it, or leverage it as a trap. I can't predict everything, but neither can they.

 

Every turn, SR would pace about the table, look at each of his units (easy since GK armies are on the small side) and consider all of their moves...he wouldn't move a single model until he knew where all of them were going and what they were going to do that turn.

 

See, that all sounds good, but it's a very hard thing to bullet out and teach. That's the challenge Silent Requiem confronted, and his posts on the "Water Warrior" were his efforts to answer that challenge. The lingo is difficult to navigate, but that's not because it's "outdated". Rather, it's because the concepts laid out aren't easy to bullet out; reactionary play is rather like judo: the idea is to leverage your opponent's actions against them, but that's not the whole of it. You need to know your own actions; know what actions you can take to elicit actions; know how your own body and mind react to external actions; recognize that your opponent will attempt to elicit actions from you that they find desirable; gather all of that together to be the "water warrior". It's a question of patience and control, not of your models but of you.

 

Also, the terms kind of sound cool, which I suspect played no small part in the legacy of his posts.

[Reclusiarch Darius]

 

He won a *lot* of games; his bat reps are on the boards still, I think, some of which are featured in that tactica. Outdated now, surely; at the time they were rather effective.

For him. As 4th dragged on, we all came to the same realisation that our codex was a travesty. Even SR admitted Knights were a weaker army, and thus required better tactics and skills to make up for their core weaknesses. 

 

It was outdated by the end of 4th, if not before then. Once melta started to show up in profusion (IG more cemented that trend than started it), triple Raider died the death it should've had a long time ago. 

 

 

The Water Warrior philosophy suffers from some gross reductionism, trying to categorize all playstyles into only four schools of thought: Fire = aggressive, often melee-centric (BA); Air = mobility and misdirection (Eldar); Earth = low mobility and hard, long-ranged firepower (Tau); Water = reactive (Sil. Req. asserted that GK were best played in this way).

 

Not only do the four categories simply not cover all of the complexities of a playstyle, but the categories aren't even mutually exclusive; both of these weaknesses were addressed by Silent Requiem: the philosophy wasn't meant to be an end-all/be-all breakdown of 40k...rather it was an attempt to formalize lingo that he could use to discuss how he played and why he felt it worked.

 

Yeah, well that's just a classic case of trying to fit square pegs into round holes. 'Oversimplification' is putting it mildly. Especially when 5th edition codicies like IG dropped and blew his neat categories out of the water (and that was back when Vendettas weren't Flyers). His core strategy of Tri-Raider was predicated on all that theory, and it was gimmicky and risky. Especially after melta-spam became a thing other armies besides Eldar could do. I actually think it says more about SR's skill and his local meta that he pulled off wins with his tactica. I don't think anyone else found the same success with it. 

 

 

My best comparison these days to "water warrior" gameplay would be to how I tend to play anything that's turn-based and tactical. Every turn you have some number of assets in various states and positions, confronting various threat assets in various states and positions: every action I commit my forces to will elicit a response from my opponent (and his models); if by my actions I can make my opponent's decisions 1. fall into a subset that I can enumerate and 2. be very difficult, involving one or more risks (or at least perceived risks) then I can gain an advantage. I try to step into my opponent's shoes and decide what would I could do that would serve them the best, and either not do it, or leverage it as a trap. I can't predict everything, but neither can they.

 

Every turn, SR would pace about the table, look at each of his units (easy since GK armies are on the small side) and consider all of their moves...he wouldn't move a single model until he knew where all of them were going and what they were going to do that turn.

If you aren't already doing this every game, you aren't playing 40k properly. I agree it was important he point out this approach, but quite honestly its something most good players do anyway. 40k can be won at deployment, or with a single good Turn 1 snowball. Planning is critical, especially on the fly when you have to react to your initial strategy not translating in-game. 

 

 

See, that all sounds good, but it's a very hard thing to bullet out and teach. That's the challenge Silent Requiem confronted, and his posts on the "Water Warrior" were his efforts to answer that challenge. The lingo is difficult to navigate, but that's not because it's "outdated". Rather, it's because the concepts laid out aren't easy to bullet out; reactionary play is rather like judo: the idea is to leverage your opponent's actions against them, but that's not the whole of it. You need to know your own actions; know what actions you can take to elicit actions; know how your own body and mind react to external actions; recognize that your opponent will attempt to elicit actions from you that they find desirable; gather all of that together to be the "water warrior". It's a question of patience and control, not of your models but of you.

 

I disagree. I think SR did a good job explaining that. It's the terrible list design, terrible codex and oversimplication of other areas that weakened his theory IMO. I also don't think you have to resort to trawling through his tactica to learn those lessons. They're kinda fundamental to competitive 40k, as I alluded to earlier. I certainly didn't learn it from him, like most players I learned by doing. You quickly learn not to be passive, to plan your turn in advance, and to keep win scenario in mind, after you keep losing repeatedly (my early 40k career was depressingly unsuccessful). 

 

 

If anything, I want SR to do a re-write of it. People still refer to it a lot, and I really wish they wouldn't. It's misleading to new and old players alike. If he updated it for 6th and the new codex, it would be fine. I'm just sick to death of reading terrible lists or strategies, because 'muh Water Warrior!1!!'. 

[thade]

I actually exchanged notes with SR some time ago now. He moved on to Fantasy for a bit and then let real-life sweep him up into it. He may be back someday, but for now he's firmly settled into "ancient legend".

 

If the takeaway is to "take your time and know your moves before making them" then it can't also be the case that "everybody should already know that anyway." That's not how learning works; no player enters a new game knowing how to compete and win. It's a very good take away, and if reading SR is one way people get it, however round about, I don't see an issue with it.

 

People do still find value in SR's write-up, which is evident in how often people wish to revisit it and at times hope they can update it. His tactics worked for him. The guy was very, very good at the game and he tried his best to share the how of it. Both his victory record and that gesture (trying to share his wisdom) are I think why people respect him so. Mimicry is the highest form of flattery, as it were. There's nothing wrong with that. If their lists are poorly set up and their battles poorly executed, that's how they learn. Everybody loses their first few games against vets. It's just the way of it.

[Reclusiarch Darius]

 

I actually exchanged notes with SR some time ago now. He moved on to Fantasy for a bit and then let real-life sweep him up into it. He may be back someday, but for now he's firmly settled into "ancient legend".

Fitting, given his tactica went the same way. Still, its a shame. I remember some good discussions coming out of his ideas. 

 

If the takeaway is to "take your time and know your moves before making them" then it can't also be the case that "everybody should already know that anyway." That's not how learning works; no player enters a new game knowing how to compete and win. It's a very good take away, and if reading SR is one way people get it, however round about, I don't see an issue with it.

Sure it can. In fact, that exact advice applies to just about any competition. Obviously in real sport, you have to react faster, but critical thinking and planning ahead are pretty basic skills. I completely agree that new players often lack those skills, I know I did back in the day. 

My issue with referring to SR's articles are they are so out of date, new players are going to get the wrong idea from them. It already happens in fact. So, don't lol. Playing heaps of games will give you similar insight to reading what people tell you on the internet. 

 

People do still find value in SR's write-up, which is evident in how often people wish to revisit it and at times hope they can update it. His tactics worked for him. The guy was very, very good at the game and he tried his best to share the how of it. Both his victory record and that gesture (trying to share his wisdom) are I think why people respect him so. Mimicry is the highest form of flattery, as it were. There's nothing wrong with that. If their lists are poorly set up and their battles poorly executed, that's how they learn. Everybody loses their first few games against vets. It's just the way of it.

Partially agree. SR was good, but as I said I think his tactics worked for him. Imitating his gunboat LR style now is a very bad idea though, regardless of your skills. I also think its fine to start out writing terrible lists, losing, then making the connection. I don't think its prudent to say to people 'oh nah WW is fine, you just need to try harder'. 

 

Man, I'm actually feeling motivated to do it now. 

[thade]

Partially agree. SR was good, but as I said I think his tactics worked for him. Imitating his gunboat LR style now is a very bad idea though, regardless of your skills.

Well that's definitely true: his exact list would probably have a great deal of trouble nowadays. Who would seriously consider deep-striking a lone Brother-Captain with a Psycannon when you can sweep him in with a Storm Raven and a bunch of buddies? (Well, I would; in fact I'd like to try his canonical list sometime, I'm just short a Land Raider. Not because I think it's a good list now, but for posterity.)

To really get value out of his write-ups you need to do a make a lot of inferences: you need specifically to consider not what he does but why; not how he sees the table or other armies but why he sees things that way. I boiled my understanding of it down to a paragraph or two above, but it could probably use a hefty revisiting.

I don't really think his write-ups are causing problems on the scale you seem to imply. I think I see maybe a post every three months around here what a player brings up "water warrior", primarily because the term is cool. I've never met a "water warrior" where I've played. Reading SR's batreps changed the way I play and dramatically improved my win-loss record, but I'm no water warrior either.

There was only one Water Warrior. My impression is that he was a shrewd player and a cool guy.

[AnImA8]

If anything, I want SR to do a re-write of it. People still refer to it a lot, and I really wish they wouldn't. It's misleading to new and old players alike. If he updated it for 6th and the new codex, it would be fine. I'm just sick to death of reading terrible lists or strategies, because 'muh Water Warrior!1!!'. 

 

I think this is the important take-away here. It's less so that his theory, or the underlying principles that motivated it, are flawed and out-dated--maybe they could be explained better--and it's more so that the changes in editions has made the examples of the element typology and the specifics of the lists that came from the theory outdated. All the Way of the Water Warrior needs is a re-write that reapplies the same principles and theories to the new age.

[the jeske]

one has to remember against what type of meta GK had to play back then . 5-6man squads and smaller armies then now , no transports unless eldar  , how every unit was scoring/claiming table quarters , What of course doesnt change the fact that GW itself told that the GK dex wasnt ment to be stand alone codex 

[jeffersonian000]

The lesson I learned from SR's tactica was to be flexible in my mind set and army list, see each unit in the Dex with potential, and do everything I can to set the pace of the game to my army's strengths rather to any commonly known weaknesses.  And that made me a better player, which in turn let me move on from Raider lists to an even more underdog "Ghostwing" list.  :D

 

SJ

[Reclusiarch Darius]

To really get value out of his write-ups you need to do a make a lot of inferences: you need specifically to consider not what he does but why; not how he sees the table or other armies but why he sees things that way. I boiled my understanding of it down to a paragraph or two above, but it could probably use a hefty revisiting.

We could make a Librarium project out of it. Especially if SR has no interest in coming back to it, I'm sure he won't mind if we make a spiritual successor.

I don't really think his write-ups are causing problems on the scale you seem to imply. I think I see maybe a post every three months around here what a player brings up "water warrior", primarily because the term is cool. I've never met a "water warrior" where I've played. Reading SR's batreps changed the way I play and dramatically improved my win-loss record, but I'm no water warrior either.

Oh no, I'm just saying I'm annoyed by it. Hence why we should probably make a new one, so people aren't referencing something written 5+ years ago.

I think this is the important take-away here. It's less so that his theory, or the underlying principles that motivated it, are flawed and out-dated--maybe they could be explained better--and it's more so that the changes in editions has made the examples of the element typology and the specifics of the lists that came from the theory outdated. All the Way of the Water Warrior needs is a re-write that reapplies the same principles and theories to the new age.

It would be a bit more than that, but yeah, a re-write is a good idea.

one has to remember against what type of meta GK had to play back then . 5-6man squads and smaller armies then now , no transports unless eldar , how every unit was scoring/claiming table quarters , What of course doesnt change the fact that GW itself told that the GK dex wasnt ment to be stand alone codex

4th was a mess for Inquisition armies. GW had the Inquisitor RPG rolling around at the time, so they wrote tie-in codicies for 40k. We we supposed to get a trilogy, instead they lost interest before the Ordo Xenos book could come out :( . Daemonhunters was flawed from the beginning, Witchhunters aged far better because of the SoB and their Faith system (which was really well done in hindsight).