More toys for the Knights

[Full_ork]

I will point it out to him, thanks guys, he must have confused it with the old book or something.

[Justicar Enethys]

You say there's no reason to make an assumption the player is cheating? Really? There are MANY reasons to assume that. It may be wrong - but it's hardly a wild assumption. 

 

True Grit was a trait Grey Knights could access in Codex: Daemonhunters. That ceased to be the correct rule-set for the army as of 2010 when Codex: Grey Knights was released. Furthermore, True Grit is not a USR in 6th edition and wasn't one in 5th for that matter. Nowhere is it listed that Grey Knights have True Grit in any source dating back 3 years.

 

This player has made lists and played with a Grey Knights army in 6th edition using our Current Codex. Intentionally or not, he is using a VERY select rule over 3 years old in his current play and getting something advantageous out of it. If it's not outright cheating (Must try to be positive) - it's a very specific, selective and convenient mistake . . .

[Gentlemanloser]

Seconding the sentiment on True Grit. It's not a mistake you can innocently make, it's nowhere in the ruleset now. Codex or BRB.

True, but firewarriors are alot more fragile.

They are cheaper becuase of it. If Strikes were the same cost as Firewarriors, I'd be the first crying 'OP Cheese!'.

Now, if you wanted to focus on SB totting Warrior Accolytes, that's a whole other story!

And I know space wolves are strong, but I always heard they were under necrons and greyknights in 5th.

I know it's not definitive or anything, but in 5th SW (and Guard) won quite a few of the major Tournaments. I can't remember GK doing the same. They might have, but if they did, it wasn't as many.

[thade]

Assuming that the error is intentional - that the player means to cheat - is committing the fundamental attribution error; that's psych 101 real world applications right there. :)

 

Maybe he's cheating; maybe it's a gross oversight. When bringing up the rules correction (with the other player) whichever premise you wield will color the convo in a very different way than the other. That's my point. It's better to approach it as if it's an honest mistake.

[Aethernitas]

I still can't help the feeling that you are basing your whole argument on a few points which for me are products of a parochial outlook.

1. Codex GK is stronger than most/all older (than GKs) codizes

Only partially true when considering BA (for a short period), SW, IG and Necrons. Apart from that it seems only logical to me that older codizes are even more outdated and feeling the ravages of time. There is really not much sense to compare everything to those old codizes considering that the new fast dex releases are making HUGE progress balancing out the meta

2. All the units we have are stronger than their SM counterparts

Apart from the fact that we also only get 1/3 of the unit choices SM have most of our units are indeed stronger when blissfully ignoring any effectivness per point ratio or pointcosts in general. I would also advice you to use the DA codex if you really have to compare as they are the 6th edition SM standard after which vanilla Marines will be priced and balanced.

3. Given that you were oblivious to the fact that 'True Grit' isn't even in the GK codex and your friend got away with cheating you all those years (besides other factors: you haven't read or played the new Daemons, having no idea what the Riptide can do) for me just confirms my observation that you haven't read the GK codex at all (imo there is no way that someone could overlook a special rule like 'True Grit' on the ONE side in the codex where the special rules are stated). Don't get me wrong - it's far from necessary to read all the codizes and know all your enemies to play the game. It is however unwise to start a discussion about balance and the brokenness of GKs in the GK sub-forum without the necessary in-depth knowledge to support your statements.

Assuming that the error is intentional - that the player means to cheat - is committing the fundamental attribution error; that's psych 101 real world applications right there.

Maybe he's cheating; maybe it's a gross oversight. When bringing up the rules correction (with the other player) whichever premise you wield will color the convo in a very different way than the other. That's my point. It's better to approach it as if it's an honest mistake.

I agree that the way you bring up something like this colours the whole following discussion but for me there is still a long way between giving someone the 'benefit of the doubt' and 'making a fool out of myself'...

[thade]

 

 

Maybe he's cheating; maybe it's a gross oversight. When bringing up the rules correction (with the other player) whichever premise you wield will color the convo in a very different way than the other. That's my point. It's better to approach it as if it's an honest mistake.

 

I agree that the way you bring up something like this colours the whole following discussion but for me there is still a long way between giving someone the 'benefit of the doubt' and 'making a fool out of myself'...

 

 

"Being civil" does not equate to "making a fool of oneself," I promise. Guessing at the player's motives is - best case - a distraction here. If you prefer, approach the situation with some cold logic. The player's motive is, at the most base level, irrelevant. The player's wrong, so show them that: "True Grit is no longer a thing. It's not in your codex, it's not in the BRB, it's no where. Your knights have one base attack, two when they charge." The burden of proof rests upon them and in failing to find evidence to convince you of their argument, they'll have no reasonable path other than find themselves convinced of yours.

 

Now, of course the motive is relevant to long-term replay with the player in question. If you are convinced beyond a shadow of doubt that the player was willfully cheating and that they feel no remorse for it (even after being shown they were incorrect) there's no need to pick a fight: just don't play with them anymore. If it turns out it was an honest if zany mistake (like the dozens of players I've encountered over the years who assume for some crazy reason that rolling a Gets Hot! result on plasma results in an AP2 small blast template being resolved on the firer) then it's better to have a laugh about it.

 

At the end of the day, these are the people who you play with: you share more in common with them than otherwise, including your mutual interest in throwing dice at a table to determine the fate of your carefully painted models. Whatever the player's motive, approaching them as if they simply didn't know better is going to set a better foundation for the long term. If you do that and they then approach you in an aggressive way, well it's plainly their fault; but if you approach them aggressively and they respond in kind, the fault is your own. If this sounds like it applies to more than just gaming, well...that's because it does. <3

 

Nobody appears the fool for being cool; it's always the guy being the jerk that everybody thinks poorly of going forward.

[Full_ork]

Only partially true when considering BA (for a short period), SW, IG and Necrons. Apart from that it seems only logical to me that older codizes are even more outdated and feeling the ravages of time. There is really not much sense to compare everything to those old codizes considering that the new fast dex releases are making HUGE progress balancing out the meta

That's what I was orgionally saying, the new codex's are closing the gap in power where the stigma of greyknights won't be as big of an ordeal as time passes.

 

Apart from the fact that we also only get 1/3 of the unit choices SM have most of our units are indeed stronger when blissfully ignoring any effectivness per point ratio or pointcosts in general. I would also advice you to use the DA codex if you really have to compare as they are the 6th edition SM standard after which vanilla Marines will be priced and balanced.

Like I said, I was explaining why the stigma is there, I've already said that the new dexes are at a higher power lvl and thus are closing the gap.

 

Given that you were oblivious to the fact that 'True Grit' isn't even in the GK codex and your friend got away with cheating you all those years

True, I should have probably challenged him on it, but it's not like he joins the group all the time, since he doens't play much, I didn't think anything of it.

 

you haven't read or played the new Daemons, having no idea what the Riptide can do

Well I know of the Riptide, just havn't faced it yet. And no one locally plays daemons anymore.

 

It is however unwise to start a discussion about balance and the brokenness of GKs in the GK sub-forum without the necessary in-depth knowledge to support your statements.

Fair enough, granted I was basing it on what I saw. I saw the psygnought able to do more then it's marine counterpart, I saw the dreadknight a beast for very little points when compared to other mc's, and I saw the firepower output of the psybolt stormbolters even compared to a tau squad. While I have worked out strageties to counter said units, seeing a beginer player with such a high power lvl showed me why people complain about greyknights being broken.

 

Perhaps it is the age gap of the codex's that's the biggest culprit.

 

I apologise for derailing the thread.

[jeffersonian000]

Could you be confusing 'True Grit' with 'Counter-Attack' as granted by Shield of Blades? An easy mistake to make, and easy enough to clarify.

 

SJ

[Full_ork]

Could you be confusing 'True Grit' with 'Counter-Attack' as granted by Shield of Blades? An easy mistake to make, and easy enough to clarify.

 

SJ

 

I could have been.

[Aethernitas]

 

"Being civil" does not equate to "making a fool of oneself," I promise.

 

I can't agree more as those two for me are completely independent of each other. When dealing with people like the beforementioned True Grit-player I just make sure that the person in question has no doubt in their mind that cheating is not tolerated. Thats not the same as approaching him in an aggressive manner or even accusing him of cheating even tough in the example above I would probably imply that I think there is a chance that he cheated on purpose.

 

 

If you are convinced beyond a shadow of doubt that the player was willfully cheating and that they feel no remorse for it (even after being shown they were incorrect) there's no need to pick a fight: just don't play with them anymore. If it turns out it was an honest if zany mistake (like the dozens of players I've encountered over the years who assume for some crazy reason that rolling a Gets Hot! result on plasma results in an AP2 small blast template being resolved on the firer) then it's better to have a laugh about it.

 

Where is the point that you are convinced beyond the shadow of doubt? I guess it's different for everyone. Apart from that we get a lot of good humor out of

rule missunderstandings and it hardly ever goes beyond throwing a die even if both parties have dissenting opinions.

 

 

 

 

That's what I was orgionally saying, the new codex's are closing the gap in power where the stigma of greyknights won't be as big of an ordeal as time passes.

 

Like I said, I was explaining why the stigma is there, I've already said that the new dexes are at a higher power lvl and thus are closing the gap.

 

You are not explaining the Stigma but instead you foster it if you remain uninformed about many of topics tying into it.

 

 

True, I should have probably challenged him on it, but it's not like he joins the group all the time, since he doens't play much, I didn't think anything of it.

 

Fair enough, granted I was basing it on what I saw. I saw the psygnought able to do more then it's marine counterpart, I saw the dreadknight a beast for very little points when compared to other mc's, and I saw the firepower output of the psybolt stormbolters even compared to a tau squad. While I have worked out strageties to counter said units, seeing a beginer player with such a high power lvl showed me why people complain about greyknights being broken.

 

Perhaps it is the age gap of the codex's that's the biggest culprit.

 

I apologise for derailing the thread.

 

 

No need to apologize and thanks for the honesty. I for one value my friends for the straight truth they are meeting me with.

[thade]

When dealing with people like the beforementioned True Grit-player I just make sure that the person in question has no doubt in their mind that cheating is not tolerated. Thats not the same as approaching him in an aggressive manner or even accusing him of cheating even tough in the example above I would probably imply that I think there is a chance that he cheated on purpose.

If someone asks you "Do you think cheating is okay?" how you respond to that question depends very heavily on circumstances. One might take offense at that question if it's somebody they feel that they don't know very well. One might react defensively whether or not they actually did cheat when there's a rules dispute on the table. There is no way to politely imply that somebody is cheesing rules to gain an advantage. It's just easier to approach any situation like that assuming they are simply in error because people are more likely to be forthcoming (and in the case of a real cheater, apologetic) if you come across as polite.

 

Where is the point that you are convinced beyond the shadow of doubt?

Well, were it me in this case, I'd assume it was a mistake and point out the error; pretty easy to do as the rules in this case are blissfully rather clearly defined. If it's an honest error, they'll likely apologize or at least go with it. (I mean, they may gripe about how awful GW's rules are or how badly their army has been treated, but what can you do?) If they've been willfully cheating then there's one of two reactions in my experience: they either make a rather awkward leg at apologizing for what they'll assert was an oversight; or they react with anger at their being accused of cheating. That last one is particularly damning, especially if I approached the issue as if it was an honest mistake and they volunteered that "I was accusing them of cheating." We've all had run-ins that fit both of these scenarios. In the latter, the solution is easy: find somebody else to game with. In the former - where they were cheating but trying to keep up the illusion - there may be more run-ins just like it, where they game other rules. That kind of thing is also unpleasant, but plays out more easily. If you find yourself politely pointing out, again and again, their rules oversights, just find somebody else to game with.

 

In all of these situations, a confrontation is unnecessary and reflects badly on you. This is especially true in the two cases where the other guy is apologetic (whether or not they're a cheater) as there will be people who don't believe that player is cheating and they'll all see you playing the You're Cheating card on them. I find it's just better for the gaming group's health and longevity if you avoid that kind of stuff as long as you can. If they're cheating and denying it, it's just better to refuse (politely) to game with them. It's what I do and what I recommend.

[Justicar Enethys]

@Thade

Just want to add here mate - in a non aggressive or confrontational approach (As being branded as such is clearly quite easy around these parts nowadays ), that I was merely pointing out my opinion (Which is highly likely to be correct in this instance, as a 'casual oversight' is a real stretch of the imagination - all things considered) and supporting the fact that you saying I had no reason to assume he was cheating, was exaggeration There was every reason to assume it. Was I incorrect to say 'guaranteed' in my first post on the matter? Probably. 'More than likely', would better sum it up, but the sentiment is still there. However - my apologies if I was seen as 'aggressive' there.

Not meaning to start a fight or derail anything - just wanted to point out (I used the relevant dates and timelines for 40K editions and Codexes in support of this) how unlikely it was a casual and innocent mistake. Could benefit the OP to know which is why I posted it. If the OP is aware - no matter how drawn out the topic has become on this thread - then great. It won't be happening to him again - that's for sure ! AT no point did I suggest beating the cheater to a pulp with a copy of the Apocalypse rule book or being anything but civil with him. That I called the situation how I, and many, would see it doesn't make me aggressive, hostile, violent or impolite in the slightest. Assumptions coming the other way there methinks. That I speak plainly doesn't make me kick seven shades of out of anyone I think cheats.

As for pointing out what is 'Psych 101' and how my assumptions go against basic principles - please feel free to PM me if you want to discuss anything further on the matter Not being funny - but as I am the proud recipient of a Masters Degree (Working on my PHD) in Psychology, with a specialisation in Behavioural Sciences, I would be genuinely interested to know where have I gone against the grain and conventional wisdom/teaching on the matter. My assumption - based off of the facts - presented and available - suggests a clear indication of cheating, or willful ignorance, which is tantamount to the same thing in a 40K environment

OP has the point. Am content to leave this particular matter there.

Edit: Formatting.

[Full_ork]

 

You are not explaining the Stigma but instead you foster it if you remain uninformed about many of topics tying into it.

 

Wasn't my intent to do so.

[Sigvard]

In the words of Ron Burgundy of Anchorman fame...."That escalated quickly" :-)

[Justicar Enethys]

All is well though :)  I just despise cheating and the merest hint of it turns me into a Tasmanian Devil. I work in a role which requires the investigation of fraudulent activity and have been a keen student of human behaviour and analysis for a while - so having my hobby intruded upon by people who bend rules or what have you is souring my 'place of escape' lol.

 

That is not to resurface that very specific part of the thread though :) I had/have my views but I was quite blunt in my presentation of them. I had a good chat with Thade privately and completely understand his stance on it now and in all honesty - wish I were capable of seeing things his way. However, handled constructively - I enjoy the thrashing out of different opinions with people who are capable and willing to support them :) 

Aethernitas brought up other good issues not relating to cheating/not cheating - and a lack of opponents rules and Codexes is certainly a factor. We can't all know every rule in every Codex, but a better basic understanding is quite fundamental :)

 

Now I may have to go and watch Anchorman again while I prepare for my battle tonight ;)

[Sigvard]

I have to admit a guy I used to play with regularly, an ex GW employee used the knowledge he had built up over the years to manipulate wording and make rules ambiguous that didn't sound it to begin with, if this wasn't bad enough you would find yourself being subject to re-rolls that made no sense and really against the odds rolling if you weren't on the ball.

 

I found it very difficult to keep my opinions to myself about his cheating and in the end I called him out on it, he was quite put out by the accusation. I think there is a lot to be said for diplomacy in these situations, because not only can you claim the moral victory for playing fairly and following the rules, you can also claim the moral high ground for approaching the issue like an adult. When you walk away from the table you know you played the game to way it's meant to be played. Competitive yet fun and fair. The dice gods are fickle and toying with their power is a dangerous game.

[jeffersonian000]

I've been known to display, upon occasion, "Previous Edition Syndrome" where I've played a rule that's changed over the years out of habit rather than malice. Once I'm aware of the error, the current rule will be brand into my mind via the flames of embarrassment!

 

As this is a common error for most people, I'd rather assign ignorance or old habit to a player than outright cheating ... If the offender corrects the behavior. If they don't, then don't play them!

 

SJ

[Valerian]

I started a thread on here soon after the 5e codex was released to relay what few things (a dozen or so) I would have done differently if I had designed the codex myself. I even went so far as completely creating another FanDex to reflect my version of a "more perfect" army list. Pretty much everything g that was in that thread and in that Fandex are still exactly what I'd like to see in a 6e codex.

 

Off the top of my head, the major points were:

 

1. A form of army-wide Teleport Assault.

2. Brother Captains could choose TDA or Artificer Armour.

2a. If Articifer Armour is selected, Brother Captains could take a Personal Teleporter.

3. Brotherhood Champions move to either an Elite slot, or take up no FOC slot if a Brother Captain or Grand Master is taken. Personal Teleporter option.

4. TechMarines get minor hero stats, including 2 Wounds; Personal Teleporter option. Base points up to about 115 points.

5. Astral Aim simply increases the range of weapons.

 

There are more, but these are the major points.

 

Valerian

[Full_ork]

I've been known to display, upon occasion, "Previous Edition Syndrome" where I've played a rule that's changed over the years out of habit rather than malice. Once I'm aware of the error, the current rule will be brand into my mind via the flames of embarrassment!

 

As this is a common error for most people, I'd rather assign ignorance or old habit to a player than outright cheating ... If the offender corrects the behavior. If they don't, then don't play them!

 

SJ

 

Yea, after talking to him that's what happened. The guy only used the book like 3 times, when he used to play often it was the old book. It's all cleared up now though.

[CastellanHawke]

*reads over this whole thing* It seems I have come upon this a bit late, and I am new to the Grey knights as a whole, but I do have a few things to add-in/ change. Feel free to critisize as you will.

 

1: Just my opinion, but I want more HQs that start off in Artificer Armour. I know that we have access to all the best gear, but that should lend flexibility to our forces.

 

2: It seems to be a common problem to deal with tanks, so I believe getting a kind of specialized Inquisitorial -forces only weapon, like a Graviton Gun (not necessarily in stat-line, but in style).

 

3: In my opinion, Stormtroopers are to Grey Knights as Cultists are to Chaos Space Marines.I think we could use them to free up points for our other slots without detracting from our ability to hold objectives.

 

Now, the next thing that I think Grey Knights should have rules for in their codex is probably heretical, and does nothingbto improve Gks. You have been warned.

 

I really do think that Gw shoukd bring back the rules for having Daemons in on-Daemon armies when fighting GKs. I loved the idea behind this, and have a rather fluffy idea to represent this, but that's for the Rules section of the forum. I know there are Allies in 6th, but not every army can ally with Daemons.

[Aethernitas]

*reads over this whole thing* It seems I have come upon this a bit late, and I am new to the Grey knights as a whole, but I do have a few things to add-in/ change. Feel free to critisize as you will.

 

1: Just my opinion, but I want more HQs that start off in Artificer Armour. I know that we have access to all the best gear, but that should lend flexibility to our forces.

 

2: It seems to be a common problem to deal with tanks, so I believe getting a kind of specialized Inquisitorial -forces only weapon, like a Graviton Gun (not necessarily in stat-line, but in style).

 

3: In my opinion, Stormtroopers are to Grey Knights as Cultists are to Chaos Space Marines.I think we could use them to free up points for our other slots without detracting from our ability to hold objectives.

 

Now, the next thing that I think Grey Knights should have rules for in their codex is probably heretical, and does nothingbto improve Gks. You have been warned.

 

I really do think that Gw shoukd bring back the rules for having Daemons in on-Daemon armies when fighting GKs. I loved the idea behind this, and have a rather fluffy idea to represent this, but that's for the Rules section of the forum. I know there are Allies in 6th, but not every army can ally with Daemons.

 

1. This came up a lot in this thread and I still agree that the option of fielding GK HQs in PA (besides the Brotherhood Champion) would be nice. It would, however, seem even more mandatory to give one or more HQs the option to take a personal teleporter.

 

2. I don't really see the problem. GK can deal with tanks good enough. Maybe not as good as Necrons or IG can but we have our ways. The thing many new GK players overlook is that throwing tons of lasercannons and lances in the general direction of a tank isn't the only way to deal with them. GK depend more on medium range firepower with psibolters, short range firepower with melter or even cc with hammers, NDKs or grenades. We also have quite some options to get into the rear armour of vehicles and bolter them to death.

 

3. Agreed - we need stormtroopers tough for me it's more of a fluff reason than the 'cultists for GKs' argument.

 

I don't think GW should bring back the daemons in non-daemon armies rule. Back in the days pretty much noone in my group used them as most didn't even have daemons in their collection and they mostly didn't bother to read the additional rules. Now I DO think there should be a rule that does something comparable but without bothering the opponent to stuff (rather subpar) daemons into their list.

[CastellanHawke]

@Aethernitas: I always thought that it would be better to give the enemy player like, a Greater Daemon and a unit of furies or two for free, with the option to buy an upgrade to the different Daemon footsoldiers (like, +5pts a model to upgrade a unit to Plaguebearers), and only spend points on upgrades to those units, and the Greater Daemon itself. In my opinion, this lends a small amount of background to a force. Let's take Imperial Guard for example;

 

An Imperial Guard army has fallen to Chaos, specifically the worship of nurgle. So he gets a Great unclean on and Up To 10 Furies, so he takes 7 with the Plague Bearer upgrade for 35pts, but has to remove a Commissar because of it, or a regular squad of soldiers. This neatly represents the sacrifice required to summon Daemons of a specific God.

 

But my heretical rantings aside, what do people think about adding in something akin to a Land Speeder or Bike squad?

[Justicar Enethys]

Heretical rantings on the GK forum . . .

 

 

/fetches Nemesis Halberd

[thade]

It only makes sense to add demons to the enemy from a very specific GK perspective. It fails to consider what the other player might want to play or how they might want to thematically justify the conflict between your two forces. It also pigeonholes your own justification for the conflict. Yes, immediate and present demonic threat is something the knights engage with, but that's not the only thing.

• The threat is imminent and all humans/xenos present will quickly be converted; no way they'll get to safe evac distance in time and they're far easier to dispatch now then they would be after conversion....
• The humans/xenos are laying claim to some demonic ground/object/artifact that the GK need to confiscate and either destroy or put into lockdown.
• There's been a mistake. (But better safe than sorry.)

None of those require an actual demonic beachhead, and I'm sure you can think of others.

[Valerian]

Primarily I hope they:

 

1. Retcon some of the more outlandish background material.

 

2. Develop the Teleport Assault army theme and better incorporate/integrate that into the army list and tabletop.

 

3. Differentiate the redundant units (e.g. Give the Brother Captain option for Artificer Armour and Personal Teleporter.

 

4. Improve/redesign the subpar units to make them all worthwhile (I.e. there should be no "throwaway units" nor any "no-brainer" units; make all equally viable.

 

Valerian