Jump to content

Representing my Grey Kngihts using Forces of the Imperium


Gentlemanloser

Recommended Posts

I currently has the base of an Army List forming.  What do you guys think of the following, and how would you flesh it out?

 

This would be a 'Grey Knight' army, and painted as such, but utilise other Codexes for 'GK' units.

 

Unbound, becuase I dislike GW forcing sub par Troop choices on us, just because, and now Unbound is in the rules.  Yeah, it's a trade off you lose Objective Secured, First Turn DS, Reroll Warlord Traits or other bonuses specific detachments provide.  And 'Battle-Forged' armies can abuse unit choices nearly as much.  So I really don't get the dislike.

 

Anyway. ;)

 

Warlord and core of the list would be 2-3 DreadKnights.

 

These would be backed up by Belial and a unit of Dark Angel Terminators (or Knights, not sure which I prefer.  Twin Linked shooting onthe turn they drop, or T5 and SS with some hard hitting CC).  Belial would be TH/SS and my 'Mordrak', with his Squad painted as Ghost Knights.

 

I'd look to support these with a Long Range firebase of Lascannon/Missile Launcher Centurion.  Painted as Grey Knight (hopefully with a GK headswap, if I ever get round to making these! :P).  I'd like to use Red Hunter Chapter Tactics (for Skyfire), but will discuss the RAW with my opponents.  Unbound and Chapter Tactics makes the rules cry. ;)

 

That's the basics. :)

Pfft.  I can do *almost* the same Battle Forged.  Donno why folk get so hung up.

 

NSF so I can reroll the NDKs Warlord Trait.  And two scout squad Taxes.  And a Libby I'd use somewhere or another.

 

People really need to understand that Battle Froged detachments can be, manipulated, enough to make Unbound no longer the demon it was originally thought. ;)

 

Same list, with a couple of Scout Squad, Battle Forged and isn't Power Gaming.  Yet drop a couple of Scout Squad, lose the Detachment benefits and suddenly your the worst thing to hit 40k since Matt Ward (I joke, all is forgiven Matt!) Jarvis. ;)

Unbound is for strictly casual play man. You can write a list that is pretty close to BF, that's fine. But Unbound offers zero restrictions around what people can bring. Yes, the token HQ+2 Troops is minimal in many cases, but its still a cost, and the Force Org still makes them have to take multiples if they want 6 Riptides or whatever. Unbound takes away even that figleaf. 

Its largely ignored by the playerbase man. In the same way that Apoc doesn't really warrant tactical discussion (as its literally 'bring your superheavy to work day' 40k), Unbound is for casual fun games. We can all write silly lists that have no basis in reality (shrug) that's why it has no appeal. 

Unbound is ignored in the tournament scene, for sure. However, in the FLGSs that I play at, unbound is generally regarded as fine. As GL said, if someone drops an unbound list in front of you that you don't like, don't play it.

RD, for example. 2,000 points

 

CAD1

Libby (110)

Strike x5 (110)

Strike x5 (110)

NDK, PT, HI, HPsy, GS (230)

NDK, PT, HI, HPsy, GS (230)

NDK, PT, HPsy, GS (210)

 

CAD2

Libby (110)

Strike x5 (110)

Strike x5 (110)

NDK, PT, HI, HPsy, GS (230)

NDK, PT, HI, HPsy, GS (230)

NDK, PT, HPsy, GS (210)

 

Total: 2,000

 

6 NDK.

 

Batle Forged.  So no reason *not* to face this, right?  It's only three NDK less than a pure NDK unbound list.  With some Objective Secured troops (backed by Libbies) to hold objectives.

 

But 9 NDK is ridiculous and shouldn't be discussed?

 

Battle-Forged is just as ridiculous...

Hard to use any Assassins if you're limited to a single Detachment...

 

That's a really poor houserule for 7th, frankly.

 

Edit;

 

For example, the 10 Assassins list I posted in the Army List subforum (2 Vindicares / 8 Callidus) is *Battle-Forged*.

 

Why do we, as a community, try to cling to some sort of arbitrary definition of sillyness/cheese/OP.  When the game doesn't bother?

 

10 single Assassins are *battle-forged*, yet Unbound lists are the spawn of the devil, and should be discounted at all costs.

 

Makes no sense.

Unbound is ignored in the tournament scene, for sure. However, in the FLGSs that I play at, unbound is generally regarded as fine. As GL said, if someone drops an unbound list in front of you that you don't like, don't play it. 

 

Yeah but that's the same as refusing to play Apoc, or Escalation. They're variants of the base game, which is Battle-Forged. 

CAD1

Libby (110)

Strike x5 (110)

Strike x5 (110)

NDK, PT, HI, HPsy, GS (230)

NDK, PT, HI, HPsy, GS (230)

NDK, PT, HPsy, GS (210)

 

CAD2

Libby (110)

Strike x5 (110)

Strike x5 (110)

NDK, PT, HI, HPsy, GS (230)

NDK, PT, HI, HPsy, GS (230)

NDK, PT, HPsy, GS (210)

 

Total: 2,000

 

6 NDK.

 

Batle Forged.  So no reason *not* to face this, right?  It's only three NDK less than a pure NDK unbound list.  With some Objective Secured troops (backed by Libbies) to hold objectives.

 

But 9 NDK is ridiculous and shouldn't be discussed?

 

Battle-Forged is just as ridiculous...

 

You've been forced to take over 600 points in HQ and Troops though. So in objective games (your selections are bare min granted), you have the option to take objectives. Also, DK get stomped hard by AP2 spam and faster MC's/characters can kill them with good dice. 6 DK is still a lot of eggs in one basket, but at least you've been forced to take somewhat of backup plan. It's still a skew list though, and pretty boring. 

 

9 DK is getting to the point where even the most plasma happy skew list can't deal with it. This is what I mean. These 'spam power unit till win' lists skew too hard for normal 40k, and they basically force your opponents to list-tailor or enjoy getting stomped as they can't deal with your list. 

Hard to use any Assassins if you're limited to a single Detachment...

 

That's a really poor houserule for 7th, frankly.

 

Edit;

 

For example, the 10 Assassins list I posted in the Army List subforum (2 Vindicares / 8 Callidus) is *Battle-Forged*.

 

Why do we, as a community, try to cling to some sort of arbitrary definition of sillyness/cheese/OP.  When the game doesn't bother?

 

10 single Assassins are *battle-forged*, yet Unbound lists are the spawn of the devil, and should be discounted at all costs.

 

Makes no sense.

 

Most tournaments are opting for the 'primary detachment, Allied detachment or Formation or Inquisition/mini-codicies' structure. It prevents abusing GW's complete lack of insight into their own game. 

 

Just because GW throws insanity like Escalation and Unbound into the arena (as a transparent attempt to sell more super-heavies and signature power units) doesn't mean we should fall for it. 

 

10 Assassins won't win games. It can't. Nothing is 'Objective Secured', and you're relying entirely on 30x T4 wounds to carry you through a game. It's a classic skew list. It would be fun to play granted, but you cant' take it to a competitive level. 

They're variants of the base game, which is Battle-Forged.

Come on RD. You can't say that with a straight face.

Variants (as you mention Apoc and the rest) are separate books.

Unbound is right there, in the core rules, alongside Battle Forged. BF is not Core and Unbound a varient.

You're just making up stuff now to fit your view of 40k. msn-wink.gif

10 Assassins won't win games. It can't. Nothing is 'Objective Secured', and you're relying entirely on 30x T4 wounds to carry you through a game. It's a classic skew list. It would be fun to play granted, but you cant' take it to a competitive level.

Objective Secured isn't a requirement to win games. It might make some easier, but is in no way necessary.

30 T4 wounds? That's about the same number of wounds a 'normal' GK list has. ;)

And this boasts an *amazing* alpha strike.

This conversation boils down to: "don't be that guy." Or, if someone in your group is... play it once, let him get his jollies, then encourage him not to do it just because the game lets him. There's a huge difference between taking the rules to the limit... and losing your friends because you abuse them (in a game).

 

GWs oversight, though, probably won't be very healthy... because everyone wants to fight more hell turkeys and demon princes! Troop tax or no.

Unbound is right there, in the core rules, alongside Battle Forged. BF is not Core and Unbound a varient.

You're just making up stuff now to fit your view of 40k. msn-wink.gif

Yeah, just as Formations are part of the core game. Doesn't mean I tolerate it, or that I have to play against or with it. Like I said, no one in my local playerbase wants anything to do with Unbound. I don't care that its core, GW can get lost. We also ignore Mysterious Terrain, because that's a headache that just adds needless complexity to the game (and can randomly blow up units). Everyone plays a flavour of 40k. I don't begrudge you if you play Unbound man, I actually like watching you come up with silly lists ;) . But the thing is, it just encourages stupid power lists that have nothing to do with objective games. Table wipe is the name of the game with Unbound.

Objective Secured isn't a requirement to win games. It might make some easier, but is in no way necessary.

30 T4 wounds? That's about the same number of wounds a 'normal' GK list has. msn-wink.gif

And this boasts an *amazing* alpha strike.

Yeah, but Knights have support usually as well, and things like Dreadknights added to the mix. We also have far more firepower, more melee attacks, more psychic powers...more everything basically. Don't get me wrong, the Assassins will be annoying to get rid of, and the Culexus in particular if spammed is an absolute nightmare. But is a bad list and certain other lists will curbstomp it.

Doesn't mean I tolerate it, or that I have to play against or with it. Like I said, no one in my local playerbase wants anything to do with Unbound. I don't care that its core, GW can get lost. We also ignore Mysterious Terrain, because that's a headache that just adds needless complexity to the game (and can randomly blow up units). Everyone plays a flavour of 40k.

Oh totally! smile.png

But these are your personal house rules and preferences. It's not the Unbound isn't 'core', you just don't like it, and don't play it. (Edit: and I totally support that!)

Still, I find the blanket dismissal not only strange, but pointless.

Don't play lists you don't like. Period. But don't dismiss an Unbound list out of hand, just becuase its Unbound. When Battle Forged lists can be just as OP/lopsided. (And what about an Unbound list that you would want to play against? They must be some! tongue.png)

Do you think it's a good thing we're forced by GW into 'Taxes'? Like having units pushed at us we *have* to use, regardless of whether we want to? Grey Knights are pushed to use allies. Maybe you want/need an AA/Anti Flier unit as an ally. But to actually get access to it, GW laughs and forced the HQ/Troop Tax on your army.

By design.

GW could give us that AA/Anti Flier in Codex, and this becomes a non issue. But they don't.

Why support it?

Edit: Totally thrown together without books, costs estimated!

Would you refuse to face;

NDK, PT, HI, GS (195) Warlord

NDK, PT, HI, GS (195)

NDK, PT, HI, GS (195)

Belial, TH/SS (200)

Dark Angel Terminators x10, CMLx2 (450)

Red Hunter Devestator Centurion x3, ML, TLLC (280)

Red Hunter Devestator Centurion x3, ML, TLLC (280)

Thunderwolf Cavalry x5 (200)

Total: 1,995

Unbound obviosuly. ;) The NDKs shunt turn 1 and Incinerate. Belial and 10 Terminators drop turn 1, without Scatter and have Twin Linked shooting to support the NDKs.

The TWC hang back, pounce on objective, and counter CC the Centurions.

The Red Hunter Centurion hand back and provide long range fire support and save thier Chapter Tactic for Skyfire turn 2+ to blast Fliers out of the air.

Elite and light on bodies.

Don't play lists you don't like. Period. But don't dismiss an Unbound list out of hand, just becuase its Unbound. When Battle Forged lists can be just as OP/lopsided. (And what about an Unbound list that you would want to play against? They must be some! tongue.png)

If I ever wanted to play Unbound, I'd just play Apoc instead. Because in that context, Apoc is perfect for 'dump all your collection on the table and roll dice' casual muckaround. Formations also are largely designed for Apoc (vis a vis, our Brotherhood Formation, although its really bad....).

Do you think it's a good thing we're forced by GW into 'Taxes'? Like having units pushed at us we *have* to use, regardless of whether we want to? Grey Knights are pushed to use allies. Maybe you want/need an AA/Anti Flier unit as an ally. But to actually get access to it, GW laughs and forced the HQ/Troop Tax on your army.

I'd rather play in a format where the same restrictions apply to others. It limits the amount of Riptide etc that I'm likely to see. Also, its not terrible prohibitive for us to do so, given we have all Imperial armies as bros now.

GW could give us that AA/Anti Flier in Codex, and this becomes a non issue. But they don't.

Because we're an Ally codex. We stink of it, the whole way through. It's why they stripped out Inquisition, as they made us flexible and we could largely ignore AM, Scions, Sisters, even Wolves to some extent. Now of course, as you mention, we need Allies to plug holes in our army that are there by design.

I'm okay with Knights having issues with high AV. That's fine. My issue is they killed our only real AA and anti-transport platform (the PsyDread), and nothing has replaced it. I mean, I didn't think it was possible to make Purgators MORE useless with a codex update, but they somehow managed it.

Just want to add.  I was *vehemently* against Dual FoC in 6th.  It was silly and broken.

 

You'd think I'd be against Unbound as well, as it's just a further extension.

 

But the thing is, Dual FoC was an added bonus, with no drawback.  Unbound has at least nominal drawbacks (no Command Benefits) and isn't restricted to a selected point level.

 

It's open across all points levels, and all styles of gameplay.

 

Also, it's integral to 7th.  Armies are being design with Unbound as an option in mind.  You can ignore it, but it skews army design by GW if you do so.

 

It's just too ingrained to ignore.

Why should it have?

 

If you take the 'allies' design further.

 

Which I think is a rediculous design for a 'Codex'.

 

Because they gave Marines token Skyfire, twice (their terrible special autocannon flak tank, and Skyfire ammo on missile launchers). I would've liked at least an attempt made to give us a ground option for Skyfire...but I guess Ravens are it. 

Just want to add.  I was *vehemently* against Dual FoC in 6th.  It was silly and broken.

 

You'd think I'd be against Unbound as well, as it's just a further extension.

 

But the thing is, Dual FoC was an added bonus, with no drawback.  Unbound has at least nominal drawbacks (no Command Benefits) and isn't restricted to a selected point level.

 

It's open across all points levels, and all styles of gameplay.

 

Also, it's integral to 7th.  Armies are being design with Unbound as an option in mind.  You can ignore it, but it skews army design by GW if you do so.

 

It's just too ingrained to ignore.

 

Losing Warlord traits? Literally meaningless, as they're a random buff that half the time doesn't work. 
Losing 'Objective Secured' is again largely meaningless, as people don't play Unbound with tactical armies. They try and bring the most stupid spam imaginable and table you. The worst thing is, GW eggs them on with stupid articles in WD about 'oooh this guy from the design studio has 6 Riptides on the way, how cool!'. It makes my brain hurt thinking about Unbound and its stupidity. 
 
Dual FOC was fine, because like taking multiple CAD's, you are still paying for a HQ and 2 Troops. Because everyone is forced to do this, you might as well take useful stuff for your min units. That's why I think the Nemesis Strikeforce is almost too good, as you can just take one Terminator unit or one Strike unit, and then fill up on everything else. 
 
The Eternal War and Maelstrom missions push objective play extremely hard. If you don't have good infantry to take and hold objectives, or in the case of Maelstrom ways to actually score your Tactical cards, you'll be out-matched by someone who has built a solid list that also handles objectives well. Even in 'Purge', you need flexible units and an assortment of options to kill the enemy efficiently whilst not trading badly yourself. 

 

 

The Eternal War and Maelstrom missions push objective play extremely hard. If you don't have good infantry to take and hold objectives, or in the case of Maelstrom ways to actually score your Tactical cards, you'll be out-matched by someone who has built a solid list that also handles objectives well. Even in 'Purge', you need flexible units and an assortment of options to kill the enemy efficiently whilst not trading badly yourself. 

 

So if you're playing Eternal War, why the distaste for Unbound?

 

Losing Objective Secured is a large detriment, surely?

So if you're playing Eternal War, why the distaste for Unbound?

 

Losing Objective Secured is a large detriment, surely?

 

No, because as I explained, no one cares about tactical objective play with an Unbound list. Its literally just 'take power units, crush face until they have nothing left that can turn their game around'. I mean, its bad enough in a battleforged list you can TripTide and blast a lot of armies off the table with impunity. 6 of the things (or more) becomes truly absurd. 

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.