To use or not to use GK tactical objectives

[Brom MKIV]

I can definitely see where RD is coming from. Pure GK are at a distinct disadvantage in maelstrom. In fact the majority of both missions my approach with this army has been to treat the secondary missions as primary and go for tabling, although obviously its a turn by turn evaluation of the routes to victory. In maelstrom this is even more the case. 

 

All that said I do not believe this is the fault of the mission set but rather of our linear codex. We are reduced to being the aggressor in pretty much every scenario. In some situations this is as it should be. However it would be nice to have an alternative game plan to build around, or at least a plan B.

 

I will say that breaking away from a pure list does help mitigate this weakness, if you take the right tools (which I'm not Lol). Before branching into allies I tried empty rhinos just for maelstrom missions since we roll off here and the winner picks the mission.

 

EDIT:

I do believe GK can compete in maestrom but the concept lists that could do so are not the norm and would probably not be considered 'competitive'.

 

At thread- Heres an interesting exercise, design a list specifically for maelstrom. Pure GK only.

[Mushkilla]

Winning maelstrom missions with grey knights starts at objective placement. We want to bunch objectives and want them in the open (as terrain slows us down, and 2+/5+ means we don't mind being out in the open, but our opponents often do). Now when your opponent goes for objectives he risks open ground. If you pack the objectives tightly our limited mobility becomes less of a concern. With null deployment we can even get away with overloading one side of the board with objectives.

Another thing to consider when facing MSU is pyrommancy, sure its a mediocre discipline, but it still lets us tailor against MSU. More importantly it lets us engage multiple targets as witch fire powers are not bound by shooting restrictions. Grey Knights suffer from having a small number of units that are very potent and don't want to waste their time killing chaff, blockers and cheap scoring units. Pyrommancy excels at clearing out these sort of units without needing to sacrifice the shooting/assault phase of a squad of terminators. The game is finite in length and wasting a turn of a powerful unit like terminators killing one of your opponents expendable scoring units will lose you games.

Combining the two points above you can really punish your opponent for playing the mission, as in doing so he will leave units in the open exposed. That's my experience anyway.

Below are two article that I wrote that people might find helpful (they are written from the perspective of playing Dark Eldar but are easy enough to apply to grey knights).

The Pragmatic Realspace Raider: Objective Placement

The Pragmatic Realspace Raider: Deepstrike Risks

Hope that helps.

[Brom MKIV]

Hey mush! Worked your way over here too eh? I've always like your articles and somewhat unorthodox approach to DE. I've taken a hiatus from that army lately.. a self imposed exile if you will due partly to the new dex, but just last night I was planning a surprise return for some games.

I've been playing GKs so much lately I doubt anyone would expect me to roll in with my signiture fuegan grot bomb and multiple firedragon venoms! MIght catch a few IKs by surprise.

 

 

Anyway on topic I agree objective placement is one of the fundamental principles of strategy. I spread em out and in cover for fast armies like my DE/Eldar and cluster em midboard for my GKs and orks. That said clustering the 6 maelstrom objectives does not work quite the same in maelstrom as in eternal war IME. 

 

Anyway welcome to B&C man!

[Mushkilla]

Hey mush! Worked your way over here too eh? I've always like your articles and somewhat unorthodox approach to DE....

 

Anyway welcome to B&C man!

 

Thanks for the warm welcome Brom! The last few months I have been dabbling with a fledgling Grey Knight army. I used to play daemon hunters back in the day, and now that the atrocity that was the ward dex has been banished back to the warp I felt like going on a penitent crusade (also an army that fits in a shoe box is a welcome change to Dark Eldar). :D

[Brom MKIV]

Haha I can relate to all that! Flying cross country with my DE army was a royal pain. Now my entire army is 25 models.

[Reclusiarch Darius]

First off, no one is saying you are a bad player. I am, however, pointing out that if you are not using the correct terrain, are not focusing on what you can do, and are relying on good card draws, there is literally nothing the rest of us can do to assist you.

 

And I'll reiterate, I'm using the standard terrain placement as laid out in the rulebook. I do focus on what my army does best (punch people in the mouth Turn 1 and never let up). I'm not relying on card draws at all, because I'm ignoring that aspect of the game as 'out of my hands'. I'm also not actually asking for help in Maelstrom. I'm trying to warn all of you to avoid it like the plague, at least with pure Knights. 

Correct terrain for 7th is tall LoS blocking buildings, ruins without windows, 4+ pieces per table quarter, LoS blocking center piece. Hills are useless.

 

Well sure, if you want every game to be Cityfight. The fact is though, my club only has a certain amount of terrain, so trying to shove 4+ buildings into every quarter is difficult and absurd. We commonly do have 3, sometimes 4 major pieces of terrain, which are LOS blocking for all but say MC's. Then usually 2-3 ruins, which have a mixture of unbroken walls and windows. Then the usual assortment of 5+ cover difficult terrain craters etc. 

Correct targets are the enemy units that make or break your opponent's army, such as Marker Lights, Troop choices, light vehicles, buffers. Playing smart means denying LoS to your units while reducing their units via positioning, limiting direction of counter attacks, stalling units they need to be elsewhere. They can't score an objective if you keep blocking them from getting within 3", regardless of Objective Secured. Going first with Shunt units means Line Breaker. DS'ing/Gating to an out of place objective could mean victory.

 

I am aware of how target priority works. Scoring objectives against Grey Knights boils down to getting there first, or just wiping out whatever they sent to take it. It's not just a xenos problem, CSM and IG routinely vape my infantry as well. So no, Shunting or Deepstriking onto objectives to 'deny' them isn't a viable strategy. They'll just kill you, then score it anyway. Also, in what magical scenario are the enemy ignoring an objective marker? Unless it's deep in your DZ and they have nothing fast to take it with (unusual, even really static armies tend to take a few FA units for that exact purpose), they'll be making moves on them Turn 2 if not Turn 3. 

 

This is what I'm trying to explain. You don't have the luxury of sending auxiliary units to go cap objectives, while your aggressive units do the fighting. Allies have to be brought in to do the former, and to some extent even the latter. Even if you're spamming Strike squads, you'll never bring as many scoring units as an opponent, and your relative lethality is still lower due to your higher point costs. It's both an outnumbering problem (they bring usually 2-3 to your 1, so even if they lose a unit to your firepower, they have spares to continue to contest) and a firepower problem. 

Correct mind set for Maelstrom is to see the cards as bonus objectives, not winning strategies. You should be focused on dismantling your opponent's ability to win, with the side benefit of "Oooh, that's a fun card! I can do that right now." Getting hung up on a turn of the card saving you means you put yourself into a losing position from the get go. Don't do that. Always be positioning for the win, always have a plan for turns 6 and 7. And always treat cards as a bonus, not as a necessity. If you can't separate your game from the cards, don't play Maelstrom.

 

I'm getting the impression you didn't actually read what I wrote. I said, I ignore the cards because A: they're too random to rely upon and B: they often screw me over, or hand my opponent an advantage I can't make up for easily. My game plan is to cripple my opponents army Turn 1. Positioning for the win is difficult when you can be in situations where you've slaughtered half their army (and taken some important pieces from it), lost about 1/3rd of your effective force, but they're still ahead on VP. A lot of the time, you virtually have to table people to get a victory. I've had VP distribution go to 3-11 before, despite my opponent being the backfoot the entire game and in no credible position to win (ie their key units are vapour, their remaining units are of no real threat, and they're in serious danger of being tabled). It's utterly absurd that actual strategy and smart play means nothing, but mindlessly camping objectives and shooting your opponent off the table is rewarded. 

Always have a plan for dealing with specific units. You should know before any game how you plan on dealing with Knight Titans, Wraith Knights, Riptides, Wave Serpents, Flyers, hordes, gun lines, Super Friends Biker armies, etc.. The plan can be as simple as "stay away" or "rush it", or can be as complex as "I'm going to need Divination for that match up, not Sanctic" or "everything in reserves except for this squad to grab that object, and the Shunters to harass that beater over there".

 

Well, we're not exactly spoiled for choice. Most of our strategies boil down to 'drown that unit in psycannon till it's HP or Wounds are gone', or 'shove Dreadknights into melee with it'. Storm bolter does work on chaff and can sometimes kill Marines too, but the above two methods are how 90% of the enemy army has to be engaged. I say has to, because once you deviate from them, you'll find your weapons either useless or marginal to the task. I've found gatling psilencer and heavy incinerator are great for specific matchups, and I do take them as auxilary options to deal with say Cultists/Sniper Kroot/Guardsmen blob stacking cover saves, or for annoyances like SeerStar or Dogstar. But psycannon spam is how you kill vehicles, MC's, infantry etc, and whatever isn't efficient to shoot at (Riptides, Wraithknights, Knight-Titans etc), you'll have to send Dreadknights into melee to S10 Force them to death. 

Where we fail you as an advice forum is that we cannot teach you how to think objectively, critically, and open mindedly. We can reflect to you your own words to show you where we see deficiencies, such as my pointing out to you your own admission of not using tall enough LoS blocking terrain. We can reflect to you your own faults, such as relying on Maelstrom cards to shore up your strategy, which is a recipe for failure. We can only guess at your play style based on a limited suggestions as to how you handled your problems based on your complaints, and make general suggestions on where to look to correct your admitted problem areas.

 

Dude, you need to read what I write more carefully. I've addressed those issues multiple times, and I'm yet to see anyone suggest viable alternative strategies. 'Play with more terrain' isn't one, anymore than 'I didn't read what you wrote, so I'll assume you care about Tac cards'. 

 

I'll reiterate, I'm not asking for advice on Maelstrom. I'm suggesting we all shun it like the plague, because it's a terrible format for our army. It allows other armies to exploit our most critical weaknesses (low model and unit count) to the utmost, and on balance they'll score more VP by playing the objective camping game and locking you out with superior firepower and battlefield control. Allies may help to mitigate these issues, but for pure GK its really punishing. 

Word of advice? Practice the parts of the game you feel weakest at, and get comfortable with working out solutions to those areas individually. Then add another problem area. Then another. Work out each issue until it is no longer an issue. Remember, I advised better terrain and focusing your strategy, while telling you to not take Maelstrom seriously. Those are the problem areas I noted from your original post. Not knowing what units you field, what point levels you play, your local meta, all any of us can do is point out to you where you have ready admitted needs work.

 

Well, sometimes I have to take it seriously, because it's the format I have to play in. None of us got a choice in the matter, the guy organising it thought it would be cool to try out, given it's a version of the game we're not familiar with (we usually do pick-up Eternal War missions). No criticism of him though, none of us knew what we were getting into, and it was his first time organising something that complex and lengthy. 

 

I have a real problem with this argument of 'oh don't take it so seriously'. You know who does take it seriously? Your opponent. They're trying to win, so should you. By all means, play a fair game and don't cheat or be sour about losing. It's just a game. But if you aren't interested in winning or losing, why bother turning up? You might as well just watch someone else play. Ironically, playing Maelstrom felt like I was watching someone else play a game, and I was just sort of annoying them by randomly killing their stuff. 

All that said I do not believe this is the fault of the mission set but rather of our linear codex. We are reduced to being the aggressor in pretty much every scenario. In some situations this is as it should be. However it would be nice to have an alternative game plan to build around, or at least a plan B.

 

100% agree. I'm not gonna claim we were some shining example of combined arms in 5th edition, but I think now we're all realising how much Henchmen propped up a certain facet of our playstyle. You could very cheaply spam Razorbacks for firepower and scoring advantage thanks to Coteaz, while still bringing the hammer with the GK side of things. Now that we're all hammer and no anvil, every mission is a nail. Granted, Allies do offer the same kind of things, but it shouldn't be this way. Marines function perfectly fine without Allies, as do Eldar, Tau, Necrons, Daemons, and so on. 

I do believe GK can compete in maestrom but the concept lists that could do so are not the norm and would probably not be considered 'competitive'.

 

Hey if you find a way, please do share. But when our 'best' build barely cuts it in Maelstrom, I really don't have much faith in janky Strike-heavy armies or I dunno, Interceptor spam? That's the other issue with our codex. We have such a limited unit pool, our armies inevitably end up being the same just by virtue of 'well here are some obvious choices, here are some okay ones, here are some so bad I'll actually be hurting myself taking them'. 

Winning maelstrom missions with grey knights starts at objective placement. We want to bunch objectives and want them in the open (as terrain slows us down, and 2+/5+ means we don't mind being out in the open, but our opponents often do). Now when your opponent goes for objectives he risks open ground. If you pack the objectives tightly our limited mobility becomes less of a concern. With null deployment we can even get away with overloading one side of the board with objectives.

 

Please do that against Tau. Enjoy getting vaped while trying to play the mission, and then he puts his much cheaper and more numerous infantry onto them to hold it. 

Another thing to consider when facing MSU is pyrommancy, sure its a mediocre discipline, but it still lets us tailor against MSU. More importantly it lets us engage multiple targets as witch fire powers are not bound by shooting restrictions. Grey Knights suffer from having a small number of units that are very potent and don't want to waste their time killing chaff, blockers and cheap scoring units. Pyrommancy excels at clearing out these sort of units without needing to sacrifice the shooting/assault phase of a squad of terminators. The game is finite in length and wasting a turn of a powerful unit like terminators killing one of your opponents expendable scoring units will lose you games.

 

Oh Throne no, never EVER touch Pyromancy, unless you want to lose. 'Cleansing Flame' and heavy incinerator do what you want far more reliably, and they're not random abilities, and they work. Pyromancy is lots of 'S4 Ignores Cover Soulburn' meh, and the melta beam. It's garbage man, don't do it. 

Below are two article that I wrote that people might find helpful (they are written from the perspective of playing Dark Eldar but are easy enough to apply to grey knights).

 

Dark Eldar work completely different to us though. They're a mech shooty force that works by spamming dark lance into key enemy units Turn 1, then mopping up their weaker infantry and taking board position. In fact, DE would be our worst matchup, if they even mattered in the meta (sadly the other xenos lock them out). 

Anyway on topic I agree objective placement is one of the fundamental principles of strategy. I spread em out and in cover for fast armies like my DE/Eldar and cluster em midboard for my GKs and orks. That said clustering the 6 maelstrom objectives does not work quite the same in maelstrom as in eternal war IME. 

 

You only control at best half the objective positions though. Clustering yours up is quite risky actually, as you just make any units they send to that one location instantly worth far more than any of the more spread out objective areas. 

[Kraytirous]

Redacted

[Brom MKIV]

Dark Eldar work completely different to us though. They're a mech shooty force that works by spamming dark lance into key enemy units Turn 1, then mopping up their weaker infantry and taking board position. In fact, DE would be our worst matchup, if they even mattered in the meta (sadly the other xenos lock them out). 

 

This is true, although the lance thing varies.. actually I haven't played 'pure' DE in quite awhile though. I spam disis and fusions among other things. But ya DE are very good at spoiling meq. Sadly they are in a very similar spot to GK.. i.e. primarily an ally when it comes to competitive lists.

 

You only control at best half the objective positions though. Clustering yours up is quite risky actually, as you just make any units they send to that one location instantly worth far more than any of the more spread out objective areas. 

 

This is true to an extent. However, the alternative is worse, which is to leave those objectives out of reach and uncontested. Its more about bring them to where your gonna be anyway. And with orks its just about fringe gubbinz O' scorin on your way to a gud krumpin! Lol

[Mushkilla]

Please do that against Tau. Enjoy getting vaped while trying to play the mission, and then he puts his much cheaper and more numerous infantry onto them to hold it.

 

Tau is actually my most common opponent. I think you misunderstand me. You don't cluster your objectives to play the mission, you cluster them to stop your opponent from playing the mission. 

 

If at least 4 of the objectives are clustered (very easy to do especially when placing objectives second), you can dictate your opponents table edge, more often than not he will go with the side that has the cluster and if he doesn't that not a problem either. If he deploys on the cluster you force him to keep his forces in that cluster if he wants to play that mission, and that's exactly what an army with great strategic mobility (deep strike) and poor tactical mobility (6" movement) wants. If he doesn't choose the side with the cluster that's fine too as you can force your opponent to go through you to get the objectives by placing your force between them.

 

As for the much cheaper and more numerous infantry that's where you should consider pyromancy, especially if you tau opponent is fielding lots of kroot, firewarriors and pathfinders.

 

 

 

Oh Throne no, never EVER touch Pyromancy, unless you want to lose. 'Cleansing Flame' and heavy incinerator do what you want far more reliably, and they're not random abilities, and they work. Pyromancy is lots of 'S4 Ignores Cover Soulburn' meh, and the melta beam. It's garbage man, don't do it.

 

Access to five psychic disciplines lets us tailor to our opponent at the start of each game. If my opponent is fielding lots of T3 5+ save chaff why not leverage pyromancy? As for heavy incinerators? Dreadknights are much better off chasing threats to your army rather than expendable chaff. Cleansing flame is great, but doesn't have a reliable delivery method without allies and we are talking pure grey knight lists aren't we? Pyromancy is our improvised thunderfire/wyvern that we can choose to field on a game by game basis. 

 

Dark Eldar work completely different to us though. They're a mech shooty force that works by spamming dark lance into key enemy units Turn 1, then mopping up their weaker infantry and taking board position. In fact, DE would be our worst matchup, if they even mattered in the meta (sadly the other xenos lock them out).

 

Doesn't really matter, those guides are about objective deployment and deepstrike. The concepts are the same. The only difference is that dark eldar want their objectives spread out (as they are very mobile) and grey knights want their objectives closer together (as they are not so mobile).

 

You only control at best half the objective positions though. Clustering yours up is quite risky actually, as you just make any units they send to that one location instantly worth far more than any of the more spread out objective areas.

 

It encourages your opponent to stay in that location if he is already in it, and makes him gravitate towards it if he isn't. Slow armies like grey knights need to encourage more mobile armies to become static and cluster objectives helps you achieve this.

[jeffersonian000]

Actually, I thought I was responding to Kraytirous, not RD. Oh well.

 

SJ

[Reclusiarch Darius]

This is true, although the lance thing varies.. actually I haven't played 'pure' DE in quite awhile though. I spam disis and fusions among other things. But ya DE are very good at spoiling meq. Sadly they are in a very similar spot to GK.. i.e. primarily an ally when it comes to competitive lists.

 

DE have reverted to their 5th edition mech lance build. BeastStar got ruined, and Webway Portals are useless when Riptides just Intercept you. Yeah DE excel at ruining Marines, but against hordes they're noticeably worse, and Tau are their worst nightmare. 

This is true to an extent. However, the alternative is worse, which is to leave those objectives out of reach and uncontested. Its more about bring them to where your gonna be anyway. And with orks its just about fringe gubbinz O' scorin on your way to a gud krumpin! Lol

 

Orks have the luxury of MSU and lots of models, in the same army if they wish (mech Orks is a thing). We don't. Allies change that for us, but we're talking pure GK (as Allies are an entirely different conversation). 

If at least 4 of the objectives are clustered (very easy to do especially when placing objectives second), you can dictate your opponents table edge, more often than not he will go with the side that has the cluster and if he doesn't that not a problem either. If he deploys on the cluster you force him to keep his forces in that cluster if he wants to play that mission, and that's exactly what an army with great strategic mobility (deep strike) and poor tactical mobility (6" movement) wants. If he doesn't choose the side with the cluster that's fine too as you can force your opponent to go through you to get the objectives by placing your force between them.

 

Yeah but that's the same problem you have. So really, all you've done is ensure both of your forces will be concentrated in the same place at the same time. All he has to do at that point is put a fast unit on one of the objecitves not in the cluster, and then just murder anything you send into the cluster zone. Tau are experts at creating killzones, and they have amazing melee and Deepstrike defence. Getting them to spread out to prevent you sweeping a flank or taking enough objectives to eke out a win is actually better. 

As for the much cheaper and more numerous infantry that's where you should consider pyromancy, especially if you tau opponent is fielding lots of kroot, firewarriors and pathfinders.

 

What does Pryomancy do that a heavy incinerator or our basic firepower doesn't do already? Besides eat charge dice I'd rather use on defensive tech or shooting buffs. 

Access to five psychic disciplines lets us tailor to our opponent at the start of each game. If my opponent is fielding lots of T3 5+ save chaff why not leverage pyromancy? As for heavy incinerators? Dreadknights are much better off chasing threats to your army rather than expendable chaff. Cleansing flame is great, but doesn't have a reliable delivery method without allies and we are talking pure grey knight lists aren't we? Pyromancy is our improvised thunderfire/wyvern that we can choose to field on a game by game basis. 

 

We don't need it though. Also, on the subject of DK, you realistically don't enter melee with them till Turn 3 at best. In that time, they can direct their firepower into annoying infantry hiding in cover (heavy incinerator does work against so many units its absurd, and no scatter either). Purifiers can be delivered by Raven, but I agree that Allied pods are a better option if you can do that. 

 

We don't need more anti-infantry, we have plenty. What we need is anti-tank. In codex, our solution is spam psycannon, and then finish things in melee. Allies bring useful long-range firepower to plug our gap. 

Doesn't really matter, those guides are about objective deployment and deepstrike. The concepts are the same. The only difference is that dark eldar want their objectives spread out (as they are very mobile) and grey knights want their objectives closer together (as they are not so mobile).

 

DE don't Deepstrike though, Webway lists died when Tau were updated back in 6th. Also, they're completely different armies with different methods of achieving victory. We shoot then close in melee, DE just move+shoot until the enemy are vapour. 

It encourages your opponent to stay in that location if he is already in it, and makes him gravitate towards it if he isn't. Slow armies like grey knights need to encourage more mobile armies to become static and cluster objectives helps you achieve this. 

 

Tau are happy if you make their killzone for them, then proceed to feed your army into the grinder. 

[Mushkilla]

I fail to see how a guide on calculating deepstrike risk becomes less valid based on whether an army uses the mechanic or not.

 

Interceptor in my experience is overated, it sacrifices the units next shooting phase, doesn't benefit from markerlights and you need to draw line of sight to the unit to use it.

[Brom MKIV]

The articles were great. The deep strike one in particular is a very useful and simple approach to estimating risk. Probably one of the more useful articles I've read on the subject.

 

The other piece of advice I've found useful over the years went into incredible depth.. probability, optimal distance, planetary rotation, wind speed and direction even the sun upon its ecliptic (embellished but you get the idea). Then it said now throw all that out the window because deep strike is inherently a high risk high reward maneuver so place the unit where you need it.

 

I think these two concepts go well together because the first helps you assess risk to potentially mitigate it. The second keeps it real by reminding you that deep strike is not always safe but missing an opportunity just to play it safe with a unit designed for that purpose can be just as bad as a mishap.

[Reclusiarch Darius]

I fail to see how a guide on calculating deepstrike risk becomes less valid based on whether an army uses the mechanic or not. 

 

..........because they're completely different armies, who function differently, and achieve victory in different ways?

Interceptor in my experience is overated, it sacrifices the units next shooting phase, doesn't benefit from markerlights and you need to draw line of sight to the unit to use it. 

 

Well not really. Firstly, being able to kill your Deepstriking unit before it can even shoot is huge. They were gonna shoot your Terminators anyway, but now they get to remove them before they could do any damage. There is a reason InterTides are feared, it's because they remove non-drop podded Deepstrikers with impunity. Benefiting from markerlights doesn't matter, you'll inevitably deploy your Deepstrikers in an open space (to prevent Mishaps from bad scatter), and 360 degree Line of Sight means you need a building in the way to avoid getting shot (which means by definition your Terminators aren't shooting much when they land, which works in the Tau players favour as well). 

I think these two concepts go well together because the first helps you assess risk to potentially mitigate it. The second keeps it real by reminding you that deep strike is not always safe but missing an opportunity just to play it safe with a unit designed for that purpose can be just as bad as a mishap. 

 

I agree that if you can, you should Deepstrike. Despite all the obstacles GW puts in the way of Deepstrike (the stupid Mishap table, terrain rules, insane scattering, cannot charge from Reserves no matter what, free Interceptor on the premier AP2 shooting unit in the game etc), it's still better than deploying normally. It gets your guys into enemy lines (in our case) Turn 1, which rapidly speeds up the game from being 'I advance for 2-3 turns and get shot to pieces' into 'I crippled that key unit Turn 1, and now their units have too much to shoot at'. 

[Brom MKIV]

On interceptor it depends on what's doing the shooting. My experience that I can recall has only been against gun emplacements (meh) and various tau and relic sicarans which are both horrendous.

[Reclusiarch Darius]

On interceptor it depends on what's doing the shooting. My experience that I can recall has only been against gun emplacements (meh) and various tau and relic sicarans which are both horrendous. 

 

I've lost models to quad guns etc before. Tau are the Interceptor kings though. It's important to keep in mind that Deepstrike is a powerful tool, but you will hit matchups where they have a hard counter to it. And Tau are common as muck too, so it's not a cornercase problem. 

[Mushkilla]

I fail to see how a guide on calculating deepstrike risk becomes less valid based on whether an army uses the mechanic or not.

..........because they're completely different armies, who function differently, and achieve victory in different ways?

If you read the article on Deep Strike Risk you would realise that you could substitute the raider in the that guide with a squad of grey knights and it would be a grey knight guide. Like I said before the army used in the example makes no difference.

...you'll inevitably deploy your Deepstrikers in an open space (to prevent Mishaps from bad scatter),

That is your assumption on what the best way to deploy deep striking units against Tau is. I have a different assumption.

I deploy my deepstriking units 1" away from their intended target and minimise the size of the sector of the circle that contains enemies. I'll elaborate on why later.

...and 360 degree Line of Sight means you need a building in the way to avoid getting shot (which means by definition your Terminators aren't shooting much when they land, which works in the Tau players favour as well).

You don't need to block line of sight to their whole army, only the models with interceptor, which most of the time you don't want to shoot at anyway (Riptides pack the interceptor and more often than not are a waste of time to shoot other than when you are playing psylencer roulette).

Deep strike out of sight in the movement phase (so interceptor doesn't work) and then use your run move in the shooting phase to draw line of sight to your targets. Yes, deepstrike is random, but it also has a 33% chance of being pin-point. Why not ensure that if you do get that 1/3 accurate landing, that your knights are in an advantageous position.

The other piece of advice I've found useful over the years went into incredible depth.. probability, optimal distance, planetary rotation, wind speed and direction even the sun upon its ecliptic (embellished but you get the idea). Then it said now throw all that out the window because deep strike is inherently a high risk high reward maneuver so place the unit where you need it.

The second keeps it real by reminding you that deep strike is not always safe but missing an opportunity just to play it safe with a unit designed for that purpose can be just as bad as a mishap.

You hit the nail on the head. I actually did some combinatorics a while back and found that if you deepstrike 1" away from your opponent regardless of scatter (as long as you don't mishap) you have a 90% chance of making charge in open ground next turn. This assumes the following: you use your teleport rites to move towards your target, the target unit moves back 6" (if they don't move the full 6" the chances are much higher), a terminator is placed to gain 1.5", the terminators don’t shoot the target unit and the terminators don't get wiped out before their turn.

Now the odds are actually better than that because enemy units are larger than a single model. So as long as you minimise the size of the sector of the circle when you are placing your first model to reduce risk to a level that is acceptable you can pretty much guarantee that if your terminators don't mishap they will be charging the following turn.

An added advantage to this kind of aggressive calculated risk/reward strategy is that it almost always means you "Hug Them by the Belt Buckle" (To quote Nguyen Hu An). This means any BS3 large blast S8 AP2 riptide shots fired using interceptor have good odds of scattering back onto the Tau players own forces.

You are potentially sacrificing game turns by putting a unit in reserve so you need to make the deep strike worthwhile otherwise you might as well have started that unit on the board. Grey Knight terminators excel in assault you want to be in combat the turn after you deepstrike.

It makes decision making a lot easier when you can focus on the goals that you want to achieve, in this case close combat the turn after a unit deepstrikes. For a game plan to be solid you need to have a good idea on wether that's actually likely to happen. It helps you see the landscape of the following turn and plan accordingly.

When I'm placing my models for deepstrike I don't think about where I want them on the turn they land, but where I want them on the turn after they land.

[Reclusiarch Darius]

That is your assumption on what the best way to deploy deep striking units against Tau is. I have a different assumption.

I deploy my deepstriking units 1" away from their intended target and minimise the size of the sector of the circle that contains enemies. I'll elaborate on why later.

You deploy Deepstrikers 1" away from an enemy unit? Unless you have rigged scatter dice, how in the hell do you not just instantly Mishap?

You don't need to block line of sight to their whole army, only the models with interceptor, which most of the time you don't want to shoot at anyway (Riptides pack the interceptor and more often than not are a waste of time to shoot other than when you are playing psylencer roulette).

Yeah but unless your opponent is really stupid, they'll deploy their units in support of one another. Tau don't even need smart players, they just need to castle up (which is how most armies deal with Deepstriking armies anyway, at least since 4th edition). At which point, in order for you to see any of their gunline, you'll expose yourself to the Tides. Not to mention, bad scatter can land you in Line of Sight anyway. I agree about not shooting Riptides, its a complete waste of time. But they shield the rest of the stuff you do wanna shoot (tanks, infantry, Crisis etc), by being taller and have absurd range.

Deep strike out of sight in the movement phase (so interceptor doesn't work) and then use your run move in the shooting phase to draw line of sight to your targets. Yes, deepstrike is random, but it also has a 33% chance of being pin-point. Why not ensure that if you do get that 1/3 accurate landing, that your knights are in an advantageous position.

Because I don't like risking my strategy on Run moves. It's a D6, you could just as easily roll a 1 and have negated the point of Deepstriking entirely. I view the Run move as a nice bonus that can either spread out your Terminators to avoid getting blasted to death next turn, or to get you into range if you scatter out of 24" from your intended target (unusual, but can happen with up to 12" of random deviation when you land). 33% is the same odds you have of passing your invul saves against a Riptide nuking you. I don't rely on invul, any more than I rely on any ability that is less than 50% reliable. If it works, it works, but I don't put any faith in it.

You hit the nail on the head. I actually did some combinatorics a while back and found that if you deepstrike 1" away from your opponent regardless of scatter (as long as you don't mishap) you have a 90% chance of making charge in open ground next turn. This assumes the following: you use your teleport rites to move towards your target, the target unit moves back 6" (if they don't move the full 6" the chances are much higher), a terminator is placed to gain 1.5", the terminators don’t shoot the target unit and the terminators don't get wiped out before their turn.

Mate, you need to explain this better. How in the hell does Deepstriking 1" away work? By definition, unless you roll a direct hit on the scatter die, you're very often going to Mishap into an enemy unit. Drop Pods can pull off that stunt due to their special rules allowing them move back from impassable terrain and enemy units if they scatter onto them.

Now the odds are actually better than that because enemy units are larger than a single model. So as long as you minimise the size of the sector of the circle when you are placing your first model to reduce risk to a level that is acceptable you can pretty much guarantee that if your terminators don't mishap they will be charging the following turn.

Well they won't, for several reasons. Firstly, because you're well and truly inside rapid fire range of everything in their army. Secondly, because they can quite easily back away and still be in rapid-fire range. Thirdly, you eat said rapid fire and everything else. Assuming you survive, you then eat Overwatch as well, which invariably means you'll fail charge. And that's still not including tricks like Flat Outing Devilfish in front of a unit afters its fired and so on.

An added advantage to this kind of aggressive calculated risk/reward strategy is that it almost always means you "Hug Them by the Belt Buckle" (To quote Nguyen Hu An). This means any BS3 large blast S8 AP2 riptide shots fired using interceptor have good odds of scattering back onto the Tau players own forces.

Or he simply chooses to fire in normal mode, if blasts scatter is a problem. Between the 3 shots from the ion cannon and the 2 twin-linked from his plasma rifle, he has good odds of wiping out at least 2 if not 3 Terminators. Thats before you can even Run+shoot remember, as Interceptor triggers when the unit lands.

You are potentially sacrificing game turns by putting a unit in reserve so you need to make the deep strike worthwhile otherwise you might as well have started that unit on the board. Grey Knight terminators excel in assault you want to be in combat the turn after you deepstrike.

Unless they are mentally defective, you are not getting Turn 2 charges. You'll be lucky if you get a Turn 3 charge, assuming your Terminators aren't just vapour by that point.

It makes decision making a lot easier when you can focus on the goals that you want to achieve, in this case close combat the turn after a unit deepstrikes. For a game plan to be solid you need to have a good idea on wether that's actually likely to happen. It helps you see the landscape of the following turn and plan accordingly.

Well seeing as you base your game plan around a lot of assumptions, and a chain of improbable outcomes (perfect scatter or direct hit on landing, Interceptor not killing much, their turn not killing much, them not using roadblocks or other tricks to avoid melee with anything important), I'd say your game plan is anything but solid.

[Gentlemanloser]

Mate, you need to explain this better. How in the hell does Deepstriking 1" away work? By definition, unless you roll a direct hit on the scatter die, you're very often going to Mishap into an enemy unit. Drop Pods can pull off that stunt due to their special rules allowing them move back from impassable terrain and enemy units if they scatter onto them.

 

Our Chaos Daemon player (then the first 40k Dex originally hit) used to play this way.

 

It either worked awesomely for him.  First turn stuff comes down so close to you.  And Flamers.  And so much stuff comes down, you can't deal with it all.  Then second turn your tied up in assault facing whole squads with power weapons, while the reinforcements come down off of icons with no scatter.

 

Or it worked abysmally bad for him.  Most of that half of the army misshaped.  Died, was placed at the far corner of the board where it was effectively out of the game.

 

And he conceded.

 

It made to very quick, very lopsided games.

 

Either he was awesome first turn, and you had no hope of winning.  So you conceded.  Or he was terrible first turn, had no hope of coming back form that and he conceded.

 

We *very* quickly lost all enjoyment playing both with and against the Chaos Daemon army.  And simply stopped.  Which was sad, as it was the only way that army was designed to be played.

[Reclusiarch Darius]

Yeah, so why would you ever do that? You basically put the entire game in the result of a few scatter rolls. The following 4-5 turns might as well not exist, because you're either going to win or lose right then, right there. 

 

Landing in good positions, then Run to spread out from blasts/get into optimal  weapon range is better. You can come back from poor scatter a lot easier that way. 

[Gentlemanloser]

The old Daemon army couldn't work like that though.

 

Forced to only have half arrive first turn, and fragile units to boot.

 

'Letters would destroy marines in CC.  Utterly.  But if they weren't (in numbers) in overwhelming position, they could easily be boltered down (especially in Rapid fire range).

 

So a conservative DS, with a poor scatter, could leave them so out of position you might have well mishapped.

 

Same with Flamers.  You DSed them close, in order to evaporate a squad the turn they come down.

 

It was a badly designed army.  It either won big, or lost big.  And neither was fun to play against.

 

And I'm starting to see the resemblance to them with our current GK dex.  We trade fragility for low model counts though.  While individual 'letters were fragile, you could have lots of them.

 

The GK are pushed into the aggressive all out NSF turn 1 DS.  And you play me big, you win me big.  Don't be lucky and coward.  Aggressive DS, overwhelming force.  Push your opponent onto the back foot turn one and force domination.

 

Or mire yourself midfeild and get out maneuvered and outgunned.

[Reclusiarch Darius]

Yeah I agree man. I was advocating Nemesis Strike Force or go home from day 1 of our codex release. In some ways, I'm glad GW finally gave us that detachment. We've always wanted a Deathwing Assault we could call our own. Rites of Teleportation fits it perfectly. 

 

I would say that we're more effective than Daemons at it though. Psycannons are just so incredibly flexible. Besides stupid unkillable mistakes like Riptides, or Shrouded Grinders, or FMC's etc, it really can kill anything in the game, with enough concentration. Taking out a Broadside team, or some Devastators with plasma cannon, or a Grav-Centurion unit, or a Vindincator etc Turn 1 is massive. Target priority Turn 1, and also reliably getting everyone down Turn 1, is hugely important. That's why I think the Aegis Line with Comms Array is mandatory. 70pts to ensure your army arrives as one, versus coming down piecemeal and never striking that decisive blow. Also mandatory are 2+ Dreadknights. They bring heavy psycannon, unmatchable melee lethality, and the speed to deliver all of that Turn 1 as well. Perfect support unit to the Terminator strike, and indeed they often kill more than your Terminators. Gatling psilencer and heavy incinerator will depend on matchup and points availability, but they also compliment the 'drown them in shots' method of the psycannons. 

 

As I've said throughout this thread, Maelstrom destroys our army because of that focus. We don't take ground, or hold it, or give one second's thought to random objective cards. We punch the enemy in the mouth Turn 1, and then never let them recover the initiative. Every turn has to be a killing blow, a decisive victory that escalates until the enemy are either dead or reduced to an ineffectual remnant. That's our true strength and place in the 40k meta. We're the alpha strike of alpha strike lists. 

 

If you choose to play in Maelstrom with pure GK, you're choosing failure. It's like playing a normal list in Unbound. You're trying to plug the most square of all plugs (an alpha strike list that by design and intent has no plan B )into the smallest round hole in existence (le tacticool 'squat objectives and draw cards like it's MTG' Maelstrom). Now, of course, Allies change that picture, as they should. If you do take Allies into the Maelstrom, ensure they're the complete opposite, the static shooty spammable ying to your tiny but incredibly lethal scalpel of yang. For that reason, I'd nominate Imperial Guard as the premier choice. Their Russes, Infantry Blobs and truly staggering firepower to cost ratio makes them perfect. Add in their Orders, and you don't even need to put any psychic buffs onto them (they bring their own dirt cheap Primaris anyway). 

[Brom MKIV]

a conservative DS, with a poor scatter, could leave them so out of position you might have well mishapped.

 

This is where I'm at having used deep strike extensively for 4 editions now, although I still mess it up. It may not always be worth the risk but when a 'stick' means a decisive blow to the enemy vs a conservative approach which might do something worthwhile, I feel its better to go for broke.. especially in this edition where deep strike mishaps are so forgiving compared to past editions.  

 

I deploy my deepstriking units 1" away from their intended target and minimise the size of the sector of the circle that contains enemies. I'll elaborate on why later.

 

 

i.e. aiming to drop the unit further away for a perceived cushion of safety (conservative approach) can actually increase the chance of a mishap or at least an unfavorable position even if they don't mishap. Reason is the unit could actually land out of range to significantly effect the board state in future turns, or in other words they effectively foot slogged..

 

Conversely dropping your unit 1" away from enemy unit(s) means you can safely overshoot the unit and avoid a mishap with the prize being a stick. Its the more aggressive approach and brings other benefits like higher potential for friendly fire by enemy blast weaponry and the ability to interdict the opposing units movement. All this is of course assuming there is room to overshoot. 

[Reclusiarch Darius]

This is where I'm at having used deep strike extensively for 4 editions now, although I still mess it up. It may not always be worth the risk but when a 'stick' means a decisive blow to the enemy vs a conservative approach which might do something worthwhile, I feel its better to go for broke.. especially in this edition where deep strike mishaps are so forgiving compared to past editions. 

 

There is a difference between conservative and suicidal. Choosing to land within 1" of your opponent is pure insanity. Even assuming Mishap doesn't either delete the unit or get it deployed in a far corner where it's effectively dead anyway, you're still in the teeth of every weapon they possess. 24" isn't what I'd call safe by any means, but its outside of rapid-fire (even for 15" rapid fire on pulse rifles), it's outside melta and fusion, and it allows for a lot more variance in enemy deployment and terrain (ie the enemy can't defend their flanks out to 24"). It also allows for you to leapfrog your Dreadknights forward with more room for their Shunts, and also more room to have clear sight lines to the enemy. 

i.e. aiming to drop the unit further away for a perceived cushion of safety (conservative approach) can actually increase the chance of a mishap or at least an unfavorable position even if they don't mishap. Reason is the unit could actually land out of range to significantly effect the board state in future turns, or in other words they effectively foot slogged..

 

Conversely dropping your unit 1" away from enemy unit(s) means you can safely overshoot the unit and avoid a mishap with the prize being a stick. Its the more aggressive approach and brings other benefits like higher potential for friendly fire by enemy blast weaponry and the ability to interdict the opposing units movement. All this is of course assuming there is room to overshoot. 

 

There won't be. Anyone fighting an enemy that primary Deepstrikes will castle, unless they're a complete idiot/newbie to 40k. By defintion, they will try to present sacrifical units to shield others further back, and try to cover as much ground as possible to deny you possible landings in or behind their castle. Refused flank is very common. So, in doing what they'd do normally, they'll deny you any space to safely overshoot if that's even what happens. You'll just Mishap anyway. 

[Brom MKIV]

There is a difference between conservative and suicidal. Choosing to land within 1" of your opponent is pure insanity. Even assuming Mishap doesn't either delete the unit or get it deployed in a far corner where it's effectively dead anyway, you're still in the teeth of every weapon they possess. 24" isn't what I'd call safe by any means, but its outside of rapid-fire (even for 15" rapid fire on pulse rifles), it's outside melta and fusion, and it allows for a lot more variance in enemy deployment and terrain (ie the enemy can't defend their flanks out to 24"). It also allows for you to leapfrog your Dreadknights forward with more room for their Shunts, and also more room to have clear sight lines to the enemy. 

 

There is, and to be clear I'm not saying BE suicidal. My point is simply that going too conservative can be the same as foot slogging in many cases. We have superior initial placement but poor redeployment options. I think its accepted that we usually don't do ranged attrition very well.

 

There won't be. Anyone fighting an enemy that primary Deepstrikes will castle, unless they're a complete idiot/newbie to 40k. By defintion, they will try to present sacrifical units to shield others further back, and try to cover as much ground as possible to deny you possible landings in or behind their castle. Refused flank is very common. So, in doing what they'd do normally, they'll deny you any space to safely overshoot if that's even what happens. You'll just Mishap anyway. 

 

 

Its not always that simple but ya players do make mistakes, and not every army excels at those counter tactics. They may be similarly short ranged, and/or similarly aggressive, or don't have the disposable model count to castle appropriately, or terrain interferes, or the mission conflicts with the strategy, or they have transported units that don't want to be left immobile, or they simply fear your blast and template weaponry. Any of these can make it hard to commit to such an all in strategy. Each opponent will weigh it differently depending on their own strategy and threat assessment. 

 

Maybe they wan't to try to force hard decisions by splitting your forces, or maybe they feel they simply don't have the mobility to recover should the aggressive threat turn out to be a feint.

 

As an opponent to such aggressive DS strategies I can say all of these have factored in to my games at one point or another depending on which army I'm piloting. Its not just about turn 1 Rites of Teleportation or full on DS strategy either. Even one turn changes things.