Prot Posted March 23, 2015 Share Posted March 23, 2015 I want to make sure I word this correctly as to not start a thread that degrades into.... arguing or a 'how cheezy' can we get, sort of thread. That being said the reason I ask this question is I've discovered something very weird about the army as I've adopted it into my closet of shame.... The disparity of opinion on the Grey Knights is all over the place.... literally. The army seems to draw these widely ranged opinions and I'm not sure if the truth is somewhere in the middle or what. Case and point: I'm picking up boxes for the army. One player at the store warns me they won't be as well rounded, or as competitive as a codex marine army. Fair enough. Another guy at the same time tells me he plays against Grey Knights a fair amount, and he'd "Never play me" with Grey Knights. lol I see references to how difficult some match ups are, and I personally can see some real issues with the trend towards very spammy Xenos right now. I have to wonder if it's the allies that causing this? Another factor I see is some.... let's say fairly 'well known' Batrep sites have showcased some pretty strong games by Grey Knight players, and it turns out they weren't actually playing the army legally.... leading to misperception. As a stand alone codex, I think there are some neat tricks that perhaps combined or used outside of the codex leads to some 'strong' elements. But this is true of many codexes. I'm just not seeing the 'broken' side of the army. Where is this coming from? Is it partially true? Where do you think the codex stands (as a stand alone codex) amongst the stronger codexes out there? Let's say Codex Marines are somewhere in the middle, would you put GK above or below that? Just curious what you guys think.... Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/305025-how-would-you-rank-the-power-of-the-gk-codex/ Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain Coolpants Posted March 23, 2015 Share Posted March 23, 2015 The whole "grey knights are broken" started about 2 codecies ago, way back when our swords granted us a +2 strength without psychic casting, we also had a better aegis rule, your opponent could only see us 3d6 times 2 away (because we were super shiny). Power weapons ignored allll armour, and we had true grit, which meant we got +1 attack for singlehandedly wielding the storm bolters. Then last edition we had inquisition, which was literally THE only reason we were cheesy because of cheap inquisition scoring stuffs and plasma and mech that was winning tournaments. But even on pure 'knights' lists, people also hated on our warp quake,which was understandable because if played strategically with deepstriking and shunting, could literally stop your opponent from deepstriking anywhere on the table (ruined null deploy lists, drop pods and daemon lists). The psychic phase was different last edition too, so our powers pretty much aaaalways went off. And we liked using lots of dreadnoughts with psybolt ammo autocannons. BUT that said, our knights weren't doing well competitively when the inquisition options weren't taken, but people just assumed 'same book, same cheese' even though it was all the inquisitions doing. Now this edition, we've actually gained a lot (lost more though), but competitively, we've dropped drastically as a stand alone codex. But the stigma remains! They hear 10+warp charges and strength 6 ap3 CC weapons on everything and think cheese... Yet, our warp charges are mostly used for combat, and combat has been mostly dead the past 2 editions, and we have NO proper shooting. Yet they still let themselves get into combat and wonder why they lost... Soooo to put it in short... It's stupid people listening to whining little Internet trolls that couldn't even think their way out of a wet paper bag. Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/305025-how-would-you-rank-the-power-of-the-gk-codex/#findComment-3985201 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rurik the blessed Posted March 23, 2015 Share Posted March 23, 2015 I think this edition is not so bad... there's some issues that would be fixed, but in a wide look, our codex is not that bad. The real need in our codex is some cool and useful Characters. we use to have a lot of Hq to choose from, now we only complain on Librarians and some times a Grand master... or i mean Brother captain... I always says, if we get some sort of dataslate full of characters (like the 8 Grand masters)... this would really improves a lot. Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/305025-how-would-you-rank-the-power-of-the-gk-codex/#findComment-3985208 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gentlemanloser Posted March 23, 2015 Share Posted March 23, 2015 The whole "grey knights are broken" started about 2 codecies ago, way back when our swords granted us a +2 strength without psychic casting, we also had a better aegis rule, your opponent could only see us 3d6 times 2 away (because we were super shiny). Power weapons ignored allll armour, and we had true grit, which meant we got +1 attack for singlehandedly wielding the storm bolters. Oh dear god no. That was the Daemonhunter. Probably one of the worst Codexes in the game. We got stomped by everyone, at every time as Daemonhunters. The only games we were uber cheese was facing the new Daemon Codex, and running nothing by Sanctuary Bubbles and coering the board with them. At which point the opposing play didn't even bother to unpack, dreadsocked you, and you both went to do more rewarding things. Our 'power' came with the Ward edition. Or 5th Edition Codex: Grey Knights was very hard to defend. I did try my best, but after playing for a while I couldn't any longer. It's wasn't that the GK were 'OP', we had no real 'OP' units. It was more that our entire Codex was so useful, that someone who had never played 40k before could literally throw darts at units to form their army, plop it down and pwn an experienced player with a well thought out Army Build. Mostly, this was due to us being built with 6th in mind, and the emergence of 6th Edition really removed a lot of our potency. The nerfing of Power Weapons in CC and other changes, bought us down to a middle of the field level. Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/305025-how-would-you-rank-the-power-of-the-gk-codex/#findComment-3985211 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lucien Eilam Posted March 23, 2015 Share Posted March 23, 2015 They can be crushing in some match-ups, hopeless in others. Almost every unit in a typical list is a minor variation on the exact same theme, and it's hard to justify taking what little variety they can access. If your opponent happens not to have a good answer to that theme, facing an entire army of it will be a miserable experience for him. If he does, it will be miserable for you. Personally I don't find pure GK much fun, from either side of the table. In 7th edition terms, they were essentially designed as allies, and it shows. Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/305025-how-would-you-rank-the-power-of-the-gk-codex/#findComment-3985215 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gentlemanloser Posted March 23, 2015 Share Posted March 23, 2015 As for currently, with out new 7th Edition Codex, we're nothing more than an 'Ally'. A tiny stand alone option (you can repeat like all the rest), in the great sea of things you can now take. Players limit the number of Factions you can use, which is frankly rediculous. If you wanted to return to our old, 6th edition heyday, we would need to use *three* Factions, before we even looked at Allies. And players try to limit games to 2? That already destroys our old army builds, and leaves us weaker than before. GW want us to build armies with unlimted numbers of Factions. They want Space Marines with the Inquisition, Assassins and Grey Knights. Backed by the Storm Troopers, Imperial Guard and Imperila Knights. Coming to the aid of a Xenos race, even if that race is purged afterwards. With the LEgion popping in at the last minute to save the day. But the 'community' doesn't like this vision. And it hurts *us* more than those who have a fully fledged army made up of more than 1/2 choices per FoC slot. Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/305025-how-would-you-rank-the-power-of-the-gk-codex/#findComment-3985216 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reclusiarch Darius Posted March 23, 2015 Share Posted March 23, 2015 No, it's more the case that I bought into a faction, and I want to play that faction. Not the Super Best Friends Give Me All Your Money Edition. What breaks your argument in half and then dances on its corpse, is that xenos don't need any of that rubbish; Tau? Pure is their strongest build Eldar? Same Necrons? Lol why would they need Allies to prop them up, they already break the game with their own codex Daemons? Maybe for Heldrakes and more Princes, but CSM don't bring anything Daemons need besides cheap scoring with Cultists I hate forced Allies. If I want to create a combined force, I will. But I hate being forced down the path of 'well you can only field like 3-4 units from your codex, then you have to start plugging holes in your army list with Allied units'. I hate Draigo+Grav Cents is a thing, and that besides DK's and Purifiers its the only mildly powerful thing to come out of our 7th edition update. Regarding your question, here are the current tiers of 40k; Xenos tier: - Necrons - Tau/Eldar - Daemons Middle of the road, Jimmy will only lose half his games tier: - Most flavours of Marines (including Wolves) - Imperial Guard - Imperial Knights (can be broken if people bring awful newb lists to fight them, a balanced list is fine) - Chaos Space Marines (their mono-build) - Tyranids (used to be xenos tier, but FMC's got nerfed, they probably sit about halfway between the two) Ally/spoiler tier: - Grey Knights - Stormtroopers - Inquisition - Assassins - Dark Eldar - Chaos Space Marines (any other build besides mono-build) - Harlequins (apparently they needed a whole army book to showcase their glass cannon nature) I play this game for fun to hide the tears of failure tier: - Orks (I've never met a salty Ork player, I think their faction attracts people who just don't care haha) - Sisters (update soon though, so watch this space) - The three people left who still play Dark Angels Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/305025-how-would-you-rank-the-power-of-the-gk-codex/#findComment-3985252 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prot Posted March 23, 2015 Author Share Posted March 23, 2015 I agree and it is the one thing I despise about 7th. For all that I love about 7th, and I do love components of it, especially Maelstrom, but I despise the forced ally situation. Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/305025-how-would-you-rank-the-power-of-the-gk-codex/#findComment-3985262 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reclusiarch Darius Posted March 23, 2015 Share Posted March 23, 2015 Maelstrom is a trap designed to sell those stupid Tac Objective decks. I've never once seen or played a game of Maelstrom that wasn't just 'sit on objectives, pray to the RNG gods you roll decent Tac Objectives'. It's about as tacticool as watching paint dry, especially against shooty armies who just blast you off the table as you try to reposition/do anything. Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/305025-how-would-you-rank-the-power-of-the-gk-codex/#findComment-3985265 Share on other sites More sharing options...
jeffersonian000 Posted March 23, 2015 Share Posted March 23, 2015 Grey Knights are above average in power level, not quite top tier. The naysayers above are harboring biases and disappointments that are blinding them to the overall standings of the current GK codex, which ranks them pretty high based on available tournament data. At this time, GKs are a master level army that is challenging to play successfully on its own versus a number of match ups, yet inherently boosts the power level of other armies when paired up with other powerful builds. The mastery portion is too hard for some, who complain the codex is a mono-build, while the buff portion is seen as being an Allied one trick pony. This causes bitterness in those whose expectations where too high to begin with, and disappointment in those that relied on aspects of the previous codex that are now stand alone. What we have with the current GK codex is a tool box of precision multi-tools, that can be used to fix a verity of problems when thinking outside of the box. For the "power gamer", they have a codex that bumps up other codexes via Allying. For gamers looking to challenge themselves, they have a codex that forces them to think through their decisions with each unit, from list building through to turn 7. For the rest, its a "broken" codex full of smelly cheese and bitter memories. For me, the 7th Ed codex is my old TDA heavy, Shunting, Deep Striking list preference cranked to 11. Its a master-class army full of multi-tools that can be configured on the fly to meet my needs during the game as long as I can push myself to see those needs early enough while making less mistakes than my opponent throughout the game. Which is to say, playing GK competetively makes you a better player, because you either take the best to amp up another armies strengths, or you challenge yourself to be a better player. Those that hate the easy button of Allies are doing themselves a disservice, while those that hate the challenge of a pure GK army simply don't like to challenge themselves to be better. As with any other army, there are hard counters. Yet it is up to the player to plan on how to deal with those hard counters when confronted with them. Doesn't matter what army you play. SJ Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/305025-how-would-you-rank-the-power-of-the-gk-codex/#findComment-3985270 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gentlemanloser Posted March 23, 2015 Share Posted March 23, 2015 Jeff, aren't all the top level Tournament results when using GK as 'allies'? Like Draigo to cart your Grav Cents around. RD, as for Xenos, that's the fluff man. Who allies with the Xenos races? No one. Are there a Multitude of Xenos factions? Nope. But the Imperium of Man. That's (and their Dark Side...) a different kettle of fish. And GW expect you to pick and choose from the vast multitude of the Imperium (or it's reskinned Dark Side) to sate your Power Armour desires. The pointy blue dudes? /meh Mecha Suited cannon fodder. For me, the 7th Ed codex is my old TDA heavy, Shunting, Deep Striking list preference cranked to 11. Apart form losing the SC that went with this build, and having Psycannons nerfed on the PA DSing dudes. NSF is good, but Drop Pods and Belial (and the Angels Wing) are still better. Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/305025-how-would-you-rank-the-power-of-the-gk-codex/#findComment-3985282 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reclusiarch Darius Posted March 23, 2015 Share Posted March 23, 2015 Grey Knights are above average in power level, not quite top tier. The naysayers above are harboring biases and disappointments that are blinding them to the overall standings of the current GK codex, which ranks them pretty high based on available tournament data. At this time, GKs are a master level army that is challenging to play successfully on its own versus a number of match ups, yet inherently boosts the power level of other armies when paired up with other powerful builds. The mastery portion is too hard for some, who complain the codex is a mono-build, while the buff portion is seen as being an Allied one trick pony. This causes bitterness in those whose expectations where too high to begin with, and disappointment in those that relied on aspects of the previous codex that are now stand alone. I'm gonna stop you right there and ask the following questions; - How many wins/top 10 placings were GK's part of? - How many of those wins/top 10 placings were they an Ally? What we have with the current GK codex is a tool box of precision multi-tools, that can be used to fix a verity of problems when thinking outside of the box. For the "power gamer", they have a codex that bumps up other codexes via Allying. For gamers looking to challenge themselves, they have a codex that forces them to think through their decisions with each unit, from list building through to turn 7. For the rest, its a "broken" codex full of smelly cheese and bitter memories. Do you own the same codex we do? Because I'm pretty sure it reads 'elite handful of dudes in PA and TDA, backed up by DK's and maybe a Raven or two'. Thats our entire codex, from start to finish. Which means, barring the DK's and possibly the Raven (although Skyfire and high mass S7 destroys it), we get eaten alive by xenos armies. Daemons are the only top-tier army we stomp consistently. And even in that fight, we're fighting to cast any powers when they start the game with 20+ WC every Psychic phase. For me, the 7th Ed codex is my old TDA heavy, Shunting, Deep Striking list preference cranked to 11. Its a master-class army full of multi-tools that can be configured on the fly to meet my needs during the game as long as I can push myself to see those needs early enough while making less mistakes than my opponent throughout the game. Which is to say, playing GK competetively makes you a better player, because you either take the best to amp up another armies strengths, or you challenge yourself to be a better player. Those that hate the easy button of Allies are doing themselves a disservice, while those that hate the challenge of a pure GK army simply don't like to challenge themselves to be better. Okay Jeff, I'm calling you out here officially. Win a local tournament with a pure GK list. If you do, you'll have done what pretty much no one has accomplished since the 7th edition update. All those pros who piloted us in 5th can't do it. I honestly don't see how any of us can. As with any other army, there are hard counters. Yet it is up to the player to plan on how to deal with those hard counters when confronted with them. Doesn't matter what army you play. Ah k, glad you brought up hard counters. Let me ask you, what precision-crafted tools has GW blessed our army with, when facing the following armies?; Necrons: Nothing dies, Wraiths rip everything to shreds in melee, they drown your infantry in massed fire Eldar: They spam shuriken weaponry into you until you have no infantry, trade a few tanks and Fire Dragons for your DK's, and generally just drive away from you shooting you the whole time Tau: They blow up your Terminators when they arrive from Reserves with Riptides. They rip your Ravens and DK's to pieces with Broadsides. They feed tanks and expendable infantry to your DK's, then kill them with plasma. ..........................................yeah Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/305025-how-would-you-rank-the-power-of-the-gk-codex/#findComment-3985286 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prot Posted March 23, 2015 Author Share Posted March 23, 2015 They can be crushing in some match-ups, hopeless in others. Almost every unit in a typical list is a minor variation on the exact same theme, and it's hard to justify taking what little variety they can access. If your opponent happens not to have a good answer to that theme, facing an entire army of it will be a miserable experience for him. If he does, it will be miserable for you. Personally I don't find pure GK much fun, from either side of the table. In 7th edition terms, they were essentially designed as allies, and it shows. - This is interesting to me. As a core I find them really interesting but is there now way you can expand the army to get it to where you're happy? (without allying?) As for currently, with out new 7th Edition Codex, we're nothing more than an 'Ally'. GW want us to build armies with unlimted numbers of Factions. They want Space Marines with the Inquisition, Assassins and Grey Knights. Backed by the Storm Troopers, Imperial Guard and Imperila Knights. Coming to the aid of a Xenos race, even if that race is purged afterwards. With the LEgion popping in at the last minute to save the day. But the 'community' doesn't like this vision. And it hurts *us* more than those who have a fully fledged army made up of more than 1/2 choices per FoC slot. - Agreed. But I wouldn't say that many of the Marine codexes are free from that burden. I personally just don't think it's a great edition to be a space marine player in. Regarding your question, here are the current tiers of 40k; Xenos tier: - Necrons - Tau/Eldar - Daemons Middle of the road, Jimmy will only lose half his games tier: - Tyranids (used to be xenos tier, but FMC's got nerfed, they probably sit about halfway between the two) Tyranids are most certainly top teir. Maelstrom is a trap designed to sell those stupid Tac Objective decks. I've never once seen or played a game of Maelstrom that wasn't just 'sit on objectives, pray to the RNG gods you roll decent Tac Objectives'. It's about as tacticool as watching paint dry, especially against shooty armies who just blast you off the table as you try to reposition/do anything. Strongly disagree about a lot of the negativity you have towards Maelstrom. VERY strongly. I'll leave it at that. On the RNG part, I can't completely disagree, but the second I approach any game with dice involved, I accept my fate is at least somewhat in the hands of the RNG gods. Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/305025-how-would-you-rank-the-power-of-the-gk-codex/#findComment-3985291 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gentlemanloser Posted March 23, 2015 Share Posted March 23, 2015 Maelstrom sucks. Even if you houserule it (which come on, is just an indication of *how* badly it sucks). GK Player Pulls the Kill a Daemon Card. Faces no Daemons in opponents list... Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/305025-how-would-you-rank-the-power-of-the-gk-codex/#findComment-3985300 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reclusiarch Darius Posted March 23, 2015 Share Posted March 23, 2015 - This is interesting to me. As a core I find them really interesting but is there now way you can expand the army to get it to where you're happy? (without allying?) Maybe if you only play even worse armies or scrubs. But if you play anyone who is reasonably good at 40k and plays one of the more powerful factions, you're in trouble. - Agreed. But I wouldn't say that many of the Marine codexes are free from that burden. I personally just don't think it's a great edition to be a space marine player in. Pretty much. We suffer most for it, because unlike Marines we get zero support units. We're our own support, we do everything (shooting and melee). Tyranids are most certainly top teir. Tervigons getting nerfed into the ground hurt them, so did the FMC changes. Like I said, I think depending on meta changes they might get back into the lofty heights they were in 6th. But there is so much more Skyfire now, and the need to land the turn prior to charging is a big deal for Flyrants. Strongly disagree about a lot of the negativity you have towards Maelstrom. VERY strongly. I'll leave it at that. On the RNG part, I can't completely disagree, but the second I approach any game with dice involved, I accept my fate is at least somewhat in the hands of the RNG gods. Well, I hate Relic too, but lots of people like that mission (shrug) agree to disagree. My contention is that Maelstrom is poorly designed and favours certain armies over others. Eternal War is at least a little more forgiving, and has win-cons that don't revolve around sitting in your DZ just blowing up your opponents army till Turn 4. Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/305025-how-would-you-rank-the-power-of-the-gk-codex/#findComment-3985302 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gentlemanloser Posted March 23, 2015 Share Posted March 23, 2015 I like The Relic. ;) But then again I loved Blood Bowl (and Dungeon Bowl!) as a kid. :) Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/305025-how-would-you-rank-the-power-of-the-gk-codex/#findComment-3985303 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prot Posted March 23, 2015 Author Share Posted March 23, 2015 Maelstrom sucks. Even if you houserule it (which come on, is just an indication of *how* badly it sucks). GK Player Pulls the Kill a Daemon Card. Faces no Daemons in opponents list... If that's your biggest complaint with it, then houserule it. We seem to do fine with using the discard one card per turn rule. Sometimes things go sideways but to just say "Maelstrom sucks" is meaningless. Maelstrom saves 40K: - I was so tired of facing Tau after Tau lists.... or Tau-dar lists that sat in a corner and rolled dice for an hour til you had nothing left. Even IG too. How anyone could prefer that method of 40K is well beyond me. I simply don't understand it. - I love being forced to move to multiple objectives. I also enjoy the premise of the game changing on a turn by turn basis. - Marines I felt were so stagnant in 6th. It seemed 90% of the competitive armies just found the best shooting element of their lists, and repeated it. To me it lead to an incredibly boring system of castling in a corner and rolling fist fulls of dice. I believe Maelstrom helped a lot of the armies I loved to play but struggled mightily with in 6th. My Dark Angels for instance got new life with Maelstrom. In fact so did chaos, and beyond that Maelstrom had me using units from those codexes I'd never even bother with in 6th edition. Or I could just go with an equally fun fact filled statement as yours: Maelstrom is awesome. ;) Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/305025-how-would-you-rank-the-power-of-the-gk-codex/#findComment-3985304 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gentlemanloser Posted March 23, 2015 Share Posted March 23, 2015 I'll edit out the swearing; This one is easy. First, each objective is randomly generated. Second, some objectives are occasionally impossible to complete. For example, 41 is Recon. If the mission has the Mysterious Objectives mission special rule…you score 1 point if EVERY objective has been identified at the end of the turn. Oops, no Mysterious Objectives. One of my (generally) 3 tactical objectives is now locked in place. I have also rolled: Domination (46) and Kingslayer. Cool! Let’s review these two objectives. Kingslayer: My opponents Warlord is hiding in an airplane in reserve. Guess I’ll get that sometime after turn 4. Except, this is a tournament, what turn 4? Domination: I only need to control EVERY objective marker on the tabletop to get this one. Is there a mechanic to get rid of unachievable tactical objectives? Sure. At the end of your turn, after your opponent cunningly rolled randomly better than you scores his and rolls again, you get to get rid of ONE of yours. Not ALL of yours, just ONE. Because 3×8=24 and despite there being THIRTY SIX objectives, which are NOT shared with your opponent (see, you can’t roll the same thing again) you can’t get rid of a hand. So next you roll Demolitions, in place of one of those objectives, and grats–the enemy has no buildings. Or no flyers (Scour the Skies) or psykers (Witch Hunter). Or you have an army with no Psykers. In other words, it’s a piece of . Does anyone remember when I suggested this kind of thing, years ago? The competitive community told me it was stupid, I agreed and dropped it. Haven’t let that bad idea come back, because it’s inherently unfair to lose a game because of random rolls. You can virtually table the other guy, losing almost nothing of your own, and it doesn’t mean a thing because the random mission you generated during gameplay and could NEVER ACCOUNT FOR, you. You get the above results. He gets: Hold the Line, and any 2 of the first EIGHTEEN objectives and those happen to be on his half of the board. Even if it’s the same one! For Example: Secure Objective 6. Twice! Capture and Control version, and the Take & Hold version. How Epic. Random objectives, that change the game in ways you cannot account for, and cannot change, are inherently unfair. And as subjective as 'fun' is, I find balanced games fun. Not lopsided ones you can do nothing to counter. Maelstrom saves 40K: - I was so tired of facing Tau after Tau lists.... or Tau-dar lists that sat in a corner and rolled dice for an hour til you had nothing left. Even IG too. How anyone could prefer that method of 40K is well beyond me. I simply don't understand it. Doesn't change. The Tau-dar sit int he corner, roll good objectives in thier DZ, and pwn your army, and your objectives. Win? I love being forced to move to multiple objectives. I also enjoy the premise of the game changing on a turn by turn basis. Purge should suit you then. Every enemy unit is your objective. They move. You have to move with them. Unless you're playing a Tau-dar gunline that is. Marines I felt were so stagnant in 6th. It seemed 90% of the competitive armies just found the best shooting element of their lists, and repeated it. To me it lead to an incredibly boring system of castling in a corner and rolling fist fulls of dice. Maelstrom doesn't change this. It just adds a random element to your winning or losing now. As for Tournaments and competitive play, Maelstorm adds another layer of, lets be nice and say 'error', for scoring; Every turn is not something you can verify as a judge, that’s one of the reasons I trashed it as an idea. Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/305025-how-would-you-rank-the-power-of-the-gk-codex/#findComment-3985310 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reclusiarch Darius Posted March 23, 2015 Share Posted March 23, 2015 ^This is a rare case of GML being on-message and on-point. I would suggest reading through his post carefully. Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/305025-how-would-you-rank-the-power-of-the-gk-codex/#findComment-3985314 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gentlemanloser Posted March 23, 2015 Share Posted March 23, 2015 Not to take credit, those quoted passages weren't me. edit; This is a rare case of GML being on-message and on-point O_O Hmmmm. ;) Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/305025-how-would-you-rank-the-power-of-the-gk-codex/#findComment-3985320 Share on other sites More sharing options...
kaz'sax Posted March 23, 2015 Share Posted March 23, 2015 As a CSM and blood angel player I'd have to say they are a pretty hard but to crack. I don't agree that the codex is at all weak as 90% of the games I've seen them in they've won but I think that that's only due to the sillyness of the dk and drago. I think the main problem with the codex is the fear of breaking the mould and taking somthing different to the usual drago and 5 dk that are seen. I do think that its more drago and dk that are called cheese than the army as a whole but when you go up against tau I see the same hate towards them from you guys. Just an outside opinion, I respect your upsest with lack of choice after all I've been in a similar boat with compettative builds with CSM. Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/305025-how-would-you-rank-the-power-of-the-gk-codex/#findComment-3985333 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reclusiarch Darius Posted March 23, 2015 Share Posted March 23, 2015 If Draigo and Dreadknight didn't exist, we wouldn't even be having this conversation. We'd be like the Sister playerbase, who laments how they get zero new toys or abilities, and have their main tricks nerfed or outright removed with updates. We lost a lot, but it could've been a lot worse. Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/305025-how-would-you-rank-the-power-of-the-gk-codex/#findComment-3985343 Share on other sites More sharing options...
kaz'sax Posted March 23, 2015 Share Posted March 23, 2015 I agree, I do actually like gk but they do seem quite boring. I played against an old friend the other day and we agreed on a nice friendly game as a catch up. He brought drago and 2 of his 5 dk models (amongst other stuff) needless to say I got destroyed but ahh well its just a game. Would you guys be OK with an update that toned them both down? But in return slightly made other units better? Its just a shame the army is becoming a new "tau" or "eldar" type of army with players just being like "nope" when they see a list with massed dk and drago? Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/305025-how-would-you-rank-the-power-of-the-gk-codex/#findComment-3985349 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gentlemanloser Posted March 23, 2015 Share Posted March 23, 2015 One thing I missed about Maelstrom is it fundamentally changes 40k. You no longer play your opponent and thier army, but you now play a pack of random cards. In some cases, your opponent might just as well not even be there, if you get a selection of objectives that don't engage them at all. And if they get the same... Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/305025-how-would-you-rank-the-power-of-the-gk-codex/#findComment-3985358 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reclusiarch Darius Posted March 23, 2015 Share Posted March 23, 2015 Would you guys be OK with an update that toned them both down? But in return slightly made other units better? Its just a shame the army is becoming a new "tau" or "eldar" type of army with players just being like "nope" when they see a list with massed dk and drago? We're not though. Tau and the other power armies are a completely different tier. DK's at least die to AP2 properly, like a normal MC would. Riptides laugh at your lascannons and often don't lose a single wound, then vape one of your units with impunity. Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/305025-how-would-you-rank-the-power-of-the-gk-codex/#findComment-3985365 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.