Jump to content

Do you feel the limitations of the Grey Knights?


Prot

Recommended Posts

99% of the time, what's the best, most optimal way to use the NDK on board?

 

Get into Melee ASAP.

 

That usually involves shunting turn 1.

 

Move towards the enemy as fast as possible, shoot with whatever gun you have on the way in, then smash faces.

I don't know if I should laugh or cry here. I guess it depends a lot on the kind of games you play. I could see that being the right thing to do if you play against gunlines all the time while having really simple tables and mission design or something...

Oh I despise Maelstrom, if that makes any difference.

 

Gunlines or not, there's few units that can Challenge an NDK in CC, and the best place to stick them (if you not clubbing seals by Heavy Incinerating blobs) is in CC, wrecking havok.

 

If you're not jamming your NDK down your opponents throats, as soon as you can, and disrupting thier plans, you're doing it wrong. ;)

so 30" shunts and the most feared MC in the game make for a boring game???

 

Apart from not agreeing to the "most feared" part I don't get how one good unit in a codex prevents it from beeing boring. I don't think the GK codex is boring but to ascribe that to one really good unit in the codex you have to have some strange kind of power-fetish.

Oh I despise Maelstrom, if that makes any difference.

Gunlines or not, there's few units that can Challenge an NDK in CC, and the best place to stick them (if you not clubbing seals by Heavy Incinerating blobs) is in CC, wrecking havok.

If you're not jamming your NDK down your opponents throats, as soon as you can, and disrupting thier plans, you're doing it wrong. msn-wink.gif

This makes sense to me now as viewing some of your posts.... We play Maelstrom about 90% of the time and find the old school missions just a bit too boring, and they seem to cater to pew pew castle builds a little too much.

I would think without Maelstrom the codex would feel even more mono-build. I honestly found new life in Dark Angels and even Chaos by playing a lot of Maelstrom. It just makes it -really- hard in Maelstrom for (example) a Tau gun line to sit back and just roll dice for 2 hours.

I truly believe Maelstrom saved 40K for me as stuff like Astra, Tau, etc actually have to move and commit to areas of the board or lose in a lot of cases. Further to that I think most codexes open up a bit more if you're playing this mission style as it promotes speed, survivability, and especially flexibility among units.

That being said, I think another factor is how often you play. I've realized a lot of forum goers often live.. vicariously through the gaming of others. I'm not accusing anyone of anything. I'm just saying if you play... a minimum of 4 times a month, then playing a codex with 3-4 units that make up 90% of your lists, can start to feel old after a while.

Malestrom is such unbalanced censored.gif I find it strange anyone likes it.

Might just as well dice off to see who wins and go do something else instead.

No it's not. We recently house ruled that cards that are _impossible_ to complete are removed from play and immediately redrawn. This changes things immensely. You are always going to have a bad game of cards, but any game involving dice is always subject to imbalance.

The difference in game mechanics to me between the old pew pew games and Maelstrom is so huge. It's literally game changing. To quote you: I find it strange anyone likes the old war missions.

Houserules make a world of difference.

 

You guys are no longer playing 40k Maelstrom though.

 

You're playing your own version of the game.

 

Also, I dislike the Maelstorm focus of playing the card, and not your opponent.  Takes the 'war' out of the wargame for me.

Houserules make a world of difference.

 

You guys are no longer playing 40k Maelstrom though.

 

You're playing your own version of the game.

LoL... no. We are playing 40K. But by "your" definition 90% of tournaments don't play 40k.

They don't.

 

They play their own version of the game.

 

Which is sometimes wildly different to the version other people play.

 

Edit: See the thread on the front page here about the 2 NDK limit / all AoC.

 

That's not 40k.

 

That's thier own version of the game, which is wildly different to the book or RAW version.

Honeslty, it's a little, off,  to say Maelstrom is awesome.  Oh, only if you add in these extra rules, and change the way the game is played.

 

To make it awesome.

 

Sure it is, and more power to you.  That you enjoy it is great.

 

But Maelstrom without those house rules isn't awesome.

Gunlines or not, there's few units that can Challenge an NDK in CC, and the best place to stick them (if you not clubbing seals by Heavy Incinerating blobs) is in CC, wrecking havok.

If you're not jamming your NDK down your opponents throats, as soon as you can, and disrupting thier plans, you're doing it wrong. msn-wink.gif

Disagree heavily! If you can outshoot your oppenent, it's often better to keep outshooting him, or at least for some turns. If your oppenent can't kill you well with shooting, but he can in CC, then it's also often better to keep kiting his units, even though you might do more damage yourself in CC as well.

Are you familiar with the theory of comparative advantage? That theory explains my point basicly and sadly it's a kind of logic many players can't seem to grasp when they play this game. I've had many people just sit and shoot me while they should have assaulted me and visa versa.

That being said, I think another factor is how often you play. I've realized a lot of forum goers often live.. vicariously through the gaming of others. I'm not accusing anyone of anything. I'm just saying if you play... a minimum of 4 times a month, then playing a codex with 3-4 units that make up 90% of your lists, can start to feel old after a while.

You find so? Because that's honestly not that many games at all (often 1 tournament is more than that). Is it not a problem of not having enough different armies/oppenents to face? Including interesting mission design and terrain? I think it might very well also be a case which is closer to what Jefferson calls "lack of attention span". That sounds very negative and I'd put it more along the lines of... appreciating the game on different levels. Many people (not saying you're one of them) can't really grasp the deeper layers of this game (not that it's that deep lol, but still). They literally view the game differently and experience it differently. Where 1 person sees very few options, the other seems plenty and the other way around.

They don't.

They play their own version of the game.

Which is sometimes wildly different to the version other people play.

Sure, it's not 40k. But you bring it like that's a bad thing lol! I prefer playing a "good form of 40k tournament play" to standard "rulebook 40k" though. I find it more engaging, interesting and challenging, not to mention more balanced. Why would you play Maelström as it is put in the rulebook if it's not satisfying to play it that way, as you admit to yourself? That's madness my friend!

Why would you play Maelström as it is put in the rulebook if it's not satisfying to play it that way

That's why we don't! msn-wink.gif

We do make up our own scenarios, campaigns, etc. But I don't really discuss those outside out group.

Disagree heavily! If you can outshoot your oppenent, it's often better to keep outshooting him, or at least for some turns. If your oppenent can't kill you well with shooting, but he can in CC, then it's also often better to keep kiting his units, even though you might do more damage yourself in CC as well.

There's many many more units that can outshoot an NDK. And faily few that can out CC one. msn-wink.gif

That's why, most of the time, it's far better for your NDK to be in CC. smile.png

You find so? Because that's honestly not that many games at all (often 1 tournament is more than that). Is it not a problem of not having enough different armies/oppenents to face?

When 40k was in it's hayday for us, we'd play 2/3 matches a week minimum. And sometimes with a long Apoc game tagged on as well. And face the majority of armies, in one form or another. I think Guard and Orks were the only ones we missed out on.

I think modified Maelstrom is so common nowadays that it's worth discussing on online forums as well. Not just that, regular Maelstrom is so bad, I think that version shouldn't be discussed at all hah.

 

Aight, on most of the time we can certainly agree! And if we don't put an exact -% on it then we can just act like we completely agree ;)

 

 

 

That being said, I think another factor is how often you play. I've realized a lot of forum goers often live.. vicariously through the gaming of others. I'm not accusing anyone of anything. I'm just saying if you play... a minimum of 4 times a month, then playing a codex with 3-4 units that make up 90% of your lists, can start to feel old after a while.

You find so? Because that's honestly not that many games at all (often 1 tournament is more than that). Is it not a problem of not having enough different armies/oppenents to face? Including interesting mission design and terrain? I think it might very well also be a case which is closer to what Jefferson calls "lack of attention span". That sounds very negative and I'd put it more along the lines of... appreciating the game on different levels. Many people (not saying you're one of them) can't really grasp the deeper layers of this game (not that it's that deep lol, but still). They literally view the game differently and experience it differently. Where 1 person sees very few options, the other seems plenty and the other way around.

 

 

 

I just used 4 games a month as a measuring stick. In a way what I'm saying in a polite way is: Some people don't actually play, but mathhammer, and theory hammer like they do. Several people claim they would do 'X' against opponent 'Y' when perhaps they haven't even played a game in 6 months. These people exist often on forums.... living vicariously through the games of others.

 

There's nothing wrong with this, but I just want to clarify when someone says "I never get bored of playing my mono-list Grey Knights" that we are in fact talking about someone who at least plays semi-regularly and not someone who last played their little brother in grandma's basement in 2003. :)

Disagree heavily! If you can outshoot your oppenent, it's often better to keep outshooting him, or at least for some turns. If your oppenent can't kill you well with shooting, but he can in CC, then it's also often better to keep kiting his units, even though you might do more damage yourself in CC as well.

 

A DK doesn't outshoot anybody, so you kinda killed your own argument right there. Nice. 

Are you familiar with the theory of comparative advantage? That theory explains my point basicly and sadly it's a kind of logic many players can't seem to grasp when they play this game. I've had many people just sit and shoot me while they should have assaulted me and visa versa.

 

Neither do you apparently, because by your own definition of comparative advantage, the DK should be in melee. So...you're disagreeing with yourself? 

Yup.

 

It's a damn shame GW put it into the book like that.

 

Oh for established common grounds.

 

Eh, it'll join Planetstrike in the purgatory of '40k game formats no sane person plays'. And I'll say this, Planestrike is at least fun. Maelstrom is boring, one-dimensional and RNG for RNG's sake. Planestrike at least encourages some divergent list building, and both sides get some powerful advantages out of the gate. Assault after Deepstrike is a little absurd though, so are the bombardments and some of the strategic assets are...odd. It's also quite out of date, I think it was 5th edition?

A DK doesn't outshoot anybody, so you kinda killed your own argument right there. Nice. 

 

 

Neither do you apparently, because by your own definition of comparative advantage, the DK should be in melee. So...you're disagreeing with yourself?

As your 2nd statement depends on the 1st one being right, I reply just to the 1st and wont bother to reply to the 2nd, sounds fair?

 

Thunderwolf Cavalry.

Wraiths.

Screamers/Plaguedrones/Chaos Hounds.

Spawn/Maulerfiends.

Imperial Knights (depends)

 

You really only ever play against DE, IG and Tau in your local club don't you?

As your 2nd statement depends on the 1st one being right, I reply just to the 1st and wont bother to reply to the 2nd, sounds fair?

 

 

(shrug) Sounds fun. 
Thunderwolf Cavalry.

 

We're not talking about TWC though. The scenario was 'we're charging a gunline, should we get into melee ASAP or shoot them?'. 

Wraiths.

Screamers/Plaguedrones/Chaos Hounds.

Spawn/Maulerfiends.

Imperial Knights (depends)

 

Oh I see, you're just mindlessly listing things that are better than DK's in melee, but worse at shooting. Sorry, I though you were actually making a point. Carry on. I could add Daemon Princes, Bloodthirsters to the list...I don't wanna hold your hand though. 

 

You really only ever play against DE, IG and Tau in your local club don't you?

 

 

Nah, I only play against Unbound Rhino armies. I always lose though, because I can't kill even one :( they're just too tough. 

 

We're not talking about TWC though. The scenario was 'we're charging a gunline, should we get into melee ASAP or shoot them?'. 

Why is that the scenario? Stop confirming my thought that you only face gunlines in a local club please lol.

 

Oh I see, you're just mindlessly listing things that are better than DK's in melee, but worse at shooting. Sorry, I though you were actually making a point. Carry on. I could add Daemon Princes, Bloodthirsters to the list...I don't wanna hold your hand though.

No, if you were playing not just your local meta or were aware of a broader metagame then you would be aware that those are all popular competitive units! Daemon Princes and Bloodthirsters are not, hence I didn't mention them. Same reason I didn't mention Howling Banshees or Warp Talons, to give some examples.

 

I'll even quote myself here to show what I replied to the scenario against gunlines:

 

 

I could see that being the right thing to do if you play against gunlines all the time while having really simple tables and mission design or something...
Why is that the scenario? Stop confirming my thought that you only face gunlines in a local club please lol.

 

Because that's what we were discussing. Is it better to shoot with DK's, and risk getting killed by enemy guns? Or is it better to be in melee? Overwhelmingly, DK's die less and kill more in melee combat, rather than at range. 

 

I can confirm that all I play are Unbound Rhino armies. And I lose everytime. Because I charge them and die to Overwatch storm bolters. Silly me, should've shot them with heavy psycannon instead. But that doesn't work either. Because they just won't die. 

No, if you were playing not just your local meta or were aware of a broader metagame then you would be aware that those are all popular competitive units! Daemon Princes and Bloodthirsters are not, hence I didn't mention them. Same reason I didn't mention Howling Banshees or Warp Talons, to give some examples.

 

Zhukov, you're causing permanent damage to my ribcage. Howling Banshees and Warp Talons? Stop, you're killing me. 

I could see that being the right thing to do if you play against gunlines all the time while having really simple tables and mission design or something...

 

Seeing as most competitive armies are shooty, it's not exactly an unheard of scenario. Hence why it's worth asking, is it better to zip around shooting things or get into melee? 

In a way what I'm saying in a polite way is: Some people don't actually play, but mathhammer, and theory hammer like they do. Several people claim they would do 'X' against opponent 'Y' when perhaps they haven't even played a game in 6 months. These people exist often on forums.... living vicariously through the games of others.

There's nothing wrong with this, but I just want to clarify when someone says "I never get bored of playing my mono-list Grey Knights" that we are in fact talking about someone who at least plays semi-regularly and not someone who last played their little brother in grandma's basement in 2003. smile.png

Sorry, missed your reply! Very true, but I don't know if there is nothing wrong with that, I'd say there is haha!

Because that's what we were discussing. Is it better to shoot with DK's, and risk getting killed by enemy guns? Or is it better to be in melee? Overwhelmingly, DK's die less and kill more in melee combat, rather than at range.

I can confirm that all I play are Unbound Rhino armies. And I lose everytime. Because I charge them and die to Overwatch storm bolters. Silly me, should've shot them with heavy psycannon instead. But that doesn't work either. Because they just won't die.

Zhukov, you're causing permanent damage to my ribcage. Howling Banshees and Warp Talons? Stop, you're killing me.

Darius, we're done, you lack basic reading comprehension (I name Banshees and Warp Talons as bad units and you act like I used them as examples of good units), you make up your own rules (I was not merely discussing DK's against gunlines, I already stated my opinion on that in this very thread) and you twist words and repeat yourself (I never said rhinos were hard to kill, neither that they were good, yet you seem to be so offended that you bring it up multiple times in hope of me replying to your troll bait, well here you go, I hope it satisfies your cravings). If you want to keep replying to my posts, be my guest, you can even freely use strawman arguments from now on without fear of me retaliating. You are no longer worth my time, literally.

 

 

And I'll say this, Planestrike is at least fun.

 

Oh dear god no.

 

Within a few games, we all instantly found out you *needed* a 3 strategy game, just so you could as the defender take the deny board edge strategy.  And place you Bastions on that board edge.

 

To at least limit somewhat your opponents ability to *walk onto the board next to your Bastion and kill it with one hit*.

 

Planetstrike was flawed.  Very, very, flawed.

 

And that made it unfun.

 

Idea was cool though.  Implemented very badly.

 

I'm surprised you didn't find that either.  It stuck out like a sore thumb to us after only a couple of games.

Once I stopped hating on Maelstrom and started the think through the mechanic it adds to the game, Grey Knights went from my favorite low model count army to my OMGROFLSTOMP army. It's just that the GK play style is built to play Maelstrom. The ability to move heavy units fast via Deep Strike, Shunt, Gate, and Jump really does lend itself to the "can you do it now" mind set required to compete at Maelstrom.

 

I understand the hatred, I really do. It makes no sense from a military point of view, it turns the wargame into a boardgame, and if you are too set in your ways, this new fangled mission style that makes you think is just too new and fangled! If you instead plan for it, plan to win at it, it actually does add quite a bit of fun to a normally stale set of book missions.

 

SJ

Please spare one another the directed flaming. Disagreements happen; let's be respectful to one another when they do.

 

If you think someone's posting outside of the rules, use the Report button instead of returning fire.

Darius, we're done, you lack basic reading comprehension (I name Banshees and Warp Talons as bad units and you act like I used them as examples of good units), you make up your own rules (I was not merely discussing DK's against gunlines, I already stated my opinion on that in this very thread) and you twist words and repeat yourself (I never said rhinos were hard to kill, neither that they were good, yet you seem to be so offended that you bring it up multiple times in hope of me replying to your troll bait, well here you go, I hope it satisfies your cravings). If you want to keep replying to my posts, be my guest, you can even freely use strawman arguments from now on without fear of me retaliating. You are no longer worth my time, literally.

 

Bye

Oh dear god no.

 

Within a few games, we all instantly found out you *needed* a 3 strategy game, just so you could as the defender take the deny board edge strategy.  And place you Bastions on that board edge.

 

To at least limit somewhat your opponents ability to *walk onto the board next to your Bastion and kill it with one hit*.

 

Planetstrike was flawed.  Very, very, flawed.

 

And that made it unfun.

 

Idea was cool though.  Implemented very badly.

 

I'm surprised you didn't find that either.  It stuck out like a sore thumb to us after only a couple of games.

 

Hey, I said it was fun, not balanced :P in the same way Apoc is fun. No one took it seriously even prior to release, especially not with the 'assault after Deepstrike' rule got leaked early on. I agree it's flawed and has a lot of issues. But its not boring. Maelstrom is boring as hell, and its flawed, and its unfair to anyone who doesn't like camping in cover shooting eachother all day. 

Once I stopped hating on Maelstrom and started the think through the mechanic it adds to the game, Grey Knights went from my favorite low model count army to my OMGROFLSTOMP army. It's just that the GK play style is built to play Maelstrom. The ability to move heavy units fast via Deep Strike, Shunt, Gate, and Jump really does lend itself to the "can you do it now" mind set required to compete at Maelstrom.

 

Are you kidding me? So, when you roll any of the 'well this is nearly impossible to complete' objectives, and then only discard one per turn, how exactly do you win? Our mobility means nothing if we're dead. Also, our tiny unit count means we do not have the capacity to hold any of the objective markers for long, especially if we expect to actually kill off enemy enemy units. Maelstrom is designed from the ground up for shooty lists who like to camp. I'm glad you're having fun with it though, because pretty much no one else is. 

I understand the hatred, I really do. It makes no sense from a military point of view, it turns the wargame into a boardgame, and if you are too set in your ways, this new fangled mission style that makes you think is just too new and fangled! If you instead plan for it, plan to win at it, it actually does add quite a bit of fun to a normally stale set of book missions.

 

Again, I don't think you understand why I (and indeed most of the 40k community) reject Maelstrom as broken trash. It's RNG for RNG's sake. It's the apotheosis of GW's inane and irrational 'forged narrative' fixation. They want every game to be so wildly different and unpredictable...in theory. In reality, like any format, people just game it to their advantage. In the case of Maelstrom, there is only really one way to win. You camp as many objective markers as possible, all game, and watch VP's print themselves. Also, if any of the non-objective marker cards come up (like kill a Flyer or use a psychic power), you just do that, or ignore it because it's irrelevant. 

 

It also has absolutely nothing to do with tactics or strategy. How is a card deck representative of the changing tides of war? Why do I suddenly need to slay three units, or get my units into the enemy DZ, for token VP's? That's the ultimate joke. All of the 'do random thing now for VP' stuff is still not worth as much as objective marker camping. Really, you can do the probability math, but just look at the deck or D66 table. It's chock full of 'hold three markers' or 'hold marker 1' etc. The quirky side material is in the minority, and it often doesn't matter at all (because either you can't kill the specified unit or do the specified action, or they didn't even bring a psyker or Flyer etc). 

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.