Jump to content

Do you feel the limitations of the Grey Knights?


Prot

Recommended Posts

As said in this thread ( I think) another thing I dislike about Maelstrom is it fundamentally changes 40k.

 

From wargame to a boardgame.  Where the players play against the deck, not each other.

 

Where is that irrational fear coming from? Do you also dislike the 7th edition rules? They fundamentally changed 40k...

 

It's perfectly fine not to like Maelstrom and even though I can't really relate I don't see that beeing a problem as long as you have like-minded individuals in your gaming group. However - Maelstrom does NOT fundamentally change 40K. It just gives you another tool to play the game the way you like it. Have you never before played selfmade scenarios or campaigns that worked quite similar to the Maelstrom missions in that they are much more diverse and you had to play more flexible than the Eternal War missions? We did and those are some of my fondest 40K memories.

 

If you can't enjoy it because of the ultra competitive mindset I guess it would be healthier in the long run to finally realize that GeeDub is NOT producing the game you wanna make it out to be and I you could look into stuff like Warmahordes which seriously strife to cater to that mindset.

 

There is also the option to houserule some stuff that you don't like (the most enjoyable option imo) and as long as your whole gaming group plays by those modified rules you can still per definition play competitive games. I mean you could even use the official ITC FAQ and rules which are nothing more than semi-official houserules used by thousands of players.

As said in this thread ( I think) another thing I dislike about Maelstrom is it fundamentally changes 40k.

 

From wargame to a boardgame.  Where the players play against the deck, not each other.

 

Boardgames are great.  Smallworld and Mice & Mystics are awesome fun.  40k isn't a boardgame, and shouldn't be shoe horned into one.

 

Let's be honest, calling 40K a wargame in the first place is being very generous.

Where is that irrational fear coming from? Do you also dislike the 7th edition rules? They fundamentally changed 40k...

7th hardly changed 40k from 6th. And it's neither irrational nor a fear of mine.

You're being quite, sensational, there. msn-wink.gif

It's perfectly fine not to like Maelstrom and even though I can't really relate I don't see that beeing a problem as long as you have like-minded individuals in your gaming group. However - Maelstrom does NOT fundamentally change 40K. It just gives you another tool to play the game the way you like it. Have you never before played selfmade scenarios or campaigns that worked quite similar to the Maelstrom missions in that they are much more diverse and you had to play more flexible than the Eternal War missions? We did and those are some of my fondest 40K memories.

When the game changes from, do this to your opponent, stop your opponent doing that. To, you can ignore your opponent this round if you do this (like cast a buff Psychic Power), and they can do the same in order to win, then the game fundamentally changes.

For a MMO reference, it changes 40k from PvP to PvE.

If you can't enjoy it because of the ultra competitive mindset I guess it would be healthier in the long run to finally realize that GeeDub is NOT producing the game you wanna make it out to be and I you could look into stuff like Warmahordes which seriously strife to cater to that mindset.

Define 'ultra'. I'm competitive. we all are. I say this time and time again. No one, not a single player, plays a game (of core, non houseruled) 40k *not* to win.

That's competitive right there.

Where can I find the scale of competitiveness, to see if I'm casula compeitive or ultra competitive, or somewhere in between?

There is also the option to houserule some stuff that you don't like (the most enjoyable option imo) and as long as your whole gaming group plays by those modified rules you can still per definition play competitive games. I mean you could even use the official ITC FAQ and rules which are nothing more than semi-official houserules used by thousands of players.

See my Sig.

Houserules are great. eing houseruling games for, oh, about 35 years now.

But they change the core game into something else.

I knew it was earlier in this thread. ;)

I understand the hatred, I really do. It makes no sense from a military point of view, it turns the wargame into a boardgame

You're being quite, sensational, there. msn-wink.gif

That may or may not have been intentional :P

When the game changes from, do this to your opponent, stop your opponent doing that. To, you can ignore your opponent this round if you do this (like cast a buff Psychic Power), and they can do the same in order to win, then the game fundamentally changes.

For a MMO reference, it changes 40k from PvP to PvE.

Oh you know thats not true - it's nowhere near beeing PvE. You still have the option of simply annihilating your opponent and vice versa so both of you have to play accordingly but it gives you additional option to win. Granted, in vanilla Maelstrom those are rather random and can occasionally favour one player over the other but at least it's not like Eternal War where each missions (save for the relic one) is like both players just draw the TacObs 11 to 16 but can only cash them in at the end of the game.

In both mission types you interact with your opponent in a variety of ways and each decision affects both sides so no, it's not PvE ;)

Define 'ultra'. I'm competitive. we all are. I say this time and time again. No one, not a single player, plays a game (of core, non houseruled) 40k *not* to win.

That's competitive right there.

Where can I find the scale of competitiveness, to see if I'm casula compeitive or ultra competitive, or somewhere in between?

Oh yes I'm competitive and I love winning buuut I also love the fluff and I want people to actually play against me so that keeps me within certain bounds which on the other side would make me a terrible tournament player because I would refuse to play any kind of cheese or spam powerful units - in our case Dreadknights and Ravens I guess.

The scale of competitivness (sounds like you would have to take it from a dragon to make armour out of it) is my strictly personal one and you good sir are imo moar competitive than I am so you shall be called ULTRA competitive henceforth!

Houserules are great. eing houseruling games for, oh, about 35 years now.

But they change the core game into something else.

You know you want it! Houseruled Maelstrom is amazing!

Apart from that the ITC rule clarifications are exactly in the spirit of what wise seahawk in your sig talks about even though they are not RAW in it's purest form. Do they enable players to travel around always having a common set of rules to call upon? Yes. At some point a document like that may even be used by the majority of tournament players instead of the RAW by GeeDub because the clarification is a godsend!

 

 

That may or may not have been intentional

 

Hehehe. Guessed that. ;)

 

 

 

You still have the option of simply annihilating your opponent

 

And ignoring Maelstrom altogether?  Sounds like you're playing Eternal War! :P

 

 

 

In both mission types you interact with your opponent in a variety of ways and each decision affects both sides so no, it's not PvE

 

In Eternal War, you *have* to.

 

In Maelstrom, you don't have to.  Sometimes you might.  But it's not a given.

 

In Smallworld, sometimes you run rampart over your opponents, and smash them into oblivion.  Sometimes, you castle in the corner with Fortified Kobolds, and rake in so much gold per turn your opponents can't beat you.  Without ever interacting with you.

 

 

 

sounds like you would have to take it from a dragon to make armour out of it

 

You just won sir. :)

 

 

 

At some point a document like that may even be used by the majority of tournament players instead of the RAW by GeeDub because the clarification is a godsend!

 

At some point GW's rules and FAQs might be robust enough it's not needed! ;)

 

Ah, one can dream.

As a Hard mode Raider, I can appreciate the PvE reference. However, as a Hard mode Raider, I also appreciate the addition to the game. That being said, I'm quite a huge team based PvP'er, so I'd guess there's that, too.

 

SJ

I like the way Blizzard tried to cover both bases.  Release Blackrock a week or so before 6.1.

 

So it was, in essence a 6.1 Raid, to cover the fact 6.1 had absolultey zero content.  But they could still claim that no, Blackrock was 6.0 release content, and they had supplied the two promised Raids on release.

 

It all kinda falls down when you realise Blackrock was part of the pre release PTR, tested and ready to go at launch.  But was intentionally delayed 3 months.

 

Oh Blizzard.  ;)

Can't, my daughter has 20 odd characters on my account (and she's filled her accont to the max of 50 as well).

 

She'd be upset if I cancelled my sub and she only got to play her under level 20 toons.

 

(You can now play WoW without a sub, but only up to level 20)

 

Not gonna upset my Daughter.  Heck, I've even started playing My Little Pony, just for her.

Back to the original topic, I do find GK w/out allies not  having a chance to compete in the new xeno meta. The GW's new xenos love is just too significant, however with some cheesy Draigo-Loth-cent-staring we stand a chance. Moreover people find the new Mechanicum to be our new BFF as the henchman used to be.

 

Overall, I do like our codex a lot, however I do not seek the top tournaments at all.

~BT

I've been comparing the lists I make in the past weeks to what I would do, or have done with Ultra's, Chaos and/or Dark Angels.... and Necrons.

 

Necrons by far are the most diverse. I feel even not taking optimal units the codex has a ton of different angles.

 

Ultra's have a lot of units, but I skip probably 75% of them. So choice is an illusion here to me. (one special character worth using, 2-3 units are in every bloody list anyway.)

 

Chaos: this is a weird one, I won't comment on, but since I don't play space hippies (daemons) that limits what I would take.

 

Dark Angels: This is a good comparison to me because while the codex falls a bit flat in competition, it does have specialized, elite style lists to it. Most are overpriced, and dated, however the concept is there. There are a lot of 'fun' things to try in this codex, just sub-optimal. I will say though that multi-wing isn't bad, and straight out Ravenwing is decent.

 

With GK ironically I find myself on both sides of the fence. I actually despise painting vehicles. So I actually love that I can't actually take a Predator or bikes.... BUT on the other hand when I think of those other codexes I do wish there was another flyer to choose, a cheaper troop that worked, or perhaps another HQ choice. Speeders, whirlwinds, ironclads, pods, stuff like that are actually missed to a degree.

 

 

Ultra's have a lot of units, but I skip probably 75% of them. So choice is an illusion here to me.

 

So many Codexes are like this.  It became apparent to us when the original Chaos Daemon Dex hit.

 

So many units, but most were traps.  With there being a few stand out units (Skull Takers, Blood Letters, DPs of Nurgle, Flamers and to some extent Soul Grinders) that you would have been stupid to nerf yourself by not taking them.

 

Oh look, we're facing the Skulltaker with a Bloodcrusher retinue, 3 min 3 Flamers Squads and Flying DPs of Nurgle.  Again.  Joy.

 

;)

I'm a purest, can't stand unclean allies messing up my pristine army. While I do occasionally field a Knight Errant, it's silver and black and covered in Inquisitional iconography. And when I do finally get around to fielding a Stormwing formation, the Talons will be silver and gold and all Grey-Knighty.

 

SJ

Yea I would do the same thing.....

 

Honestly the way I look at it is I'm sure the GK would have access to anything if really needed, or seconded for special purposes. I wouldn't be surprised if they had a few STC's to be frank. But for me it would all end up looking like GK..... STormtalons, Sicarans, Fire Raptors, etc.

I do wish our vehicle pool was more substantial. I'd be okay with our limited infantry choices (because if Purgators and Strikes got a buff they'd be usable and add variety), if we had enough support units etc to round things out. We lack drop pods, but that's because GW design us to be a Deepstrike army (but then don't give it to Purgators or Purifiers...mkay). Land Raiders are too expensive as fire support, we kinda need a mid-range battle tank somewhere. 

 

I dunno, maybe it's for the best. Our strength is our infantry anyway, always has been. Maybe if our Dreads were better? 

At this point, I wouldn't be surprised if we were reduced to GKT, Purifiers, NDKs, interceptors, fancy librarians, and our characters, and then just rolled into the new SM codex with the NSF + a few unit restrictions.

 

I'm not sure it would be a bad thing either, the way it is now.

 

Now, just give me a few secs to get into my TDA before the incinerators start flaming...

No flaming here.

 

I've made a few posts about how we could get a (rather substainial) Chapter Tactics, to roll us in.

 

I would give us access to all the weaponry of the Imperium we're supposed to have access too.

Alright, cutting through pages worth of text, my 2 cents is as follows:

 

I've been playing my GK with essentially the same list, albeit not to the degree that some of you gentlemen have been playing, but I've been playing it almost exclusively for the past 20 or so games.

 

The list does seem a lil limited to basic outlines, but the GK dex makes up for it on the tabletop. While the high points cost means that I can't have a huge spread of different units, it also means the army is smaller. This single characteristic makes playing the GK that much more interesting for me. It's always a challenge to pull off a victory, I have very little margin for error. That excites me. With other armies, I have to deliberately bling out my troops to keep a lower model count and I'm still running a good few more models over my GK army.

 

But it's not just the challenge of trying to max out the utility of the handful of men at your disposal. The GK are good in almost every phase of the game, the trick is finding the best time and manner to deploy your myriad tools. This is why even though my army never changes, every game feels different. In one game I might have an extra Gate of Infinity or I might have cleansing flame or I might decide to forgo Santiago altogether because I want to focus on getting invis or I want something from divination. The random psychic powers just makes it that much more interesting. If you have something with a strong shooting capability it's about how you can bring your assault to bare. Likewise with an assaulty opponent, how do you maximise your shooting to weaken him to the point where you can finish him off?

 

Furthermore, because of our general lack of mobility, I find that I need to position my units turns in advance in order to lay a trap. This requires reading and predicting my opponent's moves. It requires being able to trap him, especially against mobile armies like Eldar which can and will run circles around you if you do position yourself accordingly. Against horde armies, it's about positioning yourself to engage parts of his army while leaving the other part useless for a turn or so until you are ready.

 

I'll give you an example of 2 games I played which required me to adopt different tactics and mindsets.

 

Vs Blood Angels - I had to keep my men at 24" and continually kite the opponent until he was weak enough for me to counter charge and wipe out. Which I did. Only one of my interceptor squads used its shunt because I wanted to pile wounds onto an assault squad escorting Dante. After that, the squad served as bait to give me an extra turn of shooting. This was enough to get me the win.

 

Vs Eldar - against mech-Dar no less. I had to deepstrike in such a way that wherever my opponent could move, he was within charge range of one of my squads. This meant closing the distance and creating a net, at times I'd need to advance a squad forward to force him to try and break out from the net.

 

BONUS ROUND!: Vs. AM - this guy had 2 big fearless blobs of conscripts and an insane amount of firepower. In this match up, I had to focus on one flank and game for last minute shunts and gate to net me the objectives. I also had to play the psychology game by feeding my opponent units to blast whilst I kept attention away from my last turn objective grab. Unfortunately, Draigo scattered 12" off the objective he was tasked with capturing and I lost the game.

 

The point is this: Our types of builds certainly seem limited. There's no denying that, but the flexibility of tabletop options and playstyles is what keeps the army fresh for me.

 

 

P.S. I love maelstrom and play it almost exclusively.

SyNidus and I are on the same page. It's not about having a ton of options, it's about using the options you have while making less mistakes than your opponent. That makes it a me vs them, rather than a my army vs their army. And I love that!

 

SJ

I don't get that.

 

You use the options you have on the board.  Great.

 

With more unit choices, you have more choices.  Which leads to more options on the board.

 

It's a win all round.

 

Less choice is never a better thing.

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.