Do you feel the limitations of the Grey Knights?

[jeffersonian000]

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.

I can see why you don't understand, and have marked the passage that highlights why.

 

Having access to dozens of units when building a list is not the same thing as playing the units in your list. More choices in list building has zero bearing on the choices you have on turn 1. Once your list is set, the models gathered, and the dice rolled to start the game, every unit you did not take no longer exist. So how is that different from playing GK?

 

The only difference is that instead of 4 SM Troop types, GK have 2, Sisters have 1. Most armies have 2. Guess we should l play SM so we can ignore 2-3 Troop selections? The same can be said for the other FoC slots, some codexes have more options, some have less, GK are about average.

 

So you said GK have less useful options, to which I point out that "useful" is subjective. Not all GK lists are Libby, GKT, max NDK. I like Interceptors, lots of people love Purifiers, and there are still people wasting points on Paladins because they don't find those points wasted. Are Strikes bad? No, not really. Are Dreadnoughts bad? No, not really. Are Purgators bad? Yep, they suck, but you can still get a lot of mileage out of them when you plan for it.

 

Just like any other codex.

 

SJ

[Gentlemanloser]

Still don't get it.

 

A very basic example.

 

One Codex has two troops.  A Durable one, and a 'standard' one.  To maximise your play, you eak every bit of on board performance you can get form these two units.

 

 

The next Codex has three troop.  A Durable one, a 'standard' one, and a sneaky one.  You still eak out every bit of on board performance you can get form these units, but you now have additional properties to eak out.

 

You have more options, more tactics, more 'power'.

 

There is literally no reason to limit yourself to two choices, when you have the option for another on top.

 

You could choose *not* to use the sneaky  unit, and still have the same on board performance anyway.  There is zero downside.

[Prot]

It's a good conversation, but it does go beyond units....

 

Like playstyle. Maybe my comparison to Dark Angels is too different... with the 'wings' being ultimately almost like different codexes. So let's look at Ultra's for an example...

 

You could go Tiggy, centurions, long range fire, Pod support to get some close combat in. So you got units like Stormtalons laying support as well, Grav Cents for up close, Tiggy going almost guaranteed Invis, and stuff like Thunderfires for long range support.

 

Or you ditch Tiggy and go captain america build. Bikes as troops, very fast troops, resilient, grav weapons, and a hammer/shield CM. Sprinkle in some other support units for melta; etc.

 

When I play grey knights, the playstyle has been... nearly identical every game. Even with list tweaks, I'm basically doing the same thing every game thus far for success. 

[jeffersonian000]

Still don't get it.

 

A very basic example.

 

One Codex has two troops. A Durable one, and a 'standard' one. To maximise your play, you eak every bit of on board performance you can get form these two units.

 

 

The next Codex has three troop. A Durable one, a 'standard' one, and a sneaky one. You still eak out every bit of on board performance you can get form these units, but you now have additional properties to eak out.

 

You have more options, more tactics, more 'power'.

 

There is literally no reason to limit yourself to two choices, when you have the option for another on top.

 

You could choose *not* to use the sneaky unit, and still have the same on board performance anyway. There is zero downside.

Your argument makes no sense, so I'll just leave you at your word of not understanding.

 

SJ

[Gentlemanloser]

Your argument makes no sense

 

What about it don't you understand?

 

 

 

More choices in list building has zero bearing on the choices you have on turn 1.

 

Actually, it does.  You are massively wrong here.

 

If your list building choices offer you no units with Deep Strike, then you can't choose to Deep Strike any units on Turn 1.

 

If your list building choice do offer units with Deep Strike, then you have the option to Deep Strike on turn 1, or *not*.  Both at the list building phase *and* the deployment phase of the game.

[Reclusiarch Darius]

Getting back the OP, our limitations I would summarize as thusly;

 

- No true anti-tank at range (Rending is only on 6's)

- A lack of mobility (with notable exceptions of Interceptors and DK's)

- A lack of scoring models (even in a TDA-heavy list it's never more than 30 at best)

- A lack of Skyfire (exception being the Raven, which is an expensive Flyer itself)

- No Interceptor (not a huge deal, but it's worth noting we don't deny Outflank or Deepstrike in any way)

- A lack of range (our entire infantry arsenal is 24", only our few vehicles pack anything with longer range and not in sufficient quantities to worry anything)

 

The more important question is, how to overcome these limitations? Well, you then have to consider our strengths, and how best to use them to overcome said weaknesses. 

 

Strengths of Grey Knights:

 

- Psykers (every unit generates at least 1WC, and can self-buff at no extra cost depending on the situation)

- 'Force' , S6/8/S10 and AP3/2 in melee (not only do we carve through most armour saves and wound reliably, we also can deny FNP and handle multi-wound targets)

- Turn 1 Deepstrike + Run and Shoot (this is specific to NSF, but it's something only Deathwing can match and only then by half)

- Dreadknights (they're fast, bring awesome firepower and are formidable melee juggernauts)

- Purifiers (delivered early, they can obliterate most infantry at will and bring double the Warp Charge of any other GK unit)

- Terminator Troops (with no character required, and our good characters are all in TDA as well)

- Standard Marine advantages (ATSKNF to make Leadership issues irrelevant, 4's in the statlines etc)

- Storm bolter, incinerator and psycannon (all clean up infantry very efficiently, and more shots mean more chances to kill something)

 

So, going through our weaknesses;

- No anti-tank: Focus psycannon only at targets you can kill without needing Rending. Leave hard targets in either 2+ armour or AV13/14 to the Dreadknights, and you still have S6 and S8/10 hammers in melee if need be. Melee is actually where we kill vehicles and MC's best. Don't waste psycannon if you don't have to.

- Lack of mobility: Turn 1 Deepstrike is a powerful tool used correctly. A Comms Array on an Aegis Line is cheap for what it does, which is gurantee your whole army turns up on time. Interceptors and Dreadknights can be used to great effect as flanking units, to close the net and to harass enemy fire support. If you're in the enemy's face Turn 1, they get about one Shooting phase (two if you're Tau) to kill you. If even a handful of your Grey Knights survive and get into melee, that's usually GG for most armies. Forcing even more pressure with DK's and Interceptors just improves the strategy. 

- A lack of scoring: If you believe this is a recurring problem, you may need to bring Allies. Imperial Guard are a fantastic source of cheap and plentiful scoring, plus they bring long-range firepower to compliment our mid-range and melee focus. Marines bring utility with Scouts Infiltrating teleport homers close to enemy lines to synergise with 'Rites of Teleportation'. Imperial armies have the most flexible and wide-ranging Ally options. Make the most of it. 

- No Skyfire: If bringing a second detachment, consider taking a pair of Vengeance quad-Icarus batteries in the Fortification slot. These add potent Interceptor and Skyfire in a cheap package that will take significant firepower to remove. They can also be outfitted with battle cannons, if you need more long-range anti-infantry. Allied Flyers and Skyfire platforms also are an option. 

- No Interceptor: See above, also consider Coteaz if holding your own DZ is an issue. 

- Lack of range: Turn 1 Deepstrike should take care of this, as should Shunt moves or Jump moves. Allies also bring potent long-range firepower to compliment you. 

 

I think our issues can be mitigated to a degree, but personal playstyles and preferences are going to dictate far more how you play your GK. 

[jeffersonian000]

 

Your argument makes no sense

What about it don't you understand?

I understand that you don't understand, and have decided it's not worth trying to get you to understand.

 

 

 

More choices in list building has zero bearing on the choices you have on turn 1.

Actually, it does. You are massively wrong here.

 

If your list building choices offer you no units with Deep Strike, then you can't choose to Deep Strike any units on Turn 1.

 

If your list building choice do offer units with Deep Strike, then you have the option to Deep Strike on turn 1, or *not*. Both at the list building phase *and* the deployment phase of the game.

The point is that no matter how many different choices you have while building your list, you are locked into the choices you made when the game starts. Complaining that you have less choices to pick from when you already discard the choices you don't want shows a lack of understanding that I just can't fix. Sorry.

 

SJ

[Gentlemanloser]

I understand that you don't understand, and have decided it's not worth trying to get you to understand.

 

Sorry but that's total obfuscation.  What about my exmaple do you not understand?

 

 

 

The point is that no matter how many different choices you have while building your list, you are locked into the choices you made when the game starts.

 

Yeah, that obvious.  It's a DOH obvious moment that.  No one disputes that in any way.

 

 

 

Complaining that you have less choices to pick from when you already discard the choices you don't want shows a lack of understanding that I just can't fix. Sorry.

 

What?

 

You are missing something fundamental here Jeff...

 

[thade]

Directed attack posts have been removed.

 

Stay on topic and be respectful in how you disagree with one another.

[Happy-inquisitor]

Still don't get it.

 

A very basic example.

 

One Codex has two troops.  A Durable one, and a 'standard' one.  To maximise your play, you eak every bit of on board performance you can get form these two units.

 

 

The next Codex has three troop.  A Durable one, a 'standard' one, and a sneaky one.  You still eak out every bit of on board performance you can get form these units, but you now have additional properties to eak out.

 

You have more options, more tactics, more 'power'.

 

There is literally no reason to limit yourself to two choices, when you have the option for another on top.

 

You could choose *not* to use the sneaky  unit, and still have the same on board performance anyway.  There is zero downside.

 

 

Lets say that a codex has 2 troop choices, a shooty one and a choppy one. Well we have troops who are great all rounders and can be shooty or choppy from one turn to the next. We might have less choices in the list-building stage but we are not so locked into as single approach in the list building stage either - we have more choice when we are putting our models on the table. It is a different kind of choice. The downside is of course that being good at both shooting and assaulting has to be paid for in points and therefore a unit from another codex that specialises in just one to the same level can be cheaper than our elite daemon hunters.

 

The Grey Knights really have no room for over-specialised one trick ponies as every Knight has to pull his weight in whatever situation the Emperor demands. With this core of everything being a great all rounder there is a limit for how much variety there can be in list building - which is balanced by the fact that when well built each of our units can in theory at least tackle pretty much anything they face. This for me is one of the two key things that sets them apart from other Astartes and makes them something other than just Marines in different color armor.

 

If I am honest any limit I face with this I fill with Inquisition because my models did not just evaporate when the 5th edition codex was split into 2 7th edition books and Coteaz is still The Man. Other battle brothers are available, YMMV etc.

[Aethernitas]

Just wanna add another imo big weakness - the lack of any AP2 melee weapon that isn't unwiedly. Even just a relic would be fine to have the option for our IC's but as it stands against TEQ you either take the hammer and risk to die before hitting back (which is not unlikely against a opponent with AP2 weapons) or you take anything else and hope for failed armour safes. Makes challenges against TEQ extremely luck based.

[Prot]

Just wanna add another imo big weakness - the lack of any AP2 melee weapon that isn't unwiedly. Even just a relic would be fine to have the option for our IC's but as it stands against TEQ you either take the hammer and risk to die before hitting back (which is not unlikely against a opponent with AP2 weapons) or you take anything else and hope for failed armour safes. Makes challenges against TEQ extremely luck based.

 

Well to be fair I think all Astartes have this issue to varying degrees right? I mean I know with my Ultra's the characters are woefully under equipped for any close combat.... The Burning Blade is it, and it's iridescent so knowing me, I'll kill myself regularly so I don't take it (plus it's cost prohibitive).

 

GK do have good ol' Draigo....who is (unfortunately) a rarity in marine dexes for his CC abilities. And there's Dreadknights.... 

 

But yea, overall Astartes have immense AP2 issues. What we're missing is my old joke.... the out of work Alaitoc artist with a simple gun that on a 6 goes right through termie armour. lol

[Happy-inquisitor]

Just wanna add another imo big weakness - the lack of any AP2 melee weapon that isn't unwiedly. Even just a relic would be fine to have the option for our IC's but as it stands against TEQ you either take the hammer and risk to die before hitting back (which is not unlikely against a opponent with AP2 weapons) or you take anything else and hope for failed armour safes. Makes challenges against TEQ extremely luck based.

With Draigo and Dreadknights hitting at AP2 on initiative it is not much of a weakness. Adding a relic to do the same would be nice but the way it is written Draigo has that relic.

[SyNidus]

 

Still don't get it.

 

A very basic example.

 

One Codex has two troops.  A Durable one, and a 'standard' one.  To maximise your play, you eak every bit of on board performance you can get form these two units.

 

 

The next Codex has three troop.  A Durable one, a 'standard' one, and a sneaky one.  You still eak out every bit of on board performance you can get form these units, but you now have additional properties to eak out.

 

You have more options, more tactics, more 'power'.

 

There is literally no reason to limit yourself to two choices, when you have the option for another on top.

 

You could choose *not* to use the sneaky  unit, and still have the same on board performance anyway.  There is zero downside.

 

 

 

Lets say that a codex has 2 troop choices, a shooty one and a choppy one. Well we have troops who are great all rounders and can be shooty or choppy from one turn to the next. We might have less choices in the list-building stage but we are not so locked into as single approach in the list building stage either - we have more choice when we are putting our models on the table. It is a different kind of choice. The downside is of course that being good at both shooting and assaulting has to be paid for in points and therefore a unit from another codex that specialises in just one to the same level can be cheaper than our elite daemon hunters.

 

The Grey Knights really have no room for over-specialised one trick ponies as every Knight has to pull his weight in whatever situation the Emperor demands. With this core of everything being a great all rounder there is a limit for how much variety there can be in list building - which is balanced by the fact that when well built each of our units can in theory at least tackle pretty much anything they face. This for me is one of the two key things that sets them apart from other Astartes and makes them something other than just Marines in different color armor.

 

If I am honest any limit I face with this I fill with Inquisition because my models did not just evaporate when the 5th edition codex was split into 2 7th edition books and Coteaz is still The Man. Other battle brothers are available, YMMV etc.

^This is what I mean. Because of how we are designed, to be good in almost all phases, the actual playstyle and tabletop application will vary quite vastly depending on the situation. Personally, this is where I like having options. While I enjoy list building, that's only a part of the enjoyment of the game. The larger part is at the table where all your prep is to be applied.

[Reclusiarch Darius]

^This is what I mean. Because of how we are designed, to be good in almost all phases, the actual playstyle and tabletop application will vary quite vastly depending on the situation. Personally, this is where I like having options. While I enjoy list building, that's only a part of the enjoyment of the game. The larger part is at the table where all your prep is to be applied. 

 

Yeah but tactics and strategy doesn't replace choice and flexibility. We definitely still have holes in our army that cannot be plugged with smart play or a different playstyle. Ignoring them isn't going to work. It's why we benefit the most from Allies, who bring the tools we lack. 

Just wanna add another imo big weakness - the lack of any AP2 melee weapon that isn't unwiedly. Even just a relic would be fine to have the option for our IC's but as it stands against TEQ you either take the hammer and risk to die before hitting back (which is not unlikely against a opponent with AP2 weapons) or you take anything else and hope for failed armour safes. Makes challenges against TEQ extremely luck based.

 

Dreadknights man. Also Draigo, if you wanna get technical. 

[jeffersonian000]

I disagree, RD. The choices you make on the table can make up for the choices you made when list building. More choices when list building does not equal more choices on the table, it just means different choices on the table.

 

I've been playing the same GK list now for well over 5 years, with little variation between editions. Previous to that I played a vary different GK list based on 3rd DH codex, and played that list through three editions of the game with only minor variation. My SM army dates back to 2nd Ed, as does my Sisters army. The only new army I've started are Imperial Knights, of which variation is pretty darn limited.

 

For me, the game is a mental match between my opponent and myself. We both make decision in army building that we think will compliment the style of play we wish to bring to the table. We both will then set our wills against each other in a match of gamesmanship, each attempting to make less mistakes than the other, each keeping on our toes to note weakness that can be exploited, and each working the head game that comes with such a clash of wills.

 

It's chess, only with art, history, and artillery rolled into the mix. A good game for me is when I know I have it my best and we both had a great time. A bad game for me is when I walk away without learning anything useful, or when neither of us enjoyed the match.

 

I'm a mental boxer, and gaming is my boxing ring.

 

SJ

 

Edit: crap! Didn't notice the last post date, sorry for the threadomancy.

[Reclusiarch Darius]

That's okay. I'd say this thread is still pretty relevant, given our 'how do new Marines affect us' thread is going crazy. 

 

I disagree, RD. The choices you make on the table can make up for the choices you made when list building. More choices when list building does not equal more choices on the table, it just means different choices on the table.

 

I think you're missing what both me and GML are saying. We're not saying strategy and tactics don't matter. They do. Immensely. But equally important is the units at your disposal. 

 

I'll give a simple example. Lets say you're fighting a Knight-Titan army. What are your options for dealing with them? 

 

- Psycannons: Chancy, you really want side or ideally rear armour vectors to ensure HP loss. And even if you Rend or glance/pen normally, you are dealing with that 4+ ion shield save. They also have 6HP apiece, which is going to absorb a lot of psycannon every turn

- Melee: Hammers and Dreadknights (S6 won't even scratch the paint, so it really is all about the hammers). Melee is a lot more dangerous for both sides; the Knight-Titans don't get their 4+ invul, but they have Destroyer melee attacks. 

 

See the issue? You have only two ways of effectively engaging Knight-Titans. Both of them have a lot of failure points, and even in ideal situations you may still lose. 

 

What if we had sufficient melta, like other Imperial forces? Different story. We'd be able to add it to our roster of tools for dismantling Knight-Titans. Combi-melta Sternguard and Veterans are still a thing, because they efficiently and quickly deal with high AV annoyances like Knight-Titans. 

 

That's the point we're making. Grey Knights have glaring holes in their roster of choices, because we're given so few to begin with, and out of those only a handful are actually viable and useful. 

For me, the game is a mental match between my opponent and myself. We both make decision in army building that we think will compliment the style of play we wish to bring to the table. We both will then set our wills against each other in a match of gamesmanship, each attempting to make less mistakes than the other, each keeping on our toes to note weakness that can be exploited, and each working the head game that comes with such a clash of wills.

It's chess, only with art, history, and artillery rolled into the mix. A good game for me is when I know I have it my best and we both had a great time. A bad game for me is when I walk away without learning anything useful, or when neither of us enjoyed the match.

 

Again, nothing that either I or GML disagree with. But the analogy is, what if you were playing chess always as white, but you had no pawns or rooks? So, you have a massive numerical and field control disadvantage, and little in the way of sacrificial units. You also lack linear control of the battlefield (my crude analogy for long-range fire support). 

 

You'd have to go for the kill very early on, and hope you can blast a path through the enemy's screen of pawns. All the while, you have to fend off attempts at checkmate as well, against an opponent with the same options as you (broadly speaking) but even more that you don't have as well. That's what GK vs anything is kinda like these days. 

 

40k isn't chess, so my analogy does fall short a lot. But my point is, we start the game at a severe disadvantage over a lot of other, more well-rounded armies. Marines have recently stolen our thunder as a better alpha-strike force. The only areas we still are 'unique' at are psychic phase and melee. In board control, attrition, shooting, trading, mobility, efficiency...we are outclassed, pure and simple. 

[SyNidus]

Again, nothing that either I or GML disagree with. But the analogy is, what if you were playing chess always as white, but you had no pawns or rooks? So, you have a massive numerical and field control disadvantage, and little in the way of sacrificial units. You also lack linear control of the battlefield (my crude analogy for long-range fire support).

You'd have to go for the kill very early on, and hope you can blast a path through the enemy's screen of pawns. All the while, you have to fend off attempts at checkmate as well, against an opponent with the same options as you (broadly speaking) but even more that you don't have as well. That's what GK vs anything is kinda like these days.

40k isn't chess, so my analogy does fall short a lot. But my point is, we start the game at a severe disadvantage over a lot of other, more well-rounded armies. Marines have recently stolen our thunder as a better alpha-strike force. The only areas we still are 'unique' at are psychic phase and melee. In board control, attrition, shooting, trading, mobility, efficiency...we are outclassed, pure and simple.

You had me at "go for the kill very early on"

Actually, that excerpt is exactly what i love about GK. To be fair, i don't think we're outclassed. I wouldn't say it's as simple as that.

[Emicus]

Reading the new book + the Dark Angels rumours makes me a cry a little inside. However my gaming group hasn’t had the time to take it all in, buy models and adjust their lists yet. Give it some time and I’ll feel the pain.

There’s been quite a bit of talk about the… Skyhammer?? formation? The ultimate alphastrike devastator slaughter list.

And it wasn’t like plasma was getting near ubiquitous, add grav and I reckon 2+ saves can just take a dirt nap. Hitting them so hard and fast the army is crippled as a tactic only goes so far when they get the drop on you.

​

[Kruso]

Yeah, that Skyhammer formation is nuts. Only way to assault turn one in game I think. Granted, it's only with assault marines, but still. I'm seriously considering taking it to compliment GK alpha strike, even though it's expensive. It certainly makes my decision of who to ally harder. I'd like to get by with just 2 factions in my list, but I really want inquisitor too.

[Reclusiarch Darius]

Actually, that excerpt is exactly what i love about GK. To be fair, i don't think we're outclassed. I wouldn't say it's as simple as that.

 

 

We're outclassed in shooting, mobility, durability, attrition and board control. Some of those things I'm okay with (shooting is fair because it's not our primary focus as a faction, mobility I can accept because we deploy rapidly into the enemy's face). Other things are problems more generally with the game (ie the high abundance of AP2 making 2+ saves a joke these days). 

 

We're still one of the three best psychic armies in the game. Behind Eldar, ahead of Daemons. And we're the best melee army in the game...if we survive to reach it. 

[jeffersonian000]

My point was that 40k is a game of brinksmanship. I chose to play GK as my core army because it challenges me to play better. My choices matter. I don't play to massacre, I play the mission. A Knight army struggles to win the mission, and every non-Errant they take is a Knight I can ignore for at least another turn. Flyers are ignorable. Weak units are primary targets. Hard units can be out played. Skyhammer is a pickle.

 

SJ

[Gentlemanloser]

 

 

We're still one of the three best psychic armies in the game. Behind Eldar, ahead of Daemons.

 

Tigirius, Lloth and thier Conclaves would like a word in your ear...

[Zhukov]

Jeffersonian makes good points. What Darius is at I do not even know. Seems like a theoretical analysis which matters little in practise. An army does not need to be able to do everything, it is fine if you do not have long ranged firepower for example. You also do not need to be able to handle every kind of unit in the sense that you should be able to kill the whole opposing army, also known as tabling people. You need to be able to win games and that can be accomplished in a lot of different ways. Jeff seems to do with a Knight and mostly teleporting units. I do it with generalist OS units and a couple of expandable, mobile hard hitters. It does not matter if you get outclassed in quite some areas, it is largely irrelevant.

 

We are also not the best melee army in the game lol, we aren't a melee army to begin with.

And best psychic army? What does that even imply? In that we win games mostly because of psychic powers? We do not, Daemons do that and Eldar can. We merely use it to augment our units in general.

And outclassed in board control and mobility? We generally have excellent board control and mobility.

[Gentlemanloser]

The whole point is this.

 

Take two generals.  Both have equal skill on and off the board.

 

Given two equal armies, they would both be equally as potent/powerful.

 

 

But.

 

 

Give one of these equally good generals a 'better' army, and they become more potent/powerful than the other (still equally as good) general.

 

Due to have a more potent/powerful army to utilise.

 

 

Guys, this *really* should be an obvious given, and not something we've discussed for multiple pages...