Do you feel the limitations of the Grey Knights?

[jeffersonian000]

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...

I bolded the part where you keep going astray. No one is my equal. Everyone is either better than me at the game, or not as good as I am at the game. And so it is with everyone else.

 

It is bad head game to assume everyone is equal, therefore any imbalance favors one side over the other. It is much better head game to assume nothing is balanced, therefore the better player will succeed by being better at taking advantage of the imbalance.

 

I feel that RD and GML advocate from a position of feeling weak, so any imbalance is automatically assumed to not be in their favor. I advocate for playing smart, playing aggressively, dictating the pace of the game ... regardless of the army you field. I play GK because they are a challenge, a master class army, an army that requires me to think outside of the box.

 

Yes, I could play a point and click army of the week, but does that make me a better player?

 

Beating a point and click army of the week does make me a better player. Drawing against a point and click army of the week makes me a better player. Losing to a point and click army of the week is calibration, an opportunity to learn by doing field research.

 

SJ

[TheMostGood]

My local shop did a tournament where they merged malestrom missions with the old missions. So you'd roll for normal eternal war missions, and then you'd have 1-6 possible objectives you would roll on each turn. You'd get two objectives, none could be duplicated for that turn. It was mainly capture X objective, or destroy a unit. Something everyone could do to some degree.

This format promotes an army that utilizes mobile, obsec units. 


Something like that. It worked well. 

Normal Malestrom missions, as they are written are unplayable and too random. You *have* to use house rules to even use them properly.

[jeffersonian000]

If you say so. I have no issue with Marlstrom as written. Your house mission setup favors ObSec armies over non-ObSec armies, which is pretty much stacking the deck against new codexes.

 

SJ

[Zhukov]

It does not stack the deck against new codices, because they can play with ObSec armies as well.

[Gentlemanloser]

 

 

I bolded the part where you keep going astray. No one is my equal. Everyone is either better than me at the game, or not as good as I am at the game. And so it is with everyone else.

 

Then you can never have any sort of discussion about balance.

 

Equivalency.

 

I feel that RD and GML advocate from a position of feeling weak

 

HAH!  You wish.

 

It's obvious I'm the better player here.  Quite frankly I'm the best GK player ever.  Heck, I'm the best 40k Player ever.

 

;)

 

 

 

 

so any imbalance is automatically assumed to not be in their favor. I advocate for playing smart, playing aggressively, dictating the pace of the game ... regardless of the army you field. I play GK because they are a challenge, a master class army, an army that requires me to think outside of the box.

 

Look, player 'skill' is hard to quantify.  Next to impossible.

 

Mathematical Codex/Unit 'prowess' on the other hand is not.

 

We ignore that we cannot measure (the Human side of things) and compare that we can (the sable mathematics that underlies the game).

 

This really isn't a hard concept to grasp.

 

[Bartali]

I like Maelstrom missions, even as written in the rulebook. Sure they're not perfect, but then this is Apocalypse 40K.

 

I prefer the more dynamic style of armies Maelstrom favours, rather than Eternal War where Eldar Jetbikes turn up turn 5 and win the game ;)

[Zhukov]

Why is it so important to determine in the first place exactly how strong Grey Knights are? I find most of these balance discussions rather pointless, they try way too hard to get definite answers, almost as if somebody is defending the pride of his family or something along those lines. Nobody here claims Grey Knights are a top tier army.

[Happy-inquisitor]

 

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. 

 

 

 

We have Vortex and faith in the Emperor. On days when the Emperor turns his back on us and we roll up useless powers we consider this a test of our faith ;)

 

However the style of GK is what it is - that terminator with a hammer can also add his storm-bolter to horde control duties, can still deep-strike into advantageous positions, can still be a tough dude holding an objective with obsec in the late game and is still a psyker even if that just means adding warp dice to help out another unit. We sure pay for all that incredible versatility but if your play style is good at taking advantage of it then it is a strong army in your hands. If you are the sort of player who is best at deciding what each unit should do in list building rather than on a turn by turn basis then GK will be weaker in your hands.

 

If you look at blogs & websites about the competitive side of 40K you will see 10 posts about list building for every one you see about on-table tactics. What that results in is a player base with more knowledge and understanding of what happens before you put your models on the table and relatively few players who are actually strong at the part of the game that GK will reward strength in. List building skill has little reward with GK, it is obvious and anyone can do it, the skills that GK armies reward well are harder earned because the internet is not full of a constant torrent of articles on how to do it well.

[Gentlemanloser]

 

 

Nobody here claims Grey Knights are a top tier army.

 

Here in lies the answer. ;)

 

If we don't have these balance discussions, how could we ever decide what tier the GK are?  How could we ever settle on any tiers for 40k?

 

And hey, if there are folk who rank DnD classes into Tiers, there will be folk that will rank 40k armies the same! :P

[Zhukov]

 

If we don't have these balance discussions, how could we ever decide what tier the GK are?  How could we ever settle on any tiers for 40k?

Are you claiming balance discussions are a good way to determine an army its tier?

[Gentlemanloser]

 

 

Are you claiming balance discussions are a good way to determine an army its tier?

 

How else would you do it?

 

Tournament results?  When you get issues such as Tournament specific rules effecting 'tiers', player availabilty, and other on day issues (like times and gamkes being cut short).

[Zhukov]

 

Are you claiming balance discussions are a good way to determine an army its tier?

 

How else would you do it?

 

Tournament results?  When you get issues such as Tournament specific rules effecting 'tiers', player availabilty, and other on day issues (like times and gamkes being cut short).

 

So I take it you agree on the fact that it's rather ridiculous to have theory decide how strong armies are? If you find tournament results even worse (even though that is where the game is actually being played competitively) then I think that is a strong indicator that wanting to decide on tiers is pointless all together for you. I mean, theory is just that in the end and apparantly actual results aren't meaningfull either. Personally I disagree a bit with the latter part, I believe tournament results can be a good and rough indicator of how strong armies are. And with rough I mean that it's pretty obvious Grey Knights aren't a top tier army seeing as they don't place in the top 5 of tournaments on a regular basis. When every top 5 nowadays includes Eldar and Necrons, then that's a strong indicator that those are top tier armies.

 

In my humble opinion theory can be used to try and explain results or to try and predict them. If the results aren't very precise and reliable, then theory should not try to pretent it can be.

 

The thing which bothers me in the end is that a lot of discussions are so far removed from reality that it loses any kind of real value.

[Gentlemanloser]

So I take it you agree on the fact that it's rather ridiculous to have theory decide how strong armies are?

Not rediculous. But obviosuly only part of the equation. We just have to choose to ignore the other part that is unquantifiable.

If you find tournament results even worse (even though that is where the game is actually being played competitively)

Organsied. Not Competitive. Tournaments aren't the only place 40k is played competitively. But we've been donw this route recently, don't want to go back there!

Just take the old arguements about tournaments using too much true LoS blocking terrain, and how that skewed the 'balance' between shooting and cc armies.

then I think that is a strong indicator that wanting to decide on tiers is pointless all together for you.

I don't find it pointless. Maybe you do. There are obvious quantifiable qualities each armies have, which can be weighed against each other with equivalence.

I mean, theory is just that in the end and apparantly actual results aren't meaningfull either. Personally I disagree a bit with the latter part, I believe tournament results can be a good and rough indicator of how strong armies are. And with rough I mean that it's pretty obvious Grey Knights aren't a top tier army seeing as they don't place in the top 5 of tournaments on a regular basis. When every top 5 nowadays includes Eldar and Necrons, then that's a strong indicator that those are top tier armies.

Sure, but is that local tournament rules skewing the results? Might not bump GK up into the top 5, but the results might only be the way they are, becuase of the houserules.

The thing which bothers me in the end is that a lot of discussions are so far removed from reality that it loses any kind of real value.

Whoes reality?

There are annecdotal accounts from posters here that match mine, and some that don't.

That's why we have these discussions in the first place, and can't all agree with each other.

[Zhukov]

Organsied. Not Competitive. Tournaments aren't the only place 40k is played competitively. But we've been donw this route recently, don't want to go back there!

Just take the old arguements about tournaments using too much true LoS blocking terrain, and how that skewed the 'balance' between shooting and cc armies.

I don't find it pointless. Maybe you do. There are obvious quantifiable qualities each armies have, which can be weighed against each other with equivalence.

Sure, but is that local tournament rules skewing the results? Might not bump GK up into the top 5, but the results might only be the way they are, becuase of the houserules.

This isn't about whether tournaments are the only real competitive settings or not, it's just that tournaments at least are somewhat alike and the results are often stored as data. It makes those results usable to an extent. It has to do with setting a basis from where to start discussions.

Yes, a lot of things skew the results in one way and the other, which is an argument for what I say in the first place: Don't draw precise conclusions, it's not doable with any kind of relevance.

You said on some occasions that you speak about 40k in it's rulebook version, so including unbound and not taking comp into consideration. Am I right? To me that is precisely what is pointless, because it holds even less value as practicly nobody plays it that way competitively (whether that's a good thing or not is a seperate issue). Of course nobody plays the same tournaments either, but they are closer related to eachother than compared to just playing with the basic rulebook. It's about finding a basis here from where to discuss. Again: I do understand the limitations of this quite well.

It is very hard to weigh things with equivalence, because equivalence pretty much does not exist. If 2 units in the same codex are exactly the same in every respect and one of them is cheaper? Then yes, that other unit is per definition better. But this is never the case, so it comes down already to what value an individual person gives to a certain attribute. So what can we do? Use common sense, not trying to win arguments but instead focusing on sharing knowledge and insights. Not being too precise. All in all not treating 40k like science, it's futile. All in my opinion of course.

[Gentlemanloser]

 

 

You said on some occasions that you speak about 40k in it's rulebook version, so including unbound and not taking comp into consideration. Am I right? To me that is precisely what is pointless, because it holds even less value as practicly nobody plays it that way competitively

 

My group plays it this way.

 

And it's really the only way we can discuss the game globally.

 

 

 

but they are closer related to eachother than compared to just playing with the basic rulebook.

 

But miles away from how I play, and how the local groups I know of (who aren't tournament groups, and play by RAW) play.

[Zhukov]

 

My group plays it this way.

 

And it's really the only way we can discuss the game globally.

It's pointless and I gave reasons as to why. What you are arguing is that everybody should play it this way, because that would make it easier to discuss the game globally. It would indeed, but it's not how it is at the moment.

 

But miles away from how I play, and how the local groups I know of (who aren't tournament groups, and play by RAW) play.

The local groups I know (who aren't tournament groups) don't.

 

Shall we agree to disagree?

[Reclusiarch Darius]

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.

Lots of vague statements but no actual strategy.

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

Tiggy is still pretty easy to kill if you can catch him, durability is his one weakness (that and no innate Deepstrike). Loth is broken and banned at competitive events normally. The Conclave is nice, but they still Peril on dubs doing Sanctic, and they don't have Divination access unless Mantis Warriors or taking Tiggy in the formation (and he's the only one rolling on Divination). You also forget that Marines still have way less warp charge to play with than us. We routinely generate 12-14 without even trying, Marines have to take multiple conclaves to get that level.

I bolded the part where you keep going astray. No one is my equal. Everyone is either better than me at the game, or not as good as I am at the game. And so it is with everyone else.

Again, I think you're missing the point. He's talking about a scenario, not you specifically (or anyone else for that matter).

It is bad head game to assume everyone is equal, therefore any imbalance favors one side over the other. It is much better head game to assume nothing is balanced, therefore the better player will succeed by being better at taking advantage of the imbalance.

This makes zero sense as worded. Could you rephrase please?

I feel that RD and GML advocate from a position of feeling weak, so any imbalance is automatically assumed to not be in their favor. I advocate for playing smart, playing aggressively, dictating the pace of the game ... regardless of the army you field. I play GK because they are a challenge, a master class army, an army that requires me to think outside of the box.

Neither of us have ever said that, and I would prefer you didn't twist my words. Again, Jeff I feel like you're missing our points entirely. We are both completely in favour of smart play and tactics, having a strategy, being aggressive, taking the initiative...none of that is in dispute. What we're contending is that GK start with less tools and options than many other armies, and that is by design. We're not a 'master class army', we're an Allies army. No matter how skilled you are as a general, you are basically starting the battle with less of an army than your opponent. In measurable, unmitigated ways, you are starting from a disadvantage.

Yes, I could play a point and click army of the week, but does that make me a better player?

It might open your eyes as to how different GK plays to just about any other army. I suggest you do so. I have two other armies, and they both operate substantially differently to GK. Even if you don't wanna invest in another faction, just swap armies with a regular opponent sometime. The difference is noticeable, and it's got nothing to do with player skill (although, as I've always said, it helps).

Beating a point and click army of the week does make me a better player. Drawing against a point and click army of the week makes me a better player. Losing to a point and click army of the week is calibration, an opportunity to learn by doing field research.

Only if you learn from your experiences. Also, I'd refrain from referring to other armies as 'point and click'. Tau, Eldar, Daemons, Necrons, Tyranids, new Marines etc, they all require good judgement, skill and experience to work. They have less failure points, and are generally more forgiving (provided you know how they work), but I wouldn't call any of them point and click. It's overly dismissive of your opponent and kinda disrespectful to be honest.

Look, player 'skill' is hard to quantify. Next to impossible.

Mathematical Codex/Unit 'prowess' on the other hand is not.

We ignore that we cannot measure (the Human side of things) and compare that we can (the sable mathematics that underlies the game).

This really isn't a hard concept to grasp.

^this. I am constantly repeating what feels like the bleeding obvious these days. We don't talk about individual player skill, because it can't be quantified properly or accurately. We talk about what can be discussed objectively, which is the game itself and it's mechanics.

I like Maelstrom missions, even as written in the rulebook. Sure they're not perfect, but then this is Apocalypse 40K.

I prefer the more dynamic style of armies Maelstrom favours, rather than Eternal War where Eldar Jetbikes turn up turn 5 and win the game

Maelstrom is awful. I don't know how anyone can enjoy getting RNG grinded to death. But hey, agree to disagree. Some people play Escalation and have fun too.

Eternal War isn't like that, at least not these days. Jetbikes can only do that trick if they're alive. Kill them, problem solved ;)

We have Vortex and faith in the Emperor. On days when the Emperor turns his back on us and we roll up useless powers we consider this a test of our faith

Vortex, even with Liber, is so incredibly chancy and the potential to backfire is very high. Prot has nerves of steel and seems to love chucking Vortex down. I'm more conservative in my playstyle, so it doesn't appeal. Vortex doesn't even kill a Knight-Titan on average dice, and it can scatter away from them/disappear randomly. It's much better at mulching non-vehicle targets.

However the style of GK is what it is - that terminator with a hammer can also add his storm-bolter to horde control duties, can still deep-strike into advantageous positions, can still be a tough dude holding an objective with obsec in the late game and is still a psyker even if that just means adding warp dice to help out another unit. We sure pay for all that incredible versatility but if your play style is good at taking advantage of it then it is a strong army in your hands. If you are the sort of player who is best at deciding what each unit should do in list building rather than on a turn by turn basis then GK will be weaker in your hands.

I don't see the distinction. You need to evaluate unit effectiveness both at list building stage and in-game. They're inseperable and on-going processes (ie after every match, you tinker with your list from what you learned. Every match, you play differently and the outcome is different. Rinse repeat).

If you look at blogs & websites about the competitive side of 40K you will see 10 posts about list building for every one you see about on-table tactics. What that results in is a player base with more knowledge and understanding of what happens before you put your models on the table and relatively few players who are actually strong at the part of the game that GK will reward strength in. List building skill has little reward with GK, it is obvious and anyone can do it, the skills that GK armies reward well are harder earned because the internet is not full of a constant torrent of articles on how to do it well.

Hence why I don't frequent blogs or other sites anymore, I devote most of my attention to this forum. We actually do tactics and strategy here, it's why the Primer threads exist. List building is handled in another forum, and it's pretty stale because as GML and I both point out, our options are limited.

I disagree that anyone can build a good GK army. A quick trip even to our army list sub-forum will dispel that notion. It's very easy to write bad lists with GK. It's much harder to come up with something both original and good (not even powerful, I mean viable).

I find this whole idea of 'well my army sucks but it makes me a better general' to be humble brag at best, and disingenuous rubbish at worst. It implies people who play more powerful factions have it easy, and somehow aren't as skilled or battle-tested. Which is utter rubbish. Sure, someone people build the netlist of the week and pilot it to success. But they're a definite minority, and you can see them coming a mile away. Most players choose a faction and stick to it. GW's own sales data backs this up.

[Zhukov]

Hence why I don't frequent blogs or other sites anymore, I devote most of my attention to this forum. We actually do tactics and strategy here, it's why the Primer threads exist.

I must have missed all these awesome articles about deployment, positioning along with battle reports of yours then. Actual strategy and tactics is sorely missing here just as much as on other forums, please don't pretent otherwise, it's misleading. Your ramblings in the end come down to choices for army building. Choices for hypothetical situations where everybody plays with 100 Scatbikes and 10 Riptides.

[Hexagon Sun]

Hello, I don't post in here because although you're all generally friendly with your discussions, you do all tend to fire on all cylinders... As i'm a fairly infrequent and non competitive gamer I wouldn't have much to add and a lot of this discussion is irrelevant to me personally as it's not the environment I play in.

 

But from my perspective I think it would be interesting to see some bat reps from you all as it appears you have some very differing ideas of how to play Grey Knights. Surely that may give you more grounds for taking your various arguments forward, instead of it remaining fairly circular as it has been for the past few pages and a few other threads? Sorry if this has already happened and I've missed it but I do think it would be very interesting to see.

[Gentlemanloser]

Post more!

 

(And Newcastle is lovely, I'm getting to go back in the summer holidays soon.  Hopefully this time, Wet & Wild will be open! :P)

[Zhukov]

But from my perspective I think it would be interesting to see some bat reps from you all as it appears you have some very differing ideas of how to play Grey Knights. Surely that may give you more grounds for taking your various arguments forward, instead of it remaining fairly circular as it has been for the past few pages and a few other threads? Sorry if this has already happened and I've missed it but I do think it would be very interesting to see.

I only recently started to participate in here, so I haven't done many battereports yet but you can find them in 'my' thread. More to come next week after the tournament I'm heading for tomorrow.

[Gentlemanloser]

Good luck Zhuk!  Get a win for the Knights! :)

[thade]

Hello, I don't post in here because although you're all generally friendly with your discussions, you do all tend to fire on all cylinders... As i'm a fairly infrequent and non competitive gamer I wouldn't have much to add and a lot of this discussion is irrelevant to me personally as it's not the environment I play in.

I know it may not seem that way all the time, but this space is one that's open to all to share their thoughts in. You should feel free to start a thread centered on whatever interests you, be it fluff, friendly games, games that aren't min-maxed, anything you like. Min-maxing gets the spotlight quite enough.

But from my perspective I think it would be interesting to see some bat reps from you all as it appears you have some very differing ideas of how to play Grey Knights. Surely that may give you more grounds for taking your various arguments forward, instead of it remaining fairly circular as it has been for the past few pages and a few other threads? Sorry if this has already happened and I've missed it but I do think it would be very interesting to see.

I look forward to these too!

[Prot]

Hello, I don't post in here because although you're all generally friendly with your discussions, you do all tend to fire on all cylinders... As i'm a fairly infrequent and non competitive gamer I wouldn't have much to add and a lot of this discussion is irrelevant to me personally as it's not the environment I play in.

 

But from my perspective I think it would be interesting to see some bat reps from you all as it appears you have some very differing ideas of how to play Grey Knights. Surely that may give you more grounds for taking your various arguments forward, instead of it remaining fairly circular as it has been for the past few pages and a few other threads? Sorry if this has already happened and I've missed it but I do think it would be very interesting to see.

 

 

Please post more often. 

 

I am trying to help change the atmosphere in here from hostility, and face punching disagreements to a more positive direction. But your reaction is unfortunately a common one among newer frater.

 

For example... Darius may say 'Maelstrom is horrible'. I know that is wrong. I play modified, and I play tournaments, so I know how incredibly VITAL ObSec is.

 

But for him, and his version of 40K it isn't.

 

It's okay to disagree. It's fine to have differing opinions, but for some reason in this area, you will see a drag down, punch out fight over a 'game' opinion. One thing you will never see here is someone's opinion change. It's something I don't see here. And if your opinion is different, you will be told in no uncertain terms, you're doing it wrong, or your opponent is stupid.

 

I want to promote a more constructive atmosphere. But in order to do so, it would be very helpful if Frater who feel... 'intimidated' by this current atmosphere would stick their necks out a bit more, and please contribute.

 

My Hobby thread has batreps linked to it, and they have mistakes, and some great victories in them. I don't believe any one path is the way to victory. I've played a lot of tournaments, and I've seen too many things written off as 'garbage' do very well in the right hands. 

 

Don't be discouraged by the polarizing effect of this forum, and your statement of 'firing off on all cylinders' is true, but there are people here to give you hand and help you build a list, even if it's full of the stuff some people might say is crap. 

 

We play the game for different reasons. We play in differing environments, different tournament atmospheres. Some tournaments are still comp heavy, some award sportsmanship still, some don't allow certain formations, etc. How on  earth can one opinion be 100% in this case?

 

Please feel free to post. Everyone has something to offer and the more opinion we have the better. Everyone here has to follow the same rules, and you'll be treated with respect.

 

Sorry for the long post, but some of these conversations are getting too personal, and polarizing. We need to respect each other, and if opinions can't be less argumentative it might be time to just step away from the forum and reset for a bit.

[thade]

For example... Darius may say 'Maelstrom is horrible'. I know that is wrong. I play modified, and I play tournaments, so I know how incredibly VITAL ObSec is.

 

But for him, and his version of 40K it isn't.

I think each one of us here understands, on some level, that everybody's experiences with their armies are necessarily influenced heavily by their local meta...even tournies have their own relative local metas. But it's rare this fact gets any air time or affords anybody any room for differences. Too often we see absolutist statements as to whether X is uniformly good or uniformly bad; this isn't intrinsically bad, or even weird...we can hardly find enough time to do fun stuff at all, let alone explain every nuanced angle as to why X is maybe good for us but not for others. It is bad when people throw their gauntlet down and take edged tones with one another at almost every disagreement.

 

Let's strive to keep things civil.