Need help with new GK army (returning player)

[shabs]

As the title says, I am a returning player and have just purchased a Nemesis Vanguard and Castellan Crowe. I am looking to build towards a 1500 pt competitive list, because there are a lot of variations you can achieve from the Vanguard I would greatly appreciate some input on what squads I should make and which weapons I should give them.

Also, any input on what purchases I should make in the future to bolster my army would as well be greatly appreciated.

Thanks in advance.

[Reclusiarch Darius]

Hi Shabs. Welcome to Titan. 

 

If you'd like some quick guides on how Grey Knights work and common strategies, head over to the Primers stickied at the top of the forum. 

 

If you want list building advice, it's best to post a draft list in the Grey Knight Army List subforum (also located at the top of this forum). That way people can give you specific list advice, and help you streamline it. 

 

Regarding the Nemesis Vaguard, the only thing you won't be using is the Land Raider. Land Raiders have had a rough time since melta proliferation began in 5th, and these days between Hull Points and the general increase in high Strength anti-tank, they're not effective at their role. Ravens have functionally replaced them in GK armies. 

 

Crowe suffers from a number of issues. Firstly, he's 175pts and yet he neither brings support on the level of a LIbrarian, nor is he anywhere near a Grand Master in melee. Like the Brotherhood Champion he is based off, they're overpriced for ultimately a cornercase 'challenge' hero. It is nice to get 'Cleansing Flame', but Purifiers do the same thing and cost less. 

[shabs]

Thanks alot for all your info! My greatest concern at the moment though is what squads I should make and which weapons I should give them, based off of what I already have. Castellan was ordered online so I am definately going to cancel it and invest in a Librarian. If you could help me with this at all as I am just staring at my sprews waiting to make my army (the anxiety is real lol).

Also, sorry for not posting in the right place. I'll be sure to learn from that mistake!

Thanks again!

 

[zeruslord]

For power armor, purifiers and interceptors are good choices, strikes are suboptimal, and purgation squads are downright bad.  Purifiers in rhinos get cleansing flame into range and are nasty in assault. Interceptors give you fast delivery of teleport homers and special weapons.  Strikes are the closest you get to a cheap unit, and they're a troop choice, but they aren't cheap compared to any other army's troop choices, and termies are competing for the same slot.  If you do take them, it's a good idea to keep them with standard melee weapons, maybe a hammer and a psycannon per squad - any upgrades you give them would get into combat sooner on an interceptor, be harder to take out on a terminator, or be more dangerous on a two-attack purifier.  Purgation squads are devastators with half the range, no S8 or AP2, no drop pod in the codex, more cost, and Dreadknights in the same slot.

 

For terminator armor, standard termies are a better choice than paladins.  Terminator squads are real good - they're 7 points cheaper than Codex termies, have two attacks stock (which means three with falchions, or you can keep the two attacks and get a hammer), Brotherhood of Psykers, Aegis Armor, force weapons, and fill your troops slots.  Paladins are overcosted - they get Instant Deathed by S8 shooting, so the second wound doesn't help that much, and they aren't any more dangerous than troop terminators unless you really pour on the upgrades.  They can make sense in small games (less S8 floating around means their extra wound actually does something) or if you're doing a pure GK list and want to spend 900 points on Draigo and the nastiest 10-man unit you can build, but for that price you could get 20 normal terminators with all the bells and whistles.

 

For upgrades, psycannons or incinerators are good, psilencers are pretty useless (worse than psycannons against anything but grots, plus they're Heavy).  If you're putting special melee weapons on a squad at all, you might as well give them falchions (slightly more effective than halberds until you get to strength 6+/8+ depending on whether you use hammerhand) and a hammer or two.

 

Magnetizing is a good idea - strikes and interceptors have identical paint schemes but different backpacks, terminators you can adjust up or down by about 60 points per squad depending on upgrades (two hammers, three falchions, and a psycannon vs five power swords).  At the very least, magnetize the weapons on dreadknights and tanks.  You won't want the Heavy Psilencer most of the time, but a fully-loaded Dreadknight is over a hundred points more expensive than a bare one, and being able to trade those upgrades for an entire squad is worth the effort.  Similarly, rhino vs maxed razorback is 40 points, and while landraiders all cost about the same, a crusader or redeemer is very different from stock.

[Tony 92]

Hello Shabs, tis nice to see more Grey Knight players! I have quite different opinions than those conveyed above, as I find all units in the Grey Knight codex viable and useful. Yes, Land Raiders can be killed by things, but everything in the game can be killed by something. AV14 and 4HP is tough! If you want a mech list then a Raider or two is a must. Plus, it's a Land Raider!

 

Purgation squads can have their uses. One of the best buys in the codex is a 5 man Purgation squad with 4 incinerators in a Rhino. Placing those 4 strength 6 templates down can even cause marines a lot of pain. Against filthy Xenos it's just horrible.

 

Psilencers, now with force are also ace. Particularly on a Termi squad or with the Gatling Psilencer on a Dreadknight. Sure it's AP- but as a Grey Knight player I know how easy it is to fail 2+ and 3+ saves. Against Monstorous Creatures they are both golden, so I'd be tempted to included at least one. Also, it's a force gun!

 

In terms of weapon load out all are quite useful. Hammers for AP2, Falchions for extra attacks and Halberds for natural strength 5. Some around here don't rate them due to hammerhand but I find my Grandmaster and Librarian eat my psykic dice so having that natural strength 5 is handy. Plus, if you come against toughness 8 (i.e. Wraitknight), you would it on 5s, not 6s. A lot easier. It's also useful against tanks. You'll find that hitting tanks in combat is probably our best form of anti tank. Psycannons are also gold on Temies. Essentially, all weapons have their uses, it depends what you want your squad doing. Falchions for killing infantry, hammers and halberds for tanks and monsters.

 

Hope my ramblings have helped in some way. I highly rate the codex. It's very flavourful and characterful and can also beat face! If you want lots of space knight wizards who look awesome and can do almost anything then you are in the right place!

[Reclusiarch Darius]

Hello Shabs, tis nice to see more Grey Knight players! I have quite different opinions than those conveyed above, as I find all units in the Grey Knight codex viable and useful. Yes, Land Raiders can be killed by things, but everything in the game can be killed by something. AV14 and 4HP is tough! If you want a mech list then a Raider or two is a must. Plus, it's a Land Raider!

 

It's slow, it doesn't shoot well enough to justify it's cost, and hard counters for it have existed since 5th edition. Even normal Marines don't bother with LR's. 

Purgation squads can have their uses. One of the best buys in the codex is a 5 man Purgation squad with 4 incinerators in a Rhino. Placing those 4 strength 6 templates down can even cause marines a lot of pain. Against filthy Xenos it's just horrible.

 

In a drop pod or Raven, maybe. In a Rhino you'll just get rekt mid-field and die. 

Psilencers, now with force are also ace. Particularly on a Termi squad or with the Gatling Psilencer on a Dreadknight. Sure it's AP- but as a Grey Knight player I know how easy it is to fail 2+ and 3+ saves. Against Monstorous Creatures they are both golden, so I'd be tempted to included at least one. Also, it's a force gun!

 

The gatling psilencer is only viable because it shoots 12 shots and it's on a fast platform that can utilise it best. Plus, even if the gat fails, you still have 'Force' on a S10 Jump MC who can charge in and obliterate whatever it touches. 

In terms of weapon load out all are quite useful. Hammers for AP2, Falchions for extra attacks and Hammers for natural strength 5. Some around here don't rate them due to hammerhand but I find my Grandmaster and Librarian eat my psykic dice so having that natural strength 5 is handy. Plus, if you come against toughness 8 (i.e. Wraitknight), you would it on 5s, not 6s. A lot easier. It's also useful against tanks. You'll find that hitting tanks in combat is probably our best form of anti tank. Psycannons are also gold on Temies. Essentially, all weapons have their uses, it depends what you want your squad doing. Falchions for killing infantry, hammers and halberds for tanks and monsters.

 

Wraithknights will just laugh and FNP the few wounds you cause. You need S10 to engage Wraithknights effectively, which means hammers+'Hammerhand' or a DK. Preferably with 'Force' as well, as the D3 wounds per hit will eventually kill it. Halberds are trash, 'Hammerhand' makes them irrelevant. Falchions are a choice, I personally like to keep Termies as cheap as possible (they're already 2A base, that's enough for most things). 

[Tony 92]

 

Hello Shabs, tis nice to see more Grey Knight players! I have quite different opinions than those conveyed above, as I find all units in the Grey Knight codex viable and useful. Yes, Land Raiders can be killed by things, but everything in the game can be killed by something. AV14 and 4HP is tough! If you want a mech list then a Raider or two is a must. Plus, it's a Land Raider!

 

It's slow, it doesn't shoot well enough to justify it's cost, and hard counters for it have existed since 5th edition. Even normal Marines don't bother with LR's. 

Purgation squads can have their uses. One of the best buys in the codex is a 5 man Purgation squad with 4 incinerators in a Rhino. Placing those 4 strength 6 templates down can even cause marines a lot of pain. Against filthy Xenos it's just horrible.

 

In a drop pod or Raven, maybe. In a Rhino you'll just get rekt mid-field and die. 

Psilencers, now with force are also ace. Particularly on a Termi squad or with the Gatling Psilencer on a Dreadknight. Sure it's AP- but as a Grey Knight player I know how easy it is to fail 2+ and 3+ saves. Against Monstorous Creatures they are both golden, so I'd be tempted to included at least one. Also, it's a force gun!

 

The gatling psilencer is only viable because it shoots 12 shots and it's on a fast platform that can utilise it best. Plus, even if the gat fails, you still have 'Force' on a S10 Jump MC who can charge in and obliterate whatever it touches. 

In terms of weapon load out all are quite useful. Hammers for AP2, Falchions for extra attacks and Hammers for natural strength 5. Some around here don't rate them due to hammerhand but I find my Grandmaster and Librarian eat my psykic dice so having that natural strength 5 is handy. Plus, if you come against toughness 8 (i.e. Wraitknight), you would it on 5s, not 6s. A lot easier. It's also useful against tanks. You'll find that hitting tanks in combat is probably our best form of anti tank. Psycannons are also gold on Temies. Essentially, all weapons have their uses, it depends what you want your squad doing. Falchions for killing infantry, hammers and halberds for tanks and monsters.

 

Wraithknights will just laugh and FNP the few wounds you cause. You need S10 to engage Wraithknights effectively, which means hammers+'Hammerhand' or a DK. Preferably with 'Force' as well, as the D3 wounds per hit will eventually kill it. Halberds are trash, 'Hammerhand' makes them irrelevant. Falchions are a choice, I personally like to keep Termies as cheap as possible (they're already 2A base, that's enough for most things). 

 

A twelve inch move is fast enough in my book, plus it can move 18 if you really want. Once it's done that your Termies are generally where they are needed and you can switch to shooting mode. All varients of Raider bring something useful to the party. Lascannons, a lot of Dakka, Meltas, AP3 Flamers, the chance to shoot at multiple targets. All things that 'normal' Grey Knights lack. I'll admit it's expensive, but all the guns are useful and on a tough base. In my view it's about target saturation. Run two Land Raiders and two Dreadknights and I imagine the Raiders will survive longer than you think! As I mentioned in the previous post, everything has a hard counter, so I'm not sure how useful that comment is. A Dreadknight that walks too close to a squad with multiple plasma guns is probably dead, but a Dreadknight is still useful! In my view, how you use something is just as, if not more important than the baseline abilities of the unit in question. Nothing is unkillable and a Raider is a lot harder to kill than many things out there.

 

The thing with Purgation squads is that they are small and many players don't see the threat. Not when there's two Raiders loaded with purifiers and termies and potentially a Dreadknight or two rocking towards them! Plus, the Rhino only need survive one turn. Clever deployment means that you can move 18 inches and then be in a position, wrecked rhino or not, to start killing things. Even if you go second, rhinos are small enough to hide behind things and clever use of terrain can help. Advancing behind Raiders is also quite useful. 

 

Halberds are not 'trash' or even 'irrelevant'. As I pointed out, having natural strength 5 (for 2 points a model) is very useful. What happens if you fail to cast hammerhand? Or you want to use your dice to cast Prescience or Cleansing Flame? What if you have multiple units engaged and don't have enough dice? The warp is fickle. Cold steel in a Terminator's hand is not! (Well, sometimes I suppose. If your dice don't like you...) It's nice to charge into combat  and know that you'll be wounding toughness 4 on a 3+ no matter what and T3 (of which there is a fair amount nowadays) on a 2+. To just rubbish them is I think a little closed minded.

 

In terms of the Wraithknight, turn on force as well and you are ignoring the FNP (which is only a 5+ anyway. I'll admit it'll stop some wounds but it will not FNP them all away!) However, with Force on or not, I'd still prefer my Termies to have halberds over anything other than hammers, but seeing as they are 8 points cheaper than the hammers it seems like a fairly useful and affordable tool. Plus, even if hammerhand is stopped then they can actually hurt the thing. Anything strength 4 or less wouldn't scratch it anyway!

[jeffersonian000]

About the only thing worth taking Halberds over Falchions or just plain Swords is when facing off with Wraithlords and WrathKnights. On TDA, you should be taking 2 Hammers per 5 models, anyway. Falchions out preform Halberds versus most targets, with the exception of high T units, of which your Hammers should be dealing with rather than your other dudes. This still makes Falchions the better choice if you have the points. And Swords are still free. If Swords still gave a bonus, and Halberds were free, I'd say mix Halberds and Swords on your non-Hammer TDA. As it currently is, Hammers and Falchions are the better choice, if you have the points.

 

On PA, don't bother with melee upgrades beyond 1 Hammer per 5 models, and do not put that Hammer on your Justicar. He is better off with a Melta Bomb, than losing your Hammer to a challenge.

 

SJ

[Reclusiarch Darius]

A twelve inch move is fast enough in my book, plus it can move 18 if you really want. Once it's done that your Termies are generally where they are needed and you can switch to shooting mode. All varients of Raider bring something useful to the party. Lascannons, a lot of Dakka, Meltas, AP3 Flamers, the chance to shoot at multiple targets. All things that 'normal' Grey Knights lack. I'll admit it's expensive, but all the guns are useful and on a tough base. In my view it's about target saturation. Run two Land Raiders and two Dreadknights and I imagine the Raiders will survive longer than you think! As I mentioned in the previous post, everything has a hard counter, so I'm not sure how useful that comment is. A Dreadknight that walks too close to a squad with multiple plasma guns is probably dead, but a Dreadknight is still useful! In my view, how you use something is just as, if not more important than the baseline abilities of the unit in question. Nothing is unkillable and a Raider is a lot harder to kill than many things out there.

 

DK's can survive plasma guns these days quite well, thanks to 'Sanctuary'. Mine normally die to lascannon or melta weaponry, which is S8+ and therefore wounds on 2's (plasma is 3's or 2's depending on type). Running two DK's and two LR's means you'll have close to zero infantry, which kinda defeats the purpose of playing Grey Knights. 

 

Land Raiders suffer from a long-standing hatred in the meta-game, which means everyone plans for them. Ravens at least require Skyfire and probably Ignore Cover or a lot of shots to bring down, they actually have more firepower (turret and nose weapons, plus missiles, plus hurricane sponsons if you really want), and it's still cheaper than the cheapest Land Raider. Also, Ravens can fly over anything in your way, and thus have amazing potential to launch assaults from angles your opponent can't defend (it has an Assault Ramp as well). Anything you'd task a LR to do, a Raven will do better and probably not die unless you're fighting a really AA-heavy list (ie Tau, Imperial Guard, Eldar). 

 

As I said, if some changes are made to the vehicle rules in 8th, we may see LR's return. But I still think they're at least 50pts overpriced. 

The thing with Purgation squads is that they are small and many players don't see the threat. Not when there's two Raiders loaded with purifiers and termies and potentially a Dreadknight or two rocking towards them! Plus, the Rhino only need survive one turn. Clever deployment means that you can move 18 inches and then be in a position, wrecked rhino or not, to start killing things. Even if you go second, rhinos are small enough to hide behind things and clever use of terrain can help. Advancing behind Raiders is also quite useful. 

 

If they're a threat, they'll be killed early on. If they're not a threat, they'll be ignored and the rest of your army will get shot up more anyway. It's not a challenge for people to kill a Rhino and 5 Marines. Purifiers do everything Purgators do and are still a very dangerous assault unit as well. Not to mention 'Cleansing Flame' can hit multiple units, whereas a Purgator squad can at best BBQ one horde unit a turn. It doesn't matter if you hide behind a wall of LR, people can and will flank you. The faster armies in 40k will reposition and destroy that Rhino. The days of mech-walls ended a long time ago dude, that was like 5th edition. 

Halberds are not 'trash' or even 'irrelevant'. As I pointed out, having natural strength 5 (for 2 points a model) is very useful. What happens if you fail to cast hammerhand? Or you want to use your dice to cast Prescience or Cleansing Flame? What if you have multiple units engaged and don't have enough dice? The warp is fickle. Cold steel in a Terminator's hand is not! (Well, sometimes I suppose. If your dice don't like you...) It's nice to charge into combat  and know that you'll be wounding toughness 4 on a 3+ no matter what and T3 (of which there is a fair amount nowadays) on a 2+. To just rubbish them is I think a little closed minded.

 

If I'm in melee combat, I'm casting 'Hammerhand' on at least 3 dice, if not 4. It's often more important than 'Force'. If I'm casting 'Force, I'm usually throwing 3-4 dice at it as well. If you're worried about not getting 'Hammerhand' off, you can always invest in a Dominus Liber on your Librarian. You should have enough charge dice for 'Prescience' and 'Hammerhand', I wouldn't be choosing one over the other. 'Force' isn't always needed, it's situational. +1 Strength doesn't matter except against T7, which is a rare enemy type. 

 

You can read the other threads where we've hashed this out. The mathhammer clearly shows that falchions beat halberds in every situation except against T7, which as I mentioned isn't exactly common.+1A is much more useful against hordes of weaker opponents too, and it helps against strong invul saves on things like Wraiths or TWC (who need to be stabbed a lot before they fail a save). Halberds just don't do enough anymore. If you're gonna bother upgrading from swords (which are fine on Terminators and Purifiers normally), take falchions. It's not that much more and they're much more effective, especially once you apply psychic buffs to the unit. For wounding high Toughness, you take hammers of course. 

In terms of the Wraithknight, turn on force as well and you are ignoring the FNP (which is only a 5+ anyway. I'll admit it'll stop some wounds but it will not FNP them all away!) However, with Force on or not, I'd still prefer my Termies to have halberds over anything other than hammers, but seeing as they are 8 points cheaper than the hammers it seems like a fairly useful and affordable tool. Plus, even if hammerhand is stopped then they can actually hurt the thing. Anything strength 4 or less wouldn't scratch it anyway!

 

If your Terminators are in combat with a Wraithknight it has a high probability of murdering them before they can swing anyway. I wouldn't rely on anything hurting it except the squad hammer with 'Hammerhand'. Halberds and/or 'Hammerhand' swords/falchions are only on 6's or 5's, which is awful against a GC with 6 wounds, FNP and potentially a 5+ invul as well (if it took the sword+shield combo, which I think will become more popular). 

[Tony 92]

Hmmmm. I think we may have to agree to disagree here.

 

If you are using 3-4 dice per squad for hammerhand then you can only cast it 3-4 times (assuming about 12-16 dice in your pool) and that means no other psychic powers if you have a decent number of units in combat. I do take the Liber but my Librarian can't be everywhere at once. At best it'll effect three units, but that is being generous, seeing as it only has a 6 inch range. Relying on psychic powers is risky. In my view, they should be seen as a bonus if gotton off, not a given and a guarentee.

 

I'm not saying halberds are better than falchions (personally, I like a mix and I do use falchions, they are awesome and the models look great) but halberds do have their uses and can't just be written off in the way you describe. I know that there is maths that says halberds are rubbish, but that is not my actual experience on the tabletop. Seeing as in my game yesterday it was a halberd weilding Grey Knight Termi with 'force' on that slew the Swarmlord (I tried to cast hammerhand on three dice, scored one and was denied...) I would definately say that they aren't useless.

 

I'd also point out that Raiders are still hard to kill. A melta gun at 6 inch range only has a 50% chance of penetrating and then needs to roll a 5+ to blow the thing up. I wouldn't say that that's an easy thing to do. Sure there are D-Weapons (which kill everything), Grav (which also kill dreadknights handsomely) and Gauss (but that's only 1 codex) and I'm sure many other things too, but I still maintain Raiders are hard to kill. When I use Raiders they seem to do very well. Sometimes they die but that doesn't mean that they are useless and not usable. Dreadknights also die and can be killed by a lot more things in the game. A Raider can't be killed by a lasgun. I know a Dreadknight has a 2+ save but dice are very fickle... Plus I have no idea where you get the psychic dice for sanctuary when you are casting hammerhand and prescience all the time. I'd like at least 3 or 4 dice to get that off.

 

Ravens are cool, I admit, and everything you say is valid, but they bring their own risks and drawbacks too. Not arriving til later (I don't like using the comms relay, not fluffy!) can be tricky and if they get blown out of the sky that's close to 500 points dead if it has people inside. Also, to use the assault ramp means the raven will almost certainly die next turn. If AV14 with 4HP is vulnerable then an AV12 HP3 vehicle is little more than paper, even with the armoured ceramite... 

 

In terms of not having enough models on the board with the 2 raiders and 2 Dreadknights, I normally play about 2K, which gives me about 1000pts left for infantry. That's about 20 Termies and a HQ. Yes, it's a small model count, but we are Grey Knights!

 

Really, I don't think everything is as black and white and as negative as some people on this forum make out. I use a mix of lots of things and am quite successful in my games. Since the new book came out I've had a lot more victories than losses, despite using supposedly suboptimal, or bad choices. I'm not a 'competitive player' per se, more interested in 'forging the narrative' but I still play to win! As I said above, clever play can often mitigate weaknesses in units that are present.

 

In other words Shabs, take what you think looks cool and is fun. Personally I like to theme my weapon load outs. I have a squad with 4 falchions and a hammer (for butchering infantry), a squad with 3 halberds, a hammer and stave (for assaulting slightly tougher targets) and then a squad with a mix of halberds, swords and hammers (for generalist duties). As I said in my first post, pretty much everything is useful if it is used correctly.

[Zembar]

Skitarii arc rifles will do hilarious things to land raiders. And it looks as if Cult Mechanicus will get a beefed-up version of it as well.

[Tony 92]

Skitarii arc rifles will do hilarious things to land raiders. And it looks as if Cult Mechanicus will get a beefed-up version of it as well.

 

I don't really understand your point. One unit in one army has a haywire rifle so I should never take a Raider? If my opponent has an arc rifle does my Raider automatically wreck itself at the start of turn 1? I'm not saying Raiders are inviolable but can sometimes be useful.

 

Grav Cents, Plasma squads, Tau Battlesuits and Riptides and many other things besides do 'hilarious things' to Dreadknights and Terminators but those are still used and considered 'viable'.

 

Saying 'x will destroy this' is not really helpful. Tactics play a part as well and I find that real games of 40K are actually quite different to the vacuum of theoryhammer due to infinite army build possibilities, terrain set up, missions, player skill and luck!

[Zembar]

The problem is that almost all non-flyer vehicles suck in 7th edition. Almost all armies can get great anti-armor for a pittance.

 

I guess they can be useful if you know exactly what army you're facing, but I like to at least try to make lists to handle a bit of everything. And in that context land raiders are a diversion for our NDK at best, at which point you might as well buy another NDK and be able to afford another terminator for the leftover change.

[Prot]

If I'm not doing my Ultra's in a month, I'm going to force myself to do a landraider.

 

With Chaos you're forced to use one every once in a while. They simply don't have real drop pods, or even a Stormraven.

 

Right now, I think access to the Stormraven kills the mojo a Landraider could add. As mentioned, it's just too easy to get rid of.

 

While I agree with Tony that yes, many weapons can also cause wounds to a NDK, it's an unfair representation of the scenario:

 

- A Landraider can't shoot much after moving 12"

- A Landraider isn't a close combat nightmare.

+ NDK's can't carry terminators... but they are 'mega' terminators. So you pay for them, but it's fair.

 

The thing is there is a huge flaw in the current vehicle mechanics of the game. Some feel it more than others, but in a nutshell:

 

- An NDK will NEVER lose use of one of his arms.

- An NDK will never be stuck in one spot for the game.

- An NDK will never be stuck with snap firing for a turn.

 

Conversely, a Landraider will never fail a moral test. But still, there is no comparison and we're not even talking about close combat differences (WS1) or Fear, or HoW,

[Tony 92]

Prot, you make excellent points. Vehicles did get a buff in 7th but hull points are still a pain. Particularly with things like gauss and haywire.

 

I hasten to point out though that I wasn't directly comparing Dreadknight vs Raiders. I agree, Dreadknights are more useful, I was just making the point that saying 'x can kill that' is not really very useful in a discussion as everything has a hard counter. I used for my example Dreadknights as they are percieved by the community (quite rightly) as being one of the best units in the codex and so it seemed an apt example to demonstrate how pointless the 'x can kill it so it's useless' discussion is. 

 

I just find the rather negative 'this never works' argument fustrating as quite often the things people say don't work do work. I guess though I have quite a different view on the game to most people here!

[Prot]

Oh no I totally agree, and admittedly get tired of the "that will never work" banter. There is a very strong.. undertone of "if you don't do this you're stupid or your meta is dumb'. Ignore it... others will poke their heads out eventually.

[Reclusiarch Darius]

If you are using 3-4 dice per squad for hammerhand then you can only cast it 3-4 times (assuming about 12-16 dice in your pool) and that means no other psychic powers if you have a decent number of units in combat. I do take the Liber but my Librarian can't be everywhere at once. At best it'll effect three units, but that is being generous, seeing as it only has a 6 inch range. Relying on psychic powers is risky. In my view, they should be seen as a bonus if gotton off, not a given and a guarentee.

 

How many units will be in melee and needing both powers? If you have more than 3 I'd be amazed. Its usually 2 at best for me, the rest are shooting or dead/out of charge range. If you don't get 'Hammerhand' and 'Prescience' off when you need it, you're pretty useless in melee (S4/5 AP3 is okay against infantry but very underwhelming against anything else). 

I'm not saying halberds are better than falchions (personally, I like a mix and I do use falchions, they are awesome and the models look great) but halberds do have their uses and can't just be written off in the way you describe. I know that there is maths that says halberds are rubbish, but that is not my actual experience on the tabletop. Seeing as in my game yesterday it was a halberd weilding Grey Knight Termi with 'force' on that slew the Swarmlord (I tried to cast hammerhand on three dice, scored one and was denied...) I would definately say that they aren't useless.

 

Anecdotes /=/ strategy. We all have stories about how unlikely things chained together for a win. Hell, Prot has heaps of stories about 'Vortex' winning him games (while melting half his army in the process :P ). I write off halberds because if you're gonna upgrade, falchions are just a better investment against anything other that T7. And if you're fighting high Toughness, you should have hammers anyway (1 per 5 is the usual mix). 

'd also point out that Raiders are still hard to kill. A melta gun at 6 inch range only has a 50% chance of penetrating and then needs to roll a 5+ to blow the thing up. I wouldn't say that that's an easy thing to do. Sure there are D-Weapons (which kill everything), Grav (which also kill dreadknights handsomely) and Gauss (but that's only 1 codex) and I'm sure many other things too, but I still maintain Raiders are hard to kill. When I use Raiders they seem to do very well. Sometimes they die but that doesn't mean that they are useless and not usable. Dreadknights also die and can be killed by a lot more things in the game. A Raider can't be killed by a lasgun. I know a Dreadknight has a 2+ save but dice are very fickle... Plus I have no idea where you get the psychic dice for sanctuary when you are casting hammerhand and prescience all the time. I'd like at least 3 or 4 dice to get that off.

 

But you've already listed a host of matchups where LR's are dead meat. So, unless you exclusively fight...I dunno, Orks or something, your LR's will get ripped to shreds by a lot of armies out there. Kinda making my point for me. 

 

I have dice for 'Sanctuary' Turn 1 because nothing is in melee, and I only need 'Prescience' if my guns are in range of something. In later turns, it's situational (unless you're fighting other MC's or things with AP2 melee, you can let it drop off). 

Ravens are cool, I admit, and everything you say is valid, but they bring their own risks and drawbacks too. Not arriving til later (I don't like using the comms relay, not fluffy!) can be tricky and if they get blown out of the sky that's close to 500 points dead if it has people inside. Also, to use the assault ramp means the raven will almost certainly die next turn. If AV14 with 4HP is vulnerable then an AV12 HP3 vehicle is little more than paper, even with the armoured ceramite... 

 

Comms Relay is mandatory for GK. We're an army that relies on Reserves more than just about any army around. You cannot rely on getting either Warlord traits or 'Scrier's Gaze' from Divination to help you, they're random bonuses. Comms Relay is annoying to shell out for (70pts), but there is nothing else as reliable and efficient. 

 

Like I said, if you expect serious AA in the enemy list, don't take Ravens. But any matchup where LR's would suffer, Ravens are favourable choices. AV12 and 3HP on the ground? Sure, that's why Dreadnoughts are shunned by every Marine army. In the air? It's arguably the toughest non-Super Heavy Flyer around, up there with Vendettas and Storm Eagles. Forcing Snap Shots unless they have Skyfire is a huge defensive bonus, it's why Flyer armies dominated in 6th so hard. 

In terms of not having enough models on the board with the 2 raiders and 2 Dreadknights, I normally play about 2K, which gives me about 1000pts left for infantry. That's about 20 Termies and a HQ. Yes, it's a small model count, but we are Grey Knights!

 

I'd honestly prefer more of our infantry. It's our true strength, and it's why we are taken as Allies. Also, not all games are at 2k. 40 Terminators is better than 20 and 2 LR's. 

Really, I don't think everything is as black and white and as negative as some people on this forum make out. I use a mix of lots of things and am quite successful in my games. Since the new book came out I've had a lot more victories than losses, despite using supposedly suboptimal, or bad choices. I'm not a 'competitive player' per se, more interested in 'forging the narrative' but I still play to win! As I said above, clever play can often mitigate weaknesses in units that are present.

 

If you don't play strong lists, then that's fine. But when we give advice, it's best to assume you're fighting competent players with decent (if not strong) lists. Clever play doesn't get around how awful Purgators are in most matchups, or how our Rhinos get dismantled by even mediocre heavy weapons (a couple of autocannons is enough). The fact our only tournament presence is basically Draigo+Centurions is kinda indicative of the horrid internal balance our codex suffers from. 

Skitarii arc rifles will do hilarious things to land raiders. And it looks as if Cult Mechanicus will get a beefed-up version of it as well.

 

Yeah I'm thinking they'll also do great against Knight-Titans as a bit of cheap Hull Point stripping (enough shots will break that 4+ invul). 

I don't really understand your point. One unit in one army has a haywire rifle so I should never take a Raider? If my opponent has an arc rifle does my Raider automatically wreck itself at the start of turn 1? I'm not saying Raiders are inviolable but can sometimes be useful.

 

His point is that even in a mid-tier army, there is tech to deal with high AV targets. Skitarii aren't even that strong and they'll deal with LR's and other high AV pretty efficiently with Haywire spam. It's not just arc rifles, they've got melee units that do much the same to vehicles. 

Grav Cents, Plasma squads, Tau Battlesuits and Riptides and many other things besides do 'hilarious things' to Dreadknights and Terminators but those are still used and considered 'viable'.

 

Yeah, because they're the handful of viable options in our book. They have hard-counters, but they're priced well and they'll trade efficiently. LR's don't require 250pts to deal with, often they require less than half their cost to remove. DK's will commonly absorb entire armies shooting apiece, Terminators also require inefficient amounts of shooting to kill off. 

Saying 'x will destroy this' is not really helpful. Tactics play a part as well and I find that real games of 40K are actually quite different to the vacuum of theoryhammer due to infinite army build possibilities, terrain set up, missions, player skill and luck!

 

It is helpful in deciding if a unit is worth taking. You are correct that other considerations have to be accounted for. Which is what we're saying. LR's suffer from a lot of drawbacks, and their few upsides have been meta-gamed for since 4th edition (ie people taking melta). By way of comparison, assuming all things equal, Ravens do the same thing better and with far less restrictions. We can all dream up scenarios where the LR is better. It doesn't mean that scenario is likely however. 

I hasten to point out though that I wasn't directly comparing Dreadknight vs Raiders. I agree, Dreadknights are more useful, I was just making the point that saying 'x can kill that' is not really very useful in a discussion as everything has a hard counter. I used for my example Dreadknights as they are percieved by the community (quite rightly) as being one of the best units in the codex and so it seemed an apt example to demonstrate how pointless the 'x can kill it so it's useless' discussion is. 

 

It's not pointless. If you aren't aware of how easily some armies can just table wipe you, you're not a very good general. Half the strategy in 40k involves either using defensive tech to weaken enemy offense, or trading efficiently so your opponent loses as much as you do (ie you stay at the same pace in the attrition battle). We're one of the armies least suited to attrition warfare, and the most susceptible to the dice screwing us at key moments (ie a string of 1's for saves, or shooting, or wounds etc). As I said, hard-counters aren't the whole story to a unit.

 

For example, Tau Fire Warriors are awful in melee and there is a lot of AP4 Ignore Cover around that can kill them. The Tau player's don't respond with 'urgh well don't listen to the power gamerz, Fire Warriors on foot are fine, just play noobs who don't bring heavy flamers etc'. They take Devilfish and thus mitigate the potential of enemy artillery and template weapons to BBQ their infantry. Also, Devilfish grant the unit mobility and assault defense that they can't get elsewhere (helping in other matchups against say horde lists looking to overwhelm them in melee). 

 

This is what I mean. In order to evolve past the disheartening feeling of just removing your army from the table without consequence, you need to consider why that is happening and how to stop it (or at least delay it, or make it more favourable). 

Oh no I totally agree, and admittedly get tired of the "that will never work" banter. There is a very strong.. undertone of "if you don't do this you're stupid or your meta is dumb'. Ignore it... others will poke their heads out eventually.

 

Ignorance and incompetence are quite different to stupidity. We can't help stupid people on here. We can help the ignorant by informing them of a better way, and we can help the incompetent by helping them understand why they're not winning. To be honest, if people have fun with their awful lists, more power to them :) they're at least enjoying themselves. But that doesn't validate what they do for anyone else's purposes. Which is kinda my point. We all have our own quirks, biases, differences etc as people. Prot for example has spectacular and hilarious results with 'Vortex', whereas I've only ever had it backfire on me (seriously, I Peril every time...). Does that make him wrong or vice versa? No, both of our experiences are kinda irrelevant. If you look at the average expected value, 'Vortex' needs about 6+ dice to go off normally (you need at least 3 successes), and the risk of 'Perils' is about 50/50 at that point. From a tactics point of view, 'Vortex' is high risk but high reward. 

 

We pitch tactics and strategy towards the average expected value or outcome. That's the only reasonable way to do it. Anything else is just injecting your own bias into the equation, which doesn't help anybody (either positive or negative experiences). Of course, I'm not saying that your battlefield experience doesn't matter at all. Experience lets you understand the game a lot better, and how it works in reality (ie why most of the powerful abilities or special rules in the game have attendant drawbacks, or are rare, or only function at close range etc). But just because you rek face locally with Purgators doesn't mean anything to other players, unless they only play in the same shallow pool as you. They're still a bad unit, and outclassed by pretty much anything else you could take (except I dunno...Tech-Marines or something). 

[Happy-inquisitor]

 

 

I have dice for 'Sanctuary' Turn 1 because nothing is in melee, and I only need 'Prescience' if my guns are in range of something. In later turns, it's situational (unless you're fighting other MC's or things with AP2 melee, you can let it drop off). 

 

That kind of assumes that having parked your army in their face nothing on the opposing side fancies a bit of melee before your next psychic phase. Now that is true enough against Tau but most other armies would not be averse to picking off a unit in assault. A wraithknight would like nothing more than to take out one of our terminator squads while hammerhand is not up so there is no risk of return damage from their falchions.

 

A lot of the certainty about "this is the optimal answer" seems to come from these assumptions that our opponent has no say in the matter, has no deny dice and cannot take the initiative by assaulting us. I do not find any of those assumptions to be true. A setup that is less optimal "when the stars align" but less likely to be helpless when they do not might sometimes be the better all-round choice.

[Tony 92]

Having just read through your last post, I don't particularly like the tone of what you have written Darius.

 

You seem to be implying that I am a poor general who doesn't know the game very well and plays against idiots. I find this difficult to take when you have no idea of any of those things. I might not be a tourney player but I do play against difficult lists and seasoned tourney players and do quite well with my 'sub-optimal', 'awful' lists. I am quite aware of what most units can do on the table top and what their pitfalls and difficulties are. My 'bias' that you speak of comes from actual on the battlefield experience, not just math hammer. As we are playing a tabletop wargame and discussing said game on a forum dedicated to it then I don't see why my real life experiences on the tabletop are irrelevant. These aren't just flash in the pan experiences either. I have played multiple games where these 'useless' units have performed admirably.  

 

Returning to my comparison of the Dreadknight. As well as having Arc Rifles, Skitarii have Plasma by the bucketload (not to mention the new Mechanicus stuff with all those grav weapons). Does that mean I shouldn't take a Dreadknight against a weak, 'mid-tier' army? By your logic I really shouldn't. And it is the same logic. [insert weapon/unit type] kills [insert unit], so no, don't take that. I don't understand why it's okay to apply that logic to a Raider but not to a Dreadknight. Why the double standard?

 

As for listing things to destroy Raiders, this proves that I do actually have an understanding of how the game works (I'd hope so, been playing for about 8 years...) but I listed 3 weapon types out of a game with hundreds of different weapons and I'd point out that D-Weapons and Grav kills pretty much anything. Even, wait for it... Yes! A Dreadknight... So, going back to your logic, we definitely shouldn't be taking Dreadknights! Or Terminators. Heck, should I even bother turning up? That lasgun can kill my Dreadknight too... (Might be taking it a bit far, but that's the logical extension and it's also true. It can, even if the odds are very low.)

 

The 'better way' you speak of. I assume that that is your way of playing? Can I ask how it is objectively better? As I have stated I'm quite successful with my Grey Knights and I don't just play against incompetent idiots who use units and lists that are 'rubbish'.

 

Each player has their own way of playing this game. I'm trying to get my experiences and 'gaming way' across to people. It's a style which works on the tabletop (although apparently real life experiences on the tabletop are not allowed, they are biased) and is an option, despite what you think.

 

Frankly, I find your attitude on the whole forum decidedly negative (both against the people on here and against some of their arguments). You seem to set yourself up as an arbitrator of what 'works' and what 'doesn't' with a rather self-righteous, Imperious and arrogant attitude. I find this approach even more shocking when I consider that you are an admin and should be setting an example.

 

I'm all for disagreement but you seem to be on a Holy Crusade to get everyone to play the 'Darius Way'... If you want to play that way then I really don't care, but can't you just open your mind a little and concede that there may actually be other ways to win this game other than how you play, and that you could do it without patronizing people and saying that they play only against 'noobs'? Units that other people use do actually work, even if you don't like them!

 

I apologize if I have offended in anyway but I find the 'no you are wrong approach' rather tiring. Where's the positivity?

 

(I'd also like to apologize to Shabs if you are still here. I started off with good intentions...)

[jeffersonian000]

One of the reasons why I don't discuss my personal table top experiences is because anecdotal evidence is anacdotal. Mine, yours, that other guys, it's all anacdotal. What can be discuss is the math, ways to improve your chances by eliminating/mitigating bad decisions, and how to make the most with what you got.

 

One of my personal pet peeves is too little terrain. Most of the problems with closing the distance is directly related to playing on planet bowling ball. Don't play on planet bowling ball!

 

Another pet peeves is paralysis through analysis. "Can't take that because this kills it" is not how you build a list. "If I take this, then I'll need to consider how to deal with that" is a better way to build lists. "That is so going into my list, because I can do X, Y, and even Z" is the best way to build lists. Don't get stuck in you head fighting a battle between you and yourself while never getting to the table. Throw some models down, play many many games, see what works, what doesn't, eliminate bad decisions.

 

And finally, just play. A bad game is a game that you learned nothing on. A good game is one where you take home some new things to consider. Never stop learning!

 

Oh, and try not to be a dick. Too many of us are, and each of us can at least recognize that fact and try to mitigate it.

 

SJ

[Reclusiarch Darius]

That kind of assumes that having parked your army in their face nothing on the opposing side fancies a bit of melee before your next psychic phase. Now that is true enough against Tau but most other armies would not be averse to picking off a unit in assault. A wraithknight would like nothing more than to take out one of our terminator squads while hammerhand is not up so there is no risk of return damage from their falchions.

 

If you think that's likely, then by all means cast 'Hammerhand'. But I dunno who you fight regularly, but most people do not want to tangle with us in melee. We're one of the deadliest melee armies in the game, and tarpitting rarely works because we rip weaker infantry apart with impunity. More commonly, people try and back away, chuck speedbumps in our path, and generally just shoot the hell out of us. In which case, 'Sanctuary' is a solid choice. Of course, if you're not going to be shot by any AP2 (it's not a common situation, but it happens), then by all means don't cast 'Sanctuary' as its not needed. That's whats great about our psychic powers, they're flexible and optional, you can always re-direct your warp charges to better uses. 

A lot of the certainty about "this is the optimal answer" seems to come from these assumptions that our opponent has no say in the matter, has no deny dice and cannot take the initiative by assaulting us. I do not find any of those assumptions to be true. A setup that is less optimal "when the stars align" but less likely to be helpless when they do not might sometimes be the better all-round choice.

 

Well you can't plan for what your opponent is going to do. Some armies have superb dispel ability (Eldar, Daemons, even some IG armies I've fought have a lot of charge dice), and will strip your buffs away at critical moments. Other armies have no psykers and can at best stop one of your powers (we mostly cast Blessings, so 6's are needed). I still think it's worth trying to get your psychic buffs up, it's free bonuses. By all means though, plan to fight without them, because they are semi-random and can be stopped. It's why DK's are our best unit, they really need zero powers up (even 'Force' isn't 100% necessary, because S10 insta-gibs a lot of things). I build my lists to take maximum advantage of psychic buffs, but I'm not relying upon them. 

Having just read through your last post, I don't particularly like the tone of what you have written Darius.

 

Neato

You seem to be implying that I am a poor general who doesn't know the game very well and plays against idiots. I find this difficult to take when you have no idea of any of those things. I might not be a tourney player but I do play against difficult lists and seasoned tourney players and do quite well with my 'sub-optimal', 'awful' lists. I am quite aware of what most units can do on the table top and what their pitfalls and difficulties are. My 'bias' that you speak of comes from actual on the battlefield experience, not just math hammer. As we are playing a tabletop wargame and discussing said game on a forum dedicated to it then I don't see why my real life experiences on the tabletop are irrelevant. These aren't just flash in the pan experiences either. I have played multiple games where these 'useless' units have performed admirably.  

 

If you don't understand what bias is, then I can't really help you. 

Returning to my comparison of the Dreadknight. As well as having Arc Rifles, Skitarii have Plasma by the bucketload (not to mention the new Mechanicus stuff with all those grav weapons). Does that mean I shouldn't take a Dreadknight against a weak, 'mid-tier' army? By your logic I really shouldn't. And it is the same logic. [insert weapon/unit type] kills [insert unit], so no, don't take that. I don't understand why it's okay to apply that logic to a Raider but not to a Dreadknight. Why the double standard?

 

Because they're completely different guns. Also, the targets they're being used upon are quite different. 

 

For Arc rifles versus LR, they only need to glance 4 times to kill the LR. That's it. At best, you'll have a 5+ cover save from either smoke or terrain. They're range 24" Rapid Fire weapons that glance you on a 2+. A single squad, even without being in rapid-fire range (and just on BS4 without any Doctrina bonuses applied), can take down a LR on average dice. Haywire is better than melta. 

 

Plasma calivers cost twice as much and have 18" range. A DK can move into 24" of the Rangers/Vanguard and blow them apart with heavy psycannon and heavy incinerator/gatling psilencer. Also, assuming that the three caliver Skitarii in the squad somehow survive to be in range of you, on average dice (again, assuming no Doctrina bonuses and no 'Sanctuary' on the DK), they still only cause 4 wounds, of which you save 1 and thus survive on 1 wound. 

 

Now of course, in reality, the Skitarii will be hitting on 2's because the player will be using Doctrina Imperatives to make them BS5. So, in that instance, the LR is even more dead, but the Doctrina Imperatives don't make the plasma calivers have longer range, so the DK matchup is still largely the same (it comes down to who shoots who first). 'Sanctuary' being up means you should survive on 1-2 wounds, so again assuming you've got that up it's the same story again. 

As for listing things to destroy Raiders, this proves that I do actually have an understanding of how the game works (I'd hope so, been playing for about 8 years...) but I listed 3 weapon types out of a game with hundreds of different weapons and I'd point out that D-Weapons and Grav kills pretty much anything. Even, wait for it... Yes! A Dreadknight... So, going back to your logic, we definitely shouldn't be taking Dreadknights! Or Terminators. Heck, should I even bother turning up? That lasgun can kill my Dreadknight too... (Might be taking it a bit far, but that's the logical extension and it's also true. It can, even if the odds are very low.)

 

Well everything is expendable ultimately. It's a wargame, that's the point. What is more relevant is how easy or difficult it is to slay something, and what you need to achieve that result. I think the D-weapon spam Eldar can do does present some real game balance issues, but they only nuke DK's on 6's (T6 still isn't insta-gibbed by S10). 

The 'better way' you speak of. I assume that that is your way of playing? Can I ask how it is objectively better? As I have stated I'm quite successful with my Grey Knights and I don't just play against incompetent idiots who use units and lists that are 'rubbish'.

 

Not necessarily. I don't think the perfect general exists, nor does perfect strategy or tactics. You have to be adaptable however, and know what does and doesn't work. You also have to aware that your narrow experiences do not equate to broader trends in 40k. To give one example, we don't have regular Ork players in my neck of the woods. Does that matter? Well yes and no. It matters because I don't get to play against them much, and thus my experiences against them personally become more and more dated. However, does that mean I'm incapable of recognising a good Ork list from a bad one, in matchup terms? No, not at all. I can read, and I have their codex on hand. I can do research and see what's successful or popular in their meta. I do know how they operate, even if I don't play against them regularly. 

Each player has their own way of playing this game. I'm trying to get my experiences and 'gaming way' across to people. It's a style which works on the tabletop (although apparently real life experiences on the tabletop are not allowed, they are biased) and is an option, despite what you think.

 

Well it works for you. Which is fine, but as you say, it's your way of doing things. It's not something other people may be able to emulate, or wish to. No one here has a problem with battle reports or threads discussing how you play your army, that's kinda the point of the forum. But what you shouldn't try and claim is that your way is necessarily going to work outside of your narrow meta-game. If you can't handle critique of how you play, or maybe consider your experiences aren't the norm, then I don't think you'll get much out of being here. We're not a cheer squad, we're a community. 

Frankly, I find your attitude on the whole forum decidedly negative (both against the people on here and against some of their arguments). You seem to set yourself up as an arbitrator of what 'works' and what 'doesn't' with a rather self-righteous, Imperious and arrogant attitude. I find this approach even more shocking when I consider that you are an admin and should be setting an example.

 

Well, that's your opinion man. You're not alone in that, there are a couple of people on here who dislike me and say largely the same things. However, most don't, so I tend not to put much stock in such things. Speaking of negativity, is it really necessary to get personal? I'm not attacking you, I'm attacking your arguments. I hope you can appreciate the difference. 

I'm all for disagreement but you seem to be on a Holy Crusade to get everyone to play the 'Darius Way'... If you want to play that way then I really don't care, but can't you just open your mind a little and concede that there may actually be other ways to win this game other than how you play, and that you could do it without patronizing people and saying that they play only against 'noobs'? Units that other people use do actually work, even if you don't like them!

 

I don't even know what the 'Darius' way is. I'm actually asking to you to be open minded. And, more importantly, to be able to discuss your ideas and answer critique of them without taking it personally. If you're able to do that, cool. If not, then I can't help you. 

I apologize if I have offended in anyway but I find the 'no you are wrong approach' rather tiring. Where's the positivity?

 

Apology not accepted :) 

(I'd also like to apologize to Shabs if you are still here. I started off with good intentions...)

 

You made the thread entirely about yourself and your feelings. So, good job derailing. 

One of the reasons why I don't discuss my personal table top experiences is because anecdotal evidence is anacdotal. Mine, yours, that other guys, it's all anacdotal. What can be discuss is the math, ways to improve your chances by eliminating/mitigating bad decisions, and how to make the most with what you got.

 

Exactly. The average value or expected outcome is something that can be discussed without needing anecdotes. It's not pure math though, you have to take into consideration other factors like terrain, Line of Sight, unit interactions (ie how melee versus shooting works), mobility, mission win-cons etc. 40k is already complex enough without injecting personal opinion into it. 

One of my personal pet peeves is too little terrain. Most of the problems with closing the distance is directly related to playing on planet bowling ball. Don't play on planet bowling ball!

 

I don't agree. Mobility and model height/positioning matter equally, if not more so. Even on a Cityfight map, you can get around line of sight blockages with the right units or tactics. Kill zones are a thing and will remain so. The Shooting phase is complex and Line of Sight/cover saves are just one aspect to it. 

Another pet peeves is paralysis through analysis. "Can't take that because this kills it" is not how you build a list. "If I take this, then I'll need to consider how to deal with that" is a better way to build lists. "That is so going into my list, because I can do X, Y, and even Z" is the best way to build lists. Don't get stuck in you head fighting a battle between you and yourself while never getting to the table. Throw some models down, play many many games, see what works, what doesn't, eliminate bad decisions.

 

I'm half in agreement here. You need to be aware of matchup issues, and what hard-counters exist for any particular unit you take. 7th is quite bloody, even compared to 6th edition, things will die a lot faster than in prior eras of 40k. Having said that, your opponents forces and their relative fragility or toughness matter too. That's the other side of the coin, how hard your army hits the enemy and what could stop it doing so. We're kinda on the extreme edge of both those considerations. We're a tiny army that has great durability to anti-infantry, but AP2 ruins us and even AP3 has a lot of good usage against our PA units. We're also highly reliant on melee to deal with things we can't kill with our guns.

 

It's why for example Interceptors and Purifiers are head and shoulders above Strikes and Purgators. All four of our PA squads are the same durability, so on paper you'd say 'oh well they're equally easy to get rid of, why not just take Terminators?'. However, in reality, usage matters just as much as statlines. Interceptors are one of only two Jump units in our codex, and have Shunt moves as well, making them supremely good assault units and flankers, as well as objective grabbing in late game. Purifiers are our best answer to horde armies, and 'Cleansing Flame' has a lot of functionality against Flyers and FMC's as well, plus they bring WC2 and they're Fearless Terminators minus TDA. Strikes are hampered by Terminators being more cost-effective and flexible in the same slot, and Purgators are massively hampered by a confused role and being utterly outclassed by DK's in every way. 

[Tony 92]

I'm sorry if I make it personal but you have a very confrontational style that honestly is half the problem. I don't mind you disagreeing with me and you make some very valid points. However, the way you seem to state your opinions in a very black and white way is annoying. You are entitled to your opinion. As am I. You can't prove 100% that Raiders are terrible. They aren't. Like I can't prove they are the ultimate I win button. They aren't.    

 

To be honest, this isn't about me and the way I play the game. That was not my intention. I wasn't looking for advice to improve. I'm not perfect but I'm happy the way I play my games. I was looking to offer an opinion. 

 

I frankly can't believe that you call me closed minded. I'm suggesting that we can use more units in the codex than just a select 4 or 5! That if we get these units out onto the table and have a play they may actually do something useful and not just sit on shelves gathering dust. How is that closed minded? I like opening up options and using different things! You are opening up my mind my limiting my army selection? Okay. 

 

I still don't understand why my experiences are invalid. What happens if someone who is reading the forum has a similar meta to me? What then? I also find it amusing that you know and can judge my meta from the other side of the world. How on earth do you know it is 'narrow'? You have no clue who or what I play against! I thought the idea of a community was to relate these experiences to others. To give them ideas and inspiration. Raiders work for me, I just wanted to point out that there are other options than what you say.

 

And I know what bias is. I'm well educated and I like to think fairly intelligent. You do have a rather lovely way of calling people stupid without actually doing it.

 

I was not looking for an argument. I was just pointing out a different opinion. That Land Raiders can be useful. I have conceded that there are weapons out there that can kill a Land Raider (as you pointed out earlier, it's a wargame, things do die). I am aware of these when I bring my tanks to the table and do my best to mitigate them. Sometimes my opponent outsmarts me or gets a lucky dice roll and they fail. Other times I outsmart my opponent or get a lucky dice roll and they work well. Do you honestly believe that you should never play a Raider? Now that is closed minded... 

 

I'd like to be able to point this opinion out without being stamped on and told it's wrong. Opinions rarely are. As they are opinions.   

 

Anyway. We seem to be going round in circles. I don't think either of us will agree with the other so, there we go...

[jeffersonian000]

Tony, I bet your meta is exactly like mine, where it is all LVO/BAO/Adepticon level tournament prep all the time with the only non-tourney focused game being against unpainted armies filled with card-stock counters. Right? If not, then no, your experiences only really matter on how you dealt with a specific scenario with a specific tactic, and on how you planned for such a scenario.

 

Now, if your meta is exactly like mine, where no one uses Melta, no one uses Haywire, no one uses Gauss, and Land Raiders rule supreme, your experience still have no value beyond how you dealt with X by using Y. Just like me.

 

Or, if your Meta is exactly like mine, where Lords of War are banned, flyers are restricted, and everyone plays either Tau or Eldar. Your experience will still have little value beyond how you dealt with X by using Y.

 

Which is to say, anacdotal evidence is anacdotal. Your local meta is not my local meta, but your codex is my codex, your BRB is my BRB. So discussing how we each would deal with X by using Y is more pertenat than how your meta deals with its meta.

 

To RD, Iove how you disagree with me by agreeing. It's cute.

 

SJ

[Reclusiarch Darius]

I'm sorry if I make it personal but you have a very confrontational style that honestly is half the problem. I don't mind you disagreeing with me and you make some very valid points. However, the way you seem to state your opinions in a very black and white way is annoying. You are entitled to your opinion. As am I. You can't prove 100% that Raiders are terrible. They aren't. Like I can't prove they are the ultimate I win button. They aren't.    

 

Sure I can. Land Raiders haven't won a major tournament since 5th edition. I'm willing to bet that Achilles have featured somewhere, but they're a broken FW-only variant that many tourneys ban (for the precise reason that it's immune to melta and lance, and kinda absurd anyway considering it's firepower). If you take a lot at most Marine armies, LR's have been shelved for Ravens, or simply other units (like Centurions, or melta Sternguard, or Sicarians etc). It's not just me saying they're awful dude. The player base shun them with a uniformity that goes beyond 'netlising' or 'power gaming', if such things exist. Even in casual games, they're really bad. 

 

Having said all that, it's actually really easy to fix that whole issue. Drop them down to 200 points. Really. That would be enough to get people to consider them, and make the Raven comparison a lot more interesting. 

To be honest, this isn't about me and the way I play the game. That was not my intention. I wasn't looking for advice to improve. I'm not perfect but I'm happy the way I play my games. I was looking to offer an opinion. 

 

Which is great. We want people to present their views. 

I frankly can't believe that you call me closed minded. I'm suggesting that we can use more units in the codex than just a select 4 or 5! That if we get these units out onto the table and have a play they may actually do something useful and not just sit on shelves gathering dust. How is that closed minded? I like opening up options and using different things! You are opening up my mind my limiting my army selection? Okay. 

 

You'r being close-minded because you're not considering the possibility that I (and many other people btw) could be right. I'm not limiting anything. GW does a fine job ruining any chance for Imperial armies to shine, by repeatedly nerfing our army books, while boosting xenos. I'm simply pointing out realities in the meta-game. Which as I always say, I'm quite happy to proven wrong about. I'd like mech to be a viable build for us, but it's not. Even Ravens are becoming a little too risky TBH, because whilst 6th was a wasteland of fail in terms of effective AA (outside of like Tau or IG), GW have rolled out enough AA tech to all armies to make 1-2 Flyers no longer a problem. 

I still don't understand why my experiences are invalid. What happens if someone who is reading the forum has a similar meta to me? What then? I also find it amusing that you know and can judge my meta from the other side of the world. How on earth do you know it is 'narrow'? You have no clue who or what I play against! I thought the idea of a community was to relate these experiences to others. To give them ideas and inspiration. Raiders work for me, I just wanted to point out that there are other options than what you say.

 

Yeah, options in your shallow little pool. Same as in my shallow little pool, we have next to no Ork players. Does that mean I should never give advice on Orks? No, of course not. I've fought them before, and I know how they work. So, by the same token, while LR's might be a strong contender in your area, they're generally considered a sub-par choice. As I said, your experiences are valid to you and the people you play. More generally...not so much. 

And I know what bias is. I'm well educated and I like to think fairly intelligent. You do have a rather lovely way of calling people stupid without actually doing it.

 

Maybe because I'm not? 

I was not looking for an argument. I was just pointing out a different opinion. That Land Raiders can be useful. I have conceded that there are weapons out there that can kill a Land Raider (as you pointed out earlier, it's a wargame, things do die). I am aware of these when I bring my tanks to the table and do my best to mitigate them. Sometimes my opponent outsmarts me or gets a lucky dice roll and they fail. Other times I outsmart my opponent or get a lucky dice roll and they work well. Do you honestly believe that you should never play a Raider? Now that is closed minded... 

 

Yes. They're overpriced garbage that fail as both fire support and an assault transport. GW have always made LR's a very confused vehicle, and that lack of specialization is a real problem these days. We can't drop 250pts into a single tank and have it do largely jack-all over a game, and possibly die before even delivering an assault unit. Even more so than Marines, we're on a very strict budget when it comes to units. If we're dropping over 200pts into something, it better be either very killy, or very good at its role. LR's fail on both those counts, and what is worse is that the Raven exists. Doesn't compete for Heavy slots (which are at a premium in both CAD and NSF detachments), it's only competition is Interceptors (who whilst viable aren't the same unit), and it's cheaper and actually has more firepower, mobility and threat potential. 

I'd like to be able to point this opinion out without being stamped on and told it's wrong. Opinions rarely are. As they are opinions.   

 

If you don't want to have your ideas criticized, I don't know why you're here. It's a forum, we debate and critique. It's how we arrive at useful ideas that we can all apply to our games, not just our mini-metas. I get told I'm wrong all the time. Do I complain and request special treatment? Nope. So, neither should you. 

 

Anyway. We seem to be going round in circles. I don't think either of us will agree with the other so, there we go...

 

 

I accept your surrender :)

To RD, Iove how you disagree with me by agreeing. It's cute.

 

Que? I think I'm actually agreeing with you. Especially your last post. Distilled exactly what I'm trying to convey :)

[Zhukov]

Edit: I'm actually not sure if I want to have anything to do with this.