Need help with new GK army (returning player)

[Reclusiarch Darius]

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

 

You really shouldn't, after what happened last time. 

[Renzo]

Darius,

 

I'm new to this forum, and I have a friend who is getting horrifically monkey stomped with his grey knights. To avoid him being completely put off the game, are you able to provide a link to your 1850 list? Could provide him with a bit of inspiration to tweak what he usually brings to our local games.

[Reclusiarch Darius]

Darius,

 

I'm new to this forum, and I have a friend who is getting horrifically monkey stomped with his grey knights. To avoid him being completely put off the game, are you able to provide a link to your 1850 list? Could provide him with a bit of inspiration to tweak what he usually brings to our local games.

 

1850? I'm currently bringing Blood Angels for accurate Turn 1 Deepstrikes. However, if your friend doesn't want shell out for Allies and just wants a pure build, I'd take this;

 

Nemesis Strikeforce:

 

HQ:

 

Librarian w/hammer, Mastery 3, Domina Liber

(165 points)

 

Troops:

 

Justicar w/sword, 2x Terminators w/sword+psycannon, 2x Terminators w/hammer, 5x Terminators w/swords

(390 points)

 

Heavy Support:

 

(2) Dreadknight w/greatsword, heavy psycannon, gatling psilencer, teleporter

(235 points each)

 

Fortification:

 

Aegis Line w/Comms Array

(70 points)

 

Nemesis Strikeforce:

 

HQ:

 

Librarian w/hammer, Mastery 3

(140 points)

 

Troops:

 

Justicar w/sword, 2x Terminators w/sword+psycannon, 2x Terminators w/hammer, 6x Terminators w/swords

(390 points)

 

Heavy Support:

 

Dreadknight w/greatsword, heavy psycannon, heavy incinerator, teleporter

(225 points)

 

Total: 1850 points

 

You could drop the second squad down to 5-man, drop the Mastery upgrades and probably squeeze in another Dreadknight if you like. I'm finding 3 to be sufficient. Also, you could shift some points and take an Allied Terminator Inquisitor with some servo-skulls for accurate Turn 1 landings. Up to you. 

[Renzo]

Seems quite standard, thank you.

 

However, with the ITC becoming increasingly ubiquitous in tournaments in the UK now, duplicate detachments aren't allowed.

 

How would you alter that list to swap a nsf for a cad?

[Prot]

The above is 'the list'. The rest is learning how to play it.

 

Unfortunately it's why I try so many unorthodox things.... it's the list I think everyone gravitates towards for obvious reasons. If you're friend is using the 'standard list', it's probably just the learning curve that's perhaps giving him trouble.

 

The one thing is, even as flexible as that list is, it is somewhat unforgiving as your model count is so low.

[jeffersonian000]

RD's list is a CAD, if you take the same units without the NSF.

 

SJ

[Reclusiarch Darius]

The above is 'the list'. The rest is learning how to play it.

 

Unfortunately it's why I try so many unorthodox things.... it's the list I think everyone gravitates towards for obvious reasons. If you're friend is using the 'standard list', it's probably just the learning curve that's perhaps giving him trouble.

 

The one thing is, even as flexible as that list is, it is somewhat unforgiving as your model count is so low.

 

Yeah that's true. However, pretty much all our lists are low model count and high risk. It's just the nature of the beast. 

Seems quite standard, thank you.

 

However, with the ITC becoming increasingly ubiquitous in tournaments in the UK now, duplicate detachments aren't allowed.

 

How would you alter that list to swap a nsf for a cad? 

 

I'd only make one detachment a CAD. Keep your NSF for your Terminators, they like Turn 1 Deepstrike Run+Shoot

 

So, re-working it for stupid comp;

 

Nemesis Strikeforce:

 

HQ:

 

Librarian w/hammer

(115 points)

 

Troops:

 

Justicar w/sword, 2x Terminators w/sword+psycannon, 2x Terminators w/hammers, 5x Terminators w/swords

(390 points)

 

Heavy Support:

 

Dreadknight w/greatsword, heavy psycannon, gatling psilencer, teleporter

(235 points)

 

Dreadknight w/greatsword, heavy psycannon, teleporter

(205 points)

 

CAD:

 

HQ:

 

Librarian w/hammer

(115 points)

 

Troops:

 

Justicar w/sword, Terminator w/sword+psycannon, Terminator w/hammer, 2x Terminators w/swords

(195 points)

 

Justicar w/sword, Strike w/incinerator, 3x Strikes w/swords

(115 points)

 

Heavy Support:

 

(2) Dreadknight w/greatsword, heavy psycannon, teleporter

(205 points each)

 

Fortification:

 

Aegis Line w/Comms Array

(70 points)

 

Total: 1850 points

[Renzo]

I'll suggest that to him thanks. A couple of comments/questions:

 

You seemed to imply a disdain for the ITC. I think what they're trying to do for the competitive community is exactly what it needs. The speed at which it is being adopted by TOs globally is testament to that. As is its fast growing popularity amongst players.

 

Second, I've read a lot of hate for strike squads: they seem like a very unpopular troops choice for gk. Is the reason you recommend them in a cad is their lower points cost than termies?

[Reclusiarch Darius]

You seemed to imply a disdain for the ITC. I think what they're trying to do for the competitive community is exactly what it needs. The speed at which it is being adopted by TOs globally is testament to that. As is its fast growing popularity amongst players.

 

I hate comp, and I hate that the scene is adopting it as some kind of holy grail. It doesn't solve anything, and it actually worsens the meta issues present in 40k already. I'm not proposing any silver bullets myself, but I find their haphazard approach to list building contrary to their stated aims. The new 'formations all day every day' armies in 40k make a mockery of that format anyway, because they're detachments no one is taking multiples of (because it's an entire collection of formations in its own right). It's a sad joke. I'm not against their intent, but the way they're going about it is not going to work. 

 

This is why comp is never going to work. Even assuming their restrictions and arbitrary rules matter, a new codex or new edition just blows them out of the water. Decurion and Craftworld Warhost are game changers, and I honestly don't know how you stop them besides outright bans (which is insane and won't be adopted). It's why I don't participate in the Oz scene. I'd like to, but the culture has to change before it's gonna be something I wanna be part of. Until then, I'm happy playing other people in my gaming group. They bring a variety of lists anyway, and we largely don't do restrictions. I wrote some mild restrictions into the League (2 detachments, one formation, one Lord of War), simply to dial down things a little because we have new and returning players, and it's a escalating format. It's still entirely possible to take broken combos within the confines I have defined, I can't stop people doing that. 

Second, I've read a lot of hate for strike squads: they seem like a very unpopular troops choice for gk. Is the reason you recommend them in a cad is their lower points cost than termies? 

 

Strikes have been nerfed into the ground, and have no redeeming qualities other than cost point (and even then, they're inefficient compared to Terminators). The reason I propose them is because they sidestep the 2x Troops issue of CAD. If you could take two Nemesis Strikeforces, we wouldn't even be considering Strikes. You could always drop a Dreadknight and take Terminators in the CAD instead. There is nothing wrong with that. 

[Renzo]

 

You seemed to imply a disdain for the ITC. I think what they're trying to do for the competitive community is exactly what it needs. The speed at which it is being adopted by TOs globally is testament to that. As is its fast growing popularity amongst players.

 

I hate comp, and I hate that the scene is adopting it as some kind of holy grail. It doesn't solve anything, and it actually worsens the meta issues present in 40k already. I'm not proposing any silver bullets myself, but I find their haphazard approach to list building contrary to their stated aims. The new 'formations all day every day' armies in 40k make a mockery of that format anyway, because they're detachments no one is taking multiples of (because it's an entire collection of formations in its own right). It's a sad joke. I'm not against their intent, but the way they're going about it is not going to work. 

 

This is why comp is never going to work. Even assuming their restrictions and arbitrary rules matter, a new codex or new edition just blows them out of the water. Decurion and Craftworld Warhost are game changers, and I honestly don't know how you stop them besides outright bans (which is insane and won't be adopted). It's why I don't participate in the Oz scene. I'd like to, but the culture has to change before it's gonna be something I wanna be part of. Until then, I'm happy playing other people in my gaming group. They bring a variety of lists anyway, and we largely don't do restrictions. I wrote some mild restrictions into the League (2 detachments, one formation, one Lord of War), simply to dial down things a little because we have new and returning players, and it's a escalating format. It's still entirely possible to take broken combos within the confines I have defined, I can't stop people doing that. 

Second, I've read a lot of hate for strike squads: they seem like a very unpopular troops choice for gk. Is the reason you recommend them in a cad is their lower points cost than termies? 

 

Strikes have been nerfed into the ground, and have no redeeming qualities other than cost point (and even then, they're inefficient compared to Terminators). The reason I propose them is because they sidestep the 2x Troops issue of CAD. If you could take two Nemesis Strikeforces, we wouldn't even be considering Strikes. You could always drop a Dreadknight and take Terminators in the CAD instead. There is nothing wrong with that. 

 

 

That's interesting you say that. I'm curious then, in what context are you advising new players? If you don't enjoy the competitive scene presumably you play purely fun/friendly/pickup/club games? In which case it doesn't matter what list you bring because the primary goal isn't to win.

 

I'm speaking as someone who doesn't play in tournaments and when asked on list advice I usually prefix any suggestion with "are you playing in a tournament?"

 

If the answer is no, my response is usually "whatever you want dude - if you're not playing to win then it doesn't matter!"

 

As for the Frontline Gaming's execution of the idea of a modified rule-set, I likewise agree with their intent: vanilla 40k simply doesn't work in a tournament-format. Whilst their modifications are not always something I agree with, what I like about their approach to these modifications is that they are largely democratic and community-driven. I don't agree, however, that the speed of GW rules releases make it impossible for their enterprise to succeed. Sure, it makes it difficult (the recent Eldar codex posed them some particularly tricky questions), and they are always trying to refine their FAQ to better reflect the changing meta and community wishes, but you seem to be suggesting throwing the baby out with the bath water.

[Zhukov]

It is the main reason I tend to run into issues with Darius. I find it striking how he has very loud opinions regarding tournament lists, what works and what not, while he does not play tournaments himself. No matter how you put it, in the end he is speaking about tournament play while not playing them himself. I wonder if we can get a constructive discussion regarding this. 

 

 

Basicly, how can one say things like this, while not playing tournaments himself: 

For a casual game, sure, it would be interesting and maybe catch people off guard (because it hasn't been seen since 5th). In a tournament setting? Enjoy losing Round 1 to even average lists. Throne help you if you fight a regular with a more powerful build. 

 

Is not somebody who speaks about such things theorizing then? Is one not playing theoryhammer when one speaks about something he does not do himself? 

 

Mind you, this is not about me, I have never claimed I know everything nor did I mean to wave around my E-peen in the previous thread which got locked. It was merely to show the difference between us (you and I Darius) and why I think it makes your statements regarding competitive play near worthless, the more when trying to get a constructive discussion going. 

 

And please do not fool yourself that non-tournament competitive play can be seen as the same as playing tournaments in multiple countries, it is not. Playing actual tournaments (national onces at least, not local ones necessarily) is almost a completely different game.

[Reclusiarch Darius]

That's interesting you say that. I'm curious then, in what context are you advising new players? If you don't enjoy the competitive scene presumably you play purely fun/friendly/pickup/club games? In which case it doesn't matter what list you bring because the primary goal isn't to win.

 

I'm advising them of broad meta. I'm not interested in discussing every cornercase in the world. Mine least of all. I play with a gaming group, and they bring a variety of lists. I fight everything from tourney vets to complete casuals/newbies. 

 

The primary goal is always to win. This is a game with a winner and loser. If winning doesn't interest you, I suggest something more co-operative, like an RPG or something. 40k isn't that. 

I'm speaking as someone who doesn't play in tournaments and when asked on list advice I usually prefix any suggestion with "are you playing in a tournament?"

 

If the answer is no, my response is usually "whatever you want dude - if you're not playing to win then it doesn't matter!"

 

Which is useless advice. No offence, but if you come on here and your only concern is getting validation, you're coming to the wrong place. We're not here to be cheerleaders. We're here to help eachother git gud. 

 

When I'm giving advice or critique, I do so under the assumption that A: you actually want to win and B: your opponent is competent. I'd say they're pretty reasonable assumptions, but assumptions they are. Should neither of those things be the case, then yeah, I don't see the point in coming on here. 

As for the Frontline Gaming's execution of the idea of a modified rule-set, I likewise agree with their intent: vanilla 40k simply doesn't work in a tournament-format. Whilst their modifications are not always something I agree with, what I like about their approach to these modifications is that they are largely democratic and community-driven. I don't agree, however, that the speed of GW rules releases make it impossible for their enterprise to succeed. Sure, it makes it difficult (the recent Eldar codex posed them some particularly tricky questions), and they are always trying to refine their FAQ to better reflect the changing meta and community wishes, but you seem to be suggesting throwing the baby out with the bath water.

 

No, I'm suggesting they don't do what they're doing, which is comp. Comp is retarded and has never worked in any context it's been applied. It drives players away, and diminishes the actual list variety you'll see (an irony given it's intent is to make bad or mediocre lists viable via artificial constraints on what is perceived to be powerful). 

 

My point about power creep is that GW keep shifting the goalposts so often, we should stop concerning ourselves with goalposts entirely. There is no point. Whatever modifications or amateur-hour game designer decisions you make, they'll be superseded in a year, if that. Formation armies in particular blow comp out of the water. It's literally pointless putting restrictions on such armies, because by their very design they circumvent the usual detachment issues (they're meant to). Unless they're totally banned, they're gonna make waves. Another thing to consider is that Formation armies are the new meta. I fully expect Space Marines to get a Company formation army of some kind, or maybe even a Chapter one. Given the scale of the others, I would not be surprised at all. 

It is the main reason I tend to run into issues with Darius. I find it striking how he has very loud opinions regarding tournament lists, what works and what not, while he does not play tournaments himself. No matter how you put it, in the end he is speaking about tournament play while not playing them himself. I wonder if we can get a constructive discussion regarding this. 

 

No the main reason you run into issues is that you make broad sweeping statements with zero factual support. The joke is, that as you say, you're the tourney vet, I'm just some casual. So if anything, it's even more absurd you have no actual data, logic or even convincing arguments to contest what I say. Because you really should. 

 

I've already stated repeatedly why I don't participate in the Oz scene. It's comp garbage from wall to wall. The national tourneys are a bit better (I hear good things about the ATC too), but I'm not at that skill level honestly. I play on weekends, and I'm kinda slow. I'd need to train a lot to get to a tourney standard. 

 

Basicly, how can one say things like this, while not playing tournaments himself: 

Quote

For a casual game, sure, it would be interesting and maybe catch people off guard (because it hasn't been seen since 5th). In a tournament setting? Enjoy losing Round 1 to even average lists. Throne help you if you fight a regular with a more powerful build. 

 

 

Easily, and repeatedly. Because I'm able to analyse and collate actual facts and data to support my conclusions. Do I make mistakes? Am I wrong sometimes? Sure. Doesn't stop me participating. So, I don't buy this argument for a second that somehow I have to be a tourney player to comment on the competitive scene. We all can read results tables, winning army lists, tournament player packs etc. It's mainly just a bit of effort and some critical thinking. If that's not what you're capable of, then I don't know why you're in the competitive scene. 

[Zhukov]

 

No the main reason you run into issues is that you make broad sweeping statements with zero factual support. The joke is, that as you say, you're the tourney vet, I'm just some casual. So if anything, it's even more absurd you have no actual data, logic or even convincing arguments to contest what I say. Because you really should. 

 

I've already stated repeatedly why I don't participate in the Oz scene. It's comp garbage from wall to wall. The national tourneys are a bit better (I hear good things about the ATC too), but I'm not at that skill level honestly. I play on weekends, and I'm kinda slow. I'd need to train a lot to get to a tourney standard. 

Except that I do not make broad sweeping statements with zero factual support. 

And no, it is not about being a tournament vet, it is, once again, about somebody who does not play tournaments speaking about them. It is so silly I don't even see how you keep defending yourself here.

 

Again, do you not see the problem with making broad statements regarding tournament play and how certain lists will perform while you do not play tournaments yourself? Answer the question please. This is even forgetting for a moment that various scenes differ so much that it makes the whole thing even more ridiculous.

 

Easily, and repeatedly. Because I'm able to analyse and collate actual facts and data to support my conclusions. Do I make mistakes? Am I wrong sometimes? Sure. Doesn't stop me participating. So, I don't buy this argument for a second that somehow I have to be a tourney player to comment on the competitive scene. We all can read results tables, winning army lists, tournament player packs etc. It's mainly just a bit of effort and some critical thinking. If that's not what you're capable of, then I don't know why you're in the competitive scene. 

 

Which actual facts and date are you analysing and collating Darius? The fact that I am going to play in a tournament with a list? Have you analysed my playstyle and capabilities as a player? The rulespack of the tournament and the players attending? No you did not. You speak from a certain kind of theoratical tournament setting which exists in your head, made up by particular date and limited personal experience. 

 

But that is not the worst thing, the worst thing is the way you speak about it, the definite manner, one not leading to any meaningfull conversations. Instead of comments like this:

 

Strike mech is like the worst of both worlds. You're not Relentless, so amusingly your psycannons only fire at bolt pistol range, while your regular Strikes shoot twice as far. You're also the worst in melee in the codex, so again, GG if you get charged or try and charge something. Also, you're still not that much less expensive than Terminators. Who can be in range of the enemy Turn 1 and threaten charges, and survive a much wider array of weapons. And don't have to take hammers on their Justicars. Etc etc. 

 

5 Rhinos isn't a hard challenge for most armies to destroy. They only need to kill 1-2 per turn to neuter your army completely by Turn 3-4. At that point, you're too slow, too fragile and lack any way to threaten your opponents force. And I'm not even talking the power armies in 40k. Eldar would die of laughter seeing you put down 25x PA models and 5x AV11 deathtraps, and only 2 DK's. Necrons would also love you, because they can torrent you to death a lot easier than TDA, and gauss is GG to all vehicles. 

 

For a casual game, sure, it would be interesting and maybe catch people off guard (because it hasn't been seen since 5th). In a tournament setting? Enjoy losing Round 1 to even average lists. Throne help you if you fight a regular with a more powerful build. 

 

 

Would it not be better to do something along the lines off:

 

Strikes and especially Psycannons on strikes are widely regarded as being bad, why are you taking them and do you think they can work? Would you not run into problems with 'blah blah blah'? 

 That is criticly questioning somebody and I am more than willing to engage in such discussions, you know why? Because it is constructive, it leads to things. It is way more fruitfull than telling somebody, well, what you did. Because honestly, what is the point of what you tell people in such cases? Please think about it and answer this question, what is the point? 

[Reclusiarch Darius]

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

 

You seem really bad at taking even your own advice. Why exactly did you return to the thread if you wanted no part of it? 

 

Oh right. Because you hadn't de-railed it into another pointless circular discussion about yourself. Again. 

Except that I do not make broad sweeping statements with zero factual support. 

 

Er yeah you do. All the time. Do you even read what you write? 

And no, it is not about being a tournament vet, it is, once again, about somebody who does not play tournaments speaking about them. It is so silly I don't even see how you keep defending yourself here.

 

Again, do you not see the problem with making broad statements regarding tournament play and how certain lists will perform while you do not play tournaments yourself? Answer the question please. This is even forgetting for a moment that various scenes differ so much that it makes the whole thing even more ridiculous.

 

'Its not about being a tournament veteran'

'It is about being a tournament veteran'

 

Mkay

 

At the risk of sounding like a broken wheel, yeah I can totally state my opinion on the meta game without playing in competitive events. As can you. As can anyone here. 

Which actual facts and date are you analysing and collating Darius? The fact that I am going to play in a tournament with a list? Have you analysed my playstyle and capabilities as a player? The rulespack of the tournament and the players attending? No you did not. You speak from a certain kind of theoratical tournament setting which exists in your head, made up by particular date and limited personal experience. 

 

Oh I dunno, the ones I reference and state when I'm posting. 

 

I have analysed your playstyle. You believe AV11 is invulnerable and no one has figured out a way to counter it. Which is cool and all. Is it relevant? In my opinion, no, because it's unrealistic. 

 

I don't speak from pure theory. I actually play the game as well. And I don't speak about theoretical tournaments. I talk about real tournament meta. So, once again, we're not actually talking about facts or figures. You're just engaging in vague statements with no actual basis, punctuated with character assassination. 

But that is not the worst thing, the worst thing is the way you speak about it, the definite manner, one not leading to any meaningfull conversations. Instead of comments like this:

 

I'm not your cheerleader. No one here is. You want just empty, shallow validation? You won't find it here. 

Strikes and especially Psycannons on strikes are widely regarded as being bad, why are you taking them and do you think they can work? Would you not run into problems with 'blah blah blah'? 

 

I don't dictate how you should post. So, neither can you do the same to me. I have a writing style. Everyone does. 

That is criticly questioning somebody and I am more than willing to engage in such discussions, you know why? Because it is constructive, it leads to things. It is way more fruitfull than telling somebody, well, what you did. Because honestly, what is the point of what you tell people in such cases? Please think about it and answer this question, what is the point? 

 

I'll break down my thought process for you;

 

Step 1: Someone posts a question, or an idea

Step 2: I consider their idea. I decide whether it has any merit

Step 3: I offer my take on the idea or question. I outline the things I agree with, what I disagree with, and what I think would improve

Step 4: Feedback from the other person comes back. Back to Step 1

 

None of which involve sugercoating. I'm not saying etiquette doesn't have a place, it does. That's why I refrain from attacking the person. I attack the idea or question, not the one posing it. Attacking the person achieves nothing. Attacking the idea either exposes it as a bad one, or by way of debate and discussion, strengthens and refines it. 

 

No idea falls into a person's head fully formed, without need for improvement or testing. Human beings aren't machines, and perfection is an ideal, not a destination. 40k will always be in flux, and the only way to keep up is to adapt. It's why I'm re-writing the Primers, with everyone's help. They're only about a year old and they're already dated. That's the speed at which the meta changes now. 

[Renzo]

Zhukov: with respect, I don't agree with you either. Darius has every right to make suggestions and give advice on lists, despite having limited empirical data to support it. Experience in tournaments is not the only way of collecting this data; I get the impression he is highly active on forums, which are heavily frequented by tournament vets, which itself is a valid way of gathering experiential facts The person receiving said advice may choose to disregard it, but Darius has every right to provide it nonetheless.

 

Darius: respectfully, I will excuse myself from this discussion. The point at which you advise someone not to play a game because they don't share your perspective on it is also the point you should excuse yourself too. I happen to love the game regardless of whether I win or not, and when I play home-games or narrative campaigns I couldn't give two hoots about the result. When I (or in this case my friends) occasionally play tournaments or competitive club games, that is a different story, and we will seek advice on that aspect of the game from forums like this. Your rather rude and unwelcoming attitude means I will seek that advice elsewhere, either on this forum or another. Your unwarranted suggestion that I came to this forum simply for validation also implies you would rather engage in personal altercations than a friendly exchange of ideas. 

 

Thank you nonetheless for taking the time to respond to my original post - I have given to my friend who would also like to pass on his gratitude.

 

All the best to both of you

[Zhukov]

Zhukov: with respect, I don't agree with you either. Darius has every right to make suggestions and give advice on lists, despite having limited empirical data to support it. Experience in tournaments is not the only way of collecting this data; I get the impression he is highly active on forums, which are heavily frequented by tournament vets, which itself is a valid way of gathering experiential facts The person receiving said advice may choose to disregard it, but Darius has every right to provide it nonetheless.

I completely agree with you, so that means I posted things which are not correct or that I messed up the way I brought it (Can I pull the English is my 3rd language card here? lol), in which case I apoligize. He can most certainly give advice, I have no problem with him giving advice, I have problems with him make statements in a definite matter what works and what not regarding tournaments. Not everything one says about something is advice, advice is wholly different from stating something sucks, can we agree on that? Even if he did play tournaments I would have problems with it, it just makes the matter more ridiculous. I do not know how to better put it at the moment.

[Prot]

Unfortunately the thread has outlived it's usefulness and the OP is satisfied with the answers given. Please. let's be more respectful of each others' opinions in the future.

++ EDIT. Added the Inquisitor. The one with the blinky eye. -t ++