Grey Knight 8th

[Myunch]

I think GK Strikes are pretty good Troops. For 105 points with full falchions, they're excellent value. Teleport Strike in Turn 1, Smite, follow up with storm bolter, then a charge if you're lucky (or re-roll one of the dice with a Strategem).

I have to agree here. For the points, they are essentially our version of glass cannons. I don't expect them to survive much, but one successful charge easily gets them their points back, not to mention that they basically rock the same exact shooting capabilities as our Terminators and Paladins.

[SyNidus]

I never thought of it that way actually. You've just made me reconsider strike squads.

 

Anyway, i just played a game with 2 Godhammer Land Raiders, 3 Rifleman Ven Dreads, 2 3 man paladins, 1 grnadmaster, 1 librarian, 1 culexus vs Thousand Sons (Magnus, Ahriman, 1 Termie Sorceror, 2 Rubric Squads with warpflamers in 2 rhinos, 1 CSM squad with lascannons).

 

The long range firepower was enough to weaken magnus enough on turn 1, before killing him in turn 2. Essentially magnus did nothing that game. After that i could disassemble his army fairly easily. I used the land raider to soak overwatch and silence his warp flamer spam before gating it out and repeating the process.

 

Culexus is also fantastic as he really makes it harder for the opponent to cast and easier for you to deny their powers.

[Gentlemanloser]

No one needs troops any more though.

 

FoC slots, sorry Battlefield roles are quickly becoming meaningless.

 

Keywords are where its at!

 

And the extra 1 cp from a battalion does not outweigh the benefits of taking two 1cp detachments instead.

 

That are filled with better/ more effective units.

 

Scouts are great. They have a defined role. General 'tacticals' aren't.

[Reclusiarch Darius]

I never thought of it that way actually. You've just made me reconsider strike squads.

 

They're quite worthwhile now. I hated them in 5th, 6th and 7th, because they never delivered on their role of being the cheaper Troops choice. They deliver in spades now.

No one needs troops any more though. 

 

FoC slots, sorry Battlefield roles are quickly becoming meaningless. 

 

Keywords are where its at!

 

And the extra 1 cp from a battalion does not outweigh the benefits of taking two 1cp detachments instead. 

 

That are filled with better/ more effective units. 

 

Scouts are great. They have a defined role. General 'tacticals' aren't. 

 

Battalion is 3 Command Points, Brigade in 9. So they're respectively 3 times and 9 times as useful if you can pay the min unit taxes. Battalion is really easy, Brigade is a stretch but doable in larger games.

 

If you don't bring units to cap objectives and deal with enemy infantry efficiently, you're gonna be boxed into a super elite corner against horde armies. Tyranids, Orks and Guard can all bring a tonne of cheap and relatively efficient shooting, as well as mobbing objectives with too many bodies for a super elite force to clear. Strikes bring the cheapest storm bolters in our list, a Smite and a Sanctic power, plus they're plenty scary to enemy infantry with falchions. 

 

Taking a bunch of Scouts with zero synergy from any GK auras or faction abilities is stupid and ultimately you're spending points on trash units. 105 per Strike squad is quite cost effective for the firepower and threat they bring. Smite spam is currently one of our key ways of removing units with strong saves, and making up for our lack of heavy weapons. How does a bunch of bolter Scouts help a GK list? A few is fine, but taken in bulk they're garbage by comparison. 

[Gentlemanloser]

But you do bring units to cap objectives.  Just *better* units than the stock 'Troop' options.

 

Scouts are trash?

 

Scouts pick out the Ld buffers, that then allow you to battleshock those massive 'weak' units off the board.  They also deal free Mortal wounds, without the worry of Perils or Deny.

 

And more than 1 Mortal Wound per unit.

 

I think you are *really* undervaluing and underselling Snipers here!

 

And yeah, pure army synergies might be a thing.  Once we finally get our own Codex.  It might not.  Or you can just use RG and get those all important buffs to *all* your Imperial units. ;)

 

Or an Inquisitor.

 

Or any of the other Characters that might get an <Imperial> buff instead of a <chapter> one.

 

Keywords, not battlefield roles!

[Seizeman]

Space marine scouts are extremely good and a must have in every SM army, at least 2 or 3 squads (barebones, you don't pick them to do damage).

 

Anyway, I would not pick them on a GK army. Scouts are good because they limit the opponents movement and deep strike locations, which is amazing, but we are an aggressive army, we can't win defensively agains most opponents. 

 

Is not that we need troops, it is that troops are really good. Strike squads are some of the most powerful troops in the game. They outshoot and/or outfight most other troop choices, and should be the core of every GK list. They have two weaknesses, which is that they need a delivery system and that they die just like regular marines so they need to be protected before they engage. Luckily for us, both razorbacks and stormravens are amazing in this edition, and they solve both their problems. Land raiders are pretty good also, or they can even teleport if needed.

 

A lot of people have been worrying than in 8th there's no longer good weapons to kill mass troops, and the solution is pretty simple. If you want to kill lots of troops, you need troops of your own.

 

Anyway, I think deploying a brigade with GK is unrealistic and even if you have the points you will have better choices. But being able to take a battalion would be a nice change.

[Gentlemanloser]

Why would you ever take Strikes over Interceptors?

 

The 3 point difference is negligible for the benefits Interceptors have.

[Valerian]

If you take a Battalion Detachment you get to play with 6 Command Points - 3 for the Detachment, and the 3 free ones that everybody gets. So, that's the payoff for taking Strikes. However, if you combine a Vanguard Detachment (for the Paladins and Apothecaries) and an Outrider Detachment (for Interceptors), then you get to play with 5 Command Points. At a cost of only +4 points per model, and the opportunity cost of a single Command Point, I think the added mobility (double Movement value and once per game shunt) is worth the trade-off. Sure, Strikes are finally decent this edition, but they're still not as good at Interceptors.

 

Maybe you guys can convince me otherwise, but I still don't see why y'all would take Strikes over Interceptors unless you just absolutely can't find the 60 spare points that it takes to upgrade three Combat Squads.

Edited June 29, 2017 by Valerian

[corwindal5]

Interceptors are 4 points more per model. So that is 60 pts more.

[Valerian]

Interceptors are 4 points more per model. So that is 60 pts more.

Thanks, will edit and correct above. The point still stands, though.

[Seizeman]

There's a couple of issue with interceptors. The biggest one is survivability. The moment they are out in the open, they will die, and you can't do much to protect them. You can argue that they can hide and then teleport, but in that case you could just have put the strike squead on reserve and deep strike then. Of course, interceptors can deep strike and then use the teleport after that, but so can strike squads with GoI and, let's be honest, how many teleports you need each turn?

 

That takes me to the point of deep strike. People are overestimating how good deep strike is. Of course it is a great tool to flank and isolate targets, but it can't be you main battle plan. Any good player will use scouts and walls of infantry to limit your deployment and negate your alpha strike, or they can steal the iniciative (or well, have less units than you) and advance with 2 or 3 units. So you will be forced to deep strike in your deployment zone AND far enough from the enemy that you can't reliably charge them. Even if you achieve your alpha strike, you are getting few charges, so most of the damage will be your shooting. You will kill a lot of the opponent's infantry, but then their elite units will counterattack and destroy those pricey interceptors.

 

That's why I think deep strike should be used as a complement to a mehcanized force. Getting your strike squads intro transports not only gives them mobility and protection, but also good durable firepower and tactical versatility. Razorbacks and stormravens are really good units in 8th,  good at shooting, durable and cost efficient. A strike squad in a razorback is a lot more versatile than an interceptor squad. You can rush forward to possition on the first turn, using advance and smoke if needed, or you can easily clear the infantry walls to have access to the good targets and allow your supporting deep strike units to deploy in good possition. Then you have zoned the opponent and have a ton of choices.

 

First, you can disembark your troops and alpha strike just as you would do with teleporting, except you can get charges a lot more easily, because you can disembark and charge after a 10 inch move (remember disembarking gives you about 4 extra inches). That alone makes the alpha strike a lot more deadly, but more important, a lot safer, as a larger number of the opponent's units will be tied in combat or killed (total or partially). Even more, your transports can also charge and engage the enemy units, specially the vehicles with heavy weapons, which can do nothing about it, in fact, people still have 7th edition mentality and don't realise how good transports charging are, but you will see that it is pretty easy to nullify 2 or 3 imperial guard artillery pieces with a single razorback.

 

And of course, that is only one of the posibilities. If the opponent does all he can to fall back and avoid your alpha strike, you can just stay embarked and push again to get an even better possition, which would be very hard to do if you used deep strike, as troops would have to pursue on foot, while taking fire from the enemy's backline. That's why you use heavy durable units to deep strike on the opponents flank, like paladins (or NDKs buy they are just worse, or a Gated dreadnought), so the opponent must either face your main force or run away into the paladins and get pincered.

 

It can also happen  that you don't want to get closer to the opponent, for example some Ynnary wraithguard blob that would destroy you if you get close. In that case, the mechanised force alows you to stay in the 24 inch range, outmanouvering your opponent. Having the choice of embarking and disembarking as needed  allows you to keep firing at them without harm, and they will be forced to overextend and spread, allowing you to single them out.

 

With everything said, I still think that incertceptors have their uses, but not as our main force. I think one or two units can be useful to give some mobile fire support and capture objectives (or mybe you have some spare points to upgrade an strike squad). In fact, I would still use them with a razorback, as they can disembark 16 inches and then charge through the infantry wall. But you must still remember they cost 4 points more  for the same shooting and fighting, and strike squads are already expensive. It will be very hard to pay back for those 25 points, so you must have a specific tactical reason to use them, and not as a standard upgrade over the strikes.

[corwindal5]

I think it all depends on what you have in your list. For instance the list I have been running is really tight on points but I need that extra weight of fire power so I would be more inclined to take the strike squads in razorbacks.

[Valerian]

Now that was a good convincing argument.  I'll definitely be reconsidering my position.  I already have two Razorbacks and a Rhino - I was just planning on using them empty.

[jeffersonian000]

So ... how much do you save going Strikes over Interceptors?

 

Strikes + Razorbacks = ?

 

Interceptors on their own = ?

 

Are Razorbacks worth the difference?

 

SJ

[Valerian]

Yeah, Razorbacks are terrific platforms. They're durable, and can safely assault

[LuisMars]

It's not about the points you save with the strike squad, it's about the amount of command points you get for fielding them.
 

Razorbacks are great for moving slow troops and killing other vehicles, you don't take them only for their ability to transport troops.

[Zamtro]

So ... how much do you save going Strikes over Interceptors?

 

Strikes + Razorbacks = ?

 

Interceptors on their own = ?

 

Are Razorbacks worth the difference?

Guess it depends on your play style, but for me. Yes! 100 points on the nose for a Razorback with twin assault cannon... thats putting out some decent fire, mobility and is a fairly tough platform.

[Seizeman]

102 points, never leave without your storm bolter!

[Zamtro]

102 points, never leave without your storm bolter!

That one slipped through the keeper! Good point, considering my razorbacks are modelled with SB's I'd best include them!

[Gentlemanloser]

So, 207 points for 5 Strikes in a TAC Razor.  Or 8 Interceptors for 200.

 

Hmm.  Perhaps MSU is the better option.

[Captain Coolpants]

I've never even thought about this lol. Such a fool I've been! Not as maneuverable, but survivability and fire strength is way higher for just 7pts extra...

[SyNidus]

Now this discussion is quite interesting actually. I've been running 2 3 man squads of Paladins. However, this discussion has me interested in running 3x 5 man Strike squads with psilencers instead. Which would you guys run?

[LuisMars]

Now this discussion is quite interesting actually. I've been running 2 3 man squads of Paladins. However, this discussion has me interested in running 3x 5 man Strike squads with psilencers instead. Which would you guys run?

 

I would run both and would leave the psilencers to purgator squads. But if you have to choose: 2 x 3 Paladins are 24 bolter shots and attacks if you take falchions. Strikes can fire 60 bolter shots and do 33 attacks with falchions, paladins are more likely to survive but in my experience they tend to attract more enemy fire, so Strikes over Paladins if you ask me.

[Adeptus]

Paladins for me, but I'm still not over the novelty of them actually being GOOD now!

[Seizeman]

Paladins are a completely different animal from strike squads. They are very survivable and are very slow, specially because they don't have access to cheap transports. Being so slow and durable, their function is not that of raw damage dealers (the same points of strike squads will always be more deadly) but as a control element. You use them to push and zone the enemy army, either by deepstriking on a flank to apply pressure and black an escape route, or as tanks, deploying them in a choke point in front of the strike squads so the opponent has to go through them.

 

Because of that role, I've found units of 3 innadequate, as they are not durable or threatening enough. That's why I recommend units of 5 or 6, with at least a hammer, preferably two or three. There are a lot more effective this way than having them split in two units. There's no point in having a tanking squad when the opponent can just counter them by throwing some heavy armor at them. 

 

So the choice between them and strike squad is simple. Strikes are the core of the army, Paladins are support. If you already have a stable base, one unit of paladins is invaluable. Almost mandatory if you are playing 1500+ points, I think. But don't just try to use them as a general replacement for strike squads, becuse it won't work, they are not efficient enough.

 

In general, it is a bad idea to pick some elite unit and try to use them as troops. Every unit has a different strenght and you are paying points for it, so they won't work if you don't exploit their strong points. Points for point, there's no unit more generally efficient than strike squads. Of course, they can't do everything, and that's why specialised unit exist. Balance is key this edition.

 

And please stop the psilencer hype. You are paying 23 points for a guy with a wapon that is barely superior to the storm bolter and has ZERO close combat ability. How is paying 2 points for -1 attack, -2 AP and 1d3 damage in melee in exchange for a 12% ranged dmg increase (agains most targets) justifiable?