Codex comparisons

[Gentlemanloser]

Interceptors aren't bad at all!

 

Use them as your on board presence and you can deep strike 100% of your army for a first turn alpha.

 

;)

[Beams]

Of course there is junk in our codex, a ton of it. Most of our codex is unplayable garbage, and I don't mean "not competitive" or "below average", I mean absolute crap to a level where they are an insult to anyone that bough the codex.

 

Terminators, almost all of the HQ, purifiers, heavy weapons, NDKs and Land raiders should not ever be considered in any list, and stuff like Dreadnoughts, Paladins, interceptors are pretty bad, although not as much as the other choices. Basically only 20% of the codex, that has few units to begin with, is really playable. What's left is pretty decent, and at least some unit of every type (power armor, terminator armor, NDK, transport) is playable, so army composition is relatively diverse.

 

Luckily, everything (except for stratagems) can be fixed with a point reduction, so let's wait for december. So far they are doing a decent job balancing the armies (considering not all codex have been released yet).

I mean, you can say that about any codex

 

Sisters of Battle:

Only Celestine, Cannoni, Dominions and Repressors are 'worth' taking.

Why would you ever take BSisters, Celestians, or Melee?

 

Guard:

Only Conscripts, Command Squads and artillery are worth taking

Veterans, Commisars, Ogryns and Sentinels are too expensive or aren't effective enough to justify taking them over Conscripts and artillery!

 

Orks:

Only boys, Gazgkull and A single weirdboy!

Trukks, Meks, Grots, etc aren't as efficient as Boyz!

 

My point is, you can reduce any one codex to the top 20% most efficient units. Sure, terminators aren't as efficient as paladins, but they aren't an 'instant lose' like they are made out to be, just like taking Veterans or Trukks isn't an 'ideal' list. If your not playing at tournaments then it won't really matter, and hopefully GW messes with the points a bit. And if you are playing at a tournament, well, there's more important things for GW to fix, lik Guilliman.

[Seizeman]

You can't say that about SoB and Ork codices because they have no codices.

 

Your observation about Imperial Guard is not even close to being truth. Most units in the IG codex are playable. All of their HQ are good, both infantry squad and conscripts are playable (now that they have been nerfed), every elite choice is pretty good (except for engiseers and servitors maybe), sentinels and hellhounds are good, almost all leman russ variants are good, as are every artillery piece and most superheavies. That's in a codex that has more than twice as many options as the grey knights one (which is is perfectly understandable).

 

And no, interceptors are not good. If you deploy them on the board they just die instantly, and they are too expensive to just be used as fodder.

[Gentlemanloser]

Deploy out of LoS. ;)

 

Or in razors. Then disembark and shunt.

Edited October 26, 2017 by Gentlemanloser

[Adeptus]

Of course there is junk in our codex, a ton of it. Most of our codex is unplayable garbage, and I don't mean "not competitive" or "below average", I mean absolute crap to a level where they are an insult to anyone that bough the codex.

 

Terminators, almost all of the HQ, purifiers, heavy weapons, NDKs and Land raiders should not ever be considered in any list, and stuff like Dreadnoughts, Paladins, interceptors are pretty bad, although not as much as the other choices. Basically only 20% of the codex, that has few units to begin with, is really playable. What's left is pretty decent, and at least some unit of every type (power armor, terminator armor, NDK, transport) is playable, so army composition is relatively diverse.

 

Luckily, everything (except for stratagems) can be fixed with a point reduction, so let's wait for december. So far they are doing a decent job balancing the armies (considering not all codex have been released yet).

That's just like, your opinion, man.

Edited October 26, 2017 by Adeptus

[Gentlemanloser]

Problem is, unlike other armies, we have multiple units that do the same thing.

 

And you can, objectively, work out which performs better than the other.

 

Terminators and paladin are literally the same. Except we can mathematically show that paladin are out right better than terminators.

 

Our PA units are in the same boat.

 

Not only do we suffer from a small selection of units. Most of our units compete against each other for a place in our armies.

 

Edit. And i don't think just points reductions will or can solve this.

 

Reduce the cost of terminators until they become better than Paladin and you relegate paladin to the useless never touch pile.

 

We have to have reasons to actually take our different units. And cost effectiveness can't be the answer.

Edited October 27, 2017 by Gentlemanloser

[Archon_77]

 

Of course there is junk in our codex, a ton of it. Most of our codex is unplayable garbage, and I don't mean "not competitive" or "below average", I mean absolute crap to a level where they are an insult to anyone that bough the codex.

 

Terminators, almost all of the HQ, purifiers, heavy weapons, NDKs and Land raiders should not ever be considered in any list, and stuff like Dreadnoughts, Paladins, interceptors are pretty bad, although not as much as the other choices. Basically only 20% of the codex, that has few units to begin with, is really playable. What's left is pretty decent, and at least some unit of every type (power armor, terminator armor, NDK, transport) is playable, so army composition is relatively diverse.

 

Luckily, everything (except for stratagems) can be fixed with a point reduction, so let's wait for december. So far they are doing a decent job balancing the armies (considering not all codex have been released yet).

I mean, you can say that about any codex

 

Sisters of Battle:

Only Celestine, Cannoni, Dominions and Repressors are 'worth' taking.

Why would you ever take BSisters, Celestians, or Melee?

 

Guard:

Only Conscripts, Command Squads and artillery are worth taking

Veterans, Commisars, Ogryns and Sentinels are too expensive or aren't effective enough to justify taking them over Conscripts and artillery!

 

Orks:

Only boys, Gazgkull and A single weirdboy!

Trukks, Meks, Grots, etc aren't as efficient as Boyz!

 

My point is, you can reduce any one codex to the top 20% most efficient units. Sure, terminators aren't as efficient as paladins, but they aren't an 'instant lose' like they are made out to be, just like taking Veterans or Trukks isn't an 'ideal' list. If your not playing at tournaments then it won't really matter, and hopefully GW messes with the points a bit. And if you are playing at a tournament, well, there's more important things for GW to fix, lik Guilliman.

 

This. I'm so sick of the same Five Guys :cussting all over the Codex in every single post. Okay we get it you don't like it, it's not perfect, it's not Auto win against every other army in the game. Do you think this is good for new players? Do you think this is going to lead to people buying models? This mentality only leads to a defeatist attitude, and I suspect many of you have lost before you even put your models on the table. This is not about pointing out everything that is wrong there are many threads that do that. What can you do with what you have?

Edited October 27, 2017 by Archon_77

[Adeptus]

I don't disagree that, for example, paladins are better than terminators. What I disagree with is the almost hysterical hyperbole that people react to that with. Labelling terminators, to stick with the example, as useless garbage, as being actually offensive in their comparative inefficiency is simply projecting opinion as fact and does nothing but discourage new players.

 

I realise I'm in the minority by not caring at all for the cutting edge of competitive play and having no interest in building tournament level lists, but there's a huge gap in perception between 'terminators are ok, but paladins are better' and labelling anything other than hammer-wielding apothecaries and GMNDKs as useless garbage.

 

Now I know Seizeman is going to bust out his abacus and prove that terminators are 3.76% less efficient than paladins, and that may be a fact, but that doesn't translate into the list being useless garbage unless you're talking about cutting-edge competition play, and in that case you really just want to be taking as many malefic lords or primaris psykers as possible, backed up with as many culexes assassins as you can cram into your detachments. But for most people they just want to play an 'ok' list and have a laugh with their mates while making pew-pew noises. Telling anyone who'll listen that 95% of our codex is unplayable garbage is entirely unhelpful.

[skarn]

Interestingly enough, the gk list that won tactocon in denver was very heavy on interceptors. I really like seizeman's posts, but he does post as if his opinions are unassailable fact, and I dont know if he has the results to back them up.

[Godeskian]

Just to clarify, if you want to win a GT in the UK, you bring Guilleman, Tigurius, six Razorbacks with assault cannons, five tactical squads with a lascannon and a stormraven. Won every game it played less than two weeks ago

[Gentlemanloser]

Aiming a light on the warts is not unhelpful. Glossing over the bad parts is a disservice to newer players.

 

Just telling them yeah everything is great is worse then showing the down sides.

 

It might lead to them purchasing models they then never use after being solidly beaten. Might lead to them being led away from the army when they run sub par units and get stomped game after game.

 

Inform new players totally.

 

And let them make thier own choices after being informed.

 

Want to run an all Techmarine list? Sure go for it! Just as long as ahead of time you realise techmarines are over costed garbage for the GK.

 

But if that's your thing and you *know* how bad the unit is. More power to you!

 

I know how good the raven is. I don't use mine as I'm not a fan of fliers. Sub par sure. But that's my informed choice. :)

Edited October 27, 2017 by Gentlemanloser

[Gentlemanloser]

And to me, terminators being garbage is offensive. After GW claim of years of playtesting.

 

How GK terminators got through said playtesting and remain garbage overshadowed by paladin is rediculous.

 

Either GW didn't playtest as they have claimed. Or the playtesters were inept.

Edited October 27, 2017 by Gentlemanloser

[Seizeman]

If someone asks which units are better or which choices are optimal, that's what I'm going to answer, and if someone responds him him with a misinformative pink-hued digression, it is only responsible that I oppose it. When your answer something like "that's like, your opinion, man", not only are you adding nothing to the discussion by pointing an obviousness, but also belittling everyone else's contribution and the whole purpose of this place, just because you weren't able to find an argument to defend your opinion. A forum is, by definition, a place to share and confront views and opinions on a matter, and noone should be offended if they opinions are contradicted or even ridiculed.

 

If someone asks which models are cooler, or if it is a mortal sin to play bad units in uncompetitive games because they like them, then I'll answer that, but those are not the kind of questions that are usually asked. Even in that case, your argument of "play what you like" is not appliable. Noone wants to play terminators specifically, they want to play their cool models with terminator armor, which they can do just the same by playing paladins (and even if you argue that "paladin models should be cooler", that's more reason to play paladins over terminators). That's why I pointed out that, while most of our codex entries are unplayable, you have a competitive choice for almost every kind of model, be it terminators, power armored guys, NDKs or rhinos/razorabacks, which is a pretty good thing.

 

About tha state of terminators being offensive, I think that's a perfectly valid feeling. When I pay for a product (a codex or rulebook in this case), that was supposed to be balanced by careful and thorough desing and playtesting, and turns out to be a rushed unbalanced mess, it is my right (my duty even) as a consumer to complain about it. I don't want my codex to be overpowered to beat everyone (I already do that, for the most part, with the current one), I want for it to be internally balanced so every unit and entry (or most of them) is competitive and to have the possibility to play more than one kind of list if I want to do well in a tournament.

[Adeptus]

Seize, do you play any other games?

[Reclusiarch Darius]

As others have mentioned, GK have more internal overlap (sometimes explicitly), which means our choices boil down to things like;

 

- Grandmaster DK, or regular DK?

- Dread or Venerable?

- Land Raider or Raven?

etc etc

 

It doesn't overly matter what level of the game you're playing at, these things are true regardless. Grandmaster DK's will always be taken over regular DK's, as the advantages gained outweigh the points you pay. Same is true of Strikes vs Terminators, if you're after multiple Troops units (which given Battalion requirements we need), Strikes cheaply fulfil it and bring other advantages on top. Unlike the GMDK vs DK fiasco, Terminators simply need a price drop (down to 38 base, which puts them at just slightly cheaper than double Strikes). 

 

Overall I think GK compare favourably with the rest in 8th. We're not a list to beat or worry about, but we still bring the pain. I've yet to drop a game in 8th since my first (I died to Imperial Soup with Custodes and Scions). I think GK sit in the same spot as Mechanicus, we're strong but don't break the game.

[Seizeman]

I concur, Grey knights are in a good spot right now. The fact that other factions are overtuned does not mean that we are not balanced (externally). So far the developer team has made good adjustments (brimstones, conscripts, flyer spam), and that should be more significant with the release of the upcoming codices and chapter approved. We should complain about the internal inbalance of our codex, but I think it is too soon to be outraged.

 

The only issues that, I think, would be hard to balance with just a point cost adjustments would be terminators vs paladins and psilencer vs psycannon. The psilencer is just superior to the psycannon in almost every way, so the only way to make it balanced is to make the psycannon the cheaper weapon, which is kind of lame but at least solves the playability problem. With terminators vs paladins, it is obvious that it is mostly a matter of cost/effectiveness, as they are fundamentally the same unit, but the existence of (playable) terminators gives players the possibility to play a full-terminator army with a battalion, and I think that's a must in a grey knights codex.

 

I don't think it's impossible to balance regular NDKs vs GM ones, but it's a bit more difficult because their weapons cost the same. They could have two different costs like they do with strikes and terminators, or just make their base cost cheap enough that you want to field them just with a melee weapon as paperweights, which will make them different than GMNDKs.

[Bartali]

 

 

The only issues that, I think, would be hard to balance with just a point cost adjustments would be terminators vs paladins

 

A return to 5th ed era unit specific psychic powers (Astral Aim, Warp Quake etc) would help to differentiate the units. GW don't seem to want to go this way though, perhaps unit specific stratagems instead ?

[Gentlemanloser]

We've got one for interceptors.

[Archon_77]

Interestingly enough, the gk list that won tactocon in denver was very heavy on interceptors. I really like seizeman's posts, but he does post as if his opinions are unassailable fact, and I dont know if he has the results to back them up.

.

 

REALLY??? I thought that tacticon didn't have a tournament! I'm so disappointed now...

Edited October 27, 2017 by Archon_77

[Plasmablasts]

I concur, Grey knights are in a good spot right now. The fact that other factions are overtuned does not mean that we are not balanced (externally). So far the developer team has made good adjustments (brimstones, conscripts, flyer spam), and that should be more significant with the release of the upcoming codices and chapter approved. We should complain about the internal inbalance of our codex, but I think it is too soon to be outraged.

 

The only issues that, I think, would be hard to balance with just a point cost adjustments would be terminators vs paladins and psilencer vs psycannon. The psilencer is just superior to the psycannon in almost every way, so the only way to make it balanced is to make the psycannon the cheaper weapon, which is kind of lame but at least solves the playability problem. With terminators vs paladins, it is obvious that it is mostly a matter of cost/effectiveness, as they are fundamentally the same unit, but the existence of (playable) terminators gives players the possibility to play a full-terminator army with a battalion, and I think that's a must in a grey knights codex.

 

I don't think it's impossible to balance regular NDKs vs GM ones, but it's a bit more difficult because their weapons cost the same. They could have two different costs like they do with strikes and terminators, or just make their base cost cheap enough that you want to field them just with a melee weapon as paperweights, which will make them different than GMNDKs.

Guard now has two points costs for plasma guns, with them more expensive if you’re BS3+ than BS4+, so there’d be precedent for differentiating points for NDK weapons.

 

Slightly off topic, the thought of more than one GMNDK in a list makes me rather itchy (unless there’s a Daemon Primarch on the field, when I suppose it would seem more fluffy).

[Godeskian]

So you wouldn't be in favour of an allied supreme detachment of three GMNDK for my Primaris gun line?

[Gentlemanloser]

I regularily use 2. Only becuase i only own 2. If i had a third I'd use it!

[Plasmablasts]

Well, when there’s only eight GK GMs in the Galaxy and one now regularly sees 2-3 (plus maybe Voldus) turning up in lists, that doesn’t feel quite right! There seems to be very little reason to run a standard NDK, except saving a few points. The GMNDK appears to have just replaced it, which I’m sure wasn’t the intention. It’s a bit like those Astra Militarum lists which always ran Pask and Tank Commanders instead of standard Leman Russes. Ideally, I’d prefer the NDK and the GMNDK to be balanced so that either is worth running and you need to choose between an efficient utility NDK or a more effective but maybe not necessarily more cost-efficient GMNDK.

[Gentlemanloser]

Whats wrong with GM of Brotherhood 6 leading his Paladin bodyguard in a Vanguard detachment, teamped up with Grandmaster of Brotherhood 7 leading the chapters ancients (3 x doomglaives) in another Vanguard detachment, becuase the Chapter Prognoticators have deemed the threat so geat multiple Brotherhoods are required.

 

And they might even send in Grandmaster of the 8th Botherhood, with Voldus attached in support, and all the strikes squads that can be mustered as an urgent backup...

[Plasmablasts]

Well, nothing wrong as such (and validly “fluffy” in an era of Primarch bestriding every battlefield) but it would be nice if a more “typically” fluffy task-force, e.g. a demi-brotherhood led by their captain or champion and supported by Brother Bob in his NDK, would also be viable!