little hope in CA for GK's

[newdigitalGK]

GMNDK, Purifiers and paladins confirmed to get point drops. 

confirmed where?

 

nvm found source linked below

 

https://www.warhammer-community.com/2018/12/03/3rd-dec-chapter-approved-matched-playgw-homepage-post-1/

[Corvus Fortis]

Sorry about not providing source at the first place - was distracted a bit. So, once again they say about a bunch of core units getting a point drop. I was a bit afraid, that they thought GMNDK to be ok, if he was used so often and leave him as he was. 

 

Now we have to face two boring days of Open and Narrative articles. 

[Shinkosh]

Another article on points drop but still nothing on anything else.  Several of the rumor sites have mentioned a change to Rites of Banishment but as yet I've not seen anything official more than wish-listing, no mention of a reduction in stratagems CP's either.  Sure it'll be nice to have more models on the board, but I was still kinda hoping for a little more.

[Biscuittzz]

As I said over in the N&R thread about CA, they'll further the mess of internal codex balance if the normal dreadknight doesn't see something even more drastic. A points drop on the GM dreadknight won't help the normal one being included in lists.

[Corvus Fortis]

If the drop costs on GMNDK, they will surely do this for NDK too.

[Karack Blackstone]

If the article is anything to go by, Grey Knights as players should be a great deal better off.

 

While not likely broken, and not likely lackluster, I think the GK's will end up being at a solid and dependable position. GW does try to do right by its customers. 8th Ed. is a strong showing, and consistently points tweaks over the CA's is a good way to bring things into better balance.

 

When in the past an entirely new edition had to be printed up, Chapter Approved each year is more of a living edition form of addressing rebalancing issues. I think a game like WH40K is going to prove very strong long term by going to a more living rules set but everything that works set in stone, just tweak what isn't yet in place, as it is now.

 

I hope- Yes, hope is a fast road to disappointment, but I don't care, I hope that you as a playable faction end up in a reliably strong position. If GK's aren't able to make it to most, if not at times any, tournament tables, GW now seems both willing and able to address that as a need which must be met.

[Capt. Mytre]

If the article is anything to go by, Grey Knights as players should be a great deal better off.

 

While not likely broken, and not likely lackluster, I think the GK's will end up being at a solid and dependable position. GW does try to do right by its customers. 8th Ed. is a strong showing, and consistently points tweaks over the CA's is a good way to bring things into better balance.

 

When in the past an entirely new edition had to be printed up, Chapter Approved each year is more of a living edition form of addressing rebalancing issues. I think a game like WH40K is going to prove very strong long term by going to a more living rules set but everything that works set in stone, just tweak what isn't yet in place, as it is now.

 

I hope- Yes, hope is a fast road to disappointment, but I don't care, I hope that you as a playable faction end up in a reliably strong position. If GK's aren't able to make it to most, if not at times any, tournament tables, GW now seems both willing and able to address that as a need which must be met.

 

Only took them over a year and 1 codex, 2 chapter approves and multiple FAQ's and Erratas to finally do something (other than keep nerfing us).

 

Still, points are a tiny proportion of the problem. GK need rules changes, not point reductions. Point reductions make GK less elite, and thus they are losing their elite feel. It also cannot address all the problems internally with the codex - NDK or GMNDK, Terms or Paladins, Psilencers vs Psycannons etc - the units are too similar and cannot be balanced on points alone, they need rules to give them distinct positions within the army.

 

Fielding 100+ bodies isn't what GK do, they should be expensive, but their rules should justify the cost.

[Danarc]

Yep. I completely agree. These points changes don't solve the GK problems, it allow us fielding more bodies, but if that's all we get, I'm not happy. GK should be something different.

[newdigitalGK]

Yep. I completely agree. These points changes don't solve the GK problems, it allow us fielding more bodies, but if that's all we get, I'm not happy. GK should be something different.

It may not completely solve our issues but I think this will actually go further then what people are thinking

[Karack Blackstone]

GK's do have their issues.

 

If anything however, overall cheaper current version Grey Knights is a step towards properly fluffed out GK's in general. Don't get me wrong, I have seen the doom and gloom that has been sadly foisted upon GK players. While it did take time to have GW notice, they have. Better late than never, and all that jazz.

 

So, no, I cannot give you back the time that GW has been letting GK players suffer throughout to get this far; that typed, I do think this is both a bandaid solution, but none the less, a rather effective bandaid solution at that, at least for now.

 

I'd love for GK's to be a perfectly viable army, and, simply put, GK's SHOULD be an army people at least see on the table and think, "Uh oh..." at the very least. That's not now just yet.

 

Not impossible to get there in time, at this rate, however. Yes, it might be a while; GW would be fools to not address the issue at all. The problem is the kneejerk reaction that this situation can otherwise cause. The total amount of time it took sucks, yes; I'm just glad they see the issue and are prepared to make steps to bring an army back to the table.

[Waking Dreamer]

As I said over in the N&R thread about CA, they'll further the mess of internal codex balance if the normal dreadknight doesn't see something even more drastic. A points drop on the GM dreadknight won't help the normal one being included in lists.

Eh, do you use a different model for your GMDK and your standard NDK? The loadouts are exactly the same so it's not like you require 2 completely different models to use either.

 

Then again, I'm myself not one to fuss about if someone wants to use their GKT model as either Termies or Pallies on the table.

[Capt. Mytre]

 

As I said over in the N&R thread about CA, they'll further the mess of internal codex balance if the normal dreadknight doesn't see something even more drastic. A points drop on the GM dreadknight won't help the normal one being included in lists.

Eh, do you use a different model for your GMDK and your standard NDK? The loadouts are exactly the same so it's not like you require 2 completely different models to use either.

 

Then again, I'm myself not one to fuss about if someone wants to use their GKT model as either Termies or Pallies on the table.

 

 

That isn't the issue. The issue is two units filling the exact same purpose. They need new rules to differentiate them.

[Danarc]

 

 

As I said over in the N&R thread about CA, they'll further the mess of internal codex balance if the normal dreadknight doesn't see something even more drastic. A points drop on the GM dreadknight won't help the normal one being included in lists.

Eh, do you use a different model for your GMDK and your standard NDK? The loadouts are exactly the same so it's not like you require 2 completely different models to use either.

 

Then again, I'm myself not one to fuss about if someone wants to use their GKT model as either Termies or Pallies on the table.

 

 

That isn't the issue. The issue is two units filling the exact same purpose. They need new rules to differentiate them.

 

exactly. That is the same problem of practically ALL GK units. Each unit has at least one other with the same role, and, at the same time, we lack units with some roles.

[Waking Dreamer]

 

 

 

Eh, do you use a different model for your GMDK and your standard NDK? The loadouts are exactly the same so it's not like you require 2 completely different models to use either.

 

Then again, I'm myself not one to fuss about if someone wants to use their GKT model as either Termies or Pallies on the table.

 

 

That isn't the issue. The issue is two units filling the exact same purpose. They need new rules to differentiate them.

 

exactly. That is the same problem of practically ALL GK units. Each unit has at least one other with the same role, and, at the same time, we lack units with some roles.

 

 

That's exactly what I was going to say tho.

 

I know what the "issue" is. It's the issue practically ALL GK units have. But why highlight the imbalance of NDK - GMNDK in our codex, as the benchmark of how much *fail* CA will be for us....??

 

As a GK player, from a player and consumer perspective - who has invested time, money and effort in building a 3000+ mono-GK army...when we're talking about the BOTTOM LINE, the imbalance of NDK - GMNDK is objectively the least "loss" a GK player would suffer.

 

I mean, 16 months ago, they were the one and the same unit, GK players never had to make a choice, never had to split their budget or choose one over the other. If your *issue* is the principle of the imbalance, like Danarc said it''s, "the same problem of practically ALL GK units" . Pick an imbalance between units that actually effect GK players in the most practical sense, that is - unit choices that effect their investment, time and effort (aka model shelf-time to table ratio). 

 

Consider this, if GW went directly to you and said, we WON'T ADDRESS ONE internal unbalance between two units in the current GK Codex, EVERYTHING else will work on but for 2 units the imbalance stays completely the same - "your choice  - which imbalance  do we ignore?" What do you guys pick?

 

No offence, principle or not - I would say leave NDK - GMNDK alone for now (as a GK player/consumer). For the sake of as much variety and model choices you can squeeze out of the GK codex, put effort into changes in every other unit imbalance FIRST. Again, 16 months ago the NDK-GMNDK imbalance wasn't even a thing, so personally let me state,  I've lost minimal investments regarding that "issue".  

 

Spare a moment for the newbie GK player who buys and builds his GK army around 30 GK Terminators (the ICONIC GK model that is actually on the front cover of our GK codex), only to find out GKT troops is playing GKs "wrong". Yeah...the Strike Squad - GKT imbalance is MUCH MORE of a priority for CA to improve than the above imo. So if you 're going to criticise, why not criticise the holes in the boat that is making it sink, rather than the colour of the paint they've used on the boat [that wasn't even there 16 months ago]...

[Panzer]

It's honestly just stupid to have a HQ version of a regular unit. It didn't work for T'au with their Commander and Crisis Suits and it doesn't work for GK with their GMNDK and their NDK.

[Waking Dreamer]

It's honestly just stupid to have a HQ version of a regular unit. It didn't work for T'au with their Commander and Crisis Suits and it doesn't work for GK with their GMNDK and their NDK.

 

But it keeps your NDK model in a respectable place in GK army lists, which equals table time and solid use for said model. 

[Danarc]

It's honestly just stupid to have a HQ version of a regular unit. It didn't work for T'au with their Commander and Crisis Suits and it doesn't work for GK with their GMNDK and their NDK.

that's true. But, honestly, we have to admit that we asked for a GMDK for loooooong time. 

But not this way.

[Panzer]

 

It's honestly just stupid to have a HQ version of a regular unit. It didn't work for T'au with their Commander and Crisis Suits and it doesn't work for GK with their GMNDK and their NDK.

 

But it keeps your NDK model in a respectable place in GK army lists, which equals table time and solid use for said model. 

 

 

How so? If the GMNDK rules is what it takes for the NDK to be a proper choice then they could have just buffed the NDK in the first place.

[Waking Dreamer]

 

 

It's honestly just stupid to have a HQ version of a regular unit. It didn't work for T'au with their Commander and Crisis Suits and it doesn't work for GK with their GMNDK and their NDK.

 

But it keeps your NDK model in a respectable place in GK army lists, which equals table time and solid use for said model. 

 

 

How so? If the GMNDK rules is what it takes for the NDK to be a proper choice then they could have just buffed the NDK in the first place.

 

 

Well as many GK players can attest, during the Index it was general consensus that NDK transitioned poorly between 7ed and 8ed. The roles the NDK model could do were solidly out-preformed by other units. GK players wanted the Codex to give the NDK model better stats/rules to make it more in line with it's 7ed capabilities.

 

Are GK players confidently using the NDK model again after the Codex?... Well, yeah. So, check that off the GW need-to-do the list...?

 

Obviously GW did things in their own way, according to their own goals and envisions etc. - no one here can answer for you WHY they didn't just buff the NDK (like many GK players wanted them to). 

 

BOTTOM LINE tho, GK players can field their NDK models on the table (and have their mono-GK army better for it) again, which is my point - there are way more pressing practical issues regarding imbalance, since the BOTTOM LINE (in whatever odd/bad/stupid way people chose to think of it) was achieved. 

[Capt. Mytre]

 

*snip*

 

They aren't mutually exclusive problems. Just because there are other areas that need fixing, doesn't mean they can't fix this as well.

[Waking Dreamer]

 

*snip*

 

 

They aren't mutually exclusive problems. Just because there are other areas that need fixing, doesn't mean they can't fix this as well.

I never said that, but I've more than backed up why it's honestly one of the lesser problems that could be address in GK codex.

[HighMarshalAmp]

All I know is that I'm priming a few teleporter backpacks for my Strike Squads in case I'll use them as Interceptors after all if the Terminators become even slightly more usable again.

So that's one week of hope GW lets me have.

[Biscuittzz]

 

As I said over in the N&R thread about CA, they'll further the mess of internal codex balance if the normal dreadknight doesn't see something even more drastic. A points drop on the GM dreadknight won't help the normal one being included in lists.

Eh, do you use a different model for your GMDK and your standard NDK? The loadouts are exactly the same so it's not like you require 2 completely different models to use either.

 

Then again, I'm myself not one to fuss about if someone wants to use their GKT model as either Termies or Pallies on the table.

 

 

Eh I think you may have misunderstood the point of my post. This is to do with points/ cost effective of units that essentially fulfil the same role bar a few minor differences. It is nothing to do with models or what can be made from different kits. I disagree with your idea that the problem is solved by GW allowing us to field the NDK model regardless of what datasheet is used (NDK or GNDK).

 

Reading through your follow up posts shows that you still don't quite get what I was saying from my post.

 

Stating GW need to focus on more practical issues is disingenuous considering internal balance is a very practical issue that needs to be solved. Fixing internal codex balance of individual codexes will go a long way to fix overall balance without GW having to tweek the main rules of the game. I don't know how you can't see that lowering the points of the GNDK without doing something similar or more drastic for the normal NDK is a good option. NDKs are non-existent within the game now. 

[Waking Dreamer]

 

Eh I think you may have misunderstood the point of my post. This is to do with points/ cost effective of units that essentially fulfil the same role bar a few minor differences. It is nothing to do with models or what can be made from different kits. I disagree with your idea that the problem is solved by GW allowing us to field the NDK model regardless of what datasheet is used (NDK or GNDK).

 

Reading through your follow up posts shows that you still don't quite get what I was saying from my post.

 

Stating GW need to focus on more practical issues is disingenuous considering internal balance is a very practical issue that needs to be solved. Fixing internal codex balance of individual codexes will go a long way to fix overall balance without GW having to tweek the main rules of the game. I don't know how you can't see that lowering the points of the GNDK without doing something similar or more drastic for the normal NDK is a good option. NDKs are non-existent within the game now. 

 

 

I'm pretty sure I get what you're saying. It's the same point Capt. Mytre implied...you guys are coming from the principle or ideology of what an internally balanced GK codex SHOULD BE. I get that, I simply disagree. This is far from a perfect world, so I chose not to hold the idea of a perfectly internally balance Codex on a pedestal, to use as some benchmark to judge the CA coming in just two weeks.

 

Also, I never said it was good that the NDK and GMDK are unbalanced. If you thought that, you misunderstood the hypothetical that emphasises that imbalances between various GK units - have levels of real-world consequences (financial / time / usage investments etc.) for the player. I'm curious do you guys even have an answer to the hypothetical I proposed?

 

Which GK unit imbalance is the least consequential to you as a GK player? Which one can you accept without any meaningful change?

 

If from what i gathered from both of your posts, have an answer along the lines of: "No, each GK unit imbalance is as important as the other, there are no priorities and GW needs to address each one to equal attention. "

 

Then, I do understand what you were both talking about, but again simply disagree. Imo, fixing certain unit imbalances CAN greatly change the composition and viable variety of mono-GK armies, while fixing others...not so much. That's what I think. And I already know it's to different to you what you guys think. That's fine.

[Waking Dreamer]

All I know is that I'm priming a few teleporter backpacks for my Strike Squads in case I'll use them as Interceptors after all if the Terminators become even slightly more usable again.

So that's one week of hope GW lets me have.

 

Yeah, a change like that you would consider drastic right? It could even change the composition of the majority your current GK army, allowing you to rotate a lot of GK units off that shelf / out of the box. I know that would make me feel good!