secondary objectives you and your opponent

[Gnomeo]

So I am currently working on some ideas regarding secondary objectives and luring opponents into making mistakes.

 

Could I kindly request my fellow brothers to put down what secondaries you normally take (yes I know it depends on opponent). But here is the really important bit can you please put down what your opponents normally pick against your grey knights.

 

Thank you all in advance.

[Skywrath]

Well it's safe to assume that any decent player, would be picking Abhor if he's not running Psykers. Then the next likely scenario would be Bring it Down or Assassinate (we usually run 3+ characters in any list), followed by a faction specific secondary (if they have access to it). If not, then it would be probably that one that gives you 3VP per turn (Mental interrogation, I want to say??).

 

As for myself, I play aggressively so my usual picks are Engage, Assassinate/Bring it Down (this is the bit where I see how many characters he has, vehicles and weigh my chances of killing them) and the third one is usually Banners.  

[Archadeus]

I usually go for engage/grind them down as a mobile elite army pretty straight forward but the third is always situational depending on the opponent, the mission and your army. Banners, Assassinate, scramblers,and mental interrogation (a decent counter to abor since they can't deny,few exceptions) seem to be the best for me.

My opponents always go for assassinate/abor even if I only have 3 because they think it's a 2 for 1. But it's not... And they pay for it.

[Brother Lunkhead]

=][=

 

Decorum, Brothers!

 

=][=

[Gnomeo]

So small sample size but here are my thoughts.

 

I think that abhor the witch can be a strength not a weakness. Why?

 

Because we know our opponent will take it. This gives us info that most armies don't we know one of our opponents secondaries before list building. And because people like to double down to maximise there points stuff like assassinate are very common against use.

 

So my point we can make an army list that looks appealing to the kill secondaries. Thus luring them in to taking them. Then for ourselves we take secondaries about staying alive eg attrition or while we stand.

 

Then when it comes to the game we play super defensive and just try to stay on 2 objectives. Target priority is immediate threats and denying opponent scoring. Eg shoot that small unit holding the rear objective bot the alpha unit that is mid board but 2 turns away.

 

This means losing the primary but if you can stay on those 2 objectives the whole game you are only behind by 5pts. Now by playing super defensive you can deny a lot of there secondaries. I personally in the above situation would expect to give away 4pts on abor and 0 on assassinate. But you have maxed out while we stand or worst case scored 10pts. So now we are winning by 1pt with out factoring opponents engage and our other 2 secondaries.

 

The idea / point I am trying to make (probably not very well) is that because we have a good idea on what our opponent is going to pick we plan ways to deny before even getting to the board.

 

Of course can vary on mission and army.

Any thoughts?

[Archadeus]

This is 100% my thought process when building the last list I posted. I plan around holding what I can and denying secondaries until their army is thinned to the point I can take over. And that's playing into bad matchups.

[Trollbeard]

I usually pick Scramblers, and depending on the opponents’s list, bring it down, or attrition. And usually engage the on all fronts as I’ll be doing scramblers anyways.

 

Having dynamic insertion allows us to sneak a unit into the opponents deployment zone for scramblers and easy engage points, and if you have interceptors and Gate you have plenty of options to move around the board.

[Gnomeo]

Unfortunately I could not disagree more. You make some valid points however what I am trying to get at and probably not very well is a different mind set to picking secondaries (almost making it rock paper scissors) and thus adding that mind set to list building and play style.

 

In simple terms you start playing the game differently to how your opponent would expect. Not fighting over objectives bit systematic denial.

[Gnomeo]

Well we will have to agree to disagree. All I can say from experience is that using this idea has helped me win a few games including the battle report I did on the forum.

[Skywrath]

Both of you are right. 

 

GK's is weak as a faction at the moment (not as weak as TS or AM, but still). So that in itself incentivises us to do one of the following: play smart - playing unconventionally (hence the unit of the week threads, I put up), or to play aggressively. When 9th edition dropped, it became an objective focused game, rather than a kill to win scenario like in 8th. The double-paladin bomb list is an example of that. You can park it on points, you can go on the offensive, but at the end of the day, you are still getting in people's face with that deathstar of doom. With that being said, as we haven't got our codex, we will still have to rely on elements of pre-9th gameplay (kill to win, i,e. paladin bombs) and because of our low durability, offense is one of our best options. The other route, is unconventional approaches, such as the purifiers, inner fire combos, etc. Problem is, at the end of the day, you are hoping for the best case scenarios with sub-par methods when our faction can't compete with other up-to-date options and tricks from other factions. So think of it this way, instead of going from point A -> C, we are going from point A -> B -> C, when others can go to point C more effectively, and hence win the games. Hence from that perspective, Gnomeo is right.

 

When we will get our codex, and hence our wounds, the gameplay will shift towards the later, as we are more durable to actually play say objectives. Our combos and our fancy ways will incentise us to do that (mark my words, our strategems and psychic abilities will reflect that shift in one way or another). So from that perspective Reskin is right. 

 

But until then, we are stuck with the first option - using sub-par methods to remain competitive, which as we all know, we are not.

Edited March 13, 2021 by Skywrath

[Gnomeo]

Sorry I disagree with use not being competitive I think we 100% are but the difference is we have to play smart. Joe Blogs comes in from off the street picks up grey knights and wants to start going to tournaments he will get smashed when if he takes marines or necrons etc he will still get beat up but maybe get some closer games or a win. However someone who learns the army and makes them work will Win and part of that is the secondaries which I am starting to think for a lot of games are more important than the primary.

 

Grey knights are a finesse army. Marines are not.

the best example is erik lathouras. Who took grey knight and won a grand tournament and this was pre psychic awakening. Where grey knights were considered the worst army even by professionals.

[Skywrath]

Sorry I disagree with use not being competitive I think we 100% are but the difference is we have to play smart. Joe Blogs comes in from off the street picks up grey knights and wants to start going to tournaments he will get smashed when if he takes marines or necrons etc he will still get beat up but maybe get some closer games or a win. However someone who learns the army and makes them work will Win and part of that is the secondaries which I am starting to think for a lot of games are more important than the primary.

 

Grey knights are a finesse army. Marines are not.

the best example is erik lathouras. Who took grey knight and won a grand tournament and this was pre psychic awakening. Where grey knights were considered the worst army even by professionals.

 

The 38% winrate going second, and the 48% winrate going first disagrees with your assessment. If you read my statement, you will notice that I mentioned playing smart is one of the options. We aren't competitive, we are a C tier faction. Sure, you have Erik playing GK, but he always plays GK - he's an exception in a field of exceptions playing other factions. There is only so much you can do with a faction, despite the player skill, and both of us know this.

 

Secondly, let's talk what makes us "competitive" at the moment. The 2++ purifiers have two massive, gaping problems - first one is that the 2++ invuln was never meant to be. The wording of Sanctuary says 3+ invuln, and both of us, again know this, not going to bother debating that. The other problem is volume of shots - assuming you are running a 10m purifier brick, a 10m terminator squad with stormbolters will chew through them like no-one's business, because of the simple yet laughable fact we have 1W a-piece. So when you take those two facts, in reality we haven't progressed to be more competitive, the only thing we have progressed in, is abusing GW's incompetence to give us that C-tier ranking, which we are at the bottom of. No amount of finesse or play skill will change that. 

 

What I will agree with you is that we are a finesse army. Typically speaking, (in my mind) a C-tier finesse army when played at close to maximum competence, is no difference from a high tier B army player at medium level of skill. But do you see where the problem lies now? We still aren't competing with S tier armies (Dark Angels, Custodes) or A tier armies (AdMech), because simply the odds are against us. Despite all this, will that make me stop playing my Grey Knights? No. All this means is that I am aware of the limitations of the Grey Knights, and tailor my expectations (and subsequently disappointments) accordingly. That is a lesson, I ask you to take on-board. 

[Archadeus]

Erik won a bunch of games with his list in the Nopen, how do you think it got to semis?? But to be fair the crazy aussies let him cheese into a 2++ which no one outside of australia is willing to do. Plus Wtc banned it quickly after. I do think GKs are more competitive than you think but the lack of wounds is hampering our survivability forcing glass Cannon lists/play style. The question is how much of a points increase will we get. And will our chapter specific secondary be anywhere near SM level.

[Trollbeard]

@Reskin, I have to disagree with your assessment of Deploy scramblers. I use strikes to fill out my troop choices, and usually bare bone 5mans. And between DS and gate, and dynamic insertion if needed I am often able to get all three throughout the game.

 

A 5man strike squad I generally find does not contribute enough on its own to really matter about doing actions. You should be using strats and powers on 10 man squads or other units. So if I lose 10 bolter shots 3 times a game so that I score 10 VP, that’s a great trade to me. Strikes are too fragile to be going into melee against most units anyways so I keep them out of combat unless I’m certain they will do something lol

 

Like you said, it’s an objective game, not killing game like 8th was. So if your unit is completing objectives that’s a good thing.

[Skywrath]

Erik won a bunch of games with his list in the Nopen, how do you think it got to semis?? But to be fair the crazy aussies let him cheese into a 2++ which no one outside of australia is willing to do. Plus Wtc banned it quickly after. I do think GKs are more competitive than you think but the lack of wounds is hampering our survivability forcing glass Cannon lists/play style. The question is how much of a points increase will we get. And will our chapter specific secondary be anywhere near SM level.

 

Let's not call Aussies, crazy shall we?

 

Secondly, it strikes me that you just pretty much said everything I said, but in a different order, especially about the glass cannon builds. That being said where did it say WTC banned it after? 

[Trollbeard]

Trollbeard, what exactly about deploy scramblers do you disagree with? You must be the only one taking 5 man strike squads.

 

So naturally killing units on objectives is denying scoring. Killing is the objective.

You had said we have no units able to do that this action effectively because all our units are too important. I said that strikes work well for me.

 

And now you say KILLING is the objective? Where before you said objectives are the name of the game, you are going back and forth between what the game Is all about. Yes I take strike squads, and yes I find they don’t offer much offensively, BUT I leverage our cheapest unit to score points. A dead strike squad scores me nothing, while a still living squad is able to score points.

[Archadeus]

So what’s your point Archadeus? If anything, the fact that we aussies let him cheese into that strat says more about the GK.

 

I hardly call it cheese if he didn’t wipe the floor with everyone.

Usually something that’s labelled cheesy dominates the opponent

 

Trollbeard, what exactly about deploy scramblers do you disagree with? You must be the only one taking 5 man strike squads.

 

Killing is still a fundamental part of the objective game. They go hand in hand, this is not a pacifists game. I’m not going to let my opponent sit on objectives and score for 5 turn?

 

So naturally killing units on objectives is denying scoring. Killing is the objective.

Yeah shoot the opponent to death while being safe is exactly what erik did to essentialy table every opponent turn 3 which I would call wiping the floor and cheese. He then caught up on secondaries and primaries to win by a sizable portion.

Edited March 14, 2021 by Brother Lunkhead
unconstructive comment

[Skywrath]

How about we all turn it down 4 notches before the thread gets shut down. Everyone here is entitled to an opinion, no matter how subjective it might be. 

[Brother Lunkhead]

How about we all turn it down 4 notches before the thread gets shut down. Everyone here is entitled to an opinion, no matter how subjective it might be. 

 

I AGREE...... Tone it down.

 

The thread has strayed from it's original intent. So, as a reminder......

 

So I am currently working on some ideas regarding secondary objectives and luring opponents into making mistakes.

 

Could I kindly request my fellow brothers to put down what secondaries you normally take (yes I know it depends on opponent). But here is the really important bit can you please put down what your opponents normally pick against your grey knights.

 

Negativism, broad and unanalyzed statistics, rules based imagined scenarios and vague statements make for weak analysis and unconstructive arguments. For proper analysis you need practical examples and lots of them; and if you think the whole idea won't work and this thread is a waste of time, then don't waste your time..... get out.

 

Right now, our codex is old and GK's are not in a strong place. Gnomeo is putting forth a practical idea to deal with some of the in game challenges we face. It may work or it may not. To properly examine the merits, we need practical and detailed examples. Get to work.

Edited March 15, 2021 by Brother Lunkhead

[Gnomeo]

So on the note of evidence. Please see my battle report.

 

http://www.bolterandchainsword.com/topic/369223-battle-report-grey-knights-vs-necrons/?do=findComment&comment=5671205

 

In this I took 2 secondaries based on surviving. I then subsequently hid for most of the game mostly only attacking with astral aim and edict so I could not be shot back. In this game I lost on the primary objective. But on secondaries I scored full 45 and denied a lot of points giving a large win.

Edited March 15, 2021 by Gnomeo

[Archadeus]

Thanks for the report gnomeo, it's a great example of the points we were making in our first couple of posts. Play defense and abuse 10 man's because they are the most efficient with our powers, and strats. Even though he probably wasn't a top notch opponent you played your list to your strengths and took great situational secondaries.yes he shouldn't have marched his entire army into your threat range but even if he was more experienced I think the result would have been close to the same. I appreciate the flexibility in this instance and hope you keep thinking outside of the box. I think Grey Knights are strong we just are not, throw my paladins in your face first turn strong. Please let me know if this post wasn't constructive enough.

[Gnomeo]

I could not agree more. We are not an army that can muscle over an opponent and win. We rely on our flexibility and that we are active in every phase of the game. Hence why I think when building an army list you have to consider not how flexible it is and how flexible it can be with secondary objectives.

[ValourousHeart]

I typically run a pure Ravenwing list and they picked up a new secondary in their codex.. Death on the Wind, which is in the No Mercy category.  2 VP for any enemy unit destroyed by a Ravenwing unit that moved 12" or more in the movement phase that turn or made a charge move that turn.  So if my whole army is Ravenwing and I keep everything moving or charging, then everything can score that objective.

 

My plan when facing off against Grey Knights, was to take Assassinate, Abhor the Witch, and Death on the Wind as my secondary objectives.  I assumed I would get credit for all 3 secondary objectives if I took out a psyker Character (3+5+2 VP per), credit for 2 secondary if I took out a non-character psyker unit (0+3+2 VP per) or a non-psyker character (3+0+2 VP per), and credit for 1 secondary if I took out anything that wasn't a character or a psyker (0+0+2 VP per).

 

I'm not assuming the fight will be easy by any means, because GK units are much better in assault than RW units, and I have no psychic defense.  So the hope is to just run up the score board as quickly as possible and rely on my speed and Jink to slow down how fast you kill me, and hopefully I can wipe enough of your units to win.

 

My opponents always go for assassinate/abor even if I only have 3 because they think it's a 2 for 1. But it's not... And they pay for it.

 

But your comment here makes me question if my plan is viable.

 

Are you saying that a destroyed unit can only count for 1 secondary objective, even if it qualifies for 2 or 3 secondary objectives?

 

Have I missed something in the rules that prevents that double dipping strategy?

[Archadeus]

I typically run a pure Ravenwing list and they picked up a new secondary in their codex.. Death on the Wind, which is in the No Mercy category. 2 VP for any enemy unit destroyed by a Ravenwing unit that moved 12" or more in the movement phase that turn or made a charge move that turn. So if my whole army is Ravenwing and I keep everything moving or charging, then everything can score that objective.

 

My plan when facing off against Grey Knights, was to take Assassinate, Abhor the Witch, and Death on the Wind as my secondary objectives. I assumed I would get credit for all 3 secondary objectives if I took out a psyker Character (3+5+2 VP per), credit for 2 secondary if I took out a non-character psyker unit (0+3+2 VP per) or a non-psyker character (3+0+2 VP per), and credit for 1 secondary if I took out anything that wasn't a character or a psyker (0+0+2 VP per).

 

I'm not assuming the fight will be easy by any means, because GK units are much better in assault than RW units, and I have no psychic defense. So the hope is to just run up the score board as quickly as possible and rely on my speed and Jink to slow down how fast you kill me, and hopefully I can wipe enough of your units to win.

 

 

My opponents always go for assassinate/abor even if I only have 3 because they think it's a 2 for 1. But it's not... And they pay for it.

But your comment here makes me question if my plan is viable.

 

Are you saying that a destroyed unit can only count for 1 secondary objective, even if it qualifies for 2 or 3 secondary objectives?

 

Have I missed something in the rules that prevents that double dipping strategy?

No I was simply implying I dont throw my characters away.

[ValourousHeart]

 

No I was simply implying I dont throw my characters away.

 

That makes sense.