Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

People are just upset that codex GK isn't codex GK/inquisition/assasins any more. Personally I'm ok with them making the GK codex actually about GK instead of people fielding a "GK" list where 2/3 of the models weren't even GK. It's still a strong book, especially as allies to marines. Quite a few players in my local meta have started GK since the new book came out and my meta is all tournament lists so it must not be all that bad.

What is there to say about GKs anymore?

Your going to be taking Dreadknights, Termies as troops, and a ML3 Libby everytime, toss in the odd Draigo.

Those units literally form the basis for their own standalone army, as well as a allied detachment if you're playing as something else.

Lots of options were lost with the codex change, so either we just don't play or we suck it up and do so. Our Dreadnought were head and shoulders above everyone elses, not anymore. Purgation Squads "compete" (lol) with Dreadknights for the HS slot. Strikes now serve to be a cheap way to fill the troop slot if you're looking on maxing Dreadknights.

The unit that really did get direct upgrade besides the DK are Purifiers with their ML2 and nova, but in turn were hurt with the lack of +2 int halberds as they fall as easily as a tac marine still and we still lack a good in-codex way to deliver them. We look to SW allies for that now.

I just want my Mordrak back :(

chnmmr wrote:
For me, the reason I am not saying much and I am sure others are not saying much is because there is little to say. There is very little to this codex, very little variation and mechanically far blander than it was before. I played a game with my GKs vs some nids and while I won, I realised that I'll probably be playing the same librarian/terminator/DKnight list over and over because that is all there is. yes I know there are strike squads, paladins, etc, I just believe that there GK codex is severely limited when it comes to viable lists now.

QFT, though where you will obtain variety is by that of which ally you choose to play alongside... that is if you dont play pure gk

Playing pure anything just isn't that viable any more when everyone uses allies to shore up their weaknesses. GK can be played pure but they will do far better with SM or SW allied in.

It's a combination of things I think.

For starters, I think everyone was semi expecting a subpar released by now, we are used to it - wasn't as much of a surprise as others.

Secondly, the main complaint everyone has about the codexes is not actually that it's poorly written, or lack of playable units, or stupid nerfs, these are all just scapegoat acceptable reasons to express disappointment at the fact that their army got weaker.
I discovered this with the Nid release, as soon as the Skyblight dataslate dropped, 95% of the people complaining about the "blandness" of the codex were suddenly all smiles and thanking GW for coming through with some "better written formations". When in reality, Skyblight is one of the blandest builds in the game, the list practically writes itself, everyone just changed their tune because they received a top Flyer Spam tier build to cheese with. And the reality of the codex being poorly written was still just as prominent as ever, people just used it as a scapegoat to begin with.

GK got stronger, much more blatantly than the other dexes, and also mostly to models already used competitively. Even though they lost more than half their codex, there is the least complaining so far. This is not a coincidence.

 SHUPPET wrote:
It's a combination of things I think.

For starters, I think everyone was semi expecting a subpar released by now, we are used to it - wasn't as much of a surprise as others.

Secondly, the main complaint everyone has about the codexes is not actually that it's poorly written, or lack of playable units, or stupid nerfs, these are all just scapegoat acceptable reasons to express disappointment at the fact that their army got weaker.
I discovered this with the Nid release, as soon as the Skyblight dataslate dropped, 95% of the people complaining about the "blandness" of the codex were suddenly all smiles and thanking GW for coming through with some "better written formations". When in reality, Skyblight is one of the blandest builds in the game, the list practically writes itself, everyone just changed their tune because they received a top Flyer Spam tier build to cheese with. And the reality of the codex being poorly written was still just as prominent as ever, people just used it as a scapegoat to begin with.

GK got stronger, much more blatantly than the other dexes, and also mostly to models already used competitively. Even though they lost more than half their codex, there is the least complaining so far. This is not a coincidence.

Totally agree, Gk players lost half its codex, but as long as they are still highly competitive, nobody seems to care to much. I mean tbh there is literally 1 build to play then you + an ally and that is Draigo, Libby, Termis and 2x Knights but as long as it does work and is enjoyable to the player... no complaints.

I believe that give it a month or 2 and GK players will stop playing as much given the totally linear nature of the faction right now. I mean you go that build or some manner of Deepstriking 4 Terminator squads, and even then the list looks very much the same, because all you added were 3-5man terminator units, maybe a unit of interceptors combat squaded and a stormraven... I mean at the end of the day... one can only play a list so many times and win until they finally bore of playing out the same strategy over and over again.

My opinion is that codex driven problems have been reduced and ONLY power gamers pretty much complain too loudly. The Main ruleset makes play so much better and Im just happy wit hthe direction honestly.

And there we are again with the problems of pleasing a heterogeneous fanbase. In the past GW tried to please them all, make some models more powerful ("Sure, they make the expensive models strong to sell more of them"), add new models that are not auto includes ("They add useless gak that nobody plays") and generally add a variety of rules ("All those rules without clear precedence are not well written and conflict with others").

I think everyone is better off if they take the risk of pissing those off who want variety and instead create codices that are clearly written, usable and have reduced complexity. Complexity comes with the addition of allies, if wanted, and if all those rules are grouped in codices, supplements and dataslates it is easier for GW to fix problems without having to republish large parts of their merchandise. After all it's a huge cost issue if you have shipped codices in all stores and then a new one comes.

chnmmr wrote:
For me, the reason I am not saying much and I am sure others are not saying much is because there is little to say. There is very little to this codex, very little variation and mechanically far blander than it was before. I played a game with my GKs vs some nids and while I won, I realised that I'll probably be playing the same librarian/terminator/DKnight list over and over because that is all there is. yes I know there are strike squads, paladins, etc, I just believe that there GK codex is severely limited when it comes to viable lists now.

That being said though, they make it easy for GK to ally or be allies and I think that is where the creativity truly begins. I actually like that the GKs aren't self-sufficient and need allies or be allies because it allows the encouraged use of other codices. I know that makes it so someone who wants to play GK would have to buy two codices at least for them to get the most out of their army but in the end it is nice. When this new Codex came out, I went into a list making creative mode like I have never done before because before hand, the GK were so expensive, they needed to be taken as a lone force or with huge amounts of henchman which I saw spoiling the flavor of the GK as much as having to ally them to other Imperial forces. Now? I am working up different ways to run them with my Imperial Fists and Imperial Knight, and now they feel like that exclusive fighting force like they are suppose to be as an Imperial Force comes in from the front laying down fire, the GK DS in the back striking at a key point to cripple an enemy. That is everything a GK is suppose to be and I love it even if the standard template for the GK is Librarian, Terminators and DKs.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Dezstiny wrote:

 SHUPPET wrote:
It's a combination of things I think.

For starters, I think everyone was semi expecting a subpar released by now, we are used to it - wasn't as much of a surprise as others.

Secondly, the main complaint everyone has about the codexes is not actually that it's poorly written, or lack of playable units, or stupid nerfs, these are all just scapegoat acceptable reasons to express disappointment at the fact that their army got weaker.
I discovered this with the Nid release, as soon as the Skyblight dataslate dropped, 95% of the people complaining about the "blandness" of the codex were suddenly all smiles and thanking GW for coming through with some "better written formations". When in reality, Skyblight is one of the blandest builds in the game, the list practically writes itself, everyone just changed their tune because they received a top Flyer Spam tier build to cheese with. And the reality of the codex being poorly written was still just as prominent as ever, people just used it as a scapegoat to begin with.

GK got stronger, much more blatantly than the other dexes, and also mostly to models already used competitively. Even though they lost more than half their codex, there is the least complaining so far. This is not a coincidence.

Totally agree, Gk players lost half its codex, but as long as they are still highly competitive, nobody seems to care to much. I mean tbh there is literally 1 build to play then you + an ally and that is Draigo, Libby, Termis and 2x Knights but as long as it does work and is enjoyable to the player... no complaints.

I believe that give it a month or 2 and GK players will stop playing as much given the totally linear nature of the faction right now. I mean you go that build or some manner of Deepstriking 4 Terminator squads, and even then the list looks very much the same, because all you added were 3-5man terminator units, maybe a unit of interceptors combat squaded and a stormraven... I mean at the end of the day... one can only play a list so many times and win until they finally bore of playing out the same strategy over and over again.

I disagree because that is the beauty of DSing in the first place, the flexibility of being able to put units where you need them, hopefully, when you need them. I have never had a a rinse repeat strategy with GK despite having pretty much the same list for a good while and I haven't gotten bored either because each battle is different with a different mission set and a person who uses different tactics. You can't play Maelstrom missions like you would regular missions and you can't just go killing things either. Part of the reason I have won my games is applying DS in the correct ways to win the mission and this makes so no battle is the same, only set up is quicker because I know what I am taking all the time. DS is probably one of the most flexible mechanics for getting units around where they need to be besides using units like bikes and on top of that, we have shunters. Using the same tactics every game because you are using the same list every time is just bad strategy.

 Jancoran wrote:
My opinion is that codex driven problems have been reduced and ONLY power gamers pretty much complain too loudly. The Main ruleset makes play so much better and Im just happy wit hthe direction honestly.

Interesting opinion. Any supporting logic as to why it's STRICTLY limited to power gamers who might be upset at losing half their codex and being herded into one of the most blandest monolist codexes since SoB? Because you didn't mention any. I mean there is practically one sensible build in the dex, sure the dex is stronger than it used to be, but far more linear.

Logic how I see it, is that power gamers would be the only ones HAPPY with these changes. They get to win more games, and they are the type of people who don't care about anything BUT the strongest monobuild, so no loss to them whatsoever.

Calling everyone who disagrees with your opinion a powergamer, regardless of which side of the fence they sit on, isn't going to hold for very long. The people asking for better internal balance and complaining about lack of options and list building versatility from their dex are not the powergamers, the people complaining that they didn't get a top tier build or a Rapetide level MC are the powergamers. Except they did get one. Hence why they aren't complaining.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Envihon wrote:

chnmmr wrote:
For me, the reason I am not saying much and I am sure others are not saying much is because there is little to say. There is very little to this codex, very little variation and mechanically far blander than it was before. I played a game with my GKs vs some nids and while I won, I realised that I'll probably be playing the same librarian/terminator/DKnight list over and over because that is all there is. yes I know there are strike squads, paladins, etc, I just believe that there GK codex is severely limited when it comes to viable lists now.

That being said though, they make it easy for GK to ally or be allies and I think that is where the creativity truly begins. I actually like that the GKs aren't self-sufficient and need allies or be allies because it allows the encouraged use of other codices. I know that makes it so someone who wants to play GK would have to buy two codices at least for them to get the most out of their army but in the end it is nice. When this new Codex came out, I went into a list making creative mode like I have never done before because before hand, the GK were so expensive, they needed to be taken as a lone force or with huge amounts of henchman which I saw spoiling the flavor of the GK as much as having to ally them to other Imperial forces. Now? I am working up different ways to run them with my Imperial Fists and Imperial Knight, and now they feel like that exclusive fighting force like they are suppose to be as an Imperial Force comes in from the front laying down fire, the GK DS in the back striking at a key point to cripple an enemy. That is everything a GK is suppose to be and I love it even if the standard template for the GK is Librarian, Terminators and DKs.

Posts like this hurt my head.

You are celebrating the fact that you have LESS options, and are linearly pushed into one build or forced into taking an ally.

Allies are in no way a defense of a codex's flaws, because.... you are discussing using a new codex. This is one of the most poorly written releases yet, I'd almost say it's worse than the Nid one. I'm already unimpressed, not sure how I'd feel if I was a GK player.

The GK competitive crowd has long ago moved on to other armies. Besides them, not many people wanted to play GK. They were incredibly bland in fluff with a lot of mary sue descriptions and not much in the way of actually distinguishing features in the fluff. Ooo they are all psykers. That really doesnt mean much in terms of fluff since they rarely give descriptions of them actually doing anything more than denying other pskers with this ability.

In gameplay they were VERY boring. LITERALLY every single PA squad could be replaced with an upgrade to strike squads. Characters are pretty meh across the board now that the interesting inquisitors arent there.NDK is just a face-palm bad model that is brokenly OP in 7th (but, like the 5th tervigon, the only thing the codex has).

So, boring codex+ Marine army (easier to convert to another marine army)+nerfed codex= far less interest.

 SHUPPET wrote:

Interesting opinion. Any supporting logic as to why it's STRICTLY limited to power gamers who might be upset at losing half their codex and being herded into one of the most blandest monolist codexes since SoB? Because you didn't mention any. I mean there is practically one sensible build in the dex, sure the dex is stronger than it used to be, but far more linear.

Calling everyone who disagrees with your opinion a powergamer, regardless of which side of the fence they sit on, isn't going to hold for very long. .

Overstating my opinion to make a point doesnt hold for very long either.

Power gamers DO in fact, complain more loudly. One can say otherwise if one wants to but...

I do not IN FACT hear a bunch of fluff gamers getting up in arms about much of anything unless its...yes.,..fluff. Or maybe they just hate change. But people who hate change are not NEARLY as loud. Just loudER.

And I hear this monobuild thing all the time. Im not going to go through the annuls of history and give you 50 links to prove the bitching and complaining starts before they even see the damn thing but trust me: I could. EVERY codex gets this silly label of Mono-build. Not buying. Sorry, but with all respect that is due, not buying. Cant name ONE codex right now that is "monobuild" and even less than zero that ever were before that. Its a myth. It SOUNDS good so people say it and because it SOUNDs good or sage, people buy it. Not this hombre.

I understand that the first and most obvious build jumps out at people sometimes but after playing for a bit you rapidly learn that myth. Remember the leafblower. Sure. It'll getcha. Once. It was monobuild right? And power gamers with their focus on winning HATE it when they lose their pet toy that won them lots of toys. Dont tell me otherwise. Ive seen a dude rage quit over it and he was actually GOOD. Just too lazy to be bothered with looking a little deeper.

Now you're not wrong about one thing. Power Gamers are okay with uber builds wherever they find them but like most gamers, they dont lose their chance to whine and complain first. No no no. But far more vociferous are their complaints than any of the serious generals who "get" the game and dont NEED win buttons to play. For us: Meh. I am going to play Purifiers because I happen to like them and they're painted. I am going to kill a lot of people with them and when someone explains to me that my 100 wins or whatever that total reaches were anecdotal I'll just tell them how much fun "anecdotal" is and smile. Cause the scoreboard at the end of the day is going to make me look wise or like a liar. I'll own it either way it goes. But at least I'll have spared you the sky is falling attitude which one hopes you'll appreciate me for THEN if not NOW.

So basically, you're a casual gamer, and anybody else who would like to see codexes balanced competitively and equally is a PowerGamer?

Why can't people who enjoy the competitiveness of a strategy game just be competitive gamers?

Obviously there is no balance related problems for people who don't care about balance and only care about "which models look cool".

 SHUPPET wrote:
So basically, you're a casual gamer, and anybody else who would like to see codexes balanced competitively and equally is a PowerGamer?

Why can't people who enjoy the competitiveness of a strategy game just be competitive gamers?

Again, dont oversimplify my point. Im not a casual gamer. Ask around.

What metric are people using to state that GK are highly competitive? I'm not a GK player, myself.

In any case, I think people are more or less apathetic about the entire situation by now. The latest string of codices aren't like how they used to be, where there was always the possibility that the latest codex might be the next Eldar, or Tau, or Necrons on the power-scale. Every codex since the Tyranid codex has basically just been the same as its prior edition, with a bunch of options/flavor removed and points drops sprinkled over everything, maybe a token new unit that no one gives a gak about (Haruspex, Bullgryns etc).

So now we have Grey Knights, and what do we get? It's pretty much a resounding "meh". Stuff was taken out of it and sold separately as DLC, and a few points drops were sprinkled around to make most things slightly better. Oh and some of the good stuff like psycannons were nerfed because lulz.

After Tyranids, Imperial Guard, Orks and Space Wolves, this seems to be pretty par the course. I have no doubt the Deldar codex is going to be the same.

If someone was to ask me and I'm sure pretty much anyone else what the definition of a casual 40k player is, the simplest answer is "someone who takes models that look cool instead of building a cohesive list with better balanced models from the dex". It doesn't mean you play less, it doesn't mean you care less about the game, it merely means you approach the game with a different attitude than people who do care about rules balancing. But whatever, you aren't a casual gamer, your definition of a casual isn't even relevant to my statement which you blatantly skirted, my point is how come anybody who mentions the bad balancing inside a dex has to be a "power gamer"?

 SHUPPET wrote:
If someone was to ask me and I'm sure pretty much anyone else what the definition of a casual 40k player is, the simplest answer is "someone who takes models that look cool instead of building a cohesive list with better balanced models from the dex". It doesn't mean you play less, it doesn't mean you care less about the game, it merely means you approach the game with a different attitude than people who do care about rules balancing. But whatever, you aren't a casual gamer, your definition of a casual isn't even relevant to my statement which you blatantly skirted, my point is how come anybody who mentions the bad balancing inside a dex has to be a "power gamer"?

I know that was your question. Your question is based on things I didn't state or that we havent agreed are true!

I didnt say anyone who "mentions...", you are claiming "bad balancing" which I recognize as being highly subjective; and your "reactive question" here also ignores my answer in which I said that they didn't have to be a power gamer to COMPLAIN.

So I didnt skirt it. I just am not going to allow you to change the terms of what I said nor presuppose things we dont agree on. Thats simple enough i think.

So IF your question is WHY do I find the practice of "saying its monobuild" ANNOYING? I think I answered it. And that answer sort of extends in the broader sense to the GENERAL misasma of negativity espoused every time a Codex drops and someones army has to change or whatever.

Let me ask you a point blank question. Why do I, your "casual gamer" (Im not offended by the way, but its not accurate) win? Why? Why does it work, regardless fo the codex? My blog might give you some insight.

Now take whatever answer you came up with and answer the next question: Youre not dumber than me; so if it works for me, CAN it work for you? The obvious answer: yes. It can be duplicated. The game isnt so arcane that you cant execute the most basic function of monkies: mimicking. You just need to change your thinking. And isnt it how we think about this stuff that we've been talking about?

While I will READILY agree that the codexes are only "roughly" fair and that certain specific matchups will at least give an edge to an opponent... Why are we talking about EXCEPTIONS as if they are rules? That seems wrong minded to me.

So I, a competitive player with a dozen best overalls and like 4 times that in Best General Awards can tell you that this codex, while not the worlds greatest (Im not stupid) is also pretty much par forthe course: easier to play and understand and a lot more like an actual Daemon Hunter codex than the previous one. Do i like it all. Nope. Do i need to? Nope.

 MWHistorian wrote:

 Andilus Greatsword wrote:

 ClassicCarraway wrote:
Well, to be fair, most of the whining dies down after the book actually comes out. Prior to every new codex, people see the rumors, leaks, etc, lose their mind, come on Dakka and BOLS and rant and rave how they are done, selling the army, etc.

Then the codex is released, players play a few games, and suddenly all is calm. This happened with Marines, AM, Orks, Space Wolves, and now Grey Knights. Nids seems to be one of the few exceptions as there is still alot of grumbling and grousing on that one.

To be fair, there wasn't a lot of complaining about SM, AM or SW... and most of the complaining that did exist were in regards to BT getting folded and crappy new models (Centurions, Tauroxes, etc), nothing about the actual Codices. I'm still complaining about what they did to Nids...

And Chaos Space Marines.

Exactly. When there are valid complaints, the complaints are much louder and last much longer, compared to the "eh, I could do with/without ___" that characterizes the other "complaining" when a new Codex drops.

 Andilus Greatsword wrote:

 MWHistorian wrote:

 Andilus Greatsword wrote:

 ClassicCarraway wrote:
Well, to be fair, most of the whining dies down after the book actually comes out. Prior to every new codex, people see the rumors, leaks, etc, lose their mind, come on Dakka and BOLS and rant and rave how they are done, selling the army, etc.

Then the codex is released, players play a few games, and suddenly all is calm. This happened with Marines, AM, Orks, Space Wolves, and now Grey Knights. Nids seems to be one of the few exceptions as there is still alot of grumbling and grousing on that one.

To be fair, there wasn't a lot of complaining about SM, AM or SW... and most of the complaining that did exist were in regards to BT getting folded and crappy new models (Centurions, Tauroxes, etc), nothing about the actual Codices. I'm still complaining about what they did to Nids...

And Chaos Space Marines.

Exactly. When there are valid complaints, the complaints are much louder and last much longer, compared to the "eh, I could do with/without ___" that characterizes the other "complaining" when a new Codex drops.

Nids and Chaos are inexcusably bad.
Nids, Chaos, and SOB are mono-build armies. (Yes, they do exist.) If you want to win with chaos, gotta go for nurgle+olbiterators+heldrake. For SOB, it's so limited that it's take as many exorcists and dominion squads as you can.

I was a fluffy player but the codex imbalances (internal and external) really helped push me out of the game. I was tired of the units I liked (repentia, penitent engines) being worthless on the field. I was tired of losing just because I fought a certain army. I'm not a competitive guy, but I don't like being punished for taking units I liked.

The issue win the Nid codex is the terrible internal balance. Out of the top 10 worst models in the game, I'd be surprised if at least 5 of them are not n the Nid dex. Almost 2/3's of our codex is not just uncompetitive but borderline unplayable and requires a fight to find a way to even include in a list. They nerfed terrible units that were already unplayable, into a further state of uselessness. They removed units without models. This is annoying when you lose a few named unique characters like AM did. It's deadset crippling to an entire style of play when it's your army's only transport in the game, and the units that get models instead are the freaking Haruspex and the Harpy. Really badly modelled at that I might add. We also lost the versatility of BRB powers, all our useable biomorph upgrades where nerfed and replaced with junk, we got a bunch of relics, and not once, still never, have I ever seen them even considered in a sensible list. Not a single one is even PLAYABLE. Nerfs to Synapse, nerfs to every single Synapse UNIT. Nerfs to every single CC weapon, nerfs to our Psychic Powers themselves brb aside, nerfs to our casters. Nerfs to the freaking Swarmlord who just became the worst model in the dex. The only thing that wasn't suitably nerfed was our troops, who were for the most part ignored, and still see zero play as always. Outside of the Tervigon, who was played, so he of course was nerfed to a state where he now sees zero play.

Then to compound all this, it was clearly written with 7th in mind, and yet not a single army had more units nerfed harder than Nids did. Smash nerfed to oblivion, FMC assault nerfed to oblivion, Vektor Strike nerfed to oblivion, we have units literally dedicated to doing all 3 of these things. The survivability of tanks being buffed, combined with the fact that we have no tanks, and the fact that all our AT from the last codex was suitably nerfed into "never taken" mode, and now our dex basically survives on the buffed Dakkafex, supported by some more focused models on the sidelines.



I'm not sure which release was handled worse. Nids or GK. Nids didn't get an NDK model so there was much more whinging truthfully stemming from this fact. However, OP models aside, I'm not sure what I would be less happier with. GK is actually probably worse. They give up the pretence of even bothering. I honestly feel for the legit GK mariners out there who wanted to see their dex rebalanced, not just a bunch of gak cut being made up for with an OP pubstomper

 Andilus Greatsword wrote:
Exactly. When there are valid complaints, the complaints are much louder and last much longer, compared to the "eh, I could do with/without ___" that characterizes the other "complaining" when a new Codex drops.

Not to mention that you often see the exact same people complaining in every post about every new codices. It's basically a baggage train of whiners that follow all the new releases around.

And does that make legitimate gripes any less relevant?

 Jidmah wrote:

 Andilus Greatsword wrote:
Exactly. When there are valid complaints, the complaints are much louder and last much longer, compared to the "eh, I could do with/without ___" that characterizes the other "complaining" when a new Codex drops.

Not to mention that you often see the exact same people complaining in every post about every new codices. It's basically a baggage train of whiners that follow all the new releases around.

Seem to recall you in those exact same threads saying everything was fine, nothing was broken. Weird!

 Purifier wrote:
And yet, after the first few cries of "there's nothing left!" before the book was released, I've not really read any whine about it. Personally, I quite like the new book.
I guess the people that were never really interested in the GKs moved on to the Inquisition book, and the rest of us enjoyed the terminator buff enough to keep us satisfied.

Many of us have moved further from GW and 40k. The exodus has only increased in speed since 7th so you might see less complaining because there are less people here to complain. As was said a few times in these discussions, the worst thing for GW is for us to become apathetic - GW moved me there very rapidly with the release of 7th, the day one dlc and the gutting of codices. Now I really just don't care what they do.

GK aren't so much mono-list as maybe having 2-3 possible lists and only one viable play style.

I cannot see anyone defending splitting up $30 of content into $95 worth of content, deleting handfuls of things, and adding nothing of note (warlord traits, y'all!). Still the most asinine thing that's happened to the codex and it invalidated armies.

So yea, I still say that there isn't a big stink over GK just because people just packed up and left/shelved the army.

 Yonan wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:

 Andilus Greatsword wrote:
Exactly. When there are valid complaints, the complaints are much louder and last much longer, compared to the "eh, I could do with/without ___" that characterizes the other "complaining" when a new Codex drops.

Not to mention that you often see the exact same people complaining in every post about every new codices. It's basically a baggage train of whiners that follow all the new releases around.

Seem to recall you in those exact same threads saying everything was fine, nothing was broken. Weird!

I remember him generally just complaining about people complaining without explaining how any of their complaints are unfounded. And here we are. What's changed?

 TheKbob wrote:
I cannot see anyone defending splitting up $30 of content into $95 worth of content, deleting handfuls of things, and adding nothing of note (warlord traits, y'all!). Still the most asinine thing that's happened to the codex and it invalidated armies.

So yea, I still be that there isn't a big stink over GK just because people just packed up and left/shelved the army.

Ta da! We have a winner. I still haven't purchased the new GK dex, the Inquisition digital dex I now need to play what I could play before and the Assassins dataslate which I also now need to play.

 MWHistorian wrote:

Nids, Chaos, and SOB are mono-build armies. (Yes, they do exist.) If you want to win with chaos, gotta go for nurgle+olbiterators+heldrake. For SOB, it's so limited that it's take as many exorcists and dominion squads as you can.
.

I cant disagree more. I play Night Lords successfully. I play Sisters of Battle EXTREMELY successfully. One of the best Sisters of Battle armies Ive seen was a GREAT combination of units. Just one Exorcist, two SMALL Dominion squads and the rest was things like Penitent Engines, 2 Immolatiors for them, a Retributor squad and the big thing was the LandRaider with Battle Conclave and priests which was positively a GREAT unit. It did WORK and took it like a champ.

My list looks nothing like it. Both my Sisters lists look nothing like each other. One is a ton of armor and the other is a ton of bodies. His hybrid was a little of both. Regardless, I think the assertion on mono builds, again, is mythical.

I actually kind of agree to an extent. Some codexes have a pretty clear cut best style of build, with maybe minor differences here and there. I think GK is one of them, Tau and Eldar are others. I think they share in some is some really bad balanced models in the direction of OP that make it hard to justify taking anything else. Eldar has other playable builds, Tau you can play differently and still compete with as well, but at the end of the day there is a clear cut mono build in the competitive scene. Tyranids have a bit of variation with ground lists being strong as well as flyer spam being popular, CSM is most definitely not a mono build dex, even sisters seems to have no clear cut best build although I'm admittedly not fully up to par with my knowledge on this army.

So while I agree that a lot of armies aren't mono builds, a lot are. But mono build or not, it's a terrible term that gets thrown around to describe different criticism far too often - mono build or not, Zyranid and CSM sexes are still in need of major fab lance fixes.

 SHUPPET wrote:
I actually kind of agree to an extent. Some codexes have a pretty clear cut best style of build, with maybe minor differences here and there. I think GK is one of them, Tau and Eldar are others. I think they share in some is some really bad balanced models in the direction of OP that make it hard to justify taking anything else. Eldar has other playable builds, Tau you can play differently and still compete with as well, but at the end of the day there is a clear cut mono build in the competitive scene. Tyranids have a bit of variation with ground lists being strong as well as flyer spam being popular, CSM is most definitely not a mono build dex, even sisters seems to have no clear cut best build although I'm admittedly not fully up to par with my knowledge on this army.

So while I agree that a lot of armies aren't mono builds, a lot are. But mono build or not, it's a terrible term that gets thrown around to describe different criticism far too often - mono build or not, Zyranid and CSM sexes are still in need of major fab lance fixes.

Sisters and GK both have the problem of lacking in options in general though, they're almost written as an ally-dex, like Militarum Tempestus or Imperial Knights. In this sense, they may not be mono-build, but they don't have a lot of choices in a viable list.

And before someone pounces on me this, of course, is discounting the casual gamer who can take whatever the heck they want in their army without a worry about making a strong list (eg, Chaplain, a couple AA tanks, Scouts and Tac Marines and Tactical Termies in a single list - not bad, but far from a truly viable build).