This nonsense with the new beta deepstrike rules did bring one thing to my attention that wasn't obvious before: the powerlevels in this game are not well thought out.... and they are now the basis for determining how much of your army gets to DS!
3 paladins: 10PL, adding 2 +9PL, adding 7 +22PL
These numbers make no f'ing sense... Especially not when you think about the fact that a stormraven is 15PL, costing 354p while my terminators only cost 275p, but come at a MASSIVE 19PL to be allowed to deepstrike.
Thank you for finding that! This made my morning. In my mind, that solidifies the argument against GoI being restricted to own deployment zone in T1. I wish it was more explicit in the BRB, but I think based on the Xenos FAQ information, reinforcements / tactical reserves are set up off the board before the game begins. In fact, you could just re-word it as such:
Q: If, in a matched play game, I use the GREY KNIGHT’S
GATE OF INFINITY ability to remove the unit from the battlefield during the
third or subsequent battle round, does the Tactical Reserves rule
mean they count as destroyed?
A: No. The unit must already have arrived on the
battlefield before the end of the third battle round in
order to be able to use the GATE OF INFINITY ability.
However, if the unit used its TELEPORT STRIKE
ability to set up in A TELEPORTARIUM during deployment, and it
had not arrived by the end of third battle round, then it
would count as destroyed in a matched play game due to
the Tactical Reserves rule.
The unit must have already arrived to use the ability. Not reinforcements. So, yay, I'm going to Gate wherever I want in the 1st round. BUT, with the above said, I think it's fair to say we probably can't deepstrike into our own zone on turn 1 then Gate outside it, just based on what the spirit appears to be with Warptime. We're probably going to have to deploy whatever we want to move on the board before 1st turn and be subject to shooting alphas if we go 2nd.
did GMNDK just get a little better now that you can keep one on the board to GOI into your opponents deployment to shoot without fear of getting shot by first turn DS units ?
zedsdead wrote: did GMNDK just get a little better now that you can keep one on the board to GOI into your opponents deployment to shoot without fear of getting shot by first turn DS units ?
Sort of, you are still vulnerable to long range strikes if you can't hide it or the enemy has indirect fire units. Though you can now use Heed on him on the first turn too, giving him the effective "2+ inv save"
He can still be shot at by other models on the board and even though armies can't DS 1st turn doesn't mean that they can't charge 1st turn. See GSC and slaanesh daemons.
Though you can now use Heed on him on the first turn too, giving him the effective "2+ inv save"
You should really twist the rules to support that claim, 'cause they are very clearly intended to make 3++ the best possible invulnerable save in the game. I personally would never do it in a friendly game and I have a serious doubt any TO would let you do it at the event.
Leo_the_Rat wrote: He can still be shot at by other models on the board and even though armies can't DS 1st turn doesn't mean that they can't charge 1st turn. See GSC and slaanesh daemons.
Or Orks using Da Jump, for that matter. Get ready for 30 Boyz lookin' for a good time on turn 1.
Though you can now use Heed on him on the first turn too, giving him the effective "2+ inv save"
You should really twist the rules to support that claim, 'cause they are very clearly intended to make 3++ the best possible invulnerable save in the game. I personally would never do it in a friendly game and I have a serious doubt any TO would let you do it at the event.
I don't feel like I am twisting the rules at all, one gives you +1 inv save, other gives +1 to saving rolls, the rule doesn't affect this, they didn't faq it and none I've played had any issue with it. If anything I assume they intended to prevent a unit from effectively exploiting a 1+ save threshold and becoming invulnerable. And frankly GKs need any help they get
Elmir wrote: They did in fact FAQ that sanctuary can't take an invul to behond 3++.
Yes because people were doing Heed and Sanctuary on Draigo which already had a natural 3+ inv save, so effectively while you had CP he was immortal to anything except mortal wounds. Heed the prognasticators doesn't say it improves the inv saves, it says you add +1 to your save roll, so it doesn't conflict with the rule.
Leo_the_Rat wrote: Page 177 of the rulebook covers units being set up mid-turn as being reinforcements.
Just want to follow this up, because if the interpretation stands that GoI restrictions on turn 1 are facilitated by the rules for "Reinforcements" on page 177 and not specific to "Tactical Reserves" in the FAQ / page 215, then using GoI after turn 3 means that you auto kill your unit.
I'm following the logic like this:
GoI restricted to own zone on turn 1 is realized because the unit is removed from the table, enters reserves / is undeployed, then is subject to rules that restrict deployment before it can be put back on the table. It "becomes" reinforcements when it's removed from the table, per that interpretation. Therefore, when used during matched play and you follow this interpretation, you manifest GoI on turn 4, the unit is removed from the table, enters reserves / is undeployed, and then gaffled because any unit that did not "arrive" before turn 3 is automatically destroyed.
How could we be subject to "reinforcements" rules on turn 1 and not turn 4, right?
That's why I really don't see the rules on page 177 subjecting any effect to Gate if the unit was actually deployed to the board before turn 1 / normal deployment. We're not teleporting them away and bringing in a new unit to reinforce them - it's the same unit already there.
The bigger question in my mind is if you can GoI someone that just arrived from deep strike, or if they are subject to the same new limitations that are on Warptime. That's more iffy, in my mind. If you can gate someone that just arrived from DS, then we have an advantage of teleporting a GMDK into your own zone on T1 and then shooting him over into the face of your opponent, presumably with some Interceptors. Some folks might not like that so much.
Edit - Just for reference, since I was asked to read the rules carefuly, here's what's on page 177 from the BRB (cut and pasted):
REINFORCEMENTS
Many units have the ability to be set up on the battlefield mid-turn, sometimes by using teleporters, grav chutes or other, more esoteric means. Typically, this happens at the end of the Movement phase, but it can also happen during other phases. Units that are set up in this manner cannot move or Advance further during the turn they arrive – their entire Movement phase is used in deploying to the battlefield – but they can otherwise act normally (shoot, charge, etc.) for the rest of their turn. Units that arrive as reinforcements count as having moved in their Movement phase for all rules purposes, such as shooting Heavy weapons (pg 180). Any unit that has not arrived on the battlefield by the end of the battle counts as having been destroyed
Here's page 215 Tactical reserves (cut and pasted):
TACTICAL RESERVES
Instead of being set up on the battlefield during Deployment, many units have the ability to be set up on teleportariums, in high orbit, in Reserve, etc., in order to arrive on the battlefield mid-game as reinforcements. When setting up your army during Deployment for a matched play game, at least half the total number of units in your army must be set up on the battlefield, even if every unit in your army has an ability that would allow them to be set up elsewhere. Furthermore, in matched play games, any unit that has not arrived on the battlefield by the end of the third battle round counts as having been destroyed.
So, I get it says "mid-turn." I appreciate the grim outlook too. IF the rule interpretation is legit that GoI would be restricted to own zone on 1st rule because of the above, then you have to kill them in turn 4 if they Gate too. I'd be surprised if that's the intention, but hey, it's Grey Knights, right?
Just as some additional information, in Index: Xenos 1 there is a question about how Swooping Hawks interact with Tactical Reserves killing units after turn 3. It is clearly stated that it does not effect them as long as they have already been on the board before turn 3 as the first time the touch the board is when they "arrive", not every time they are set up again. It uses the same remove from the battlefield, then setup more than 9" away language GoI and Shunt do.
Q: If, in a matched play game, I use the Swooping Hawk’s
Skyleap ability to remove the unit from the battlefield during the
third or subsequent battle round, does the Tactical Reserves rule
mean they count as destroyed?
A: No. The unit must already have arrived on the
battlefield before the end of the third battle round in
order to be able to use the Skyleap ability.
However, if the unit used its Children of Baharroth
ability to set up in the skies during deployment, and it
had not arrived by the end of third battle round, then it
would count as destroyed in a matched play game due to
the Tactical Reserves rule.
This is still Tactical Reserve. Again, the rule stopping you from Gating out T1 is Reinforcements.
Thank you for finding that! This made my morning. In my mind, that solidifies the argument against GoI being restricted to own deployment zone in T1. I wish it was more explicit in the BRB, but I think based on the Xenos FAQ information, reinforcements / tactical reserves are set up off the board before the game begins. In fact, you could just re-word it as such:
Q: If, in a matched play game, I use the GREY KNIGHT’S
GATE OF INFINITY ability to remove the unit from the battlefield during the
third or subsequent battle round, does the Tactical Reserves rule
mean they count as destroyed?
A: No. The unit must already have arrived on the
battlefield before the end of the third battle round in
order to be able to use the GATE OF INFINITY ability.
However, if the unit used its TELEPORT STRIKE
ability to set up in A TELEPORTARIUM during deployment, and it
had not arrived by the end of third battle round, then it
would count as destroyed in a matched play game due to
the Tactical Reserves rule.
The unit must have already arrived to use the ability. Not reinforcements. So, yay, I'm going to Gate wherever I want in the 1st round. BUT, with the above said, I think it's fair to say we probably can't deepstrike into our own zone on turn 1 then Gate outside it, just based on what the spirit appears to be with Warptime. We're probably going to have to deploy whatever we want to move on the board before 1st turn and be subject to shooting alphas if we go 2nd.
Don't party just yet. That FAQ question is for the wrong rule.
Automatically Appended Next Post: See this from another thread:
kadeton wrote: This is the big problem for the "UWoF/GoI/Da Jump isn't reinforcements" argument, from p. 6 of the Rulebook FAQ:
Q: If a unit uses a rule that removes them from the battlefield and then sets them up again, such as the Teleport Homer ability or the Gate of Infinity psychic power, does that unit count as having moved for the purposes of moving and firing Heavy weapons? A: Yes. Treat such units as if they are arriving on the battlefield as reinforcements.
Correct me if I am wrong, but I don't think that interpretation is correct, it just mentions that using those skills count as movement for the heavy penalty.
The new rule says you can only deploy them on your deployment zone if they enter on the battlefield during the 1st turn and the FAQ Freezerassasin encountered says that if they were already on the battlefield that's what counts as the deployment and using skills with such wording doesn't actually make him do a new deployment (therefore not subject to the 3 turn rule).They were already deployed, so you can use GoI and Shunts on the 1st turn. If they FAQ this rule saying otherwise ok, but I will be considering that I can use Interceptors and GoI till I hear otherwise.
There's no restriction on turn 1 deployment in the Reinforcements rule though. The FAQ beta rule on T1 deepstrike restrictions is under Tactical Reserves. So, if Reinforcements is nested into Tactical Reserves, which is what your suggestion is, then anyone who uses any type of remove and re-deploy after turn 3 is deaded, killed good, no save allowed, which I think we all would agree is kind of crazy, but hey, GW.
If Reinforcements and Tactical Reserves are separate, which they seem to be based on that Swooping Hawks FAQ entry, then while for shooting at (Auspect Scan / Interceptor strategems), or shooting with (Heavy weapon penalties as if moved), are affected as if they were coming in as Reinforcements, they are not affected by Tactical Reserve rules. The Swooping Hawks, while a different army's rule, disputes that any Tactical Reserves rule, specific to turn post turn 3 but still relevant, affecting use of any remove / redepoly power as the unit is already deployed on the table. Tactical Reserves is about units deployed in the sky, teleportariums, etc... before the game begins. Not units on the field already. To keep unfair null deployments from happening.
I can't imagine the intention of Gate of Infinity, or Da Jump, or any other power like that is only to be used effectively on turns 2 and 3, being somewhat useless on turn 1 and fatal after turn 4.
That said ... Emailed, hope to see clarification soon.
I would recommend that every single GK player on this thread email GW with their questions regarding Deep Striking and how much it affects our FLUFFY playstyle specifically.
A lot of people from here wrote them for the balance update, because they said that they wanted our opinions/suggestions.
We had a lot.
Basically nothing was included in the balance update, except the Smite thing.
I've lost hope that GW cares.
GuardStrider wrote: Correct me if I am wrong, but I don't think that interpretation is correct, it just mentions that using those skills count as movement for the heavy penalty.
The new rule says you can only deploy them on your deployment zone if they enter on the battlefield during the 1st turn and the FAQ Freezerassasin encountered says that if they were already on the battlefield that's what counts as the deployment and using skills with such wording doesn't actually make him do a new deployment (therefore not subject to the 3 turn rule).They were already deployed, so you can use GoI and Shunts on the 1st turn. If they FAQ this rule saying otherwise ok, but I will be considering that I can use Interceptors and GoI till I hear otherwise.
The new blurb is under the heading Tactical Reserves, but it's wording goes beyond that. See paragraph 2.
[
Furthermore, in matched play games, any unit that arrives on the battlefield during a player's first turn...
Reinforcements begins by saying units that are reinforcements are set up on the battlefield mid-turn. YMDC had a debate on this when we were discussing -1 to Hit penalties and the conclusion was the same. I'd welcome the rules warriors here to start another thread.
There's no restriction on turn 1 deployment in the Reinforcements rule though. The FAQ beta rule on T1 deepstrike restrictions is under Tactical Reserves. So, if Reinforcements is nested into Tactical Reserves, which is what your suggestion is, then anyone who uses any type of remove and re-deploy after turn 3 is deaded, killed good, no save allowed, which I think we all would agree is kind of crazy, but hey, GW.
If Reinforcements and Tactical Reserves are separate, which they seem to be based on that Swooping Hawks FAQ entry, then while for shooting at (Auspect Scan / Interceptor strategems), or shooting with (Heavy weapon penalties as if moved), are affected as if they were coming in as Reinforcements, they are not affected by Tactical Reserve rules. The Swooping Hawks, while a different army's rule, disputes that any Tactical Reserves rule, specific to turn post turn 3 but still relevant, affecting use of any remove / redepoly power as the unit is already deployed on the table. Tactical Reserves is about units deployed in the sky, teleportariums, etc... before the game begins. Not units on the field already. To keep unfair null deployments from happening.
I can't imagine the intention of Gate of Infinity, or Da Jump, or any other power like that is only to be used effectively on turns 2 and 3, being somewhat useless on turn 1 and fatal after turn 4.
That said ... Emailed, hope to see clarification soon.
And how anyone wants to HIWPI is their own business, but don't expect to be able to do it at every tournament or organized play event.
I would recommend that every single GK player on this thread email GW with their questions regarding Deep Striking and how much it affects our FLUFFY playstyle specifically.
A lot of people from here wrote them for the balance update, because they said that they wanted our opinions/suggestions.
We had a lot.
Basically nothing was included in the balance update, except the Smite thing.
I've lost hope that GW cares.
I don't know where you got this quote from but it wasn't me.
GuardStrider wrote: I get what you are saying but that was written before the tactical reserves rule and imo that FAQ answer is overruling how it works it in this case.
It was written before, but I think the FAQ's go the other way. They clearly want you to act like a reserves deployment for everything but destruction.
I just don't want people stumbling on this stuff later, thinking it's settled and going to tournaments where TO's and opponents summarily shut down their entire army. They need to know there's a risk to assuming this will work without contacting a TO ahead of time.
Question for all of you- With the new DS rules what models do we have to worry about hitting our DZ Turn 1?
In my meta I've never seen a Basilisk or Manticore. Usually I had to worry about things dropping out of the sky. I was thinking that transports may be a good way for us to deploy (specifically Raiders and Ravens). There aren't many things that can do too much to the GMDK at range and the transports allow us to probably get into better assault range then a T2 DS. As far as I can see there aren't a lot of things that can now threaten troops in transports expecially if we go first.
Just for the record a Basilisk vs a Raider does around 2 wds, vs a Raven around 1.25 wds. We should easily survive an indirect bombardment.
The problem with the nerf to DS has to do with weapon types and their ranges. Generally, anti-tank has long range, while anti-infantry has mid/short range. (There are of course exceptions, such as melta and snipers, respectively.)
Most of our shooting is short-range anti-infantry, with some long range anti-tank backup from our bigger stuff (like Razors and Dreads).
But other armies have a lot more long-range anti-tank. Guard and Marines and Eldar can all get easy access to las, lances, missiles, etc. Imagine a Dark Angels Plasma gunline. 36" range won't reach across the board, so you can hide.
But now you have a problem: you WANT to deploy on the line so you can get into charge range quicker, but deploying on the line exposes you to another turn of shooting. Same problem against Reapers.
And a Leman Russ squadron doesn't care WHERE you are on the table, they can shoot you.
Other armies have lots of access to long range firepower. We have very little access. If we wait till T2 to drop, there's a significant chance we will be tabled by the end of T1.
And just for the record, it takes 24 Reaper shots (reroll hits) to kill a Land Raider. It takes 8 Dark Angel Plasma Cannons (reroll hits, reroll wounds of 1, +1D). It takes 6 Marine Lascannons (reroll hits and wounds of 1).
In my meta we play with a lot of terrain so I guess I'm thinking that I may be able to hide a Raider ( or at least get it some cover). We also play with ITC rules so no shooting through the 1st floor openings.
I guess I just like the thought of a unit of paladins getting out of a Land Raider and destroying the enemy. The same could be said for purifiers.
I keep hearing about the purifier on the Land Raider tactic, but dunno, aren't the odds of the Land Raider getting close enough to drop the purifiers in smite range very small? I would like to try it but just can't see it working properly
I just wanted to let all concerned GK's know there is a thread up in YMDC now discussing stuff like Gate and Da Jump. No consensus yet but feel free to make arguments there:
3 games since the new FAQ. And got totally blown of the table each time, because I couldn't get to the opponent fast enough and he basically just sat back and shot me with plasma and tanks... anyone knows wich email to gw I should use, to give them my 2 cents about their beta rules?
Thenord wrote: 3 games since the new FAQ. And got totally blown of the table each time, because I couldn't get to the opponent fast enough and he basically just sat back and shot me with plasma and tanks... anyone knows wich email to gw I should use, to give them my 2 cents about their beta rules?
Sounds fun......
The community team gave me this response, with address which is where I sent my comments.
---
Hi Steven, as we're not the folks who write the rules we couldn't comment on the studio's intentions with any rules. What we would recommend, however, is sharing your feedback with the team at 40KFAQ@gwplc.com. All of the changes made in this update have come following feedback shared with us at that address and that is how we will continue to make changes to Warhammer 40,000.
----1
jeffersonian000 wrote: Index Sisters are probably the best index Army in the game, as they truly can wreck face by basically being cheaper Marines. They have always synergized well with GK. Unfortunately, just like GK, Sisters are probably better off without non-Sister units. But, if you do go Sisters, then you can go all Deep Strike GK which is pretty nice.
SJ
Initial impression facing them agrees! Those pump out sick number of anti-infantry shots and they can field sooooo much.
I faced all sisters with orks and I was blown apart without having any chance. Albeit I had battlewagon with meganobz and dreadnought softening my army and terrain was unkind funneling my forces to narrow paths but still. That was scary. Tons of BS3+ bolters in power armour. I was nearly outnumbered by power armour guys! (well girls)
They certainly can bring anti-infantry for GK. How much GK needs that though?
Thenord wrote: 3 games since the new FAQ. And got totally blown of the table each time, because I couldn't get to the opponent fast enough and he basically just sat back and shot me with plasma and tanks... anyone knows wich email to gw I should use, to give them my 2 cents about their beta rules?
Sounds fun......
The community team gave me this response, with address which is where I sent my comments.
---
Hi Steven, as we're not the folks who write the rules we couldn't comment on the studio's intentions with any rules. What we would recommend, however, is sharing your feedback with the team at 40KFAQ@gwplc.com. All of the changes made in this update have come following feedback shared with us at that address and that is how we will continue to make changes to Warhammer 40,000.
----1
I don't mind loosing and for the most part I play to have fun. But the fun part kinda goes away when you don't really stand a chance. The Dark angels army I played vs. in two of the games weren't even optimised, like at all!
Thanks, I'll try that one out..
In the meantime. what do you guys think about adding land raiders/ stormravens to transport our units while getting som proper dakka, also will this FAQ make purgation squad kinda usefull now? 4 psilencers for 113 points?
Yeah, I don't mind losing but I can't see games with this faq being fun at all without GoI and Shunts.
Anyway going to make my first games with it this Saturday and post results, but will use the interceptors and GoI are ok interpretation if no errata comes by then.
That said, since this faq completely broke the lists I was using I scavenged my miniatures collection and created a frankenstein list with a Outrider GK detachment, a IG battalion and a Sororitas Patrol, don't expect much of it but might be fun, that said, it will be barely a GK list now, only 1141 pts of it will be GK.
Well apparently people are calling to question the way the question was phrased because it's just asking if it's usable or not on turn 1 (which always was just on your deployment zone).
That said I feel like the intent is that we can and hopefully an errata will come.
Thenord wrote: So what's the plan now, fill a land raider crusader with strike squads and GOI it up the board turn 1?
Problem with this is you still can't get out until turn 2. If the hope is to gate a crusader I think purifiers would better because of the D6 smite.
I personally think Ravens are still the best option because of the hard to hit rule makes those guard lascannons much less effective hitting on 5s. Shoot up the board get in cover if possible yet close enough.
Drop Purifiers with a doomglaive and deep strike in your GMDKs. Stromhawk interceptor to help kill some other light infantry and you should be good.
The FBGW team have a history of tongue in cheek sarcastic responses. They are literally saying yes you can use those powers turn 1. They are not saying whether those power bypass the new restriction. Frontline Gaming have come out saying it does not bypass the new restriction and since they already have a hotline to the GW design team it becomes difficult to argue RAW and intent.
As noted, this question is just whether it's usable not whether you can leave your deployment zone. In addition, back in the indices, the Facebook team literally gave people flat out wrong answers.
That said, this is a tournament rule so if ITC is saying it means you can't leave your deployment zone then that settles it for like 70% of tournaments.
You have to look at this rule in the context of WHAT THE HELL ARE GW TRYING TO ACHIEVE.
It looks to me like they're trying to reign in the 1st turn blood bath that 8th has become. They seem to be trying to restrict turn 1 charges again and GOI, shunt and Da Jump are abilities to create turn 1 charges. We could argue intent forever because it will always be inconclusive. I believe the intent is to reduce turn 1 charges and the only exceptions they made to this rule are strats like strike from shadows and forward operatives.
The problem here is that some game wide rules change really hurts GK who weren't even going to be OP if theyd kept this ability.
In an attempt to curb some of the other stuff that was happening GK had their only real reliable way of achieving superiority taken away from them.
I've seen several people argue that just deep strike on turn 2 instead like that solves something. If you don't go first as GK with a turn 2 requirement before you can DS in the enemies face you might as well concede. At least if your playing any army that has mobility and/or gunline.
Not only that not, as has been noted GK pay points for these "benefits" as a built in cost and they are increasingly seeming like a negative instead.
Everyone still gets to smite for WC5... Thanks GW our smite still sucks.
But you have GoI... That I can cast once per turn thanks again. Well purifiers have D6 smite... And no reliable delivery methods because of being stuck in a transport for an entire turn.
Well just use interceptors... so once again I have no command points because I can't make use of the Strikes deepstrike ability.
I really think Paladins are once again one of the best options personally. They are tough to remove can shoot well and are excellent in combat. Yes they are expensive and can get wrecked by things like Las and Plasma but if you can create some other targets that need to be dealt with it can allow them to hit the lines.
I really wish Purifiers had their 2 attacks back. 2 attacks plus the D6 smite would make figuring out a way to get them into combat worth the extra points.
This post is all over the place but whatever. I love my GK and I don't want to see them crapped on at every turn whether its incidental or intentional.
greyknight12 wrote: Some people are saying in another thread that ITC has said GOI/shunt can’t take you out of your deployment zone turn 1. No source though.
"No source though" was clearly stated in ignorance of your own signature block: "Hope is the first step on the road to disappointment."
I might be in the minority here, but I'm not even sure why Gate being usable (outside your own DZ) first turn is a question. Tactical Reserves very clearly limits units that did not start the game on the board. Gating a unit already on the board, and/or shunting Interceptors that were already on the board, do not apply to the Tactical Reserves rule.
In an attempt to curb some of the other stuff that was happening GK had their only real reliable way of achieving superiority taken away from them.
I've seen several people argue that just deep strike on turn 2 instead like that solves something. If you don't go first as GK with a turn 2 requirement before you can DS in the enemies face you might as well concede. At least if your playing any army that has mobility and/or gunline.
Not only that not, as has been noted GK pay points for these "benefits" as a built in cost and they are increasingly seeming like a negative instead.
Everyone still gets to smite for WC5... Thanks GW our smite still sucks.
But you have GoI... That I can cast once per turn thanks again. Well purifiers have D6 smite... And no reliable delivery methods because of being stuck in a transport for an entire turn.
Well just use interceptors... so once again I have no command points because I can't make use of the Strikes deepstrike ability.
I really think Paladins are once again one of the best options personally. They are tough to remove can shoot well and are excellent in combat. Yes they are expensive and can get wrecked by things like Las and Plasma but if you can create some other targets that need to be dealt with it can allow them to hit the lines.
I really wish Purifiers had their 2 attacks back. 2 attacks plus the D6 smite would make figuring out a way to get them into combat worth the extra points.
This post is all over the place but whatever. I love my GK and I don't want to see them crapped on at every turn whether its incidental or intentional.
Paladins aren't terribly wrecked by Plasma, thank goodness. That's why they're okayish (along with their Psilencer saturation being not too bad).
In an attempt to curb some of the other stuff that was happening GK had their only real reliable way of achieving superiority taken away from them.
I've seen several people argue that just deep strike on turn 2 instead like that solves something. If you don't go first as GK with a turn 2 requirement before you can DS in the enemies face you might as well concede. At least if your playing any army that has mobility and/or gunline.
Not only that not, as has been noted GK pay points for these "benefits" as a built in cost and they are increasingly seeming like a negative instead.
Everyone still gets to smite for WC5... Thanks GW our smite still sucks.
But you have GoI... That I can cast once per turn thanks again. Well purifiers have D6 smite... And no reliable delivery methods because of being stuck in a transport for an entire turn.
Well just use interceptors... so once again I have no command points because I can't make use of the Strikes deepstrike ability.
I really think Paladins are once again one of the best options personally. They are tough to remove can shoot well and are excellent in combat. Yes they are expensive and can get wrecked by things like Las and Plasma but if you can create some other targets that need to be dealt with it can allow them to hit the lines.
I really wish Purifiers had their 2 attacks back. 2 attacks plus the D6 smite would make figuring out a way to get them into combat worth the extra points.
This post is all over the place but whatever. I love my GK and I don't want to see them crapped on at every turn whether its incidental or intentional.
Paladins aren't terribly wrecked by Plasma, thank goodness. That's why they're okayish (along with their Psilencer saturation being not too bad).
Yea I should of clarified that I mean like Leman russ Executioner and plasma cannon tanks. Not so much plasma guns.
I still love running paladins matter of fact that's my only infantry currently in my GK I do have 15 PAGK to build but waiting in until I finish painting my GMDK and stormraven before I move onto that.
greyknight12 wrote: Some people are saying in another thread that ITC has said GOI/shunt can’t take you out of your deployment zone turn 1. No source though.
ITC is known to make stuff up where ever they think it's necessary.
greyknight12 wrote: Some people are saying in another thread that ITC has said GOI/shunt can’t take you out of your deployment zone turn 1. No source though.
ITC is known to make stuff up where ever they think it's necessary.
They've also been implementing a lot that would become a GW rule this edition too, probably because they know in advance what's coming.
So let me get this straight... I get first turn and have interceptors deployed at the edge of my deployment zone as close as I can get to the enemy. Then I move my interceptors 12 inches out of my deployment zone. I cast gate of infinity or use shunt and I have to move that unit back to my deployment zone in the opposite direction? That doesn't make sense. Sounds like a game of chutes and ladders.
Idea is to have warlord GMDK and two flamer GMDK and paladins go in deepstrike.
Turn 1 everyone hides as much as possible, execpt for purgation squad, who should be able to hit something...
Turn 2 everyone deepstrike in, flame and shoot stuff, and hopefully get some charges of, with first to the fray. Rest of the army starts to move up on objectives etc..
So now we just need GMDK teleporters to do what they did in every previous edition
Alright then, the core of any GK list now is 3x 10-man interceptor squads (combat squaded most likely) with a GOI warlord. If we want to keep the T1 strike going probably supplement with flyers?
Edit: Uh and deleted it. Maybe they decided to fix the wording better.
Edit of an edit: And it's back again clarifying that yes, they are legal
Check the comments to that very post, they still count as reinforcements which sets the debate back to zero because it was always the reinforcement rule stopping them more than tactical reserve.
Warhammer 40,000: This is direct from the studio, Logan: 'Treat these units as having arrived from reserves' which really is shorthand for 'these units cannot move again for any reason (including Warptime) and counts as having moved for firing heavy weapons.'.
That said, I think RAI they WANT it to work. RAW it does not, however.
I mean.. they've explicitly said in that little publication that any unit already deployed is unaffected by the new rule.
Perhaps its time to move past the technical wording that currently exists and see what form the rule should really take once it is finally updated based on the obvious intention which has been clearly spelled out?
Spartacus wrote: I mean.. they've explicitly said in that little publication that any unit already deployed is unaffected by the new rule.
Perhaps its time to move past the technical wording that currently exists and see what form the rule should really take once it is finally updated based on the obvious intention which has been clearly spelled out?
Not quite. They said "units that set up after the game begins". Shunt and GoI make units arrive and set up after the game begins, it's in the RAW for those abilities.
So like I said, the RAI seems clear, but they didn't actually fix the RAW problem.
Spartacus wrote: I mean.. they've explicitly said in that little publication that any unit already deployed is unaffected by the new rule.
Perhaps its time to move past the technical wording that currently exists and see what form the rule should really take once it is finally updated based on the obvious intention which has been clearly spelled out?
Not quite. They said "units that set up after the game begins". Shunt and GoI make units arrive and set up after the game begins, it's in the RAW for those abilities.
So like I said, the RAI seems clear, but they didn't actually fix the RAW problem.
But they then go on to say that units are exempt if they are 'already-deployed'. You need to be already deployed on the table to use GOI or shunt. Seems pretty clear cut to me.
Spartacus wrote: I mean.. they've explicitly said in that little publication that any unit already deployed is unaffected by the new rule.
Perhaps its time to move past the technical wording that currently exists and see what form the rule should really take once it is finally updated based on the obvious intention which has been clearly spelled out?
Not quite. They said "units that set up after the game begins". Shunt and GoI make units arrive and set up after the game begins, it's in the RAW for those abilities.
So like I said, the RAI seems clear, but they didn't actually fix the RAW problem.
But they then go on to say that units are exempt if they are 'already-deployed'. You need to be already deployed on the table to use GOI or shunt. Seems pretty clear cut to me.
I've read it multiple times and I do not see a general exemption for 'already-deployed' like you do. Do you mean #1 under Weird Boyz? I don't know the exact text of Da Jump, but GoI and Shunt aren't technically 'moving'. Something like Warptime is 'moving'. GoI and Shunt actually take you off the board and make you arrive a second time.
The Facebook team also contradicted the graphic in their responses to comments on the graphic. It's just a mess there.
As I said before, I agree the RAI is clear: they WANT GoI and Shunt to be able to go outside the deployment zone, but RAW-wise you still can't. This shouldn't be hard to correct, but here we are. They should really hire the MtG rules writers as independent contractors.
Spartacus wrote: I mean.. they've explicitly said in that little publication that any unit already deployed is unaffected by the new rule.
Perhaps its time to move past the technical wording that currently exists and see what form the rule should really take once it is finally updated based on the obvious intention which has been clearly spelled out?
Not quite. They said "units that set up after the game begins". Shunt and GoI make units arrive and set up after the game begins, it's in the RAW for those abilities.
So like I said, the RAI seems clear, but they didn't actually fix the RAW problem.
But they then go on to say that units are exempt if they are 'already-deployed'. You need to be already deployed on the table to use GOI or shunt. Seems pretty clear cut to me.
I've read it multiple times and I do not see a general exemption for 'already-deployed' like you do. Do you mean #1 under Weird Boyz? I don't know the exact text of Da Jump, but GoI and Shunt aren't technically 'moving'. Something like Warptime is 'moving'. GoI and Shunt actually take you off the board and make you arrive a second time.
The Facebook team also contradicted the graphic in their responses to comments on the graphic. It's just a mess there.
As I said before, I agree the RAI is clear: they WANT GoI and Shunt to be able to go outside the deployment zone, but RAW-wise you still can't. This shouldn't be hard to correct, but here we are. They should really hire the MtG rules writers as independent contractors.
Yeah its there under the first entry Re: Da Jump (which has the same wording as GOIBTW).
According to that it does indeed count as 'moving', and is also not affected by the beta rule.
My group will not be using the rules, they're a bit of an insult to be honest.
Spartacus wrote: I mean.. they've explicitly said in that little publication that any unit already deployed is unaffected by the new rule.
Perhaps its time to move past the technical wording that currently exists and see what form the rule should really take once it is finally updated based on the obvious intention which has been clearly spelled out?
Not quite. They said "units that set up after the game begins". Shunt and GoI make units arrive and set up after the game begins, it's in the RAW for those abilities.
So like I said, the RAI seems clear, but they didn't actually fix the RAW problem.
Aeri wrote: We need to keep mailing GW for GK Buffs ( 40kFAQ@gwplc.com)
Imho:
Purifiers need an additional attack and point reductions.
(All) terminators need an additional wound.
That's not what Terminators need. At all. The troop one needs a good point reduction and Paladins should all be WS/BS2+. This pretty much fixes the offensive issues. Defensively this is the best Terminators have been almost ever.
Yeah, that's why terminators fall like flies once out in the open.
Never were in a situation where my terminators needed a better ws/bs. There is a rerolllbubble next to them at all times anyways. Be it full rerolls or only 1s.
Lawrence from Tabletop Tactics proposed giving Terminators a 2d6 reoll for armor saves, keeping the highest.
I thought this was a clever solution to the Terminator problem. I wasn't sure if it was clever because it addresses the durability problem, or because it was simple to implement.
Defensively this is NOT the best Terminators have been. That was 2nd edition, where I could sit a squad of Terminators in front of an entire Tyranid army and know they were semi-safe. 2 wounds is a Plasma Gun shot away from death on a 5+.
I was thinking About Going with a batallion with voldus, gmdk and 3x5 ss. A vanguard with gmdk with 3x5 interceptors and two stormtalons.. voldus, interceptors and talons starts on the board and all 3 ss and both GMDK go for DS turn 2.. Turn 1; talons fly up and blod sh*t up, interceptors shunts up the board and voldus GOI. Turn 2 rest of the guys join the party.. could it work ?
Spartacus wrote: I mean.. they've explicitly said in that little publication that any unit already deployed is unaffected by the new rule.
Perhaps its time to move past the technical wording that currently exists and see what form the rule should really take once it is finally updated based on the obvious intention which has been clearly spelled out?
Not quite. They said "units that set up after the game begins". Shunt and GoI make units arrive and set up after the game begins, it's in the RAW for those abilities.
So like I said, the RAI seems clear, but they didn't actually fix the RAW problem.
But they then go on to say that units are exempt if they are 'already-deployed'. You need to be already deployed on the table to use GOI or shunt. Seems pretty clear cut to me.
I've read it multiple times and I do not see a general exemption for 'already-deployed' like you do. Do you mean #1 under Weird Boyz? I don't know the exact text of Da Jump, but GoI and Shunt aren't technically 'moving'. Something like Warptime is 'moving'. GoI and Shunt actually take you off the board and make you arrive a second time.
The Facebook team also contradicted the graphic in their responses to comments on the graphic. It's just a mess there.
As I said before, I agree the RAI is clear: they WANT GoI and Shunt to be able to go outside the deployment zone, but RAW-wise you still can't. This shouldn't be hard to correct, but here we are. They should really hire the MtG rules writers as independent contractors.
Yeah its there under the first entry Re: Da Jump (which has the same wording as GOIBTW).
According to that it does indeed count as 'moving', and is also not affected by the beta rule.
My group will not be using the rules, they're a bit of an insult to be honest.
I see what you're saying. Strictly speaking, though, you can also read it as carving an exception for Da Jump. Shunt/GoI don't actually move units, as I said, they re-deploy them. The addendum there says "like all abilities that MOVE..." so it wouldn't apply to them. Da Jump is worded similarly so we'd want to draw a 1 for 1, but then we're looking at applying a rule for 'moving' to multiple unspecified abilities which are not, in fact, moving. It basically makes the entire rule system break down.
This is sadly super easy to fix. You just change each of the bespoke rules (such as Da Jump, GoI, Shunt, e.t.c.) to say: "This unit does not count as reinforcements" at the end. Done.
Spartacus wrote: I mean.. they've explicitly said in that little publication that any unit already deployed is unaffected by the new rule.
Perhaps its time to move past the technical wording that currently exists and see what form the rule should really take once it is finally updated based on the obvious intention which has been clearly spelled out?
Not quite. They said "units that set up after the game begins". Shunt and GoI make units arrive and set up after the game begins, it's in the RAW for those abilities.
So like I said, the RAI seems clear, but they didn't actually fix the RAW problem.
You have got to be trolling. Just dumb.
And the worst poster in the thread award goes too....
Anyway, regarding an actual GK Tactical solution, I don't think there is one. We can replicate our old tactics by taking Outrider Detachments, but now we'll be SUPER CP starved for doing so. We either have to wait for a T2 offensive, which will get us blown out of the water for a turn as our mandatory 50% faffs about or we can do a T1 with mass shunt and GoI. This T1 is super limited though because we can only bring one unit of Paladins/GMDK along for the ride and, as said, we basically have no CP.
I may slot Voldus into a Space Marine soup detachment (since they share the Adeptus Astartes keyword), but otherwise the Grey Knights don't really have a place in tournaments.
Its a pretty basic inference that you have to pick up and move the unit in order to 're-deploy it' (your language, not theirs). I don't hold it against GW that they don't spoon-feed us perfect rules language every time they release something, after doing so much already to make it clear how it should be played.
Aeri wrote: Yeah, that's why terminators fall like flies once out in the open.
Never were in a situation where my terminators needed a better ws/bs. There is a rerolllbubble next to them at all times anyways. Be it full rerolls or only 1s.
"Falling like flies" is an exaggeration. They've gained durability to most weapons besides just a few (like a couple AP-2 weapons and Autocannons). Better BS/WS2+ is always good.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
techsoldaten wrote: Lawrence from Tabletop Tactics proposed giving Terminators a 2d6 reoll for armor saves, keeping the highest.
I thought this was a clever solution to the Terminator problem. I wasn't sure if it was clever because it addresses the durability problem, or because it was simple to implement.
Defensively this is NOT the best Terminators have been. That was 2nd edition, where I could sit a squad of Terminators in front of an entire Tyranid army and know they were semi-safe. 2 wounds is a Plasma Gun shot away from death on a 5+.
Terminators are more durable if you just look at their stats. But when you consider that a LOT of weapons gained multiple wounds of some kind as well as save modification the story changes.
Aeri wrote: How did they get tougher against anything but a standard boltgun?
Non-charged Plasma, Lascannons (1/6 of the time), sniper rifles, Grav Guns and Cannons (1/3 of the time in addition to wounding less), Tau Plasma (S6 after all), etc.
I already granted there are weapons they are less durable to like Basilisks, Inferno and Special Issue Bolters, Autocannons, Gauss Blasters...however, the amount of weaponry they're more durable to is totally increased.
Played with the FAQ for the 1st time this weekend, which also happened to be my first game vs the new Tau codex, Let's just say 5+ overwatch wasn't great, every non-GMDK/Celstine charge I did ended up with the charging unit being obliterated in overwatch.
Anyway, Interceptors are ok I guess, I do like their extra movement but I would rather have kept Strike squads, what I really miss is being able to both Deep Strike Draigo and the GMDK, both together sucked up so much firepower on the 1st turns. On the other hand Celestine with a Seraphim squad mix really well with GK for extra force in the Alpha strike if you get 1st turn.
One thing I am really waiting for now is the Knight Codex, hopefully there will be one allegiance/new model that mixes well with GK. I have been thinking really seriously of getting a Knight Crusader for a while.
Thenord wrote: So... That's it? we're just screwed? nobody got any ideas (not changes to rules, but ideas that work with the rules we have atm)
to what we can do?
Thenord wrote: So... That's it? we're just screwed? nobody got any ideas (not changes to rules, but ideas that work with the rules we have atm)
to what we can do?
Seek alternate opinions, look at how other players are using them, watch battle reports, ask questions on forums, share your army lists, and stop engaging in purely negative dialogue about the army.
GK are not as bad as people make them out to be, "general consensus" on the Internet is always off by a wide margin. Most of the conversations about GK center on competitive players whining about not having silver-bullet copy-and-paste lists that place reliably in the top 10 at events. This says something about players more than the army.
Grey Knights have been challenging to play in every edition, this one is no different. I'm putting together a Storm Raven / NDK build similar to the one in the following battle report. You will notice they almost beat a fairly competitive Eldar list and would have done better post-FAQ. Notice how the GK player was using beta Smite rules, if he was using the rule in the FAQ it would have meant 2 more dead Wave Serpents early game. It would have meant one more living Interceptor squad late game.
Played a match over the weekend against T'au. 2,000 points. He had 2 Yvahras 2 coldstar commanders, a couple firrewarrior squads, a fireblade and darkstrider. He was Tau Sept.
I had my GMDK, Draigo, 3x10 interceptor squads, 3x5 ss, a brotherhood champion (my warlord), Eisenhorn, his daemonhost, and 2 inquisitors. I had 10 CP. I actually did fairly well. Turn 1 I wiped out most of his drones with mass bolter fire. He came in and destroyed my dreadknight and draigo however with his stormsurge, both commanders and both yvahras, as well as half an interceptor squad. I terrified a Yvahra, and charged in managing to kill one and got te other down to about 8 wounds. In the end I was tabled on turn 5, but all he had left was a yvahra with 6 wounds, a commander that had taken 3, and an untouched stormsurge which I had ignored because it really wasn't doing much. It was actually a very close game. If I could've saved Draigo or the Dreaknight I think I would have won.
That being said I didn't really need deepstrike in this match so that chasnge didn't really affect me. Also to be honest I feel the true heroes of that match were the inquisitors, who did much more with dominate/terrify and their combi-plasmas then really any of the rest of my army
Thenord wrote: So... That's it? we're just screwed? nobody got any ideas (not changes to rules, but ideas that work with the rules we have atm)
to what we can do?
Seek alternate opinions, look at how other players are using them, watch battle reports, ask questions on forums, share your army lists, and stop engaging in purely negative dialogue about the army.
GK are not as bad as people make them out to be, "general consensus" on the Internet is always off by a wide margin. Most of the conversations about GK center on competitive players whining about not having silver-bullet copy-and-paste lists that place reliably in the top 10 at events. This says something about players more than the army.
Grey Knights have been challenging to play in every edition, this one is no different. I'm putting together a Storm Raven / NDK build similar to the one in the following battle report. You will notice they almost beat a fairly competitive Eldar list and would have done better post-FAQ. Notice how the GK player was using beta Smite rules, if he was using the rule in the FAQ it would have meant 2 more dead Wave Serpents early game. It would have meant one more living Interceptor squad late game.
You have totally opened m fething eyes mate. Good on you for proving me wrong.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Its almost like you ignored players want to actually play with something else besides Stormravens and GMDK.
Shame on them for wanting terminators to be better than trash.
Quickjager wrote: You have totally opened m fething eyes mate. Good on you for proving me wrong.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Its almost like you ignored players want to actually play with something else besides Stormravens and GMDK.
Shame on them for wanting terminators to be better than trash.
Note my point about not engaging in purely negative dialogue about the army.
Nice example of race-to-the-bottom thinking. Grey Knights are so bad there's no reason even to discuss what might work. Anything that doesn't agree with this outlook is insensitive to those who can't use their favored unit. So just scream and froth at the mouth and the magic outrage fairy will get around to making it all better. Or something.
No wonder people believe GK are hopeless.
I played CSMs for a long time and know what it's like when the rules work are designed to work against you. Grey Knights are about where Chaos was in 6th edition after the Eldar Codex hit.
Unlike 6th edition, there's a rules team that registers constructive feedback.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Leo_the_Rat wrote: I'd love to watch this but I don't think that I can take 2 hours of those two guys. Is there some way to get a summary/break down?
They are a little exuberant, but I appreciate them for doing this.
The Eldar army features a lot of Wave Serpents, Yrvane, Guardians, and other units. The GK army is built around Storm Ravens, Drago, Interceptors, NDKs and Celestine.
Eldar go first. Turn one doesn't go all that well for the GK player. Turn two, the Eldar kill Celestine, then the GK player kills about a third of the Eldar army. Turn three, there's a lot of psychic shenanigans.
The GK player was using the beta rules for smite, and applying them wrong - I think. It was being used as a minus to cast, not an increase to the warp charge. The Eldar player denied like 4 smites in a single turn, and it had an impact on the game.
Eventually, the Eldar won, but they were reduced to a Farseer and a few models. There was a fateful charge that did not work out with Drago, had it happened GK would most likely have won.
The old beta smite rule was a -1 modifier to your test roll. They changed that in the latest FAQ to +1 to the required result. Was meant to make it still possible to get the full D6 smite on subsequent casts, but also makes those smites harder fo deny as a side effect.
Re: GK needing buffs, I am hopefull still. This new deepstrike rule has generated so much hate that I am highly doubtful it will survive in its current form, if at all. I didnt expect any attention in terms of points cuts from the FAQ because those changes were really designed to tackle major imbalances. GW hasn't forgotten about GK entirely (see the addenum omitting Tsons and GK from the smite nerf), we just need to catch their attention at the appropriate time using the appropriate tone, because they apparently have started reading emails and facebook posts.
If you think we actually spent 53 pages NOT dicussing how to make GK works then your brain is in a worse state than the GK codex.
We already know what works, we already know wargear is best for X enemy, we know because between the twenty-something players who have actually contributed we can hash out a good gameplan. How about we look at you instead.
"Most of the conversations about GK center on competitive players whining about not having silver-bullet copy-and-paste lists that place reliably in the top 10 at events. This says something about players more than the army."
Okay character attacks on COMPETITIVE (Oh the irony) GK players alright par for the course for someone who probably played AGAINST 5th ed GK. Nothing new.
"Grey Knights have been challenging to play in every edition, this one is no different."
If by challenging you mean that key aspects of the army are implemented in a flawed manner on historically below average units yes. Flawed units that are based off OTHER flawed units like the Tac Marine or Terminators. Oppressively powerful anti-daemon rules that literally ruin the game for said players or literally go the other way and are so underwhelming in effect for the sheer penalties it carries.
It doesn't matter if the rule writers listen, because the rule writers forget GK exist half the time. You know what would have been a great rule from the start of 8th? If you could put all your units in deepstrike and half DO have to come down turn 1 in your own deployment zone, then having an all deepstrike army would be valuable. I think I might even write an email with that idea attached, hell take it even farther with an additional rule saying that if your opponent has elected to set up no models on board during deployment their deployment zone is 6 inches smaller to represent the lack of presence. You know what would have been nice? Purifiers having 2 attacks instead of their smite being nerfed. The rule of 1 being lifted under certain army conditions would have been nice as well.
Chaos has never had the actual rules of an edition work AGAINST you. The worse off you've ever been is that you get hatred or fear on the same unit from 3 different rules while paying a cost for it, WHILE having a lackluster codex where you ask "Well why do the Loyalist have X but we don't? Did we chuck all our assault cannons out the airlock when we defected?".
Lets return to my first point. We did talk about GK, we know they aren't good, we know they are workable, but if any baseline codex is a porta-potty then we're a damn hole in the ground. Yea our 'hole in the ground' codex serves its purpose, but don't try to sell me the idea that it is anything but a hole in the ground and that the fact after 1 remodel (Chapter Approved) it is still a fething hole in the ground. Yea I am negative to such an extent I might be a 2nd coming of Martel, but if you want me to work with you on your army I'll be happy to; just don't expect me to glad I have leaves to wipe with.
Quickjager wrote: You have totally opened m fething eyes mate. Good on you for proving me wrong.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Its almost like you ignored players want to actually play with something else besides Stormravens and GMDK.
Shame on them for wanting terminators to be better than trash.
Note my point about not engaging in purely negative dialogue about the army.
Nice example of race-to-the-bottom thinking. Grey Knights are so bad there's no reason even to discuss what might work. Anything that doesn't agree with this outlook is insensitive to those who can't use their favored unit. So just scream and froth at the mouth and the magic outrage fairy will get around to making it all better. Or something.
No wonder people believe GK are hopeless.
I played CSMs for a long time and know what it's like when the rules work are designed to work against you. Grey Knights are about where Chaos was in 6th edition after the Eldar Codex hit.
Unlike 6th edition, there's a rules team that registers constructive feedback.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Leo_the_Rat wrote: I'd love to watch this but I don't think that I can take 2 hours of those two guys. Is there some way to get a summary/break down?
They are a little exuberant, but I appreciate them for doing this.
The Eldar army features a lot of Wave Serpents, Yrvane, Guardians, and other units. The GK army is built around Storm Ravens, Drago, Interceptors, NDKs and Celestine.
Eldar go first. Turn one doesn't go all that well for the GK player. Turn two, the Eldar kill Celestine, then the GK player kills about a third of the Eldar army. Turn three, there's a lot of psychic shenanigans.
The GK player was using the beta rules for smite, and applying them wrong - I think. It was being used as a minus to cast, not an increase to the warp charge. The Eldar player denied like 4 smites in a single turn, and it had an impact on the game.
Eventually, the Eldar won, but they were reduced to a Farseer and a few models. There was a fateful charge that did not work out with Drago, had it happened GK would most likely have won.
And the major problem is that we cannot take Celestine in an Auxiliary Deatchment anymore as we cannot mix with the new Rule
"All of the units in each Detachment in your Battle-forged army must have at least one Faction keyword in common. In addition, this keyword cannot
be Chaos, Imperium, Aeldari, Ynnari or Tyranids,"
*edit* Also the old Beta Smite Rules .. this was way before the FAQ
That whole "it was so close" Army is not usable anymore with the new FAQ rules so the point that "it was close versus Ynnari" is moot
Quickjager wrote: If you think we actually spent 53 pages NOT dicussing how to make GK works then your brain is in a worse state than the GK codex.
What I think is you are putting a lot of energy trying to get me to argue with you.
Quickjager wrote: We already know what works, we already know wargear is best for X enemy, we know because between the twenty-something players who have actually contributed we can hash out a good gameplan. How about we look at you instead.
"Most of the conversations about GK center on competitive players whining about not having silver-bullet copy-and-paste lists that place reliably in the top 10 at events. This says something about players more than the army."
Okay character attacks on COMPETITIVE (Oh the irony) GK players alright par for the course for someone who probably played AGAINST 5th ed GK. Nothing new.
"Grey Knights have been challenging to play in every edition, this one is no different."
If by challenging you mean that key aspects of the army are implemented in a flawed manner on historically below average units yes. Flawed units that are based off OTHER flawed units like the Tac Marine or Terminators. Oppressively powerful anti-daemon rules that literally ruin the game for said players or literally go the other way and are so underwhelming in effect for the sheer penalties it carries.
It doesn't matter if the rule writers listen, because the rule writers forget GK exist half the time. You know what would have been a great rule from the start of 8th? If you could put all your units in deepstrike and half DO have to come down turn 1 in your own deployment zone, then having an all deepstrike army would be valuable. I think I might even write an email with that idea attached, hell take it even farther with an additional rule saying that if your opponent has elected to set up no models on board during deployment their deployment zone is 6 inches smaller to represent the lack of presence. You know what would have been nice? Purifiers having 2 attacks instead of their smite being nerfed. The rule of 1 being lifted under certain army conditions would have been nice as well.
Chaos has never had the actual rules of an edition work AGAINST you. The worse off you've ever been is that you get hatred or fear on the same unit from 3 different rules while paying a cost for it, WHILE having a lackluster codex where you ask "Well why do the Loyalist have X but we don't? Did we chuck all our assault cannons out the airlock when we defected?".
Lets return to my first point. We did talk about GK, we know they aren't good, we know they are workable, but if any baseline codex is a porta-potty then we're a damn hole in the ground. Yea our 'hole in the ground' codex serves its purpose, but don't try to sell me the idea that it is anything but a hole in the ground and that the fact after 1 remodel (Chapter Approved) it is still a fething hole in the ground. Yea I am negative to such an extent I might be a 2nd coming of Martel, but if you want me to work with you on your army I'll be happy to; just don't expect me to glad I have leaves to wipe with.
That's a lot of words wasted on someone who already said he's not responding to your garbage. Didn't read it.
Quickjager wrote: If you think we actually spent 53 pages NOT dicussing how to make GK works then your brain is in a worse state than the GK codex.
What I think is you are putting a lot of energy trying to get me to argue with you.
Quickjager wrote: We already know what works, we already know wargear is best for X enemy, we know because between the twenty-something players who have actually contributed we can hash out a good gameplan. How about we look at you instead.
"Most of the conversations about GK center on competitive players whining about not having silver-bullet copy-and-paste lists that place reliably in the top 10 at events. This says something about players more than the army."
Okay character attacks on COMPETITIVE (Oh the irony) GK players alright par for the course for someone who probably played AGAINST 5th ed GK. Nothing new.
"Grey Knights have been challenging to play in every edition, this one is no different."
If by challenging you mean that key aspects of the army are implemented in a flawed manner on historically below average units yes. Flawed units that are based off OTHER flawed units like the Tac Marine or Terminators. Oppressively powerful anti-daemon rules that literally ruin the game for said players or literally go the other way and are so underwhelming in effect for the sheer penalties it carries.
It doesn't matter if the rule writers listen, because the rule writers forget GK exist half the time. You know what would have been a great rule from the start of 8th? If you could put all your units in deepstrike and half DO have to come down turn 1 in your own deployment zone, then having an all deepstrike army would be valuable. I think I might even write an email with that idea attached, hell take it even farther with an additional rule saying that if your opponent has elected to set up no models on board during deployment their deployment zone is 6 inches smaller to represent the lack of presence. You know what would have been nice? Purifiers having 2 attacks instead of their smite being nerfed. The rule of 1 being lifted under certain army conditions would have been nice as well.
Chaos has never had the actual rules of an edition work AGAINST you. The worse off you've ever been is that you get hatred or fear on the same unit from 3 different rules while paying a cost for it, WHILE having a lackluster codex where you ask "Well why do the Loyalist have X but we don't? Did we chuck all our assault cannons out the airlock when we defected?".
Lets return to my first point. We did talk about GK, we know they aren't good, we know they are workable, but if any baseline codex is a porta-potty then we're a damn hole in the ground. Yea our 'hole in the ground' codex serves its purpose, but don't try to sell me the idea that it is anything but a hole in the ground and that the fact after 1 remodel (Chapter Approved) it is still a fething hole in the ground. Yea I am negative to such an extent I might be a 2nd coming of Martel, but if you want me to work with you on your army I'll be happy to; just don't expect me to glad I have leaves to wipe with.
That's a lot of words wasted on someone who already said he's not responding to your garbage. Didn't read it.
Perhaps you didn't, but I did and I think he's right.
Quickjager wrote: If you think we actually spent 53 pages NOT dicussing how to make GK works then your brain is in a worse state than the GK codex.
What I think is you are putting a lot of energy trying to get me to argue with you.
Quickjager wrote: We already know what works, we already know wargear is best for X enemy, we know because between the twenty-something players who have actually contributed we can hash out a good gameplan. How about we look at you instead.
"Most of the conversations about GK center on competitive players whining about not having silver-bullet copy-and-paste lists that place reliably in the top 10 at events. This says something about players more than the army."
Okay character attacks on COMPETITIVE (Oh the irony) GK players alright par for the course for someone who probably played AGAINST 5th ed GK. Nothing new.
"Grey Knights have been challenging to play in every edition, this one is no different."
If by challenging you mean that key aspects of the army are implemented in a flawed manner on historically below average units yes. Flawed units that are based off OTHER flawed units like the Tac Marine or Terminators. Oppressively powerful anti-daemon rules that literally ruin the game for said players or literally go the other way and are so underwhelming in effect for the sheer penalties it carries.
It doesn't matter if the rule writers listen, because the rule writers forget GK exist half the time. You know what would have been a great rule from the start of 8th? If you could put all your units in deepstrike and half DO have to come down turn 1 in your own deployment zone, then having an all deepstrike army would be valuable. I think I might even write an email with that idea attached, hell take it even farther with an additional rule saying that if your opponent has elected to set up no models on board during deployment their deployment zone is 6 inches smaller to represent the lack of presence. You know what would have been nice? Purifiers having 2 attacks instead of their smite being nerfed. The rule of 1 being lifted under certain army conditions would have been nice as well.
Chaos has never had the actual rules of an edition work AGAINST you. The worse off you've ever been is that you get hatred or fear on the same unit from 3 different rules while paying a cost for it, WHILE having a lackluster codex where you ask "Well why do the Loyalist have X but we don't? Did we chuck all our assault cannons out the airlock when we defected?".
Lets return to my first point. We did talk about GK, we know they aren't good, we know they are workable, but if any baseline codex is a porta-potty then we're a damn hole in the ground. Yea our 'hole in the ground' codex serves its purpose, but don't try to sell me the idea that it is anything but a hole in the ground and that the fact after 1 remodel (Chapter Approved) it is still a fething hole in the ground. Yea I am negative to such an extent I might be a 2nd coming of Martel, but if you want me to work with you on your army I'll be happy to; just don't expect me to glad I have leaves to wipe with.
That's a lot of words wasted on someone who already said he's not responding to your garbage. Didn't read it.
Perhaps you didn't, but I did and I think he's right.
Quickjager wrote: If you think we actually spent 53 pages NOT dicussing how to make GK works then your brain is in a worse state than the GK codex.
What I think is you are putting a lot of energy trying to get me to argue with you.
Quickjager wrote: We already know what works, we already know wargear is best for X enemy, we know because between the twenty-something players who have actually contributed we can hash out a good gameplan. How about we look at you instead.
"Most of the conversations about GK center on competitive players whining about not having silver-bullet copy-and-paste lists that place reliably in the top 10 at events. This says something about players more than the army."
Okay character attacks on COMPETITIVE (Oh the irony) GK players alright par for the course for someone who probably played AGAINST 5th ed GK. Nothing new.
"Grey Knights have been challenging to play in every edition, this one is no different."
If by challenging you mean that key aspects of the army are implemented in a flawed manner on historically below average units yes. Flawed units that are based off OTHER flawed units like the Tac Marine or Terminators. Oppressively powerful anti-daemon rules that literally ruin the game for said players or literally go the other way and are so underwhelming in effect for the sheer penalties it carries.
It doesn't matter if the rule writers listen, because the rule writers forget GK exist half the time. You know what would have been a great rule from the start of 8th? If you could put all your units in deepstrike and half DO have to come down turn 1 in your own deployment zone, then having an all deepstrike army would be valuable. I think I might even write an email with that idea attached, hell take it even farther with an additional rule saying that if your opponent has elected to set up no models on board during deployment their deployment zone is 6 inches smaller to represent the lack of presence. You know what would have been nice? Purifiers having 2 attacks instead of their smite being nerfed. The rule of 1 being lifted under certain army conditions would have been nice as well.
Chaos has never had the actual rules of an edition work AGAINST you. The worse off you've ever been is that you get hatred or fear on the same unit from 3 different rules while paying a cost for it, WHILE having a lackluster codex where you ask "Well why do the Loyalist have X but we don't? Did we chuck all our assault cannons out the airlock when we defected?".
Lets return to my first point. We did talk about GK, we know they aren't good, we know they are workable, but if any baseline codex is a porta-potty then we're a damn hole in the ground. Yea our 'hole in the ground' codex serves its purpose, but don't try to sell me the idea that it is anything but a hole in the ground and that the fact after 1 remodel (Chapter Approved) it is still a fething hole in the ground. Yea I am negative to such an extent I might be a 2nd coming of Martel, but if you want me to work with you on your army I'll be happy to; just don't expect me to glad I have leaves to wipe with.
That's a lot of words wasted on someone who already said he's not responding to your garbage. Didn't read it.
Perhaps you didn't, but I did and I think he's right.
Well, my point was the negativity was causing players to give up on the army. This was demonstrated by various comments in this thread.
That point was somehow transformed into the rant from QuickJaeger about Storm Ravens, NDKs and the sorry state of Terminators. His diatribes are meaningless, since all those points have been made ad nauseum.
It's nice that you all agree with his rant, but what exactly did I say that everyone finds so objectionable?
I mean, I give everyone points for finding the flaws in the army, but that stops being constructive after 2500 posts.
It’s objectionable to tell players who legitimately like an army, it’s fluff, and have been playing it for 4 editions that “they aren’t doing it right” or they need to “open their minds”. Sorry, but the posters in this thread are THE subject matter experts on Grey Knights; not you, not Reece Robbins, not any random person who thinks we complain too much.
techsoldaten wrote: Well, my point was the negativity was causing players to give up on the army. This was demonstrated by various comments in this thread.
That point was somehow transformed into the rant from QuickJaeger about Storm Ravens, NDKs and the sorry state of Terminators. His diatribes are meaningless, since all those points have been made ad nauseum.
It's nice that you all agree with his rant, but what exactly did I say that everyone finds so objectionable?
I mean, I give everyone points for finding the flaws in the army, but that stops being constructive after 2500 posts.
I wouldnt say that the negativity this thread causes players to lose all hope and quitting the army
Most serious or semi serious players can see their GK army massively underperforming on the field, and they are only getting their feelings confirmed here
nobody who plays GK semi seriously is gonna come here and expects everyone to tell them how cool / good our army performs right now
If any GK player here in any thread thinks I am truly being too negative please tell me. I don't want to ruin luster of the army for you; hell this is still MY army I won't ever sell off all of my GK models. I really like the lore, the aesthetic, the concept of their playstyle.
I'll work with you in pm or such on a list suited for your local meta. There are few things as fun as getting in the face of an opponent and being a pain in the ass with a small 3 man unit of Paladins that just really refuses to die, or seeing the sheer incredulity on your opponent's face when shunting then successfully charging a unit of interceptors onto an objective who then BARELY kill enough enemy models for you to have the control of it for the win.
Hope we get what we deserve eventually, whether that be cheers or jeers.
techsoldaten wrote: Well, my point was the negativity was causing players to give up on the army. This was demonstrated by various comments in this thread.
That point was somehow transformed into the rant from QuickJaeger about Storm Ravens, NDKs and the sorry state of Terminators. His diatribes are meaningless, since all those points have been made ad nauseum.
It's nice that you all agree with his rant, but what exactly did I say that everyone finds so objectionable?
I mean, I give everyone points for finding the flaws in the army, but that stops being constructive after 2500 posts.
You called his perfectly valid post 'garbage' while admitting to not even reading it.
Talk about non-constructive. If you're ignoring QJ thats fine but don't make inflammatory comments and then play the victim.
FFridge wrote: I wouldnt say that the negativity this thread causes players to lose all hope and quitting the army
Most serious or semi serious players can see their GK army massively underperforming on the field, and they are only getting their feelings confirmed here
nobody who plays GK semi seriously is gonna come here and expects everyone to tell them how cool / good our army performs right now
Not going to go through all the quotes, but this one is one I responded to.
QuickJaeger took that as an assault on every other post in the thread and claimed I was mocking him. Not sure why that obligates me to read his rants, which are really just summaries of every gripe that's already been brought up about Grey Knights.
Again, it's nice that a group of people can constantly repeat every flaw with the Codex. When it turns off other players, it stops being constructive. The sheer volume of complaints in this thread is oppressive.
techsoldaten wrote: Well, my point was the negativity was causing players to give up on the army. This was demonstrated by various comments in this thread.
That point was somehow transformed into the rant from QuickJaeger about Storm Ravens, NDKs and the sorry state of Terminators. His diatribes are meaningless, since all those points have been made ad nauseum.
It's nice that you all agree with his rant, but what exactly did I say that everyone finds so objectionable?
I mean, I give everyone points for finding the flaws in the army, but that stops being constructive after 2500 posts.
The point is its nice to try and stay positive, but you're not saying that. You're basically saying we should make up positive things to say, which is just asinine. Its perfectly valid to call a spade a spade. If the only thing to say and discuss about the codex is how not-nice it is, then that is a valid thing.
Yes, he may be just repeating whats already been said. But there is nothing wrong with that if that is all there is to say.
As for giving up, negative rants aren't going to make fans give up on this army. Not the ones who are still sticking around. Anybody with higher standards would have fled the army years ago. We're just gonna bear the pain of a crappy codex cycle till GW eventually fixes it. Many of us remember the last time the codex was garbage so its a familiar feeling.
The quality of the Codex is what's putting people off the army, not the complaints it has generated. Personally I was puttimg together a reiver/strike squad conversion and working on a modded gmdk when the faq dropped, and they've been abandoned in favour of other things. That's not the fault of people on this forum.
Quickjager wrote: You have totally opened m fething eyes mate. Good on you for proving me wrong.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Its almost like you ignored players want to actually play with something else besides Stormravens and GMDK.
Shame on them for wanting terminators to be better than trash.
Note my point about not engaging in purely negative dialogue about the army.
Nice example of race-to-the-bottom thinking. Grey Knights are so bad there's no reason even to discuss what might work. Anything that doesn't agree with this outlook is insensitive to those who can't use their favored unit. So just scream and froth at the mouth and the magic outrage fairy will get around to making it all better. Or something.
No wonder people believe GK are hopeless.
I played CSMs for a long time and know what it's like when the rules work are designed to work against you. Grey Knights are about where Chaos was in 6th edition after the Eldar Codex hit.
Unlike 6th edition, there's a rules team that registers constructive feedback.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Leo_the_Rat wrote: I'd love to watch this but I don't think that I can take 2 hours of those two guys. Is there some way to get a summary/break down?
They are a little exuberant, but I appreciate them for doing this.
The Eldar army features a lot of Wave Serpents, Yrvane, Guardians, and other units. The GK army is built around Storm Ravens, Drago, Interceptors, NDKs and Celestine.
Eldar go first. Turn one doesn't go all that well for the GK player. Turn two, the Eldar kill Celestine, then the GK player kills about a third of the Eldar army. Turn three, there's a lot of psychic shenanigans.
The GK player was using the beta rules for smite, and applying them wrong - I think. It was being used as a minus to cast, not an increase to the warp charge. The Eldar player denied like 4 smites in a single turn, and it had an impact on the game.
Eventually, the Eldar won, but they were reduced to a Farseer and a few models. There was a fateful charge that did not work out with Drago, had it happened GK would most likely have won.
And the major problem is that we cannot take Celestine in an Auxiliary Deatchment anymore as we cannot mix with the new Rule
"All of the units in each Detachment in your Battle-forged army must have at least one Faction keyword in common. In addition, this keyword cannot
be Chaos, Imperium, Aeldari, Ynnari or Tyranids,"
*edit* Also the old Beta Smite Rules .. this was way before the FAQ
That whole "it was so close" Army is not usable anymore with the new FAQ rules so the point that "it was close versus Ynnari" is moot
You can still take her, the detachment will have sororitas keyword, otherwise you couldn't never take auxilairy detachment
Quickjager wrote: You have totally opened m fething eyes mate. Good on you for proving me wrong.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Its almost like you ignored players want to actually play with something else besides Stormravens and GMDK.
Shame on them for wanting terminators to be better than trash.
Note my point about not engaging in purely negative dialogue about the army.
Nice example of race-to-the-bottom thinking. Grey Knights are so bad there's no reason even to discuss what might work. Anything that doesn't agree with this outlook is insensitive to those who can't use their favored unit. So just scream and froth at the mouth and the magic outrage fairy will get around to making it all better. Or something.
No wonder people believe GK are hopeless.
I played CSMs for a long time and know what it's like when the rules work are designed to work against you. Grey Knights are about where Chaos was in 6th edition after the Eldar Codex hit.
Unlike 6th edition, there's a rules team that registers constructive feedback.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Leo_the_Rat wrote: I'd love to watch this but I don't think that I can take 2 hours of those two guys. Is there some way to get a summary/break down?
They are a little exuberant, but I appreciate them for doing this.
The Eldar army features a lot of Wave Serpents, Yrvane, Guardians, and other units. The GK army is built around Storm Ravens, Drago, Interceptors, NDKs and Celestine.
Eldar go first. Turn one doesn't go all that well for the GK player. Turn two, the Eldar kill Celestine, then the GK player kills about a third of the Eldar army. Turn three, there's a lot of psychic shenanigans.
The GK player was using the beta rules for smite, and applying them wrong - I think. It was being used as a minus to cast, not an increase to the warp charge. The Eldar player denied like 4 smites in a single turn, and it had an impact on the game.
Eventually, the Eldar won, but they were reduced to a Farseer and a few models. There was a fateful charge that did not work out with Drago, had it happened GK would most likely have won.
And the major problem is that we cannot take Celestine in an Auxiliary Deatchment anymore as we cannot mix with the new Rule
"All of the units in each Detachment in your Battle-forged army must have at least one Faction keyword in common. In addition, this keyword cannot
be Chaos, Imperium, Aeldari, Ynnari or Tyranids,"
*edit* Also the old Beta Smite Rules .. this was way before the FAQ
That whole "it was so close" Army is not usable anymore with the new FAQ rules so the point that "it was close versus Ynnari" is moot
You can still take her, the detachment will have sororitas keyword, otherwise you couldn't never take auxilairy detachment
Yeah but no Grey Knight has the Adeptus Soronitas Keyword .. you would need an Aux Detachment entirely out of Celestine alone .. which is -1 CP
Is Celestine really worth that -1 CP alone?
In a zero sum game it would make more sense to use a different army to fill a batallion and then add grey knights as a spear head / vanguard / whatevs batallion if you want to play them and your army will always be better than a majority Grey Knight Army
You can just take her in a patrol detachment and not lose any CP. The army is still battle-forged since you can use "imperium" as an army wide key word.
techsoldaten wrote: Well, my point was the negativity was causing players to give up on the army. This was demonstrated by various comments in this thread.
That point was somehow transformed into the rant from QuickJaeger about Storm Ravens, NDKs and the sorry state of Terminators. His diatribes are meaningless, since all those points have been made ad nauseum.
It's nice that you all agree with his rant, but what exactly did I say that everyone finds so objectionable?
I mean, I give everyone points for finding the flaws in the army, but that stops being constructive after 2500 posts.
The point is its nice to try and stay positive, but you're not saying that. You're basically saying we should make up positive things to say, which is just asinine. Its perfectly valid to call a spade a spade. If the only thing to say and discuss about the codex is how not-nice it is, then that is a valid thing.
Yes, he may be just repeating whats already been said. But there is nothing wrong with that if that is all there is to say.
As for giving up, negative rants aren't going to make fans give up on this army. Not the ones who are still sticking around. Anybody with higher standards would have fled the army years ago. We're just gonna bear the pain of a crappy codex cycle till GW eventually fixes it. Many of us remember the last time the codex was garbage so its a familiar feeling.
No, I did not say that and would never tell you what to do.
What I did say is players should seek out alternate opinions on Grey Knights, look at how other players are using them, watch battle reports, ask questions on forums, share your army lists, and stop engaging in purely negative dialogue about the army.
Which, of course, means I was being insensitive to poor QuickJaeger. Any time someone is not negative enough in this thread, people like you pour onto them.
So, I am not trying to tell you what to do, feel free to make sure the world knows how discontent you are with everything and keep driving people away. Stop trying to tell me what to do and making up things I said.
techsoldaten wrote: Well, my point was the negativity was causing players to give up on the army. This was demonstrated by various comments in this thread.
That point was somehow transformed into the rant from QuickJaeger about Storm Ravens, NDKs and the sorry state of Terminators. His diatribes are meaningless, since all those points have been made ad nauseum.
It's nice that you all agree with his rant, but what exactly did I say that everyone finds so objectionable?
I mean, I give everyone points for finding the flaws in the army, but that stops being constructive after 2500 posts.
The point is its nice to try and stay positive, but you're not saying that. You're basically saying we should make up positive things to say, which is just asinine. Its perfectly valid to call a spade a spade. If the only thing to say and discuss about the codex is how not-nice it is, then that is a valid thing.
Yes, he may be just repeating whats already been said. But there is nothing wrong with that if that is all there is to say.
As for giving up, negative rants aren't going to make fans give up on this army. Not the ones who are still sticking around. Anybody with higher standards would have fled the army years ago. We're just gonna bear the pain of a crappy codex cycle till GW eventually fixes it. Many of us remember the last time the codex was garbage so its a familiar feeling.
No, I did not say that and would never tell you what to do.
What I did say is players should seek out alternate opinions on Grey Knights, look at how other players are using them, watch battle reports, ask questions on forums, share your army lists, and stop engaging in purely negative dialogue about the army.
Which, of course, means I was being insensitive to poor QuickJaeger. Any time someone is not negative enough in this thread, people like you pour onto them.
So, I am not trying to tell you what to do, feel free to make sure the world knows how discontent you are with everything and keep driving people away. Stop trying to tell me what to do and making up things I said.
The issue is stormravens and dreadknights really doesn't feel like a GK army. It feels like Stormravens and Dreadknights. I want to be able to play with more than 3 adequate units (intercessor, GMDK, Stormraven) especially when 1 of those units isn't even GK specific and gets nothing from GK (the stormraven obviously) There should be more than 1 way to play any army. Period.
Also I didn't get a chance to watch the video, but from a couple comments here I got the impression celestine was mixed in with the Grey Knights in a detachment. If that's the case Grey Knights would still have been casting smites with penalties. The smite rule says that anyone who isn't affected by the brotherhood of psykers/sorcerers rule is affected. The brotherhood of psyker rule is our detachment specific rule that we get only if every unit in the detachment is GK. That's ignoring the fact that the new beta rules sate Celestine HAS to be in a separate detachment.
And if people want to get into GK they SHOULD know what they're getting into because they're about to spend a good bit of money and it would suck to buy a lot of terminators or something just to find there is only one viable GK army. If they don't like that and are "scared off" then I'm glad I saved them money they may have regretted spending. I don't regret my GK but I am burnt out and I'm gonna switch armies for a time.
“Alternate opinions” on GK? From whom? Armchair quarterbacks who tell us how to play OUR army? We are the GK players...and we’ve had a crappy codex for years (except for 5th) . No one is being “driven away”, we’re just holding out going for better rules...someday. No offense to you personally, but to save time here’s the way this current conversation typically goes:
GK player: our army has some major problems
Non-GK player: you have lots of deepstrike and psykers!
GK: true, but our army has a lot of gaps
Non-GK: yeah but...
GK: *gives reasons why every suggestion the non-GK makes doesn’t work due to math, the meta, and experience*
Non-GK: you guys need to stop complaining
We have tried to optimize our army, and heavily analyzed the codex to do so. We have a vested interest in trying literally everything, and if you look through this thread you’ll see precisely that. Simply saying “be positive” does nothing for us, and identifying weaknesses does help us figure out a way forward.
Dreadknights and Stormravens aren't even particularly good, they're the best we have but will still struggle to win games.
Here's the problem, techsoldaten:
1. we all see the same numbers and know we're mathematically disadvantaged.
2. we all look for clever tricks and combos that we can use to win despite that handicap
3. we all see that we have nothing remarkable in strategems, relics, warlord traits, chapter tactics etc.
4. the rest of us shrug and say, "maybe something will change in the future" while you say "POSITIVE THINKING can overcome any odds!"
It's a small codex with very limited options in units and hardly any of the new 8th edition features. We're not idiots, we can quickly take in all the information and know the score.
Compare the wealth of relics, strategems, warlord traits and regiments that IG get to our book and you'll see that if the Guard had a substantial nerf from published errata it would be quite reasonable to say to them "Huh, well what novel combination of interesting rules is best now?"
Frankly, any innovation you're looking for here would need to come from bringing a detachment of another faction.
techsoldaten wrote: No, I did not say that and would never tell you what to do.
What I did say is players should seek out alternate opinions on Grey Knights, look at how other players are using them, watch battle reports, ask questions on forums, share your army lists, and stop engaging in purely negative dialogue about the army.
Which, of course, means I was being insensitive to poor QuickJaeger. Any time someone is not negative enough in this thread, people like you pour onto them.
So, I am not trying to tell you what to do, feel free to make sure the world knows how discontent you are with everything and keep driving people away. Stop trying to tell me what to do and making up things I said.
The issue is stormravens and dreadknights really doesn't feel like a GK army. It feels like Stormravens and Dreadknights. I want to be able to play with more than 3 adequate units (intercessor, GMDK, Stormraven) especially when 1 of those units isn't even GK specific and gets nothing from GK (the stormraven obviously) There should be more than 1 way to play any army. Period.
Also I didn't get a chance to watch the video, but from a couple comments here I got the impression celestine was mixed in with the Grey Knights in a detachment. If that's the case Grey Knights would still have been casting smites with penalties. The smite rule says that anyone who isn't affected by the brotherhood of psykers/sorcerers rule is affected. The brotherhood of psyker rule is our detachment specific rule that we get only if every unit in the detachment is GK. That's ignoring the fact that the new beta rules sate Celestine HAS to be in a separate detachment.
And if people want to get into GK they SHOULD know what they're getting into because they're about to spend a good bit of money and it would suck to buy a lot of terminators or something just to find there is only one viable GK army. If they don't like that and are "scared off" then I'm glad I saved them money they may have regretted spending. I don't regret my GK but I am burnt out and I'm gonna switch armies for a time.
In response, this is a tactics thread. It occupies a very prominent space on the site and it's one of the first things people see when looking for info on Grey Knights.
There's a line between educating people on the downsides of the Codex and indoctrinating people in a mantra of pure hopelessness. Recycling the same points over and over again, attacking people for using language that is not bleak enough, wrapping responses in rambling rants that take 5 minutes to read... that has nothing to do with educating people about what they are getting into.
I don't see much discussion about tactics in this thread. I see a bunch of people curating their pains with the current edition and jumping all over anyone who doesn't agree.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
greyknight12 wrote: “Alternate opinions” on GK? From whom? Armchair quarterbacks who tell us how to play OUR army?
Your army?
greyknight12 wrote: We are the GK players...and we’ve had a crappy codex for years (except for 5th) . No one is being “driven away”, we’re just holding out going for better rules...someday.
You are not 'the' Grey Knight players. You are a loose collection of people come together in an online forum to complain very loudly about a set of rules under the banner of 'tactics.' You managed to assemble an encyclopedia of complaints and put it on display in response to the most casual observation.
greyknight12 wrote: No offense to you personally, but to save time here’s the way this current conversation typically goes:
GK player: our army has some major problems
Non-GK player: you have lots of deepstrike and psykers!
GK: true, but our army has a lot of gaps
Non-GK: yeah but...
GK: *gives reasons why every suggestion the non-GK makes doesn’t work due to math, the meta, and experience*
Non-GK: you guys need to stop complaining
I agree, there is clearly a problem amongst some people in this thread. They react to any post lacking a sufficient level of pessimism as though someone is mocking them.
The natural reaction would be to ask you to stop complaining. What you might not understand is no one is saying the rules are any good. They are saying conversations with a talking pain magnet are uncomfortable.
greyknight12 wrote: We have tried to optimize our army, and heavily analyzed the codex to do so. We have a vested interest in trying literally everything, and if you look through this thread you’ll see precisely that. Simply saying “be positive” does nothing for us, and identifying weaknesses does help us figure out a way forward.
I've read just about every post in this thread and was clear on the defects a long way back.
The case has been made for the flaws in the army. The fact they need to be repeated with the frequency they are, and to the exclusion of most other conversation, serves no purpose. Hence I suggested not engaging in discussions that are purely negative.
You would have to explain to me how that means you are being told to be positive, I really don't get it.
Sorry if this question has been asked already but can I deepstrike a GMNDK into my own deployment zone and then GOI him up the field with my strike squads shunt or does this fall under the "no warptime from deepstrike" clause?
Lanlaorn wrote: Dreadknights and Stormravens aren't even particularly good, they're the best we have but will still struggle to win games.
Here's the problem, techsoldaten:
1. we all see the same numbers and know we're mathematically disadvantaged.
2. we all look for clever tricks and combos that we can use to win despite that handicap
3. we all see that we have nothing remarkable in strategems, relics, warlord traits, chapter tactics etc.
4. the rest of us shrug and say, "maybe something will change in the future" while you say "POSITIVE THINKING can overcome any odds!"
It's a small codex with very limited options in units and hardly any of the new 8th edition features. We're not idiots, we can quickly take in all the information and know the score.
Compare the wealth of relics, strategems, warlord traits and regiments that IG get to our book and you'll see that if the Guard had a substantial nerf from published errata it would be quite reasonable to say to them "Huh, well what novel combination of interesting rules is best now?"
Frankly, any innovation you're looking for here would need to come from bringing a detachment of another faction.
That's not the problem, that's the challenge.
I'm not looking for some innovation and don't believe the rules are particularly good.
I'm building a Grey Knights army and would like to be able to discuss it without being dogpiled by the cult of doom that's sprang up around the Codex. The signal to noise ratio is just way off, it's hard to say anything without 10 people squealing about their dissatisfaction. The hyperbole is sometimes off the charts.
If you want specific tactics advice, ask it then. You’ll get it. But if you want some self-validation of your army choice, then don’t be surprised if you get the same feedback as if you suggested taking terminators in a space marine thread. People are going to tell it how it is, cause this is a tactics thread.
Back to discussion however, we obviously know that interceptors are going to be among our best units after the DS change. How many are people thinking? I ran 3 units of 10, but that just made them a bigger threat so they died faster. Maybe you could run 3x10 then combat squad them? Interceptors are also nice for LOS blocked charges since they ignore terrain. Outside of those we probably still want strikes for CP. I still don't see a lot of uses for purgations, or purifiers. Stormravens I feel need to be taken in 3's to be of any great use as 1 stormraven just gets immediately obliterated.
Dreadnoughts, I have mixed experiences with these. They seem to e among our best anti-tank, especially if you hide them and use astral aim. But typically when I try it I get little to no use out of them. Anyone else had better luck?
Any other units you guys think we can field to still be viable? I know we can also still take allies, with the obvious answer here being guard, and you of course see a lot of Sisters allied with GK. I'm a big fan of Inquisition too because terrify is an amazing power for stopping a deadly overwatch. I typically take plasma on the inquisitors too. Any other allies that we may find useful?
There's a line between educating people on the downsides of the Codex and indoctrinating people in a mantra of pure hopelessness.
There is a line, I agree...but also Dante should probably be inscribed at the top of this Thread:
"Abandon hope, all ye who enter here."
“THROUGH me you pass into the city of woe:
Through me you pass into eternal pain:
Through me among the people lost for aye.
Justice the founder of my fabric moved:
To rear me was the task of Power divine,
Supremest Wisdom, and primeval Love.
Before me things create were none, save things
Eternal, and eternal I endure.
All hope abandon, ye who enter here.”
bananathug wrote: Sorry if this question has been asked already but can I deepstrike a GMNDK into my own deployment zone and then GOI him up the field with my strike squads shunt or does this fall under the "no warptime from deepstrike" clause?
The FAQ permits it.
Automatically Appended Next Post: I welcome you to actually contribute techsoldaten.
greyknight12 wrote: If you want specific tactics advice, ask it then. You’ll get it. But if you want some self-validation of your army choice, then don’t be surprised if you get the same feedback as if you suggested taking terminators in a space marine thread. People are going to tell it how it is, cause this is a tactics thread.
/thread
This IS the Tactica Subforum I expect top notch advice and I try to give it back as well.
bananathug wrote: Sorry if this question has been asked already but can I deepstrike a GMNDK into my own deployment zone and then GOI him up the field with my strike squads shunt or does this fall under the "no warptime from deepstrike" clause?
The FAQ permits it.
Thanks!!! When I read it I have a problem with the "any unit that arrives on the battlefield during a players first turn must be deployed wholly within the controlling player's deployment zone." Aside from arguing that "re-deployments don't count as deployments" could anyone point me to a quote or something so when I end up in an argument with a TO I have some GW sanctioned ammo? Is there a YMDC thread or something I can read through?
bananathug wrote: Sorry if this question has been asked already but can I deepstrike a GMNDK into my own deployment zone and then GOI him up the field with my strike squads shunt or does this fall under the "no warptime from deepstrike" clause?
The FAQ permits it.
Thanks!!! When I read it I have a problem with the "any unit that arrives on the battlefield during a players first turn must be deployed wholly within the controlling player's deployment zone." Aside from arguing that "re-deployments don't count as deployments" could anyone point me to a quote or something so when I end up in an argument with a TO I have some GW sanctioned ammo? Is there a YMDC thread or something I can read through?
As far as everyone can agree, since Da Jump allows such an interaction, Gate of Infinity also allows it.
bananathug wrote: Sorry if this question has been asked already but can I deepstrike a GMNDK into my own deployment zone and then GOI him up the field with my strike squads shunt or does this fall under the "no warptime from deepstrike" clause?
The FAQ permits it.
Thanks!!! When I read it I have a problem with the "any unit that arrives on the battlefield during a players first turn must be deployed wholly within the controlling player's deployment zone." Aside from arguing that "re-deployments don't count as deployments" could anyone point me to a quote or something so when I end up in an argument with a TO I have some GW sanctioned ammo? Is there a YMDC thread or something I can read through?
As far as everyone can agree, since Da Jump allows such an interaction, Gate of Infinity also allows it.
I think his question is a little more nuanced. The info graphic says if you have a unit on the board, it can Da Jump or GoI out of deployment.
If I read him right, his question is what if he Deep Strikes in on T1 in his deployment zone but then GoI's to try and escape it. That is a scenario I'm less sure about.
Zarroc1733 wrote: Back to discussion however, we obviously know that interceptors are going to be among our best units after the DS change. How many are people thinking? I ran 3 units of 10, but that just made them a bigger threat so they died faster. Maybe you could run 3x10 then combat squad them? Interceptors are also nice for LOS blocked charges since they ignore terrain. Outside of those we probably still want strikes for CP. I still don't see a lot of uses for purgations, or purifiers. Stormravens I feel need to be taken in 3's to be of any great use as 1 stormraven just gets immediately obliterated.
Dreadnoughts, I have mixed experiences with these. They seem to e among our best anti-tank, especially if you hide them and use astral aim. But typically when I try it I get little to no use out of them. Anyone else had better luck?
Any other units you guys think we can field to still be viable? I know we can also still take allies, with the obvious answer here being guard, and you of course see a lot of Sisters allied with GK. I'm a big fan of Inquisition too because terrify is an amazing power for stopping a deadly overwatch. I typically take plasma on the inquisitors too. Any other allies that we may find useful?
I've said this before and I still think it holds true. Paladins are extremely durable. They always survive the entire game for me. I don't like the fact that they we have to take interceptors to get around the DS rule but it is what it is.
An apothecary with Destroyer and Draigo make a fantastic little deathstar type unit. GMDK obviously are still strong
I'm still thinking strikes in a stormraven. The stormraven flanked with at least a stormhawk. I think starting a GMDK on the board with a 5 man strike squad with gate.
I wish the transport rules didnt punish you so heavily for putting multiwound models inside. I really think doomglaives are a legit threat to many things but not sure I want it in a stormraven on the chance I roll a 1.
Luckily GK still have the rule of cool. I have 15 PAGK I will be assembling soon and magentizing the back packs so I can give both strikes and interceptors a try.
To be honest I was already taking mostly interceptors (30) vs strikes (25) in my "silver tide" list anyway. That 12' move+shunt is now more than ever worth an extra 4pts per model. And yeah, combat squading them is going to be the way to go I think, unless you really have something you want psybolts for. But if you have such a target, a stormraven with psybolts has more shots..
Audustm I originally thought about that and typed out a response but honestly deleted it because I'm just so sick of playing 40k rule charades. Since the base FAQ rule says the unit arriving from reserve must be DEPLOYED in the deployment area and GoI makes no mention of such interaction with reserve, and as far as I am aware there is no rule mentioned period in 8th where you back into reserves, I figured said movement in GoI was not a deployment or redeployment action so it wouldn't be affected.
But hey what do I know. GW forgot another interaction.
Quickjager wrote: Audustm I originally thought about that and typed out a response but honestly deleted it because I'm just so sick of playing 40k rule charades. Since the base FAQ rule says the unit arriving from reserve must be DEPLOYED in the deployment area and GoI makes no mention of such interaction with reserve, and as far as I am aware there is no rule mentioned period in 8th where you back into reserves, I figured said movement in GoI was not a deployment or redeployment action so it wouldn't be affected.
But hey what do I know. GW forgot another interaction.
Redeployment isn't the issue here. The issue is they said that things that move your units cannot move them on the turn they deep strike. For example the chaos psychic power warptime allows a unit to move its movement in the psychic phase.They ruled that you cannot warptime a unit the turn it comes in from deep strike. You cannot move for any reason other than a charge, so the question becomes does GOI count as moving because if it does we cannot deep strike then gate. Sadly I think we cannot.
Zarroc1733 wrote: Back to discussion however, we obviously know that interceptors are going to be among our best units after the DS change. How many are people thinking? I ran 3 units of 10, but that just made them a bigger threat so they died faster. Maybe you could run 3x10 then combat squad them? Interceptors are also nice for LOS blocked charges since they ignore terrain. Outside of those we probably still want strikes for CP. I still don't see a lot of uses for purgations, or purifiers. Stormravens I feel need to be taken in 3's to be of any great use as 1 stormraven just gets immediately obliterated.
Dreadnoughts, I have mixed experiences with these. They seem to e among our best anti-tank, especially if you hide them and use astral aim. But typically when I try it I get little to no use out of them. Anyone else had better luck?
Any other units you guys think we can field to still be viable? I know we can also still take allies, with the obvious answer here being guard, and you of course see a lot of Sisters allied with GK. I'm a big fan of Inquisition too because terrify is an amazing power for stopping a deadly overwatch. I typically take plasma on the inquisitors too. Any other allies that we may find useful?
I've said this before and I still think it holds true. Paladins are extremely durable. They always survive the entire game for me. I don't like the fact that they we have to take interceptors to get around the DS rule but it is what it is.
An apothecary with Destroyer and Draigo make a fantastic little deathstar type unit. GMDK obviously are still strong
I'm still thinking strikes in a stormraven. The stormraven flanked with at least a stormhawk. I think starting a GMDK on the board with a 5 man strike squad with gate.
I wish the transport rules didnt punish you so heavily for putting multiwound models inside. I really think doomglaives are a legit threat to many things but not sure I want it in a stormraven on the chance I roll a 1.
Luckily GK still have the rule of cool. I have 15 PAGK I will be assembling soon and magentizing the back packs so I can give both strikes and interceptors a try.
I find paladins far too expensive for what they do. I have fielded them often with an apothecary and ancient and never got much mileage out of them. They may be quite survivable, and can put out respectable damage in melee, but 5 paladins with falchions puts out twice the melee attacks as a ss with falchions, the same stormbolter shots, (or you can take 2 psilencers compared to the ss 1 psilencer) and has 3 times the wounds. The issue is though 5 paladins cost 275 points, whereas 5 ss are 105 or interceptors are 125. I can run 10 ss or interceptors for cheaper, getting 21 attacks (6 more than the paladins) 20-40 bolter shots (double the paladins), and 11 wounds (4 less than the paladins). Are 4 wounds, +1 save, and a 5+ invuln, worth an extra 25-65 extra points when losing 6 attacks, and 10-20 stormbolter shots? In my experience it hasn't been. Of course paladins don't lose as much combat effectiveness as ss and interceptors per wound taken, and they'll make around 16% more saves before invulns are factored in, but they're much more susceptible to multi damage attacks. All in all they need a slight points decrease for me to heavily consider them over just another unit of PAGK.
I've had bad experiences with a lone stormraven. It typically drops fast, but that may just be my experience and not something you'll have often.
I find paladins far too expensive for what they do. I have fielded them often with an apothecary and ancient and never got much mileage out of them. They may be quite survivable, and can put out respectable damage in melee, but 5 paladins with falchions puts out twice the melee attacks as a ss with falchions, the same stormbolter shots, (or you can take 2 psilencers compared to the ss 1 psilencer) and has 3 times the wounds. The issue is though 5 paladins cost 275 points, whereas 5 ss are 105 or interceptors are 125. I can run 10 ss or interceptors for cheaper, getting 21 attacks (6 more than the paladins) 20-40 bolter shots (double the paladins), and 11 wounds (4 less than the paladins). Are 4 wounds, +1 save, and a 5+ invuln, worth an extra 25-65 extra points when losing 6 attacks, and 10-20 stormbolter shots? In my experience it hasn't been. Of course paladins don't lose as much combat effectiveness as ss and interceptors per wound taken, and they'll make around 16% more saves before invulns are factored in, but they're much more susceptible to multi damage attacks. All in all they need a slight points decrease for me to heavily consider them over just another unit of PAGK.
I've had bad experiences with a lone stormraven. It typically drops fast, but that may just be my experience and not something you'll have often.
I share this sentiment about Paladins, have tried to bring them several time and never did much for me and was already thinking of removing of the list before the faq, I would rather have more stormbolter fire. That said my meta is like 65% Tau players for some reason so maybe that's why I never got much use of them.
Also interested to hear what other people think about how Stormraven is important on GK lists. I have been on the fence for a while about getting one but since it's a very pricey $ model and I find it quite ugly, but I keep hearing it's a essential unit for GK lists
Quickjager wrote: Audustm I originally thought about that and typed out a response but honestly deleted it because I'm just so sick of playing 40k rule charades. Since the base FAQ rule says the unit arriving from reserve must be DEPLOYED in the deployment area and GoI makes no mention of such interaction with reserve, and as far as I am aware there is no rule mentioned period in 8th where you back into reserves, I figured said movement in GoI was not a deployment or redeployment action so it wouldn't be affected.
But hey what do I know. GW forgot another interaction.
Fair points all. I know some fellows in YMDC that might enjoy this though!
Quickjager wrote: Audustm I originally thought about that and typed out a response but honestly deleted it because I'm just so sick of playing 40k rule charades. Since the base FAQ rule says the unit arriving from reserve must be DEPLOYED in the deployment area and GoI makes no mention of such interaction with reserve, and as far as I am aware there is no rule mentioned period in 8th where you back into reserves, I figured said movement in GoI was not a deployment or redeployment action so it wouldn't be affected.
But hey what do I know. GW forgot another interaction.
Redeployment isn't the issue here. The issue is they said that things that move your units cannot move them on the turn they deep strike. For example the chaos psychic power warptime allows a unit to move its movement in the psychic phase.They ruled that you cannot warptime a unit the turn it comes in from deep strike. You cannot move for any reason other than a charge, so the question becomes does GOI count as moving because if it does we cannot deep strike then gate. Sadly I think we cannot.
Zarroc1733 wrote: Back to discussion however, we obviously know that interceptors are going to be among our best units after the DS change. How many are people thinking? I ran 3 units of 10, but that just made them a bigger threat so they died faster. Maybe you could run 3x10 then combat squad them? Interceptors are also nice for LOS blocked charges since they ignore terrain. Outside of those we probably still want strikes for CP. I still don't see a lot of uses for purgations, or purifiers. Stormravens I feel need to be taken in 3's to be of any great use as 1 stormraven just gets immediately obliterated.
Dreadnoughts, I have mixed experiences with these. They seem to e among our best anti-tank, especially if you hide them and use astral aim. But typically when I try it I get little to no use out of them. Anyone else had better luck?
Any other units you guys think we can field to still be viable? I know we can also still take allies, with the obvious answer here being guard, and you of course see a lot of Sisters allied with GK. I'm a big fan of Inquisition too because terrify is an amazing power for stopping a deadly overwatch. I typically take plasma on the inquisitors too. Any other allies that we may find useful?
I've said this before and I still think it holds true. Paladins are extremely durable. They always survive the entire game for me. I don't like the fact that they we have to take interceptors to get around the DS rule but it is what it is.
An apothecary with Destroyer and Draigo make a fantastic little deathstar type unit. GMDK obviously are still strong
I'm still thinking strikes in a stormraven. The stormraven flanked with at least a stormhawk. I think starting a GMDK on the board with a 5 man strike squad with gate.
I wish the transport rules didnt punish you so heavily for putting multiwound models inside. I really think doomglaives are a legit threat to many things but not sure I want it in a stormraven on the chance I roll a 1.
Luckily GK still have the rule of cool. I have 15 PAGK I will be assembling soon and magentizing the back packs so I can give both strikes and interceptors a try.
I find paladins far too expensive for what they do. I have fielded them often with an apothecary and ancient and never got much mileage out of them. They may be quite survivable, and can put out respectable damage in melee, but 5 paladins with falchions puts out twice the melee attacks as a ss with falchions, the same stormbolter shots, (or you can take 2 psilencers compared to the ss 1 psilencer) and has 3 times the wounds. The issue is though 5 paladins cost 275 points, whereas 5 ss are 105 or interceptors are 125. I can run 10 ss or interceptors for cheaper, getting 21 attacks (6 more than the paladins) 20-40 bolter shots (double the paladins), and 11 wounds (4 less than the paladins). Are 4 wounds, +1 save, and a 5+ invuln, worth an extra 25-65 extra points when losing 6 attacks, and 10-20 stormbolter shots? In my experience it hasn't been. Of course paladins don't lose as much combat effectiveness as ss and interceptors per wound taken, and they'll make around 16% more saves before invulns are factored in, but they're much more susceptible to multi damage attacks. All in all they need a slight points decrease for me to heavily consider them over just another unit of PAGK.
I've had bad experiences with a lone stormraven. It typically drops fast, but that may just be my experience and not something you'll have often.
Regarding the Stormraven, any tournament I've ever been to most lists can drop a flyer per turn. So that Stormraven will go down fast most of the time if they want it to.
Regarding the Stormraven, any tournament I've ever been to most lists can drop a flyer per turn. So that Stormraven will go down fast most of the time if they want it to.
When I take one, I always take 2.
That many points into 2 models plus all the units you cram on board will usually guarantee you the first turn/+1 to dice-off. In a perfect world they will lunge forward T1 and eliminate whatever nasty shooty business that threatens them (not much in the codex that can do that), then dump their cargo into the fray and whizz around unmolested for the rest of the game.
Its not a perfect world of course and there are several pitfalls, particularly when you do lose one before your first turn. But hey what else are we gonna do right?
"I don't always take one, but when I do I take two."
Heh. And I actually follow this adage on nearly every single thing I take. Redundancy is a trait in all my lists. But I frequently stop at two, as well, and rarely take three.
Honestly, after digesting a little bit. Our interceptors and a single unit with gate of infinity will be nice. There will be less dedicated bubble wrap now as the meta shifts, in particular before first turn scout/deploy bubble wrap. That gets us closer to squishy backlines easier with a single gate unit and xx interceptors.
Issue then still is the fact that we still are low on cp with that 1cp
Yeah, there will still be that... but i am thinking less units like scout sentinels whose sole purpose in many lists is pushing out the first turn deep strike bubble before you get a chance to move.. In this case, Scout sentinels will take an unforseen nerf as the meta shifts. Therefore less of these will be seen.
Scout sentinels are just an example. Those are what I was using for my guard list and now they will start their dust collection for a while now that I have 1-2 turns to push out that deep strike bubble.
Ratlings will see something similar. At least they can still put mortal wounds on characters.
Now I just need to slam GWs emails full of requests to give brotherhood champions the option to take a personal teleporter so he can keep up with interceptors.
I thought people took scout sentinels so they could get a brigade. I’m also not convinced bubble wrap will diminish, board control is still important for an objective-based game and it’s not like guard (in particular) was losing out by taking all those infantry squads.
In the first games I did with this FAQ, my opponents were bubble wrapping as usual, as long as they have troops and know they are playing against GK, I don't see why this would prevent them from trying to bubble wrapping a bit even if their list is not built for it.
Smotejob wrote: Honestly, after digesting a little bit. Our interceptors and a single unit with gate of infinity will be nice.
I agree. I'll be testing out this silly 4CP list over the weekend. Playing the new FAQ and beta rules... ugh.
C&C Appreciated. Spoilers contain explanations.
Take Loremaster trait in order to give him Gate of Infinity AND Sanctuary. I normally prefer First to the Fray, but Loremaster is the only way to guarantee he receives Sanctuary every turn. Plus, this list doesn't really require a first turn charge.
Pay for the Teleporter just so he can stay safe off the battlefield in case your opponent goes first.
I considered Draigo instead. Even without the GMNDK guns, mathhammer says Draigo's reroll aura benefiting the Stormravens will provide, overall, more damage output on my Alpha strike.
But Stormraven's should die fast. One will probably die if my opponent gets first turn. Once Draigo has no more Stormravens to buff, he becomes way less efficient than a GMNDK. I also want my opponent to make a tough choice between shooting my GMNDK or my Stormravens.
Your standard Astral Aim Dreadnought. Stick him behind LOS terrain in your deployment, preferably on an objective. This combo is still pretty darn good IMO.
30x Interceptors. Give Hammerhand to one unit and Vortex to the other two. Combat squad them into six units of 5x Marines for extra smites! Normally I don't like to waste Daemon Hammers on PAGK Sargeants, but I had ~50 points leftover and there's nothing else in our entire codex to spend it on hah!
Once we've taken Interceptors and a single Gate unit, sadly we've got nothing else besides flyers that can get in the opponent's face on Turn 1 (Thanks alot beta rules...)
And if you're going to take a flyer, mathhammer tells me Stormraven > Stormhawk > Stormtalon for damage output AND points efficiency. Stormraven survivability is probably best too.
I'm toying with an idea and was wondering if the Fury of Deimos is a stormbolter and therefore allowed to use Psybolt Ammo. The fluff clearly says that it is a stormbolter but it doesn't say so in the crunch.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Also has anyone considered just making 6 man strike squads and interceptors? It really raises the PL of the army and would allow us to drop more models from deepstrike without too much more in point costs. Strike squads go from 7 PL to 14PL with that extra model.
Leo_the_Rat wrote: I'm toying with an idea and was wondering if the Fury of Deimos is a stormbolter and therefore allowed to use Psybolt Ammo. The fluff clearly says that it is a stormbolter but it doesn't say so in the crunch.
That strategem seems pretty clear about what guns are affected.
And even if Fury of Deimos were included, that seems like a pretty wasteful expenditure of 2CP. That strategem is probably best reserved for when you've got a 10-man squad rapid-firing SB's.
Leo_the_Rat wrote: I'm toying with an idea and was wondering if the Fury of Deimos is a stormbolter and therefore allowed to use Psybolt Ammo. The fluff clearly says that it is a stormbolter but it doesn't say so in the crunch.
That strategem seems pretty clear about what guns are affected.
And even if Fury of Deimos were included, that seems like a pretty wasteful expenditure of 2CP. That strategem is probably best reserved for when you've got a 10-man squad rapid-firing SB's.
It doesn't matter if it's wasteful. You can do Bolter Drill on Pedro Kantor because. It's an option at least.
Leo_the_Rat wrote: I'm toying with an idea and was wondering if the Fury of Deimos is a stormbolter and therefore allowed to use Psybolt Ammo. The fluff clearly says that it is a stormbolter but it doesn't say so in the crunch.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Also has anyone considered just making 6 man strike squads and interceptors? It really raises the PL of the army and would allow us to drop more models from deepstrike without too much more in point costs. Strike squads go from 7 PL to 14PL with that extra model.
You know I didn't think of that, I too used to ignoring PL.
Thefriendlygrot wrote: I assume Grey Knights lose the Heed the Prognosticar’s buff if they use Gate of Infinity because of the BRBFAQ. Is that how everyone here sees it?
Hadnt thought of that but yeah. I thought that was a weird ruling tbh, not sure what was being abused for them to rule that way
Q: If you use a Stratagem to remove a model from the battlefield and set it up again, does the model retain any persistent effects (for example, a bonus to one of its characteristics as a result of an ability)? A: No
I will admit that Heed hasn't been one of my most used stratagems simply due to not having enough CPs. I have mostly used it when I'm already on the board (GMDK) and just wanted some extra armor to survive to the next round.
I like you give it to a grand Master dk to get him that 3++ then sanctuary another gmdk so I have two of them at 3++... But now gate of infinity kills it. : ( GW keeps nerfing us little by little.
Also has anyone considered just making 6 man strike squads and interceptors? It really raises the PL of the army and would allow us to drop more models from deepstrike without too much more in point costs. Strike squads go from 7 PL to 14PL with that extra model.
Smotejob wrote: I like you give it to a grand Master dk to get him that 3++ then sanctuary another gmdk so I have two of them at 3++... But now gate of infinity kills it. : ( GW keeps nerfing us little by little.
Just cast sanctuary on the one that's gating and give heed to the one that isn't
Edit: just remembered this doesn't work if the one that isn't gating is deepstriking
What are the top tier units to use for Grey Knights? I think they were Grand Masters in Nemesis Dreadknight armor and Strike Squads. What are they now with the update?
BillyN831 wrote: What are the top tier units to use for Grey Knights? I think they were Grand Masters in Nemesis Dreadknight armor and Strike Squads. What are they now with the update?
Grandmaster Dreadknights, Strike Squads, and Interceptor Squads. Then you have the middling Paladins and Purgator Squads and Draigo. Ignore anything else.
List from London GT. Player going essentially pure GK. Should be interesting to see how it turns out.
Player name: Michael Cook
Army Faction: Grey Knights
Total command points: 8
Total army points: 1999
Battalion Detachment [1284] +5cp
HQ1: Grand Master Nemesis DreadKnight [190] + gatling psilencer + Heavy Psycannon + Nemesis Great sword + teleporter [260] – WARLORD (first to the fray)
Q: If you use a Stratagem to remove a model from the battlefield
and set it up again, does the model retain any persistent effects
(for example, a bonus to one of its characteristics as a result of
an ability)?
A: No
Well damn, that will really hurt my list.The 2+ save was really helping my lists survivability by turning the GMDK in a firepower sponge
Q: If you use a Stratagem to remove a model from the battlefield
and set it up again, does the model retain any persistent effects
(for example, a bonus to one of its characteristics as a result of
an ability)?
A: No
Well damn, that will really hurt my list.The 2+ save was really helping my lists survivability by turning the GMDK in a firepower sponge
Gate isn’t a Stratagem so it shouldn’t have any effect on bonus already applied by a Stratagem. At least, not per the quoted Q&A.
There is an extropolation that removing a model from the board (which GoI does) removes any effects that the model had on it previously. So putting +1 Sv on a model and then removing the model from the board via GoI would then remove the +1 persistant effect.
Leo_the_Rat wrote: There is an extropolation that removing a model from the board (which GoI does) removes any effects that the model had on it previously. So putting +1 Sv on a model and then removing the model from the board via GoI would then remove the +1 persistant effect.
Is that fair though? To make the assumption that is what is implied? Or should we take the question as it was asked and apply it only to the ruling of strategems.
If you want to be very legal about it then all answers are only to be applied to the specific (and narrow) scope of the question asked. Most people will make a logical jump and say that if an answer applies to a specific situation and there is a similar situation that arises then the same answer should apply.
The answer says that if a model is removed from the board then all persistant effects on that model are no longer available when the model "reappears" on the board. GoI literally says to remove the unit from the board and then place it back onto the board. This seems to be analagous to the Q&A. As such, it is reasonable to assume that the same answer would apply to GoI. If you're unsure then feel free to ask the TO or your opponent how they would rule.
Leo_the_Rat wrote: There is an extropolation that removing a model from the board (which GoI does) removes any effects that the model had on it previously. So putting +1 Sv on a model and then removing the model from the board via GoI would then remove the +1 persistant effect.
Is that fair though? To make the assumption that is what is implied? Or should we take the question as it was asked and apply it only to the ruling of strategems.
It seems no bigger a jump than using the Death Guard FAQ answer allowing a stratagem to be used to take non-warlord faction relics being applied to every faction in the game.
The issue has more to do with GW’s poor use of language. The Q&A could have answered that any effect that removes a model from the table will also remover any persistent effect on that model regardless of whether or not the model is immediately returned to the table. But they didn’t. They answered a specific question with a specific answer, while ignoring how else they could have/should have answered to address the wider, more general question. Add to the situation that GW has contradictory rules in their Q&A’s, we cannot just apply a specific ruling to a general category.
TheMostWize wrote: List from London GT. Player going essentially pure GK. Should be interesting to see how it turns out.
Player name: Michael Cook
Army Faction: Grey Knights
Total command points: 8
Total army points: 1999
Battalion Detachment [1284] +5cp
HQ1: Grand Master Nemesis DreadKnight [190] + gatling psilencer + Heavy Psycannon + Nemesis Great sword + teleporter [260] – WARLORD (first to the fray)
Has anyone tried out a Libby with a stormshield + staff + curiass of sacrifice? Can tank like a boss I would assume. Or use storm shield + heed the prognisticars + curiass + falcions?
Could use him like a lone wolf, just go off on his own since he doesn't actually benefit the rest of the army.
Smotejob wrote: Has anyone tried out a Libby with a stormshield + staff + curiass of sacrifice? Can tank like a boss I would assume. Or use storm shield + heed the prognisticars + curiass + falcions?
Could use him like a lone wolf, just go off on his own since he doesn't actually benefit the rest of the army.
I liked the stave / shield combo when he could tank for other characters, but now that he can't, it's less appealing. I can't see too many situations where I'd want my libby going solo enough to sink extra points / CP into him - I think it's probably easier and more cost efficient just to screen him with other units
Just trying to think of ways to use my Libby I spent time and energy converting a while back. He is pretty useless right now with other grey knights on the field.
In this post-FAQ world, I decided to try my GK with some Custodes friends at a tournament this weekend. 4 rounds, 1600 points, just under 50 players. The TO had put out a mission packet ahead of time so we knew what types of missions to expect. I took 2nd overall and went 4-0 with the following list:
Custodes Supreme Command 3- Shield Captains on Jetbikes: Salvo Launcher on all
Nearly all my games went to turn 5-6. My army did not murder so much as it just endured, and outlasted my opponents. The loss of the alpha strike made for the GK to be less fun to play, but the boost in survivability was great. I only went first in 1 game. I used Voldus to buff the Paladins with Sanctuary and Hammerhand, and sent them at whatever needed to die by Gating them turn 1 in 3/4 games. He would then Gate after them and follow around. In the only game I played recklessly with Voldus and got him killed (Screamers of Tzeentch are nasty), I used the Shoulder the Mantle Stratagem to make a Custode my Warlord, denying a point to my opponent. Even Crowe had his shining moment against Tyranids by getting into some Termagants and then Genestealers and tearing through them with his stick.
How did you keep hammerhand and sanctuary on the paladins after gating them? Per the conversation above it has been ruled that any effects disapate from a unit after it is removed from the board (which gate does).
From the latest BRBFAQ Q: If you use a Stratagem to remove a model from the battlefield
and set it up again, does the model retain any persistent effects
(for example, a bonus to one of its characteristics as a result of
an ability)?
A: No
Leo_the_Rat wrote: How did you keep hammerhand and sanctuary on the paladins after gating them? Per the conversation above it has been ruled that any effects disapate from a unit after it is removed from the board (which gate does).
From the latest BRBFAQ Q: If you use a Stratagem to remove a model from the battlefield
and set it up again, does the model retain any persistent effects
(for example, a bonus to one of its characteristics as a result of
an ability)?
A: No
I didn't use a Stratagem to remove them from the battlefield, I used a Psychic Power.
The FAQ gave the survivability, by limiting an Alpha Strike on my unit on the board. I could put the Paladins behind some LoS-blocking terrain, making it very difficult to do significant damage to them right away. The Paladins, being so durable, were the perfect screen for the Shield Captains.
Homeskillet wrote: In this post-FAQ world, I decided to try my GK with some Custodes friends at a tournament this weekend. 4 rounds, 1600 points, just under 50 players. The TO had put out a mission packet ahead of time so we knew what types of missions to expect. I took 2nd overall and went 4-0 with the following list:
Custodes Supreme Command 3- Shield Captains on Jetbikes: Salvo Launcher on all
Nearly all my games went to turn 5-6. My army did not murder so much as it just endured, and outlasted my opponents. The loss of the alpha strike made for the GK to be less fun to play, but the boost in survivability was great. I only went first in 1 game. I used Voldus to buff the Paladins with Sanctuary and Hammerhand, and sent them at whatever needed to die by Gating them turn 1 in 3/4 games. He would then Gate after them and follow around. In the only game I played recklessly with Voldus and got him killed (Screamers of Tzeentch are nasty), I used the Shoulder the Mantle Stratagem to make a Custode my Warlord, denying a point to my opponent. Even Crowe had his shining moment against Tyranids by getting into some Termagants and then Genestealers and tearing through them with his stick.
I really like this list. Yeah it doesn't have tons of dreadknights but it seems fun and different and able to hold it's own.
Homeskillet wrote: In this post-FAQ world, I decided to try my GK with some Custodes friends at a tournament this weekend. 4 rounds, 1600 points, just under 50 players. The TO had put out a mission packet ahead of time so we knew what types of missions to expect. I took 2nd overall and went 4-0 with the following list:
Custodes Supreme Command 3- Shield Captains on Jetbikes: Salvo Launcher on all
Nearly all my games went to turn 5-6. My army did not murder so much as it just endured, and outlasted my opponents. The loss of the alpha strike made for the GK to be less fun to play, but the boost in survivability was great. I only went first in 1 game. I used Voldus to buff the Paladins with Sanctuary and Hammerhand, and sent them at whatever needed to die by Gating them turn 1 in 3/4 games. He would then Gate after them and follow around. In the only game I played recklessly with Voldus and got him killed (Screamers of Tzeentch are nasty), I used the Shoulder the Mantle Stratagem to make a Custode my Warlord, denying a point to my opponent. Even Crowe had his shining moment against Tyranids by getting into some Termagants and then Genestealers and tearing through them with his stick.
I'd really like to know why you went for Crowe, and also how you'd scale this up to 2k?
Was wondering too. Strapped for points I like the champion more. His ability to would big targets is really nice. But Crowe is a better horde-mower. Now just imagine if he had a nemesis force sword or the black blade of antwyr had any sort of edge sharper than a stick. An inert demon sword should still cut
There are less falcoins than needed for a full squad. Last time when i assembled mine i could use them on 6 out of 10 models, so 12 falcions in total
the rest are 4 helberds, 2x2h Swords, 2 swords and if i remember correctly also 2 hammers and 2 staves
BillyN831 wrote: How many falchions come in a Strike Squad box? A lot of bit sites are sold out but what do people do to find bits? Thanks!
A Falchion is just a single edge sword, which means Halberd blades make great Falchions in a pinch.
SJ
Also, I've never met someone even in tournaments, who cared if you just had a GK model dual-wielding Force Swords. Swords and swords and work in a pinch.
Homeskillet wrote: In this post-FAQ world, I decided to try my GK with some Custodes friends at a tournament this weekend. 4 rounds, 1600 points, just under 50 players. The TO had put out a mission packet ahead of time so we knew what types of missions to expect. I took 2nd overall and went 4-0 with the following list:
Custodes Supreme Command 3- Shield Captains on Jetbikes: Salvo Launcher on all
Nearly all my games went to turn 5-6. My army did not murder so much as it just endured, and outlasted my opponents. The loss of the alpha strike made for the GK to be less fun to play, but the boost in survivability was great. I only went first in 1 game. I used Voldus to buff the Paladins with Sanctuary and Hammerhand, and sent them at whatever needed to die by Gating them turn 1 in 3/4 games. He would then Gate after them and follow around. In the only game I played recklessly with Voldus and got him killed (Screamers of Tzeentch are nasty), I used the Shoulder the Mantle Stratagem to make a Custode my Warlord, denying a point to my opponent. Even Crowe had his shining moment against Tyranids by getting into some Termagants and then Genestealers and tearing through them with his stick.
I'd really like to know why you went for Crowe, and also how you'd scale this up to 2k?
Pre-FAQ I was using massed strike squads and a Chaplain to drop in and assault turn 1. Now, my Chaplain has much less value with Voldus being there. So I opted for a cheap HQ, and was originally going with a Brotherhood Champ. In playtesting him, I was very underwhelmed. Most things I wanted him to kill had decent invul saves anyway, so the sword didn't do much for me. For 10 points more with Crowe, I get another wound, better smite, and great anti-horde capability.
As for how I'd scale this up to 2k, I'm not sure yet.
Ideas to bring to 2k.
Could flesh out the paladins to a full 10 and add two more psilencers for more oomph.
Dreadknight GM wouldn't hurt, and without the alpha strike it wouldn't be bad for him to start on the board now. Walk up 8 and use his 24 inch shooting and control the mid field.
He can usually get near enough to paladins to give his aura out.
I like an apoc with the soul glaive in my paladin heavy lists. Dude puts out hurt with 4A and WS 2+. Partially wounded paladins usually go back to full health and that soul glaive is brutal in combat.
There are always the tried and true interceptors, but they seem a little flimsy for this list.
Smotejob wrote: Ideas to bring to 2k.
Could flesh out the paladins to a full 10 and add two more psilencers for more oomph.
Dreadknight GM wouldn't hurt, and without the alpha strike it wouldn't be bad for him to start on the board now. Walk up 8 and use his 24 inch shooting and control the mid field.
He can usually get near enough to paladins to give his aura out.
I like an apoc with the soul glaive in my paladin heavy lists. Dude puts out hurt with 4A and WS 2+. Partially wounded paladins usually go back to full health and that soul glaive is brutal in combat.
There are always the tried and true interceptors, but they seem a little flimsy for this list.
I agree, but im thinking another unit of Paladins and an Apothecary to heal/revive would be great. Between two Paladin squads and some Custodes Captains, they'd lock down Objectives fairly well.
Leo_the_Rat wrote: How did you keep hammerhand and sanctuary on the paladins after gating them? Per the conversation above it has been ruled that any effects disapate from a unit after it is removed from the board (which gate does).
From the latest BRBFAQ Q: If you use a Stratagem to remove a model from the battlefield and set it up again, does the model retain any persistent effects (for example, a bonus to one of its characteristics as a result of an ability)?
A: No
I didn't use a Stratagem to remove them from the battlefield, I used a Psychic Power.
I would be careful here. You're being very literal with your interpretation of the Q&A. I believe that if push came to shove most TOs would say the intent is that if you remove a model from the board then any persistent effect would be lost. Just for safety's sake I would discuss it with a TO before you depend upon your interpretation.
Leo_the_Rat wrote: How did you keep hammerhand and sanctuary on the paladins after gating them? Per the conversation above it has been ruled that any effects disapate from a unit after it is removed from the board (which gate does).
From the latest BRBFAQ Q: If you use a Stratagem to remove a model from the battlefield and set it up again, does the model retain any persistent effects (for example, a bonus to one of its characteristics as a result of an ability)?
A: No
I didn't use a Stratagem to remove them from the battlefield, I used a Psychic Power.
I would be careful here. You're being very literal with your interpretation of the Q&A. I believe that if push came to shove most TOs would say the intent is that if you remove a model from the board then any persistent effect would be lost. Just for safety's sake I would discuss it with a TO before you depend upon your interpretation.
Thanks, but why would you play rules as anything other than what is written? I could "interpret" the other player's rules to be whatever suited me, and we'd never play the actual game. If GW wants to re-word this in another FAQ, they will. Until then, it's very clear.
Because, in this instance, you are taking a very narrow view of an answer to a question. The general application would be to say that anytime you remove a unit from the battlefield it loses any effects that are on them. You are taking an almost BCB RAW perspective that the answer only applies to the single instance where you remove a unit from the battlefield using a stratagem and not in any other circumstance.
IMO the answer should be applied universally to any removal and not just be limited to that single instance. You are, of course, free to play it that way but I think that at an event if someone brought this up to a TO he would rule in the more general usage.
You are correct that it is clear that a stratagem triggers the removal of effects. You are possibly incorrect as to that being the only limitation to the removal of effects.
By the way if you try playing the game strictly RAW then it breaks. For examples see BaconCatBug's signature. For an example the RAW just says that I have to use a 6 sided die. They don't say that I have to have the numbers 1-6 on them ( I have a d3 that is 6 sided so I could use that for morale tests per RAW).
Homeskillet wrote: In this post-FAQ world, I decided to try my GK with some Custodes friends at a tournament this weekend. 4 rounds, 1600 points, just under 50 players. The TO had put out a mission packet ahead of time so we knew what types of missions to expect. I took 2nd overall and went 4-0 with the following list:
Custodes Supreme Command 3- Shield Captains on Jetbikes: Salvo Launcher on all
Nearly all my games went to turn 5-6. My army did not murder so much as it just endured, and outlasted my opponents. The loss of the alpha strike made for the GK to be less fun to play, but the boost in survivability was great. I only went first in 1 game. I used Voldus to buff the Paladins with Sanctuary and Hammerhand, and sent them at whatever needed to die by Gating them turn 1 in 3/4 games. He would then Gate after them and follow around. In the only game I played recklessly with Voldus and got him killed (Screamers of Tzeentch are nasty), I used the Shoulder the Mantle Stratagem to make a Custode my Warlord, denying a point to my opponent. Even Crowe had his shining moment against Tyranids by getting into some Termagants and then Genestealers and tearing through them with his stick.
Did you think the salvo launcher was worth it in these models over the hurricane?
Homeskillet wrote: In this post-FAQ world, I decided to try my GK with some Custodes friends at a tournament this weekend. 4 rounds, 1600 points, just under 50 players. The TO had put out a mission packet ahead of time so we knew what types of missions to expect. I took 2nd overall and went 4-0 with the following list:
Custodes Supreme Command 3- Shield Captains on Jetbikes: Salvo Launcher on all
Nearly all my games went to turn 5-6. My army did not murder so much as it just endured, and outlasted my opponents. The loss of the alpha strike made for the GK to be less fun to play, but the boost in survivability was great. I only went first in 1 game. I used Voldus to buff the Paladins with Sanctuary and Hammerhand, and sent them at whatever needed to die by Gating them turn 1 in 3/4 games. He would then Gate after them and follow around. In the only game I played recklessly with Voldus and got him killed (Screamers of Tzeentch are nasty), I used the Shoulder the Mantle Stratagem to make a Custode my Warlord, denying a point to my opponent. Even Crowe had his shining moment against Tyranids by getting into some Termagants and then Genestealers and tearing through them with his stick.
Did you think the salvo launcher was worth it in the shield captains over the hurricane bolter?
Regarding this FAQ about the units not retaining buffs after being removed from the board: What stratagems exactly are they referring to? I wasnt aware of any strats that allow you to pull an already deployed unit into deepstrike/reinforcements. Even the GK one for interceptors is just allowing you to use the unit ability twice
Correct me if I'm ignorant, but it sounds to me like they're talking about things like 'Tide of traitors' where obviously the intent is that a 'new' unbuffed unit should be deployed.
Spartacus wrote: Regarding this FAQ about the units not retaining buffs after being removed from the board: What stratagems exactly are they referring to? I wasnt aware of any strats that allow you to pull an already deployed unit into deepstrike/reinforcements. Even the GK one for interceptors is just allowing you to use the unit ability twice
Correct me if I'm ignorant, but it sounds to me like they're talking about things like 'Tide of traitors' where obviously the intent is that a 'new' unbuffed unit should be deployed.
Upon Wings of Fire (BA) would be one. I can't think of any others off the top of my head but I'm sure there are
Homeskillet wrote: In this post-FAQ world, I decided to try my GK with some Custodes friends at a tournament this weekend. 4 rounds, 1600 points, just under 50 players. The TO had put out a mission packet ahead of time so we knew what types of missions to expect. I took 2nd overall and went 4-0 with the following list:
Custodes Supreme Command 3- Shield Captains on Jetbikes: Salvo Launcher on all
Nearly all my games went to turn 5-6. My army did not murder so much as it just endured, and outlasted my opponents. The loss of the alpha strike made for the GK to be less fun to play, but the boost in survivability was great. I only went first in 1 game. I used Voldus to buff the Paladins with Sanctuary and Hammerhand, and sent them at whatever needed to die by Gating them turn 1 in 3/4 games. He would then Gate after them and follow around. In the only game I played recklessly with Voldus and got him killed (Screamers of Tzeentch are nasty), I used the Shoulder the Mantle Stratagem to make a Custode my Warlord, denying a point to my opponent. Even Crowe had his shining moment against Tyranids by getting into some Termagants and then Genestealers and tearing through them with his stick.
Did you think the salvo launcher was worth it in these models over the hurricane?
Homeskillet wrote: In this post-FAQ world, I decided to try my GK with some Custodes friends at a tournament this weekend. 4 rounds, 1600 points, just under 50 players. The TO had put out a mission packet ahead of time so we knew what types of missions to expect. I took 2nd overall and went 4-0 with the following list:
Custodes Supreme Command 3- Shield Captains on Jetbikes: Salvo Launcher on all
Nearly all my games went to turn 5-6. My army did not murder so much as it just endured, and outlasted my opponents. The loss of the alpha strike made for the GK to be less fun to play, but the boost in survivability was great. I only went first in 1 game. I used Voldus to buff the Paladins with Sanctuary and Hammerhand, and sent them at whatever needed to die by Gating them turn 1 in 3/4 games. He would then Gate after them and follow around. In the only game I played recklessly with Voldus and got him killed (Screamers of Tzeentch are nasty), I used the Shoulder the Mantle Stratagem to make a Custode my Warlord, denying a point to my opponent. Even Crowe had his shining moment against Tyranids by getting into some Termagants and then Genestealers and tearing through them with his stick.
Did you think the salvo launcher was worth it in the shield captains over the hurricane bolter?
Absolutely! GK do bolters like nobody else, so there was no reason to add a few more in the Shield Captains. The Salvo Launchers are fantastic anti-tank/anti-monster. I would typically shoot all three at one vehicle/monster, then charge them each into something else. If I were taking the Captains in an AM Army, maybe I'd go with bolters, but with GK, the Salvo Launchers were a great addition.
I like my storm raven. I have it magnetized for a few different loads.
2 Multi melta + 2 lascannon + 2 missiles a turn with draigo giving them rerolls will usually pop a vehicle/mosnter a turn.
Twin heavy bolter + assault cannon + hurricane bolter loadout is a good infantry muncher. Add psybolters for 24 str 5 ap-1, 6 str 6 ap -2, and 12 str 6 ap -1 shots. Still get the missiles for some anti heavy shooting.
Either way I always have a hurricane bolter. Mix n match as needed.
Then load up with bodies to get units/power levels on the board. I like my 1. Two is tough to swing and bring other cool stuff.
Also a super fluffy way to play them. And they are better with the new deep strike rules. Less likely to have your storm raven get destroyed turn one from an alpha strike.
Smotejob wrote: I like my storm raven. I have it magnetized for a few different loads.
2 Multi melta + 2 lascannon + 2 missiles a turn with draigo giving them rerolls will usually pop a vehicle/mosnter a turn.
Twin heavy bolter + assault cannon + hurricane bolter loadout is a good infantry muncher. Add psybolters for 24 str 5 ap-1, 6 str 6 ap -2, and 12 str 6 ap -1 shots. Still get the missiles for some anti heavy shooting.
Either way I always have a hurricane bolter. Mix n match as needed.
Then load up with bodies to get units/power levels on the board. I like my 1. Two is tough to swing and bring other cool stuff.
Also a super fluffy way to play them. And they are better with the new deep strike rules. Less likely to have your storm raven get destroyed turn one from an alpha strike.
Thanks, im having huge problems against one Milita / Custodes Player, who fields 4 Leman Russ 1 Hellhound and several Guard 1 Banner 1 Bike and lots of Milita Chaff .. i am gonna get rmy Hands on a Stormraven now and try it out, letss ee if i can get his Tanks some trouble.
Isn't the entire FW Grey Knight range just the Psycanon Land Raider and the Doomglave dread? A bit disapointing
However new datasheet may mean access to other FW vehicles. Since they are in this book, wouldn't it be nuts us getting access to the Custodes Dreads? (I know extreme wishful thinking)
GuardStrider wrote: Isn't the entire FW Grey Knight range just the Psycanon Land Raider and the Doomglave dread? A bit disapointing
However new datasheet may mean access to other FW vehicles. Since they are in this book, wouldn't it be nuts us getting access to the Custodes Dreads? (I know extreme wishful thinking)
And the vortimer razorback. The entire grey knights range lol.
Sadly, with the release of Deathwatch, this is definitely not the case. Special issue ammo, with the stratagem of Deep Strike, means that Intercessors are incredibly better at shooting and surviving than PAGK.
Sadly, with the release of Deathwatch, this is definitely not the case. Special issue ammo, with the stratagem of Deep Strike, means that Intercessors are incredibly better at shooting and surviving than PAGK.
Bah, you got me there. Not gonna lie, I really want to put together some Primaris Kill Teams to go with my GK...
Automatically Appended Next Post: I experimented with a GK Air Force yesterday. In a 2k game, I took an Air Wing Detachment of a Stormraven (Lascannons/ Multi-melta/Hurricanes) and 2 Stormtalons (Typhoon Missiles). I filled out my army with a GK Battalion of Voldus, a Techmarine, 3 5 man Strike Squads, 2 Purgation Squads with Psilencers, and a brick of 6 Paladins with 2 Psilencers. We played a Maelstrom Mission from Chapter Approved, and it was against a Death Guard Poxwalker/Blight Drone list. We had a great game, I was behind on Objective points at the end, but the last turn I finished him off, tabling the Death Guard. I was very skeptical a GK flyer list would do much, but against this particular list the flyers wreaked havoc strafing around the board.
Homeskillet wrote: In this post-FAQ world, I decided to try my GK with some Custodes friends at a tournament this weekend. 4 rounds, 1600 points, just under 50 players. The TO had put out a mission packet ahead of time so we knew what types of missions to expect. I took 2nd overall and went 4-0 with the following list:
Custodes Supreme Command 3- Shield Captains on Jetbikes: Salvo Launcher on all
Nearly all my games went to turn 5-6. My army did not murder so much as it just endured, and outlasted my opponents. The loss of the alpha strike made for the GK to be less fun to play, but the boost in survivability was great. I only went first in 1 game. I used Voldus to buff the Paladins with Sanctuary and Hammerhand, and sent them at whatever needed to die by Gating them turn 1 in 3/4 games. He would then Gate after them and follow around. In the only game I played recklessly with Voldus and got him killed (Screamers of Tzeentch are nasty), I used the Shoulder the Mantle Stratagem to make a Custode my Warlord, denying a point to my opponent. Even Crowe had his shining moment against Tyranids by getting into some Termagants and then Genestealers and tearing through them with his stick.
Did you think the salvo launcher was worth it in these models over the hurricane?
Homeskillet wrote: In this post-FAQ world, I decided to try my GK with some Custodes friends at a tournament this weekend. 4 rounds, 1600 points, just under 50 players. The TO had put out a mission packet ahead of time so we knew what types of missions to expect. I took 2nd overall and went 4-0 with the following list:
Custodes Supreme Command 3- Shield Captains on Jetbikes: Salvo Launcher on all
Nearly all my games went to turn 5-6. My army did not murder so much as it just endured, and outlasted my opponents. The loss of the alpha strike made for the GK to be less fun to play, but the boost in survivability was great. I only went first in 1 game. I used Voldus to buff the Paladins with Sanctuary and Hammerhand, and sent them at whatever needed to die by Gating them turn 1 in 3/4 games. He would then Gate after them and follow around. In the only game I played recklessly with Voldus and got him killed (Screamers of Tzeentch are nasty), I used the Shoulder the Mantle Stratagem to make a Custode my Warlord, denying a point to my opponent. Even Crowe had his shining moment against Tyranids by getting into some Termagants and then Genestealers and tearing through them with his stick.
Did you think the salvo launcher was worth it in the shield captains over the hurricane bolter?
Absolutely! GK do bolters like nobody else, so there was no reason to add a few more in the Shield Captains. The Salvo Launchers are fantastic anti-tank/anti-monster. I would typically shoot all three at one vehicle/monster, then charge them each into something else. If I were taking the Captains in an AM Army, maybe I'd go with bolters, but with GK, the Salvo Launchers were a great addition.
Went to a tournament yesterday, just to observe, and all but one imperium player had 3x shield captains on a bike. Nerf bat incoming on those in the future?
I was comparing them to our grandmasters. They are 2 pts cheaper than our grand Master, have more attacks, reroll wounds, more str, more wounds, more toughness, move almost 3x faster, can fly so can't get bogged down and has the equivalent of three of our guns.
Make our GM either like 120-130points stock or make custodes shield Capt on a bike 200ish stock.
In fact, they are as tough as our dreadknight, and can hide behind a wall of guardsmen for a turn or two before the charge. Amazing unit at that cost.
Homeskillet wrote: In this post-FAQ world, I decided to try my GK with some Custodes friends at a tournament this weekend. 4 rounds, 1600 points, just under 50 players. The TO had put out a mission packet ahead of time so we knew what types of missions to expect. I took 2nd overall and went 4-0 with the following list:
Custodes Supreme Command 3- Shield Captains on Jetbikes: Salvo Launcher on all
Nearly all my games went to turn 5-6. My army did not murder so much as it just endured, and outlasted my opponents. The loss of the alpha strike made for the GK to be less fun to play, but the boost in survivability was great. I only went first in 1 game. I used Voldus to buff the Paladins with Sanctuary and Hammerhand, and sent them at whatever needed to die by Gating them turn 1 in 3/4 games. He would then Gate after them and follow around. In the only game I played recklessly with Voldus and got him killed (Screamers of Tzeentch are nasty), I used the Shoulder the Mantle Stratagem to make a Custode my Warlord, denying a point to my opponent. Even Crowe had his shining moment against Tyranids by getting into some Termagants and then Genestealers and tearing through them with his stick.
Did you think the salvo launcher was worth it in these models over the hurricane?
Homeskillet wrote: In this post-FAQ world, I decided to try my GK with some Custodes friends at a tournament this weekend. 4 rounds, 1600 points, just under 50 players. The TO had put out a mission packet ahead of time so we knew what types of missions to expect. I took 2nd overall and went 4-0 with the following list:
Custodes Supreme Command 3- Shield Captains on Jetbikes: Salvo Launcher on all
Nearly all my games went to turn 5-6. My army did not murder so much as it just endured, and outlasted my opponents. The loss of the alpha strike made for the GK to be less fun to play, but the boost in survivability was great. I only went first in 1 game. I used Voldus to buff the Paladins with Sanctuary and Hammerhand, and sent them at whatever needed to die by Gating them turn 1 in 3/4 games. He would then Gate after them and follow around. In the only game I played recklessly with Voldus and got him killed (Screamers of Tzeentch are nasty), I used the Shoulder the Mantle Stratagem to make a Custode my Warlord, denying a point to my opponent. Even Crowe had his shining moment against Tyranids by getting into some Termagants and then Genestealers and tearing through them with his stick.
Did you think the salvo launcher was worth it in the shield captains over the hurricane bolter?
Absolutely! GK do bolters like nobody else, so there was no reason to add a few more in the Shield Captains. The Salvo Launchers are fantastic anti-tank/anti-monster. I would typically shoot all three at one vehicle/monster, then charge them each into something else. If I were taking the Captains in an AM Army, maybe I'd go with bolters, but with GK, the Salvo Launchers were a great addition.
Went to a tournament yesterday, just to observe, and all but one imperium player had 3x shield captains on a bike. Nerf bat incoming on those in the future?
I was comparing them to our grandmasters. They are 2 pts cheaper than our grand Master, have more attacks, reroll wounds, more str, more wounds, more toughness, move almost 3x faster, can fly so can't get bogged down and has the equivalent of three of our guns.
Make our GM either like 120-130points stock or make custodes shield Capt on a bike 200ish stock.
In fact, they are as tough as our dreadknight, and can hide behind a wall of guardsmen for a turn or two before the charge. Amazing unit at that cost.
I agree on all counts; I would bet they'll see an increase in points. I wouldn't think any nerfs to abilities, but certainly a points increase. Or maybe a points decrease on Grandmasters? Ha ha ha, we know that won't happen!
I am pretty sure we will get the vanilla space marine dreadnought range (contemptor, etc...) so I like the idea of us getting Deredeo pattern Dreadnought though I confess I don't know how well it performs in the field as FW stuff is rare on my meta
Grey Knights were formed after the golden age of the Legions. I believe that's why they were exempted specifically from taking most of the Relic Heresy-Era SM stuff from the IA Index, wouldn't expect that to change any time soon.
I think that there are only 3 models that FW makes for GK. The dread with the psycannon/can opener, the Land Raider with a psycannon and, a thunderhawk.
I could be wrong but those are the only models I can remember.
edit: found a 4th model a razorback with a psycannon.
Leo_the_Rat wrote: I think that there are only 3 models that FW makes for GK. The dread with the psycannon/can opener, the Land Raider with a psycannon and, a thunderhawk.
I could be wrong but those are the only models I can remember.
edit: found a 4th model a razorback with a psycannon.
Not really a whole lot to look forward to IMHO.
Well they said updates for the existing range AND new datasheets, so I assume we will get something more
Leo_the_Rat wrote: I think that there are only 3 models that FW makes for GK. The dread with the psycannon/can opener, the Land Raider with a psycannon and, a thunderhawk.
I could be wrong but those are the only models I can remember.
edit: found a 4th model a razorback with a psycannon.
Not really a whole lot to look forward to IMHO.
Well they said updates for the existing range AND new datasheets, so I assume we will get something more
Certainly not impossible that we get access to other SM stuff. Its just nearly everything FW makes for Marines is either Relic/Heresy era or heavy support, not suited to Grey Knights doctrine. It would kinda fly in the face of fluff, which is not FW's style. A few extra LR/Thunderhawk variants perhaps?
On the other hand, maybe they got a lot of negative feedback when GK were exempted from all the cool Relic stuff, or maybe they just need to sell more stuff
Automatically Appended Next Post: Oh and I hope they give us 'Mortis' Dreads - All hail the psybolt rifleman dreadnought!
I mean forgive my ignorance as I am not that familiar with the immediate post-Heresy period but I assume that the loss of technology was slow and gradual not immediate, 2nd founding chapters still having access to some heresy era technology is not that far-fetched and GK technically were founded in the final stages of the heresy (when Malcador sealed Titan, before Horus invaded Terra) therefore they still could perfectly have access to Heresy era tech.
Otherwise then every one of those dreads would be marines from the Heresy era and Bjorns thing of being the oldest living dread who witnessed the Primarchs, Emperor, etc.... wouldn't make as much sense.
Leo_the_Rat wrote: I think that there are only 3 models that FW makes for GK. The dread with the psycannon/can opener, the Land Raider with a psycannon and, a thunderhawk.
I could be wrong but those are the only models I can remember.
edit: found a 4th model a razorback with a psycannon.
Not really a whole lot to look forward to IMHO.
Well they said updates for the existing range AND new datasheets, so I assume we will get something more
Certainly not impossible that we get access to other SM stuff. Its just nearly everything FW makes for Marines is either Relic/Heresy era or heavy support, not suited to Grey Knights doctrine. It would kinda fly in the face of fluff, which is not FW's style. A few extra LR/Thunderhawk variants perhaps?
On the other hand, maybe they got a lot of negative feedback when GK were exempted from all the cool Relic stuff, or maybe they just need to sell more stuff
Automatically Appended Next Post: Oh and I hope they give us 'Mortis' Dreads - All hail the psybolt rifleman dreadnought!
GuardStrider wrote: I mean forgive my ignorance as I am not that familiar with the immediate post-Heresy period but I assume that the loss of technology was slow and gradual not immediate, 2nd founding chapters still having access to some heresy era technology is not that far-fetched and GK technically were founded in the final stages of the heresy (when Malcador sealed Titan, before Horus invaded Terra) therefore they still could perfectly have access to Heresy era tech.
Otherwise then every one of those dreads would be marines from the Heresy era and Bjorns thing of being the oldest living dread who witnessed the Primarchs, Emperor, etc.... wouldn't make as much sense.
Yeah don't get me wrong, I totally agree, it should be possible given the timing of it all. Its just not the angle GK fluff has taken for some reason, and I believe it is why FW specifically excluded GK from all the Legion era stuff. We will soon find out if that has changed.
If only psybolts worked on autocannon
That's what I'm hoping for, a GK specific entry which emulates something similar to that! Don't know if FW care enough to put so much thought into that however.
So I am really starting to like voldus, but I find him most effective in small games or in small gk detachments with your main force as guardsmen... And in this instance I use him as a source or mortal wounds.
The idea is that I have such a small detacent of grey knights where something else else cast goi and sanctuary and he casts purge soul, vortex and smite. Not uncommon for him to drop 5-7 mortal wounds a turn.
I like to embed him in my guard list with a couple go units rolling around. Lots of command points to abuse on my guys
Anyone here using multiple GMDK after the faq? I have been running only one since I only own one, I am considering getting other but I question their usefulness after the FAQ where you can only Alpha Strike one.
GuardStrider wrote: Anyone here using multiple GMDK after the faq? I have been running only one since I only own one, I am considering getting other but I question their usefulness after the FAQ where you can only Alpha Strike one.
I've swapped out one of them for Draigo in many of my lists. For the reason you listed and also becuase of the other FaQ that came out recently stating that stratagems cannot target things which are not on the board. My usual plan was to have both GMDK's in your face and rocking a 3++ from Turn 1. But even without the beta rules that is now impossible if both are coming from DS.
Actually, speaking more generally, my plan now is just to bring my Eldar This codex cannot take any more hits and still compete in my gaming group
Actually, speaking more generally, my plan now is just to bring my Eldar This codex cannot take any more hits and still compete in my gaming group
I think that's a general attitude at this point: "My plan now is just to bring _____." I'd just found a list I was happy with, and was doing very well with (2 GMDKs, 2 Assassins, 3 GKSS squads, an Inquisitor), and now ALL of it has been made obsolete.
One GMDK in the backfield, and one Raven flying upfield T1 is not going to survive the long-range anti-tank that EVERY other army easily fields. My threat-overload plan no longer exists :(
My blank is Tzeentch. TSons Princes and Pinks. Hadn't played HeroHammer up to this point!
How many Psilencers come in a Grey Knights Strike Squad box? Thanks.
Automatically Appended Next Post: I made a list with Grand Master in Nemesis Dreadknight Armors and Strike Squads and was told it lacked anti-tank. Is a Stormraven Gunship a viable option or what else? Thanks.
BillyN831 wrote: How many Psilencers come in a Grey Knights Strike Squad box? Thanks.
Automatically Appended Next Post: I made a list with Grand Master in Nemesis Dreadknight Armors and Strike Squads and was told it lacked anti-tank. Is a Stormraven Gunship a viable option or what else? Thanks.
I'm bringing a GK patrol detachment to my SM army next game. It'll consist of 1 GMNDK and 1x5 Strike Squad.
I'm trying to buff GMNDK as much as possible. He himself will cast Sanctuary on himself and the Strike Squad can GoI him anywhere. Of course the 2++ invul stratagem is also available to him.
Vanilla SM psychic powers need an "Adeptus Astarters" unit to be able to target them, so Dreadknight seems a valid target. My plan is to cast a +1S/+1T/+1A buff on him and either a 4+ save against psychic mortal wounds or a charge reroll.
Well, I only have GK and small friends detachment (either Sob or IG, not enough to field a full army) so I can't really switch factions while they don't fix it. Each game is a uphill battle, but I usually put a decent fight as long as I am not fighting Tau. Which is enough fun for me and sometimes I even win some games like my last one which was against Nids,thought it was won due to have more points when the clock ran out.
Against the Tau lists in my meta, well, I might as well bring 100 points of Guardmen since It will make the same dent on my opponent, I had whole squads being vaporized by overwatch.
Anyway currently waiting for the Knight codex to decide if I should get a Knight or a Stormraven for my list. Hopefully they will reduce the Knights costs/improve them enough to make it a nice distraction carnifex/ anti-tank platform
macexor wrote: I'm bringing a GK patrol detachment to my SM army next game. It'll consist of 1 GMNDK and 1x5 Strike Squad.
I'm trying to buff GMNDK as much as possible. He himself will cast Sanctuary on himself and the Strike Squad can GoI him anywhere. Of course the 2++ invul stratagem is also available to him.
Vanilla SM psychic powers need an "Adeptus Astarters" unit to be able to target them, so Dreadknight seems a valid target. My plan is to cast a +1S/+1T/+1A buff on him and either a 4+ save against psychic mortal wounds or a charge reroll.
macexor wrote: I'm bringing a GK patrol detachment to my SM army next game. It'll consist of 1 GMNDK and 1x5 Strike Squad.
I'm trying to buff GMNDK as much as possible. He himself will cast Sanctuary on himself and the Strike Squad can GoI him anywhere. Of course the 2++ invul stratagem is also available to him.
Vanilla SM psychic powers need an "Adeptus Astarters" unit to be able to target them, so Dreadknight seems a valid target. My plan is to cast a +1S/+1T/+1A buff on him and either a 4+ save against psychic mortal wounds or a charge reroll.
Any other ideas to buff him even more?
What 2++ invul strategem are you referring to?
Heed the Prognosticators. It doesn't cap at 3++ like other invulnerable buffing powers. So you put Sanctuary on him then Heed and ta-da, he's 2++.
macexor wrote: I'm bringing a GK patrol detachment to my SM army next game. It'll consist of 1 GMNDK and 1x5 Strike Squad.
I'm trying to buff GMNDK as much as possible. He himself will cast Sanctuary on himself and the Strike Squad can GoI him anywhere. Of course the 2++ invul stratagem is also available to him.
Vanilla SM psychic powers need an "Adeptus Astarters" unit to be able to target them, so Dreadknight seems a valid target. My plan is to cast a +1S/+1T/+1A buff on him and either a 4+ save against psychic mortal wounds or a charge reroll.
Any other ideas to buff him even more?
What 2++ invul strategem are you referring to?
Heed the Prognosticators. It doesn't cap at 3++ like other invulnerable buffing powers. So you put Sanctuary on him then Heed and ta-da, he's 2++.
Wouldn't the order be Heed, then Sanctuary? And once he has Heed on him, Sanctuary would be redundant... as it cannot improve his Invuln beyond the 3++ that Heed already provides.
macexor wrote: I'm bringing a GK patrol detachment to my SM army next game. It'll consist of 1 GMNDK and 1x5 Strike Squad.
I'm trying to buff GMNDK as much as possible. He himself will cast Sanctuary on himself and the Strike Squad can GoI him anywhere. Of course the 2++ invul stratagem is also available to him.
Vanilla SM psychic powers need an "Adeptus Astarters" unit to be able to target them, so Dreadknight seems a valid target. My plan is to cast a +1S/+1T/+1A buff on him and either a 4+ save against psychic mortal wounds or a charge reroll.
Any other ideas to buff him even more?
What 2++ invul strategem are you referring to?
Heed the Prognosticators. It doesn't cap at 3++ like other invulnerable buffing powers. So you put Sanctuary on him then Heed and ta-da, he's 2++.
Wouldn't the order be Heed, then Sanctuary? And once he has Heed on him, Sanctuary would be redundant... as it cannot improve his Invuln beyond the 3++ that Heed already provides.
Heed technically doesn't improve the invulnerable but adds +1 to the roll. So Sanctuary's restriction is never violated.
Heed technically doesn't improve the invulnerable but adds +1 to the roll. So Sanctuary's restriction is never violated.
I see, so you're saying one affects the datasheet and the other is a modifier. Thanks for explaining. Elsewhere there seems to be extensive debate about this issue...
Seems like a combo I would only use in tournaments/competitive games. Not sure I would want to do this to my opponent in a friendly match.
Heed technically doesn't improve the invulnerable but adds +1 to the roll. So Sanctuary's restriction is never violated.
I see, so you're saying one affects the datasheet and the other is a modifier. Thanks for explaining. Elsewhere there seems to be extensive debate about this issue...
Seems like a combo I would only use in tournaments/competitive games. Not sure I would want to do this to my opponent in a friendly match.
The rules are clear cut, but I imagine many people received the FaQ under the impression it was designed to stop 2++ saves, and disregarded the language when first reading it. Unfortunately some people like to hang on to their own perceived idea of the rules and so you get internet debate.
Just be prepared to show/explain the language clearly to someone in person if you're going to take advantage of it.
You're spending 2 command points with inconvenient timing (start of your turn) for a strategem that the Imperial Guard get for 1 CP that can be used reactively (used in opponent's shooting phase).
You should never feel like you're using cutthroat tactics with Heed the Prognosticators, it's so much worse than many other defensive strategems.
if Heed is used "At the start of your turn", does that mean it can be used more than once simultaneously because it is not resolved during a specific phase, and thus is not restricted by the Strategic Discipline Matched Play Rule (Rulebook pg. 215)?
And for those who argue "The start of your turn is the Movement phase"...
For comparison, there are other stratagems like Tactical Flexibility (Grey Knights Codex pg. 98), which are resolved specifically "at the start of any of your Movement phases." Why the difference in language "Start of your movement phase" vs. "Start of your turn"?
They even clarify in the Matched Play rule itself that "At the end of your turn" does not take place as part of a phase. So I would think this applies to 'the start' also.
There is literally a massive thread on whether the start of your turn is the movement phase on you make the call. I think baconcatbug would have an aneurysm if he saw us starting the whole debate from ground zero right here.
+Stormraven Gunship (Twin Lascannon, Twin Multimelta, Two Stormstrike Missles, Two Hurricane Bolters)
+Stormraven Gunship (Twin Lascannon, Twin Multimelta, Two Stormstrike Missles, Two Hurricane Bolters)
5 Strikes and 1 Dreadnought in each Raven (Strikes are to avoid the Dread going boom when the Raven dies), Draigo in either one to minimize drops, 10 Strikes and the GMDK in reserves.
T1 Ravens speed forwards, Draigo gets out and gates in behind them for rerolls. The double Ravens buffed up should give me a decent enough alphastrike, 12 extremely high damage/strength/rend shots to annihilate one or two of the main threats to the ravens, and 48 bolter shots to punch through a screen for the T2 followup. I'm also thinking of either DSing the GMDK into my deployment zone T1, or literally just starting him on the board and walk up behind the Ravens and start plinking away at something. Maybe he could even draw some fire away from the Ravens?
T2, at least one Raven will be dead, guaranteed. However, if the alphastrike was semi successful I doubt that my opponent will have the firepower to kill an entire second Raven AND a Dreadnought. That should put me in a good position for charging on T2.: 2 Doomglaives and Draigo will absolutely wreck anything they come across in CC. No arguments there. 5-10 Leftover strikes can also add some punch or just try to tie down dangerous shooty units. The dreadknight will also be in my opponents face now, another threat he has to deal with ASAP. AND then the 10 Strikes can come in and wipe another screen unit, or even try hunting T8 Tanks with S5 AP-1. Hopefully by that point I should have tied down/overwhelmed his main damage dealers and can then focus on mopping up. I'm assuming the Ravens are both dead by the end of T2, so in case either survives its a win for my game plan.
The whole gimmick behind the list is that my opponent should hopefully tunnelvision on the Ravens being the main threat of the list, and then mistakedly underestimate the hitting power of the rest of the force. Obviously the army is really weak for objective play, but honestly thats always been a weakness throughout 8th for GKs.
Of course, the main problem: What happens if I dont go first? Problems and dangers
A. Getting Nuked by Shooting on T1: Depending on my Opponent and Terrain it might be possible to hide the Ravens out of LOS; additionally, say I play against something like Nids: I can simply sit out of Range of their dangerous weapons, and Stormravens with their 40" move can easily close the gap. Now obviously, if he's packing 48" it will be really tough, but honestly when have GKs not been screwed if they didnt go first in 8th? B. Having no Screen for the Ravens: IMO this DS nerf, in some ways, also helped us out. I essentially dont need a screen. I dont need to worry about not going first, and then watching 4 Flyrants or 20 Scions with melta pop in 9" away from my extremely expensive models and tear them to shreds. In a certain way, we are more "durable" now.
Now I know this list is still gonna get its butt handed to it in general, GKs are just that bad. BUT I think this might be a viable way to play around the DS nerf. No, it wont go stomping tournies or anything, but I think its a pretty decent list that, in the hands of a skilled player, could make many opponents sweat to win.
BillyN831 wrote: What are the advantages and disadvantages of fielding five and ten model units of Strike Squads? Thanks.
10 man squads lower your drop count and make more efficient use of the Strategems, and the 5 man squads have more chances to charge into melee and grab objectives, along with getting an extra Sergeant for an extra attack.
Biggest selling point to 5-man squads is the extra psychic power.
Biggest selling point to 10-man squads is the bolter stratagem.
If you want to take more 5-man squads but are restricted by detachment limitations, you can always turn your PAGK units into 10-man squads and then combat squad them during deployment. That's how you take 30 interceptors across 6 units in a Battalion, which only allows for 3 Fast Attack choices.
Hello,
I am building a GK Army and am nearly finished with my theoretical 2000p.
But I got following questions:
1. Many of the HQ have abilities, which give a Bonus to "friendly GK units in xyz distance". Does that apply to the giving HQ itself as well??
2. I intend to play a little Inquisition detachment, too. But I dislike the monkey miniature/ idea of the Jokaero Weaponsmith. Does anyone know a cooler looking miniatute to replace that?
Amaurosis wrote: Hello,
I am building a GK Army and am nearly finished with my theoretical 2000p.
But I got following questions:
1. Many of the HQ have abilities, which give a Bonus to "friendly GK units in xyz distance". Does that apply to the giving HQ itself as well??
2. I intend to play a little Inquisition detachment, too. But I dislike the monkey miniature/ idea of the Jokaero Weaponsmith. Does anyone know a cooler looking miniatute to replace that?
(1) Can it be used more than once simultaneously since "start of your turn" does not reference a specific phase?
(2) Can it be used to improve the invulnerable save of a unit to 2+, in combination with Sanctuary (or multiple Heeds, if #1 is to be allowed)?
I've made some preliminary email inquiries to Frontline Gaming, and also to tournament organizers of two upcoming ITC tournaments this summer. Thought some of you might be interested in their rulings. To be clear, I'm aware these are not official GW rulings. Still, if some of you are interested in the TO perspectives on this issue, then here's some:
Frontline Gaming
Spoiler:
(1) "No, the start of the turn isn't an exception to the restriction. The only time you get around this is with strats used before the game begins."
(2) No comment.
The Beef & Wing Brawl
Spoiler:
(1) "Only during pregame can a strat be used more than once."
(2) "As for the invo save we have determined it cant be modified past 3++"
Warhammer ATC Tournament
Spoiler:
(1) "No, the start of a player turn is also the start of the movement phase."
(2) "I don't believe there is any technical reason why it wouldn't work, although some tournaments have ruled against it working based upon the apparent intent to limit it to a 3++ in one of the Stratagems, so it is possible that ITC MAY limit it before the event rules cutoff."
Thoughts (1) Well that's a unanimous response to #1. I respect it, but I'm still scratching my head about... if the "start of your turn" is equivalent to the movement phase, how then is "end of a battle round" not a Morale phase? Yet in the Strategic Discipline rule "end of a battle round" is referenced as an exception to the rule.
(2) Responses show there's a 50/50 split on this. Not a great sample size, though it suggests the issue is still up in the air and you should probably confer with your opponent before a game if you were planning to use the Sanctuary+Heed combo for a 2++.
They haven't really read the rulebook restriction on Stratagem use then have they. As I stated before, it clarifies that the 'end of the turn' doesn't count as part of a phase, so why would the start of a turn?
Seems like a kneejerk reaction to an 'overpowered ability' they never considered before.
Thenord wrote: Has anyone tried/ had any luck with one of the following.
Spearhead detachment of 3 Dreadknights
Air wing detachment of 3 stormtalons with missiles
I'm trying to decide what my last 700 points (in my 2k list) should go to?
Cheers
Your last 700pts need to go to an AM Battalion, for the CP.
Thenord wrote: Has anyone tried/ had any luck with one of the following.
Spearhead detachment of 3 Dreadknights
Air wing detachment of 3 stormtalons with missiles
I'm trying to decide what my last 700 points (in my 2k list) should go to?
Cheers
It's really hard to say without seeing what you already have in your list. Flippancy aside you may be better off with a cheap CP battery (IG/AM) and just putting the rest of your points into some of your other detachments.
Thenord wrote: Has anyone tried/ had any luck with one of the following.
Spearhead detachment of 3 Dreadknights
Air wing detachment of 3 stormtalons with missiles
I'm trying to decide what my last 700 points (in my 2k list) should go to?
Cheers
Instead of a spearhead, I would do a supreme command of grandmaster dreadknights. I did something similar with stormravens instead of talons and had 3 squads of interceptors as well, it worked ok.
With the points you have left, if you have the models I would either reccomend the above poster’s suggestion of AM or you could put your GMDKs in a battalion and add 3 strike squads to deepstrike on objectives. You could also double down on what you have and add more flyers or dreadknights
Atm. I have: Voldus, 2 GMDK, 5 paladins, 10 SS.
I was thinking about adding another 10 SS and a land raider, but I got the impression that they kinda suck?
Uh, dunno if it was discussed but FW is discontinuing the Doomglaive dreadnaught model, I wonder what exactly are they gonna do for GK in the IA volume
My guess is GW is going to let GK have a slow and lingering death.
I just played a game against Harlies and it wasn't pretty. It seemed like every Harley had a fusion pistol S8 AP -4 d6. They also had at least a 4++ Armor. Even the vehicles had 4++ and were open topped. So he would put 5 fusion pistols in them and just whale away at me. Although the game was fun it was an excercise in futility for me. I was just trying to get moral victories by killing key pieces. ITC score was 36-7. Also played against a Custodes army, I lost 38-4.
Leo_the_Rat wrote: My guess is GW is going to let GK have a slow and lingering death.
I've started playing with my Daemons more and more, and GK less and less. Every time I think about GK I feel a little seed of bitterness sprout to anguish and I wonder why I am betrayed.
Every time I play with my Daemons I feel like I can do what I want to do, and succeed, and feel powerful on the battlefield.
This is what the traitor legions felt in the Heresy--betrayal, power, a newfound purpose.
This is how GK players will fall to Chaos.
Also, I think DW Primaris will be a good choice to supplement Ravens and GMDKs.
Rob Cruddance has admitted GK are 'in a bad place' on a livestream (I forget which) and at the same time confirmed that they will be reassessed in CA 2018.
Just need to be patient a little longer, paint your models, play your other armies etc etc. If we still get no justice after that, in spite of all the voices of the internet talking so loudly about it, thats the time to sell off your GK armies
The only reason I'm staying with my GK army is I'm too cheap to start another army (although I did buy some AM and Armigers after splitting the Forgebane box with him).
I've added a aux detachment of warglaives. I'm hoping to try out an army with a GMDK, Stormtalon, Stormraven and 2 warglaives mixed with a Captain, Librarian and 4 units of strikers at 2K. I'm hoping that the large number of big bases will occupy my opponent while the strikers hold objectives. The capt stays in back with 1 or 2 of the strikers to double their smite range (another MW or 2 are always welcome).
I have a 10 man group of Paladins, my group plays without the latest restrictions, I think some don't even know it exists tbh because a lot of us just use the Imperium and Chaos keyword for armies still. The rest of the list is a Knight Crusader and his Scion footmen.
I’m playing my GK in a 7.5e ladder league. Winning nets you 50 army points for your list and 50 defensive points for fortifications. Losing nets 100 army points. Thankfully, my GK “win” me 100 army points every game!
As to 8th, it’s an IK army for me. Working on a 1750pt Knight Lance (posted on one of the IK threads).
I've been thinking really hard about what advantages GK do have, and one thing that's struck me many times is how low our casting values are. So I started looking at all the values I could, and made averages for the trees. Here's what I came up with. Note that these may be practically lower, for bonuses that are uncounted for here. (For example, GK have +1 in matched play; Lord of Change has +2 at his highest tier; Farseers get a reroll per phase)
AVERAGE CASTING VALUE wrote: GK Santic 6 Marines Librarius 6.33 BA SW Index DA Interromancy 6.5
Astra M 6
Daemons Total 6.44 Tzeentch 7.17 Slaanesh 6.17 Nurgle 6 Death Guard 6 TSons Total 6.83 TSons Change 7 CSM Hereticus 6.33
So I'm missinga few values. GK are really low, at an adjusted 5 with the bonus.
But the lowest plain average is Tyranids! That's crazy! And the highest is Tzeentch...? The master of magic has the most difficulty getting off his spells?? Tidbit: Astra Militarum have the single lowest cast power: at 4, a unit passes morale.
So, in order to play and keep grey knights viable, I've began to request of my.opponenets ahead of time to prepare to not use the beta test rules. They are test rules. I have played with them enough to give feedback... I don't need to play with them anymore.
Smotejob wrote: I liked how gk played in 7th. Just got to keep it balanced somehow.
The Psychic phase in 7th is hot garbage, almost as bad as 8th is. GK shined in 5th and 6th, 7th was the mono-build edition, while 8th is a death nell edition.
Smotejob wrote: I liked my gk at the beginning of 7th Pre-decurion detachment. I liked my gk a LOT in 5th/6th. I miss that codex with the Inquisition all rolled in.
But right now... Meh.
As cool a concept as the old Daemonhunters codex was, it was horribly balanced (as was a lot of 3rd edition).
To compare: basic Strike Squad was 25 points each, for basically 2 S6 attacks (True Grit) and a 2 shot storm bolter. Psychic powers cost extra. The mandatory Justicar cost FIFTY(50) points, and all he got was a power weapon and +1 attack. If you deepstrike them they count as Fast attack, not troops. And since Terminators were still elites, you were forced to take them.
Try and take on the Chaos Codex of the time and you'd be crushed, as I was often by my friend .
Smotejob wrote: I liked my gk at the beginning of 7th Pre-decurion detachment. I liked my gk a LOT in 5th/6th. I miss that codex with the Inquisition all rolled in.
But right now... Meh.
As cool a concept as the old Daemonhunters codex was, it was horribly balanced (as was a lot of 3rd edition).
To compare: basic Strike Squad was 25 points each, for basically 2 S6 attacks (True Grit) and a 2 shot storm bolter. Psychic powers cost extra. The mandatory Justicar cost FIFTY(50) points, and all he got was a power weapon and +1 attack. If you deepstrike them they count as Fast attack, not troops. And since Terminators were still elites, you were forced to take them.
Try and take on the Chaos Codex of the time and you'd be crushed, as I was often by my friend .
Yeah Strike Squads weren't good at that time but the Terminators were okay. I'd use the Storm Troopers as my troops (3 Melta Guns FTW) and Terminators and Dreads as my Elite and Heavy Support. Codex was fun.
The 3rd ed Daemonhunters codex was awesome! Both the DH and Witch Hunter codexes let you take either Space Marine or Imperial Guard allies, but even more useful was it let Space Marines and IG tank GK and/or Sister allies. I use to run a core SM army as “Deathwatch” with a unit of GKT, a unit of PAGK, a unit of Battle Sisters, a unit of Seraphim, and a Jump Canoness. 16 Sisters in Land Raider Crusader was the best Dakka ever! Teleporting GKT, mini-“Purg” Psycannon Squad, those awesome Gunfighting Seraphim before gunfighting with a thing, supporting 2 min squads of Tac Marines and a SM Librarian. Called it my “Tri-Ordo Army”.
jeffersonian000 wrote: The 3rd ed Daemonhunters codex was awesome! Both the DH and Witch Hunter codexes let you take either Space Marine or Imperial Guard allies, but even more useful was it let Space Marines and IG tank GK and/or Sister allies. I use to run a core SM army as “Deathwatch” with a unit of GKT, a unit of PAGK, a unit of Battle Sisters, a unit of Seraphim, and a Jump Canoness. 16 Sisters in Land Raider Crusader was the best Dakka ever! Teleporting GKT, mini-“Purg” Psycannon Squad, those awesome Gunfighting Seraphim before gunfighting with a thing, supporting 2 min squads of Tac Marines and a SM Librarian. Called it my “Tri-Ordo Army”.
I miss those days. /tear
SJ
Allies before allies were cool
I should clarify, the codex stated somewhere that a purely GK army was a challenge, but possible. I read that after borrowing the book from a school friend and thats the moment that kicked off my desire to play GK's.
Here I am still struggling to make pure GK work in 8th . You'd think I would've learned.
Pre-5th ed codex, GK players played the Way of the Water Warrior, after a well written article on how to win with GK with a 1000pt army. I played Water Warrior at 1500pts from 4th thru 6th, and played a Mordrak Ghost army in 5th until we lost Mordrak in 6th. Luckily, my Mordrak list was very closed to the Shunt-Punch list, which I’ve played from 6th thru to the end of 7th. In 8th? No point playing anything other than Strikes and GMDKs. It’s a sad time.
jeffersonian000 wrote: Pre-5th ed codex, GK players played the Way of the Water Warrior, after a well written article on how to win with GK with a 1000pt army. I played Water Warrior at 1500pts from 4th thru 6th, and played a Mordrak Ghost army in 5th until we lost Mordrak in 6th. Luckily, my Mordrak list was very closed to the Shunt-Punch list, which I’ve played from 6th thru to the end of 7th. In 8th? No point playing anything other than Strikes and GMDKs. It’s a sad time.
SJ
Looked up and perused the Water Warrior article. It's a shame it hasn't been updated for so long, but it's still a good read. And while the wargear choices aren't relevant any longer, the idea is still very attractive.
We really are a swiss-army-knife kind of force, being decent at everything but with no specialized units (with the exception of Purgators).
I started playing in 6th when Grey Knights were back to being weak and, looking for ways to improve, I too read the Water Warrior article at that time.
It's pointless these days, it simply does not apply to our army.
Oh, it's still a good article - for Eldar players.
The whole point of the water warrior was to leverage your superior mobility because at that time moving with a Rapid Fire weapon meant only shooting at half range and moving with a Heavy weapon meant not shooting at all. Meanwhile we had Assault Stormbolters and Psycannons (which were at that time an excellent all-target weapon) with your choice of Heavy 4 or Assault 2 profile.
So in that era Grey Knights were extremely mobile, able to move and shoot when others could not. Now? Lol... not only can everyone move and shoot but they can do it much better than we can, they move farther, move and even advance and shoot with no penalty and even charge afterwards.
So, sadly that article and its tactics no longer apply for us.
Among the various varieties of Eldar you can stack a LD difference of upto -10 or more, then have a Farseer pull out mind war to pretty much demolish anything. Never tried it myself but I imagine it would disappoint quite often given how much is riding on a single psychic power going off.
Smotejob wrote: Just stumbled onto a wonky combo with my gk + Ik + guard.
An imperial Knight takes the warlord trait: fearsome rep hurting leadership's.
Primis psyker casts terrifying visions. More leadership hurt.
Gk casts purge soul. Most units will be ld 3-4 at this point and if something ld 9 casts... That's some mortals.
Not something I would base a strategy on... Just a nice little combo i noticed.
To bad you can only do it once per turn, given The Rule of 1.
SJ
Nope. Decent way to get some models running away for casualties too though. Or burn an opponents command points to regroup them.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Spartacus wrote: Among the various varieties of Eldar you can stack a LD difference of upto -10 or more, then have a Farseer pull out mind war to pretty much demolish anything. Never tried it myself but I imagine it would disappoint quite often given how much is riding on a single psychic power going off.
Wouldn't base a list around it.. but it can be mean.
