18499
Post by: Henners91
Deadshot wrote:People say they are easy to paint but they are far more detailed and difficult to paint than any other marines.
Spray Chaos Black
Spray metallic paint
Wash in badab black.
Drybrush gold on the lettering.
Paint any skulls 'n' that gold.
Books 'n' purity seals in dark flesh.
Tone up the purity seals with desert yellow/bleached bone mixes
????
PROFIT!
Not how I paint them, but after Necrons they are definitely the easiest army to paint quickly. Vanilla marines arguably require less technical skill, mind, not sure on that one..
20243
Post by: Grey Templar
Sure, if you want them to look like you put barely any effort into them.
I base coat them black, heavy drybrush boltgun metal, and pick out the detals. Its more time consuming and looks better.
46864
Post by: Deadshot
I spent a full day on each of 8 paladins. 5 days from 5-7:30 everyday after school for a week on another. The Bro Banner took 3 days and Draigo was fully painted in a week. They are very hard to paint WELL. And so one who wants to paint non metallic metal will have a time of it.
25208
Post by: AlmightyWalrus
Deadshot wrote:People say they are easy to paint but they are far more detailed and difficult to paint than any other marines.
Black Templars or, Emperor forbid, White Scars, would like a word with you.
18499
Post by: Henners91
Well you an put any amount of time into any miniature to make it blow anyone away with its resplendent glory. When I judge how 'easy' a model is to paint, I think about basic tabletop quality. The method I described would get you relatively reasonable looking GKs.
53353
Post by: marineskilla66
I started grey knights soley on how the models looked and
had no clue how powerful they were. Not until i came on here
and saw everyone whining 
they are actually kind of difficult to paint depending on how much
time you want to put in.
52720
Post by: Hyd
Short answer :
was around when Codex : Daemon Hunters was released, fell in love with the army.left 40k for some time before I could start collecting them.2011, comeback ; see new book, new models, do want.
Honestly, the reputation of the army put me off at first, I don't like playing in easy mode. As my understanding of the book and the meta progressed, however, I came to think that there was more than enough room to make decent lists without falling in cheese material. Having actual Fast Attack choices and a wide variety of HQ is a welcome improvement.
Nevertheless, I must say it does feel more and more like the 'dex sold its soul in its transformation to "Codex : Silver Power Rangers" (and that it was done with the full intent of appealing to bandwagoners). I actually agree with the statement that a Codex Inquisition would have been richer. I still wouldn't (and won't) field anything but Grey Knights and Puritan Inquisitors, but that's just my take on the army.
To conclude, a note on competitiveness... I don't like spamming. As far as I'm concerned, there are no characters named Crowe or Coteaz in this book.
But you know that guy who's bringing literally dozens of chassis on the board ? He's the reason I won't lose sleep over fielding 3 psyflemen. Mechhammer 40,000 deserved every one of those S8 psybolts.
And this other, who can't breathe because he's too busy yelling the four letters "GK OP" like it's going out of fashion ? I'm really, really tempted to go with the "your tears are delicious" attitude just for him. I've never been able to take anybody who can say "X is overpowered" with a straight face seriously.
Yes, this might sound defensive. Guess it can't be helped, with passive-agressive posturing like the OP's.
47713
Post by: PapaPiggy
Imma say its all band wagon, space wolves came out, every one played em, blood angels came out every one played them, necrons came out every one has them. remember tryanids? did you see ebay afterwards? Grey knights are codex creep, after the necron power lists come out people will play them. If sisters of battle come out, people will play them. its band wagon. Remember IG? you couldn't throw a stone and not hit a leaf blower list at any ard boyz. Don't worry about it. play what you want and forget about every one whining.
55077
Post by: Magpie
For me it was two reasons.
1. I love metallics and the clean crisp shininess of the GK's, "No weathering or chipping please, we're from Titan"
2. You get the Inquisitors et al and all the fun that goes along with making up stuff and kitbashing the characters
I airbrush/crush 4 different "silvers" on my minis from a basecoat of Chainmail, "shading" of Boltgun, first higlight Mithril and extreme highlight of Tamiya Chrome. In natural light they sparkle, they don't photograph well tho.
I use the ol' Badab Black for the line work and Chaos black in the arm and leg joints.
Calthan brown with a snakebite highlight on the leather bits with a splash of Devlan.
Purity seals and the like are snakebite leather then a bleached bone top coat.
Blood Red on the pauldrons and weapons with a blazing orange highlight.
The writing is done by filling the lettered areas with Badab then once dry a light brush of Vallejo Old Gold.
Eyes are Badab wash, then Necron Abyss, then Ice Blue then a dot of white.
I've never been able to make the Asuermen Blue wash they talk about work so I don't bother.
I do all the writing and eyes on the helmetless guys with a Maybelline Hypersharp Ultra Fine Eye Liner.
Finish off with a Tamiya Spray Coat of Flat
???????
Collect Profit !
52067
Post by: Gharron
Was playing a for fun blood angels list and asked my wife to pick a new army =) she looked at the sister's but I told her it just wasn't feasible at the moment.
Told her to go through the whole GW product line and pick our army and she picked grey knights so I ended up reading some of the omnibus and loving it so overall I love the grey knights and I love how it only takes 10 guys to do what other marines may not be able to =D
18499
Post by: Henners91
Nearly finished painting my GKs (will upload at some point) but I do fear that, despite being my newest paint jobs, they are the 'worst' in my 40k collection.
I literally just paint them boltgun metal, wash with badab black, give the flat surfaces a sheen from more boltgun and then just DOLLOP asurmen blue all over them. All the gold motifs, purity seals, etc. are painted dark flesh and layered up from there in my usual manner.
But, due to my inexperience with washes, there are splodges, colour inconsistencies and all sorts... I think the models look pretty enough and I've been complimented at my club (They look grey but not boring!) but I do fear that, were any seasoned painter to look at them they might dismiss me as an amateur :(
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Then again, I don't think I have ever painted a model past tabletop standards. Still, only have 2 years under my belt I suppose... Definitely most proud of my work on my Eldar.
17422
Post by: cvtuttle
AlmightyWalrus wrote:Deadshot wrote:People say they are easy to paint but they are far more detailed and difficult to paint than any other marines.
Black Templars or, Emperor forbid, White Scars, would like a word with you.
Good lord - THIS - is the correct answer. White Scars would be a nightmare.
People say GK are easy to paint - because they are very easy to get to a tabletop (or above) standard. Like any model though you can always put more into it and get better results.
46277
Post by: squidhills
Imperial Fists are the hardest to paint. This is a scientifically demonstrable fact.
20243
Post by: Grey Templar
Yes, Yellow is the worst color to attempt to paint.
I still haven't found a yellow paint that doesn't require more effort then its worth to get it to where it doesn't look like 
46864
Post by: Deadshot
I try a coat of Sunburst over Ilyanden Darksun with a Golden Yellow Layering and a highlight if Sunburst.
18499
Post by: Henners91
Dark Flesh, Vomit Brown, then go from there with your other yellows... fairly easy, no?
White is a pain in the butt though.
44886
Post by: Arm.chair.general
Some people like the fluff behind Grey Knights, some people like the aesthetic of the models, most of the people are band-wagoining because they are cheese! 
46087
Post by: yamgrenade
I want to collect them simply because I like the idea of small squads of elite soldiers. I was going to get space marines before these guys came out.
I'm also pretty tired of Tau as of now. We can shoot with mediocre skill, and pretty much don't have much else. I want something that is good in everything (GK) But costs lots of points.
I also simply don't have the money to get any other army right now. GK are (relatively) cheap, so I can actually afford to get them.
My desire for them has absolutely nothing to do with bandwagon. If anything, that is off-putting for me, as I like to feel that my army is somewhat unique.
55093
Post by: Winterkit
I think the fact that Ward & co took the Inquisitors, Assassins and other cool stuff from other Imperial armies and lumped them all into GK is a factor, too. The Inquisitors and Assassins are (imho, ymmv, etc) some of the coolest units in the Imperium. Now, if you want to play them, you have to go GK (afaik? Not read the current Sisters codex).
Edit: As someone who's painting an entire Nid force yellow, I can attest to it being a PITA to get right. I find orange harder for some reason, though.
37584
Post by: Squat Kid
As a Squat player, the henchmen list suited them a lot more than just a guard list. It was an obvious choice with the amount of heavy and special weapons I could field, and dreadknights are just so F***ing cool!
55093
Post by: Winterkit
Squat Kid wrote:As a Squat player, the henchmen list suited them a lot more than just a guard list. It was an obvious choice with the amount of heavy and special weapons I could field, and dreadknights are just so F***ing cool!
My understanding was that the Inquisition tend to roll with whoever they can call to heel when a problem arises. There doesn't seem to be a shortage of fluff for them joining IG/ SM/ SoB/ GK/etc, so I'd say they fit the fluff for any of the Imperial armies. I couldn't say on mechanics, as I've yet to encounter a GK army on the table.
56068
Post by: Faedother
Well I have to say, reading these posts make me almost regret choosing GK as my very first army, almost. NOTE: I have only been in this hobby for 3weeks.
Time to throw my dog into this ring. I have read the descriptions of all the armies and their play styles. I considered it all and I still came to GK. I love the fluff, the models, and the play styles.
I know most think that they are cheesy because they are over powered and cheap to buy, in a sense. But when you think of it, by making GKs OP and hence the army to buy if you want to win, they have created a demand. It is a fantastic marketing scheme and I am sure the next new codex to come out will do the same thing. Force players, that don't already have that army, to buy models and paints. That is of course if you want the "Best Army".
As I said, I am enjoying the GK and I don't think I will change armies even if they nerf the hell out of it.
36940
Post by: Anvildude
Hey, Grey Knights might be Cheese, but at least they're Fluffy Cheese (unlike Blood Angels pred-spam, or Space Wolves Longfangs.) They're Marines how Marines are meant to be. Granted, they could be more expensive, but still.
55093
Post by: Winterkit
Faedother wrote:Well I have to say, reading these posts make me almost regret choosing GK as my very first army, almost. NOTE: I have only been in this hobby for 3weeks.
Time to throw my dog into this ring. I have read the descriptions of all the armies and their play styles. I considered it all and I still came to GK. I love the fluff, the models, and the play styles.
I know most think that they are cheesy because they are over powered and cheap to buy, in a sense. But when you think of it, by making GKs OP and hence the army to buy if you want to win, they have created a demand. It is a fantastic marketing scheme and I am sure the next new codex to come out will do the same thing. Force players, that don't already have that army, to buy models and paints. That is of course if you want the "Best Army".
As I said, I am enjoying the GK and I don't think I will change armies even if they nerf the hell out of it.
If you're enjoying playing them, then that's all that should matter, and you shouldn't let other people's grudge get in the way of you playing the army you want.
I agree with you on the power rise; it's been steadily happening for a while, and does look to be a deliberate marketing ploy (plus Matt Ward being.. Well, Matt Ward). That said, in terms of £/$/etc, Grey Knights tend to be among the cheapest of armies (small units, plastic models). So perhaps not.
56068
Post by: Faedother
Winterkit wrote:Faedother wrote:Well I have to say, reading these posts make me almost regret choosing GK as my very first army, almost. NOTE: I have only been in this hobby for 3weeks.
Time to throw my dog into this ring. I have read the descriptions of all the armies and their play styles. I considered it all and I still came to GK. I love the fluff, the models, and the play styles.
I know most think that they are cheesy because they are over powered and cheap to buy, in a sense. But when you think of it, by making GKs OP and hence the army to buy if you want to win, they have created a demand. It is a fantastic marketing scheme and I am sure the next new codex to come out will do the same thing. Force players, that don't already have that army, to buy models and paints. That is of course if you want the "Best Army".
As I said, I am enjoying the GK and I don't think I will change armies even if they nerf the hell out of it.
If you're enjoying playing them, then that's all that should matter, and you shouldn't let other people's grudge get in the way of you playing the army you want.
I agree with you on the power rise; it's been steadily happening for a while, and does look to be a deliberate marketing ploy (plus Matt Ward being.. Well, Matt Ward). That said, in terms of £/$/etc, Grey Knights tend to be among the cheapest of armies (small units, plastic models). So perhaps not.
That is my point, it does not matter how much whining people do. Us GK players will continue to play GKs.
53886
Post by: Ignatius
I have no sympathy for people who complain about playing too many of X, Y, and/or Z. At least you actually get to play a game.
24150
Post by: ChocolateGork
Taken from another forum:
Grey knights are the clitoris army....every C!!! has one
48339
Post by: sudojoe
ChocolateGork wrote:Taken from another forum:
Grey knights are the clitoris army....every C!!! has one
I have no idea what that even means as English isn't my first language but I'll assume it means something foul?
In any case, I'll just go ahead and put down a link to some sort of haters gonna hate image with a marine strutting as a counter *just imagine I linked it*
28405
Post by: dnanoodle
That quote is pretty hilarious =D
GKs being popular is a no brainer. Space marines are popular. Now look at GKs again. They're SMs with awesome rules, ridiculously awesome plastic kits, and the most ass-kickinest background Ward could twist the old background into. And if you do actually read the Omnibus and old codex you just find them to be even cooler.
But if you want to know why there are so many GKs at tourneys, you can ignore everything I just said except the awesome rules. Bottom line is they wouldn't be so abundant if they sucked.
25208
Post by: AlmightyWalrus
Winterkit wrote:I think the fact that Ward & co took the Inquisitors, Assassins and other cool stuff from other Imperial armies and lumped them all into GK is a factor, too. The Inquisitors and Assassins are (imho, ymmv, etc) some of the coolest units in the Imperium. Now, if you want to play them, you have to go GK (afaik? Not read the current Sisters codex).
Since the units you listed were already in the Daemonhunters Codex, "Ward & C  " didn't take the Inquisitors, Assassins and "other cool stuff", rendering your argument invalid.
46087
Post by: yamgrenade
Honestly, them being OP is really disappointing to me. I like to be able to beat my opponent with strategy rather than cheese.
52720
Post by: Hyd
Nobody forces you to resort to cheesy options though.
Define "OP".
52137
Post by: Draigo
LOL I love when people say they're op. Most the noobies didn't know back in the day they were mean then too. lol People are just now sad cause instead of a squad or 2 I can now field an entire army. Most of the stuff people hate about them guess what WE HAD IT BEFORE! lol
53740
Post by: ZebioLizard2
Draigo wrote:LOL I love when people say they're op. Most the noobies didn't know back in the day they were mean then too. lol People are just now sad cause instead of a squad or 2 I can now field an entire army. Most of the stuff people hate about them guess what WE HAD IT BEFORE! lol
Certainly didn't have
Psyfilemen (No twin linked S8 for you)
Different nemesis force weapons (Just a standard chart for differences amongst the units, like +2 strength for the grand master) As a result of this, basic gray knights did NOT HAVE POWER/FORCE WEAPONS)
Tt went: +2 for all, power weapons justicar/terminator/brother-captain/grand master, with Grand master having the ONLY FORCE WEAPON ABILITY. So that meant back than only the grand masters could instant kill multi-wound models.
Psycannon's were S6 AP4 18" Assault3 or 36" Heavy 3.
Psybolts made your bolters do AP4 instead of +1 to Strength
Paladins & Purifiers
Rapid stacking Strength Abilities
Warp Quake/ Fortitude/ Cleansing flame
Grand master Vehicle scoring Shenanigans
I could go on all day about what you didn't have that makes you OP now.
52137
Post by: Draigo
ZebioLizard2 wrote:Draigo wrote:LOL I love when people say they're op. Most the noobies didn't know back in the day they were mean then too. lol People are just now sad cause instead of a squad or 2 I can now field an entire army. Most of the stuff people hate about them guess what WE HAD IT BEFORE! lol
Certainly didn't have
Psyfilemen (No twin linked S8 for you)
Different nemesis force weapons (Just a standard chart for differences amongst the units)
Psycannon's were S6 AP4 18" Assault3 or 36" Heavy 3.
Psybolts made your bolters do AP4 instead of +1 to Strength
Paladins & Purifiers
Rapid stacking Strength Abilities
Warp Quake/ Fortitude/ Cleansing flame
DreadKnights
I could go on all day about what you didn't have that makes you OP now.
After they made the shunt not part of the scout move I haven't heard a peep against dk. Didn't need strength stacking since before I didn't need a psychic test to do so. Str 8 spam for psyfleman is hardly a new 5th edition and has been complained about since sw came out. Thats nothing new.
Aside from psybolt, warpquake(which only daemon players complain about), fortitude and purifiers the rest havent had much new attention. Though I must admit I enjoy people freaking out because of the net. It adds a psychological edge I myself couldn't do by myself.
33816
Post by: Noir
Draigo wrote:ZebioLizard2 wrote:Draigo wrote:LOL I love when people say they're op. Most the noobies didn't know back in the day they were mean then too. lol People are just now sad cause instead of a squad or 2 I can now field an entire army. Most of the stuff people hate about them guess what WE HAD IT BEFORE! lol
Certainly didn't have
Psyfilemen (No twin linked S8 for you)
Different nemesis force weapons (Just a standard chart for differences amongst the units)
Psycannon's were S6 AP4 18" Assault3 or 36" Heavy 3.
Psybolts made your bolters do AP4 instead of +1 to Strength
Paladins & Purifiers
Rapid stacking Strength Abilities
Warp Quake/ Fortitude/ Cleansing flame
DreadKnights
I could go on all day about what you didn't have that makes you OP now.
After they made the shunt not part of the scout move I haven't heard a peep against dk. Didn't need strength stacking since before I didn't need a psychic test to do so. Str 8 spam for psyfleman is hardly a new 5th edition and has been complained about since sw came out. Thats nothing new.
Aside from psybolt, warpquake(which only daemon players complain about), fortitude and purifiers the rest havent had much new attention. Though I must admit I enjoy people freaking out because of the net. It adds a psychological edge I myself couldn't do by myself.
Don't forget they lost the ability to ignore inv saves.
13625
Post by: phantommaster
H.B.M.C. wrote:Great White wrote:Some people chose them because they played deamonhunters.
I played Daemonhunters. I didn't use GK's. How d'ya think I feel about the GK Codex?
Same, but at least I can have Karamazov properly in my army now even if he has been nerfed.
55093
Post by: Winterkit
AlmightyWalrus wrote:Winterkit wrote:I think the fact that Ward & co took the Inquisitors, Assassins and other cool stuff from other Imperial armies and lumped them all into GK is a factor, too. The Inquisitors and Assassins are (imho, ymmv, etc) some of the coolest units in the Imperium. Now, if you want to play them, you have to go GK (afaik? Not read the current Sisters codex).
Since the units you listed were already in the Daemonhunters Codex, "Ward & C " didn't take the Inquisitors, Assassins and "other cool stuff", rendering your argument invalid.
Read it again. My problem wasn't that they're with the Grey Knights/Daemonhunters, it's that they stripped them from other armies. I have no problem with Daemonhunters having Inquisitors; it makes sense. But making it so that only they can have them smacks of favouritism. For clarity's sake, what I'm referring to is back when the IG, etc, could take Inquisitors & Assassins (3rd Edition, iirc?). This was stripped, whereas the Grey Knights are the only ones left with those units. So, if you wish to field them, you now have to play Grey Knights, or come to some House Rules arrangement with your opponent, which is patchy at best as solutions go.
11268
Post by: nosferatu1001
If youre talking codex: assasins, that was stripped from you by DH and WH. So aaaaaages ago. It is in fact one of the very few times GW has explicitly said one codex outdates another.
They removed the Ally rules from DH and WH, because, quite frankly, they sucked and sucked hard - from a balance perspective they allowed IG to circumvent their weaknesses (stuff deepstriking in causing you a problem? Take some mystics and unload some plasma into them! and so on) and could never be kept in synch correctly to keep it balanced
26552
Post by: speedo
Draigo wrote:LOL I love when people say they're op. Most the noobies didn't know back in the day they were mean then too. lol People are just now sad cause instead of a squad or 2 I can now field an entire army. Most of the stuff people hate about them guess what WE HAD IT BEFORE! lol
Draigo wrote:After they made the shunt not part of the scout move I haven't heard a peep against dk. Didn't need strength stacking since before I didn't need a psychic test to do so. Str 8 spam for psyfleman is hardly a new 5th edition and has been complained about since sw came out. Thats nothing new.
Aside from psybolt, warpquake(which only daemon players complain about), fortitude and purifiers the rest havent had much new attention. Though I must admit I enjoy people freaking out because of the net. It adds a psychological edge I myself couldn't do by myself.
I just thought you should know, that sounded pretty biased, especially considering your username is Draigo. Nothing wrong with that, just bringing it to your attention But I'd suggest, instead of stating opinions, using simple math and factual evidence to help prove points effectively without erupting flame wars. For instance, comparing the points efficiency of psyfledreads or other units with their equivalents in other armies. Or simply describing how effective certain units are with statistics. Regardless, it's apparent that many feel Grey Knights are somewhat OP, cheesy or unfair, and there's usually merit in a consensus like that. So, it's reasonable to assume that plenty have chosen Grey Knights because of their dominance in the game, if not because the price is right Personally, Warp Quake irks me because I use a lot of GoI. And I do feel like most Codex: Grey Knights options outshine my own respective Codex: Space Marines options, but that seems to be the nature of the game, newer codices have the advantage (with a few exceptions) Anyway, Grey Knights are cool and I'm sure plenty of people collect them for reasons other than how powerful they are
55093
Post by: Winterkit
nosferatu1001 wrote:If youre talking codex: assasins, that was stripped from you by DH and WH. So aaaaaages ago. It is in fact one of the very few times GW has explicitly said one codex outdates another.
They removed the Ally rules from DH and WH, because, quite frankly, they sucked and sucked hard - from a balance perspective they allowed IG to circumvent their weaknesses (stuff deepstriking in causing you a problem? Take some mystics and unload some plasma into them! and so on) and could never be kept in synch correctly to keep it balanced
Yeah, I suspected it was a mechanics choice. Was just tossing a theory on the pile as to why people prefer GK.
52720
Post by: Hyd
speedo wrote:Regardless, it's apparent that many feel Grey Knights are somewhat OP, cheesy or unfair, and there's usually merit in a consensus like that.
You're giving a lot of credit to the herd. Again, define " OP".
The very concept of GK is that indeed, they do things better than others. The Grey Knights' schtick is to emphasize quality over quantity. They're supposed to be "as superior to other Space Marines as Space Marines are superior to normal human beings" (I wouldn't take this literally, but this is how they state it). That's their theme.
On the other hand, they pay the price for it in points. The cheapest footman in the codex comes at 20 points, excluding FOC-modifying special characters. The most basic Troops unit costs 100 points for five bodies, and you're looking at much higher than that to have a functional unit.
Paladins are the best infantry in the game, and they are so heavily priced that lists that don't revolve around them usually don't include them at all.
Yes, the book contains its fair share of brainfarts as well. Purifiers are undercosted, with Crowe making it worse. Dreadnoughts' psybolts are undercosted. Coteaz is undercosted and his henchmen take it to ludicrous levels. All APCs in the game are undercosted.
Then again, Space Wolves.
So there are people who exploit these bargains, resulting in netlists.
Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but netlists aren't the be all end all of competitive play. There is a multitude of factors beside the army list that determine the outcome of a game. Generalship comes to mind, of course. Time showed that GKs are not a "I win" army. Empirical data do not point toward a clearly skewed distribution of W/L for that particular army ; it is however a strong contender amongst other strong codices. One of the book's notable strengths is that it contains no bad option, allowing for a variety of viable builds. (Note that I didn't say "no weakness".)
Here I might sound cynical, but a straightforward army with above average stats like GK makes for an effective noobstomper. It so happens that you hear a lot of complains about them in friendly environments, where winning is seldom the prime objective anyway. Does it really come off as a surprise that an army with no weak option and solid capabilities across-the-board performs well in a laid-back environment ?
You've got to consider match-ups as well. Poor match-ups exist ; so do old or poorly designed codices. It can only make things worse. But is it a reason to say GKs are too powerful ? I don't think so. Having no bad entry should be a reality for all books ; wouldn't it be a good thing if any army could be both "fluffy" and perfectly viable at the same time ?
I for one strive to be objective and will gladly discuss this matter if someone is willing to give it more thought than " lol gk op is all". Otherwise, I'll still have difficulties taking that position seriously.
26204
Post by: candy.man
speedo wrote:I just thought you should know, that sounded pretty biased, especially considering your username is Draigo. Nothing wrong with that, just bringing it to your attention
But I'd suggest, instead of stating opinions, using simple math and factual evidence to help prove points effectively without erupting flame wars. For instance, comparing the points efficiency of psyfledreads or other units with their equivalents in other armies. Or simply describing how effective certain units are with statistics. Regardless, it's apparent that many feel Grey Knights are somewhat OP, cheesy or unfair, and there's usually merit in a consensus like that. So, it's reasonable to assume that plenty have chosen Grey Knights because of their dominance in the game, if not because the price is right
Personally, Warpquake irks me because I use a lot of GoI. And I do feel like most Codex: Grey Knights options outshine my own respective Codex: Space Marines options, but that seems to be the nature of the game, newer codices have the advantage (with a few exceptions)
+1 to this post. The best way to back up an argument IMO is with evidence and not blanket statements. What irks me the most with the GK book is that it is severally undercosted, more so than any other codex to date. As someone who is a big fan of the proposed rules forum, I’m fully aware of what sort of point costing formula/template is used for 5E MEQ codices and the GK books does not follow this template. It’s really odd in that a lot of their abilities are either undercosted and the wargear upgrades discounted compared to other MEQ books. For example lets look at GKSS, a fairly upopular choice in the codex. For 220pts you get: • 10 MEQ • Force Weapons with bonus affects against daemons • Storm Bolters • 2 Psilencers • Psybolt ammo • Hammerhand • WarpQuake • Deepstrike Deployment • Prefered Enemy: Daemons • Ability for all members in the squad to upgrade their CC weapons. • Psykout Grenades The counter argument of “ GK are elite and supposed to be powerful” is all well and good, as long as everything is point costed for and as seen in the above example this is not the case. The other counter argument “ GK die just like any other marine” and are therefore balanced is also not an adequate counter argument as just because something can be killed, it does not make it balanced (especially if it is a point costing issue). From a codex design perspective, GK suffer the same problem as the Chaos 3.5 codex in that units have access to too many toys and there’s too much synergy between units. There’s a popular argument used on Dakka in that GK are balanced due to the lack of long ranged AT. This is not the case IMO given that GK have access to some really effective (and cheap) long ranged AT in the form of Jokaero, Psyfilemen dreads, Psykers and Servitors (melta stormtroopers are also really good even if they aren’t a long ranged choice). The GK book IMO fails from a structural point of view as it lacks proper inherent weaknesses to counter balances its strengths.
35132
Post by: Smitty0305
Before they were a good army, virtually NOBODY played them.
After their codex got revamped, a LARGE portion of the tournament community started playing them.
You have a clear before and after, with the effect being a new codex.
41761
Post by: sumi808
speedo wrote:Regardless, it's apparent that many feel Grey Knights are somewhat OP, cheesy or unfair, and there's usually merit in a consensus like that.
You're giving a lot of credit to the herd. Again, define "OP".
The very concept of GK is that indeed, they do things better than others. The Grey Knights' schtick is to emphasize quality over quantity. They're supposed to be "as superior to other Space Marines as Space Marines are superior to normal human beings" (I wouldn't take this literally, but this is how they state it). That's their theme.
On the other hand, they pay the price for it in points. The cheapest footman in the codex comes at 20 points, excluding FOC-modifying special characters. The most basic Troops unit costs 100 points for five bodies, and you're looking at much higher than that to have a functional unit.
Paladins are the best infantry in the game, and they are so heavily priced that lists that don't revolve around them usually don't include them at all.
Yes, the book contains its fair share of brainfarts as well. Purifiers are undercosted, with Crowe making it worse. Dreadnoughts' psybolts are undercosted. Coteaz is undercosted and his henchmen take it to ludicrous levels. All APCs in the game are undercosted.
Then again, Space Wolves.
So there are people who exploit these bargains, resulting in netlists.
Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but netlists aren't the be all end all of competitive play. There is a multitude of factors beside the army list that determine the outcome of a game. Generalship comes to mind, of course. Time showed that GKs are not a "I win" army. Empirical data do not point toward a clearly skewed distribution of W/L for that particular army ; it is however a strong contender amongst other strong codices. One of the book's notable strengths is that it contains no bad option, allowing for a variety of viable builds. (Note that I didn't say "no weakness".)
Here I might sound cynical, but a straightforward army with above average stats like GK makes for an effective noobstomper. It so happens that you hear a lot of complains about them in friendly environments, where winning is seldom the prime objective anyway. Does it really comes off as a surprise that an army with no weak option and solid capabilities across-the-board performs well in a laid-back environment ?
You've got to consider match-ups as well. Poor match-ups exist ; so do old or poorly designed codices. It can only make things worse. But is it a reason to say GKs are too powerful ? I don't think so. Having no bad entry should be a reality for all books ; wouldn't it be a good thing if any army could be both "fluffy" and perfectly viable at the same time ?
I for one strive to be objective and will gladly discuss this matter if someone is willing to give it more thought than "lol gk op is all". Otherwise, I'll still have difficulties taking that position seriously.
speedo wrote:I just thought you should know, that sounded pretty biased, especially considering your username is Draigo. Nothing wrong with that, just bringing it to your attention
But I'd suggest, instead of stating opinions, using simple math and factual evidence to help prove points effectively without erupting flame wars. For instance, comparing the points efficiency of psyfledreads or other units with their equivalents in other armies. Or simply describing how effective certain units are with statistics. Regardless, it's apparent that many feel Grey Knights are somewhat OP, cheesy or unfair, and there's usually merit in a consensus like that. So, it's reasonable to assume that plenty have chosen Grey Knights because of their dominance in the game, if not because the price is right
Personally, Warpquake irks me because I use a lot of GoI. And I do feel like most Codex: Grey Knights options outshine my own respective Codex: Space Marines options, but that seems to be the nature of the game, newer codices have the advantage (with a few exceptions)
+1 to this post. The best way to back up an argument IMO is with evidence and not blanket statements.
What irks me the most with the GK book is that it is severally undercosted, more so than any other codex to date. As someone who is a big fan of the proposed rules forum, I’m fully aware of what sort of point costing formula/template is used for 5E MEQ codices and the GK books does not follow this template. It’s really odd in that a lot of their abilities are either undercosted and the wargear upgrades discounted compared to other MEQ books. For example lets look at GKSS, a fairly upopular choice in the codex. For 220pts you get:
• 10 MEQ
• Force Weapons with bonus affects against daemons
• Storm Bolters
• 2 Psilencers
• Psybolt ammo
• Hammerhand
• WarpQuake
• Deepstrike Deployment
• Prefered Enemy: Daemons
• Ability for all members in the squad to upgrade their CC weapons.
• Psykout Grenades
The counter argument of “GK are elite and supposed to be powerful” is all well and good, as long as units everything is point costed for and as seen above example this is not the case. The other counter argument “GK die just like any other marines” and are therefore balanced is also not an adequate counter argument as just because something can be killed, it does not make it balanced (especially if it is a point costing issue).
From a codex design perspective, GK suffer the same problem as the Chaos 3.5 codex in that units have access to too many toys and there’s too much synergy between units. There’s a popular argument used on Dakka in that GK are balanced due to the lack of long ranged AT. This is not the case IMO given that GK have access to some really effective (and cheap) long ranged AT in the form of Jokaero, Psyfilemen dreads, Psykers and Servitors (melta stormtroopers are also really good even if they aren’t a long ranged choice). The GK book IMO fails from a structural point of view as it lacks proper inherent weaknesses to counter balances its strengths.
41761
Post by: sumi808
sumi808 wrote:speedo wrote:Regardless, it's apparent that many feel Grey Knights are somewhat OP, cheesy or unfair, and there's usually merit in a consensus like that. You're giving a lot of credit to the herd. Again, define " OP". The very concept of GK is that indeed, they do things better than others. The Grey Knights' schtick is to emphasize quality over quantity. They're supposed to be "as superior to other Space Marines as Space Marines are superior to normal human beings" (I wouldn't take this literally, but this is how they state it). That's their theme. On the other hand, they pay the price for it in points. The cheapest footman in the codex comes at 20 points, excluding FOC-modifying special characters. The most basic Troops unit costs 100 points for five bodies, and you're looking at much higher than that to have a functional unit. Paladins are the best infantry in the game, and they are so heavily priced that lists that don't revolve around them usually don't include them at all. Yes, the book contains its fair share of brainfarts as well. Purifiers are undercosted, with Crowe making it worse. Dreadnoughts' psybolts are undercosted. Coteaz is undercosted and his henchmen take it to ludicrous levels. All APCs in the game are undercosted. Then again, Space Wolves. So there are people who exploit these bargains, resulting in netlists. Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but netlists aren't the be all end all of competitive play. There is a multitude of factors beside the army list that determine the outcome of a game. Generalship comes to mind, of course. Time showed that GKs are not a "I win" army. Empirical data do not point toward a clearly skewed distribution of W/L for that particular army ; it is however a strong contender amongst other strong codices. One of the book's notable strengths is that it contains no bad option, allowing for a variety of viable builds. (Note that I didn't say "no weakness".) Here I might sound cynical, but a straightforward army with above average stats like GK makes for an effective noobstomper. It so happens that you hear a lot of complains about them in friendly environments, where winning is seldom the prime objective anyway. Does it really comes off as a surprise that an army with no weak option and solid capabilities across-the-board performs well in a laid-back environment ? You've got to consider match-ups as well. Poor match-ups exist ; so do old or poorly designed codices. It can only make things worse. But is it a reason to say GKs are too powerful ? I don't think so. Having no bad entry should be a reality for all books ; wouldn't it be a good thing if any army could be both "fluffy" and perfectly viable at the same time ? I for one strive to be objective and will gladly discuss this matter if someone is willing to give it more thought than " lol gk op is all". Otherwise, I'll still have difficulties taking that position seriously. speedo wrote:I just thought you should know, that sounded pretty biased, especially considering your username is Draigo. Nothing wrong with that, just bringing it to your attention But I'd suggest, instead of stating opinions, using simple math and factual evidence to help prove points effectively without erupting flame wars. For instance, comparing the points efficiency of psyfledreads or other units with their equivalents in other armies. Or simply describing how effective certain units are with statistics. Regardless, it's apparent that many feel Grey Knights are somewhat OP, cheesy or unfair, and there's usually merit in a consensus like that. So, it's reasonable to assume that plenty have chosen Grey Knights because of their dominance in the game, if not because the price is right Personally, Warpquake irks me because I use a lot of GoI. And I do feel like most Codex: Grey Knights options outshine my own respective Codex: Space Marines options, but that seems to be the nature of the game, newer codices have the advantage (with a few exceptions) +1 to this post. The best way to back up an argument IMO is with evidence and not blanket statements. What irks me the most with the GK book is that it is severally undercosted, more so than any other codex to date. As someone who is a big fan of the proposed rules forum, I’m fully aware of what sort of point costing formula/template is used for 5E MEQ codices and the GK books does not follow this template. It’s really odd in that a lot of their abilities are either undercosted and the wargear upgrades discounted compared to other MEQ books. For example lets look at GKSS, a fairly upopular choice in the codex. For 220pts you get: • 10 MEQ • Force Weapons with bonus affects against daemons • Storm Bolters • 2 Psilencers • Psybolt ammo • Hammerhand • WarpQuake • Deepstrike Deployment • Prefered Enemy: Daemons • Ability for all members in the squad to upgrade their CC weapons. • Psykout Grenades The counter argument of “ GK are elite and supposed to be powerful” is all well and good, as long as units everything is point costed for and as seen above example this is not the case. The other counter argument “ GK die just like any other marines” and are therefore balanced is also not an adequate counter argument as just because something can be killed, it does not make it balanced (especially if it is a point costing issue). From a codex design perspective, GK suffer the same problem as the Chaos 3.5 codex in that units have access to too many toys and there’s too much synergy between units. There’s a popular argument used on Dakka in that GK are balanced due to the lack of long ranged AT. This is not the case IMO given that GK have access to some really effective (and cheap) long ranged AT in the form of Jokaero, Psyfilemen dreads, Psykers and Servitors (melta stormtroopers are also really good even if they aren’t a long ranged choice). The GK book IMO fails from a structural point of view as it lacks proper inherent weaknesses to counter balances its strengths. Quality ideas ! I like the idea of them being superior to marines and MEQs being the new "normal" soldiers than the superwarriors. Yeah maybe just make their costing following the other 5E formulae and itll be sweet  Automatically Appended Next Post: whoops i just quoted myself - apologise !!
52137
Post by: Draigo
speedo wrote:Draigo wrote:LOL I love when people say they're op. Most the noobies didn't know back in the day they were mean then too. lol People are just now sad cause instead of a squad or 2 I can now field an entire army. Most of the stuff people hate about them guess what WE HAD IT BEFORE! lol
Draigo wrote:After they made the shunt not part of the scout move I haven't heard a peep against dk. Didn't need strength stacking since before I didn't need a psychic test to do so. Str 8 spam for psyfleman is hardly a new 5th edition and has been complained about since sw came out. Thats nothing new.
Aside from psybolt, warpquake(which only daemon players complain about), fortitude and purifiers the rest havent had much new attention. Though I must admit I enjoy people freaking out because of the net. It adds a psychological edge I myself couldn't do by myself.
I just thought you should know, that sounded pretty biased, especially considering your username is Draigo. Nothing wrong with that, just bringing it to your attention
But I'd suggest, instead of stating opinions, using simple math and factual evidence to help prove points effectively without erupting flame wars. For instance, comparing the points efficiency of psyfledreads or other units with their equivalents in other armies. Or simply describing how effective certain units are with statistics. Regardless, it's apparent that many feel Grey Knights are somewhat OP, cheesy or unfair, and there's usually merit in a consensus like that. So, it's reasonable to assume that plenty have chosen Grey Knights because of their dominance in the game, if not because the price is right
Personally, Warpquake irks me because I use a lot of GoI. And I do feel like most Codex: Grey Knights options outshine my own respective Codex: Space Marines options, but that seems to be the nature of the game, newer codices have the advantage (with a few exceptions)
Anyway, Grey Knights are cool and I'm sure plenty of people collect them for reasons other than how powerful they are
Pointing out the name isn't new and you weren't the first. Also Im incredibly biased and relish at the suffering since we had good stuff before but since no one played them besdies a select few it went under the radar. I'd go to tourneys and people had never seen them before and told me wow they must be awful I've never seen em. NOW with the new dex sudden;y everything is so shocking. lol Also reason I chose this name when I made my account is NO ONE likes his fluff and it provokes the haters.
52273
Post by: ifStatement
It's an army which used to be expensive t run (only metal models) which has become more affordable with the new plastics and the fact that you can run a smaller number of models than most armies. Plus they look cool.
H.B.M.C. wrote:Great White wrote:Some people chose them because they played deamonhunters.
I played Daemonhunters. I didn't use GK's. How d'ya think I feel about the GK Codex?
You seem pretty miserable about everything TBH.
53740
Post by: ZebioLizard2
Pointing out the name isn't new and you weren't the first. Also Im incredibly biased and relish at the suffering since we had good stuff before but since no one played them besdies a select few it went under the radar. I'd go to tourneys and people had never seen them before and told me wow they must be awful I've never seen em. NOW with the new dex sudden;y everything is so shocking. lol Also reason I chose this name when I made my account is NO ONE likes his fluff and it provokes the haters.
So you pretty much picked your name just to troll? Good answer to how one should respond to you.
52137
Post by: Draigo
ZebioLizard2 wrote:
Pointing out the name isn't new and you weren't the first. Also Im incredibly biased and relish at the suffering since we had good stuff before but since no one played them besdies a select few it went under the radar. I'd go to tourneys and people had never seen them before and told me wow they must be awful I've never seen em. NOW with the new dex sudden;y everything is so shocking. lol Also reason I chose this name when I made my account is NO ONE likes his fluff and it provokes the haters.
So you pretty much picked your name just to troll? Good answer to how one should respond to you.
Thats how people respond to many that have any gk picture, admit to play them etc so doesnt hurt my feelings. Automatically Appended Next Post: Also is no different to yakface and others putting mat ward fanclub on their profile.
26552
Post by: speedo
Hyd wrote:speedo wrote:Regardless, it's apparent that many feel Grey Knights are somewhat OP, cheesy or unfair, and there's usually merit in a consensus like that.
You're giving a lot of credit to the herd. Again, define " OP".
Overpowered (adj) definition: more powerful than it should be; unbalanced In all seriousness, the statement you quoted was meant to point out that, however disagreeable, there's usually some measure of merit in a common sentiment because people aren't sheep. So yeah, I was giving credit to the herd Draigo wrote:Pointing out the name isn't new and you weren't the first. Also Im incredibly biased and relish at the suffering since we had good stuff before but since no one played them besdies a select few it went under the radar. I'd go to tourneys and people had never seen them before and told me wow they must be awful I've never seen em. NOW with the new dex sudden;y everything is so shocking. lol Also reason I chose this name when I made my account is NO ONE likes his fluff and it provokes the haters.
It's clear you have strong convictions about your favorite army (which is natural), and in my experience, not many arguments can convince someone with strong convictions to change their mind. It's like speaking different languages to each other that neither can understand. In any case, Grey Knights aren't perfectly balanced just because you claim Codex: Daemonhunters was already a powerful codex, that's irrelevant It's also worth remembering that this discussion is geared toward explaining why people choose Grey Knights
54571
Post by: Talon31
Love small elite armies, love the idea of GK, love the fluff behind GK, love the models for GK, love that I don't have to break the bank building a new GK, love all the different tactics and quirks you get when playing GK, love the fact that I DON'T win every game with GK and against able players with good lists you can actually have an enjoyably tense close match. All of this coupled with the fact that I have always played GK in some form = me being a GK player.
I think all the GK hate basically comes down to people being annoyed at being beaten by them. Stop whining, the games about having fun!! Every army has some rule or unit that is kickass you just have to deal with that unit or not.
53347
Post by: Sasa0mg
I chose GK cus my other army is WHFB Skaven, 2000pts over 200 models. GK 2000pts, 13 models and 4 vehicles.
41761
Post by: sumi808
I still think that Hyd and Candy.mans arguments a few posts further up on this page are the most persuasive and the best articulated
GK should be thought of as the new supersolders, and MEQ are the avg soldiers in the universe -> just as marines used to be supersoldiers compared to IG.
Their Pricing simply needs to conform to the formulas applied to other codexes instead of being so massivly discounted
These guys afterall are made form the genetic material of the emperor himself - not his sons
46864
Post by: Deadshot
Exactly. Think of the film Irobot.
28405
Post by: dnanoodle
GKs already have very few models on the board. If they were actually priced according to all the toys and powers they have, they'd be unplayable. And there is a reason why people say they die just like other MEQs and TEQs. I'd hate to have even fewer guys and then set up across from an IG gun line.
The problem is trying to balance their points cost against the stuff they need to be as elite as they should be.
What are people who call them undercosted calling for? How much would be enough?
51365
Post by: kb305
Hyd wrote:speedo wrote:Regardless, it's apparent that many feel Grey Knights are somewhat OP, cheesy or unfair, and there's usually merit in a consensus like that.
You're giving a lot of credit to the herd. Again, define " OP".
The very concept of GK is that indeed, they do things better than others. The Grey Knights' schtick is to emphasize quality over quantity. They're supposed to be "as superior to other Space Marines as Space Marines are superior to normal human beings" (I wouldn't take this literally, but this is how they state it). That's their theme.
On the other hand, they pay the price for it in points. The cheapest footman in the codex comes at 20 points, excluding FOC-modifying special characters. The most basic Troops unit costs 100 points for five bodies, and you're looking at much higher than that to have a functional unit.
Paladins are the best infantry in the game, and they are so heavily priced that lists that don't revolve around them usually don't include them at all.
Yes, the book contains its fair share of brainfarts as well. Purifiers are undercosted, with Crowe making it worse. Dreadnoughts' psybolts are undercosted. Coteaz is undercosted and his henchmen take it to ludicrous levels. All APCs in the game are undercosted.
Then again, Space Wolves.
So there are people who exploit these bargains, resulting in netlists.
Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but netlists aren't the be all end all of competitive play. There is a multitude of factors beside the army list that determine the outcome of a game. Generalship comes to mind, of course. Time showed that GKs are not a "I win" army. Empirical data do not point toward a clearly skewed distribution of W/L for that particular army ; it is however a strong contender amongst other strong codices. One of the book's notable strengths is that it contains no bad option, allowing for a variety of viable builds. (Note that I didn't say "no weakness".)
Here I might sound cynical, but a straightforward army with above average stats like GK makes for an effective noobstomper. It so happens that you hear a lot of complains about them in friendly environments, where winning is seldom the prime objective anyway. Does it really come off as a surprise that an army with no weak option and solid capabilities across-the-board performs well in a laid-back environment ?
You've got to consider match-ups as well. Poor match-ups exist ; so do old or poorly designed codices. It can only make things worse. But is it a reason to say GKs are too powerful ? I don't think so. Having no bad entry should be a reality for all books ; wouldn't it be a good thing if any army could be both "fluffy" and perfectly viable at the same time ?
I for one strive to be objective and will gladly discuss this matter if someone is willing to give it more thought than " lol gk op is all". Otherwise, I'll still have difficulties taking that position seriously.
i stopped reading when you said that grey knights are supposed to be better than everyone - really sick of reading that.
lets just say it for what it is. GW made it op on purpose to increase sales.
52137
Post by: Draigo
lol Wasn't that much better when you allied them with the new spac wolf dex either. Str 8 spam and tons of str 6 fw were just as prevelant. Thought it was funny to have +4 psy defense all over and you needed to roll night fight x2 just to see the old knights.
Or put them with IG and let them do things like camo cloak back in the fight, bring it down etc while the knights whomped on people in cc.
Same belly ache new generation and 3.5 chaos was still worse.. I mean could you imagine ds and then assault! mwuahaha or 2nd edition where you could run from assault to assault. People have short memories and aren't paying attention to other dexes like Crons who are cleaning house in the GT right now.
20901
Post by: Luke_Prowler
Oh, let the grey knight players have their 15 minutes of fame. I'm sure they'll be whining just as loud once the 6th edition space marines/orks/eldar/whatever comes out, and all their stupid argument will get thrown right back in their faces.
52720
Post by: Hyd
dnanoodle wrote:What are people who call them undercosted calling for? How much would be enough?
Let's be honest, Purifiers are a steal. They die like Marines, but for a small premium you've got a unit that makes GKSS feel utterly inadequate.
First, I can't understand why they have a discount on their NFW. It makes no sense, their 2A let them get much more mileage off their weapons. Give them the same cost as Strikers' weapons and we're looking at something more reasonable.
Then you have Cleansing Flame. I'm not even sure such a thing is priceable. It doesn't have any kind of diminishing return, its power just grows at the same rate as the number of targets increases. The more I think of it, the less I like it. If anything is genuinely overpowered in the book, it's that power.
Psybolts costing virtually nothing for Dreadnoughts is a nonsense. I usually don't take a definitive stance on things, but there's no arguing that. Look up "bargain" in a dictionary and you'll find the picture of a psyfleman.
Luke_Prowler wrote:Oh, let the grey knight players have their 15 minutes of fame. I'm sure they'll be whining just as loud once the 6th edition space marines/orks/eldar/whatever comes out, and all their stupid argument will get thrown right back in their faces.
See, that's exactly the kind of childish posts coming from "the herd" that comforts me in my opinion that for each droplet of actual argument against GK, there's a metric ton of senseless bitching.
kb305 wrote:i stopped reading when you said that grey knights are supposed to be better than everyone - really sick of reading that.
Good, I wouldn't want to give you a headache with a thought-provoking post.
Just so you know though, Daemonhunters and their "elite of the elite" theme have been around since 2003. The very concept of the Grey Knights is even older.
speedo wrote:there's usually some measure of merit in a common sentiment because people aren't sheep.
Well, this is certainly too optimistic a view for me.
It doesn't seem unreasonable to me to state that the burden of the proof lies on the speaker. And yet, I have yet to hear actually thought-out and sensible opinions about the matter. This thread is an example. In fact, posts that boil down to "QQ" just undermine their stance. We have a few examples here. There seems to be bitterness and internet rage where I'm expecting food for thought. That's just not constructive. I'm not all that interested in a discussion where I'm providing the thinking for both sides. (Note that I'm not including you in that.)
To clarify, I'm not saying the GK codex isn't a strong book. It is, clearly. I'm challenging the claim that it is "overpowered", because I think we have yet to see such a thing. That's why I'm asking for a definition of " OP". I say it's strong ; some say it's too strong. Where is the limit ? That's the kind of definition that would take us somewhere.
20901
Post by: Luke_Prowler
No, see, this what happen every time. Every time, without fail. And I'm thinking, why bother fighting it? Why argue with people about something GW isn't going to fix? If a codex comes out and it completely balanced, then nothing wrong with that. But If it isn't, no one playing it is going to admit it is. And when the next one comes out, they're not going to care how powerful their personal codex is, they just want to attack what the other guy has. It' a endless cycle. Maybe for the best, we should just drone out all the complaints, and play how we want to. And if someone else gets an unfair advantage? It'll eventually come back to you.
26552
Post by: speedo
Hyd wrote:speedo wrote:there's usually some measure of merit in a common sentiment because people aren't sheep.
Well, this is certainly too optimistic a view for me.
Hyd wrote:It doesn't seem unreasonable to me to state that the burden of the proof lies on the speaker. And yet, I have yet to hear actually thought-out and sensible opinions about the matter. This thread is an example. In fact, posts that boil down to "QQ" just undermine their stance. We have a few examples here. There seems to be bitterness and internet rage where I'm expecting food for thought. That's just not constructive. I'm not all that interested in a discussion where I'm providing the thinking for both sides. (Note that I'm not including you in that.)
I'm fairly sure you and I are aiming for the same thing. I'm interested in what conclusions others could draw based on factual evidence. Something like this:
For 10 points more than a vanilla tactical squad's base cost, you can buy a strike squad of the same size that gains storm bolters, nemesis force swords, psyk-out grenades, The Aegis, Deep Strike, Preferred Enemy (Daemons), Hammerhand and Warp Quake. Codex: Space Marines prices a single storm bolter at 10 points. That's ridiculous
Otherwise, you pretty much summed up the other points I would have made
52137
Post by: Draigo
You really can't feel bad for tac marines. If you really want someone to feel bad for take up the banner for csm. Those dudes are waaay overcosted compared to many 5th edition codexes.
29629
Post by: zeekill
Not gonna lie, getting $45 for first place every month at a local tourney makes the army pay for itself. The book is quite plainly broken and overpowered.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Luke_Prowler wrote:No, see, this what happen every time. Every time, without fail. And I'm thinking, why bother fighting it? Why argue with people about something GW isn't going to fix? If a codex comes out and it completely balanced, then nothing wrong with that. But If it isn't, no one playing it is going to admit it is. And when the next one comes out, they're not going to care how powerful their personal codex is, they just want to attack what the other guy has. It' a endless cycle. Maybe for the best, we should just drone out all the complaints, and play how we want to. And if someone else gets an unfair advantage? It'll eventually come back to you.
I don't know about others, maybe they are that shallow, but I have a single 1850 list for GK, not a model more or less. I play the army because they are undoubtedly overpowered and it will win against any other army more often that not with average lists. But in addition to playing GK I also spam the best units possible. But I don't try to deny that my codex is overpowered.
My first 6 games with my GK list, 3 of them the day after I built the models, were in local tournies. I won all 6 of said games and in each lost no more than 20-40% of my army each game. I came first in both of the tournies. If that is not the sign of overpowered I don't know what is, so after that moment I just accepted it.
20243
Post by: Grey Templar
Well I assume you did your research and had a plan on tactics and such 
I really just view GKs as being an indicator codex. And indicator of the new and upcoming 6th Edition rules and codices. once everything is updated and the new rules come out the GKs will sink down to a reasonable power level.
20901
Post by: Luke_Prowler
zeekill wrote:Not gonna lie, getting $45 for first place every month at a local tourney makes the army pay for itself. The book is quite plainly broken and overpowered.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Luke_Prowler wrote:No, see, this what happen every time. Every time, without fail. And I'm thinking, why bother fighting it? Why argue with people about something GW isn't going to fix? If a codex comes out and it completely balanced, then nothing wrong with that. But If it isn't, no one playing it is going to admit it is. And when the next one comes out, they're not going to care how powerful their personal codex is, they just want to attack what the other guy has. It' a endless cycle. Maybe for the best, we should just drone out all the complaints, and play how we want to. And if someone else gets an unfair advantage? It'll eventually come back to you.
I don't know about others, maybe they are that shallow, but I have a single 1850 list for GK, not a model more or less. I play the army because they are undoubtedly overpowered and it will win against any other army more often that not with average lists. But in addition to playing GK I also spam the best units possible. But I don't try to deny that my codex is overpowered.
My first 6 games with my GK list, 3 of them the day after I built the models, were in local tournies. I won all 6 of said games and in each lost no more than 20-40% of my army each game. I came first in both of the tournies. If that is not the sign of overpowered I don't know what is, so after that moment I just accepted it.
Well it's nice to someone who's humble enough to admit that (or perhaps you're really good and selling yourself short, which is a possibly)
Now, I've tried, to prove my position that Grey Knights are OP quite a few times with facts and well written arguments and all that. but I've found that it would have been better time trying to part the red sea because the people who you want to convince the most aren't listening, and when you get called a "whiner" or "a sore loser" in response it really just shows the futility of the whole thing.
Grey Templar wrote:I really just view GKs as being an indicator codex. And indicator of the new and upcoming 6th Edition rules and codices. once everything is updated and the new rules come out the GKs will sink down to a reasonable power level.
Based off of the leaked edition, I don't think GK will be weaker so much as other armies will get a buff (while leaving others behind)
25208
Post by: AlmightyWalrus
Luke_Prowler wrote:
Now, I've tried, to prove my position that Grey Knights are OP quite a few times with facts and well written arguments and all that. but I've found that it would have been better time trying to part the red sea because the people who you want to convince the most aren't listening, and when you get called a "whiner" or "a sore loser" in response it really just shows the futility of the whole thing.
Luke_Prowler wrote:Oh, let the grey knight players have their 15 minutes of fame. I'm sure they'll be whining just as loud once the 6th edition space marines/orks/eldar/whatever comes out, and all their stupid argument will get thrown right back in their faces.
Oh hypocrisy, thy name is Luke...
8371
Post by: sharkticon
There are a lot of grey knight players because the internets says they are the best, so new players flock to them. It's kind of a self fulfilling prophecy.
55604
Post by: GreatGunz
Grey Templar wrote:Well I assume you did your research and had a plan on tactics and such
I really just view GKs as being an indicator codex. And indicator of the new and upcoming 6th Edition rules and codices. once everything is updated and the new rules come out the GKs will sink down to a reasonable power level.
There's probably a good deal of truth to this. The WHFB Demons codex (also by Matt Ward) was (I hear) unstoppable before the edition change over, after which it became a bit more reasonable. Presumably we can expect something like that with GK and 6th ed 40k.
36276
Post by: Zweischneid
Because the Grey Knight Codex is the most diverse, open and inclusive 40K Codex yet released. It significantly lowered the "entry barrier" to the Hobby, allowing players to start playing with (for GW standards) comparatively few models and little budget with things like a Paladin army. On the other end of the spectrum, the customability and hobby-potential of a henchmen-army for a dedicated hobbyist dwarfs just about anything and everything that ever existed for 40K. The book offers some of the most diverse play-styles in 40K ever seen in a single book, ranging from small-modelcount foot-armies to mechanized to full-deepstriking to various builds relying on more exotic tricks and equipment. Grey Knights simply attract so many players because it just offers so exponentially far more than any "regular" Codex ever dared to achieve. It's simply far and away the best army list GW has released in the last 20 years or so. Why wouldn't people love it?
20901
Post by: Luke_Prowler
@Walrus: That was a prediction, not actually an insult. Totally different
51365
Post by: kb305
Zweischneid wrote:Because the Grey Knight Codex is the most diverse, open and inclusive 40K Codex yet released. It significantly lowered the "entry barrier" to the Hobby, allowing players to start playing with (for GW standards) comparatively few models and little budget with things like a Paladin army. On the other end of the spectrum, the customability and hobby-potential of a henchmen-army for a dedicated hobbyist dwarfs just about anything and everything that ever existed for 40K. The book offers some of the most diverse play-styles in 40K ever seen in a single book, ranging from small-modelcount foot-armies to mechanized to full-deepstriking to various builds relying on more exotic tricks and equipment. Grey Knights simply attract so many players because it just offers so exponentially far more than any "regular" Codex ever dared to achieve. It's simply far and away the best army list GW has released in the last 20 years or so. Why wouldn't people love it?
what is this? you sound like a cheesy commercial. do you work for GW?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
zeekill wrote:Not gonna lie, getting $45 for first place every month at a local tourney makes the army pay for itself. The book is quite plainly broken and overpowered.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Luke_Prowler wrote:No, see, this what happen every time. Every time, without fail. And I'm thinking, why bother fighting it? Why argue with people about something GW isn't going to fix? If a codex comes out and it completely balanced, then nothing wrong with that. But If it isn't, no one playing it is going to admit it is. And when the next one comes out, they're not going to care how powerful their personal codex is, they just want to attack what the other guy has. It' a endless cycle. Maybe for the best, we should just drone out all the complaints, and play how we want to. And if someone else gets an unfair advantage? It'll eventually come back to you.
I don't know about others, maybe they are that shallow, but I have a single 1850 list for GK, not a model more or less. I play the army because they are undoubtedly overpowered and it will win against any other army more often that not with average lists. But in addition to playing GK I also spam the best units possible. But I don't try to deny that my codex is overpowered.
My first 6 games with my GK list, 3 of them the day after I built the models, were in local tournies. I won all 6 of said games and in each lost no more than 20-40% of my army each game. I came first in both of the tournies. If that is not the sign of overpowered I don't know what is, so after that moment I just accepted it.
ahhh. a breath of fresh air. atleast someone admits it.
51383
Post by: Experiment 626
GreatGunz wrote:Grey Templar wrote:Well I assume you did your research and had a plan on tactics and such
I really just view GKs as being an indicator codex. And indicator of the new and upcoming 6th Edition rules and codices. once everything is updated and the new rules come out the GKs will sink down to a reasonable power level.
There's probably a good deal of truth to this. The WHFB Demons codex (also by Matt Ward) was (I hear) unstoppable before the edition change over, after which it became a bit more reasonable. Presumably we can expect something like that with GK and 6th ed 40k.
Nope, 7th ed Daemons were unbeatable outside of insanely bad dice with the right list. 'Thirsters who could chop-up half a unit, power dice generating abilities that made dark elves jealous, spamable spells that made VC's invo-spam look tame, basic units that are still undercosted, spamable 'loremaster' characters, Ld-bombing tactics, 'Fear' actually being fearsome! Flamers of Tzeentch being arguably the game's best skirmishers... The list actually goes on. 
Suffice it to say, the Daemon feth-up nearly killed Fantasy as a whole for GW, and the game is still recovering even after nearly two years of 8th has tonned them way down!
As for why do I consider GK's to be OP? They're doing the same thing 7th ed Daemons did - they are 100% invalidating multiple armies and either making the game near-unwinnable, or else forcing a semi-tailored to fully tailored list for those armies to compete against them.
- Tyranids lose hardcore to an army of pointy death sticks, spamable S7 rending guns and 'winning flame'. One of the GK's top builds is Purifyer spam. Add in the borken grenades vs an army that's designed primarily as an assault force and you've got bad times for 'nid players.
- Orks share many of the same problem 'nid do. Purifyer spam pretty much invalidates 'the green tide' unless it sits back and just goes dakka-heavy. The kanwall is undone by super cheap psyflemen which are rediculously undercosted in an army that already has easy and/or spamable access to S7 rending, multi-meltas, lascannons and meltaguns.
- Daemons are just useless vs GK's. 1 single 10 man squad, fully spaced out using the 2" coherency creates a 24"x44" bubble of auto-mishap. Thus, in order to account for scatter as well, the Daemon player is forced to deploy 7" back from the edge of that bubble. So for only 200pts a GK play can deny 33"x53" area of the table to an entire army that has no other means of deploying!
If a GK player castles in a corner and then uses that 10 man squad to force the Daemon player back, it's not even a game as the Daemon player is forced to walk at least 24" into the waiting gunline.
Worst of all, an unscrupulous GK player can juggle 'misplaced' resultes in order to get a 50/50 shot at auto-killing your unit.
Then add all the other anti-daemon shinanigans into the mix... Sure, that's balanced.
In my opinion, when a codex goes to the point that an entire army is pretty much invalidated, (let alone multiple armies needing almost 100% re-thinks to their list), the codex in question is OP.
And don't say, 'well Daemons suck so it is not the GK fault but rather your book just being trashy fecal matter!' because honestly, I can be competitive against every other army in the game! GK's are an entirely different animal though, and even at the best of times, it's a huge uphill battle just to try and compete with the GK's filth.
53622
Post by: Gargantuan
I don't have a GK army but it's easy to see why it's popular
Cheap, strong, low number of minis and easy to paint.
25751
Post by: gmaleron
New to the thread guys, however I have noticed a large influx of Grey Knight players @ my store as well and honestly it is because of how ridiculously good this Book is. It is also because of army books like this is why I have refused to get back into the game of 40k or as I like to call it now "marine-hammer" for quite some time now. Some of these lists/armies have gotten so bad that a friend of mine had to sell his Grey Knight army because no one would play him, I also have another friend who plays Grey Knights facing a similar problem (just started today with a kid saying no to playing against his army) and he now is thinking of getting a new one because he feels bad playing them. Hopefully GW will learn their mistake and tone down the next marine book to come out (aka by not letting Matt Ward write the new one!), this isnt meant to start a flame thread war just placing my opinion 
47857
Post by: Jirin
I own Grey Knights due to me loving the models. I originally started Warhammer with Fantasy, and ended up going with Dwarfs out of the BfSP set. My girlfriend went with Chaos. This left me with, quite honestly, no army to really capture the feeling of armoured warriors charging into battle. I hate Empire's and Bretonnia's aesthetics, so that had them left out.
When I started 40k I was originally going to do a Daemonhunter Army, due to me loving the old GK models. Sadly, my FLGS wouldn't order any in so I settled with Necrons, then Chaos, then the new Dark Eldar. Dark Eldar for, to be honest, the same reasons as a Daemonhunter. He just wouldn't order any in. One week I went up to Calgary, actually the day of the GK release, to buy more Dark Elder models. Both the GW I visited and The Sentry Box were out of Dark Eldar, and I saw these new marines. I immediately fell in love with the aesthetics. Finally, an army where I could have armoured warriors charging into battle... albeit 40k. The halberds swiftly became a staple in what I own, due to my love for pole arms. Not to mention I did manage to get quite a few of the old models as well, so my nostalgia was restored!
Now, I'll admit to painting a standard scheme for my Grey Knights, however it has taught me much in the way of detailing and layering, and I hope to finish them by sometimes in the next few months. The fluff is, okay? Much prefer the Dark Eldar fluff to be honest.
As for the power... I tend to win 40k games no matter what army I play, Grey Knights just tend to let me win a little easier. My friends can't seem to do as well with GK as I do, so I'm not sure what that means.
Long story short - Love the models, the aesthetics, the feel. Could give a rats ass about power, because they're fun to play with.
47598
Post by: motyak
I play grey knights because I saw a bloke knock together an army list for alpha legion using them, with coteaz and henchmen mostly. I'll have him alongside indoctrinated guardsmen (kitted out warriors), indoctrinated mechanicus (jok and servitors) and stuff like that. I added in Omegon and a bodyguard of legionnaires (GM and some pallies...I can't find them using terminator armour, but I'm still thinking of finding models I can use as paladins while not looking so bulky...it's a purely for fun list for friendly play). The list is not really the best....at all....but its fun, and when it is painted its going to be so purty...and alpha-legion-y. More-so than my initial idea of using a scout heavy SM list, that thing fell through. Hard.
And I did love the old daemonhunter codex, but back then I also liked shiny things I found on the ground (I was in high school), so while I did collect them a little, and loved the army, I'm not going to claim it was nostalgia for them which dragged me back. It was legion (and now deliverance lost too), chapter approved and a random army list that I saw someone post on dakka....ahhh....
51365
Post by: kb305
theyre called demonhunters for a reason, demons are supposed to be autolose against them, read the fluff herpty derpty do (not serious)
Experiment 626 wrote:GreatGunz wrote:Grey Templar wrote:Well I assume you did your research and had a plan on tactics and such
I really just view GKs as being an indicator codex. And indicator of the new and upcoming 6th Edition rules and codices. once everything is updated and the new rules come out the GKs will sink down to a reasonable power level.
There's probably a good deal of truth to this. The WHFB Demons codex (also by Matt Ward) was (I hear) unstoppable before the edition change over, after which it became a bit more reasonable. Presumably we can expect something like that with GK and 6th ed 40k.
Nope, 7th ed Daemons were unbeatable outside of insanely bad dice with the right list. 'Thirsters who could chop-up half a unit, power dice generating abilities that made dark elves jealous, spamable spells that made VC's invo-spam look tame, basic units that are still undercosted, spamable 'loremaster' characters, Ld-bombing tactics, 'Fear' actually being fearsome! Flamers of Tzeentch being arguably the game's best skirmishers... The list actually goes on.
Suffice it to say, the Daemon feth-up nearly killed Fantasy as a whole for GW, and the game is still recovering even after nearly two years of 8th has tonned them way down!
As for why do I consider GK's to be OP? They're doing the same thing 7th ed Daemons did - they are 100% invalidating multiple armies and either making the game near-unwinnable, or else forcing a semi-tailored to fully tailored list for those armies to compete against them.
- Tyranids lose hardcore to an army of pointy death sticks, spamable S7 rending guns and 'winning flame'. One of the GK's top builds is Purifyer spam. Add in the borken grenades vs an army that's designed primarily as an assault force and you've got bad times for 'nid players.
- Orks share many of the same problem 'nid do. Purifyer spam pretty much invalidates 'the green tide' unless it sits back and just goes dakka-heavy. The kanwall is undone by super cheap psyflemen which are rediculously undercosted in an army that already has easy and/or spamable access to S7 rending, multi-meltas, lascannons and meltaguns.
- Daemons are just useless vs GK's. 1 single 10 man squad, fully spaced out using the 2" coherency creates a 24"x44" bubble of auto-mishap. Thus, in order to account for scatter as well, the Daemon player is forced to deploy 7" back from the edge of that bubble. So for only 200pts a GK play can deny 33"x53" area of the table to an entire army that has no other means of deploying!
If a GK player castles in a corner and then uses that 10 man squad to force the Daemon player back, it's not even a game as the Daemon player is forced to walk at least 24" into the waiting gunline.
Worst of all, an unscrupulous GK player can juggle 'misplaced' resultes in order to get a 50/50 shot at auto-killing your unit.
Then add all the other anti-daemon shinanigans into the mix... Sure, that's balanced.
In my opinion, when a codex goes to the point that an entire army is pretty much invalidated, (let alone multiple armies needing almost 100% re-thinks to their list), the codex in question is OP.
And don't say, 'well Daemons suck so it is not the GK fault but rather your book just being trashy fecal matter!' because honestly, I can be competitive against every other army in the game! GK's are an entirely different animal though, and even at the best of times, it's a huge uphill battle just to try and compete with the GK's filth.
43828
Post by: MilkyDamBusters
Got to admit, love grey knights, was going to do them as a second army but my friend chose them first and we had a pact not to pick the same army...so I went with space marines.
Weird as I started out with a horde army on a budget...guard.
65286
Post by: Brother Captain Alexander
I love Grey Kngihts.
But not so many players here is Serbia, only one or two.
8620
Post by: DAaddict
Cheap relative real cost and competitive leads to bandwagoning.
Space Wolves are also competitive but they will require a little more dollar investment.
400$ to get 2000 pt competitive GK versus 600$ or more to get another competitive list means GK wins.
43828
Post by: MilkyDamBusters
Shame, any war gaming clubs over there?
26018
Post by: Vryce
Arise, dead thread! ARISE!
This thread was 7 mos dead (thankfully). Lets keep it that way, shall we?
~Vryce
65286
Post by: Brother Captain Alexander
We had three until the beginning of this year. One close, one was moved to bigger location and changed name while third remained ( but they mostly play card games there, not TT ).
But all n all it's good enough even if we have only one TT club in the entire country.
22687
Post by: MajorTom11
This thread is 6 months old, and certainly no mystery.
|
|
