The grey knights have been overwhelmingly voted worst codex. They have completely disappeared from my flgs. Please email 40kfaq@gwplc.com (faq email Addy) and ccuk.custserv@gwplc.com (customer service) to tell them to fix. Thank you for your help.
I don't think grey Knights can be fixed this edition. the kinds of alterations required to fix them will require a complete and total codex re-write as well as some changes to the base game rules. (anything that depowers hoards would be a good start)
A.T. wrote: You are going to want more content to your email than 'army x is unpowered fix please'
Spamming GW without substance will just lead to them skimming over the GK emails.
I don't know why people still think mass complaining on FAQ and customer service emails will do anything. Complaining about GKs isn't a rules question and its not a sales query so they probably skim over these emails anyway.
A.T. wrote: You are going to want more content to your email than 'army x is unpowered fix please'
Spamming GW without substance will just lead to them skimming over the GK emails.
I don't know why people still think mass complaining on FAQ and customer service emails will do anything. Complaining about GKs isn't a rules question and its not a sales query so they probably skim over these emails anyway.
I mean, in the FAQ email it makes sense, GW keeps saying for us to send rules feedback to it, but emailing customer service is ??????????
A.T. wrote: You are going to want more content to your email than 'army x is unpowered fix please'
Spamming GW without substance will just lead to them skimming over the GK emails.
I don't know why people still think mass complaining on FAQ and customer service emails will do anything. Complaining about GKs isn't a rules question and its not a sales query so they probably skim over these emails anyway.
I mean, in the FAQ email it makes sense, GW keeps saying for us to send rules feedback to it, but emailing customer service is ??????????
"GK is the worst codex" isn't feedback - it's just mindlessly complaining. If you can't actually articulate why it missed the mark, then you aren't going to be helping anybody with your email.
With beta deep-strike rules - they went from one of the worst - to the absolute epitome of trash.
I honestly don't think the beta deep-strike rules are going to make it through - they simply hurt too many armies chance at being competitive.(This is why blanket fixes are bad) Also tripple nerfs are bad too. Hive tyrants went from a great versatile unit to being almost unplayable - just like that.
I enjoyed playing my GK before the big FAQ. I feel the army was in much better shape than space marines for example. It fit my playstyle (table or nothing) very well. They army is completely unplayable now though.
Xenomancers wrote: I honestly don't think the beta deep-strike rules are going to make it through - they simply hurt too many armies chance at being competitive
Deepstrike turn 1 assault / rapidfire is a pretty terrible game, on par with the gunline that never moves and the army that never dies. GW would be better off keeping/tweaking the rule and fixing the armies in other ways.
Xenomancers wrote: I honestly don't think the beta deep-strike rules are going to make it through - they simply hurt too many armies chance at being competitive
Deepstrike turn 1 assault / rapidfire is a pretty terrible game, on par with the gunline that never moves and the army that never dies. GW would be better off keeping/tweaking the rule and fixing the armies in other ways.
Then the grey knights need a massive rework to be useful. All that happens now is I get tabled by turn 3-4 as I can't apply the burst damage I need when I need it where I need it... Which is what grey knights do
Xenomancers wrote: I honestly don't think the beta deep-strike rules are going to make it through - they simply hurt too many armies chance at being competitive
Deepstrike turn 1 assault / rapidfire is a pretty terrible game, on par with the gunline that never moves and the army that never dies. GW would be better off keeping/tweaking the rule and fixing the armies in other ways.
I think it'll stick around. But like GSC there will be exceptions. Probably GK, drop pods and such.
It doesn't really affect me at all(I play Raven guard since the other chapters are pretty bad now), plus my friend just uses a suicide 4 fusion coldstar to move 40" to kill something important sooooo don't really care either way...
A.T. wrote: You are going to want more content to your email than 'army x is unpowered fix please'
Spamming GW without substance will just lead to them skimming over the GK emails.
I don't know why people still think mass complaining on FAQ and customer service emails will do anything. Complaining about GKs isn't a rules question and its not a sales query so they probably skim over these emails anyway.
I mean, in the FAQ email it makes sense, GW keeps saying for us to send rules feedback to it, but emailing customer service is ??????????
"GK is the worst codex" isn't feedback - it's just mindlessly complaining. If you can't actually articulate why it missed the mark, then you aren't going to be helping anybody with your email.
That's actually not true. "GW is the worst codex" is feedback. You might be able to provide more intelligent feedback, but that doesn't negate his/her feedback.
GW asked for our feedback. If we tell them that Grey Knights are the worst army and no one plays them, that's plenty. We don't need to explain to them what is wrong with the army. All they need to know, frankly, is that the army is not being played. That's honestly enough. If an army is not being played than one would think they would get down to working on a strategy to get the army played. Adding explanations for what's wrong and how it can be fixed can be helpful, but it can also be useless. Plenty of experienced players have crappy ideas and don't understand design, or simply have a blatant neglect for the lore.
Just tell GW what the problem is and let them work out the solution.
Points - Overcosted Grey Knights pay a premium for being Psykers, with access to deep strike, as well as a set of expanded base war gear. Their smite is largely ineffective, 1 mortal wound for a minimum investment of 105 points is not that great. They have 6 total powers - but even if you cast all powers every turn, if you're playing GK, you'll find yourself casting smite, which is generally not worth the risk of perils. The base model has a storm bolter and a power weapon. Storm bolters sound attractive with a rapid fire 2 24" profile, but unfortunately the cost to get this shooting (21 points minimum) is too high. Comparative value across the Imperium, this is not efficient, and requires very close range to be optimal. With only 1 attack (mostly) per model, or very low attack volume in general relative to cost, Grey Knights aren't good in melee. They stand up well in math hammer, but the ultimate challenge with Grey Knights is a total and complete lack of mobility. Despite paying a premium for all of these benefits - psyker, rapid fire, power weapons - they don't have a meaningful way to actually utilize this. Paying for deep strike post nerf is not worth it, especially in an elite army that suffers for bodies.
Further, when you start comparing options for an Imperium-Soup based list, there are better ways to accomplish whatever you might want to achieve with Grey Knights. For instance, volume of shooting dice - this is done better in many other places. Consider a Punisher Russ, Taurox Prime, etc. Meanwhile, their melee attacks (generally -2, D3) at a cost of minimum 105 points - are better handled with other armies that can reliably get into combat (Blood Angels, for example) or just by ignoring the difficulty of achieving melee combat altogether, and bringing something like a Manticore, which is not that much more expensive, but puts out attacks immediately, at a better profile, and can benefit from army synergy.
Finally for durability, in 8th edition it's a simple game of invulnerable saves and wounds. Grey Knights are low on wound count, and don't have invulnerable saves unless you're looking at characters, or a 5++ on terminator armored models. With the Custodes release, you find yourself making a choice between cheaper, more survivable units, that are better in melee, or Grey Knights. Custodes can take a storm shield on one model and have a base 4++, with a higher wound count, than Terminators. They are flatly better than Paladins.
TLDR: Paying for stats you can't use, and any individual use case is handled far better by other soup options, with greater synergy and cheaper.
Mobility & Range - Poor An army that depends on close range + low medium range has very little in the way of mobility. After they arrive by deep strike, Grey Knights are essentially stranded on the table. One unit can Gate of Infinity per turn, but still requires it be set up 9" away from enemy models. Even if you find yourself in a situation where you could really leverage what GK have to offer, you still have the fundamental problem of getting them there. The unit with the most mobility is interceptors, but they offering nothing beyond standard strike marines with a little extra mobility, to the tune of 125 points. This gets back to the original question of what you want to accomplish, and what the interceptors achieve, because being a fast attack, they don't have a place in GK lists, since you won't be making a GK brigade any time soon, and 3 squads of interceptors to create another detachment runs a minimum of 500 points (125HQ-cheapest, 3*125). 500 points for potentially 60 storm bolter shots, which requires the ability to deep strike, and a total of 15 wounds + HQ. The HQ is Castellan Crowe, who could not keep up with these guys and doesn't offer rerolls anyway.
You can leverage transports, but these are essentially confronted with the same problem as all marine transports. They're either way too expensive, because they're priced with rerolls in mind (Razorbacks), were nerfed due to rerolls (storm ravens), or were flat out bad from the jump (Land Raiders). Ultimately you face the same challenge here: You are paying for stats you can't use if your GK ride in transports. Consider Castellan Crowe (125), a generic HQ (150) and 3 squads of Strike Marines (315). Your investment here is 580 points, and now you need transports. If you bring 2 Rhinos, that puts your cost up over 700 points. What are you accomplishing with this 700+ points? Not a lot. It's nearly half your list for essentially 17 fighting models, that require 12" or melee to be effective. And, you have access to reroll 1's to hit only, should you manage to keep your generic HQ close to both rhinos at time of disembark, and can deep strike within range to apply the rerolls.
People look at GK and assume they will be able to fight their ideal targets, but unfortunately they won't, because their mobility is terrible, and screening units exist.
Psychic Powers - Bad Rites of Banishment is a huge slap in the face, 1 mortal wound at 12" is comical. It's even more insulting that this is on the Grey Knights librarian. This aside, the rest of their powers are bland and kind of bad. You do get to deal 3 mortal wounds to daemons, but remember not to kill daemons with GK - they'll just come back.
Gate of Infinity - this offers the sole purpose now of offering the potential for a turn 1 charge from deep strike. Although this was always a bad gambit, even when deep strike was freely usable on turn 1. It also allows you to set up models outside of your deployment zone. The use case exists, but again, this can only be applied to 1 unit, so you won't have any protection, or buffs. Further, this is still negated by most armies that have figured out how to apply scout moves and screening units. I give this power 2 out of 5 stars. Up from 1 out of 5 stars, thanks to the beta nerf, which hammers GK hard.
Astral Aim - the best spell in the codex. Unfortunately the platforms to which it can be applied are fundamentally lacking. Before you salivate over the thought of astral aim Godhammer, remember that artillery exists, and doesn't require a psychic babysitter for an overcosted model. In the context of GK, 3/5 stars.
Purge Soul - Kind of hilarious. The chaff you want to smite has decent enough leadership. You'll inflict 3 wounds probably with this bad boy... sometimes. 2/5 stars.
Sanctuary - +1 invulnerable save. This is a great power given that your GMNDK crumbles like a house of cards without it. Too bad it can only be applied to 1 model. 3/5 stars.
Hammerhand - You won't make it to melee with your units in a scenario where they'd need it. 1/5 stars.
Vortex of Doom - One of the worst spells in the game. The cost is astronomical, and people think this is good because they misread it. THey think it hits every unit within 3" of the target unit. NO. It hits units within 3" of the closest target MODEL, meaning you're hitting 1 unit with a crap smite. If you cast it in melee, it hurts yourself. 0/5 stars (can't go lower!)
Finally even though some of these powers are situationally useful, they suffer from the rule of 1, and do not scale to a full force. Further, you can be denied. Let's not forget that *everyone* has psychic powers, and if you want to enhance your army with GK, you can only apply these powers to GK units. So, do you really gain by adding GK, and if so, why? As a standalone force, having access to 5 powers (Vortex doesn't count as a power) means you won't scale to any meaningful game.
Grey Knights would be better if they were cheaper and didn't have access to cast powers at all. Just some HQs can cast, everyone else is just power armored sods, but for less points. I think that says a lot about the current state of their powers.
Stratagems - Bad Here's what you need to know about GK, should you face them: They can pay 2 CP to give their bolters +1 str and -1AP. They can pay 2 CP to give their psychic weapons +1 str and -1AP. Not to worry, these weapons are bad, and 5 strength and AP-1 doesn't really scare anybody when you consider its range and volume for cost. The worst case scenario is someone deep strikes in 10 strike marines and an HQ for rerolls to shoot 40x Strength 5, AP-1 shots rerolling 1s. But relax, this has to occur from deep strike, because you can't march these guys across the field, so you've already screened against it. And even if you haven't, remember, that's a minimum investment on their part of 360 points, for what amounts to a once-per-game trick. You cant take this punch and counter it easily.
They also have the ability to get 1 extra psychic dice. Do you care? Probably not. They can give 1 unit +1 invulnerable save, for 2CP. Don't worry, they have to use it at the start of their turn, so you know what not to shoot.
That is the entirety of their stratagems. Nothing to help with their mobility. Nothing to help with the fact that they have no anti-tank. Nothing to help with their inability to get into melee. Nothing to improve their powers. Nothing to improve their smite. Nothing reactionary to what you might do on offense. Nothing to counter daemons the way daemons counter GK. Ultimately their few stratagems are useful that i detailed above. Should you manage to find yourself in a position where these are useful, you'll have only a precious few command points, so use them wisely.
Awful Characters They are brutally overcosted, have no flavor, and suffer from all of the issues mentioned above. They have no access to reroll wounds. they have no access to all rerolls except for Draigo, who costs 240 points and has a 5" move. Their cheapest HQ is 125 points, who has no deep strike, 5 wounds, and a chainsword, and offers no rerolls of any kind as a buff. The GMNDK is solid, but they don't offer comparative value to Custode Bike Captains. Bring 3 bike captains for a little more than 1 GMNDK. Remember, he's a T6 4++ who is targetable.
What is the meta? You can't look at a codex in a vacuum. The meta in 8th edition is essentially this. You need to either have a beast mode wound count, or a 4++ or better. There isn't much in the way of middle ground. Any scenario where you might ally in GK, there are better choices. And, as a mono-army, GK can't handle what the meta has at its core: Bodies and invulnerable saves.
Marmatag- very nicely stated. I don't agree with all of your assessments but I do agree with the gist of your post. It would be great if you sent that to GW. It's not being snarky or putting anyone down it just states facts (albeit as you see them). I'm an old school player and will not play soup so I would like to have my GKs be able to at least make a pretense of a show on the competitive circuit.
To me, the first thing they obviously need is the ability to cast their powers multiple times per turn. That should be part of Brotherhood (or I guess it might have to be part of the matched play rule, since the limit isn't technically part of the base rules).
Significant defense from Psychic mortal wounds would be next on my list as a kind of global change. Ideally their Terminators need a fix, but I have literally no idea what to do there other than make them Custodes.
I actually shot them a note after the assault cannon nerf.
To paraphrase, it was essentially this:
"Hello,
I understand that the cost of assault cannons is increasing. I believe this is because of Razorbacks, and Storm Ravens over performing.
However, this performance is generally in the context of lists with access to hit & wound rerolls. For instance, Roboute Guilliman and the Ultramarines are where these vehicles are seen in tournaments.
Grey Knights armies also depend on these vehicles, but don't have the same access to rerolls as other armies. Is there going to be a quid-pro-quo kind of balance change for Grey Knights? Because this army was made worse by the recent change, yet is already chronically under represented.
They have Interceptors and Grandmaster Dreadknights, and then the ever mediocre Strike Squads and Paladins. That's about all they got and then they have horribly overcosted Strategems. Psybolts is an insult to Grey Knights players.
A poll appears on Dakka (A place where an tiny minority of people interested in 40k post) A tiny minority of those people, vote in that poll. Then a thread is made claiming that the result of that poll is somehow conclusive evidence that something is a certain way. No.
They also have teleporting landraiders and psylancer purgators shooting without los. Sure, they need psy powers for it but with +1 to cast the odds are pretty good.
Not sayinv gk are top tier but they're definitely not abysmal. Pretty good in regular games.
So, Hollow, who do you feel has the worst codex army and why?
If you go to the London GT List thread you will find that there were 3 GK armies they finished 236, 259 and, 352 out of a field of 365 armies. That does not speak well of the codex either from an army selection stand point or a competitive rating stand point. Granted it's only 1 event but when you look at the numbers overall then it is pretty consistent in both selection and competitiveness.
Unit1126PLL wrote: If you Gate of Infinity a Land Raider out of combat, can it still shoot? (I suppose so because it didn't fall back but this is hilarious).
Yes, but to do that you'd have to be taking a Land Raider.
Unit1126PLL wrote: If you Gate of Infinity a Land Raider out of combat, can it still shoot? (I suppose so because it didn't fall back but this is hilarious).
Yes, but to do that you'd have to be taking a Land Raider.
Right yes I was having a giggle not suggesting it as a strategy.
I have a redeemer that doesn't get used anymore. It would be great if the flamers could fire in overwatch regardless of how far the enemy started and would be even more fun if they could be fired into melee if the user is the only friendly model involved (please note that I used "model" not "unit").
Leo_the_Rat wrote: So, Hollow, who do you feel has the worst codex army and why? .
I don't think in this way. The idea that there is a "worst" codex smacks of juvinelieve, simplistic reasoning devoid of nuance or understanding. It's like asking which is worse out of the rock, paper or scissors. It's situational. Everything about it is situational. I have seen GK beat most other factions in person and you can see them do well v multiple other factions online in dozens of batreps. Using the most recent GT results from London is sooooo silly it actually makes my head hurt. The game is situational. It's why keyboard warrior's crying continually about balance drives me up the wall... mainly because they don't seem to have a grasp for what they are complaining about or what they are asking for. Currently, all factions can build lists to beat all other factions. GK can beat all other factions, but it is situational.
Leo_the_Rat wrote: So, Hollow, who do you feel has the worst codex army and why? .
I don't think in this way. The idea that there is a "worst" codex smacks of juvinelieve, simplistic reasoning devoid of nuance or understanding. It's like asking which is worse out of the rock, paper or scissors. It's situational. Everything about it is situational. I have seen GK beat most other factions in person and you can see them do well v multiple other factions online in dozens of batreps. Using the most recent GT results from London is sooooo silly it actually makes my head hurt. The game is situational. It's why keyboard warrior's crying continually about balance drives me up the wall... mainly because they don't seem to have a grasp for what they are complaining about or what they are asking for. Currently, all factions can build lists to beat all other factions. GK can beat all other factions, but it is situational.
What do you have to say regarding Marmatag's analysis? Exaggeration?
Marmatag wrote: I actually shot them a note after the assault cannon nerf.
To paraphrase, it was essentially this:
"Hello,
I understand that the cost of assault cannons is increasing. I believe this is because of Razorbacks, and Storm Ravens over performing.
However, this performance is generally in the context of lists with access to hit & wound rerolls. For instance, Roboute Guilliman and the Ultramarines are where these vehicles are seen in tournaments.
Grey Knights armies also depend on these vehicles, but don't have the same access to rerolls as other armies. Is there going to be a quid-pro-quo kind of balance change for Grey Knights? Because this army was made worse by the recent change, yet is already chronically under represented.
Best,
me"
Well - its a good guess as to why they increased the cost. You'd really expect though that with Guilli costing 360 points - his own cost justified the cost of the rerolls. They still felt a futher need to increase his cost an additional 40 points even after every unit he was used to buff got increased as well.
I have a theory about whats going on right now at GW. They have a boner for jetbikes (thats about as far as I got).
Leo_the_Rat wrote: So, Hollow, who do you feel has the worst codex army and why? .
I don't think in this way. The idea that there is a "worst" codex smacks of juvinelieve, simplistic reasoning devoid of nuance or understanding. It's like asking which is worse out of the rock, paper or scissors. It's situational. Everything about it is situational. I have seen GK beat most other factions in person and you can see them do well v multiple other factions online in dozens of batreps. Using the most recent GT results from London is sooooo silly it actually makes my head hurt. The game is situational. It's why keyboard warrior's crying continually about balance drives me up the wall... mainly because they don't seem to have a grasp for what they are complaining about or what they are asking for. Currently, all factions can build lists to beat all other factions. GK can beat all other factions, but it is situational.
What do you have to say regarding Marmatag's analysis? Exaggeration?
A lot of content, but as a designer feel i'd zone out before I hit the half way mark.
The (hopefully constructive) point being that nobody at GW is going to want to read through that to try and figure out what you are making a good argument for being bad, and what is just bad because everything is bad.
A poll appears on Dakka (A place where an tiny minority of people interested in 40k post) A tiny minority of those people, vote in that poll. Then a thread is made claiming that the result of that poll is somehow conclusive evidence that something is a certain way. No.
Mmm hmm.
Despite the very loud opinions of a very small group of players, the problems with the Codex are often overstated and it's worth seeking opinions about them elsewhere. Bolter and Chainsword, for instance, has banned whining about Grey Knights in response to the tone here on Dakka, you can actually have an intelligent discussion about GK over there. Various YouTube channels have Battle Reports that provide some fairly insightful commentary on how they actually perform, Tabletop Assault and Tabletop Tactics come to mind. Even Miniwargaming brings up some good points every once in a while.
But most of the complaints you will read about GK here on Dakka are pure garbage. Just malcontents endlessly repeating the same nonsense and telling each other good job. Easily triggered with obvious deficits in reading comprehension and quantitative reasoning. They all want you to read their 50 page thread and feel slighted if you can't recall the details of their moaning from 9 months ago.
The Codex has serious flaws, no doubt. GW could salvage Grey Knights if they chose to. I think it comes down to cost of units and mechanics, and here's some of the ways they could be made better:
1) Improve Terminators: 3 wounds or better saves through rerolls / extra dice. I have 20 of them and any AP negative, d2 weapon kills them. Since there's so few, they don't really stand a chance.
2) Improve Psychic: Remove restrictions around using the same power more than once a turn in matched play. If you think about it, each unit is paying the same for psychic powers, but once you get past 7 units, there's nothing left to cast. And, quite frankly, some of the powers are not worth casting.
3) Improve Psychic Powers: Vortex of Doom affects the nearest model and, RAW, would often result in hitting the unit that cast the power. Let them pick a model in 18 inches. There's other problems with other powers, but I don't need to go into them.
4) Improve the Psycannon / Psilencer: ... with a focus on anti-vehicle. It's needed. This could make Purgation squads relevant.
5) A Stratagem that improves the chances for a charge for a unit: maybe with an extra dice? It's sorely needed.
6) Release Agents of the Imperium: ... and let's see some synergy with Inquisitors. I almost want to say any criticism of Grey Knights is going to be premature until we see this book, there's a lot of room to improve. So long as there's an option for cheap henchman and some buffs from Inquisitors (beyond morale,) I would rather see changes there. Fundamentally, the cost of Strike Squads and Intercessors is about right compared to other PA units. What they are missing is a cheap source of buffs, and I would like to have a complete picture of the benefits of a full Inquisition army before calling for massive changes.
After all, this is 8th edition, and mixing your armies is the new norm. The people baying for 'pure' competitive Grey Knights armies really need to stop living in the past.
A lot of content, but as a designer feel i'd zone out before I hit the half way mark.
The (hopefully constructive) point being that nobody at GW is going to want to read through that to try and figure out what you are making a good argument for being bad, and what is just bad because everything is bad.
I feel like if GW's designers are going to slap a "tl;dr" on feedback then we have much bigger problems than Grey Knights underperforming.
A lot of content, but as a designer feel i'd zone out before I hit the half way mark.
The (hopefully constructive) point being that nobody at GW is going to want to read through that to try and figure out what you are making a good argument for being bad, and what is just bad because everything is bad.
That wasn't written for designers, it was written for another poster.
I wouldn't waste my time with writing a comprehensive post for the designers. They would not read it, and I know this. They don't know who I am, and they have no reason to place value on my feedback, just like I have no reason to place value on Grey Knights. So we find ourselves at an impasse; I want a better army, and GW is focusing on their newer releases.
A lot of content, but as a designer feel i'd zone out before I hit the half way mark.
The (hopefully constructive) point being that nobody at GW is going to want to read through that to try and figure out what you are making a good argument for being bad, and what is just bad because everything is bad.
That wasn't written for designers, it was written for another poster.
I wouldn't waste my time with writing a comprehensive post for the designers. They would not read it, and I know this. They don't know who I am, and they have no reason to place value on my feedback, just like I have no reason to place value on Grey Knights. So we find ourselves at an impasse; I want a better army, and GW is focusing on their newer releases.
And people who actually do deal with the design teams at GW occassionally do offer advise on how to constructively offer advice in a way that the team would consider.
Marmatag wrote: I actually shot them a note after the assault cannon nerf.
To paraphrase, it was essentially this:
"Hello,
I understand that the cost of assault cannons is increasing. I believe this is because of Razorbacks, and Storm Ravens over performing.
However, this performance is generally in the context of lists with access to hit & wound rerolls. For instance, Roboute Guilliman and the Ultramarines are where these vehicles are seen in tournaments.
Grey Knights armies also depend on these vehicles, but don't have the same access to rerolls as other armies. Is there going to be a quid-pro-quo kind of balance change for Grey Knights? Because this army was made worse by the recent change, yet is already chronically under represented.
Best,
me"
Well - its a good guess as to why they increased the cost. You'd really expect though that with Guilli costing 360 points - his own cost justified the cost of the rerolls. They still felt a futher need to increase his cost an additional 40 points even after every unit he was used to buff got increased as well.
I have a theory about whats going on right now at GW. They have a boner for jetbikes (thats about as far as I got).
Leo_the_Rat wrote: So, Hollow, who do you feel has the worst codex army and why? .
I don't think in this way. The idea that there is a "worst" codex smacks of juvinelieve, simplistic reasoning devoid of nuance or understanding. It's like asking which is worse out of the rock, paper or scissors. It's situational. Everything about it is situational. I have seen GK beat most other factions in person and you can see them do well v multiple other factions online in dozens of batreps. Using the most recent GT results from London is sooooo silly it actually makes my head hurt. The game is situational. It's why keyboard warrior's crying continually about balance drives me up the wall... mainly because they don't seem to have a grasp for what they are complaining about or what they are asking for. Currently, all factions can build lists to beat all other factions. GK can beat all other factions, but it is situational.
What do you have to say regarding Marmatag's analysis? Exaggeration?
It's 100% on point.
Gulliman is problematic because he's a force MULTIPLIER, in a points costing situation where balance is purely additative.
Despite the very loud opinions of a very small group of players, the problems with the Codex are often overstated
I love reading comments like this, purposefully vague, and contrarian, with no data to back it up. So i'll ask you:
What is the appropriate way to characterize the problems with the codex?
Please use examples & data to support your claims.
No.
Even in the challenge you've laid out, any evidence I could offer is anecdotal. You asking me to persuade you that your self-image is incorrect doesn't work. It's not possible to do that.
So, again, garbage. Grow up and stop trying to bait people into endless arguments about why your opinion is superior.
Despite the very loud opinions of a very small group of players, the problems with the Codex are often overstated
I love reading comments like this, purposefully vague, and contrarian, with no data to back it up. So i'll ask you:
What is the appropriate way to characterize the problems with the codex?
Please use examples & data to support your claims.
No.
Even in the challenge you've laid out, any evidence I could offer is anecdotal. You asking me to persuade you that your self-image is incorrect doesn't work. It's not possible to do that.
So, again, garbage. Grow up and stop trying to bait people into endless arguments about why your opinion is superior.
Again, we have comprehensive tournament data for over a year now which proves the point, ignoring of course the mathematical analysis you can effortlessly perform when constructing an Imperium list.
You're acting like this is entirely made of opinion, when it's not. When we say options are inefficient, that is demonstrably true. When we say GK are not doing well in tournaments, that is demonstrably true.
And you aren't saying anything in the first place. "Things are often overstated." That's your reading of it. Why is your opinion of anyone's response worth a scotch farthing? Unless you can show why it's overstated, you're just making noise.
Leo_the_Rat wrote: So, Hollow, who do you feel has the worst codex army and why? .
I don't think in this way. The idea that there is a "worst" codex smacks of juvinelieve, simplistic reasoning devoid of nuance or understanding. It's like asking which is worse out of the rock, paper or scissors. It's situational. Everything about it is situational. I have seen GK beat most other factions in person and you can see them do well v multiple other factions online in dozens of batreps. Using the most recent GT results from London is sooooo silly it actually makes my head hurt. The game is situational. It's why keyboard warrior's crying continually about balance drives me up the wall... mainly because they don't seem to have a grasp for what they are complaining about or what they are asking for. Currently, all factions can build lists to beat all other factions. GK can beat all other factions, but it is situational.
Everything is situational. Yes, it's possible that a little league baseball team from Turkey could beat the NY Yankees while playing in a major league park while playing for their lives. Possible yes, probable no. That is the laziest form of answer that can be given. The thing is most people would like to have a good chance of winning with their armies regardless of who they play. Playing with mono-GK usually means that the probability of winning is less than the average.
Basically what you've written is that you think this thread is a waste of time and energy but you have to put your 2 cents in just to show everyone that that is the case. You put forth no effort to answer the question and have not added anything of a constructive nature to the discussion. Why did you even bother to post?
Leo_the_Rat wrote: So, Hollow, who do you feel has the worst codex army and why? .
I don't think in this way. The idea that there is a "worst" codex smacks of juvinelieve, simplistic reasoning devoid of nuance or understanding. It's like asking which is worse out of the rock, paper or scissors. It's situational. Everything about it is situational. I have seen GK beat most other factions in person and you can see them do well v multiple other factions online in dozens of batreps. Using the most recent GT results from London is sooooo silly it actually makes my head hurt. The game is situational. It's why keyboard warrior's crying continually about balance drives me up the wall... mainly because they don't seem to have a grasp for what they are complaining about or what they are asking for. Currently, all factions can build lists to beat all other factions. GK can beat all other factions, but it is situational.
I had a retort to the OP, but this post pretty much sums it up and saves me a lot of typing. Slow golf clap for Hallow.
I do however disagree with the general notion of "Currently, all factions can build lists to beat all other factions.".
A poll appears on Dakka (A place where an tiny minority of people interested in 40k post) A tiny minority of those people, vote in that poll. Then a thread is made claiming that the result of that poll is somehow conclusive evidence that something is a certain way. No.
Mmm hmm.
Despite the very loud opinions of a very small group of players, the problems with the Codex are often overstated and it's worth seeking opinions about them elsewhere. Bolter and Chainsword, for instance, has banned whining about Grey Knights in response to the tone here on Dakka, you can actually have an intelligent discussion about GK over there. Various YouTube channels have Battle Reports that provide some fairly insightful commentary on how they actually perform, Tabletop Assault and Tabletop Tactics come to mind. Even Miniwargaming brings up some good points every once in a while.
But most of the complaints you will read about GK here on Dakka are pure garbage. Just malcontents endlessly repeating the same nonsense and telling each other good job. Easily triggered with obvious deficits in reading comprehension and quantitative reasoning. They all want you to read their 50 page thread and feel slighted if you can't recall the details of their moaning from 9 months ago.
The Codex has serious flaws, no doubt. GW could salvage Grey Knights if they chose to. I think it comes down to cost of units and mechanics, and here's some of the ways they could be made better:
1) Improve Terminators: 3 wounds or better saves through rerolls / extra dice. I have 20 of them and any AP negative, d2 weapon kills them. Since there's so few, they don't really stand a chance.
2) Improve Psychic: Remove restrictions around using the same power more than once a turn in matched play. If you think about it, each unit is paying the same for psychic powers, but once you get past 7 units, there's nothing left to cast. And, quite frankly, some of the powers are not worth casting.
3) Improve Psychic Powers: Vortex of Doom affects the nearest model and, RAW, would often result in hitting the unit that cast the power. Let them pick a model in 18 inches. There's other problems with other powers, but I don't need to go into them.
4) Improve the Psycannon / Psilencer: ... with a focus on anti-vehicle. It's needed. This could make Purgation squads relevant.
5) A Stratagem that improves the chances for a charge for a unit: maybe with an extra dice? It's sorely needed.
6) Release Agents of the Imperium: ... and let's see some synergy with Inquisitors. I almost want to say any criticism of Grey Knights is going to be premature until we see this book, there's a lot of room to improve. So long as there's an option for cheap henchman and some buffs from Inquisitors (beyond morale,) I would rather see changes there. Fundamentally, the cost of Strike Squads and Intercessors is about right compared to other PA units. What they are missing is a cheap source of buffs, and I would like to have a complete picture of the benefits of a full Inquisition army before calling for massive changes.
After all, this is 8th edition, and mixing your armies is the new norm. The people baying for 'pure' competitive Grey Knights armies really need to stop living in the past.
You really need to learn to statistic. That poll had 620 votes. 397 (over 60%) said Grey Knights we're the worst. A sample size of 600 gives you an error rate of about 4%. So even if the error swung ENTIRELY in your favor, over 50% of the playerbase at large believes GK to be the worst.
Now, you could try attacking the poll as not being a representative sample, but that requires you to actually put forward something besides 'nah, they be whiners'.
You'd have to have almost 400 people creating accounts just to say Grey Knights are the worst. That's pretty unrealistic for any Grey Knight defender to actually believe.
Despite the very loud opinions of a very small group of players, the problems with the Codex are often overstated
I love reading comments like this, purposefully vague, and contrarian, with no data to back it up. So i'll ask you:
What is the appropriate way to characterize the problems with the codex?
Please use examples & data to support your claims.
No.
Even in the challenge you've laid out, any evidence I could offer is anecdotal. You asking me to persuade you that your self-image is incorrect doesn't work. It's not possible to do that.
So, again, garbage. Grow up and stop trying to bait people into endless arguments about why your opinion is superior.
Again, we have comprehensive tournament data for over a year now which proves the point, ignoring of course the mathematical analysis you can effortlessly perform when constructing an Imperium list.
You're acting like this is entirely made of opinion, when it's not. When we say options are inefficient, that is demonstrably true. When we say GK are not doing well in tournaments, that is demonstrably true.
And you aren't saying anything in the first place. "Things are often overstated." That's your reading of it. Why is your opinion of anyone's response worth a scotch farthing? Unless you can show why it's overstated, you're just making noise.
A better way of looking at it may be to stay on topic. Bringing up the issue of tournaments has nothing to do with the tendency of players on Dakka to overstate their point.
I have not discussed points (the cost of a unit) related to Grey Knights units on Dakka, except to say that Strike Squads are costed comparatively to Tacticals. Feel free to go through my posts, but there's not much to be learned in analytic conversation with the 'Grey Knights Experts' on Dakka. So I don't bring it up.
So what is this mathematical analysis you speak of? Perhaps you are confusing my posts with those of someone else.
With regards to the value of my opinion, one might ask why you believe yours are worth so much. The post you put in this thread clearly took time and effort to put together. It's not the first time I've read the same points from you, my impression is they are repeated tirelessly in the Tactics thread or anywhere else on Dakka that someone dares to discuss Grey Knights as something other than a colossal failure.
I like knowing the people I interact with on forums. It is hard for me to understand anyone putting an hour or so of their time into repeating the same points for the upteenth time, only for Leo The Rat to say what a spot on analysis that was. I am betting Leo would be willing to say the same thing were you to simply post a link to the original moaning and bellyaching - have you asked him? It could save everyone a lot of energy.
And why does Leo The Rat's praise matter so much in the first place? He's just another player posting on Dakka who seems a little effusive. The pronounced need for external validation usually stems from some other deficit in one's life, I can't imagine bad rules for Grey Knights drive you to behave this way. There must be something else...
But I really wish to avoid changing the subject.
Going back to the point about things being overstated, please understand it's not the points you make, it's the overwhelming, full court press to convince everyone how bleak your vision for Grey Knights is, combined with your absolute dedication to distorting everything someone else says. In this thread, you have offered me an impossible challenge, you have misquoted my content on the site, you have told me my opinion does not matter, and said everything that possibly could be said about Grey Knights has already been discussed.
Most people would call this trolling. I spent some time dissecting SlowTank's activity last week, maybe you are hoping I would do the same with yours.
But you're not worth it. I mean, you're the person who trash talks the army you supposedly collect. One might wonder why, if they are this bad, you haven't moved on.
A poll appears on Dakka (A place where an tiny minority of people interested in 40k post) A tiny minority of those people, vote in that poll. Then a thread is made claiming that the result of that poll is somehow conclusive evidence that something is a certain way. No.
Mmm hmm.
Despite the very loud opinions of a very small group of players, the problems with the Codex are often overstated and it's worth seeking opinions about them elsewhere. Bolter and Chainsword, for instance, has banned whining about Grey Knights in response to the tone here on Dakka, you can actually have an intelligent discussion about GK over there. Various YouTube channels have Battle Reports that provide some fairly insightful commentary on how they actually perform, Tabletop Assault and Tabletop Tactics come to mind. Even Miniwargaming brings up some good points every once in a while.
But most of the complaints you will read about GK here on Dakka are pure garbage. Just malcontents endlessly repeating the same nonsense and telling each other good job. Easily triggered with obvious deficits in reading comprehension and quantitative reasoning. They all want you to read their 50 page thread and feel slighted if you can't recall the details of their moaning from 9 months ago.
The Codex has serious flaws, no doubt. GW could salvage Grey Knights if they chose to. I think it comes down to cost of units and mechanics, and here's some of the ways they could be made better:
1) Improve Terminators: 3 wounds or better saves through rerolls / extra dice. I have 20 of them and any AP negative, d2 weapon kills them. Since there's so few, they don't really stand a chance.
2) Improve Psychic: Remove restrictions around using the same power more than once a turn in matched play. If you think about it, each unit is paying the same for psychic powers, but once you get past 7 units, there's nothing left to cast. And, quite frankly, some of the powers are not worth casting.
3) Improve Psychic Powers: Vortex of Doom affects the nearest model and, RAW, would often result in hitting the unit that cast the power. Let them pick a model in 18 inches. There's other problems with other powers, but I don't need to go into them.
4) Improve the Psycannon / Psilencer: ... with a focus on anti-vehicle. It's needed. This could make Purgation squads relevant.
5) A Stratagem that improves the chances for a charge for a unit: maybe with an extra dice? It's sorely needed.
6) Release Agents of the Imperium: ... and let's see some synergy with Inquisitors. I almost want to say any criticism of Grey Knights is going to be premature until we see this book, there's a lot of room to improve. So long as there's an option for cheap henchman and some buffs from Inquisitors (beyond morale,) I would rather see changes there. Fundamentally, the cost of Strike Squads and Intercessors is about right compared to other PA units. What they are missing is a cheap source of buffs, and I would like to have a complete picture of the benefits of a full Inquisition army before calling for massive changes.
After all, this is 8th edition, and mixing your armies is the new norm. The people baying for 'pure' competitive Grey Knights armies really need to stop living in the past.
You really need to learn to statistic. That poll had 620 votes. 397 (over 60%) said Grey Knights we're the worst. A sample size of 600 gives you an error rate of about 4%. So even if the error swung ENTIRELY in your favor, over 50% of the playerbase at large believes GK to be the worst.
Now, you could try attacking the poll as not being a representative sample, but that requires you to actually put forward something besides 'nah, they be whiners'.
You need to learn economics.
GW does more than $125 million a year in revenue. If 620 people represented the entire player base, that would mean they are earning ~ $200,000 per player per year.
Maybe in Westworld.
But going back to the poll, so, yeah, I agree that Grey Knights have the worst Codex. I am one of the 620 people who voted that it is.
In what way does that contradict any of my points?
The grey knights are not internally balanced, nor are they externally.
They have some okay units but nothing really synergizes. Most of the codex is too pricy for what it does and there is really only one strategy... Deep strike alpha strike that seems to work okay, which was just nerf'd. They don't have the durability for their points to slug it out with most armies. They are designed to be a glass cannon army with a nerfed cannon. They are now only okay at one thing. Killing demons (which guardsmen are waaaaay better at...specially cadia). It is a liability to bring grey knights to fight demons.
The average player will massively struggle against most armies as grey knights. There is a LOT wrong with the codex.
But to bullet point.
-lack of synergy within the codex
-poor relics
-over costed or weak strategms
-boring over priced hq -mono build play from poor balance
-weapons cost too much
-units cost too much
-psychic powers are mediocore
-terminators are too easily dealt with
-units are point blank range fighting oriented but are mostly poor in cc -units are made of glass
-rule of one devastates gk -hqs don't synergize with units well
-I still miss mordrak
-pay a premium for psychic/anti demon without much yeild
-we paid for ultramarine fix
-our perferred enemy gets bonuses to fight us, thus negating usefulness
-beta rules hit grey knights the hardest
-transports are mostly useless as they are expensive in an expensive codex
Automatically Appended Next Post: As for the bolter and chainsword being more Noble? The "how to make gk work with beta DS rule" thread has a very similar grim tone.
3) Improve Psychic Powers: Vortex of Doom affects the nearest model and, RAW, would often result in hitting the unit that cast the power. Let them pick a model in 18 inches. There's other problems with other powers, but I don't need to go into them.
.
Not sure where you got this from but the codes entry for Vortex clearly says that it hits the nearest visible ENEMY model within 12 inches. The casting unit can be hit by the splash damage if they are within 3 inches of that model, but that is not hard to avoid.
1) Give GK Libby & Voldus access to the generic Librarian discipline. A force multiplier that would be superb for GKs - nullzone cast on a +1 helps those force weapons do something. Might of heroes synergises very well with GKHQ units & Hammerhand. Veil of time is a good stopgap for when first to the fray isn't available. GKs *should* have both disciplines.
2) pay 1cp to 'unlock' a unit's right of banishment into a standard smite before turn 1.
3) Redress points costs for units if beta rules stay - especially strike squads. They could be a great unit, even with beta rules, if they had a haircut.
4) Revisit stratagems, and drop 3-4 new and powerful strats in for GKs to use. They are currently one of the most boring armies to play in terms of strats. Save up your CPs in chunks of 2 to make their guns as good as other armies for 1 turn; that's a morale-sapping design right there. An interrupt/punish strat for psykers within 12", for example.
(I'm not a GK player btw, but they do interest me, and I nearly went with a GK army last year, so I have some idea of how they play and what they fail at. Glad I didn't now!)
1) Give GK Libby & Voldus access to the generic Librarian discipline. A force multiplier that would be superb for GKs - nullzone cast on a +1 helps those force weapons do something. Might of heroes synergises very well with GKHQ units & Hammerhand. Veil of time is a good stopgap for when first to the fray isn't available. GKs *should* have both disciplines.
2) pay 1cp to 'unlock' a unit's right of banishment into a standard smite before turn 1.
3) Redress points costs for units if beta rules stay - especially strike squads. They could be a great unit, even with beta rules, if they had a haircut.
4) Revisit stratagems, and drop 3-4 new and powerful strats in for GKs to use. They are currently one of the most boring armies to play in terms of strats. Save up your CPs in chunks of 2 to make their guns as good as other armies for 1 turn; that's a morale-sapping design right there. An interrupt/punish strat for psykers within 12", for example.
(I'm not a GK player btw, but they do interest me, and I nearly went with a GK army last year, so I have some idea of how they play and what they fail at. Glad I didn't now!)
GK problem right now is just that they should be a psy heavy army, but they don't manage it. Point 1 is what they need. Add a 4+ save against mortal wounds in the psy phase which increases to 2+ against Perils, which is incredibly fluffy, and the army will work correctly. The other points are not needed.
On another note, what terminators at large need, is a change to the crux. 5++ on a 2+ model is useless, change the crux rule to "Ignore AP-1 and reduce AP-2 to AP-1. AP-3 and greater are not affected". This removes some of the counters to them, while keeping available a certain number of counters like plasma (which is far less present than in the past, so it's no longer a crippling counter).
Spoletta wrote: GK problem right now is just that they should be a psy heavy army, but they don't manage it. Point 1 is what they need. Add a 4+ save against mortal wounds in the psy phase which increases to 2+ against Perils, which is incredibly fluffy, and the army will work correctly. The other points are not needed.
On another note, what terminators at large need, is a change to the crux. 5++ on a 2+ model is useless, change the crux rule to "Ignore AP-1 and reduce AP-2 to AP-1. AP-3 and greater are not affected". This removes some of the counters to them, while keeping available a certain number of counters like plasma (which is far less present than in the past, so it's no longer a crippling counter).
Terminator saves are a very conspicuous problem with 8th edition. What should be a very durable unit goes down very easily to multi-wound guns.
I liked what Lawrence from Tabletop Tactics had a good bit to say about it after the FAQ was released. Grey Knights Terminators comes up at about 32:30 minutes in. He talks about how Terminator armor saves in 2nd edition used to be taken on 3d6.
3d6 for a 2+ save. That really means they can only be hurt by anything with an AP modifier. While I think 3d6 would be extreme, I'd be willing to settle for 2d6 or 2d6 pick the best.
In that video, he also talks about how to write to Games Workshop, and what kind of feedback has the best chance of being considered.
It's worth considering what he has to say. I'm still new to Grey Knights, but I do send a letter to GW after every game to point out problems that occur.
2d6 save is incredibly unwieldy and never will make it through to GW. It is unrealistic in the utmost possible way because...
1. You are literally throwing 2 dice for every 1 the opponent wounds.
2. You would have to roll in pairs individually.
3. It could be more easily accomplished by saying subtract 2 from the AP and STR value of the weapon aiming at terminator armor.
Look if you guys actually want to help GK players just email them telling them how actual gak they are. Don't worry with how they go about it we will just get another nerf. They won't listen to these suggestions, but they listen to someone saying "Hey this army sucks help them".
Spoletta wrote: GK problem right now is just that they should be a psy heavy army, but they don't manage it. Point 1 is what they need. Add a 4+ save against mortal wounds in the psy phase which increases to 2+ against Perils, which is incredibly fluffy, and the army will work correctly. The other points are not needed.
On another note, what terminators at large need, is a change to the crux. 5++ on a 2+ model is useless, change the crux rule to "Ignore AP-1 and reduce AP-2 to AP-1. AP-3 and greater are not affected". This removes some of the counters to them, while keeping available a certain number of counters like plasma (which is far less present than in the past, so it's no longer a crippling counter).
Terminator saves are a very conspicuous problem with 8th edition. What should be a very durable unit goes down very easily to multi-wound guns.
I liked what Lawrence from Tabletop Tactics had a good bit to say about it after the FAQ was released. Grey Knights Terminators comes up at about 32:30 minutes in. He talks about how Terminator armor saves in 2nd edition used to be taken on 3d6.
3d6 for a 2+ save. That really means they can only be hurt by anything with an AP modifier. While I think 3d6 would be extreme, I'd be willing to settle for 2d6 or 2d6 pick the best.
In that video, he also talks about how to write to Games Workshop, and what kind of feedback has the best chance of being considered.
It's worth considering what he has to say. I'm still new to Grey Knights, but I do send a letter to GW after every game to point out problems that occur.
Many has been asking for Terminator to be 2d6 saves
Also to the people saying the people on the forum are dumb (oh I'm sorry you actually said they don't know better /s) for buying into the GK are crap hype.
They are really bad, and Hollow you represent a part of the Tau playerbase, you do it incredibly well. Almost as well as battlesuits are doing.
I know this isn't going to be a popular opinion, but I think the problem with the GK codex is that it exists. GW basically took a couple of expensive, specialist squads and tried to expand them into an entire army.
What's more, the 5th edition book seemed to understand that this wasn't enough to carry a codex, so it also included Inquisition stuff. But with that having been split off from GKs, you're left with an army of overequipped specialists, going up against a lot of armies they weren't designed to fight.
Basically, I think it was a mistake to have so many GK units - especially when virtually all of them do basically the same thing anyway (psykers with force weapons and storm bolters). They should be a small part of a larger marine or inquisition force, not an army in their own right.
As it stands, GW has basically written GKs into a corner. Either they leave them where they are, paying for a lot of gear they don't use, or else they make a lot of their gear free and basically turn them into Marines+2. They could remove some of their gear/powers, but at that point why even call them Grey Knights?
TheFleshIsWeak wrote: I know this isn't going to be a popular opinion, but I think the problem with the GK codex is that it exists. GW basically took a couple of expensive, specialist squads and tried to expand them into an entire army.
What's more, the 5th edition book seemed to understand that this wasn't enough to carry a codex, so it also included Inquisition stuff. But with that having been split off from GKs, you're left with an army of overequipped specialists, going up against a lot of armies they weren't designed to fight.
Basically, I think it was a mistake to have so many GK units - especially when virtually all of them do basically the same thing anyway (psykers with force weapons and storm bolters). They should be a small part of a larger marine or inquisition force, not an army in their own right.
As it stands, GW has basically written GKs into a corner. Either they leave them where they are, paying for a lot of gear they don't use, or else they make a lot of their gear free and basically turn them into Marines+2. They could remove some of their gear/powers, but at that point why even call them Grey Knights?
I completely agree. Grey Knights were a lot better when they were Daemonhunters and had access to Inquisitors, Henchmen, Assassins, the works.
But this particular issue could be solved with an Agents of the Inquisition Codex. I could see some tough HQs and cheap infantry putting GK units into a heavy infantry role that would be totally playable.
Quickjager wrote: 2d6 save is incredibly unwieldy and never will make it through to GW. It is unrealistic in the utmost possible way because...
1. You are literally throwing 2 dice for every 1 the opponent wounds.
2. You would have to roll in pairs individually.
3. It could be more easily accomplished by saying subtract 2 from the AP and STR value of the weapon aiming at terminator armor.
Look if you guys actually want to help GK players just email them telling them how actual gak they are. Don't worry with how they go about it we will just get another nerf. They won't listen to these suggestions, but they listen to someone saying "Hey this army sucks help them".
2D6 save did not slow the game down in 2nd. But yeah, it's not coming back.
I seem to remember 2D6 saves on terminators and Carnifexes did slow the game down - and armies were half the size or less what they are today.
Anyway at the danger of upsetting some posters - GK are awful. Psychic is bad, Stratagems are bad, everything is overcosted versus other units. I don't really get those saying "thats just your oppinion man". I mean - it is, but its also maths. Strike squads cost a fortune and to get a vaguely respectable damage output have to be smiting something very expensive (such as an enemy strike squad) every turn. Meanwhile they are some of the weakest defensive stats per point in the game. This then filters through to everything else.
Blood Angels, Custodes and Guard are just better. This isnt situational. Its a fact.
Quickjager wrote: 2d6 save is incredibly unwieldy and never will make it through to GW. It is unrealistic in the utmost possible way because...
1. You are literally throwing 2 dice for every 1 the opponent wounds.
2. You would have to roll in pairs individually.
3. It could be more easily accomplished by saying subtract 2 from the AP and STR value of the weapon aiming at terminator armor.
Look if you guys actually want to help GK players just email them telling them how actual gak they are. Don't worry with how they go about it we will just get another nerf. They won't listen to these suggestions, but they listen to someone saying "Hey this army sucks help them".
I don't think it's unwieldy. 2D6 pick highest is basically reroll armor save.
2D6 on a 3+ can just be roll one dice. If you didn't meet the requisite score then roll the second.
It's still more complex and won't be as fast, but I think it might be less to keep track of than -2S -2AP.
Smotejob wrote: Terminators just need a points cut. They cost too much across almost all armies
Yes and no.
SoT are pretty decent, because they bring some good weapons and they're not forced into paying for power fists. They still suffer the overall durability problem even if they're slightly better at it.
A classic terminator is 26 points, which is clearly GW saying twice the wounds of a marine and calling it good. And in general terms that is pretty reasonable, because it's better than twice a marine, but we didn't pay points for all of that. (Assault Termies originally had a storm shield baked in, but GW fixed that in CA). Marines, too, are probably not overly durable and so the basis for the terminators is also a tad high. Still even if marines go to 12 or 11 (unlikely) terminators will drop 2 or 4 points. Certainly nothing to write home about.
The real problem (as I see it) is two-fold:
Standard terminators pay 54 to 81% of their base cost in weapons. Marines pay 0%. Yes, they don't have the same weapons, but when it comes to getting bodies on the table you now have 3 or 4 marines to a single terminator and suddenly the terminator's durability advantage is lost. And that is exacerbated when you shoot a D2 weapon against a marine and against a terminator. And to put salt in the wound the heavy weapons most termies can bring are way less flexible.
So, no, I don't think points will help. The weapons are mostly well costed for what they do. Adding attacks to terminators also doesn't help. You can get 40 PF/SB termies 2000 points and 153 marines. Just make them durable enough to go about their grim work and leave points as they are.
I agree, terminator's point cost is fine, they are supposed to be big stuff. They can be slow, not overly powerful in melee and with just about decent ranged, it is still fine if you make them really hard to take out, like they should be.
Which is why i say that the crux terminator rule has to change, the 5++ does not actually represent anything in the fluff, the terminator armour is just a really hard thing to punch through, nothing mystic, no force fields, no nothing.
It needs to be 2+ without invul saves and an additional rule that makes them the most armoured thing in the imperium. 2d6 armour save would be too much and would slow down things. You either have them interact with the AP mechanic like i suggested (ignore AP-1 and reduce AP-2 to AP-1), or completely change design and make them little dreadnaughts, T7 3+ 2W.
You can make terminators as armoured as you like. Their problem is that you pay 200 points for a unit which is rubbish at anything you might want them to accomplish. Their shooting isnt "just about decent", its trash tier awful. Strike squad stormbolters are expensive - would you pay double for the same? Their melee isnt much good either with a low number of inaccurate attacks. Finally they are incredibly slow so they can be easilly screened out.
Played as gk today. A bunch of strikers, psylancer devastator guyz in a razorback, voldus, champ and landraider crusader vs typhus + zombies, some plague marines in rhinos, a bunch of characters and spawns. Gk were pretty good and managed to win the game thanks to great strategems. Psybolts and fighting twice are good. Cp are a problem so is low model count, but units themselves are pretty good and versatile. Not cheap but stormbolter and a force weapon for just 21 pts ain't bad when you can mitigate enemy shioting somehow. I'm sure, something like a leman russ gunline would be close to unbeatable but more diverse lists with a mixed army approach are beatavle for gk.
There's always going to be a worst army for any edition, its just how rankings/balancing works.
It's the gap between the best, and the worst, that's important.
That said, the two biggest problems for GK are; 1) That they're marines (which are overpriced to begin with), and 2) They fall into the trap of trying to out-elite the elite army to begin with, on top of having new gimmicks and powers - which ultimately just results in more points for no real increase in anything but random toys (which are largely bunk anyways since GW can't balance).
They're Custodes before GW knew how to properly stat Custodes; and now occupy the same niche - to be the "most elite of the elite"...ad naseum.
As such, I can agree that GK are pretty bad in general; but at least they're Imperium, which means you can couple the few good units they have with a rest of an army. And worst case, just paint different marines/custodes grey, and call it a GK.
Any discussion about balancing terminators needs to begin with a clear definition of what their use case should be.
Is it as an offensive shooting unit?
Is it as a defensive melee unit?
Are they anti-vehicle? Anti-horde? Anti-elite infantry?
And if they're dipping their toes into multiple ponds, what is the ratio?
Essentially, if i'm fielding terminators, what is the ideal situation for them?
I have yet to see a general agreement on what their intended use should be... Once that is determined then you can talk about balancing them. Giving them an extra wound wouldn't really do much if you view them as an anti-elite offensive melee infantry unit. And giving them an extra attack wouldn't do anything if you view them as a defensive light anti-horde shooting unit.
Tyel wrote: You can make terminators as armoured as you like. Their problem is that you pay 200 points for a unit which is rubbish at anything you might want them to accomplish. Their shooting isnt "just about decent", its trash tier awful. Strike squad stormbolters are expensive - would you pay double for the same? Their melee isnt much good either with a low number of inaccurate attacks. Finally they are incredibly slow so they can be easilly screened out.
Terminators should probably not pay for SBs if SoT pay the same points for a much better weapon. Terminators are "ok" at hurting stuff in melee. Power fists should probably lose the -1 to hit. If terminators are difficult to shift with moderate damage then they fill a spot for lists.
It's roll should be exactly what the dreadnoughts roll is. They are mini dreadnoughts that can go places dreadnoughts can't go.
Dreadnoguhts have mixed rolls. Full shooty / full CC / or tactical setup mixed setup. Dreads also suck for the same reason as terms. Too easy to kill for their cost - don't want to move with heavies because they are -1. Weak AF weapon options.
Marmatag wrote: Ultimately it gets back to the fact that T7 3+ without an invulnerable save isn't that hot in 8th edition.
But terminators use case can't be tied to durability. Custodes already do that far better.
Grey Knights terminators might be an interesting play if their force weapons ignored invulnerable saves. It would be a niche use case.
Which is why Terminators should be shown with better skill with their weapons.
Make Terminators outside the Grey Knights troop choice WS/BS2+, and BAM you solve the issues of little offense and not stepping on the toes of Custodes. The troop Terminator Grey Knights just need decent point cut to be viable.
Marmatag wrote: Ultimately it gets back to the fact that T7 3+ without an invulnerable save isn't that hot in 8th edition.
But terminators use case can't be tied to durability. Custodes already do that far better.
Grey Knights terminators might be an interesting play if their force weapons ignored invulnerable saves. It would be a niche use case.
Which is why Terminators should be shown with better skill with their weapons.
Make Terminators outside the Grey Knights troop choice WS/BS2+, and BAM you solve the issues of little offense and not stepping on the toes of Custodes. The troop Terminator Grey Knights just need decent point cut to be viable.
I would also let GK terminators take stormshields, like Custodes. So, one guy can have a shield, blocking for the rest.
GK need The Shrouding back, giving them a -1 to be hit outside of 12”-18”. That would help with survivability.
All TDA need at least 3 wounds, again to increase survivability.
GK need a parry rule for their Nemesis Force Swords, granting +1 to their Invul save, which lets them simulate Storm Shield with a little effort from Sanctuary or Heed. This would boost survivability across all GK, but more so for GKT as well as making Swords a viable option over Falchions.
Marmatag wrote: Ultimately it gets back to the fact that T7 3+ without an invulnerable save isn't that hot in 8th edition.
But terminators use case can't be tied to durability. Custodes already do that far better.
Grey Knights terminators might be an interesting play if their force weapons ignored invulnerable saves. It would be a niche use case.
Which is why Terminators should be shown with better skill with their weapons.
Make Terminators outside the Grey Knights troop choice WS/BS2+, and BAM you solve the issues of little offense and not stepping on the toes of Custodes. The troop Terminator Grey Knights just need decent point cut to be viable.
I would also let GK terminators take stormshields, like Custodes. So, one guy can have a shield, blocking for the rest.
In the Daemonhunters codex they did have access to Thunder Hammers and Storm Shields. It wouldn't be a bad option to have again for a decent meat shield in the squad.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
jeffersonian000 wrote: GK need The Shrouding back, giving them a -1 to be hit outside of 12”-18”. That would help with survivability.
All TDA need at least 3 wounds, again to increase survivability.
GK need a parry rule for their Nemesis Force Swords, granting +1 to their Invul save, which lets them simulate Storm Shield with a little effort from Sanctuary or Heed. This would boost survivability across all GK, but more so for GKT as well as making Swords a viable option over Falchions.
SJ
Any increase to survivability like that and you step on the toes of Custodes. Why are people always talking about increasing their survivability? If they don't have any offensive output, all you do is waste 200+ points on something sitting there instead of 200+ points on a Kill Point for the opponent. I'd rather they made an impact the moment they drop.
With that said, a Shrouding outside 18" wouldn't be terribly broken would it?
Martel732 wrote: You can not be paying 40+ pts for 2 W models in 8th. You just can't.
If we skip over the trait for a moment Custodes are 40 for 3 T5 wounds 2+/5++ - 13.33 points per wound (bikes are 20 per T6 wound).
Terminators are 13 points per wound as well, but not WS2/BS2 or T5.
If you can make terminators tougher without touching Custodes you could be ok. Otherwise maybe a drastic price decrease to 20 points and free stormbolters could do it, I guess. My biggest problem with that is level setting all the other units that need to be brought in line without breaking something else.
Marmatag wrote: Ultimately it gets back to the fact that T7 3+ without an invulnerable save isn't that hot in 8th edition.
But terminators use case can't be tied to durability. Custodes already do that far better.
Grey Knights terminators might be an interesting play if their force weapons ignored invulnerable saves. It would be a niche use case.
Which is why Terminators should be shown with better skill with their weapons.
Make Terminators outside the Grey Knights troop choice WS/BS2+, and BAM you solve the issues of little offense and not stepping on the toes of Custodes. The troop Terminator Grey Knights just need decent point cut to be viable.
I would also let GK terminators take stormshields, like Custodes. So, one guy can have a shield, blocking for the rest.
In the Daemonhunters codex they did have access to Thunder Hammers and Storm Shields. It wouldn't be a bad option to have again for a decent meat shield in the squad.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
jeffersonian000 wrote: GK need The Shrouding back, giving them a -1 to be hit outside of 12”-18”. That would help with survivability.
All TDA need at least 3 wounds, again to increase survivability.
GK need a parry rule for their Nemesis Force Swords, granting +1 to their Invul save, which lets them simulate Storm Shield with a little effort from Sanctuary or Heed. This would boost survivability across all GK, but more so for GKT as well as making Swords a viable option over Falchions.
SJ
Any increase to survivability like that and you step on the toes of Custodes. Why are people always talking about increasing their survivability? If they don't have any offensive output, all you do is waste 200+ points on something sitting there instead of 200+ points on a Kill Point for the opponent. I'd rather they made an impact the moment they drop.
With that said, a Shrouding outside 18" wouldn't be terribly broken would it?
The is no legitimate reason why a custode should be this much more deadly than a grey-knight. They are both genetically modified - pick of the litter - directly from the emperor - super-elite soldiers. I'm fine with custodes being t5 str 5 across the board with +1 attack - compared to a space marine term with str4 t4. Their wounds and armor saves/invo should be equivalent the space marines should just have more basic gear and ofc COST LESS.
Martel732 wrote: You can not be paying 40+ pts for 2 W models in 8th. You just can't.
If we skip over the trait for a moment Custodes are 40 for 3 T5 wounds 2+/5++ - 13.33 points per wound (bikes are 20 per T6 wound).
Terminators are 13 points per wound as well, but not WS2/BS2 or T5.
If you can make terminators tougher without touching Custodes you could be ok. Otherwise maybe a drastic price decrease to 20 points and free stormbolters could do it, I guess. My biggest problem with that is level setting all the other units that need to be brought in line without breaking something else.
All custodes have 4++ saves. This is a huge factor - made even stronger by having easy access to -1 to hit bubble. Mainly the T5 + the 4++ save is big difference. They basically made custodes what terminators should have been.
Martel732 wrote: You can not be paying 40+ pts for 2 W models in 8th. You just can't.
If we skip over the trait for a moment Custodes are 40 for 3 T5 wounds 2+/5++ - 13.33 points per wound (bikes are 20 per T6 wound).
Terminators are 13 points per wound as well, but not WS2/BS2 or T5.
If you can make terminators tougher without touching Custodes you could be ok. Otherwise maybe a drastic price decrease to 20 points and free stormbolters could do it, I guess. My biggest problem with that is level setting all the other units that need to be brought in line without breaking something else.
Cheaper points is the only game space marines have left to move into, I think. Even if they made them "tougher", they'd still have gak offense.
All custodes have 4++ saves. This is a huge factor - made even stronger by having easy access to -1 to hit bubble. Mainly the T5 + the 4++ save is big difference. They basically made custodes what terminators should have been.
Oh, I know, but the cost for that 4++ isn't likely to be in the base cost of the model that gets it. It's part of why Custodes are strong, I think. It's also why I think it's a bad idea to compare to Custodes who will probably get a cost increase after having such a strong presence.
Marmatag wrote: Ultimately it gets back to the fact that T7 3+ without an invulnerable save isn't that hot in 8th edition.
But terminators use case can't be tied to durability. Custodes already do that far better.
Grey Knights terminators might be an interesting play if their force weapons ignored invulnerable saves. It would be a niche use case.
Which is why Terminators should be shown with better skill with their weapons.
Make Terminators outside the Grey Knights troop choice WS/BS2+, and BAM you solve the issues of little offense and not stepping on the toes of Custodes. The troop Terminator Grey Knights just need decent point cut to be viable.
I would also let GK terminators take stormshields, like Custodes. So, one guy can have a shield, blocking for the rest.
In the Daemonhunters codex they did have access to Thunder Hammers and Storm Shields. It wouldn't be a bad option to have again for a decent meat shield in the squad.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
jeffersonian000 wrote: GK need The Shrouding back, giving them a -1 to be hit outside of 12”-18”. That would help with survivability.
All TDA need at least 3 wounds, again to increase survivability.
GK need a parry rule for their Nemesis Force Swords, granting +1 to their Invul save, which lets them simulate Storm Shield with a little effort from Sanctuary or Heed. This would boost survivability across all GK, but more so for GKT as well as making Swords a viable option over Falchions.
SJ
Any increase to survivability like that and you step on the toes of Custodes. Why are people always talking about increasing their survivability? If they don't have any offensive output, all you do is waste 200+ points on something sitting there instead of 200+ points on a Kill Point for the opponent. I'd rather they made an impact the moment they drop.
With that said, a Shrouding outside 18" wouldn't be terribly broken would it?
The is no legitimate reason why a custode should be this much more deadly than a grey-knight. They are both genetically modified - pick of the litter - directly from the emperor - super-elite soldiers. I'm fine with custodes being t5 str 5 across the board with +1 attack - compared to a space marine term with str4 t4. Their wounds and armor saves/invo should be equivalent the space marines should just have more basic gear and ofc COST LESS.
Martel732 wrote: You can not be paying 40+ pts for 2 W models in 8th. You just can't.
If we skip over the trait for a moment Custodes are 40 for 3 T5 wounds 2+/5++ - 13.33 points per wound (bikes are 20 per T6 wound).
Terminators are 13 points per wound as well, but not WS2/BS2 or T5.
If you can make terminators tougher without touching Custodes you could be ok. Otherwise maybe a drastic price decrease to 20 points and free stormbolters could do it, I guess. My biggest problem with that is level setting all the other units that need to be brought in line without breaking something else.
All custodes have 4++ saves. This is a huge factor - made even stronger by having easy access to -1 to hit bubble. Mainly the T5 + the 4++ save is big difference. They basically made custodes what terminators should have been.
Um there's plenty reason for a Custodes to be that much more deadly. The issue is that Terminators aren't deadly and haven't been pretty much...ever.
Fluff is no justification for nonsense. As you can see a space marine sucks balls in this game but in lore it's toted around being a relentless killing machine where small armies of 100 of them battle hordes of enemies and win. Everything in the lore is exactly the way the author wants it to be. The gap between custode and primaris marine is too high.
All custodes have 4++ saves. This is a huge factor - made even stronger by having easy access to -1 to hit bubble. Mainly the T5 + the 4++ save is big difference. They basically made custodes what terminators should have been.
Oh, I know, but the cost for that 4++ isn't likely to be in the base cost of the model that gets it. It's part of why Custodes are strong, I think. It's also why I think it's a bad idea to compare to Custodes who will probably get a cost increase after having such a strong presence.
It will likely just be the bike captain that gets nerfed. Most the rest of the army outside of the blasted -1 banner I think is reasonable. Really a good example of how an elite army should look.
Marmatag wrote: Any discussion about balancing terminators needs to begin with a clear definition of what their use case should be.
Is it as an offensive shooting unit?
Is it as a defensive melee unit?
Are they anti-vehicle? Anti-horde? Anti-elite infantry?
And if they're dipping their toes into multiple ponds, what is the ratio?
Essentially, if i'm fielding terminators, what is the ideal situation for them?
I have yet to see a general agreement on what their intended use should be... Once that is determined then you can talk about balancing them. Giving them an extra wound wouldn't really do much if you view them as an anti-elite offensive melee infantry unit. And giving them an extra attack wouldn't do anything if you view them as a defensive light anti-horde shooting unit.
I see termies as a slow grinding force. You land the termies in a combat zone and let them slowly work their way to whatever objective they have. In game terms I'd be OK with them not having a lot of attacks as long as they have the survivability to ultimately win through to their objective. In other words high defensive stats, moderate offensive abilities and, low movement. My statline would look something like this M 4 or 5 BS/WS 3+ S5 T5 or 6 W2 A2 LD9 or 10 SV2+/4++. The Str due to exoskeleton and the T due to extra armor. I'd also allow them to fire heavy weapons without a to hit penalty for moving.
I was debating about that and you'll note I didn't give them a point value. 2 Wounds are twice as many as a generic marine and I could see the armor giving the equivalent of another wound but I thought it would be better reflected in the higher Toughness score and Invulnerable save.
Xenomancers wrote: They have to have 3 wounds bro - 2 wound models for over 30 points are a joke. Too many flat 2's out there.
They can't have another wound because you're not thinking about the consequences of that. Do Paladins need 4 Wounds? Do Blightlord Terminators need 3 wounds?
Is this actually part of their performance issue? No.
Gkt should be much cheaper. Take a regular terminator. 26 points base (according to battlescribe) ... Then it should be +2 for storm bolter, +5 (ish) for force weapon = 33pts. Terminators would see much more play at that level. Where do the extra 10pts come from? Don't say "because they are psykers"... That's like me saying another army should pay extra for chapter tactics.
Xenomancers wrote: They have to have 3 wounds bro - 2 wound models for over 30 points are a joke. Too many flat 2's out there.
They can't have another wound because you're not thinking about the consequences of that. Do Paladins need 4 Wounds? Do Blightlord Terminators need 3 wounds?
Is this actually part of their performance issue? No.
Yes, it is. A pretty big part, actually. The exact same problem primaris are having.
Smotejob wrote: Gkt should be much cheaper. Take a regular terminator. 26 points base (according to battlescribe) ... Then it should be +2 for storm bolter, +5 (ish) for force weapon = 33pts. Terminators would see much more play at that level. Where do the extra 10pts come from? Don't say "because they are psykers"... That's like me saying another army should pay extra for chapter tactics.
Well to break it down -
Their weapon is included in the 41 points, which is a force sword. Force swords are currently 8 points so that brings them to 33. SoT are 33. SoT being slightly better should put the GK termies at 31 or so.
It's just that you pay such a heavy price to have force weapons on everything on top of terminators just...not being durable.
I could see a case for force swords on non-characters being 4 or 5 points. That might help a little.
Smotejob wrote: Gkt should be much cheaper. Take a regular terminator. 26 points base (according to battlescribe) ... Then it should be +2 for storm bolter, +5 (ish) for force weapon = 33pts. Terminators would see much more play at that level. Where do the extra 10pts come from? Don't say "because they are psykers"... That's like me saying another army should pay extra for chapter tactics.
Well to break it down -
Their weapon is included in the 41 points, which is a force sword. Force swords are currently 8 points so that brings them to 33. SoT are 33. SoT being slightly better should put the GK termies at 31 or so.
It's just that you pay such a heavy price to have force weapons on everything on top of terminators just...not being durable.
I could see a case for force swords on non-characters being 4 or 5 points. That might help a little.
I get that their weapon is included in their price. GW did that wrong and should have made them 26 points and then let us as arm them with weapons like other armies and add up the points. So make them 36. Buti agree, they are not durable enough.
Greyknights terminators should be extremely similar to thousand son scarab occult terminators. 5+ invul
(Maybe reroll invul of 1 but unlikely since that’s really an army trait) Plus thier ghetto smite.
Upgrade thier weapons to fire psybolt, psyflame etc
Greyknights are to similar to basic marines w ghetto smite and are costed much higher then They should be for niche abilities.
I can also see greyknights having +1 to bs as well due to thier precognitive abilities.
The point is thier are lots of ideas to fix greyknights to not make them custodes and to make them different then other space marine chapters without just being niche and overpriced.
The problem is that terminator stormbolters are incredibly inefficient. I know people get bored by mathhammer - but they are. Most would recognise regular Marines are inefficient - by some measures almost half compared to guardsmen/fire wariors/kabalites and yet tacticals around 50% more efficient than terminators.
In assault 2 attacks for 40+ points is awful. Nemesis Force Swords seem to suffer from the same curse as Harlequin Kisses - GW seems to really overvalue D3 damage. You throw GK terminators into Marines and you are looking at a 20% or less return in an assault phase. Is that worth it after eating overwatch, after regularly failing to charge? On a unit which has a movement value of just 5, so can only really do this on the turn it DSes in as its otherwise never getting across the table"? No, its awful. Same applies for regular terminators with powerfists, or blinged out assault terminators.
Toughness doesn't matter that much in 40k unless you can get it across your whole army or its on a unit that does great damage and so has to be a target priority. If you have a unit which is tough but does poor damage I am just going to ignore it or kill it last. If its slow just move away - if its fast chaff it up.
Before the DS change you could at least hail mary them 9" from the centre of your opponent's army, charge in and force them to deal with them. Now you can just screen them out. If they are reduced to footslogging they are a joke - and if they take a Land Raider you just have to laugh.
I still think that a better change than giving all terminators 3 wounds would be for them to reduce all incoming damage by 1 to a minimum of 1. This makes them more durable to 2D but leaves 1 and 3+ the same. They are currently very durable against 1d weapons, and 3w would make them too much so, I think.
Then i think terminators should ignore all penalties for shooting heavy weapons after moving, or using unweildly melee weapons, and they might be in an okayish place.
I think all Marines probably need to drop a point or two, or get some kind of special rule that helps their durability. Something like reducing the AP of weapons by 1 would be nice.
Rhinos also cost way too much. I think 50 points would be an okay starting place. Razor backs should probably be more, though marine vehicles in general have a real issue being shut down in close combat, so I don't feel like they deserve their cost so much. Maybe making it so all vehicles can leave combat and still shoot would help fix that at the current price point.
They should be better than a standard Marine, especially in CC. More Toughness and Wounds is not out of the question. But those things won't happen.
As I said in the other thread, I think bringing them back as Daemonhunters, with Inquisitorial forces as one unified army (so stratagems and such work for the whole army) would make for a much better army, with more options and a better playing experience.
ANd letting GK Terminators carry Thunder hammers and storm shields. Dammit, I spent some extra money and time making them, I'd like to be able to use them...
SHUPPET wrote: lmao at 50 people voting that their SM dex is worse than GK. SM players it's been decades now, when will the downplay stop?
Tyranid players at the bottom of the poll also, with only 1 single vote. Too much honor.
I mean the SM codex is pretty bad to be fair.
My point is, when the SM dex is good, SM players will say its average, or bad. When the SM dex is actually not that great, SM players will sell it as unplayable, and as the poll reflects literally place it as the worst in the game, below GK. I would bet my house that over 9/10 of those SM votes are from SM players.
SHUPPET wrote: lmao at 50 people voting that their SM dex is worse than GK. SM players it's been decades now, when will the downplay stop?
Tyranid players at the bottom of the poll also, with only 1 single vote. Too much honor.
I mean the SM codex is pretty bad to be fair.
That said, I haven't heard any complaints about the Tyranid codex.
The Warrior Prime is overcosted.. um.. thats about it.
A vote for irony? Nids are ballers right now.
I would also like to bring up psycannons. Supposed to be an upgraded assault cannon, more expensive... Math hammers worse damage output against almost all targets. Need 6 shots. Put that in your emails.
SHUPPET wrote: lmao at 50 people voting that their SM dex is worse than GK. SM players it's been decades now, when will the downplay stop?
Tyranid players at the bottom of the poll also, with only 1 single vote. Too much honor.
To be fair, a thorough fix of the SM Dex would fix the majority of the issues GK have. They have all of the issues normal Marines have, most notably being slow infantry, expensive Marines and transports, easy to kill infantry, easy to shut down tanks, and having bad basic and special weapon options. They just also pay for force weapons they are terrible with due to only having 1 attack, and deepstrike abilities they can't use like they used to with the new FAQ. Whether or not this is made up for at all by the ability to cast smite seems debatable but unlikely.
If the basic marine Dex was fixed, GK, BA, DA, SW, Chaos, TS, and so on would all benefit because of how much they are based on it.
While slightly true, the Chaos Marines need a different set of fixes compared to the Loyalist Scum. I have issues primarily with the fact that the basic Chaos Marines, who ARE Vets mind you, don't have Vet stats. I'm all for deleting the entry and giving Chosen the Troop slot and Havocs just getting Vet stats. That then only helps if you think Vets are appropriately costed. They theoretically could be with the appropriate fixes to Strategems and the weapon loadouts/Bolter.
At minimum Chosen did get help by having the Chainsword added to their loadout at no additional cost. Now they just need to get to melee...
SHUPPET wrote: lmao at 50 people voting that their SM dex is worse than GK. SM players it's been decades now, when will the downplay stop?
Tyranid players at the bottom of the poll also, with only 1 single vote. Too much honor.
To be fair, a thorough fix of the SM Dex would fix the majority of the issues GK have. They have all of the issues normal Marines have, most notably being slow infantry, expensive Marines and transports, easy to kill infantry, easy to shut down tanks, and having bad basic and special weapon options. They just also pay for force weapons they are terrible with due to only having 1 attack, and deepstrike abilities they can't use like they used to with the new FAQ. Whether or not this is made up for at all by the ability to cast smite seems debatable but unlikely.
If the basic marine Dex was fixed, GK, BA, DA, SW, Chaos, TS, and so on would all benefit because of how much they are based on it.
A fair point honestly. But as it stands, I don't think it's fair to say SM are capable of less than GK, and to vote for it on this poll just adds to memey rep that some SM players have unfortunately gathered for themselves over the years.
Yeah, this is for sure an AMAZING Nids codex, imo the best one so far, sure 4th might have been stronger, but thats b.c of core rules not viability of most units.
On a serious note, there is only 3-4 units that are a bit over costed, and its not even that bad, maybe 10-15% over costed, but thats only b.c the nature of the game and large wounded models act right now.
Compare it to the GK's and its completely Night and Day the love and thought between the two.
Amishprn86 wrote: Yeah, this is for sure an AMAZING Nids codex, imo the best one so far, sure 4th might have been stronger, but thats b.c of core rules not viability of most units.
On a serious note, there is only 3-4 units that are a bit over costed, and its not even that bad, maybe 10-15% over costed, but thats only b.c the nature of the game and large wounded models act right now.
Compare it to the GK's and its completely Night and Day the love and thought between the two.
It’s not just the Nid codex, death guard and AM got similar love...the lack of thoughtful fluff and incorporation of that fluff into the rules is just as infuriating to GK players as the army generally sucking.
Amishprn86 wrote: Yeah, this is for sure an AMAZING Nids codex, imo the best one so far, sure 4th might have been stronger, but thats b.c of core rules not viability of most units.
On a serious note, there is only 3-4 units that are a bit over costed, and its not even that bad, maybe 10-15% over costed, but thats only b.c the nature of the game and large wounded models act right now.
Compare it to the GK's and its completely Night and Day the love and thought between the two.
Yep, I'm a Nid main since I started playing, I've never seen this dex so coherent. I think there is a few SLIGHTLY overcosted units, however they have to be careful because a heavy hand when lowering points or buffing in another manner, could easily turn something like Zoanthropes from "rarely ever worth taking" into "take max of every single game" like they almost were in 5th. I definitely have no real complaints about the Nids dex other than the aforementioned one about drop pods being garbage. But that's almost being a little greedy to ask for changes considering the state of other dex, I'll take Nids how it is, and it's been a long time since we've tasted any sort of glory it's not hard to see why we only got the least votes, its hard to imagine anyone being too disappointed about the state of the dex.
Space marines have a lot of variability across the chapter tactics as all armies do. There are a lot of players around who bought a whole lotta razorbacks for free shenanigans in 7th formations that are sitting salty right now (i'm one of them) although I voted GK but if you're not the kind of player that says my yellow marines are counts as Raven Guard you can go some small way to understanding those 50...
Nithaniel wrote: Space marines have a lot of variability across the chapter tactics as all armies do. There are a lot of players around who bought a whole lotta razorbacks for free shenanigans in 7th formations that are sitting salty right now (i'm one of them) although I voted GK but if you're not the kind of player that says my yellow marines are counts as Raven Guard you can go some small way to understanding those 50...
Yup, I can understand the salt, which is exactly what I'm saying those votes stem from, instead of an objective answer of which dex is currently the weakest.
No problem Amish, I'm just asking if Shup wouldn't mind changing the record. After all, there's a good chance that the difference in how the Codexes have been received might be more to do with their being, as you say, "Night and Day (in) the love and thought between" them, rather than due to faction-dependent personality vices/virtues between players, as Shup like to claim...
____
"SM players can have a meta defining codex and still all you will hear from them is how overrated they are."
"The dex could be so bad that it threw paint stripper over your deployment zone, and SM players would still say that it was literally napalm instead."
"you shouldn't blindly accept anything SM players are saying about their dex, as they are notorious for downplaying it."
"SM players as a whole are a notoriously unreliable source to blindly believe when it comes to the power level of their units."
"lmao at 50 people voting that their SM dex is worse than GK. SM players it's been decades now, when will the downplay stop?"
____
"Tyranid players at the bottom of the poll also, with only 1 single vote. Too much honor."
"Nid players are too honorable to downplay"
– That's all just from this thread and the last one we spoke in. Hence: Sheesh.
When was the last time the ACTUAL marine codex was good? What were marines without skyhammer or gladius last edition? Scatterlaser fodder, that's what.
grouchoben wrote: No problem Amish, I'm just asking if Shup wouldn't mind changing the record. After all, there's a good chance that the difference in how the Codexes have been received might be more to do with their being, as you say, "Night and Day (in) the love and thought between" them, rather than due to faction-dependent personality vices/virtues between players, as Shup like to claim...
____
"SM players can have a meta defining codex and still all you will hear from them is how overrated they are."
"The dex could be so bad that it threw paint stripper over your deployment zone, and SM players would still say that it was literally napalm instead."
"you shouldn't blindly accept anything SM players are saying about their dex, as they are notorious for downplaying it."
"SM players as a whole are a notoriously unreliable source to blindly believe when it comes to the power level of their units."
"lmao at 50 people voting that their SM dex is worse than GK. SM players it's been decades now, when will the downplay stop?"
____
"Tyranid players at the bottom of the poll also, with only 1 single vote. Too much honor."
"Nid players are too honorable to downplay"
– That's all just from this thread and the last one we spoke in. Hence: Sheesh.
I've been a member of this site for 5 years. 5.
I have over 2000 posts, on a broad range of subjects.
In that time I've mentioned SM downplay on two separate occasions. Including this time, making it the second time ever.
I'd literally even forgotten about that thread from a while back. You literally just took the time to go through every single post I had in that thread and found 4 sentences you could post, completely devoid of any context, and ignoring the fact they were almost all responses to an argument you guys dragged me into over your salt concerning my initial post over the SM dex never being as bad as someSM players will tell you.
You had guys literally on that same page saying that Gladius was overrated, was bad, people just didn't know how to play against it properly, and it only saw play because it was the best option SM dex had to work with. My responses to that thread were not outlandish, to say the least.
This narrative that I keep "beating the drum" is entirely salt-driven. My post in here was mostly memey as you can tell by the samurai language and the emojis, especially the parts about the Nid players
And this narrative that I constantly give props to Nid players? Lol the they would laugh you out the door if you made that statement in our tactics thread not long ago. I CRUCIFIED the Nid community for its downplay during 6th and 7th, that's my own race. I said this in the last thread which you just went digging through, so I know you already knew this - but did you quote any of that though?
No, you didn't because that wouldn't suit your narrative. You saw the words "Space Marine" and "downplay" in the same sentence and went into tunnel vision just like last time. As the other guy said - seems like the problem is you.
The more you do this, the more it cements my belief about the whining. This is some highschool girl gak, nobody else does this
Martel732 wrote: When was the last time the ACTUAL marine codex was good? What were marines without skyhammer or gladius last edition? Scatterlaser fodder, that's what.
The Gladius was in the codex,s o therefore it is marines. Thats like saying Eldar codex wasnt really good b.c Scatter Lasers were undercosted.
Martel732 wrote: When was the last time the ACTUAL marine codex was good? What were marines without skyhammer or gladius last edition? Scatterlaser fodder, that's what.
They weren't terrible in 5th, though space wolves did it better.
I don't think space marine players (myself included) want their book to be the best one. I really want all books to be as close as possible. However I also think it's pretty clear that the marine book has a number of serious issues, which are then inherited by all of the other power armor books, which is something like half the armies out there. This seems objectively bad for the game to me.
Martel732 wrote: When was the last time the ACTUAL marine codex was good? What were marines without skyhammer or gladius last edition? Scatterlaser fodder, that's what.
They weren't terrible in 5th, though space wolves did it better.
I don't think space marine players (myself included) want their book to be the best one. I really want all books to be as close as possible. However I also think it's pretty clear that the marine book has a number of serious issues, which are then inherited by all of the other power armor books, which is something like half the armies out there. This seems objectively bad for the game to me.
FWIW, I agree right now about the SM dex being undertuned, I don't think every PA book is struggling by transference though., I think we can look at them all individually and say some are in a more than competent state (although even they could probably use some better internal balance and a bit more freedom in unit choice to compete).
I'm really hoping GW just builds ahead with what we have right now and tunes up some of the dexes in need of it, but doesn't give a crazy rewrite to the one she in a good state internally just to shake up people's model purchasing, like they used to do all the time. What do we think is the likelihood of them actually having moved past that tactic? I really hope we do, sick of them trying to start balance from scratch every year or two.
Back to the original post, Grey Knights are not as bad as some of the people here seem to think. Their selection of viable units is much smaller than most codexes, but with a little out-of-codex support you can absolutely make them viable. Their selection of psychic powers is the best in the imperium, and the blanket +1 is brutal. Dreadknights are still absolute monsters. Purgation squads are continuously overlooked for reasons that boggle the mind, psilencers are incredible for the points. Draigo is a badass, and Strike Squads are still very viable. A GK battalion, guard battalion, and GK spearhead is actually a good competitive army, you just have to keep your power level balanced and have a guard warlord battery for CPs. A local grey knight player has been able to use this template to keep himself relevant in a very competitive meta, he's managed to get top 3 in three consecutive GTs in 8th edition, including an 80 man major in april.
GK are absolutely unbalanced as a codex, vast swathes of their units are bad and there are only a few units I would take in a competitive list, they could really use points adjustments in the next CA, but the codex is not even close to dead.
You seem to be missing the point. The question is limiting choices to one codex and asking which codex makes the worst army.
Purgation squads aren't overlooked. They just aren't worth the points. You have to pay a CP to DS them or buy a transport for them to get into range to use the psker power (3" range). Even then it's almost impossible for them to end up in range of the unit that you're aiming to destroy.
Psilencers are the best weapon that GK have. That's been know since page 9 of the tactics thread. But, being the best weapon in a codex doesn't mean anything in a meta where you are either losing your melee weapon (PAGK) and/or suffering a -1 to hit for moving and usually only wounding on 5+. And that doesn't include that it has a ridiculously short range for a heavy weapon (24").
jifel wrote: Back to the original post, Grey Knights are not as bad as some of the people here seem to think. Their selection of viable units is much smaller than most codexes, but with a little out-of-codex support you can absolutely make them viable. Their selection of psychic powers is the best in the imperium, and the blanket +1 is brutal. Dreadknights are still absolute monsters. Purgation squads are continuously overlooked for reasons that boggle the mind, psilencers are incredible for the points. Draigo is a badass, and Strike Squads are still very viable. A GK battalion, guard battalion, and GK spearhead is actually a good competitive army, you just have to keep your power level balanced and have a guard warlord battery for CPs. A local grey knight player has been able to use this template to keep himself relevant in a very competitive meta, he's managed to get top 3 in three consecutive GTs in 8th edition, including an 80 man major in april.
GK are absolutely unbalanced as a codex, vast swathes of their units are bad and there are only a few units I would take in a competitive list, they could really use points adjustments in the next CA, but the codex is not even close to dead.
I've mostly disengaged from GK but this is just hyperbole. Your meta is honestly threatened by 24" 0 AP guns? You have a hard time killing T6 4++ (two lucky ones at 3++)?
You know what would smash these? Basically any standard competitive list. Captain Slamguinus can delete a DKGM even with a 3++ no problem. Custodes bikers outrange those Psilencers thanks to their huge movement and will simply bury them under weight of hurricane bolters (while shrugging off return fire with a 2+). Tesseract Vaults, particularly the variant running 3 of them, deal so many mortal wounds no GK can get within spitting distance of them without evaporating.
Triple Manticores will annihilate those Strike Squads before they come anywhere close to getting through chaff. Thousand Sons are actually better Pskers who can do real damage with a real smite when they Pierce the GK defenses. GK have almost no access to the high strength fire to wound an Imperial Knight on better than 5's (while have you even seen what an Avenger Gatling Cannon does to Strike Squads or stomps to a Dreadknight?). The list just goes on. Don't even get started on how a GK should deal with Tau.
If your meta is having a hard time with a majority GK list then it's just not fielding very competitive lists. Which is fine, but when we say viable we mean can work at the top tables against serious crunch lists.
Martel732 wrote: When was the last time the ACTUAL marine codex was good? What were marines without skyhammer or gladius last edition? Scatterlaser fodder, that's what.
7th. You know this. Everyone knows this. Arguing anything to the contrary for any reason would be an insult to the intelligence of this board.
Now, you can make the argument and distinction between a good codex and strong codex, which can have more nuance, but even then, 7th marines were one of the better internally balanced books, with lots of strong formations and boosts, and were externally very powerful. All elements of a top tier book.
I could complain about the Tyranid codex, but in the context of "which army is the worst," that is pointless. Yes there are overcosted units and some units are clearly bad. Some stratagems and hive fleets are total garbage, too (Hydra, i'm looking at you). There is NO question that Tyranids are not the worst army. Same for Guard, Tau, and a bunch of other armies that have votes that shouldn't.
Martel732 wrote: When was the last time the ACTUAL marine codex was good? What were marines without skyhammer or gladius last edition? Scatterlaser fodder, that's what.
7th. You know this. Everyone knows this. Arguing anything to the contrary for any reason would be an insult to the intelligence of this board.
Now, you can make the argument and distinction between a good codex and strong codex, which can have more nuance, but even then, 7th marines were one of the better internally balanced books, with lots of strong formations and boosts, and were externally very powerful. All elements of a top tier book.
And yet, by the end of 7th they certainly weren't placing like a top tier book and were more mid-tier. 7th tournaments were basically dominated by Renegades & Heretics, Chaos and Eldar.
Leo_the_Rat wrote:You seem to be missing the point. The question is limiting choices to one codex and asking which codex makes the worst army.
Purgation squads aren't overlooked. They just aren't worth the points. You have to pay a CP to DS them or buy a transport for them to get into range to use the psker power (3" range). Even then it's almost impossible for them to end up in range of the unit that you're aiming to destroy.
Psilencers are the best weapon that GK have. That's been know since page 9 of the tactics thread. But, being the best weapon in a codex doesn't mean anything in a meta where you are either losing your melee weapon (PAGK) and/or suffering a -1 to hit for moving and usually only wounding on 5+. And that doesn't include that it has a ridiculously short range for a heavy weapon (24").
You seem to be confusing Purgation squads with purifiers. Purifiers are straight up unusable competitively. Purgations get a normal psychic power, and you absolutely do pay the CP to deepstrike them, but a guard batt helps offset that. And I dont disagree that GK as a standalone book are pretty bad, but I just want to dispute the notion that they are unusable.
Audustum wrote:
jifel wrote: Back to the original post, Grey Knights are not as bad as some of the people here seem to think. Their selection of viable units is much smaller than most codexes, but with a little out-of-codex support you can absolutely make them viable. Their selection of psychic powers is the best in the imperium, and the blanket +1 is brutal. Dreadknights are still absolute monsters. Purgation squads are continuously overlooked for reasons that boggle the mind, psilencers are incredible for the points. Draigo is a badass, and Strike Squads are still very viable. A GK battalion, guard battalion, and GK spearhead is actually a good competitive army, you just have to keep your power level balanced and have a guard warlord battery for CPs. A local grey knight player has been able to use this template to keep himself relevant in a very competitive meta, he's managed to get top 3 in three consecutive GTs in 8th edition, including an 80 man major in april.
GK are absolutely unbalanced as a codex, vast swathes of their units are bad and there are only a few units I would take in a competitive list, they could really use points adjustments in the next CA, but the codex is not even close to dead.
I've mostly disengaged from GK but this is just hyperbole. Your meta is honestly threatened by 24" 0 AP guns? You have a hard time killing T6 4++ (two lucky ones at 3++)?
You know what would smash these? Basically any standard competitive list. Captain Slamguinus can delete a DKGM even with a 3++ no problem. Custodes bikers outrange those Psilencers thanks to their huge movement and will simply bury them under weight of hurricane bolters (while shrugging off return fire with a 2+). Tesseract Vaults, particularly the variant running 3 of them, deal so many mortal wounds no GK can get within spitting distance of them without evaporating.
Triple Manticores will annihilate those Strike Squads before they come anywhere close to getting through chaff. Thousand Sons are actually better Pskers who can do real damage with a real smite when they Pierce the GK defenses. GK have almost no access to the high strength fire to wound an Imperial Knight on better than 5's (while have you even seen what an Avenger Gatling Cannon does to Strike Squads or stomps to a Dreadknight?). The list just goes on. Don't even get started on how a GK should deal with Tau.
If your meta is having a hard time with a majority GK list then it's just not fielding very competitive lists. Which is fine, but when we say viable we mean can work at the top tables against serious crunch lists.
You can say whatever you want from behind a computer screen, but this is a competitive meta. He has beaten those custodes lists and those necron lists, and those Thousand Sons lists. If he can travel to multiple GTs in multiple different states and consistently podium, maybe he's played against good competition? Our meta has the top 4 players in the south region, he's not just walking through seals. I would also say that the meta here is not "struggling to overcome" GK. He isnt walking in and winning every event, thats usually Nids or DE. But its possible to compete with GK. And honestly the fact that you think that Knights are something to be concerned about makes me think that you're not exactly playing in the strongest meta yourself. Until their codex comes out, they are a complete nonfactor.
Leo_the_Rat wrote:You seem to be missing the point. The question is limiting choices to one codex and asking which codex makes the worst army.
Purgation squads aren't overlooked. They just aren't worth the points. You have to pay a CP to DS them or buy a transport for them to get into range to use the psker power (3" range). Even then it's almost impossible for them to end up in range of the unit that you're aiming to destroy.
Psilencers are the best weapon that GK have. That's been know since page 9 of the tactics thread. But, being the best weapon in a codex doesn't mean anything in a meta where you are either losing your melee weapon (PAGK) and/or suffering a -1 to hit for moving and usually only wounding on 5+. And that doesn't include that it has a ridiculously short range for a heavy weapon (24").
You seem to be confusing Purgation squads with purifiers. Purifiers are straight up unusable competitively. Purgations get a normal psychic power, and you absolutely do pay the CP to deepstrike them, but a guard batt helps offset that. And I dont disagree that GK as a standalone book are pretty bad, but I just want to dispute the notion that they are unusable.
Audustum wrote:
jifel wrote: Back to the original post, Grey Knights are not as bad as some of the people here seem to think. Their selection of viable units is much smaller than most codexes, but with a little out-of-codex support you can absolutely make them viable. Their selection of psychic powers is the best in the imperium, and the blanket +1 is brutal. Dreadknights are still absolute monsters. Purgation squads are continuously overlooked for reasons that boggle the mind, psilencers are incredible for the points. Draigo is a badass, and Strike Squads are still very viable. A GK battalion, guard battalion, and GK spearhead is actually a good competitive army, you just have to keep your power level balanced and have a guard warlord battery for CPs. A local grey knight player has been able to use this template to keep himself relevant in a very competitive meta, he's managed to get top 3 in three consecutive GTs in 8th edition, including an 80 man major in april.
GK are absolutely unbalanced as a codex, vast swathes of their units are bad and there are only a few units I would take in a competitive list, they could really use points adjustments in the next CA, but the codex is not even close to dead.
I've mostly disengaged from GK but this is just hyperbole. Your meta is honestly threatened by 24" 0 AP guns? You have a hard time killing T6 4++ (two lucky ones at 3++)?
You know what would smash these? Basically any standard competitive list. Captain Slamguinus can delete a DKGM even with a 3++ no problem. Custodes bikers outrange those Psilencers thanks to their huge movement and will simply bury them under weight of hurricane bolters (while shrugging off return fire with a 2+). Tesseract Vaults, particularly the variant running 3 of them, deal so many mortal wounds no GK can get within spitting distance of them without evaporating.
Triple Manticores will annihilate those Strike Squads before they come anywhere close to getting through chaff. Thousand Sons are actually better Pskers who can do real damage with a real smite when they Pierce the GK defenses. GK have almost no access to the high strength fire to wound an Imperial Knight on better than 5's (while have you even seen what an Avenger Gatling Cannon does to Strike Squads or stomps to a Dreadknight?). The list just goes on. Don't even get started on how a GK should deal with Tau.
If your meta is having a hard time with a majority GK list then it's just not fielding very competitive lists. Which is fine, but when we say viable we mean can work at the top tables against serious crunch lists.
You can say whatever you want from behind a computer screen, but this is a competitive meta. He has beaten those custodes lists and those necron lists, and those Thousand Sons lists. If he can travel to multiple GTs in multiple different states and consistently podium, maybe he's played against good competition? Our meta has the top 4 players in the south region, he's not just walking through seals. I would also say that the meta here is not "struggling to overcome" GK. He isnt walking in and winning every event, thats usually Nids or DE. But its possible to compete with GK. And honestly the fact that you think that Knights are something to be concerned about makes me think that you're not exactly playing in the strongest meta yourself. Until their codex comes out, they are a complete nonfactor.
You kind of prove my point here. You're right, Knights ARE a nonfactor yet they will.manhandle Grey Knights because Grey Knights are THAT bad. They're so bad they struggle against a nonfactor!
And from this description it does sound like he has a bit of an easy time. Give us his name and we'll go pull his ITC ranking and check out his placements on BCP if he's doing so well or does he not really go to the 'big' tournaments (Adepticon, NOVA, LVO, e.t.c.)?
He can knock it out if it has just a 4++, but he can also put 22 wounds on a Baneblade. Does that make Baneblades rubbish?
If you spend almost an army's worth of CP to kill a single 250ish point model...
Now a GMDK with greatsword - 5 * .972 * .833 * .5 * 3.5 = 7 //No CP needed
Custodes bikers outrange those Psilencers thanks to their huge movement and will simply bury them under weight of hurricane bolters (while shrugging off return fire with a 2+).
GK tiny smite kind of sucks, right?
Bunch of theory crafting junk:
Spoiler:
Well, if you take a BC it's 24". The success rate is 92%. If you have 12 units on the field able to smite that's 11 mortal wounds. A "regular" smite is 2 wounds with an 83% chance, but only for the first cast unless you're TS. But let's say you're going to be able to put 7 on some bananas - 6.4 wounds.
Ok, great. Now, Purgators moving with 4 Psycannons, Astral Aim, and Onslaught with reroll 1s - 16 * .583 * .666 * .333 = 2 wounds.
A 10 man SS with SBs, Psybolts, and Draigo - 40 * .888 * .333 * .333 = 3.9 wounds.
Because it would be a waste to do just Draigo and 1 squad throw down two more 5 man SS - 40 * .888 * .333 * .167 = 2 wounds.
Let's hope that 10 man SS gets the charge and has Hammerhand. Overwatch kills a couple. 17 * .888 * .5 * .5 * 2 = 5
So with 792 points 5 bikes (450 points) have died. A 57% return seems pretty good.
Let's get a smashy GMDK greatsword with hammerhand GMDK in there - 5 * .972 * .833 * .5 * 3.5 = 7
That puts us up to 6.5 bikes.
These things could get shot up, but all this can easily deepstrike on turn 2 when it has the advantage of positioning. Stuff still on table can die, but they don't need to be in RF range of bikes.
But then we're in their face, there's always the -1 to hit possibility, culexus (if present), etc.
Tesseract Vaults, particularly the variant running 3 of them, deal so many mortal wounds no GK can get within spitting distance of them without evaporating.
This applies to almost all lists, because it's a skew list.
The top triple vault list only lost to an Eldar Scorpion and IG/BA/SCDE. It beat the pants of 17 banana bikes and 1 SCDE supported by -1 to hit bubble. Does that mean Custodes are now weak?
The second triple vault list only lost to a Shadowsword, but not triple baneblade.
Triple Manticores will annihilate those Strike Squads before they come anywhere close to getting through chaff.
I get you can't deepstrike turn 1, but you can still do it turn 2. 10 SS with no rerolls and psybolts kills 15 GEQ. With Draigo it's 20. Throw in another 10 regular SBs and you get another 16. That's a hell of a lot of chaff gone - especially after morale.
3 Manticores kill 6 PA models and 4 if they're in cover. Not a great return there typically.
Thousand Sons are actually better Pskers who can do real damage with a real smite when they Pierce the GK defenses.
Most TS casters with big smite do not have any bonuses (yes, a once per game reroll, spell familiar, ahriman, and WL trait exist - I am aware). Especially with everyone running DPs. The odds of a DP getting smite off with a lowly SS nearby is about 45%, which is WAY down from 83%. And when they do get it? It's average damage is 2. Up from 1 for GK.
GK have almost no access to the high strength fire to wound an Imperial Knight on better than 5's (while have you even seen what an Avenger Gatling Cannon does to Strike Squads or stomps to a Dreadknight?).
I get you can't deepstrike turn 1, but you can still do it turn 2. 10 SS with no rerolls and psybolts kills 15 GEQ. With Draigo it's 20. Throw in another 10 regular SBs and you get another 16. That's a hell of a lot of chaff gone - especially after morale.
450 points on turn 2 to kill 140 points of Guardsmen or Conscripts, assuming they aren't hugging ruins, and that you can land in rapid fire range, when this is effortlessly denied with scout sentinels or Ratlings. Also forgetting that your deep striking squads are slow and orphaned on the table after landing and clearing any chaff or pre-chaff screens which everyone brings.
The most efficient answer will always be to shoot past the chaff.
I find it sort of strange that people are okay with a codex only having a couple good units, or requiring IG to stand any kind of chance.
In my opinion, far fetched as it may be, until every unit in every codex has some kind of practical effective use in some kind of viable competitive list made up purely from one codex, there is room for improvement and conversation.
I get you can't deepstrike turn 1, but you can still do it turn 2. 10 SS with no rerolls and psybolts kills 15 GEQ. With Draigo it's 20. Throw in another 10 regular SBs and you get another 16. That's a hell of a lot of chaff gone - especially after morale.
450 points on turn 2 to kill 140 points of Guardsmen or Conscripts, assuming they aren't hugging ruins, and that you can land in rapid fire range, when this is effortlessly denied with scout sentinels or Ratlings.
The most efficient answer will always be to shoot past the chaff.
Oh yea it's super not efficient, but GK don't have a lot of guns that are useful shooting past chaff. The dynamic for them feels more like clear chaff and somehow get charges on important stuff, which I realize is super difficult at times.
jcd386 wrote: I find it sort of strange that people are okay with a codex only having a couple good units, or requiring IG to stand any kind of chance.
In my opinion, far fetched as it may be, until every unit in every codex has some kind of practical effective use in some kind of viable competitive list made up purely from one codex, there is room for improvement and conversation.
I would definitely not say that I am ok with it. The codex needs to be improved because it ha glaring weaknesses. My only point is that the codex is not entirely unusable, which a lot of people have said. It is a poorly balanced book with only a small number of viable units in it.
jcd386 wrote: I find it sort of strange that people are okay with a codex only having a couple good units, or requiring IG to stand any kind of chance.
In my opinion, far fetched as it may be, until every unit in every codex has some kind of practical effective use in some kind of viable competitive list made up purely from one codex, there is room for improvement and conversation.
I'm not ok with it. When I think about things I like in that book I never pick terminators, paladins, interceptors, Stern, or Crowe at the very least. That said most top armies run soup.
I get you can't deepstrike turn 1, but you can still do it turn 2. 10 SS with no rerolls and psybolts kills 15 GEQ. With Draigo it's 20. Throw in another 10 regular SBs and you get another 16. That's a hell of a lot of chaff gone - especially after morale.
450 points on turn 2 to kill 140 points of Guardsmen or Conscripts, assuming they aren't hugging ruins, and that you can land in rapid fire range, when this is effortlessly denied with scout sentinels or Ratlings.
The most efficient answer will always be to shoot past the chaff.
Oh yea it's super not efficient, but GK don't have a lot of guns that are useful shooting past chaff. The dynamic for them feels more like clear chaff and somehow get charges on important stuff, which I realize is super difficult at times.
My personal preference is to put your guys in storm ravens. Essentially you're playing for the turn 2 charge. The nice thing about this, is that if you screen with your own scout moves and back deploy the ravens as much as possible, they're fairly protected themselves. Being able to move 45", that generally allows them to fly right up to chaff, clear a reasonable swath with their light guns (hurricanes, assault cannons). Especially since you can pay 2cp and give the ammunition bonus to the raven's hurricane bolters if need be, as well as astral aiming it to ignore cover. Then turn 2 you disembark, shoot, and charge.
The only problem is that a few meta armies counter this hard. Especially Eldar. If you go second those reapers will annihilate both ravens and you've already lost. Should you make it to the front line, Shining Spears > GK anything.
You aren't even beginning to grasp his power if this is all you think goes into it.
Blood Angels can much more easily field multiple battalions (scouts are minimum 55 points per unit compared to the almost double 105 points per unit for GK) so they HAVE these points to burn. Especially to kill a GMDK as the GK army is largely powerless without them.
5 attacks base, +1 for Death Visions, average of 2 more for Rampage (Red Rampage is 1 CP by the way, not 2) gets him up to 8, not 7. He's swinging 7-9 attacks with just those buffs. If a Psyker is nearby, you can Unleash Rage for another +1A (and with Wings of Sanguinus and Mephiston's 8" move it's not hard to be nearby). You take Artisan of War to make his hammer 4 damage, not 3. You've only spent 2 CP at this point and your math was already underselling his damage.
So 9 attacks average with 4 damage each averages 11.67 wounds, not 4.5 (even with 7 attacks at 3 damage, which is what you assumed, he's averaging 6.81 not 4.5: your math is off). The GMDK only has 12 wounds. If he fights twice that's 23.34 wounds, which kills the GMDK twice over. If the GMDK has Heed or Sanctuary it's still 9.72 wounds average for a single fight and 15.56 for fighting twice, which also kills him since the Captain is likely to survive retaliation (see below).
2 CP is thus the answer. For 2CP your Warlord Slamguinus pastes a GMDK. In an army that can easily bring 10+ CP.
He can knock it out if it has just a 4++, but he can also put 22 wounds on a Baneblade. Does that make Baneblades rubbish?
A Baneblade can actually hide behind chaff and do something useful, unlike a GMDK who only has 24" guns and has to get much closer. Apples and oranges.
If you spend almost an army's worth of CP to kill a single 250ish point model...
2CP, 285ish point model.
Now a GMDK with greatsword - 5 * .972 * .833 * .5 * 3.5 = 7 //No CP needed
The GMDK will be degraded and likely hanging around just 1W left. He's only getting 3 attacks. At 3 attacks he only averages 2.83 wounds with a 39% chance of doing 0 wounds (remember, Slamguinus has a Storm Shield).
So yeah, I think the Captain is doing just fine. FYI, the Captain only costs 129 points, he's less than half the GMDK.
Custodes bikers outrange those Psilencers thanks to their huge movement and will simply bury them under weight of hurricane bolters (while shrugging off return fire with a 2+).
GK tiny smite kind of sucks, right?
It's horrific.
Bunch of theory crafting junk:
Spoiler:
Well, if you take a BC it's 24". The success rate is 92%. If you have 12 units on the field able to smite that's 11 mortal wounds. A "regular" smite is 2 wounds with an 83% chance, but only for the first cast unless you're TS. But let's say you're going to be able to put 7 on some bananas - 6.4 wounds.
Ok, great. Now, Purgators moving with 4 Psycannons, Astral Aim, and Onslaught with reroll 1s - 16 * .583 * .666 * .333 = 2 wounds.
A 10 man SS with SBs, Psybolts, and Draigo - 40 * .888 * .333 * .333 = 3.9 wounds.
Because it would be a waste to do just Draigo and 1 squad throw down two more 5 man SS - 40 * .888 * .333 * .167 = 2 wounds.
Let's hope that 10 man SS gets the charge and has Hammerhand. Overwatch kills a couple. 17 * .888 * .5 * .5 * 2 = 5
So with 792 points 5 bikes (450 points) have died. A 57% return seems pretty good.
Let's get a smashy GMDK greatsword with hammerhand GMDK in there - 5 * .972 * .833 * .5 * 3.5 = 7
That puts us up to 6.5 bikes.
These things could get shot up, but all this can easily deepstrike on turn 2 when it has the advantage of positioning. Stuff still on table can die, but they don't need to be in RF range of bikes.
But then we're in their face, there's always the -1 to hit possibility, culexus (if present), etc.
You're missing a ton from this. First off, Psilencers are Heavy so the Purgation squad gets -1 for Deep Striking or Gating, take your pick. Then they get another -1 from the mandatory Vexilla. I'm glad they're hitting on 5+ re-rolling 1's and 2's. When you factor all this in, the Purgation squad only averages 1.18 wounds on the Bike squad with a 55% chance of the ENTIRE purgation squad doing 0 wounds. So more often than not they will do literally nothing in this scenario.
For every 5 Storm Bolters you add in from Strikes, all 5 combined only add .74 average wounds with a 47% chance of doing 0. Assuming we luck out and NONE of our units do 0 damage despite it being about 50% likely, it would take the ENTIRE Purgation squad and 20 Strikes to kill a SINGLE bike. Not Bike UNIT, a single Bike MODEL. That's a terrible return on investment.
So with my Purgation team and 20 Strikes and Draigo that's 773 points to kill 90. That's a horrific rate of return.
If you add Onslaught to the Purgation team it doesn't change much. You can succeed with 15 Strikes instead of 20. You're still burning 668 and 2CP (which GK DO have a hard time getting) to kill 90.
When the Strikes charge, you seem to assume the Bikes only overwatch 17 shots if I read that right? They Overwatch 24 shots assuming it was a minimum bike squad and 1 died from the shooting (unlikely as that is because we assumed 5 units made their 50% chance to not do 0 wounds). If the Custodes want to hammer you with bullets, they'll use Unflinching here for 1CP that let's them Overwatch on 5+ and deal 1.56 wounds, but they won't bother because Bikes travel in packs and they'll just use Swooping Dive to have a different Bike unit charge your chargers and, by the way, that second Bike unit gets to fight first. You want to know what 3 Bikes do to a Strike Squad?
They send it to -8.83W. They kill it more than twice over. They can split their attacks and realistically kill 10 Strikes and cripple a third squad (13.83 average wounds total). That Hammerhand won't do you a lick of good because that squad will be dead. Even a GMDK with Sanctuary gets knocked down to his 3rd wound profile and thus 3 attacks. Those 3 attacks don't even average killing a single Bike either (3.41 wounds). If Hammerhand is on the GMDK he can kill 1 Bike, lucky him.
In short, there is a LOT wrong with the spit-balling you put in this spoiler.
Tesseract Vaults, particularly the variant running 3 of them, deal so many mortal wounds no GK can get within spitting distance of them without evaporating.
This applies to almost all lists, because it's a skew list.
The top triple vault list only lost to an Eldar Scorpion and IG/BA/SCDE. It beat the pants of 17 banana bikes and 1 SCDE supported by -1 to hit bubble. Does that mean Custodes are now weak?
The second triple vault list only lost to a Shadowsword, but not triple baneblade.
Right, it's a top tier list and it produces top tier results. The Custodes lost that round but they're not doomed to lose it and that's the difference. A Custodes can still win an event where multiples of those lists show up too. The same can't be said of GK's. I also wouldn't call it a skew list. It's just a Mortal Wounds list. That's like calling assault armies skew lists.
Triple Manticores will annihilate those Strike Squads before they come anywhere close to getting through chaff.
I get you can't deepstrike turn 1, but you can still do it turn 2. 10 SS with no rerolls and psybolts kills 15 GEQ. With Draigo it's 20. Throw in another 10 regular SBs and you get another 16. That's a hell of a lot of chaff gone - especially after morale.
That's a lot of chaff to you? It's about 1/8th to 1/10th of what you should expect to see. 10 Infantry are, what, 40 points? You killed about 60 points worth with your 450 points of shooting there. There will be plenty more chaff and you won't have put yourself any closer to charging the artillery by shooting them.
3 Manticores kill 6 PA models and 4 if they're in cover. Not a great return there typically.
If they're in cover, they're not near the Manticores and probably not near enough objectives to win. So it's fine if they want to hide there and you can ignore them. Your math is off again too. One Manticore, let's say Cadian (they're usually Catachan or Cadian, Catachan with a Master of Ordnance is much scarier but Cadian is more common) kills 4.53 Strike models. 3 of them kill 13.59. And they will do this every, single turn. 27.18 wounds by T2. 40.77 by T3. 54.36 by T4 when they're spent.
Thousand Sons are actually better Pskers who can do real damage with a real smite when they Pierce the GK defenses.
Most TS casters with big smite do not have any bonuses (yes, a once per game reroll, spell familiar, ahriman, and WL trait exist - I am aware). Especially with everyone running DPs. The odds of a DP getting smite off with a lowly SS nearby is about 45%, which is WAY down from 83%. And when they do get it? It's average damage is 2. Up from 1 for GK.
The GK Smite is also only 12" while the Thousand Sons Smite is 24". I hope you enjoy being zoned out by Mortal Wounds fire (and you should really run this analysis against Ahriman and Magnus as well) since the Thousand Sons also move faster than you.
Then, of course, Magnus throws Death Hex on your GMDK and suddenly he doesn't have an invulnerable save.
GK have almost no access to the high strength fire to wound an Imperial Knight on better than 5's (while have you even seen what an Avenger Gatling Cannon does to Strike Squads or stomps to a Dreadknight?).
Maybe a 450+ point unit isn't the best example for this?
This is waaaaay off. The AGC does 7.11 average wounds to Strikes. That wipes a whole 5-man squad and makes a 10-man squad take a serious morale check.
And yeah, the Stomping regularly sends the GMDK into his second wound profile.
The point of that was to highlight that the IK's can do this without really a care or thought. That IK isn't going to JUST shoot the AGC or JUST stomp a GMDK, it's going to do both and then more and it will do it every turn it's alive. Crusaders are widely regarded as the best non-Forgeworld IK right now. You take 3 of them. That's:
36 AVG shots.
6D6 RFBC shots.
3D3 Stormspear Rocket shots.
The GK's have to survive with their 50% of the army on the board T1. It's going to do SIGNIFICANT damage to them.
Then, if anything gets close, they stomp. Remember, they can fall back and shoot before charging to fight again. Heck yeah that beats the pants off anything GMDK can field.
Don't even get started on how a GK should deal with Tau.
Completely dakka off drones and strike teams, remove their connective tissue access for FTGG, and charge the big stuff?
If only it was as easy to do as say.
Which is fine, but when we say viable we mean can work at the top tables against serious crunch lists.
Yea, you probably won't work top tables as pure GK - then again - neither will pure Custodes or pure TS.
You won't even work top tables as MAJORITY GK, unlike Custodes and Thousand Sons. Difference. A GK detachment of anything, even a minority of your army, is actively hurting you.
You aren't even beginning to grasp his power if this is all you think goes into it.
A Baneblade can actually hide behind chaff and do something useful, unlike a GMDK who only has 24" guns and has to get much closer. Apples and oranges.
Fair enough, but you've added a ton of points to support him there. I've seen the relic jump pack more since BA has been a support element and not one to chew up Descent to get the charge.
He still crushes things stronger than the GMDK. While the BB can "hide" the GMDK can deepstrike. Both have relative safety measures.
The GMDK will be degraded and likely hanging around just 1W left
Yes, it's a tit for tat thing. Does the captain come down before the GMDK? How do you keep the GMDK safe otherwise, etc, etc.
On the smite stuff:
You're missing a ton from this.
I mentioned at the end of that block -- "but then we're in their face, there's always the -1 to hit possibility, culexus (if present), etc."
Here's the thing - always comparing to Custodes with -1 to hit bubble doesn't represent a true picture of GK in the game as a whole. If all we did was compare everything that way then most armies look pretty meh right now.
The purgators were psycannon types. Everyone else was SB. I don't like that psycannons are 24". It's super clunky.
In short, there is a LOT wrong with the spit-balling you put in this spoiler.
Sure, like I mentioned above I didn't work through all those things, because those things affect other armies, too. Dark Reapers excluded. It's a general idea of power and not all Custodes pack -1 bubble/culexus/etc.
Right, it's a top tier list and it produces top tier results. The Custodes lost that round but they're not doomed to lose it and that's the difference. A Custodes can still win an event where multiples of those lists show up too. The same can't be said of GK's. I also wouldn't call it a skew list. It's just a Mortal Wounds list. That's like calling assault armies skew lists.
That's the thing about vaults vs Custodes. Custodes are pretty much guaranteed to lose, because they don't have nearly the number of wounds needed to survive the MW spam. They have almost no defense for it. That Necron player took a huge victory - 50 to 8.
That's a lot of chaff to you? It's about 1/8th to 1/10th of what you should expect to see. 10 Infantry are, what, 40 points? You killed about 60 points worth with your 450 points of shooting there. There will be plenty more chaff and you won't have put yourself any closer to charging the artillery by shooting them.
For a particular section of the table, yes. You could off 5 or 6 whole IS squads. The point isn't to come out ahead on points, but to get a positional advantage.
That's this much chaff:
Spoiler:
One Manticore, let's say Cadian (they're usually Catachan or Cadian, Catachan with a Master of Ordnance is much scarier but Cadian is more common) kills 4.53 Strike models. 3 of them kill 13.59. And they will do this every, single turn. 27.18 wounds by T2. 40.77 by T3. 54.36 by T4 when they're spent.
Err, how? Working backwards:
Manitcore is -2.To get 4.53 dead you need 6.8 wounds. To get 6.8 wounds you from 2s to wound you need ~8.1 hits. To get 8.1 hits from BS4 (ignore reroll 1s for now) you get 16+ shots. How are you getting 16 shots from a 2D6 weapon?
The GK Smite is also only 12" while the Thousand Sons Smite is 24". I hope you enjoy being zoned out by Mortal Wounds fire (and you should really run this analysis against Ahriman and Magnus as well) since the Thousand Sons also move faster than you.
Then, of course, Magnus throws Death Hex on your GMDK and suddenly he doesn't have an invulnerable save.
Brother Captain. If you want to throw Magnus in there TS will have way less MW spam unless they like not having an army. If Magnus is fighting a GMDK he doesn't really need Death Hex unless you have a 3++ up. In either case GK have this nifty trick of rolling 3D6 and pick the 2 highest for denial with a +1 on such occasions.
This is waaaaay off. The AGC does 7.11 average wounds to Strikes. That wipes a whole 5-man squad and makes a 10-man squad take a serious morale check.
The math is literally right there.
12 shots. BS3. S6. AP2.
Hits on 3s. Wounds on 3s. Save on 5s.
12 * .666 * .666 * .666 = 3.5
Crusaders are widely regarded as the best non-Forgeworld IK right now. You take 3 of them.
That's over 1,700 points, which will be nearly their whole army. And they don't do as much damage as you claim. There is a reason there were no knight lists at the London GT.
I do recognize that GK will have a hard time dealing with tons of high toughness models with few options available.
I'm still at a loss what the point of this section is.
On smash captain:
You aren't even beginning to grasp his power if this is all you think goes into it.
A Baneblade can actually hide behind chaff and do something useful, unlike a GMDK who only has 24" guns and has to get much closer. Apples and oranges.
Fair enough, but you've added a ton of points to support him there. I've seen the relic jump pack more since BA has been a support element and not one to chew up Descent to get the charge.
I added one Librarian (Meph being the best case scenario Librarian). You do always take the Relic jump pack but that's to ignore Overwatch. Meph is 145. Even Meph's full value added on to the Captain is still less than the cost of a GMDK (129 + 145). Though it's a bit facetious to add the full cost of Meph since he's there to do and is doing a lot more than just buffing the Captain with one spell.
He still crushes things stronger than the GMDK. While the BB can "hide" the GMDK can deepstrike. Both have relative safety measures.
A key difference being that while the GMDK is 'hiding' in reserves he can't actually DO anything. The Baneblade, by contrast, is contributing a significant amount of damage even while hiding. They're not comparable at all. A GMDK MUST expose itself to do useful things.
The GMDK will be degraded and likely hanging around just 1W left
Yes, it's a tit for tat thing. Does the captain come down before the GMDK? How do you keep the GMDK safe otherwise, etc, etc.
Not really. The Captain is 129 points to 285 for the GMDK. I can literally bring 2 Captains for every GMDK you bring and while they won't all have 4 damage weapons (just 3 damage, oh no), I'm more than happy to leave one of mine in reserve all game to force you to leave one of your GMDK in reserve all game out of fear. The moment you come down, bang.
On the smite stuff:
You're missing a ton from this.
I mentioned at the end of that block -- "but then we're in their face, there's always the -1 to hit possibility, culexus (if present), etc."
Here's the thing - always comparing to Custodes with -1 to hit bubble doesn't represent a true picture of GK in the game as a whole. If all we did was compare everything that way then most armies look pretty meh right now.
In the game as a whole? Sure, but we were specifically comparing GK to Custodes in that segment so it was totally legitimate.
The purgators were psycannon types. Everyone else was SB. I don't like that psycannons are 24". It's super clunky.
Psycannon types don't really help. You still need about 20/15 Strikes depending on whether you have Onslaught or not to kill a single bike MODEL and now your rate of return is even worse because Psycannons are MORE expensive. Off of a Dreadknight, it's almost never worth it to take anything besides Storm Bolters/Psilencers.
In short, there is a LOT wrong with the spit-balling you put in this spoiler.
Sure, like I mentioned above I didn't work through all those things, because those things affect other armies, too. Dark Reapers excluded. It's a general idea of power and not all Custodes pack -1 bubble/culexus/etc.
It was a specific Custodes example in a Custodes segment. It also demonstrates how badly a truly competitive list can punish a non-competitive one.
Right, it's a top tier list and it produces top tier results. The Custodes lost that round but they're not doomed to lose it and that's the difference. A Custodes can still win an event where multiples of those lists show up too. The same can't be said of GK's. I also wouldn't call it a skew list. It's just a Mortal Wounds list. That's like calling assault armies skew lists.
That's the thing about vaults vs Custodes. Custodes are pretty much guaranteed to lose, because they don't have nearly the number of wounds needed to survive the MW spam. They have almost no defense for it. That Necron player took a huge victory - 50 to 8.
He did take a huge victory and credit is due to him there, but it wasn't a foregone conclusion. You slam enough Bikes into a Vault in melee and it DOES break (about 3 minimum squads and a Captain should just aboooout do it). The Vault list is DEFINITELY favored, but you can hem it and restrict it enough to win a points game by threatening the Vaults and avoiding them with quick Bikes. It's like a Zerg fighting a Mech Terran in SC2 if you ever played that. There's no Zerg army that efficiently trades with a Mech army, but the Zerg can exploit his mobility advantage. If the Custodes starts packing a Telemon and/or Caladius that changes a lot as well, but this analysis was assuming the Custodes player was not.
That's a lot of chaff to you? It's about 1/8th to 1/10th of what you should expect to see. 10 Infantry are, what, 40 points? You killed about 60 points worth with your 450 points of shooting there. There will be plenty more chaff and you won't have put yourself any closer to charging the artillery by shooting them.
For a particular section of the table, yes. You could off 5 or 6 whole IS squads. The point isn't to come out ahead on points, but to get a positional advantage.\
That's this much chaff:
Spoiler:
I counted the models in that picture circle and I was over 20 before I stopped. You're not even killing 20 let alone more than that. Circle too big.
Plus with Move, Move, Move! and Advancing that gap will get plugged quickly.
One Manticore, let's say Cadian (they're usually Catachan or Cadian, Catachan with a Master of Ordnance is much scarier but Cadian is more common) kills 4.53 Strike models. 3 of them kill 13.59. And they will do this every, single turn. 27.18 wounds by T2. 40.77 by T3. 54.36 by T4 when they're spent.
Err, how? Working backwards:
Manitcore is -2.To get 4.53 dead you need 6.8 wounds. To get 6.8 wounds you from 2s to wound you need ~8.1 hits. To get 8.1 hits from BS4 (ignore reroll 1s for now) you get 16+ shots. How are you getting 16 shots from a 2D6 weapon?
I can't even follow when you write it like this, but feed it into a calculator and look for yourself.
Maybe it's because you're ignoring re-rolls of 1 (Cadians get that on the Manticores by simply not moving, which Manticores never will because they have 240" range and don't need line of sight). When I feed those stats in though, it's 4.56 wounds per 2D6 shots (or 1 Manticore, not 3).
The GK Smite is also only 12" while the Thousand Sons Smite is 24". I hope you enjoy being zoned out by Mortal Wounds fire (and you should really run this analysis against Ahriman and Magnus as well) since the Thousand Sons also move faster than you.
Then, of course, Magnus throws Death Hex on your GMDK and suddenly he doesn't have an invulnerable save.
Brother Captain. If you want to throw Magnus in there TS will have way less MW spam unless they like not having an army. If Magnus is fighting a GMDK he doesn't really need Death Hex unless you have a 3++ up. In either case GK have this nifty trick of rolling 3D6 and pick the 2 highest for denial with a +1 on such occasions.
Yes, because his 6" bubble will absolutely keep the more mobile army with greater access to Fly from simply working around his buff radius. Brother-Captain and his 5" move ain't the solution here.
Magnus himself has the MW output of multiple Psykers and there's a reason most competitive Thousand Sons lists will bring him (and Nick Nanavetti even predicted we'll see an uptick in his use).
This is waaaaay off. The AGC does 7.11 average wounds to Strikes. That wipes a whole 5-man squad and makes a 10-man squad take a serious morale check.
The math is literally right there.
12 shots. BS3. S6. AP2.
Hits on 3s. Wounds on 3s. Save on 5s.
12 * .666 * .666 * .666 = 3.5
And it's wrong. I'm not sure you're actually calculating it right because it looks like they're still saving on 3's from how you wrote that out, but feed it into the calculator and see for yourself:
Are you assuming the AVG only does 1 damage? It does 2. That might be why you're seeing 3.5 instead of 7.11 on your math, but the way you write it out is confusing to me (who only took math for Economics).
Crusaders are widely regarded as the best non-Forgeworld IK right now. You take 3 of them.
That's over 1,700 points, which will be nearly their whole army. And they don't do as much damage as you claim. There is a reason there were no knight lists at the London GT.
I do recognize that GK will have a hard time dealing with tons of high toughness models with few options available.
Yeah there is a good reason: Knight lists aren't good, but even as bad as they are, they'll still manhandle poor GK's. That's the point. I'm not saying IK is competitive, but even in it's bad state it's STILL a league above the GK. That emphasizes how bad GK are right now.
A key difference being that while the GMDK is 'hiding' in reserves he can't actually DO anything. The Baneblade, by contrast, is contributing a significant amount of damage even while hiding. They're not comparable at all. A GMDK MUST expose itself to due useful things.
Fair enough.
I counted the models in that picture circle and I was over 20 before I stopped. You're not even killing 20 let alone more than that. Circle too big.
Draigo, 10 SS, and psybolts kills 20.
Plus with Move, Move, Move! and Advancing that gap will get plugged quickly.
Not in that particular scenario and you can force a lot more down their throat.
I can't even follow when you write it like this, but feed it into a calculator and look for yourself.
Maybe it's because you're ignoring re-rolls of 1 (Cadians get that on the Manticores by simply not moving, which Manticores never will because they have 240" range and don't need line of sight). When I feed those stats in though, it's 4.56 wounds per 2D6 shots (or 1 Manticore, not 3).
I'm not sure what you're putting in, but it shows 3.7 (avg plus std dev).
Spoiler:
Magnus himself has the MW output of multiple Psykers and there's a reason most competitive Thousand Sons lists will bring him (and Nick Nanavetti even predicted we'll see an uptick in his use).
He got an uptick in use, but didn't fair so well. He depends on quite a few variables.
And it's wrong. I'm not sure you're actually calculating it right because it looks like they're still saving on 3's from how you wrote that out, but feed it into the calculator and see for yourself:
Are you assuming the AVG only does 1 damage? It does 2. That might be why you're seeing 3.5 instead of 7.11 on your math, but the way you write it out is confusing to me (who only took math for Economics).
Maybe it's because you're ignoring re-rolls of 1 (Cadians get that on the Manticores by simply not moving, which Manticores never will because they have 240" range and don't need line of sight). When I feed those stats in though, it's 4.56 wounds per 2D6 shots (or 1 Manticore, not 3).
I'm not sure what you're putting in, but it shows 3.7 (avg plus std dev).
Spoiler:
There's your issue. Manticores are 1D3 damage, not 1 damage.
Magnus himself has the MW output of multiple Psykers and there's a reason most competitive Thousand Sons lists will bring him (and Nick Nanavetti even predicted we'll see an uptick in his use).
He got an uptick in use, but didn't fair so well. He depends on quite a few variables.
Absolutely, but he'll still do great at helping Thousand Sons crush GK's.
And it's wrong. I'm not sure you're actually calculating it right because it looks like they're still saving on 3's from how you wrote that out, but feed it into the calculator and see for yourself:
Are you assuming the AVG only does 1 damage? It does 2. That might be why you're seeing 3.5 instead of 7.11 on your math, but the way you write it out is confusing to me (who only took math for Economics).
Stikes have 1 wound each...
Yeah, but the total wounds still matter for saves. If I do 5 1 damages, for example, each Strike only has to make 1 save (5 total) to negate all wounds. Wheras if I do 5 2 damages, each Strike has to make 2 saves to survive (10 total) (effectively), thus worsening each model's odds of survival.
So you still need to put it in to get a clearer idea of what to expect except in scenarios where no save is allowed at all. We'd need somebody like JNA to calculate the more advanced probability from there (if he feels bored).
Yeah, but the total wounds still matter for saves. If I do 5 1 damages, for example, each Strike only has to make 1 save (5 total) to negate all wounds. Wheras if I do 5 2 damages, each Strike has to make 2 saves to survive (10 total) (effectively), thus worsening each model's odds of survival.
There's your problem.
Wound => Armor Save => Damage => FNP
A D3/6/etc weapon does not force extra armor saves.
Yeah, but the total wounds still matter for saves. If I do 5 1 damages, for example, each Strike only has to make 1 save (5 total) to negate all wounds. Wheras if I do 5 2 damages, each Strike has to make 2 saves to survive (10 total) (effectively), thus worsening each model's odds of survival.
There's your problem.
Wound => Armor Save => Damage => FNP
A D3/6/etc weapon does not force extra armor saves.
Yep, brain short on my end where I converted to FNP.
Even with that though the AVG is still obliterating almost an entire Strike Squad per turn as an after thought.
Yep, brain short on my end where I converted to FNP.
Even with that though the AVG is still obliterating almost an entire Strike Squad per turn as an after thought.
Hah. You had me beside myself for a while there. I was thinking I had played the game wrong this whole edition and I had to go crack open the rulebook.
(a) Grey Knights got full smite on all their units.
(b) Hammerhand, Astral Aim, and Gate of Infinity had an affect radius of 3" and would be cast on a spot, so they could buff multiple units
(c) They permanently had psybolt/psychic ammunition as an army trait
They would still suffer from poor mobility and mediocre melee, but at least they'd have the psychic market cornered and have decent medium range dakka.
So without descending into pure maths - what would a vaguely competitive pure GK army look like?
I guess I can accept certain GK units do offer "okay" mathhammer damage (although they seem to be struggling to get above 40% which I think is the new competitive bar).
The real issue is that they offer your opponent incredibly mathhammer damage in response. As a DE player (which is going to be the new hotness) if you ran at me with strike squads, interceptors, regular terminators, purgation squads etc - its happy days. I mean unless I am missing something basic Kabalite warriors get a 38% return against Strike Squads at 24" - becoming an eyewatering 76% in rapid fire range. Throw in a shredder for even more skewed.
A 3 shot Tau Warrior gets a 116% return against strike squads. You pay more points for special weapons on purgation squads? It gets even better.
(a) Grey Knights got full smite on all their units.
Might be a bridge too far - GM, BC, and MSUSS would be under 1,000 for 8 24" smites. Two of those in 2K for a potential 32 mortal wounds. At the very least the characters should have regular smite and I can't fathom why they don't.
(b) Hammerhand, Astral Aim, and Gate of Infinity had an affect radius of 3" and would be cast on a spot, so they could buff multiple units
Maybe the first two.
(c) They permanently had psybolt/psychic ammunition as an army trait
Psychic I could see. It makes the specials better on the move and great standing still and rule of 3 keeps Purgators from being spammed. Having heavy bolters (sort of) on everyone else might be a little nuts though.
Tyel wrote: So without descending into pure maths - what would a vaguely competitive pure GK army look like?
I guess I can accept certain GK units do offer "okay" mathhammer damage (although they seem to be struggling to get above 40% which I think is the new competitive bar).
The real issue is that they offer your opponent incredibly mathhammer damage in response. As a DE player (which is going to be the new hotness) if you ran at me with strike squads, interceptors, regular terminators, purgation squads etc - its happy days. I mean unless I am missing something basic Kabalite warriors get a 38% return against Strike Squads at 24" - becoming an eyewatering 76% in rapid fire range. Throw in a shredder for even more skewed.
A 3 shot Tau Warrior gets a 116% return against strike squads. You pay more points for special weapons on purgation squads? It gets even better.
If i had to play mono-GK (which, essentially, is impossible in a competitive environment as you have no chaff, screens, or ranged anti-tank), it would look like this:
You have a bit of wiggle room. Commit to the all-out-turn-one-assault by flying across the board and gating Draigo between the ravens. Empty their shots to clear as much as you can. Strike squads get out the following turn, as well as incinerators. GMNDK drops in turn 2 as well next to where Ravens move and keep dakka up.
The game is won or lost by the end of 2. Most likely lost.
Yep, brain short on my end where I converted to FNP.
Even with that though the AVG is still obliterating almost an entire Strike Squad per turn as an after thought.
Hah. You had me beside myself for a while there. I was thinking I had played the game wrong this whole edition and I had to go crack open the rulebook.
The argument that any fix to GK just makes them too close to Custodes is totally BS. Custodes are what the GK community asked GW to fix for GK. Custodes are a slap in the face to GK players that took the time to respond to GW’s request for fan feedback going into 8th. Instead of fixing the issues with GK, they just put all the requested fixes into Custodes.
So don’t even dare say fixing GK puts them too close to Custodes, when Custodes ARE fixed GK.
jeffersonian000 wrote: The argument that any fix to GK just makes them too close to Custodes is totally BS. Custodes are what the GK community asked GW to fix for GK. Custodes are a slap in the face to GK players that took the time to respond to GW’s request for fan feedback going into 8th. Instead of fixing the issues with GK, they just put all the requested fixes into Custodes.
So don’t even dare say fixing GK puts them too close to Custodes, when Custodes ARE fixed GK.
SJ
Yup. Take a grandmaster vs shield captain. 162 v 120pts. Shield captain is cheaper and better.
Standard custodes are better versions of our paladins for the same price.
jeffersonian000 wrote: So don’t even dare say fixing GK puts them too close to Custodes, when Custodes ARE fixed GK.
But who actually plays an army of custodes?
Bikes, biker captains, the odd banner to support the bikes sure. But they are about as far from shadowy psychic daemonhunters as you can get and the entire faction is liable to fall flat on its face if/when they are nerfed.
The way I seat, GK should be able to get where custodes are in terms of durability and damage by using psychic powers. Since the grey Knights have to use psychic powers to get there however they're cheaper in point cost than Custodes who are always at that power level.
That way the gray Knights become a kind of intermediary unit. They still match their fluff and being the elite psychic Warriors, but point-wise they are kind of a middle ground between a Space Marine and a custodian.
Audustum wrote: The way I seat, GK should be able to get where custodes are in terms of durability and damage by using psychic powers. Since the grey Knights have to use psychic powers to get there however they're cheaper in point cost than Custodes who are always at that power level.
That way the gray Knights become a kind of intermediary unit. They still match their fluff and being the elite psychic Warriors, but point-wise they are kind of a middle ground between a Space Marine and a custodian.
That sounds pretty good to me. I would think that if the September FAQ doesn't bring anything to the table for GK that players need to start a campaign to get GW's attention.
Audustum wrote: The way I seat, GK should be able to get where custodes are in terms of durability and damage by using psychic powers. Since the grey Knights have to use psychic powers to get there however they're cheaper in point cost than Custodes who are always at that power level.
That way the gray Knights become a kind of intermediary unit. They still match their fluff and being the elite psychic Warriors, but point-wise they are kind of a middle ground between a Space Marine and a custodian.
That sounds pretty good to me. I would think that if the September FAQ doesn't bring anything to the table for GK that players need to start a campaign to get GW's attention.
They've literally asked for feedback. No point in waiting too see if the next FAQ provides some help, send feedback now. They had every intention to "kill Soup" ...but they listened to the wrong people apparently and Soup is just as strong as ever. Too many of the mono-faction codex can't stand up to the all-comers-Soup lists, and GK especially is just trash on its own. Eldar is of course fine for the 3rd edition in a row (just wow), but the point is - send feedback now. The Smite change, while not nearly enough, was a result of feedback.
Daedalus81 wrote: Well, yea I'm assuming people have sent feedback already. I definitely don't see soup going away though.
I don't think anyone really wants it to go away... I love being able to use allies personally, it just should have some penalties and downsides. When you can just pick the best units from several armies and have a top answer for ever phase of the game you already have a huge advantage. And as much as allies are fun, I'd love for my mono-faction army to be viable and competitive on the same level.
I think there should be one or more smaller allied FOCs that can never contain the warlord, and your only able to take 1 of them per list. Something like 1-2 HQ, 0-2 troops/Elies/FA/HS and 1 LoW at the most, maybe smaller. And they would also give fewer CP than normal detachments.
Allying another army into yours can gain you a significant advantage just because the different books can typically complement each other's strengths and weaknesses. When there aren't any downsides to using allies, it's much less of a choice if you want to be competitive. It also must be more difficult to balance one codex if the ones it can ally with must also be considered, while also being fair to the codexes that can't, so the more that's limited the better imo.
jeffersonian000 wrote: The argument that any fix to GK just makes them too close to Custodes is totally BS. Custodes are what the GK community asked GW to fix for GK. Custodes are a slap in the face to GK players that took the time to respond to GW’s request for fan feedback going into 8th. Instead of fixing the issues with GK, they just put all the requested fixes into Custodes.
So don’t even dare say fixing GK puts them too close to Custodes, when Custodes ARE fixed GK.
SJ
Incorrect. Custodes are basically what people who don't know what they're talking about wanted with Grey Knights and/or Terminators.
Custodes exist now, and we need to give those units and the army a different identity.
Martel732 wrote: When was the last time the ACTUAL marine codex was good? What were marines without skyhammer or gladius last edition? Scatterlaser fodder, that's what.
7th. You know this. Everyone knows this. Arguing anything to the contrary for any reason would be an insult to the intelligence of this board.
Now, you can make the argument and distinction between a good codex and strong codex, which can have more nuance, but even then, 7th marines were one of the better internally balanced books, with lots of strong formations and boosts, and were externally very powerful. All elements of a top tier book.
They had two crutch formations, which BA lacked. Without those two crutches, you had BA, who were definitely terrible in 7th.
Most armies were bad without their OP formation in 7th. I sure don't see people talking about how trash Necrons were if you weren't running a Decurion because everyone was running the Decurion.
Talking about 7th armies without taking their formations into account is like talking about 8th armies without taking their chapter tactics and stratagems into account.
Martel732 wrote: When was the last time the ACTUAL marine codex was good? What were marines without skyhammer or gladius last edition? Scatterlaser fodder, that's what.
7th. You know this. Everyone knows this. Arguing anything to the contrary for any reason would be an insult to the intelligence of this board.
Now, you can make the argument and distinction between a good codex and strong codex, which can have more nuance, but even then, 7th marines were one of the better internally balanced books, with lots of strong formations and boosts, and were externally very powerful. All elements of a top tier book.
They had two crutch formations, which BA lacked. Without those two crutches, you had BA, who were definitely terrible in 7th.
BA have been bad for several editions and they only had a brief moment of glory in 5th edition.
GW has WAAAYY over-estimated assault units consistently, pretty much after 3rd edition to the present. Because in-your-face-assault is not "fun" and "friendly" to new players. Which was the metric that GW weighed all of their previous "balance" on... the problem is now, Assault units are still judged on the silly 'smashing beginners' scale while everything else is getting the "competitive' treatment (excluding GK of course).
Mono faction BA got kicked in the junk real hard with the beta-rules because that entire codex is built around 'deep strike and assault' ...but at least they can still function as a generic SM faction with effectively no Chapter-tactic outside of situational use - which still really sucks and doesn't nearly measure up to the current balance - BUT Grey Knights can't even function as a neutered SM faction, GK are pretty much crap as a mono-faction right now.
Martel732 wrote: When was the last time the ACTUAL marine codex was good? What were marines without skyhammer or gladius last edition? Scatterlaser fodder, that's what.
7th. You know this. Everyone knows this. Arguing anything to the contrary for any reason would be an insult to the intelligence of this board.
Now, you can make the argument and distinction between a good codex and strong codex, which can have more nuance, but even then, 7th marines were one of the better internally balanced books, with lots of strong formations and boosts, and were externally very powerful. All elements of a top tier book.
They had two crutch formations, which BA lacked. Without those two crutches, you had BA, who were definitely terrible in 7th.
didn't you also have Cent stars, white scar grav spam and other shot? SM only started relying on formations once everyone else did too, and they got the best formation. Don't act like formation design was unique to the dex, most people had to take formations if they wanted to be competitive, that's why they were so bad
Martel732 wrote: When was the last time the ACTUAL marine codex was good? What were marines without skyhammer or gladius last edition? Scatterlaser fodder, that's what.
7th. You know this. Everyone knows this. Arguing anything to the contrary for any reason would be an insult to the intelligence of this board.
Now, you can make the argument and distinction between a good codex and strong codex, which can have more nuance, but even then, 7th marines were one of the better internally balanced books, with lots of strong formations and boosts, and were externally very powerful. All elements of a top tier book.
They had two crutch formations, which BA lacked. Without those two crutches, you had BA, who were definitely terrible in 7th.
didn't you also have Cent stars, white scar grav spam and other shot? SM only started relying on formations once everyone else did too, and they got the best formation. Don't act like formation design was unique to the dex, most people had to take formations if they wanted to be competitive, that's why they were so bad
Well the Blood Angels didn't at least... and their formations were total garbage.
Martel732 wrote: When was the last time the ACTUAL marine codex was good? What were marines without skyhammer or gladius last edition? Scatterlaser fodder, that's what.
7th. You know this. Everyone knows this. Arguing anything to the contrary for any reason would be an insult to the intelligence of this board.
Now, you can make the argument and distinction between a good codex and strong codex, which can have more nuance, but even then, 7th marines were one of the better internally balanced books, with lots of strong formations and boosts, and were externally very powerful. All elements of a top tier book.
They had two crutch formations, which BA lacked. Without those two crutches, you had BA, who were definitely terrible in 7th.
didn't you also have Cent stars, white scar grav spam and other shot? SM only started relying on formations once everyone else did too, and they got the best formation. Don't act like formation design was unique to the dex, most people had to take formations if they wanted to be competitive, that's why they were so bad
Well the Blood Angels didn't at least... and their formations were total garbage.
He just said BA was SM without the formations. I just mentioned things like White Scar grav spam and Tiggy±Cents and other stuff SM was doing to compete before Gladius, so he's wrong about that statement.
He just said BA was SM without the formations. I just mentioned things like White Scar grav spam and Tiggy±Cents and other stuff SM was doing to compete before Gladius, so he's wrong about that statement.
"Compete" is a strong word for an army that tons of people claim is fine but tournament standings show otherwise.
He just said BA was SM without the formations. I just mentioned things like White Scar grav spam and Tiggy±Cents and other stuff SM was doing to compete before Gladius, so he's wrong about that statement.
"Compete" is a strong word for an army that tons of people claim is fine but tournament standings show otherwise.
You realise we're not talking about this edition right
He just said BA was SM without the formations. I just mentioned things like White Scar grav spam and Tiggy±Cents and other stuff SM was doing to compete before Gladius, so he's wrong about that statement.
"Compete" is a strong word for an army that tons of people claim is fine but tournament standings show otherwise.
You realise we're not talking about this edition right
I'm not doubly wrong. I could beat grav stars and white scar bikers with wily play. Eldar and tau rolled over them. BA very much resembled marines with no formations. Eldar didn't need formations; they had undercosted units.
My point is that the base marine has been a failure for a long time now. Since 5th, imo. And gk now just exemplify the same problems, only worse.
jeffersonian000 wrote: The argument that any fix to GK just makes them too close to Custodes is totally BS. Custodes are what the GK community asked GW to fix for GK. Custodes are a slap in the face to GK players that took the time to respond to GW’s request for fan feedback going into 8th. Instead of fixing the issues with GK, they just put all the requested fixes into Custodes.
So don’t even dare say fixing GK puts them too close to Custodes, when Custodes ARE fixed GK.
SJ
This is precisely why listening to fan feedback is dangerous. Everybody wants their favourite thing to be the most super-duper special bestest thing ever.
GK are not physically superior to other Astartes, nor are they more skilled warriors. They are regular Astartes, with 3 main differences:
- they have a higher standard of equipment, owing to the requirements of their role, small numbers and having their own dedicated Forge World
- they are all psykers, of varying degrees - they are not all Mephiston-esque Alpha+ battle-psykers, but this is their biggest selling point
- they have a huge amount of training in a very specific skill set; they wreck face in dealing with the daemonic, but an Imperial Fist will lay a better siege, an Ultramarine will be more tactically flexible, an Iron Hand would mount a better armoured assault and so on
They also descend from a gene seed with a much higher resistance to corruption.
So no, they should not have triple the Wounds and Attacks of regular Astartes, a standard 2+/4++/6+++ save, use Astartes Captain-level guns as their basic sidearm, higher Strength and Toughness than Astartes nor be more accurate in shooting and combat than other Astartes. Custodes rules are where Custodes should be.
GK should have an Astartes statline, a Storm Bolter and Force Weapon as their standard weaponry, much more ready access to Terminator Armour, access to psychic powers across the board and some anti-Daemon specialty rules. When those psychic powers are inactive, they should be no more dangerous than an Ultramarine with a Storm Bolter and Force Sword. When those powers are active, they should be able to outfight, outshoot, outmanoeuvre and/or outlast that Ultramarine on a 1-1 basis, but still lose to a Custodian on a 1-1 basis. They should be costed higher than Astartes because they have the potential to be more dangerous, but they should not be costed assuming those psychic buffs are always active, since they won’t always be. I know that’s a super difficult balance to achieve but it should be the aim.
I think conceptually GK are fine, just the execution of that concept into rules in 8th Ed is very sub-par. They are costed as if they have constant access to their psychic buffs, rather than sometimes having them, and the core psychic rules prevent them from even attempting to gain those buffs on all their units. Worse, a number of units are overcosted even with the assumption that they have their powers active. Furthermore, the core and beta rules come down really hard on their specialised method of combat - sudden teleport strike.
Beyond that they have another issue - the Marine statline - but that’s not a GK-specific issue, they just show the low efficiency and terrible durability-for-cost more acutely due to their higher individual points investment. Personally I reckon the best way to solve this common issue is to do away with the Primaris distinction entirely and give every Astartes of every stripe the +1 W/A Primaris have, along with a slight points hike. I think this would help solve a lot of GK’s issues, the rest of which could be fixed by giving them a much broader Psychic discipline, a few more Stratagems and a general redo-of their points.
A bit of an ignorant rant. The GK fanbase sent in fixes that would correct problems with TDA in general, which would fix GKTDA units as well. Custodes got those suggestions, not Astartes TDA.
No one wants super Astartes in the form of GK, we just want less gross negligence from GW.
jeffersonian000 wrote: A bit of an ignorant rant. The GK fanbase sent in fixes that would correct problems with TDA in general, which would fix GKTDA units as well. Custodes got those suggestions, not Astartes TDA.
No one wants super Astartes in the form of GK, we just want less gross negligence from GW.
SJ
That... doesn’t seem to be at all what you said in what I quoted above. You didn’t mention TDA/Terminators in that post at all. You said Custodes are what GK players wanted GK to be. That’s very different to saying ‘Custodes are what GK players wanted Terminators to be.’
If that is genuinely what you meant then fine, but it isn’t what you said, which is all I had to respond to.
jeffersonian000 wrote: A bit of an ignorant rant. The GK fanbase sent in fixes that would correct problems with TDA in general, which would fix GKTDA units as well. Custodes got those suggestions, not Astartes TDA.
No one wants super Astartes in the form of GK, we just want less gross negligence from GW.
SJ
That... doesn’t seem to be at all what you said in what I quoted above. You didn’t mention TDA/Terminators in that post at all. You said Custodes are what GK players wanted GK to be. That’s very different to saying ‘Custodes are what GK players wanted Terminators to be.’
If that is genuinely what you meant then fine, but it isn’t what you said, which is all I had to respond to.
I already pointed that out earlier. All Terminators outside the Troop Grey Knights need a WS/BS2+ and then the Troop dudes need a super price cut.
Martel732 wrote: I'm not doubly wrong. I could beat grav stars and white scar bikers with wily play. Eldar and tau rolled over them. BA very much resembled marines with no formations. Eldar didn't need formations; they had undercosted units.
My point is that the base marine has been a failure for a long time now. Since 5th, imo. And gk now just exemplify the same problems, only worse.
Ah so if you aren't as good as 7th ed Eldar, you aren't a real army.
Martel732 wrote: When was the last time the ACTUAL marine codex was good? What were marines without skyhammer or gladius last edition? Scatterlaser fodder, that's what.
7th. You know this. Everyone knows this. Arguing anything to the contrary for any reason would be an insult to the intelligence of this board.
Now, you can make the argument and distinction between a good codex and strong codex, which can have more nuance, but even then, 7th marines were one of the better internally balanced books, with lots of strong formations and boosts, and were externally very powerful. All elements of a top tier book.
They had two crutch formations, which BA lacked. Without those two crutches, you had BA, who were definitely terrible in 7th.
BA have been bad for several editions and they only had a brief moment of glory in 5th edition.
GW has WAAAYY over-estimated assault units consistently, pretty much after 3rd edition to the present. Because in-your-face-assault is not "fun" and "friendly" to new players. Which was the metric that GW weighed all of their previous "balance" on... the problem is now, Assault units are still judged on the silly 'smashing beginners' scale while everything else is getting the "competitive' treatment (excluding GK of course).
Mono faction BA got kicked in the junk real hard with the beta-rules because that entire codex is built around 'deep strike and assault' ...but at least they can still function as a generic SM faction with effectively no Chapter-tactic outside of situational use - which still really sucks and doesn't nearly measure up to the current balance - BUT Grey Knights can't even function as a neutered SM faction, GK are pretty much crap as a mono-faction right now.
I've had a lot of success with charge after deepstrike termie formation in 7th. They were even able to beat a standard eldar scatbike+wk list.
Hollow wrote: Currently, all factions can build lists to beat all other factions. GK can beat all other factions, but it is situational.
And you post this after suggesting that other people's opinions are juvenile and simplistic?
Of course it is possible for every codex to beat every other codex.
That doesn't mean that they are all equal. The GK codex is riddled with flaws that make it a disadvantageous matchup to the overwhelming majority of competitive builds.
If there are vastly more situations where GK are at a disadvantage and vastly fewer where they are at an advantage then clearly it is a problem codex. This isn't something you can shrug off as "situational". Of course it's, situational - that's an incredibly trite and obvious observation.
i met 2 Gk in a row in tournaments, also with my mistakes they cant just handle 60 plaguebearers Magnus+Dp's 18 enlighted and plague drones of Nurgles and tons of mortal wound i almost tabled both of them and i repeat i did many mistakes in both matches, a little more skilled player should table them easily, so for me the codex with the actual play rules aren't so good.
kombatwombat wrote: GK are not physically superior to other Astartes, nor are they more skilled warriors
This is a side-effect of them being turned into a marine style book in 5th.
The old daemonhunters brought a WS of 5, bonuses while using their (pretty limited) specialist equipment and psychic defensive/mobility abilities related to their dismounted infantry playstyle. They weren't particularly good, but had a lot more scope for being expanded into something unique.
Martel732 wrote: When was the last time the ACTUAL marine codex was good? What were marines without skyhammer or gladius last edition? Scatterlaser fodder, that's what.
7th. You know this. Everyone knows this. Arguing anything to the contrary for any reason would be an insult to the intelligence of this board.
Now, you can make the argument and distinction between a good codex and strong codex, which can have more nuance, but even then, 7th marines were one of the better internally balanced books, with lots of strong formations and boosts, and were externally very powerful. All elements of a top tier book.
They had two crutch formations, which BA lacked. Without those two crutches, you had BA, who were definitely terrible in 7th.
I'm gonna let you go ahead and read what you originally posted, which made zero references to BA.
Then I'm gonna let the ridiculousness of your argument sink in when you claim codex A is garbage because it relied on one or two overpowered elements, but it is somehow terrible to codex B because it relies on a different overpowered element.
If you wanted to bitch about BA again, you should have made that clear, but your original post was entirely and specifically about the 'ACTUAL marine codex', which was, without a doubt a good book, and I'd argue it was top tier throughout the edition.
Martel732 wrote: When was the last time the ACTUAL marine codex was good? What were marines without skyhammer or gladius last edition? Scatterlaser fodder, that's what.
7th. You know this. Everyone knows this. Arguing anything to the contrary for any reason would be an insult to the intelligence of this board.
Now, you can make the argument and distinction between a good codex and strong codex, which can have more nuance, but even then, 7th marines were one of the better internally balanced books, with lots of strong formations and boosts, and were externally very powerful. All elements of a top tier book.
They had two crutch formations, which BA lacked. Without those two crutches, you had BA, who were definitely terrible in 7th.
I'm gonna let you go ahead and read what you originally posted, which made zero references to BA.
Then I'm gonna let the ridiculousness of your argument sink in when you claim codex A is garbage because it relied on one or two overpowered elements, but it is somehow terrible to codex B because it relies on a different overpowered element.
If you wanted to bitch about BA again, you should have made that clear, but your original post was entirely and specifically about the 'ACTUAL marine codex', which was, without a doubt a good book, and I'd argue it was top tier throughout the edition.
Oh it was a good codex only in the same way the Tyranid 6th Edition was a good codex. It could win tournaments but nobody should be saying it's good. It was codex: Flyrant, Mawloc, and Spores.
As GK players and as GK communities, we sent TONS of feedback, but without results. And we didn't ask for OP stuff, only some points adjustment, and some rules to face some of our problems (no CP from non detachment source, no antitank, etc) and grant us access to librarius discipline (like TS). Stuff like this.
Moreover in september FAQ we will not get anything, because Cruddace said that GK will have points drop and some other changes in this year CA.
ANyway, I can agree that GK should have marines statline, but the price must be comparative. and I can't understand how is it possible that every single point change made on SM stuff will hit us harder while some of our weapons or units (TLPHC and tech marines) cost more than the SM ones.
Didn't we just have a 10-page thread that kept going on about how SM were trash in 7th and never did well in 7th, despite links to them placing in 7th?
The denial of SM ever having been good won't ever go away. Doesn't matter that they were topping tournaments most of the edition, even before they got a codex. It's not how it gets remembered.
The SM codex was completely unlike Codex:Flyrant, which had one super good choice, and a couple other decent ones. In one edition, there were times the top list was:
-Tac Spam (6e codex)
-GravCents
-GravBikes
-Scout Spam (didn't last very long)
-SuperFriends
-Gladius
-Skyhammer
It might be more gimmicky than we would have liked, but it was certainly not a 1-trick pony.
Yeah, if you look at 7th as a whole, and not what it ultimately became. That's part of the problem here in 8th.
You could look at marines and say "Stormraven Spam" made marines viable in 8th. That's not an untrue statement. But it's also meaningless to the current state of balance, which is what is being discussed.
Leo_the_Rat wrote: I have a redeemer that doesn't get used anymore. It would be great if the flamers could fire in overwatch regardless of how far the enemy started and would be even more fun if they could be fired into melee if the user is the only friendly model involved (please note that I used "model" not "unit").
My regular land raider hasn't been used in months... it just can't compete with IGAT spam etc.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
fraser1191 wrote: People are to obsessed with ghosts of the past to actually discuss the present
I totally agree. However as a SM player, I always had the feeling I could "have chances and in any case lose but with honor. For me, that has been lost recently and now it's just trying and trying with no success. As you've said, there was a big discussion about this a few days ago, but marines are in very bad shape, and it's all because of the Primaris releases. Get them their own codex and make good ol' marines great again!
Moreover in september FAQ we will not get anything, because Cruddace said that GK will have points drop and some other changes in this year CA.
What's the source on that?
this was posted on B&C:
However, if anyone was watching the Warhammer TV stream on Day 1, Robin Cruddace (lead rules writer for 40k) was commentating on one of the games and specifically asked about the GK codex. He said that there will be a comprehensive review of the first few codexes with Chapter Approved this year and admitted GKs needed to be looked at. So likely nothing in September FAQ, but perhaps serious pts adjustments or more in CA.
It's less ghosts of the past, and more about how can we have a productive discussion about the future when arguments are constructed on falsehoods about the past.
How can we seriously debate what the role of a PAGK should be, when doing so requires considering when a Tac Marine has been good, and what it's been good at, if people can't admit they were ever good?
How can we take the consistency and strength of the complaints about a faction seriously, when they're just as consistent and strong as when they were top dog?
I'm not arguing that Tacs are currently not bad, or that GK aren't currently one of the worst codexes. But how do we discuss where they should be when we can't agree whether water was wet or 2+2 was 5?
Bharring wrote: It's less ghosts of the past, and more about how can we have a productive discussion about the future when arguments are constructed on falsehoods about the past.
How can we seriously debate what the role of a PAGK should be, when doing so requires considering when a Tac Marine has been good, and what it's been good at, if people can't admit they were ever good?
How can we take the consistency and strength of the complaints about a faction seriously, when they're just as consistent and strong as when they were top dog?
I'm not arguing that Tacs are currently not bad, or that GK aren't currently one of the worst codexes. But how do we discuss where they should be when we can't agree whether water was wet or 2+2 was 5?
You keep saying Tac spam was a 6th edition tactic, but it hardly ever won is the point. You're clinging to a couple of showings to really show your support.
7th, not 6th. And when I look up early 7th tourny results, I see plenty of Tac spam winning.
Granted, 3 of the 5 SM in the top 10 of the first tourny looked up being Tac Spam gets dismissed as being Gladius (before it came out) or White Scar Bikers (despite no bikes) or Grav Cents (despite no cents) or whatever. So I'm not sure why I bother.
The point is that the strength and conviction of the complaint doesn't necessarily yield authority.
Things like "We sent GW what GK should have, and they gave it to Custodes". Some GK players probably wanted that, but many players (GK and otherwise) want PAGK to be better-equipped-and-psker-capable Marines.
If you gave any faction what it's fanboys say it should have, it'd be OP. Even GK could be pushed up to that level (they have been before, but that was a long time ago).
The point is that all the overstatement and conviction aren't adding so much to the "Are GK bad" discussion. They are. That isn't really debated. Instead of going overboard on *how* bad they are, perhaps reinforce your understanding of how bad they are or where their strengths lie?
Martel732 wrote: When was the last time the ACTUAL marine codex was good? What were marines without skyhammer or gladius last edition? Scatterlaser fodder, that's what.
7th. You know this. Everyone knows this. Arguing anything to the contrary for any reason would be an insult to the intelligence of this board.
Now, you can make the argument and distinction between a good codex and strong codex, which can have more nuance, but even then, 7th marines were one of the better internally balanced books, with lots of strong formations and boosts, and were externally very powerful. All elements of a top tier book.
They had two crutch formations, which BA lacked. Without those two crutches, you had BA, who were definitely terrible in 7th.
I'm gonna let you go ahead and read what you originally posted, which made zero references to BA.
Then I'm gonna let the ridiculousness of your argument sink in when you claim codex A is garbage because it relied on one or two overpowered elements, but it is somehow terrible to codex B because it relies on a different overpowered element.
If you wanted to bitch about BA again, you should have made that clear, but your original post was entirely and specifically about the 'ACTUAL marine codex', which was, without a doubt a good book, and I'd argue it was top tier throughout the edition.
Oh it was a good codex only in the same way the Tyranid 6th Edition was a good codex. It could win tournaments but nobody should be saying it's good. It was codex: Flyrant, Mawloc, and Spores.
That wasn't even the most prominent list in 6th.
Then the army you are comparing it to had like 6 viable builds before Gladius either.
This is just the worst comparison to make, its wrong about everything lol
I don't think it matters how good any army was in 7th. That was an entirely different beast and it's gone now. GK could have been army #1 in 7th and it should have no influence on this conversation.
GW needs to go over every marine based unit with a fine tooth comb and ask "What is this unit actually good at?" "What about this unit is exciting and unique?" "How many different ways can this unit be used?" "Is this unit costed appropriately for how effective it is?" "What abilities can we give this unit that reflect the way we think it should feel to play?"
So many marine units are simply boring and lacking flavor. Almost none of them have any kind of special ability or interaction with other units. I get that they are kind of the standard which all other units are designed from, but so many fundamental things changed in 8th and they mostly stayed the same, and in some cases lost abilities they have had for a long time without anything notable gained to replace them.
I think it is entirely relevant to discuss Tactical Marines, because a large chunk of Grey Knights’ problems stem from their being Tactical Marines +1. The problems inherent in Tacs are magnified in GK because of their even higher individual point costs. If you solved the problems with Marines as a general concept, you’d go a long way to fixing GK and would just need some further tweaks for GK to catch up.
I don’t think Tacs were fine in the last couple of editions, even in 7th Ed when Marines had a very strong Codex. I think this is actually shown best by Assault Squads. Assault Marines are just Tactical Marines kitted out for combat instead of shooting, but for less than the cost of a Drop Pod last edition an entire 10-man squad got Deep Strike, plus double the movement speed, the ability to ignore obstacles and Hammer of Wrath. To me that sounds like the deal of the century. If it weren’t for Tacticals getting access to heavy weapons I’d argue that Assault Marines are Tacs+1, but they were probably at least as good as Tacs.
Yet in 7th Ed - and for a lot longer before - Assault Squads have been terrible, to the point of being the go-to example of a terrible unit. They just weren’t tough enough, didn’t hit hard enough and weren’t worth the points investment - doubly so if you started playing with upgrades. Seeing as Tacs weren’t massively better than Assault Squads, I don’t think it’s fair to say that Tacs were particularly good.
As I’ve harped on about many times, I think just giving all Marines the +1 W/A of Primaris - and giving all their standard Bolt weapons/chainswords/combat knives -1 AP like Bolt Rifles - and jacking them up to around 17-18ish points a model would fix the bulk of the problems with the Marine statline. Then from there your Strike Squads would be another two points for having a (-1 AP) Storm Bolter, another 4ish points for a Force Weapon (which would now have 2 attacks base) like they pay now, and a handful of points for Psykeriness. So you’d end up with a say 25pt model with 2 wounds, a Rapid Fire 2 AP-1 shooting weapon, 2 Attacks with a Force Weapon and psychic powers of some description. Not a bad deal IMO.
kombatwombat wrote: If it weren’t for Tacticals getting access to heavy weapons...
And being a troops choice, which is applicable for GK troops choices as well.
It is the case for the marine books, and a few other factions as well (sisters for instance), that the troops choice is an obsec but otherwise poorly equipped/skilled variant of the elite unit.
So while that design policy is in effect the GK strikes and terminators should really be looked at through the lens of 'deliberately weaker due to obsec/detachment bonuses', with the specialist units like interceptors being the step up.
kombatwombat wrote: I think it is entirely relevant to discuss Tactical Marines, because a large chunk of Grey Knights’ problems stem from their being Tactical Marines +1. The problems inherent in Tacs are magnified in GK because of their even higher individual point costs. If you solved the problems with Marines as a general concept, you’d go a long way to fixing GK and would just need some further tweaks for GK to catch up.
I don’t think Tacs were fine in the last couple of editions, even in 7th Ed when Marines had a very strong Codex. I think this is actually shown best by Assault Squads. Assault Marines are just Tactical Marines kitted out for combat instead of shooting, but for less than the cost of a Drop Pod last edition an entire 10-man squad got Deep Strike, plus double the movement speed, the ability to ignore obstacles and Hammer of Wrath. To me that sounds like the deal of the century. If it weren’t for Tacticals getting access to heavy weapons I’d argue that Assault Marines are Tacs+1, but they were probably at least as good as Tacs.
Yet in 7th Ed - and for a lot longer before - Assault Squads have been terrible, to the point of being the go-to example of a terrible unit. They just weren’t tough enough, didn’t hit hard enough and weren’t worth the points investment - doubly so if you started playing with upgrades. Seeing as Tacs weren’t massively better than Assault Squads, I don’t think it’s fair to say that Tacs were particularly good.
As I’ve harped on about many times, I think just giving all Marines the +1 W/A of Primaris - and giving all their standard Bolt weapons/chainswords/combat knives -1 AP like Bolt Rifles - and jacking them up to around 17-18ish points a model would fix the bulk of the problems with the Marine statline. Then from there your Strike Squads would be another two points for having a (-1 AP) Storm Bolter, another 4ish points for a Force Weapon (which would now have 2 attacks base) like they pay now, and a handful of points for Psykeriness. So you’d end up with a say 25pt model with 2 wounds, a Rapid Fire 2 AP-1 shooting weapon, 2 Attacks with a Force Weapon and psychic powers of some description. Not a bad deal IMO.
What you just described and scown 41 point Grey Knight Terminator, only our GKT does not have the bonus to AP and WS. Which is why there’s a complaint.
kombatwombat wrote: ... another two points for having a (-1 AP) Storm Bolter, another 4ish points for a Force Weapon...
Really it comes down at this point to how much of an arbitrary discount you put on their equipment - since those two weapons would be twice that cost as upgrades anywhere else.
Okay, I'm going to suggest a different approach. Let's try fixing one problem at a time.
I think we can agree that one of the issues faced by GKs is that even their basic troops have psychic powers and a ton of equipment that raises their cost but which they struggle to get good value out of.
So, here's my suggestion: what if we limit psychic powers and force weapons only to certain models in the book?
I mean, if we consider the 3rd edition daemonhunters codex, all GKs used 'Nemesis Force Weapons'. However, in spite of their name, only the ones wielded by a Grand Master were actually Force Weapons. The ones used by basic GK troops were just basic melee weapons that granted +2S (they didn't even ignore armour saves). And the ones wielded by GK sergeants, terminators and Brother Captains were Power Weapons with +2S (but still not Force Weapons).
Nor was every GK a psyker - this was limited to HQs and Terminators. None of the non-terminator infantry had Psychic abilities.
Now, I'm not saying we have to go back to this exactly (especially with there being a greater variety of GK units than there were back then), but might this not be a more sensible place to start? For example, if we made the Strike Squads more basic - removing their Psychic Ability and tweaking their weapons (removing the Force Weapon component and maybe making them a little weaker in terms of S and/or AP) - then we could lower their cost and give them a much better focus on shooting.
The other squads could start off the same, but then have stuff added back relevant to their role. e.g. Purgation squads could have psychic ability but still use the basic weapons (as above), Interceptor squads could have better melee weapons but no psychic ability, purifiers could have both psychic ability and full-strength weapons (though perhaps not Force weapons still), or they could simply be a different flavour of Psyker to the Purgation squads.
Ideally this would retain the feel and aesthetic of GKs, but making the different squads cheaper and more specialised.
(I know I haven't got to terminators/HQs yet, but I thought I'd see what people's thoughts are so far.)
A brother captain is 152 points. A daemon prince with talons is 156. A captain in terminator armor is 105. This guy can cast a single spell so I don't think he should be more than 120 or so.
An assault marine is 16 points. Interceptors are 26 with force weapons. If a force weapon is 8, typically then Interceptors 2 points for being psychic, which isn't bad. Then again assault marines are generally not the greatest and there is no way they're getting the same use out of that force weapon than a character that has many more attacks. They should pay 5 on non-characters (so still more than a power weapon) and maybe lose 1 or 2 for the assault marine paradox. That gets them to 22.
An UM terminator librarian is 143 (which is still a bit high or DPs are too low). The GK librarian is 157. The GK lib is BS2/WS2, but has crap smite. If you want to keep the price then at least give him full smite.
Psycannons are decent, but hard to use. They should be 30 or 36" at least.
GK Terminators suffer from full priced force weapons, too. Strike Squads, are good, however, because they don't. 13 for a regular marine. 19 for SS with psychic abilities and FW at a 6 point difference means they're paying 4 or 5 for it. Drop terminators by 4 points. Then drop them again for the "terminator problem" or make terminators more durable (or your choice of fix).
Price cuts for many GK units would help them get more stuff on the table. Give them Librarius and some big smites and they might be good to go.
TheFleshIsWeak wrote: Okay, I'm going to suggest a different approach. Let's try fixing one problem at a time.
I think we can agree that one of the issues faced by GKs is that even their basic troops have psychic powers and a ton of equipment that raises their cost but which they struggle to get good value out of.
So, here's my suggestion: what if we limit psychic powers and force weapons only to certain models in the book?
I mean, if we consider the 3rd edition daemonhunters codex, all GKs used 'Nemesis Force Weapons'. However, in spite of their name, only the ones wielded by a Grand Master were actually Force Weapons. The ones used by basic GK troops were just basic melee weapons that granted +2S (they didn't even ignore armour saves). And the ones wielded by GK sergeants, terminators and Brother Captains were Power Weapons with +2S (but still not Force Weapons).
Nor was every GK a psyker - this was limited to HQs and Terminators. None of the non-terminator infantry had Psychic abilities.
Now, I'm not saying we have to go back to this exactly (especially with there being a greater variety of GK units than there were back then), but might this not be a more sensible place to start? For example, if we made the Strike Squads more basic - removing their Psychic Ability and tweaking their weapons (removing the Force Weapon component and maybe making them a little weaker in terms of S and/or AP) - then we could lower their cost and give them a much better focus on shooting.
The other squads could start off the same, but then have stuff added back relevant to their role. e.g. Purgation squads could have psychic ability but still use the basic weapons (as above), Interceptor squads could have better melee weapons but no psychic ability, purifiers could have both psychic ability and full-strength weapons (though perhaps not Force weapons still), or they could simply be a different flavour of Psyker to the Purgation squads.
Ideally this would retain the feel and aesthetic of GKs, but making the different squads cheaper and more specialised.
(I know I haven't got to terminators/HQs yet, but I thought I'd see what people's thoughts are so far.)
So, any thoughts?
I know what GK used to be, but the lore is changed from 3rd edition, and the fact that the sprue have force weapons made impossible come back.
Moreover, I don't think that made GK like tactical marines will improve GKs.
The problem is that GK are overpriced, and force weapons are overpriced on regular marines. Moreover all GK units don't have different roles.
I think that starting from this
Price cuts for many GK units would help them get more stuff on the table. Give them Librarius and some big smites and they might be good to go.
could be great.
Maybe it could be useful made Psycannon S8 D2 or 36" or something like this.
kombatwombat wrote: If it weren’t for Tacticals getting access to heavy weapons...
And being a troops choice, which is applicable for GK troops choices as well.
It is the case for the marine books, and a few other factions as well (sisters for instance), that the troops choice is an obsec but otherwise poorly equipped/skilled variant of the elite unit.
So while that design policy is in effect the GK strikes and terminators should really be looked at through the lens of 'deliberately weaker due to obsec/detachment bonuses', with the specialist units like interceptors being the step up.
Well part of the issue is that the specialist units usually get nothing other than a few more weapon options. Marine devastators are one of the few with a special ability of any kind, and then GW seems to have lost all imagination.
For GK, each squad is slightly different, but in fairly useless ways if the core of what a grey knight is (SB and Force weapon) is over priced. Strikes can deepstrike, interceptors have shunt packs, purifiers have 1 extra special weapon and a better smite, and purgation get 4 specials. While these are different, and have more variety than SM at least, I don't think I'd call them steps up. They are more like weird side upgrades.
I'd say that's probably the bare minimum of inventiveness when it comes to making those units interesting. But the fact that they are all based off a unit with low effectiveness and high cost makes them all suffer.
To me, the issues with GK are the most obvious when you look at the state of the game when they were released in 5th, and how they have changed since then. In that time, they have gained very little and lost much.
Like others have also mentioned, the marine stateline is no longer as durable as it once was, and transports have greatly increased in cost. These two factors (Marines dropping like flies and not having anywhere to hide) greatly reduce marine effectiveness. It is like GW has PTSD from when they everyone free transports in 7th and never wants to see a rhino again.
The 2 wound variants of Marines (bikes, primaris, terminators, etc) have increased durability vs basic 1d weapons, but they are so expensive that it's hard to take more of them than the enemy has 2d weapons, so this durability is frequently negated.
Marine non flying vehicles (predators, razorbacks, etc) are easily locked in combat to have their shooting negated. This wouldn't be so bad if other armies didn't have cheap vehicles with fly, that can move>shoot>charge>fall back>shoot to lock them up with relative impunity. The only realist counter to this is cheap bubblewrap, which Marines have none of.
Marines are also terrible is assault. Going from 11 attacks on the charge to 6 is a giant nerf with nothing given in return.
Back to GK, I think it's useful to look at how the codex was originally designed. Their psychic powers like hammer hand and activate force weapons were previously usable per unit, which made them much more formidable in close combat, and more flexible. Their special ammo made certain weapons much more effective (HB razorbacks and rifle dreads in particular). Their special weapons (or at least the psycannon) were actually formidable. They also had a series of cheaper units in the inquisitional henchmen to provide board presence, bodies, and additional firepower. 5-10 henchmen with storm bolters in a Chimera (which had for points) was a power addition to a GK list. None of these things apply to GK anymore, and you can go deeper by looking at specific units to see just how out limited and it off touch the GK book has become
Purifiers, for example. They have no mobility abilities, can take two special weapons, and had a power that was scary in close contact, especially against hordes. Their clear use was too stick them in a rhino, where they would shoot their two guns at things until they were close enough to get into combat. Now that Rhinos cost x3 and don't have fire points, they no longer have more than 6 attacks on the charge, and their powers are no longer as good, the unit just isn't viable. This goes on and on for many marine units to one degree or another.
And, one the one hand these changes aren't necessarily the problem. If the GW designers looked at 7th and thought rhino rush style armies were not fun and therefore not good for the game, that is a fair opinion to have (I think most people are that free transports was not the best) and doing something to minimize that playstyle is perfectly reasonable. And that is certainly what they did.
What they seem to not have done was actually look at the marine units with 8th edition in mind, and adjust them in a way that made them viable. Some of this is understandable as Space Marines were the first books released and likely the first designed, and the index versions of most factions were considerably toned down from their codex versions that released 6mo to a year into the edition. But they also made some choices that seem to be objectively bad ones. Roboute's aura is simply too effective, to the point that almost no price increase is enough, and isn't fun to play with it against because of how much incentive there is to just clump the best shooting units around him. The "fix" to this has been too hike up the price of him and any unit people brought with him, which in turn nerfs those units for all factions, such as GK. Drop pods cost way to much, plain and simple. Most special and heavy weapons are not very effective at what they are supposed to be good at. Most chapter tactics perform more poorly than is likely intended, and are arbitrarily forbidden to vehicles. Many strategems are strangely ineffective.
The only even potentially viable SM/BA/GK/DA lists are gimmicky ones that I would argue are not fun and are therefore not good for the game. Things like 12+ infiltrating RG aggressors or reroll aura parking lots. Other than that most books are lucky to have 1-2 units worth taking as allies to IG (like how most BA lists are just scouts+captain smash+Lemartes with DC sometimes thrown in) and/or the best units cherry picked from another book (like custodes).
Rhinos are rarely effective, because there are very few units really deadly enough that it is worth spending so much to protect. The main exception to this seems to be chaos Berserkers, who actually are deadly enough. The majority of other units you'd normally want to transport just don't pack enough punch when they show up but also aren't durable enough to footslog, so they become infective units unless they have other better ways to show up, such as the deathwatch do with their deepstrike abilities. The removal of fire points is especially frustrating because many SM units are designed around that (i don't think it's a coincidence that Tacs, Assault squads, Purifiers etc all have 2 guns worth shooting and rhinos had two fire points), and other armies still have open topped (DE being the main offender, with transports that laugh at rhinos in about 6 different ways: speed, cost, guns, fire points, strats, and fall back) so it doesn't seem to be something GW doesn't want in the game at all, just not in SM armies.
This forces SM armies to be mostly footslogging infantry backed up by vehicles, many of which are easily locked in combat. This would be okay if this play style was actually any good, but in general it is not, mostly due to low durability and mobility. Plus I think a lot of people find it boring compared to what Marines have been in the past.
I think the following issues need to be addressed:
1. Marines need to be more durable, especially vs high rate of fire weapons with -1 AP. There are a number of ways to improve this, but I think my favorite would be to have all power armor units (not terminators or cents, but yes to bikes and primaris) reduce the AP of incoming damage by 1 vs 1d weapons. This makes them die just as easily to AP0, keeps cover as a relevant bonus, but makes them last longer against things like assault cannons and heavy bolters, but anything that actually packs damage still kills them pretty easily.
2. Marines need to be better in close combat. I think the easiest way to fix this is to give them all +1 attack (perhaps not to the characters).
2. Terminators need to be more durable against D2 weapons. I think the easiest way to fix this is to make Terminator armor reduce incoming damage by 1 to a minimum of 1. This targetedly reduces the effectiveness of D2 weapons, makes 1d3 D more relevant, and doesn't effect 1d or 3+d weapons.
3. Rhinos either need to be cheaper or have fire points back. Maybe both.
4. Non flying vehicles should not be so easy to shut down by locking them into combat. I think a good fix would be to simply have all vehicles be able to fall back and shoot, and let the mobility of flying vehicles be their main unique advantage. Having to move at all reduces most vehicles shooting abilities, so it's not like locking them in combat does nothing.
5. GK should have minor self buff powers that present them with a tool kit of sorts, and allow them to tailor their effectiveness to what they are fighting as the battle goes on, and these should not be effected by the normal 1 casting of a power per turn rule.
6. Units and weapons should be looked at again and adjusted so that they all have a useful role in this edition. Just because a unit has already been a certain way is not an excuse for mediocrity. Strike squads, Tacs, etc, don't have to be the best unit in the game, but they should be good at what they do for the points they cost, and so should every other unit in the game. GW should look at every gun, unit, and psychic power in the game and ask themselves questions like "what is cool about this?" "What is this thing good at?" "What role does this fill for it's faction?" "What makes this thing better or different at what it specifically does than the other options available to this or other factions?" "What would make this someone's favorite unit/weapon/power/army theme to play with or against?" "How does this unit stand out from and interact with other units?" And so on. Something like the GK incinerator never being picked, or IG units never taking grenade launchers, or SM grav being a worse version of plasma, or option x being cool and someones favorite unit but sadly just not as good a choice as option y so you either take it any way and suffer or take the good unit, are all actual and serious problems that deserve attention. So are things like assault Marines being terrible at assault and everything. Or interceptors not actually being effective enough with only 1 special weapon and 5 force wep attacks to actually want to shunt close to a target. Or flamers being bad at killing infantry but okay against fliers.
7. Force multiplier auras should be removed, since they encourage units to clump together for the buffs, and it's harder to calculate their value. I think the simple fix it to make them more like IG orders, with a limited number of units they can effect, and have any actual auras only do things that are not related to offensive ability such as increase Ld, give charge or advance rerolls, and so on.
8. Negative modifiers to hit need to go away. They are just too good at what they do, and overshadow nearly every other defensive buff in the game.
9. Ignore cover abilities should be rare, especially on weapons with high AP or long range. Cover effects the durability of different units in different ways (generally the better the save, the better cover is for you) so some units and armies depend on it more than others, making the ignore cover abilities either very strong or mostly useless.
10. Points should be adjusted accordingly. Points are important, and technically it should be possible to make no rules changes and still balance the game only through points changes. However, I think it would be better to change things first, making units, weapons, and playstyles effective, fun, and viable first, then change the points.
I realize that I am working off of an ideal that there could be a certain version of this game that has all factions fairly equal and all units be worth taking and being excited about, and that may not be entirely possible, but I do think it's worth trying to move towards and talk about.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: This is why most of you guys shouldn't be Rules Development people.
Oh I'm sure I'm wrong about a lot of stuff. Playtesting and other people's input would be only way to make sure everything worked and whatnot. It's possible some ideas would work and others would be too good, etc. All I know is that right now there are a lot of problems, and these are just some ideas how to fix them.
I'd be interested in what you think more specifically about what I said, though, lol.
I think the following issues need to be addressed:
1. Marines need to be more durable, especially vs high rate of fire weapons with -1 AP. There are a number of ways to improve this, but I think my favorite would be to have all power armor units (not terminators or cents, but yes to bikes and primaris) reduce the AP of incoming damage by 1 vs 1d weapons. This makes them die just as easily to AP0, keeps cover as a relevant bonus, but makes them last longer against things like assault cannons and heavy bolters, but anything that actually packs damage still kills them pretty easily.
2. Marines need to be better in close combat. I think the easiest way to fix this is to give them all +1 attack (perhaps not to the characters).
2. Terminators need to be more durable against D2 weapons. I think the easiest way to fix this is to make Terminator armor reduce incoming damage by 1 to a minimum of 1. This targetedly reduces the effectiveness of D2 weapons, makes 1d3 D more relevant, and doesn't effect 1d or 3+d weapons.
3. Rhinos either need to be cheaper or have fire points back. Maybe both.
4. Non flying vehicles should not be so easy to shut down by locking them into combat. I think a good fix would be to simply have all vehicles be able to fall back and shoot, and let the mobility of flying vehicles be their main unique advantage. Having to move at all reduces most vehicles shooting abilities, so it's not like locking them in combat does nothing.
5. GK should have minor self buff powers that present them with a tool kit of sorts, and allow them to tailor their effectiveness to what they are fighting as the battle goes on, and these should not be effected by the normal 1 casting of a power per turn rule.
6. Units and weapons should be looked at again and adjusted so that they all have a useful role in this edition. Just because a unit has already been a certain way is not an excuse for mediocrity. Strike squads, Tacs, etc, don't have to be the best unit in the game, but they should be good at what they do for the points they cost, and so should every other unit in the game. GW should look at every gun, unit, and psychic power in the game and ask themselves questions like "what is cool about this?" "What is this thing good at?" "What role does this fill for it's faction?" "What makes this thing better or different at what it specifically does than the other options available to this or other factions?" "What would make this someone's favorite unit/weapon/power/army theme to play with or against?" "How does this unit stand out from and interact with other units?" And so on. Something like the GK incinerator never being picked, or IG units never taking grenade launchers, or SM grav being a worse version of plasma, or option x being cool and someones favorite unit but sadly just not as good a choice as option y so you either take it any way and suffer or take the good unit, are all actual and serious problems that deserve attention. So are things like assault Marines being terrible at assault and everything. Or interceptors not actually being effective enough with only 1 special weapon and 5 force wep attacks to actually want to shunt close to a target. Or flamers being bad at killing infantry but okay against fliers.
7. Force multiplier auras should be removed, since they encourage units to clump together for the buffs, and it's harder to calculate their value. I think the simple fix it to make them more like IG orders, with a limited number of units they can effect, and have any actual auras only do things that are not related to offensive ability such as increase Ld, give charge or advance rerolls, and so on.
8. Negative modifiers to hit need to go away. They are just too good at what they do, and overshadow nearly every other defensive buff in the game.
9. Ignore cover abilities should be rare, especially on weapons with high AP or long range. Cover effects the durability of different units in different ways (generally the better the save, the better cover is for you) so some units and armies depend on it more than others, making the ignore cover abilities either very strong or mostly useless.
10. Points should be adjusted accordingly. Points are important, and technically it should be possible to make no rules changes and still balance the game only through points changes. However, I think it would be better to change things first, making units, weapons, and playstyles effective, fun, and viable first, then change the points.
I agree with most of what you said in your post, I specially like your ideas for improving power armor and terminators. Bolter type weapons should sadly stay the way they are, just change grav and melee etc. The main problem when looking at the marines poor performance is Primaris; there was a recent post about this so I won't go further with this, just keep it in mind when discussing possible fixes.
About the Rhinos, they really need that buff. I mostly run Tacticals in Rhinos plus a single rhino/razorback with a captain, Lieutenant, and Ancient, and they can't withstand a single round of shooting against any decent gunline. If they gave them the fire ports back, a 1st turn Rhino push, supported with some long range shooting and/or Dreads could be viable.
I'm not so sure about the vehicles bit. As discussed a few says ago, flyers and ground vehicles need a change, but allowing all of them to shoot when falling back is not the way. Maybe on 6's or with a -1 and passing a moral check; that way vehicle's Ld would be relevant.
GK would need their cc and psk rules buffed plus the universal marine changes, for a proper cost in points. I'm not very knowledgeable on GK codex history, but maybe the benefits for going against deamons could be revised.
Some core rules must be changed too; mainly cover, LoS and negative modifiers, as you suggest. Yesterday I played a Bolt Action game (my fifth game, against a veteran player), and I had so much fun, maybe one of the best tabletop games I've played. I'm sure people have talked about the great Bolt Action rulebook vs 40k many times, and it's clear many rules are very interesting, but 40k is different so it shouldn't be directly applied. However, I really liked the LoS and cover rules. Do you want to check LoS? Take a laser and see where it goes through. 0 issues with modelling for advantage or the terrain. Something blocks LoS because it is X type of terrain and occuppies this space. End of the argument. Having real LoS in 40k is just stupid, even for 8th edition arcade rules.
I definitely think that my "vehicles should be able to fall back and shoot" hypothesis is the weakest one I suggested. However, I think they should be able to do SOMETHING, especially when other armies have flying tanks that don't seem to pay a ton for flying and are insanely better due to having it. Things like DE or Harly transports ramming into tank gun lines to silence them does seem like a real issue.
-1 for vehicles, or some kind of nerf to flying vehicles ability to do so, or perhaps some kind of tank shock option, or some other solution could be better.
Oh I'm sure I'm wrong about a lot of stuff. Playtesting and other people's input would be only way to make sure everything worked and whatnot. It's possible some ideas would work and others would be too good, etc. All I know is that right now there are a lot of problems, and these are just some ideas how to fix them.
I'd be interested in what you think more specifically about what I said, though, lol.
Yeah, people are not Supreme Court jutges, but they still discuss laws. We shouldn't be able to vote too, I guess. What's the point of this forum then? We discuss 40k stuff and learn from each other. Democracy in the 41st Millenium lol
Automatically Appended Next Post:
jcd386 wrote: I definitely think that my "vehicles should be able to fall back and shoot" hypothesis is the weakest one I suggested. However, I think they should be able to do SOMETHING, especially when other armies have flying tanks that don't seem to pay a ton for flying and are insanely better due to having it. Things like DE or Harly transports ramming into tank gun lines to silence them does seem like a real issue.
-1 for vehicles, or some kind of nerf to flying vehicles ability to do so, or perhaps some kind of tank shock option, or some other solution could be better.
I suggested a morale test to be able to shoot with a -1 or -2 after you fall back. And for many vehicles overall, maybe give them better WS or -1 for ramming etc. Still not reliable but at least more rewarding if you get a 16'667% dice
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: This is why most of you guys shouldn't be Rules Development people.
Oh I'm sure I'm wrong about a lot of stuff. Playtesting and other people's input would be only way to make sure everything worked and whatnot. It's possible some ideas would work and others would be too good, etc. All I know is that right now there are a lot of problems, and these are just some ideas how to fix them.
I'd be interested in what you think more specifically about what I said, though, lol.
Sure. I'll do everything point by point. Note that I'll ignore #10 as Point adjustments is always necessary after any fix for the most part.
1. That's more an issue with cover being hard to do for the most part. Old AP4 weapons doing jack diddly was one of the issues with 3rd onwards, and the new Rend system is an excellent idea. However, Marines need to be priced as such, or have a non broken way to ignore it. A simple Strategem where they surge their Power armor or something (can they do that?) where they bring down the AP of any weapon by -1 would be more sufficient and an analog to the Guard stratagem for the additional cover bonus.
I also had the thought that Salamanders should've had their Chapter Tactic akin to the AdMech Lucius one for people wanting something like that, but I'm unsure how well that would go.
2. Nah. Mostly anything doing D2 would be killing them last edition in the first place. We finally got them to actually be durable vs more weapons compared to before barring very specific examples (Autocannon and the Gauss Blaster being the most obvious examples). They don't NEED more durability. They need more killing power instead. Increasing the durability just makes them a waste of 200+ points that sits there and does nothing rather than the current iteration that sits there and does nothing and dies. We need to look at the most successful Terminators throughout the different editions, and the thing those ones all had in common was better offense. To make everything not scale terribly and to make more of the loadouts for Terminators effective, I'm wanting their WS/BS to be 2+ for all Terminators barring the Troop Grey Knight ones. This better shows their Vet status as a whole and makes them able to operate more independently without an HQ, and essentially does the things people want (old Relentless, easier to hit with Power Fists) while not actually ignoring the fact there's other loadouts and variants of Terminators out there. People are constantly forgetting this for some reason.
3. Fire Points should be enough for all transports for the most part. Dark Eldar only getting them is silly as all hell and probably my biggest complaint for the edition.
4. Not sure which Grey Knights vehicles have this problem, as you should be able to shut down a Razorback somewhat. Only thing I can think of is the Land Raider, which as we all know has a whole host of other problems to be honest before you even get to that. I'd rather some vehicles be able to shoot in melee at a decent penalty than fall back and shoot with little consequence, as melee problems exist as is. Imagine your Strike Squads got into combat with that Razorback finally to help out the rest of your list not get shot! Except it just goes back and then shoots them.
5. What you're suggesting is a retool of the Sanctic discipline. I'm for that.
6. Strike Squads are already okayish. I think a single point decrease or just the army getting back The Shrouding to some extent will help.
The Incinerator suffers as much as any other Flamer basically.
Interceptors are one of the only good units. Not sure what else you want done to them outside maybe, once again, the army getting Shrouding back. To some extent of course.
7. Honestly the way HQ dudes work now is one of the better parts of this edition, ad Captains aren't strictly being a beatstick and Chaplains aren't making a single unit braver (which was why they really weren't taken in the first place). Hard pass here.
8. The modifiers are fine. The only army really suffering some problem from it is Orks, who really should be ignoring everything after the first -1, and honestly it helps shut down pure gunline armies. If anything, I want more negative modifiers but for melee at least. There's enough shooting ones. I don't care your poor Manticores can't hit some Rangers or Raven Guard.
9. Ignore Cover is already rare compared to last edition. Not sure what the complaint here is.
jcd386 wrote: 3. Rhinos either need to be cheaper or have fire points back. Maybe both.
Repressors (aka rhinos with firepoints) are north of 100pts and not a single SoB player thought it odd that they were price-hiked in chapter approved.
I wonder how much of this is the lingering expectations brought on by gladius and similar freebies from past editions.
Its just hard to afford razorbacks and rhinos in a grey knights codex. They are prices alright (although the twin assault cannon (and subsequently the twin psycannon) should be un-nerfed... that was a Gulliman issue, not a grey knight one.
To be fair, sisters have some nice synergy w/ their transport vehicles and their dominion squads. Sisters to mounted mechanized infantry the best. A unit of 5 dominions w/ 4 stormbolters is 58 points (about 40% of the cost of a strike squad) and can cause their repressor/immolator/rhino to move up. Combine them with n immolator and they have a strong unit that can target a wide variety of targets.
I wouldn't be upset at the price of sister's vehicles since their infantry units are appropriately priced, have synergy, and perform their battelfield roles very well.
Grey knights lack synergy between units besides the obligatory "reroll 1s" commander aura and don't have the points available to use vehicles. Each rhino is points not being spent on required stormbolter shots and units that can get into combat.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: This is why most of you guys shouldn't be Rules Development people.
Oh I'm sure I'm wrong about a lot of stuff. Playtesting and other people's input would be only way to make sure everything worked and whatnot. It's possible some ideas would work and others would be too good, etc. All I know is that right now there are a lot of problems, and these are just some ideas how to fix them.
I'd be interested in what you think more specifically about what I said, though, lol.
Sure. I'll do everything point by point. Note that I'll ignore #10 as Point adjustments is always necessary after any fix for the most part.
1. That's more an issue with cover being hard to do for the most part. Old AP4 weapons doing jack diddly was one of the issues with 3rd onwards, and the new Rend system is an excellent idea. However, Marines need to be priced as such, or have a non broken way to ignore it. A simple Strategem where they surge their Power armor or something (can they do that?) where they bring down the AP of any weapon by -1 would be more sufficient and an analog to the Guard stratagem for the additional cover bonus.
I also had the thought that Salamanders should've had their Chapter Tactic akin to the AdMech Lucius one for people wanting something like that, but I'm unsure how well that would go.
2. Nah. Mostly anything doing D2 would be killing them last edition in the first place. We finally got them to actually be durable vs more weapons compared to before barring very specific examples (Autocannon and the Gauss Blaster being the most obvious examples). They don't NEED more durability. They need more killing power instead. Increasing the durability just makes them a waste of 200+ points that sits there and does nothing rather than the current iteration that sits there and does nothing and dies. We need to look at the most successful Terminators throughout the different editions, and the thing those ones all had in common was better offense. To make everything not scale terribly and to make more of the loadouts for Terminators effective, I'm wanting their WS/BS to be 2+ for all Terminators barring the Troop Grey Knight ones. This better shows their Vet status as a whole and makes them able to operate more independently without an HQ, and essentially does the things people want (old Relentless, easier to hit with Power Fists) while not actually ignoring the fact there's other loadouts and variants of Terminators out there. People are constantly forgetting this for some reason.
3. Fire Points should be enough for all transports for the most part. Dark Eldar only getting them is silly as all hell and probably my biggest complaint for the edition.
4. Not sure which Grey Knights vehicles have this problem, as you should be able to shut down a Razorback somewhat. Only thing I can think of is the Land Raider, which as we all know has a whole host of other problems to be honest before you even get to that. I'd rather some vehicles be able to shoot in melee at a decent penalty than fall back and shoot with little consequence, as melee problems exist as is. Imagine your Strike Squads got into combat with that Razorback finally to help out the rest of your list not get shot! Except it just goes back and then shoots them.
5. What you're suggesting is a retool of the Sanctic discipline. I'm for that.
6. Strike Squads are already okayish. I think a single point decrease or just the army getting back The Shrouding to some extent will help.
The Incinerator suffers as much as any other Flamer basically.
Interceptors are one of the only good units. Not sure what else you want done to them outside maybe, once again, the army getting Shrouding back. To some extent of course.
7. Honestly the way HQ dudes work now is one of the better parts of this edition, ad Captains aren't strictly being a beatstick and Chaplains aren't making a single unit braver (which was why they really weren't taken in the first place). Hard pass here.
8. The modifiers are fine. The only army really suffering some problem from it is Orks, who really should be ignoring everything after the first -1, and honestly it helps shut down pure gunline armies. If anything, I want more negative modifiers but for melee at least. There's enough shooting ones. I don't care your poor Manticores can't hit some Rangers or Raven Guard.
9. Ignore Cover is already rare compared to last edition. Not sure what the complaint here is.
Thanks, I appreciate the response.
I think i mostly agree with your points, with some exceptions / alternate solutions.
1. I think if rhinos were worth taking, then the current marine stat-line might be okay as is, though a points reduction would be welcome, and a stratagem like you suggest seems fitting.
2. I should have mentioned I also want them to be WS/BS2+. I do think they could be more durable, but perhaps the issue is less with them and more with plasma/other spammable D2 weapons. One or the other would have to change, i think, and i don't see D2 weapons going away.
3. I would probably add fire-points back and then see if they need a price adjustment.
4. Again i don't know exactly the best way to fix this, but i think vehicles should be able to do SOMETHING. Shooting in CC but not falling back seems okay too. I also see no reason why the fly keyword should be tied to being able to shoot after you fall back. Fly already gives plenty of other mobility advantages it doesn't need another one as far as i can tell.
7. To me the main issue here is Roboute and similar HQs with buffs so powerful they make people clump up, and seems really hard to balance as we have seem from him being nerfed so many times. Normal captains and Lts aren't nearly as bad, and even the reroll to hit from chapter masters isn't terrible. So yes maybe my suggestion is going too far, though i don't see it not working, it's just very different.
8. My opinion on this is that there are some things you shouldn't able to effect on your enemy en mass, especially when it arbitrarily effects some units better than others. For example, a -1 to hit reduces a 3+ BS army's shooting by 25%, but a 4+ shooting army by 33%, and i can't see any good reason for it doing that. I'd much rather have the whole army have something like a 6+ or 5+ FNP, which would evenly increase it's durability across the board by 16% or 33%, or some similar sort of defensive buff like always counting as in cover, etc, that effects your units durability, but not your enemy's attack power. Hopefully that makes sense.
9. I don't think it's a big issue, but i think that entire factions having it is silly (IF, etc) because it just removes cover from that game. Also some medium/long range guns have it (specifically the Tau smart missile systems). Again probably a bit of a non issue but a pet peeve.
jcd386 wrote: 3. Rhinos either need to be cheaper or have fire points back. Maybe both.
Repressors (aka rhinos with firepoints) are north of 100pts and not a single SoB player thought it odd that they were price-hiked in chapter approved.
I wonder how much of this is the lingering expectations brought on by gladius and similar freebies from past editions.
The repressor is quite a bit better than the rhino ever was. 12W, a Heavy Flamer, Storm Bolter, six firing ports, and WS 5+ and 9 close combat attacks at full wounds. If space marines could use those instead of rhinos, I'd pay 100+ for them. Can you imagine how good deathwatch would be in those?
Rhinos are/would be 10W, a storm bolter, and only 2 fire ports. So maybe the current price with 2 fire points would be a good place to start like i said above, but i still feel like that closer to the 60s is closer to where they belong. I actually hated the idea of free transports in 7th for no reason. I want to pay for every unit in my army, i just want them all to be useful and effective.
jcd386 wrote: 3. Rhinos either need to be cheaper or have fire points back. Maybe both.
Repressors (aka rhinos with firepoints) are north of 100pts and not a single SoB player thought it odd that they were price-hiked in chapter approved.
I wonder how much of this is the lingering expectations brought on by gladius and similar freebies from past editions.
Its just hard to afford razorbacks and rhinos in a grey knights codex. They are prices alright (although the twin assault cannon (and subsequently the twin psycannon) should be un-nerfed... that was a Gulliman issue, not a grey knight one.
To be fair, sisters have some nice synergy w/ their transport vehicles and their dominion squads. Sisters to mounted mechanized infantry the best. A unit of 5 dominions w/ 4 stormbolters is 58 points (about 40% of the cost of a strike squad) and can cause their repressor/immolator/rhino to move up. Combine them with n immolator and they have a strong unit that can target a wide variety of targets.
I wouldn't be upset at the price of sister's vehicles since their infantry units are appropriately priced, have synergy, and perform their battelfield roles very well.
Grey knights lack synergy between units besides the obligatory "reroll 1s" commander aura and don't have the points available to use vehicles. Each rhino is points not being spent on required stormbolter shots and units that can get into combat.
I think the synergy point is a good one. You can tell that the repressor is designed with SoB units in mind. 6 fire points is amazing for them, and it's a no wonder that tank is worth taking.
Rhinos used to be designed with marines (who frequently have 2 or so special weapons and don't footslog well, hello purifiers!) in mind, and then changed to no longer be effective due (presumably) to abuse of the free tanks rule of 7th (which is GWs fault for implementing in the first place, duh), which should never have had any standing on 8th edition at all. At least the IG chimera got a lasgun array...rhinos got nothing and SoB got a wondertank.
jcd386 wrote: If space marines could use those instead of rhinos, I'd pay 100+ for them.
Exactly.
It was the 'maybe both' suggestion of the post was the bit that caught my attention. Rhinos with firepoints are quite a thing.
Smotejob wrote: Each rhino is points not being spent on required stormbolter shots and units that can get into combat.
True, but not a reason for the GK to have discounted vehicles.
At best it's a reason for the minor GK units to be less capable and therefore less expensive. Such as the suggested force weapon change.
jcd386 wrote: If space marines could use those instead of rhinos, I'd pay 100+ for them.
Exactly.
It was the 'maybe both' suggestion of the post was the bit that caught my attention. Rhinos with firepoints are quite a thing.
Smotejob wrote: Each rhino is points not being spent on required stormbolter shots and units that can get into combat.
True, but not a reason for the GK to have discounted vehicles.
At best it's a reason for the minor GK units to be less capable and therefore less expensive. Such as the suggested force weapon change.
Or more effective a similar price, so that they are worth the price of the transport.
I like the force weapon changes idea.
Personally I think it would be fine if they had 2 attacks base (I think all marines need this), and the force weapons were just power weapons like they were in 5th. Then one of the powers that all GK knew could be "Activate Force Weapon" which would make their weapons D2. Then you could choose to use that power vs big stuff, and something like hammer hand or other powers vs other stuff. And this and all GK powers like it could be used by as many units as needed. Almost like a melee version of the deathwatch ammo, triggered by a series of psychic powers. We can dream.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: This is why most of you guys shouldn't be Rules Development people.
Oh I'm sure I'm wrong about a lot of stuff. Playtesting and other people's input would be only way to make sure everything worked and whatnot. It's possible some ideas would work and others would be too good, etc. All I know is that right now there are a lot of problems, and these are just some ideas how to fix them.
I'd be interested in what you think more specifically about what I said, though, lol.
Sure. I'll do everything point by point. Note that I'll ignore #10 as Point adjustments is always necessary after any fix for the most part.
1. That's more an issue with cover being hard to do for the most part. Old AP4 weapons doing jack diddly was one of the issues with 3rd onwards, and the new Rend system is an excellent idea. However, Marines need to be priced as such, or have a non broken way to ignore it. A simple Strategem where they surge their Power armor or something (can they do that?) where they bring down the AP of any weapon by -1 would be more sufficient and an analog to the Guard stratagem for the additional cover bonus.
I also had the thought that Salamanders should've had their Chapter Tactic akin to the AdMech Lucius one for people wanting something like that, but I'm unsure how well that would go.
2. Nah. Mostly anything doing D2 would be killing them last edition in the first place. We finally got them to actually be durable vs more weapons compared to before barring very specific examples (Autocannon and the Gauss Blaster being the most obvious examples). They don't NEED more durability. They need more killing power instead. Increasing the durability just makes them a waste of 200+ points that sits there and does nothing rather than the current iteration that sits there and does nothing and dies. We need to look at the most successful Terminators throughout the different editions, and the thing those ones all had in common was better offense. To make everything not scale terribly and to make more of the loadouts for Terminators effective, I'm wanting their WS/BS to be 2+ for all Terminators barring the Troop Grey Knight ones. This better shows their Vet status as a whole and makes them able to operate more independently without an HQ, and essentially does the things people want (old Relentless, easier to hit with Power Fists) while not actually ignoring the fact there's other loadouts and variants of Terminators out there. People are constantly forgetting this for some reason.
3. Fire Points should be enough for all transports for the most part. Dark Eldar only getting them is silly as all hell and probably my biggest complaint for the edition.
4. Not sure which Grey Knights vehicles have this problem, as you should be able to shut down a Razorback somewhat. Only thing I can think of is the Land Raider, which as we all know has a whole host of other problems to be honest before you even get to that. I'd rather some vehicles be able to shoot in melee at a decent penalty than fall back and shoot with little consequence, as melee problems exist as is. Imagine your Strike Squads got into combat with that Razorback finally to help out the rest of your list not get shot! Except it just goes back and then shoots them.
5. What you're suggesting is a retool of the Sanctic discipline. I'm for that.
6. Strike Squads are already okayish. I think a single point decrease or just the army getting back The Shrouding to some extent will help.
The Incinerator suffers as much as any other Flamer basically.
Interceptors are one of the only good units. Not sure what else you want done to them outside maybe, once again, the army getting Shrouding back. To some extent of course.
7. Honestly the way HQ dudes work now is one of the better parts of this edition, ad Captains aren't strictly being a beatstick and Chaplains aren't making a single unit braver (which was why they really weren't taken in the first place). Hard pass here.
8. The modifiers are fine. The only army really suffering some problem from it is Orks, who really should be ignoring everything after the first -1, and honestly it helps shut down pure gunline armies. If anything, I want more negative modifiers but for melee at least. There's enough shooting ones. I don't care your poor Manticores can't hit some Rangers or Raven Guard.
9. Ignore Cover is already rare compared to last edition. Not sure what the complaint here is.
Thanks, I appreciate the response.
I think i mostly agree with your points, with some exceptions / alternate solutions.
1. I think if rhinos were worth taking, then the current marine stat-line might be okay as is, though a points reduction would be welcome, and a stratagem like you suggest seems fitting.
2. I should have mentioned I also want them to be WS/BS2+. I do think they could be more durable, but perhaps the issue is less with them and more with plasma/other spammable D2 weapons. One or the other would have to change, i think, and i don't see D2 weapons going away.
3. I would probably add fire-points back and then see if they need a price adjustment.
4. Again i don't know exactly the best way to fix this, but i think vehicles should be able to do SOMETHING. Shooting in CC but not falling back seems okay too. I also see no reason why the fly keyword should be tied to being able to shoot after you fall back. Fly already gives plenty of other mobility advantages it doesn't need another one as far as i can tell.
7. To me the main issue here is Roboute and similar HQs with buffs so powerful they make people clump up, and seems really hard to balance as we have seem from him being nerfed so many times. Normal captains and Lts aren't nearly as bad, and even the reroll to hit from chapter masters isn't terrible. So yes maybe my suggestion is going too far, though i don't see it not working, it's just very different.
8. My opinion on this is that there are some things you shouldn't able to effect on your enemy en mass, especially when it arbitrarily effects some units better than others. For example, a -1 to hit reduces a 3+ BS army's shooting by 25%, but a 4+ shooting army by 33%, and i can't see any good reason for it doing that. I'd much rather have the whole army have something like a 6+ or 5+ FNP, which would evenly increase it's durability across the board by 16% or 33%, or some similar sort of defensive buff like always counting as in cover, etc, that effects your units durability, but not your enemy's attack power. Hopefully that makes sense.
9. I don't think it's a big issue, but i think that entire factions having it is silly (IF, etc) because it just removes cover from that game. Also some medium/long range guns have it (specifically the Tau smart missile systems). Again probably a bit of a non issue but a pet peeve.
jcd386 wrote: 3. Rhinos either need to be cheaper or have fire points back. Maybe both.
Repressors (aka rhinos with firepoints) are north of 100pts and not a single SoB player thought it odd that they were price-hiked in chapter approved.
I wonder how much of this is the lingering expectations brought on by gladius and similar freebies from past editions.
The repressor is quite a bit better than the rhino ever was. 12W, a Heavy Flamer, Storm Bolter, six firing ports, and WS 5+ and 9 close combat attacks at full wounds. If space marines could use those instead of rhinos, I'd pay 100+ for them. Can you imagine how good deathwatch would be in those?
Rhinos are/would be 10W, a storm bolter, and only 2 fire ports. So maybe the current price with 2 fire points would be a good place to start like i said above, but i still feel like that closer to the 60s is closer to where they belong. I actually hated the idea of free transports in 7th for no reason. I want to pay for every unit in my army, i just want them all to be useful and effective.
jcd386 wrote: 3. Rhinos either need to be cheaper or have fire points back. Maybe both.
Repressors (aka rhinos with firepoints) are north of 100pts and not a single SoB player thought it odd that they were price-hiked in chapter approved.
I wonder how much of this is the lingering expectations brought on by gladius and similar freebies from past editions.
Its just hard to afford razorbacks and rhinos in a grey knights codex. They are prices alright (although the twin assault cannon (and subsequently the twin psycannon) should be un-nerfed... that was a Gulliman issue, not a grey knight one.
To be fair, sisters have some nice synergy w/ their transport vehicles and their dominion squads. Sisters to mounted mechanized infantry the best. A unit of 5 dominions w/ 4 stormbolters is 58 points (about 40% of the cost of a strike squad) and can cause their repressor/immolator/rhino to move up. Combine them with n immolator and they have a strong unit that can target a wide variety of targets.
I wouldn't be upset at the price of sister's vehicles since their infantry units are appropriately priced, have synergy, and perform their battelfield roles very well.
Grey knights lack synergy between units besides the obligatory "reroll 1s" commander aura and don't have the points available to use vehicles. Each rhino is points not being spent on required stormbolter shots and units that can get into combat.
I think the synergy point is a good one. You can tell that the repressor is designed with SoB units in mind. 6 fire points is amazing for them, and it's a no wonder that tank is worth taking.
Rhinos used to be designed with marines (who frequently have 2 or so special weapons and don't footslog well, hello purifiers!) in mind, and then changed to no longer be effective due (presumably) to abuse of the free tanks rule of 7th (which is GWs fault for implementing in the first place, duh), which should never have had any standing on 8th edition at all. At least the IG chimera got a lasgun array...rhinos got nothing and SoB got a wondertank.
[/spoiler]
1. Most statlines don't need adjusting for Marines. Most of my fixes have tried to avoid that (Bolt weapons getting a special rule, Tactical Marines getting a total of 3 weapons in a full man squad and maybe 2 at a 6-7 man squad) whereas other adjustments happen at baseline due to being unable to really gives rules that make sense (Tactical Marines getting +1LD, Sternguard get BS2+ and Vanguard get WS2+, Terminator variants getting both).
2. And you hit the nail on the head. Weapons are surprisingly slightly more prolific this edition. The issue with previous editions in terms of durability was easy to obtain weapons and death to small arms. The latter part was actually fixed.
3. Most transports wouldn't NEED adjusting as long as fire points came back.
4. I'm fine with certain vehicles getting Baneblade Lite, but not all of them. Fly needs to have a -1 Penalty to hit, which is all about I can think up before completely butchering the rule.
7. Roboute was already doing that when introduced. It seems your issue is with the Primarchs, who are already kinda near the correct price.
8. It makes sense but it isn't the way to go. I also don't care how much the firepower is cut by as much as I care about the math. Orks get their firepower cut in half by a -1 To Hit, but when you calculate the numbers you see the penalty is not actually much different to the usual results. That's why they just need nothing cut after the first penalty to keep balance, as obviously army wide abilities shouldn't just be negated by an entire army because, yet you can't make Orks never be hitting, which does lead to:
9. I'm not actually a fan of the Army Traits that lead to additional cover, as they get simply hard countered by Iron Warriors and Imperial Fists. It's gotta be one or the other that goes. I'd prefer the Ignoring Cover stay and the others go, but I'm open to suggestions as to what to do for Imperial Fists and Iron Warriors. I know I don't have ideas for Jormun and Sacea, at least.
Hi guys. I am a new player, and just started with grey knights. I have been struggling a bit in games vs my friends, although we are all new, and we all kind of a get beaten by the same army.
I have a question about the name of the topic, as I haven't read all the 8 pages of the topic.
Is the GK codex considered bad, because it has one good build or is it considered bad, because everything in it is bad?
Karol wrote: Hi guys. I am a new player, and just started with grey knights. I have been struggling a bit in games vs my friends, although we are all new, and we all kind of a get beaten by the same army.
I have a question about the name of the topic, as I haven't read all the 8 pages of the topic.
Is the GK codex considered bad, because it has one good build or is it considered bad, because everything in it is bad?
Originally the former. Now about half or a little more than half say the latter.
What units do you already have? Perhaps consider soup, and mix in elements from other factions to make your units work better (at least to an acceptable level) for you.
Porphyrius wrote: What units do you already have? Perhaps consider soup, and mix in elements from other factions to make your units work better (at least to an acceptable level) for you.
That's the same as telling someone to get over it and start using a different army.
Porphyrius wrote: What units do you already have? Perhaps consider soup, and mix in elements from other factions to make your units work better (at least to an acceptable level) for you.
That's the same as telling someone to get over it and start using a different army.
I mean, he said he's already bought some of the army, and he's not happy that they're considered to be sub-par (to put it gently). Am I wrong in saying that if he wants his Grey Knights to be competitive, then he needs to add in elements from other armies? If he wants them to be less bad, what are his other options?
I wish that they were more viable as a mono-faction army, and I think that GW needs to majorly overhaul the entire faction, but that doesn't change the reality of the current situation.
jcd386 wrote: If space marines could use those instead of rhinos, I'd pay 100+ for them.
Exactly.
It was the 'maybe both' suggestion of the post was the bit that caught my attention. Rhinos with firepoints are quite a thing.
Smotejob wrote: Each rhino is points not being spent on required stormbolter shots and units that can get into combat.
True, but not a reason for the GK to have discounted vehicles.
At best it's a reason for the minor GK units to be less capable and therefore less expensive. Such as the suggested force weapon change.
Or more effective a similar price, so that they are worth the price of the transport.
I like the force weapon changes idea.
Personally I think it would be fine if they had 2 attacks base (I think all marines need this), and the force weapons were just power weapons like they were in 5th. Then one of the powers that all GK knew could be "Activate Force Weapon" which would make their weapons D2. Then you could choose to use that power vs big stuff, and something like hammer hand or other powers vs other stuff. And this and all GK powers like it could be used by as many units as needed. Almost like a melee version of the deathwatch ammo, triggered by a series of psychic powers. We can dream.
I don't understand. The way to make GK more useful is nerfing them again?
Force weapons aren't so good as they should, but making them a psychic power will nerf GK again.
The only change should be: force weapons ignore armour (but deal only 1 D)
jcd386 wrote: If space marines could use those instead of rhinos, I'd pay 100+ for them.
Exactly.
It was the 'maybe both' suggestion of the post was the bit that caught my attention. Rhinos with firepoints are quite a thing.
Smotejob wrote: Each rhino is points not being spent on required stormbolter shots and units that can get into combat.
True, but not a reason for the GK to have discounted vehicles.
At best it's a reason for the minor GK units to be less capable and therefore less expensive. Such as the suggested force weapon change.
Or more effective a similar price, so that they are worth the price of the transport.
I like the force weapon changes idea.
Personally I think it would be fine if they had 2 attacks base (I think all marines need this), and the force weapons were just power weapons like they were in 5th. Then one of the powers that all GK knew could be "Activate Force Weapon" which would make their weapons D2. Then you could choose to use that power vs big stuff, and something like hammer hand or other powers vs other stuff. And this and all GK powers like it could be used by as many units as needed. Almost like a melee version of the deathwatch ammo, triggered by a series of psychic powers. We can dream.
I don't understand. The way to make GK more useful is nerfing them again?
Force weapons aren't so good as they should, but making them a psychic power will nerf GK again.
The only change should be: force weapons ignore armour (but deal only 1 D)
I think the argument is that right now they are paying for a D3 damage weapon, but their 1 attack makes that fairly terrible. Buffing the number of attacks they have and making the available powers tweak them to be good at one thing or another just send cool to me I guess.
Martel732 wrote: I'm not doubly wrong. I could beat grav stars and white scar bikers with wily play. Eldar and tau rolled over them. BA very much resembled marines with no formations. Eldar didn't need formations; they had undercosted units.
My point is that the base marine has been a failure for a long time now. Since 5th, imo. And gk now just exemplify the same problems, only worse.
Ah so if you aren't as good as 7th ed Eldar, you aren't a real army.
Well that's a rational standard of measure.
When playing large numbers of games against Eldar, it becomes rather true.
Martel732 wrote: I'm not doubly wrong. I could beat grav stars and white scar bikers with wily play. Eldar and tau rolled over them. BA very much resembled marines with no formations. Eldar didn't need formations; they had undercosted units.
My point is that the base marine has been a failure for a long time now. Since 5th, imo. And gk now just exemplify the same problems, only worse.
Ah so if you aren't as good as 7th ed Eldar, you aren't a real army.
Well that's a rational standard of measure.
When playing large numbers of games against Eldar, it becomes rather true.
literally the entire game was significantly weaker than Eldar, thats just a bad unit of measure. SM was actually one of the better non Eldar dexes. Complaining about SM here is just ridiculous. You had an advantage on most of the armies in the game, but because your dex wasn't literally the strongest, most OP thing out there, it was terrible?
It's statements like this that make it really hard to defend SM players when people say they whine too much. What even is this.
This is largely immaterial at this point. Bottom line is that 13 ppm is too much for a bolter goon, and every unit dervied from this unit, inlcuding GK suffer as a result. Their "fix" was the intercessor, which has been systematically nerfed indirectly by every Xeno codex this year.
I don't need your defense. And really don't care what you think about "whining". Math is math. Your opinion doesn't invalidate it.
"It's statements like this that make it really hard to defend SM players when people say they whine too much. What even is this."
Gladius was GW admitting that marines needed to be spotted 400 pts in a game where tactical marines were being used.
Martel732 wrote: This is largely immaterial at this point. Bottom line is that 13 ppm is too much for a bolter goon, and every unit dervied from this unit, inlcuding GK suffer as a result.
I don't need your defense. And really don't care what you think about "whining". Math is math. Your opinion doesn't invalidate it.
"Math is math" excuse doesnt work when you are saying 6th and 7th SM isn't even a real army, in a meta where they were one of the strongest. The math is against you here, so I guess what you said is just a crappy opinion. When it came to GK I agreed they were too weak, never once disagreed there.
Obviously they were a real army. Just not a very good one w/o invisible death star super friends or Gladius. Take away Eldar formations and you had.... Eldar.
Even skyhammer was easily neutered by savvy Xenos. Hell, I could beat skyhammer with a lot of BA lists.
Martel732 wrote: Obviously they were a real army. Just not a very good one w/o invisible death star super friends or Gladius. Take away Eldar formations and you had.... Eldar.
I feel like this circular argument revolves around you continually saying this, getting an answer that disproves it, changing the subject, and then circling back around to it.
I'm just gonna go ahead and chalk it up to you being a sub-par player, there's zero other logic happening here atm.
I was kinda trying to steer it that way. There's been a TON of discussion on here about the woes of the 13 ppm bolter goon. It mostly starts and ends there. Well, then there's marines' lousy 8th ed vehicles, but if the infantry were good, the vehicles could be ignored.
Martel732 wrote: I'm not doubly wrong. I could beat grav stars and white scar bikers with wily play. Eldar and tau rolled over them. BA very much resembled marines with no formations. Eldar didn't need formations; they had undercosted units.
My point is that the base marine has been a failure for a long time now. Since 5th, imo. And gk now just exemplify the same problems, only worse.
Ah so if you aren't as good as 7th ed Eldar, you aren't a real army.
Well that's a rational standard of measure.
When playing large numbers of games against Eldar, it becomes rather true.
literally the entire game was significantly weaker than Eldar, thats just a bad unit of measure. SM was actually one of the better non Eldar dexes. Complaining about SM here is just ridiculous. You had an advantage on most of the armies in the game, but because your dex wasn't literally the strongest, most OP thing out there, it was terrible?
It's statements like this that make it really hard to defend SM players when people say they whine too much. What even is this.
I think the fact people eventually managed to counter Gladius, a list that brought in 300+ free points, speaks levels of that codex. Not only was it poorly written, it was poorly balanced being insanely stupid at first and then just being good when nobody else was getting a dumb bonus like that. War Convocation has NOTHING on that bonus. Yet the army did basically okay near the end of 7th
Martel732 wrote: I'm not doubly wrong. I could beat grav stars and white scar bikers with wily play. Eldar and tau rolled over them. BA very much resembled marines with no formations. Eldar didn't need formations; they had undercosted units.
My point is that the base marine has been a failure for a long time now. Since 5th, imo. And gk now just exemplify the same problems, only worse.
Ah so if you aren't as good as 7th ed Eldar, you aren't a real army.
Well that's a rational standard of measure.
When playing large numbers of games against Eldar, it becomes rather true.
literally the entire game was significantly weaker than Eldar, thats just a bad unit of measure. SM was actually one of the better non Eldar dexes. Complaining about SM here is just ridiculous. You had an advantage on most of the armies in the game, but because your dex wasn't literally the strongest, most OP thing out there, it was terrible?
It's statements like this that make it really hard to defend SM players when people say they whine too much. What even is this.
I think the fact people eventually managed to counter Gladius, a list that brought in 300+ free points, speaks levels of that codex. Not only was it poorly written, it was poorly balanced being insanely stupid at first and then just being good when nobody else was getting a dumb bonus like that. War Convocation has NOTHING on that bonus. Yet the army did basically okay near the end of 7th
It was really strong before it Gladius as well, with multiple top builds, even if they weren't meta defining ones, SM was consistently placing and being one of the only dexes keeping up with Eldar and Tau, it was probably slightly above Crons, and that was the meta. Formations are just bad design, but yes SM had one of the dumbest ones, which also meant follow up ones were dumber to keep up. But yeah, seems we all except Martel agree on an answer to the question that was asked "when was the last time Marines were actually strong" yeah literally a single edition ago
Martel732 wrote: Fine. They were "strong" in 7th. Excluding DA and BA. And non-super friends SW. Doesn't help a lick now, really.
The question was about the SM dex though, the second you start including every single power armor dex in there you won't be able to make a statement on anything. They are designed to be different.
Anyway, as has been said this isn't even the topic of the thread, lets move it on
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Just be under the assumption that Strike Squads and Interceptors will always have Falcions. Then it isn't so bad
Yea but it also sucks to be basically forced into that, too.
While true, nobody will care about a few Counts As if you just want variety. You pay 20 points for a Storm Bolter and 2 AP-2 attacks. They're really not terribly with offense. They could just stand to be a point cheaper and gain a type of Shrouding where anyone shooting outside 18" suffers a -1 To Hit.
Quickjager wrote: I'll sell you a troop choice that is 10 points per model, has 10 AP4 attacks. The thing is they move only 1 inch.
See the problem?
exactly, you can look at a units strengths all day, but you have to look at how much their weaknesses offset them. You have to apply that damage at the end of the day, it needs to be taken into consideration. Sometimes its not all about math as well.
Martel732 wrote: No, it's still about math. Sometimes it's the math of movement.
whats the math of being able to shoot from out of line of sight, can you please give me an equation that accurately reflects this durability buff? You have no way of accurately knowing how many or which models will be affected by something like that in any given game, or how relevant movespeed will be, you can only create likely scenarios, and then use math to iron out the numbers in these scenarios. Firm math is important - but it's not literally all about math, there is factors in this game that do not translate easily in a numbered result, and for evaluating the impact of these, you have to use the power of critical thinking that you have (hopefully) been blessed with, instead of a calculator.
Quickjager wrote: I'll sell you a troop choice that is 10 points per model, has 10 AP4 attacks. The thing is they move only 1 inch.
See the problem?
exactly, you can look at a units strengths all day, but you have to look at how much their weaknesses offset them. You have to apply that damage at the end of the day, it needs to be taken into consideration. Sometimes its not all about math as well.
A generalist unit is not supposed to have a weakness or a strength.
A expensive generalist unit is not supposed to have a weakness full stop.
If a generalist unit has weaknesses that literally stops them from ever actually using 3/4s of their skills they are overcosted grots.
-Psychic phase nerfs
-Deepstrike nerfs
-Assault being crappy full stop
-The best shooting being a STORMBOLTER
Quickjager wrote: I'll sell you a troop choice that is 10 points per model, has 10 AP4 attacks. The thing is they move only 1 inch.
See the problem?
exactly, you can look at a units strengths all day, but you have to look at how much their weaknesses offset them. You have to apply that damage at the end of the day, it needs to be taken into consideration. Sometimes its not all about math as well.
A generalist unit is not supposed to have a weakness or a strength.
A expensive generalist unit is not supposed to have a weakness full stop.
If a generalist unit has weaknesses that literally stops them from ever actually using 3/4s of their skills they are overcosted grots.
-Psychic phase nerfs -Deepstrike nerfs -Assault being crappy full stop -The best shooting being a STORMBOLTER
This is not called a strength.
I'm agreeing with you. Every unit has something that could do, that's it strength. It's weaknesses are anything that it stop it from doing this.
Lets not get too carried away. Stormbolters are great for the points.
Very, but it's pretty damn boring.
Yes and no. If all a grey Knight gets to use offensively is a stormbolter then it is a weak unit.
Best use of storm bolters, imo, are sisters. They mass them easily enough for much cheaper and have ways to get them into position with scout moves and acts of faith.
Grey knights have the potential to be good... But their durability is trash. Their ability to get into combat is meh. They tend to deep strike near a unit, unload their bolts, fail their charge, then die
Part of the issue is that being a generalist unit is usually not worth it.
A unit with average movement, melee abilities, shooting power, and durability is not going to be as useful as a unit that is focused on 1-2 of those things unless the generalist unit is heavily discounted.
The other issue is that durability is a farce this edition, where the only truly durable stats are a cheap single wound, 4+ or better invuls, or FNP, while armor saves and most toughness stats are largely irrelevant and over costed.
jcd386 wrote: Part of the issue is that being a generalist unit is usually not worth it.
A unit with average movement, melee abilities, shooting power, and durability is not going to be as useful as a unit that is focused on 1-2 of those things unless the generalist unit is heavily discounted.
The other issue is that durability is a farce this edition, where the only truly durable stats are a cheap single wound, 4+ or better invuls, or FNP, while armor saves and most toughness stats are largely irrelevant and over costed.
Porphyrius wrote: What units do you already have? Perhaps consider soup, and mix in elements from other factions to make your units work better (at least to an acceptable level) for you.
I have 15 plastic terminators, 1 nemezis dreadnought, caldor draigo, 5 grey knight strike squad members with halabards and psycannon and 2 rhinos.
Porphyrius wrote: What units do you already have? Perhaps consider soup, and mix in elements from other factions to make your units work better (at least to an acceptable level) for you.
I have 15 plastic terminators, 1 nemezis dreadnought, caldor draigo, 5 grey knight strike squad members with halabards and psycannon and 2 rhinos.
jcd386 wrote: Part of the issue is that being a generalist unit is usually not worth it.
A unit with average movement, melee abilities, shooting power, and durability is not going to be as useful as a unit that is focused on 1-2 of those things unless the generalist unit is heavily discounted.
The other issue is that durability is a farce this edition, where the only truly durable stats are a cheap single wound, 4+ or better invuls, or FNP, while armor saves and most toughness stats are largely irrelevant and over costed.
It’s possible to be a good generalist, as long as you are actually GOOD at all the things. For example, Custodes jetbikes are durable, fast, shoot and melee well. They pay for it, but realistically that’s the way GK need to go: an increase in some capabilities (mainly defense and a bit of varied shooting) that would make them worth their cost, or even an increase.
Not just good at everything, but not paying through the nose for it.
Custodes Jetbikes are literally the best unit at everything in the Codex. They have the best (and most focused) shooting, they have the best close combat, they have the best durability, they have the have the best movement, they have the best special rules (fly) and they have the best - albeit expensive - Stratagem. But what really makes them shine is that they’re only about 10% more expensive than the best specialist unit in the Codex - Terminators.
Porphyrius wrote: What units do you already have? Perhaps consider soup, and mix in elements from other factions to make your units work better (at least to an acceptable level) for you.
I have 15 plastic terminators, 1 nemezis dreadnought, caldor draigo, 5 grey knight strike squad members with halabards and psycannon and 2 rhinos.
I'm so sorry mate.
Why?
By the way anyone has an idea what to buy next, for our store event I have to expend 500pts till end of next month.
jcd386 wrote: Part of the issue is that being a generalist unit is usually not worth it.
A unit with average movement, melee abilities, shooting power, and durability is not going to be as useful as a unit that is focused on 1-2 of those things unless the generalist unit is heavily discounted.
The other issue is that durability is a farce this edition, where the only truly durable stats are a cheap single wound, 4+ or better invuls, or FNP, while armor saves and most toughness stats are largely irrelevant and over costed.
It’s possible to be a good generalist, as long as you are actually GOOD at all the things. For example, Custodes jetbikes are durable, fast, shoot and melee well. They pay for it, but realistically that’s the way GK need to go: an increase in some capabilities (mainly defense and a bit of varied shooting) that would make them worth their cost, or even an increase.
I actually look at the Vertus Praetors as an example of a unit with a focus on durability and mobility that is arbitrarily under-priced. They have decent firepower, but it isn't much better than that of 3 SM bikes (they have BS2+ so it is a bit better) which cost about as much as they do (which is quite laughable), and although 4 attacks is good, it isn't amazing for a 90 point model. They are well rounded though in that their shooting is okay at killing hordes, and their melee is good at killing big stuff, which is good for them.
Unlike most other marine units, they have actual durability. T6 helps reduce the number of wounds they take in the first place, and a 2+4++ lets them shrug off a large percentage of those wounds, while 4 wounds means that even 1d6 weapons like las cannons aren't going to kill them half of the time. Their mobility is also amazing, having the rare for marines fly ability, as well as deep-strike stratagems, and the charge in the other person's turn stratagem. These combined mean they are likely to last a while and get where they want to go to do some damage. I'd actually argue they are a poorly designed unit in a lot of ways, since the combination of high durability and mobility is one of the stronger combinations of stats available to a unit. The fact that they are also very cheap makes them as popular as they are, but even an increase in price would still leave them effective for those reasons.
I'm coming from a ccg background mostly,so I don't know how this works in warhammer, but isn't designs goal creating powerful combinations of rules and stats for units?
It is way better to have the option to play with good and powerful options, then having lackluser or bad options? I understand from what people are writing here, is that all GK options under perform for their cost, and that they do not have anything better then other armies have, right?
Maybe it is my background of living in a country where it was tried to make everything balanced and equal, till the food run out eventually, but I don't think that unit design should be based around balance. units should be over the top and do over the top things, so people want to play with them and want to buy them. This way GW is happy, getting the sales, and gamers are happy, because they get to play with cool stuff. Balanced seems to be a different name for boring.
greyknight12 wrote: For example, Custodes jetbikes are durable, fast, shoot and melee well. They pay for it, but realistically that’s the way GK need to go: an increase in some capabilities (mainly defense and a bit of varied shooting) that would make them worth their cost, or even an increase.
Custodes bikes are the last thing you want to use as an example of good design. An outrider force of them is even stronger than the much maligned supreme command shield captain detachment.
Why is strong being considered bad somehow. Strong is good, and the stronger the better. If they cost more points, then I assume they wouldn't be viable to play with. Who cares if they would end up balanced then, if no one would buy or play with them .
Karol wrote: Why is strong being considered bad somehow. Strong is good, and the stronger the better. If they cost more points, then I assume they wouldn't be viable to play with. Who cares if they would end up balanced then, if no one would buy or play with them .
Sorry maybe am not getting something. Plus my english is below passable, but what is wrong with having an army with many strong options? You have an army that works, and that seems a worth on its own. You can try out different things, like playing under 2500pts games. You don't have to buy multiple rule books, and multiple armies till you find the one that works.
And that is just the good stuff for the people playing. Good units make people buy more stuff, so GW gets more money. And I doubt they cry, that this or that unit is selling great.
On the other hand having boaring units, that don't do anything awesome seem only to be a valid joice, if you get the army gifted by someone, or you want to play,but don't have a lot of money and the bad army is cheap to make.
Porphyrius wrote: What units do you already have? Perhaps consider soup, and mix in elements from other factions to make your units work better (at least to an acceptable level) for you.
I have 15 plastic terminators, 1 nemezis dreadnought, caldor draigo, 5 grey knight strike squad members with halabards and psycannon and 2 rhinos.
I'm so sorry mate.
Why?
By the way anyone has an idea what to buy next, for our store event I have to expend 500pts till end of next month.
You could benefit from psylancer devastators to actually ride in those rhinos. But i'd probably get tl heavy bolters or assault cannons and turn those rhinos into razorbacks. You'll also need a second character for batallion. Voldus is pretty good.
As for further purchases, i'd go for more strikers with double swords for +1 attack and a landraider crusader. You can deepstike it and it's a great way to carry a bunch of strikers and characters. LRC also benefits from the psybolt ammo strategem and allows you to deepstrike a bunch of units while maintaining some strong board presence.
Besides, you'll probably need ig allies for more cp and cheap backfield scoring/bauble wrap. 3*10 guardsmen and some character are great. Mortars can also be useful. Or you could get heavy bolters or even lazcannons in there but i'd probably settle on mortars.
Is there a way to avoid buying other armies? I think about buying some power armored GK, I don't like the models, but it seems like everyone else seems to run them.
Right now I just hope GW is either add primaris to grey knights, or do something with terminators.
As voldus goes, I don't really want to buy the triumvirate box, it costs too much. Would a librarian or a Grandmaster be that much worse? I could make him out of one of the termintors, so it would be cheaper too.
Karol wrote: Sorry maybe am not getting something. Plus my english is below passable, but what is wrong with having an army with many strong options? You have an army that works, and that seems a worth on its own. You can try out different things, like playing under 2500pts games. You don't have to buy multiple rule books, and multiple armies till you find the one that works.
And that is just the good stuff for the people playing. Good units make people buy more stuff, so GW gets more money. And I doubt they cry, that this or that unit is selling great.
On the other hand having boaring units, that don't do anything awesome seem only to be a valid joice, if you get the army gifted by someone, or you want to play,but don't have a lot of money and the bad army is cheap to make.
The issue is that to have strong units you have to have bad ones - and yet why would anyone play them?
So eventually the meta evolves and all the bad units disappear. Suddenly your slightly less strong units become just average and the process goes on until everyone is only playing with 10% of the available datasheets.
This is how people can say with a straight face that the SM Gladius & Necron Decurion were only mid tier in 7th edition. I mean sure against Scatbikes & Wrathknights (eventually Ynnari), Riptide Wings, Magnus & Forgeworld Chaos, Superfriends etc they did eventually become inferior choices - but they crushed factions like Orks, Tyranids, Dark Eldar, IG and regular CSM into the ground.
I don't know what those things you talk about are or were assuming those were armies or editions. And I get that people who played the bad armies may not have liked playing against the good stuff. The negative expiriance was for sure there.
I do question the argument for not trying to make as many good unit options as possible for each codex though. At worse, a codex with a few options will have those 3-4 units that will be able to carry it. Boring and one dimensional? yes, but at least you can play with something. Now if the design team does not try to make stuff as powerful as possible what do you get? Unexpected rules interactions, accidental OP units or units that are made OP, just because. Maybe the writer likes the faction a lot, or this character is his self insart and he gives him or her a "characterful" rule, which in a balanced setting means it suddenly starts dominating everything. Also you would get people whose faction didn't get lucky and their codex are 100% balanced. They are even worse for players, then those books with just a few OP units, because suddenly you have 0 units to play with, and unless you have some pathological need to play that faction, your screwed.
No one wants units to be boring, or so watered down that every lost is pretty much the same and no units are exciting.
In my opinion, all units should be useful and exciting. I mentioned in a previous post that I think GW should ask themselves what it would take to make each unit in the game someone's personal favorite unit, and allow them to make an army that utilizes that unit without it feeling like they are taking a penalty for doing so. I think that is a lofty but worth striving for goal, and I think it's possible through unit ability tweaks/additions and points adjustments.
Although I mentioned I think that custodes bikes are poorly designed, its not because they are good at killing stuff, but because there isn't a lot of internal balance in that unit, they just have so much durability and mobility that they can go anywhere and do anything without much counter play from the other player, and a 2+4++ makes it so only a narrow range of weapons are effective against them (S7 AP2 D2 would be ideal, so auto cannons and OC plasma are pretty good). I'd argue that they are very undercosted and unbalanced compared to most other units in their codex, which otherwise send to have a theme of slow, durable, and medium deadly.
But speaking more generally, I think it's possible to have more units be effective and fun to play with in the right sort of list. It's okay if you have a GK list and adding some purifiers to it isn't a great choice because of the theme the list is going for. But there should be a different GK list where they do fit and are very effective. Purifiers should have a specific thing they are good at (previously was anti horde) and they should be an option worth taking in that role of you think you need that in your army. That doesn't have to deminish the effectiveness of any other unit. And that goes for every unit in the game.
I'd actually argue that most of the reason the eldar books have been so strong recently is that their units do tend to have a single focus and one thing they are pretty good at, but that's a bit of a tangent.
When it comes down to it, I think in a way you are right, and if every unit was "strong" (which I take you to mean what most people consider overpowered) then the game would find a kind of balance in that. But there should not be obvious choices of "the best unit in this codex" that everyone then takes 3 of and you never see another unit from that codex. Part of that issue is also the allies rules which allow that, but it's also most codexes being wildly unbalanced. GK are a special case, where none of their stuff is really worth allying in, but most of the other imperial codexes also only have a few good options that you then ally with guard and hope its good enough.
As voldus goes, I don't really want to buy the triumvirate box, it costs too much. Would a librarian or a Grandmaster be that much worse? I could make him out of one of the termintors, so it would be cheaper too.
Karol wrote: Is there a way to avoid buying other armies? I think about buying some power armored GK, I don't like the models, but it seems like everyone else seems to run them.
Right now I just hope GW is either add primaris to grey knights, or do something with terminators.
As voldus goes, I don't really want to buy the triumvirate box, it costs too much. Would a librarian or a Grandmaster be that much worse? I could make him out of one of the termintors, so it would be cheaper too.
PAGK are more cost-effective than Terminators most of the time; if you don't like the models you don't have to buy them but they'll give you more falchion attacks/bolter shots, occupy more space/hold objectives better, eat multi-damage fire more efficiently, and fit in Razorbacks at the expense of not being as good when caught out by FRF/SRF or other massed poor-AP fire.
As for Voldus he's nice but not mandatory; the no-penalty-to-hit hammer and cast three/deny three make him a very cheap straight upgrade over a Grand Master, but both of those are kind of situational and there are plenty of matchups where a normal Grand Master is completely sufficient.
No one wants units to be boring, or so watered down that every lost is pretty much the same and no units are exciting.
In my opinion, all units should be useful and exciting. I mentioned in a previous post that I think GW should ask themselves what it would take to make each unit in the game someone's personal favorite unit, and allow them to make an army that utilizes that unit without it feeling like they are taking a penalty for doing so. I think that is a lofty but worth striving for goal, and I think it's possible through unit ability tweaks/additions and points adjustments.
Although I mentioned I think that custodes bikes are poorly designed, its not because they are good at killing stuff, but because there isn't a lot of internal balance in that unit, they just have so much durability and mobility that they can go anywhere and do anything without much counter play from the other player, and a 2+4++ makes it so only a narrow range of weapons are effective against them (S7 AP2 D2 would be ideal, so auto cannons and OC plasma are pretty good). I'd argue that they are very undercosted and unbalanced compared to most other units in their codex, which otherwise send to have a theme of slow, durable, and medium deadly.
But speaking more generally, I think it's possible to have more units be effective and fun to play with in the right sort of list. It's okay if you have a GK list and adding some purifiers to it isn't a great choice because of the theme the list is going for. But there should be a different GK list where they do fit and are very effective. Purifiers should have a specific thing they are good at (previously was anti horde) and they should be an option worth taking in that role of you think you need that in your army. That doesn't have to deminish the effectiveness of any other unit. And that goes for every unit in the game.
I'd actually argue that most of the reason the eldar books have been so strong recently is that their units do tend to have a single focus and one thing they are pretty good at, but that's a bit of a tangent.
When it comes down to it, I think in a way you are right, and if every unit was "strong" (which I take you to mean what most people consider overpowered) then the game would find a kind of balance in that. But there should not be obvious choices of "the best unit in this codex" that everyone then takes 3 of and you never see another unit from that codex. Part of that issue is also the allies rules which allow that, but it's also most codexes being wildly unbalanced. GK are a special case, where none of their stuff is really worth allying in, but most of the other imperial codexes also only have a few good options that you then ally with guard and hope its good enough.
Addendum/application of principles to GK: This is actually one thing I really liked about the Warddex; the fluff may have been awful and the A1 statline with expensive melee weapons started the death-spiral of the GK in later editions, but the array of unit-specific psychic powers (block deepstrikers, short-ranged AoE blast, bring a unit in from Reserves, shoot through walls...) took a bunch of units whose narrow range of stats and weapons have stuck them into a "do the same thing as a Strike squad only (better/worse)" box ever since and gave them distinct and interesting functions.
Can't I just pay extra points or something, to get more attacks for termintors? Is there something like a list how much a point of stat costs for an army like Grey Knights.
Part of that issue is also the allies rules which allow that, but it's also most codexes being wildly unbalanced
Why doesn't the GW just remove the ally option, if it makes so much problem then? Most of the rules problems at my store come from the fact that people combined 3-4 factions sometimes. If the option would be removed, people playing normal armies would get buffed, and those who bought ally could decide if they want to play two different armies or quit.
PAGK are more cost-effective than Terminators most of the time; if you don't like the models you don't have to buy them but they'll give you more falchion attacks/bolter shots, occupy more space/hold objectives better, eat multi-damage fire more efficiently, and fit in Razorbacks at the expense of not being as good when caught out by FRF/SRF or other massed poor-AP fire.
Ah ok. I didn't really want to spend more. Thought I could cheat out the 500pts by taking a lot of HQs, but that seems to not be legal at our store.
I checked the GW site and they aren't selling any turrets for rhinos, only full razorback kits, and almost sure that there is only one turret inside. So how do people get them?
Also if terminators are bad, what do people do with the models? All can't be made in to characters, so are they run as paladins, because there doesn't seem to be other terminators in the codex.
Also with razorbacks, they only have 6 slots for power armor dudes. So only 3 termintor models would fit in, does it mean that if I wanted to use razorbacks I would have to run 3 man paladin squads, because terminators are caped at 5 and fit only in to rhinos. Or is there some special OPFW rhino that can transport termintors normally?
I might be looking back at 5th with rose colored glasses, but I thought the biggest problem with the ward dexes was that he didn't write all of them, and that whoever wrote all the other ones didn't get creative enough to make books on his level of effectiveness. Granted the fluff was definitely questionable but I don't know that he even write that, and it's not like the fluff now is a ton better.
Karol wrote: Can't I just pay extra points or something, to get more attacks for termintors? Is there something like a list how much a point of stat costs for an army like Grey Knights.
Part of that issue is also the allies rules which allow that, but it's also most codexes being wildly unbalanced
Why doesn't the GW just remove the ally option, if it makes so much problem then? Most of the rules problems at my store come from the fact that people combined 3-4 factions sometimes. If the option would be removed, people playing normal armies would get buffed, and those who bought ally could decide if they want to play two different armies or quit.
PAGK are more cost-effective than Terminators most of the time; if you don't like the models you don't have to buy them but they'll give you more falchion attacks/bolter shots, occupy more space/hold objectives better, eat multi-damage fire more efficiently, and fit in Razorbacks at the expense of not being as good when caught out by FRF/SRF or other massed poor-AP fire.
Ah ok. I didn't really want to spend more. Thought I could cheat out the 500pts by taking a lot of HQs, but that seems to not be legal at our store.
I checked the GW site and they aren't selling any turrets for rhinos, only full razorback kits, and almost sure that there is only one turret inside. So how do people get them?
Also if terminators are bad, what do people do with the models? All can't be made in to characters, so are they run as paladins, because there doesn't seem to be other terminators in the codex.
Also with razorbacks, they only have 6 slots for power armor dudes. So only 3 termintor models would fit in, does it mean that if I wanted to use razorbacks I would have to run 3 man paladin squads, because terminators are caped at 5 and fit only in to rhinos. Or is there some special OPFW rhino that can transport termintors normally?
You run your Terminators as Paladins if you want something at least mediocre.
Karol wrote: Can't I just pay extra points or something, to get more attacks for termintors? Is there something like a list how much a point of stat costs for an army like Grey Knights.
Kind of. If you want to play in a tournament or any kind of organized format, no, you can't, you're stuck with the statlines you've got. If you want to play a casual game you could wander over to Proposed Rules, suggest changes, get feedback, and try and figure out some of the underlying design principles that might make your tweaks better, then clearly communicate to your opponent that you'd like to use some homemade rules, and see if they agree to play against them. Doing so is an uphill battle because the combinatorial problem of making homebrew stuff for such a large game makes it complicated to balance for all comers, and many communities have a general hostility to homebrew rules because they assume that they're designed by petulant children who want to give themselves OP stuff instead of figuring out how to play, but it's definitely posisble.
Part of that issue is also the allies rules which allow that, but it's also most codexes being wildly unbalanced
Why doesn't the GW just remove the ally option, if it makes so much problem then? Most of the rules problems at my store come from the fact that people combined 3-4 factions sometimes. If the option would be removed, people playing normal armies would get buffed, and those who bought ally could decide if they want to play two different armies or quit.
The ally rule was brought in under 6e when GW chose to start introducing wildly new unit types. Once one book gets Flyers if your book doesn't have anti-aircraft weapons you're sort of screwed until you get an update that gives them to you, so they gave you the option to grab a bit of anti-air from somewhere else in the short term.
It turned quite rapidly into a marketing tool for "Like (army X)? Buy just a few models and get them on the table now instead of needing to buy all of it!", which means it's probably here to stay. 8e's removal of cross-faction buffs means that it isn't actually that much of a balance problem; it's a crutch to help badly-designed armies by letting someone grab efficient bits of another army to plug holes in their list. Grey Knights, for instance, have solid melee units and anti-infantry firepower but are limited in their ability to kill tanks or engage effectively from long range and tend to be quite squishy for their cost, so you might bring some Guard artillery to give you longer range/anti-tank and more bodies to occupy space rather than needing to waste expensive close-range squads holding backfield objectives; doing that isn't necessarily cheesy/OP (though it can be), it simply lets armies that aren't good on their own engage on better terms. It also lets you replicate interesting lore concepts that don't happen within one Codex; I might want my 3e-vintage Inquisitorial strike forces back and take an Inquisitor leading an army of Stormtroopers with a couple of GK/Deathwatch units in it as shock troops, or someone might decide they're doing an integrated Ultramar army by having Guardsmen representing the human armies of Ultramar running about with some proper Ultramarines backing them up, or someone might like the lore about Harlequins showing up out of nowhere in support of Craftworld operations and mix those two armies.
Allies are a "problem" in tournament settings when they let armies mix the most efficient bits of two or three Codexes, but even then they're not that much of a problem because they let armies that wouldn't see play in that environment otherwise see play (pure Custodes, for instance, are nigh-unplayable competitively), and abusing Allies in a casual setting isn't that much more of a problem than taking a tournament-caliber single-Codex army is.
PAGK are more cost-effective than Terminators most of the time; if you don't like the models you don't have to buy them but they'll give you more falchion attacks/bolter shots, occupy more space/hold objectives better, eat multi-damage fire more efficiently, and fit in Razorbacks at the expense of not being as good when caught out by FRF/SRF or other massed poor-AP fire.
Ah ok. I didn't really want to spend more. Thought I could cheat out the 500pts by taking a lot of HQs, but that seems to not be legal at our store.
I checked the GW site and they aren't selling any turrets for rhinos, only full razorback kits, and almost sure that there is only one turret inside. So how do people get them?
Also if terminators are bad, what do people do with the models? All can't be made in to characters, so are they run as paladins, because there doesn't seem to be other terminators in the codex.
Also with razorbacks, they only have 6 slots for power armor dudes. So only 3 termintor models would fit in, does it mean that if I wanted to use razorbacks I would have to run 3 man paladin squads, because terminators are caped at 5 and fit only in to rhinos. Or is there some special OPFW rhino that can transport termintors normally?
Not sure why "cheating out" a 500pt limit by taking a couple of expensive GKHQs would be a problem; if you're stuck to a Battle-Forged army there's a thing called a Supreme Command detachment that's got 3 HQs at minimum. It isn't good and I'm certainly not recommending you do it, but I'm a little confused as to why that particularly would be banned? The only times I know of the Supreme Command detachments are even remotely problematic is when they're used to take more good Thousand Sons units without touching the bad ones and when they're used to take three Dawneagle Shield-Captains, but those are easy enough to ban individually...
I don't know what people do with their Terminator models; my GK have been on a shelf since the first couple of weeks of 8e. Most of the time if models are considered flat-out/universally bad people won't run them or just put them on the shelf. As for the specific question of Paladins I think if it were me I would rather run Paladins than normal Terminators; going from 2W to 3W is a pretty major buff against D2/Dd3 weapons, the cost increase is marginal, the extra Attack makes them hit notably harder for their cost in melee, and three-man minimum squads lets you cover more ground and force your opponent to risk wasting firepower overkilling one squad more.
Keep in mind that when we on the Internet tell you something is "bad" we tend to exist in a weird self-reinforcing loop of tournament results, our own local metas, and the things we hear from each other; you may find you can get results with the people you play against with units we say are pointless because some constraint on your environment (budget, enforced casualness, people playing Orks...) makes it function in a manner distinct from our theory-ball, so me telling you "I've left my GK on the shelf since the start of 8e" doesn't mean "there's no possible way to make them function." If you want to figure out how to run an all-GKT army in your environment you don't have to shelve that and go buy models you don't like just because we tell you they're better; if you find ways to make them work/have fun with them that's what matters.
Terminators are limited in what transports they can get into; it isn't just "Terminators take up two slots", they can't get into Rhinos/Razorbacks at all. Forge World doesn't help much with the transport problem; Grey Knights don't have blanket access to the IA book, just their own little sub-section (which contains a Razorback with psycannons, a Land Raider with psycannons, a special Dreadnaught, and a Thunderhawk), so for practical purposes you're really stuck with the Stormraven/Land Raider. I'd strongly recommend deepstriking most or all of your Terminators since they're harder to alpha-strike out that way and they don't have to slog up the table at 5" a turn taking fire for several turns on the way in.
The Razorback kit has one turret mount containing components for a heavy bolter or lascannon turret; it's the same set of parts that make up the front hull gun on the Land Raider, so the plastic assault cannon Razorback is the assault cannon turret out of the LRC/LRR. If you want to buy turrets individually you're stuck paying exorbitant prices on Ebay or exorbitant prices from Forge World (which is also the only way to get an official plasma/lascannon turret) to the tune of ~$20 USD, but they're not tremendously difficult to scratch-build if you have spare guns lying around (old Ravenwing bike upgrade sprues are a great source of cheap assault cannons).
Automatically Appended Next Post:
phydaux wrote: If GKs got a 20% points cut across the board and then upgraded to regular Smite would that help? Because that's doable in a FAQ.
I'd like to see +1A/model, a D1 basic melee weapon with the option to upgrade to a bigger one, and a second psychic discipline a la Runes of Battle/Runes of Fate (so the rule of 1 doesn't mean "you get to attempt six powers a turn that aren't Smite, that's it") with PAGK at ~15-16pts/model, plus some kind of infantry anti-armour weapon. ~18pts/model for one-Wound smite-spamming folks with one melee attack apeice wouldn't make GK a functional army, it'd take a one-dimensional gimmick-based list and make them slightly more efficient at being a one-dimensional gimmick-based list.
Not sure why "cheating out" a 500pt limit by taking a couple of expensive GKHQs would be a problem;
We have to get a second character in to our lists till the end of may, so I wanted to cheat, by taking a termintor as one, and not to buy one. I don't really have a lot of money to spend durning summer.
Terminators are limited in what transports they can get into; it isn't just "Terminators take up two slots", they can't get into Rhinos/Razorbacks at all. Forge World doesn't help much with the transport problem;
Didn't knew that. What am I suppose to do with the rhinos then, I have two of them?
How do terminators or paladins reach melee range? Before I bought the rhinos, which I now regret, they were being blasted of the table by my opponents. I only have 1 unit of strikes and the NDK to deploy on the table, the terminators are worth a lot more points, so I can't deep strike them.
If you want to buy turrets individually you're stuck paying exorbitant prices on Ebay or exorbitant prices from Forge World (which is also the only way to get an official plasma/lascannon turret) to the tune of ~$20 USD, but they're not tremendously difficult to scratch-build if you have spare guns lying around (old Ravenwing bike upgrade sprues are a great source of cheap assault cannons).
Only spare parts I have are those from the termintor boxs, and those are mostly melee. I have stormbolters left overs, and I think incinerators too. Not sure Razorbacks can take incinerators as their weapons though.
You run your Terminators as Paladins if you want something at least mediocre.
Do I have to deepstrike them too. And what kind of units are taken the most 5 units of 3, 10 and 5 ?
Whether you DS them or not, blasting them off turn 1 should take quite a bit of firepower. Not enough to justify them, but realize that they soak a bunch. Also, if they're likely to get shot by AP-1 or even -2 weapons, try to have them in cover - that'll greatly increase the firepower needed to kill them.
Rhinos can be used for a lot more than just transporting PAGK. Don't forget they can charge and they take up a lot of space on the board.
Not to say GK are good. An optimized list will wipe them. Also, they're not great at low points. But an escalation league shouldn't have you facing optimized lists - that's just a trap.
Bharring wrote: Termies can DS. So you can bring them in turn 2.
Whether you DS them or not, blasting them off turn 1 should take quite a bit of firepower. Not enough to justify them, but realize that they soak a bunch. Also, if they're likely to get shot by AP-1 or even -2 weapons, try to have them in cover - that'll greatly increase the firepower needed to kill them.
Rhinos can be used for a lot more than just transporting PAGK. Don't forget they can charge and they take up a lot of space on the board.
Not to say GK are good. An optimized list will wipe them. Also, they're not great at low points. But an escalation league shouldn't have you facing optimized lists - that's just a trap.
Yes, of course, but when you deep strike terminators, 2 things happen:
1. They are essentially stuck where they are. If they can't or don't charge, they will get to move 15" from that spot before the game ends, assuming you make it to turn 5.
2. They don't have firepower. They don't have the attacks to kill chaff, they don't have the firepower to shoot past it, or shoot into it and clear it.
In essence terminators are easy to play around. You can swamp them with bodies or just avoid them.
If you need to kill them, they're not that durable, and should devote firepower to them, it's not a huge loss, because their cost is so high, it's a significant return on investment.
Durability in 8th edition for a unit is defined as one of these two things: a. Good invulnerable save (4++ or better) and decent toughness (5+) b. High model count & wounds to points ratio
Terminators have neither of these things. They have low toughness. Their wound to point ratio is bad. They have a low model count. And they have a bad invulnerable save.
In the context of the SM codex they're durable. In the context of 8th edition they're paper.
The best way to use terminators is with storm shields for the 3++, this makes them durable. 2wound models with a 3++ is durable. The problem here is twofold, though: Firstly, it limits their scope, the storm bolter dice give them some output at range against chaff; secondly, this is not available to grey knights.
If characters could join units, Terminators would be solid. You could pair them with someone who gets mobility, or defense. For instance, you put assault hammer terminators with Mephiston, and they're suddenly moving around the board, jumping over chaff, and charging things. Or, you put them with Draigo and they've got some durability in a 3++ shield, and can gate around the board (not as good as wings, but it's something).
Not to say GK are good. An optimized list will wipe them. Also, they're not great at low points.
I've found them working best at around 1000-1500 pts. 750 and below is too low for a functionally decent batallion and you need CP. 1750 and above is too much and limited variety and problems against mass vehicles start to show up. Whereas at 1000-1500 you get all the best out of your multi-purpose units.
Bharring wrote: Oh, I'm not saying they're good. An (apparently new) player was asking about how to play them - and it seems not playing them isn't ideal.
So, if you knew you had those units, that those units will be in your list, how do you minimize their downsides and maximize their upsides?
It's quite a different discussion than whether GK Termies are good.
Yes, that's fair.
I suppose my answer would largely be the same. Bring Thunderhammer / Stormshield terminators and put them in a Storm Raven or Land Raider. Deep strike sucks in 8th edition now especially for melee (sorry, it does), so you want to zip across the board and deploy them. With the ability to disembark, move, and charge, it's a turn 2 gamble. None of these are cost effective, but if I *HAD* to play terminators I would leverage a transport for them.
My strategy would vary based on the army. If I had to do this as Grey Knights, that's essentially what i'd do.
Option 1: Put them in a land raider, astral aim it, gate it, and use the terminators as a turn 2 attack.
Option 2: Put them in a raven, fly across the board, hope it survives to turn 2 so they can disembark, shoot and charge.
Foot slogging terminators and deep striking terminators is a terrible strategy in my opinion. Since they can only ride in those two transports, your options are very limited.
Chaos terminators though have different uses, and aren't as bad.
Not to say GK are good. An optimized list will wipe them. Also, they're not great at low points.
I've found them working best at around 1000-1500 pts. 750 and below is too low for a functionally decent batallion and you need CP. 1750 and above is too much and limited variety and problems against mass vehicles start to show up. Whereas at 1000-1500 you get all the best out of your multi-purpose units.
I mean, I wholly disagree with this.
Any strategy available to GK at 1500 points is far better executed by another flavor of Space Marines or Soup.
So what am I suppose to do now? I don't have any ravens or land raiders.
But an escalation league shouldn't have you facing optimized lists - that's just a trap.
I don't know what an optimised list, but the only difference between the armies we play with and the armies that people that play longer is that their armies are painted.
I'll ask my next opponent if he is willing to let me proxy power armored Grey Knights with termintor models for an auto lose. They seem super weak though, high points cost just one wound , save even lower then terminators and 0 inv. I kind of a don't get how people can say that terminators are worse then strikes, when strikes have all defensive stats lower and all offensive stats the same.
Karol wrote: I'll ask my next opponent if he is willing to let me proxy power armored Grey Knights with termintor models for an auto lose. They seem super weak though, high points cost just one wound , save even lower then terminators and 0 inv. I kind of a don't get how people can say that terminators are worse then strikes, when strikes have all defensive stats lower and all offensive stats the same.
There are discussions of survivability in the Grey Knights Tactica thread in the Tactics subforum, but here's the summary:
Sure, terminators against AP0 are 4x as survivable as strikes for about double the points cost. Against weapons with better AP, that advantage disapate somewhat becomes even less of a factor against multi-damage weapons. For example, against plasma Terminators are down to a 5++ vs a Strike's 6+ with a failed save still killing either model outright...technically twice as durable still sounds good in that case, right?
Wrong. Because a 5++ isn't that good, a weapon like a lascannon will probably kill either one...but it can only kill one model. More importantly, if you have 2 strikes instead of 1 terminator, you get 8 storm bolter shots and 4 CC attacks vs 4 storm bolter shots and 3 CC attacks, and twice as many mortal wounds from smite. The strikes do much more damage per point, and in an alpha-strike-focused army maximizing damage is more valuable than trying to prioritize durability.
Karol wrote: So what am I suppose to do now? I don't have any ravens or land raiders.
But an escalation league shouldn't have you facing optimized lists - that's just a trap.
I don't know what an optimised list, but the only difference between the armies we play with and the armies that people that play longer is that their armies are painted.
I'll ask my next opponent if he is willing to let me proxy power armored Grey Knights with termintor models for an auto lose. They seem super weak though, high points cost just one wound , save even lower then terminators and 0 inv. I kind of a don't get how people can say that terminators are worse then strikes, when strikes have all defensive stats lower and all offensive stats the same.
Because it's all about points efficiency.
For roughly the same cost, you can bring twice as many strikes as terminators. Which means the total wound count is the same, for double the storm bolter dice, and the same melee attacks. Additionally you aren't as vulnerable to weapons with 2, D3, D6 damage.
A 5++ invulnerable save on a 2+ is not worth it. Most weapons targeting infantry don't pack more than AP-3. A -3 weapon would take your save from 3+ to 6+, or 2+ to 5+, and a 6+ save means you're taking 5 wounds of 6, and a 5+ save means you're taking 4 wounds out of 6, only a net reduction in wounds of 20% versus AP-3 shooting. You would only see your invuln come into play against AP-4 or higher weapons, which probably won't target your terminators anyway, and if they do, you only have a 1/3 chance to avoid the damage (without the invuln, it would be 1/6, and we already covered the delta here).
In essence, would you rather drop in and fire 20 shots, or drop in and fire 40 shots, while also saving some points and being less vulnerable to multi-damage weapons? Remember, when you pay 2CP to make those strength 5, ap-1, you want as many shots as possible.
And you are right - they are absurdly high cost for what they are, but terminators are even more over-costed. Durability doesn't mean anything in 8th edition unless you have one of two things:
1. High invuln (4++ or better) and good toughness (5 or better) 2. Lots of wounds with a great wounds to points ratio
Not to say GK are good. An optimized list will wipe them. Also, they're not great at low points.
I've found them working best at around 1000-1500 pts. 750 and below is too low for a functionally decent batallion and you need CP. 1750 and above is too much and limited variety and problems against mass vehicles start to show up. Whereas at 1000-1500 you get all the best out of your multi-purpose units.
I mean, I wholly disagree with this.
Any strategy available to GK at 1500 points is far better executed by another flavor of Space Marines or Soup.
Who else can deepstrike a freaking landraider that shoots s5 ap1 bolters to boot? And than another 40+ shots disembark and clean up with force weapons. Hm...who else can do it really?
(I suppose so because it didn't fall back but this is hilarious).
