Hey guys!

New returner to the hobby, after picking up my first Issue of "Conquest" (Includes 3 marines, paints, brushes - not bad for £1.99!)

Any ways, after previously only painting one-off models from a set, HQ unit or vehicle decided on selecting an army to build and potentially compete in competitions/tournaments within the next year.

Always been a fan of space marines, with the new addition of Primaris units - their is a heap load of new models/tactics to use within a space marines army - which comes to my query's regarding "Grey knights"


Always been found of Grey Knights, the colour scheme and general fluff about them - but curious how they hold up in the current addition of WH40K.

They seem near in-existence in my local GW, rarely even selling their models/HQ units on the shelve (Unless you order) and often unheard or unseen in my local game tournaments - what gives?

Is their a location where I can establish what units (Typical SM units such as dreadnoughts) can be used within a grey knights army? such as storm-raven gunship/assault marines for example!

Cheers guys!

https://1d4chan.org/wiki/Warhammer_40,000/Tactics/Grey_Knights(8E)

Give that a read!

I should also point out, because someone else will soon otherwise, that GKs are considered one of the poorest performing armies in the game currently.

That isn't to say you can't have fun with them, and couldn't win casual games against friends. But before buying anything you should be aware that playing GKs is sort of playing 40k on hard mode right now.

Of course, all that could change with a single FAQ!

Yeah they're pretty bad as an army and even as an ally.

Man you guys are quick!

So that's why they are unseen in my local GW, was kinda hoping they are this 'forgotten' chapter that when appeared are feared on the battlefield, guess I have to take that heavy lump into consideration!

How are Space wolves performing?

(I'm choosing between Space Wolves/Grey Knights but prefer the painting/scheme of Grey Knights over space wolves)

May I ask, what is the 'big issue' with grey knights right now? Lack of kit/special ability's? Considering they are all Spykers was exspecting that to add a huge benefit to the field...

Thanks for the replies all!

harley1200 wrote:
Man you guys are quick!

So that's why they are unseen in my local GW, was kinda hoping they are this 'forgotten' chapter that when appeared are feared on the battlefield, guess I have to take that heavy lump into consideration!

How are Space wolves performing?

(I'm choosing between Space Wolves/Grey Knights but prefer the painting/scheme of Grey Knights over space wolves)

May I ask, what is the 'big issue' with grey knights right now? Lack of kit/special ability's? Considering they are all Spykers was exspecting that to add a huge benefit to the field...

Thanks for the replies all!

The Space Wolves Tactica has some decent ideas going on in it. I'd say it's the strongest written Marine book with Deathwatch. Someone is gonna argue Blood Angels, but that'll stop once Slamguinus gets nerfed.

Marines in general are a little poor this edition. Basically it's too easy to get through power armour, which means spending 13pts on a Marine is not worth it when you could be spending 4pts on a Guardsman.

This problem is compounded in GKs because they are even more expensive per model, but still die really easily to a lot of things.

One thing GKs are supposed to have as an advantage is how much of the army can teleport, but this was heavily stripped back from them with the last FAQ which meant you couldn't have more than half your army by PL in reserves and you can't teleport outside your own deployment zone until turn 2.

There are probably other weaknesses that could be addressed more specifically, but that's the broad strokes!

harley1200 wrote:

I'd say it's the strongest written Marine book with Deathwatch. .

harley1200 wrote:

I'd say it's the strongest written Marine book with Deathwatch. .

I'm going to try and be the little ray of sunshine that says 'sure, go ahead and play Grey Knights'!

Their codex was early in the release schedule, meaning they have some veryyyy conservative rules-writing: GW were scared of breaking the game, due to their combo-style psyker powers and their super-common teleportation ability.

So go in with your eyes open: you will be facing an up-hill challenge. having said that there are a handful of strong units you can base your army around, as long as you don't mind the idea of ALSO buying some guard, or ad mech? (The Knights function best as a strike force, dropping the hammer whilst another detachment rains shots and holds objectives.)

So Voldus is a great HQ, great caster, very good in close combat. Draigo is tough, vicious in combat, and buffs well - but he's expensive. the Grandmaster in a nemesis dreadknight suit is expensive but very powerful. The basic troop choice of strike squad is great, and lays down lots of dakka. One venerable dread in a list is a great option, as uniquely, he can hide behind line of sight blocking terrain, and snip away at enemy tanks. Your apothecaries are the best available to marines, and they function as action heroes, hitting things on the head with massive hammers, and healing themselves or others when they get damaged. After that there's some pretty good units (Paladins, Stormravens, Interceptors), and then a sharp falloff.

So it's doable, and I suspect Grey Knights are top of the list for armies to get a buff when the new CHapter Approved tweaks come out. Long story short, if you think they're cool, then follow your heart. Research your faction. Buy and build wisely. And take immense satisfaction when you win against players using your cunning, not your auto-win button.

Indeed, I was mistaken by Death company - Deathwatch have some epic fluff, compromising multiple chapters to create unique 'kill teams' while allowing them to keep one shoulder showing their negligence to one faction!

Real awesome model work to convert my Dark angels/Ultramarines into deathwatch if I see fit - thanks for giving me the idea!

Death watch are a good source of infantry but you should be ware they lack tanks etc that a standard chapter has.

Best advice I can give you Harley is play waht you want not what the people online say is most powerful. for alkl you know by time you finish assmbling and painting your army the meta has changed.

BrianDavion wrote:
Death watch are a good source of infantry but you should be ware they lack tanks etc that a standard chapter has.

Best advice I can give you Harley is play waht you want not what the people online say is most powerful. for alkl you know by time you finish assmbling and painting your army the meta has changed.

This is good advice.

You never know what factions will be strong in 6 months time even. If you get something just because it's good now, but you don't love the look and the lore, you will severely regret it down the road. Alternatively if you get something you're truly excited about you'll probably have more fun in the long run.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Yeah they're pretty bad as an army and even as an ally.

They def need allies. And grand masters on dreadknights. Without those they are so lol-bad even orks will wipe them out without too much of a trouble and orks are still on their crappy index rules.

By the time you have 2000 points painted the best list is going to be completely different from what it is right now. Get in with something you're passionate about and don't bother chasing the meta unless you have a preposterous amount of cash to burn.

That being said, if you have to play loyalist marines Deathwatch are way cooler than Grey Knights. You get bolters that actually do something useful!

 Arachnofiend wrote:
By the time you have 2000 points painted the best list is going to be completely different from what it is right now.

Testify!

"By the time you have 2000 points painted the best list is going to be completely different from what it is right now."

I normally parrot this long and hard for almost every "What army should I play?" questions.

The exception comes from factions GW has made clearly 'secondary' - Inquisition, LOTD, Corsairs, etc.

Unfortunately, GK seem to have recently transitioned to 'secondary' status. In 6-12 months, they may be top dog, but they're less likely than any of the 'primary' faction.

Bharring wrote:
"By the time you have 2000 points painted the best list is going to be completely different from what it is right now."

I normally parrot this long and hard for almost every "What army should I play?" questions.

The exception comes from factions GW has made clearly 'secondary' - Inquisition, LOTD, Corsairs, etc.

Unfortunately, GK seem to have recently transitioned to 'secondary' status. In 6-12 months, they may be top dog, but they're less likely than any of the 'primary' faction.

Couldn't for the life of me remember what LOTD stood for just then. Could only think lord of the dance for some reason until I moused over it and was reminded legion of the damned was a thing.

Haha the lord of the dance faction with Michael Flatley as named chapter master.

Bharring wrote:
"By the time you have 2000 points painted the best list is going to be completely different from what it is right now."

I normally parrot this long and hard for almost every "What army should I play?" questions.

The exception comes from factions GW has made clearly 'secondary' - Inquisition, LOTD, Corsairs, etc.

Unfortunately, GK seem to have recently transitioned to 'secondary' status. In 6-12 months, they may be top dog, but they're less likely than any of the 'primary' faction.

They've always been secondary in my mind hah

I remember them from 2nd edition where they were one entry in the rule book with no points costs or models. By the time they were released as a 'full' faction I was on hiatus from the game :p

I would avoid them. Given how long it seems to take for GW to fix issues, it's unlikely to happen for a couple of years, during which your experience is likely to be miserable.

Terminators are unfortunately *still* hot garbage in 40K.

Space Wolves have potential (take thunder hammers... ALL the thunder hammers...)

Come to the Dark side.

 Arachnofiend wrote:
By the time you have 2000 points painted the best list is going to be completely different from what it is right now. Get in with something you're passionate about and don't bother chasing the meta unless you have a preposterous amount of cash to burn.

That being said, if you have to play loyalist marines Deathwatch are way cooler than Grey Knights. You get bolters that actually do something useful!

You would be suprised how many models make up a 2000pts army. Plus it is not like GK require some ingenius levels of painting skills. Coat of some metal, black ink. Blue eyes and white scrolls and books and the models are 90% done. One can paint 30 probably in a single sesion.

As for starting GK,just don't. Even If you want to play them very much, do not buy them till you see their index update or a new codex. You can save the money to buy them in the future, if your inclined to. People say that you never know, if the list doesn't suddenly end up being OP, and this maybe true. But GK have been bad for multiple editions back to back, and we already had a supposed fix Index to them last year. GW seems to have no idea how to make the GK work, and it has nothing to do with being conservative with rules or them being an early codex. The codex that came just after and before the GK one are heaven and earth comparing what the GK book got.

People here, who I think do not play GK, throw around stuff like HQ are killy, stormbolters do a lot of damge etc. But it isn't true unless you play game without points or do not know what really good HQs do. Just to give you a perspective a GK librarian or GM costs around as much custodes dude on a jetbike. The GK has worse stats, lacks the good stratagems and is hoofing it on his own legs with a stormbolter as a shoting weapon, while the custodes is flying around on a jebtikes with a set of hurrican bolters build in to his ride. And the cost of something like a NDK GM vs a BA cpt with a jumppack comes out even worse, and that is with counting the points for the units of scouts that tag along with the BA cpt.

All in all. don't start GK till you see the new rules. If you like the models or the faction fluff, save up money. Maybe people are right, maybe the next index is going to fix all GK problems and they end up being a playable army. No one other the GW and the testers know, and neither will tell. So save up money and buy them when they are good.

Custodes might be what you want. Look them up!

You can teleport a lot of them, they're a very elite army that actually functions, they have one of the best generic characters in the game, and they're genuinely pretty fun to play!

You can still paint them silver if you want too :p

I have confidence that GW will give GK some of it's bite back this December. Still, be prepared to bring IG as allies since most marine armies need bodies to supplement them.

 Daedalus81 wrote:
I have confidence that GW will give GK some of it's bite back this December. Still, be prepared to bring IG as allies since most marine armies need bodies to supplement them.

I'd say that depends on the meta. If everyone you're going to be playing with are new to the game too then I wouldn't worry about getting Imperial Guard to supplement marines just yet. Let's not put the cart before the horse!

Not to mention it's entirely possible that the tournament mandatory IG Battalion gets a nerf in the next month too.

Ok which army is balanced vs GK. For me, when I started, the only one was a primaris army made out of starer sets. Everything else my friends started with was way above GK, and only one of my friends had what people would call a tournament army. Also my balanced games with the primaris player ended rather fast too, after a month he first switched to DW, and then added IG and custodes to his army. And you can't say that DW with custodes are some sort of uber tournament army.
All that talk about GK being playable, made me buy in to them and it was wasted money. If the seller, who is also our store owner, explained to me how bad they were, I may have had fun this summer playing something fun. Even spending the money on games would have been better.

 Daedalus81 wrote:
I have confidence that GW will give GK some of it's bite back this December. Still, be prepared to bring IG as allies since most marine armies need bodies to supplement them.

You know people were saying the same thing before the last update, and no such thing happened. And from what people were telling me about last 2-3 editions, the state of GK did not improve much, they keep being the weakest or one of the weakest army every edition.

Necrons seem to be balanced vs. GK.
You could play a GK detachment in a soup list together with an IK and an AM battalion.
Successful soup lists contain usually BA with smash Captains and Scout units.
You could basically replace BA by GK. The playing of the army changes a bit.
Instead of board control by the Scouts you could take the GK to deep strike into the right spots.

Do not buy Grey Knights.

Simple point changes won't fix garbage psychic powers & stratagems. And Grey Knights still have to remain balanced as their base costs are equivalent to marine base costs. Which means they will always be inferior to Ultramarines, Deathwatch, Dark Angels, Space Wolves, etc.

Look at Custodes. They are what GK should have been.

harley1200 wrote:
Man you guys are quick!

So that's why they are unseen in my local GW, was kinda hoping they are this 'forgotten' chapter that when appeared are feared on the battlefield, guess I have to take that heavy lump into consideration!

How are Space wolves performing?

(I'm choosing between Space Wolves/Grey Knights but prefer the painting/scheme of Grey Knights over space wolves)

May I ask, what is the 'big issue' with grey knights right now? Lack of kit/special ability's? Considering they are all Spykers was exspecting that to add a huge benefit to the field...

Thanks for the replies all!

The whole "all psykers" thing is a big problem for them, because you can only cast one instance of any power per turn, so most don't cast anything, and their smite is super nerfed.

Also, all their units have deep strike, but you can't deep strike on turn 1 anymore and you can only deep strike half your army.

Finally, they all have force weapons, which are expensive and rather extraordinarily unuseful.

Until GK cost the same as Vanilla marines, while retaining all their rules and equipments, they will never be anything more than literal bottom of the barrel.

Karol wrote:


You know people were saying the same thing before the last update, and no such thing happened. And from what people were telling me about last 2-3 editions, the state of GK did not improve much, they keep being the weakest or one of the weakest army every edition.

Well, that was pure wish listing expectations.

The proof will be in the pudding come December.

If you’re interested in Primaris, then Deathwatch are a great way to run an all-primaris army. Space Woofs, Dark Angels and Blood Angels can all sorta do it but Deathwatch do it the best.

 Quickjager wrote:
Until GK cost the same as Vanilla marines, while retaining all their rules and equipments, they will never be anything more than literal bottom of the barrel.

Soooo...Model with better rules and equipment and identical stats should cost same as worse?

Sheesh GK are in bad shape now but that's ridiculous. Guess some people are always "we were treated badly so I want REVENGE and screw others in return"

Na, tacticals are bad, everyone thinks that, god forbid a 1 attack 1 wound model 3+ save model have some bite for its point cost. Oh wait that is right GK aren't allowed that.

 Quickjager wrote:
Na, tacticals are bad, everyone thinks that, god forbid a 1 attack 1 wound model 3+ save model have some bite for its point cost. Oh wait that is right GK aren't allowed that.

But... No marines get better than that for its point cost.

Tacticals are the jack of all trades but the master of none.
Today, more specialized Marines or Scouts are better game-wise.

 wuestenfux wrote:
Tacticals are the jack of all trades but the master of none.
Today, more specialized Marines or Scouts are better game-wise.

Sure, but just because Tacticals are poor doesn't mean GKs should cost the same with twice the firepower, force weapons, and psychic powers

Agreed, and he's not saying "GKs are over priced and are proably only worth about 13 PPM" he's saying "Grey Knights need to cost only what marines cost" which is REDICULAS

 Quickjager wrote:
Na, tacticals are bad, everyone thinks that, god forbid a 1 attack 1 wound model 3+ save model have some bite for its point cost. Oh wait that is right GK aren't allowed that.

So fix the tacticals rather than make grey knights cost same with better stuff. Make equal price and how that makes tacticals look? Eh? Surely then tacticals are fine!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 wuestenfux wrote:
Tacticals are the jack of all trades but the master of none.
Today, more specialized Marines or Scouts are better game-wise.

So why would you take tacticals if for SAME PRICE you get twice the firepower, psychic abilities and force weapons which last time I checked are more mean than base tactical attacks...

You are basically saying "forget idea of better stuff costing more than weaker". So basically you are throwing whole point system to garbage bin.

 Quickjager wrote:
Until GK cost the same as Vanilla marines, while retaining all their rules and equipments, they will never be anything more than literal bottom of the barrel.

Hah, no.
Come back when vanilla marines get psychic powers, force weapons and stormbolters, which are statistically better than bolters.

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

 Quickjager wrote:
Until GK cost the same as Vanilla marines, while retaining all their rules and equipments, they will never be anything more than literal bottom of the barrel.

Hah, no.
Come back when vanilla marines get psychic powers, force weapons and stormbolters, which are statistically better than bolters.

Not at double the cost, comparing to a tactical. When GK have same or lower resiliance comparing to normal marines. Also Force Weapons are "good" only if we play in a magical realm where GK somehow get the ability to charge across the table in a single turn, and there is no chaff in game.

Karol wrote:

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

 Quickjager wrote:
Until GK cost the same as Vanilla marines, while retaining all their rules and equipments, they will never be anything more than literal bottom of the barrel.

Hah, no.
Come back when vanilla marines get psychic powers, force weapons and stormbolters, which are statistically better than bolters.

Not at double the cost, comparing to a tactical. When GK have same or lower resiliance comparing to normal marines. Also Force Weapons are "good" only if we play in a magical realm where GK somehow get the ability to charge across the table in a single turn, and there is no chaff in game.

Neither of them are good, we all know that. But it's patently obvious that if we disregard points costs a normal GK is better than a Tactical Marine.

Karol wrote:

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

 Quickjager wrote:
Until GK cost the same as Vanilla marines, while retaining all their rules and equipments, they will never be anything more than literal bottom of the barrel.

Hah, no.
Come back when vanilla marines get psychic powers, force weapons and stormbolters, which are statistically better than bolters.

Not at double the cost, comparing to a tactical. When GK have same or lower resiliance comparing to normal marines. Also Force Weapons are "good" only if we play in a magical realm where GK somehow get the ability to charge across the table in a single turn, and there is no chaff in game.

Cheaper than they currently are, sure. But not at the same cost as a tactical marine.

Karol wrote:

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

 Quickjager wrote:
Until GK cost the same as Vanilla marines, while retaining all their rules and equipments, they will never be anything more than literal bottom of the barrel.

Hah, no.
Come back when vanilla marines get psychic powers, force weapons and stormbolters, which are statistically better than bolters.

Not at double the cost, comparing to a tactical. When GK have same or lower resiliance comparing to normal marines. Also Force Weapons are "good" only if we play in a magical realm where GK somehow get the ability to charge across the table in a single turn, and there is no chaff in game.

Well duh nobody says double. But here we have guy that claims GK don't deserve to cost even ONE point more than tacticals. That's silly.

You people are so pedantic. GK Strikes are not worth twice a Tactical Marine, even with all of their bling, because their bling is situationally useless. If it with just down to Stormbolters versus Bolters, the Bolters win due to 2 Tacticals having twice the Wounds as 1 Strike. The Psychic power system in 8th is hot garbage for GK, making that portion of the inflated cost useless. And without the same rules as other melee oriented armies, GK Force weapons are an equally useless cost inflation. Two Tacticals might not be worth 26 points, but a Strike is definitely not worth 22 points. That is the crux of the problem.

GK are point costed and balanced around not being targetable outside of 24”. Unfortunately, they have no rules that make them hard to target at range.

GK are point costed and supposedly balanced around getting into melee, but don’t have the ability to get into melee without getting thorn apart before the Charge, a strong chance of failing the Charge, and not enough base attacks to make the Charge worth attempting despite the other two problems. Simply the put, GK are missing rules they are paying for.

The fix GK is either a realignment of points to more realistically represent what they can do, or the addition of rules to support what they are already paying for. GW have failed so far to produce either.

SJ

Just to toss in..

When I see some GK players they don’t have any army that allows them to be successful on the field, and I’m not talking Rules, but speaking of models. So many times I have someone tell me they have 2K GK, but they have a Landraider, a Termi squad, a Dread Knight, and Kaldor Draigo, and a squad of unpainted Purgation, and wonder why they don’t win much.

If your serious about the Grey knights, work on your force, play a lot and play hard, and learn them better than anyone else, and then still be prepared to lose at times with them. But you will win games also and people will say… “I thought GK’s were underpowered. WTF”

Reemule - So you're answer to the GK problem is "just get better"? I can tell you that if we're just talking about mono GK then you have no idea what the reality of the situation is.

Not counting vehicle weapons GK have a max range of 24". They have 1 weapon that is S7 and it does 1 pt of damage with a -1AP. GK's main "heavy weapon" has a range of 24" AP0 and d3 damage. With those short ranges most of the time the model carrying the weapon has to move so they are at -1 to hit from the get go.

They have psychic abilities that are limited by the one use per turn rule and most of the offensive ones don't have the ability to select a target but must be used on the closest enemy unit. They have a smite that has shorter range than almost anyone else's and only does 1 point (except against daemons). The bigger smite option is limited to a 3" range and is only offered on 3 units.

GK has no CP recursion and no way to start with more CP than their detachments + battle forged. Even their better stratagems are over costed for their use with the exception of "only in death" which is 1 point less than in most armies.

These are probably the most obvious flaws in their design and I'm sure someone else can add to the list. If you think that you can win consistently with a mono-GK build (say 40%+ win rate at large events) then please show the rest of us how it is done.

You can't mess with GK points too much because of what they bring to the table (SBs, force weapons and psychic powers), so it's pointless asking for a huge point decrease. What you have to look at instead is how to boost the rules for GKs so that extra bling actually matters.

#1 Stormbolters. Already a great weapon, now just drop the psybolt strategem to 1CP and you're good.
#2 Force Weapons. Actually pretty damn good, problem is the 1 attack. Bump all base Grey Knights to 2 attacks base, Terminators to 3 and Paladins to 4. Just look at Custodes for their number of attacks per base.
#3 Psychic. Tougher to balance when the entire army is psykers. Without spending a lot of thought on it, I'd say keep Rites of Banishment as is (don't forget that it doesn't get harder to cast like other armies for each successive attempt), but allow the unit to cause D3 mortal wounds on a roll greater than 10 (which will be a 10+ due to brotherhood of psykers rule). Also don't underestimate the sheer number of Deny the Witch attempts they get. Vs daemons, it should be D3 wounds and only flat 3 when above 10 (and Daemons need to lose the strat that allows them to return vs Grey Knights, that is ridiculous)

Librarians should get full smite, period

Most of the other fixes needs to be the poorly (or rushed) thought out Strategems, warlord traits and relics. If SW can get a downloadable sheet to replace their traits, the GK can too. If farming is going to still be a thing, then one of the traits should get it. Unyielding Anvil might be best for that, add a 5+ return CP when strategem used or in the very least make the morale work on Imperium units, not just Grey Knights. Hammer of Righteousness and Nemesis Lord should be combined into single trait...+1 to wound and +1 damage with non relic weapons.

Strategems are really weak tbh. Psychic onslaught, psybolt ammunition and finest hour should all drop to 1 CP. The aegis should be buffed (it's rather weak) that perhaps if the deny is successful that the Psyker casting power also suffers 1 mortal wound. D3 mortal wounds might be too much, but maybe not....GKs need to get some serious teeth back and be scary, so yeah, make it D3 mortal wounds.
Other than that, they just need additional strategems, like at least another 8.

The relics are just God awful and need to be completely reworked. not even going to touch this one right now.

Psychic powers. Purge Soul is crap because GKs don't really have a way of debuffing enemy Ld, so you are never going to get a decent net difference unless you allow the GK player to roll 2D6 and pick highest. gate is fine and can happen Turn 1. hammerhand is fine too when all GK attack characteristics are bumped by 1. Sanctuary is fine too except it should also increase armour save by 1 to a max of 2+ too (like Eldar Protect).

Anyway, that would be at least a starting point for me.

Leo_the_Rat wrote:
Reemule - So you're answer to the GK problem is "just get better"? I can tell you that if we're just talking about mono GK then you have no idea what the reality of the situation is.

Basically yes.

And I'm standing by my answer.

And I don't care about GK over preforming or under preforming. They under preform. You GK players can't even agree why they seem to under preform from my not comprehensive look at this.

And to further clarify before a freakout... GK's shouldn't get fixed till they do some stuff like Iron out the macro level issues about stuff like Soup and CP, so they have the system they want, and then GK's can get fiddled around with.

But going back to the point about K's getting fixed, even with a fix half the GK players would still explain how stupid bad they are. So why bother.

But "get good" isn't an answer it's nothing more than a lazy person's excuse for not knowing the answer to a conundrum. It doesn't matter why anyone thinks that their army is bad all you have to do is show, through actually evidence, that it is better than what they think.

I'm not freaking out but why should GKs have to wait until the game is fixed in other places before they are made competitive in the current itineration of the game? Why can they not be brought into line now and adjusted as needed when/if GW ever brings the game into a better balance.

I agree that even if you make the GKs better, through whatever means, there will always be someone crying that it's not enough. But that's besides the point and using that as an excuse so you don't have to fix them is another lazy out.

How about putting your energy where your mouth is and come up with a try solution or show everyone how wrong they are? Otherwise you're just blowing smoke and wasting everyone else's time.

Leo_the_Rat wrote:
But "get good" isn't an answer it's nothing more than a lazy person's excuse for not knowing the answer to a conundrum. It doesn't matter why anyone thinks that their army is bad all you have to do is show, through actually evidence, that it is better than what they think.

I'm not freaking out but why should GKs have to wait until the game is fixed in other places before they are made competitive in the current itineration of the game? Why can they not be brought into line now and adjusted as needed when/if GW ever brings the game into a better balance.

I agree that even if you make the GKs better, through whatever means, there will always be someone crying that it's not enough. But that's besides the point and using that as an excuse so you don't have to fix them is another lazy out.

How about putting your energy where your mouth is and come up with a try solution or show everyone how wrong they are? Otherwise you're just blowing smoke and wasting everyone else's time.

Nope.

I feel it was Off topic enough to answer what I did. I don't know what will fix GK. All i know if that GK players don't either.

There needs to be a Goodwin's law, or a Moore's law of gaming. Call it the gamer Law. Players are terrible at balance. And they don't think they are.

But back on topic, this person is asking what they should do with GK. Buy them, play them, enjoy them, ignore the whiners on dakka dakka, and expect that there is going to be some level of difficulty in winning with them at some events right now.(this last point could change at any moment)

In my opinion, the issues with GK when compared to other SM is a lack of special/heavy weapons, spicifically Plasma weapons. General lack of AP at range. Primaris Marines also can make for a good force multiplier (2W models with AP-1 on their base guns).

I feel like if GKs had a more diverse access of weapons or just a base increase of attacks without the need to take Falchions then the point cost could be justified.

Reemule wrote:

Players are terrible at balance. And they don't think they are.

Amen to that!

Everyone is an armchair game designer. Reality is most of the house rules people have that they think would fix things would actually be terrible.

Stux wrote:

Reemule wrote:

Players are terrible at balance. And they don't think they are.

Amen to that!

Everyone is an armchair game designer. Reality is most of the house rules people have that they think would fix things would actually be terrible.

At least they're trying. Better than pretending nothing is wrong, speaking of which:


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Reemule wrote:

Leo_the_Rat wrote:
Reemule - So you're answer to the GK problem is "just get better"? I can tell you that if we're just talking about mono GK then you have no idea what the reality of the situation is.

Basically yes.

And I'm standing by my answer.

And I don't care about GK over preforming or under preforming. They under preform. You GK players can't even agree why they seem to under preform from my not comprehensive look at this.

And to further clarify before a freakout... GK's shouldn't get fixed till they do some stuff like Iron out the macro level issues about stuff like Soup and CP, so they have the system they want, and then GK's can get fiddled around with.

But going back to the point about K's getting fixed, even with a fix half the GK players would still explain how stupid bad they are. So why bother.

Actually they ALL agree why the army underperforms. And why should players of a whole army wait until you feel soup gets fixed even though that's clearly not the issue? Fixing soup doesn't fix the army whatsoever.

Also your last paragraph there shows you don't actually care and are looking to troll.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Stux wrote:

Reemule wrote:

Players are terrible at balance. And they don't think they are.

Amen to that!

Everyone is an armchair game designer. Reality is most of the house rules people have that they think would fix things would actually be terrible.

At least they're trying.

Except they aren't really a lot of the time. Its often not about finding the best solution, it's often about everyone feeding their ego by fighting to put their own pet idea on top. It turns into a Skub war lasting 30 pages where no one agrees on anything.

If you like Grey Knights play Grey Knights. The game foes through power spikes. Grey Knights could be horrible now, but in 9th edition or 8.5, they could be the next powerhouse. You're the one building and painting them, make sure you play what you enjoy. If you're playing to win and playing to be competitive then you're going to be spending a lot more and swapping armies between events. If you bring Grey Knights and you play someone at your local store and say, hey man I'm playing Grey Knights and not looking for a competitive game, do you mind next time playing without your Castellan? More so then none people will gladly put away their competitive META army to have a fun game.

 plark wrote:
If you like Grey Knights play Grey Knights. The game foes through power spikes. Grey Knights could be horrible now, but in 9th edition or 8.5, they could be the next powerhouse. You're the one building and painting them, make sure you play what you enjoy. If you're playing to win and playing to be competitive then you're going to be spending a lot more and swapping armies between events.

Only the spikes seem to happen for GK in 2-3 editions intervals aka GK are god every 7-8 years. Telling someone who just have to wait that long, and maybe then they will be good is crazy. Most people don't even play the game that long.

If you bring Grey Knights and you play someone at your local store and say, hey man I'm playing Grey Knights and not looking for a competitive game, do you mind next time playing without your Castellan? More so then none people will gladly put away their competitive META army to have a fun game.

And at my store all opponents would tell me that they have one 2k pts army and in that army castellan is a substential part of the points, and they don't want to play less then 2000pts. May as well go around and try to ask around to find people that play narrative games. In UK that maybe a thing, but in Poland I have heard of narrative games only mentioned as part of making fun of odd western meta.

Yeah, the idea of people actually enjoying the game is hilarious.

Karol wrote:

 plark wrote:
If you like Grey Knights play Grey Knights. The game foes through power spikes. Grey Knights could be horrible now, but in 9th edition or 8.5, they could be the next powerhouse. You're the one building and painting them, make sure you play what you enjoy. If you're playing to win and playing to be competitive then you're going to be spending a lot more and swapping armies between events.

Only the spikes seem to happen for GK in 2-3 editions intervals aka GK are god every 7-8 years. Telling someone who just have to wait that long, and maybe then they will be good is crazy. Most people don't even play the game that long.

If you bring Grey Knights and you play someone at your local store and say, hey man I'm playing Grey Knights and not looking for a competitive game, do you mind next time playing without your Castellan? More so then none people will gladly put away their competitive META army to have a fun game.

And at my store all opponents would tell me that they have one 2k pts army and in that army castellan is a substential part of the points, and they don't want to play less then 2000pts. May as well go around and try to ask around to find people that play narrative games. In UK that maybe a thing, but in Poland I have heard of narrative games only mentioned as part of making fun of odd western meta.

Karol we've all been over this with you ad nauseum.

Your gaming group sounds like the most toxic one in existence. It's not a valid representation of the community in general. It's not uncommon for people to want fun less competitive games.

GW has changed significantly in the last year or so. None of the previous editions can be used as evidence for how GW will handle things in the future. It's clear they are working to balance the game in a way they never have before.

By the time it would take a normal person with a job and a mild social life to buy, build and paint an entire GK army, it's very likely GK will be better than they are now. In fact it's almost impossible that they wouldn't be.

They do need a full codex rewrite, but it's very plausible that a year from now they'll have one.

Reemule wrote:

There needs to be a Goodwin's law, or a Moore's law of gaming. Call it the gamer Law. Players are terrible at balance. And they don't think they are.

Rosewater's law, players are great at finding problems but terrible at finding solutions.

jcd386 wrote:

Karol wrote:

 plark wrote:
If you like Grey Knights play Grey Knights. The game foes through power spikes. Grey Knights could be horrible now, but in 9th edition or 8.5, they could be the next powerhouse. You're the one building and painting them, make sure you play what you enjoy. If you're playing to win and playing to be competitive then you're going to be spending a lot more and swapping armies between events.

Only the spikes seem to happen for GK in 2-3 editions intervals aka GK are god every 7-8 years. Telling someone who just have to wait that long, and maybe then they will be good is crazy. Most people don't even play the game that long.

If you bring Grey Knights and you play someone at your local store and say, hey man I'm playing Grey Knights and not looking for a competitive game, do you mind next time playing without your Castellan? More so then none people will gladly put away their competitive META army to have a fun game.

And at my store all opponents would tell me that they have one 2k pts army and in that army castellan is a substential part of the points, and they don't want to play less then 2000pts. May as well go around and try to ask around to find people that play narrative games. In UK that maybe a thing, but in Poland I have heard of narrative games only mentioned as part of making fun of odd western meta.

Karol we've all been over this with you ad nauseum.

Your gaming group sounds like the most toxic one in existence. It's not a valid representation of the community in general. It's not uncommon for people to want fun less competitive games.

GW has changed significantly in the last year or so. None of the previous editions can be used as evidence for how GW will handle things in the future. It's clear they are working to balance the game in a way they never have before.

By the time it would take a normal person with a job and a mild social life to buy, build and paint an entire GK army, it's very likely GK will be better than they are now. In fact it's almost impossible that they wouldn't be.

They do need a full codex rewrite, but it's very plausible that a year from now they'll have one.

Yeah we play both competitive and narrative games in my area... for the less comptetive games we even tend to run each other list by each other before we play the game to make sure that we think each others list was capable of hacing a close game against each other since the prevaling opinion is blowing out your opponent just due to list/army strength makes for a boring game.

 IronBrand wrote:

Reemule wrote:

There needs to be a Goodwin's law, or a Moore's law of gaming. Call it the gamer Law. Players are terrible at balance. And they don't think they are.

Rosewater's law, players are great at finding problems but terrible at finding solutions.

More like terrible at agreeing on solutions.

I can solve the current set of problems in 5 seconds. I might create new and different problems, but I would solve the current ones.

 IronBrand wrote:

Reemule wrote:

There needs to be a Goodwin's law, or a Moore's law of gaming. Call it the gamer Law. Players are terrible at balance. And they don't think they are.

Rosewater's law, players are great at finding problems but terrible at finding solutions.

I say this is partly true as someone that vehemently defends his proposed rules. Sometimes I just miss the mark ya know?

 Marmatag wrote:

 IronBrand wrote:

Reemule wrote:

There needs to be a Goodwin's law, or a Moore's law of gaming. Call it the gamer Law. Players are terrible at balance. And they don't think they are.

Rosewater's law, players are great at finding problems but terrible at finding solutions.

More like terrible at agreeing on solutions.

I can solve the current set of problems in 5 seconds. I might create new and different problems, but I would solve the current ones.

Saying you can fix problems while creating others is like moving a pile of trash 3' to the left then saying you cleaned it up.

 Marmatag wrote:

 IronBrand wrote:

Reemule wrote:

There needs to be a Goodwin's law, or a Moore's law of gaming. Call it the gamer Law. Players are terrible at balance. And they don't think they are.

Rosewater's law, players are great at finding problems but terrible at finding solutions.

More like terrible at agreeing on solutions.

I can solve the current set of problems in 5 seconds. I might create new and different problems, but I would solve the current ones.

Well that's hardly any good now is it?
"Oh, good news, I solved the roach infestation by burning down the house. The bad news is that I don't have a house."

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:

 IronBrand wrote:

Reemule wrote:

There needs to be a Goodwin's law, or a Moore's law of gaming. Call it the gamer Law. Players are terrible at balance. And they don't think they are.

Rosewater's law, players are great at finding problems but terrible at finding solutions.

More like terrible at agreeing on solutions.

I can solve the current set of problems in 5 seconds. I might create new and different problems, but I would solve the current ones.

Well that's hardly any good now is it?
"Oh, good news, I solved the roach infestation by burning down the house. The bad news is that I don't have a house."

As long as each fix moves is towards a better game state I think it's fine. As you fix each thing new things would come up, but it would still be better than before.

GW is doing what is likely the smart thing and only changing things a few times a year so people aren't afraid to buy stuff and have time to change with the meta. It's frustrating at times but if they continue on this course and don't do anything too crazy they're going to have a pretty great game a year or so from now, and it's already the best state the game has ever been in.

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
You people are so pedantic. GK Strikes are not worth twice a Tactical Marine, even with all of their bling, because their bling is situationally useless. If it with just down to Stormbolters versus Bolters, the Bolters win due to 2 Tacticals having twice the Wounds as 1 Strike. The Psychic power system in 8th is hot garbage for GK, making that portion of the inflated cost useless. And without the same rules as other melee oriented armies, GK Force weapons are an equally useless cost inflation. Two Tacticals might not be worth 26 points, but a Strike is definitely not worth 22 points. That is the crux of the problem.

GK are point costed and balanced around not being targetable outside of 24”. Unfortunately, they have no rules that make them hard to target at range.

GK are point costed and supposedly balanced around getting into melee, but don’t have the ability to get into melee without getting thorn apart before the Charge, a strong chance of failing the Charge, and not enough base attacks to make the Charge worth attempting despite the other two problems. Simply the put, GK are missing rules they are paying for.

The fix GK is either a realignment of points to more realistically represent what they can do, or the addition of rules to support what they are already paying for. GW have failed so far to produce either.

SJ

Epic reading failure on your part if you think somebody here claims they are worth double. NOBODY IS SAYING THAT! What people are saying is that tacticals and grey knights are not worth identical which should be obvious. Storm bolter>bolter. Stats identical. GK's are psychics which IS worth something and while better h2h weapon isn't something that comes up every day it comes up time to time.

Fix is NOT make them cost same as tacticals. That's just silly, stupid and attitude stinks of "We have been poor so let others be worse than us for a change. REVEEEEEENGE!".

Please tell me why people would take tactical when they could take GK then? Huh? Any good reason? You seriously think those two are identical?

tneva82 wrote:

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
You people are so pedantic. GK Strikes are not worth twice a Tactical Marine, even with all of their bling, because their bling is situationally useless. If it with just down to Stormbolters versus Bolters, the Bolters win due to 2 Tacticals having twice the Wounds as 1 Strike. The Psychic power system in 8th is hot garbage for GK, making that portion of the inflated cost useless. And without the same rules as other melee oriented armies, GK Force weapons are an equally useless cost inflation. Two Tacticals might not be worth 26 points, but a Strike is definitely not worth 22 points. That is the crux of the problem.

GK are point costed and balanced around not being targetable outside of 24”. Unfortunately, they have no rules that make them hard to target at range.

GK are point costed and supposedly balanced around getting into melee, but don’t have the ability to get into melee without getting thorn apart before the Charge, a strong chance of failing the Charge, and not enough base attacks to make the Charge worth attempting despite the other two problems. Simply the put, GK are missing rules they are paying for.

The fix GK is either a realignment of points to more realistically represent what they can do, or the addition of rules to support what they are already paying for. GW have failed so far to produce either.

SJ

Epic reading failure on your part if you think somebody here claims they are worth double. NOBODY IS SAYING THAT! What people are saying is that tacticals and grey knights are not worth identical which should be obvious. Storm bolter>bolter. Stats identical. GK's are psychics which IS worth something and while better h2h weapon isn't something that comes up every day it comes up time to time.

Fix is NOT make them cost same as tacticals. That's just silly, stupid and attitude stinks of "We have been poor so let others be worse than us for a change. REVEEEEEENGE!".

Please tell me why people would take tactical when they could take GK then? Huh? Any good reason? You seriously think those two are identical?

Epic read failure seems like o be yourself. Anyone given a choice would take a Tactical over a Strike, as they are cheaper. It’s the same reason why people take Scouts over Tacticals.

SJ

tneva82 763597 10149907 wrote:


Please tell me why people would take tactical when they could take GK then? Huh? Any good reason? You seriously think those two are identical?

Chapter tactics, plasma, better support character, you can't run a slamginius if your troops are GK etc. I found four without thinking that deep or being in possesion of a deep space marine knowladge. As mr Jeffersonian said. 2 bolters on 2 bodies > 1 stormbolter on 1 body , unless some ultra specific rules are included. Which lo and behold GK do not possess, but various marines do in form of speciall ammo for free etc

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
[
Epic read failure seems like o be yourself. Anyone given a choice would take a Tactical over a Strike, as they are cheaper. It’s the same reason why people take Scouts over Tacticals.

SJ

Uuuhh...We are talking about idea of STRIKE COSTING SAME AS TACTICAL!

How much tactical cost? Now put that price to strike. Why take tactical?

Seriously read what people are writing. I have been from the go against the silly idea of having grey knights cost same as tactical. We arent' talking about strike current price vs tactical. We are talking about GREY KNIGHTS WHO COST SAME AS TACTICAL!

Sheesh at the dakkadakka. Tacticals and grey knigths costing same, shootas and big shootas costing same(despite big shoota having superior stats with zero downsides). People always want to push their own army and to hell with what's good for the game.

tneva82 wrote:

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
[
Epic read failure seems like o be yourself. Anyone given a choice would take a Tactical over a Strike, as they are cheaper. It’s the same reason why people take Scouts over Tacticals.

SJ

Uuuhh...We are talking about idea of STRIKE COSTING SAME AS TACTICAL!

How much tactical cost? Now put that price to strike. Why take tactical?

Seriously read what people are writing. I have been from the go against the silly idea of having grey knights cost same as tactical. We arent' talking about strike current price vs tactical. We are talking about GREY KNIGHTS WHO COST SAME AS TACTICAL!

Sheesh at the dakkadakka. Tacticals and grey knigths costing same, shootas and big shootas costing same(despite big shoota having superior stats with zero downsides). People always want to push their own army and to hell with what's good for the game.

Dude, pop your head out. No one is asking for Strikes to cost the same as Tacticals. Those are doing cost breakdowns start with Tacticals as a base, and then compare usefulness of GK addons versus the cost of those addons. Tacticals should be cheaper, but Strikers should be better, they just aren’t.

SJ

 jeffersonian000 wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
[
Epic read failure seems like o be yourself. Anyone given a choice would take a Tactical over a Strike, as they are cheaper. It’s the same reason why people take Scouts over Tacticals.

SJ

Uuuhh...We are talking about idea of STRIKE COSTING SAME AS TACTICAL!

How much tactical cost? Now put that price to strike. Why take tactical?

Seriously read what people are writing. I have been from the go against the silly idea of having grey knights cost same as tactical. We arent' talking about strike current price vs tactical. We are talking about GREY KNIGHTS WHO COST SAME AS TACTICAL!

Sheesh at the dakkadakka. Tacticals and grey knigths costing same, shootas and big shootas costing same(despite big shoota having superior stats with zero downsides). People always want to push their own army and to hell with what's good for the game.

Dude, pop your head out. No one is asking for Strikes to cost the same as Tacticals. Those are doing cost breakdowns start with Tacticals as a base, and then compare usefulness of GK addons versus the cost of those addons. Tacticals should be cheaper, but Strikers should be better, they just aren’t.

SJ

*cough*

 Quickjager wrote:
Until GK cost the same as Vanilla marines, while retaining all their rules and equipments, they will never be anything more than literal bottom of the barrel.

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:

 IronBrand wrote:

Reemule wrote:

There needs to be a Goodwin's law, or a Moore's law of gaming. Call it the gamer Law. Players are terrible at balance. And they don't think they are.

Rosewater's law, players are great at finding problems but terrible at finding solutions.

More like terrible at agreeing on solutions.

I can solve the current set of problems in 5 seconds. I might create new and different problems, but I would solve the current ones.

Well that's hardly any good now is it?
"Oh, good news, I solved the roach infestation by burning down the house. The bad news is that I don't have a house."

Great point, balance is a binary state. It is either perfect, or awful, with 0 middle ground. It is impossible to make iterative improvements to a game. Since GW cannot make the game perfect in 1 update, they should logically never make updates, because it's wasted energy. At least, according to Dakka Dakka.

 Marmatag wrote:
Great point, balance is a binary state. It is either perfect, or awful, with 0 middle ground. It is impossible to make iterative improvements to a game. Since GW cannot make the game perfect in 1 update, they should logically never make updates, because it's wasted energy. At least, according to Dakka Dakka.

That's what most of the complaints about the rule of 3 seem to boil down to on here. Complaining about how even though it dealt with stuff like flyrant spam they should do away with it because it didn't solve every problem with unit balance.

 IronBrand wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:
Great point, balance is a binary state. It is either perfect, or awful, with 0 middle ground. It is impossible to make iterative improvements to a game. Since GW cannot make the game perfect in 1 update, they should logically never make updates, because it's wasted energy. At least, according to Dakka Dakka.

That's what most of the complaints about the rule of 3 seem to boil down to on here. Complaining about how even though it dealt with stuff like flyrant spam they should do away with it because it didn't solve every problem with unit balance.

That's because Rule Of Three doesn't fix units that are broken.

 jeffersonian000 wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
You people are so pedantic. GK Strikes are not worth twice a Tactical Marine, even with all of their bling, because their bling is situationally useless. If it with just down to Stormbolters versus Bolters, the Bolters win due to 2 Tacticals having twice the Wounds as 1 Strike. The Psychic power system in 8th is hot garbage for GK, making that portion of the inflated cost useless. And without the same rules as other melee oriented armies, GK Force weapons are an equally useless cost inflation. Two Tacticals might not be worth 26 points, but a Strike is definitely not worth 22 points. That is the crux of the problem.

GK are point costed and balanced around not being targetable outside of 24”. Unfortunately, they have no rules that make them hard to target at range.

GK are point costed and supposedly balanced around getting into melee, but don’t have the ability to get into melee without getting thorn apart before the Charge, a strong chance of failing the Charge, and not enough base attacks to make the Charge worth attempting despite the other two problems. Simply the put, GK are missing rules they are paying for.

The fix GK is either a realignment of points to more realistically represent what they can do, or the addition of rules to support what they are already paying for. GW have failed so far to produce either.

SJ

Epic reading failure on your part if you think somebody here claims they are worth double. NOBODY IS SAYING THAT! What people are saying is that tacticals and grey knights are not worth identical which should be obvious. Storm bolter>bolter. Stats identical. GK's are psychics which IS worth something and while better h2h weapon isn't something that comes up every day it comes up time to time.

Fix is NOT make them cost same as tacticals. That's just silly, stupid and attitude stinks of "We have been poor so let others be worse than us for a change. REVEEEEEENGE!".

Please tell me why people would take tactical when they could take GK then? Huh? Any good reason? You seriously think those two are identical?

Epic read failure seems like o be yourself. Anyone given a choice would take a Tactical over a Strike, as they are cheaper. It’s the same reason why people take Scouts over Tacticals.

SJ

No - that is inaccurate. Strike squads are actually quite capable units. They do about twice the damage per point of a tactical. Natural deep strike ability. Psychic denial as well. Basically if you could take strikes over tacs in the space marine army - everyone would do it.

Gk problems are more fundamental than space marines - they don't have an effective way to kill super shooting units quickly. For some reason their psychic powers are worse than space marine powers...Nothing in their army is cheap and everything is slow - though - doing damage is easy for them when they get there.

The both have overcosted units. Thing is - if you are paying too much for something - it mights as well...IDK...do things?

 Marmatag wrote:

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:

 IronBrand wrote:

Reemule wrote:

There needs to be a Goodwin's law, or a Moore's law of gaming. Call it the gamer Law. Players are terrible at balance. And they don't think they are.

Rosewater's law, players are great at finding problems but terrible at finding solutions.

More like terrible at agreeing on solutions.

I can solve the current set of problems in 5 seconds. I might create new and different problems, but I would solve the current ones.

Well that's hardly any good now is it?
"Oh, good news, I solved the roach infestation by burning down the house. The bad news is that I don't have a house."

Great point, balance is a binary state. It is either perfect, or awful, with 0 middle ground. It is impossible to make iterative improvements to a game. Since GW cannot make the game perfect in 1 update, they should logically never make updates, because it's wasted energy. At least, according to Dakka Dakka.

Or you could do a proper job and solve most problems before the product is released, instead of playing whack a mole over constant releases.
Its almost as if designing and balancing a game takes more than 5 seconds.
If a company claims they are the best ever and charge their products at a high price, I expect them to do a proper job and make sure the game is mostly balanced, instead of releasing something that's dead on arrival. That's called being a professional.

 jeffersonian000 wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
[
Epic read failure seems like o be yourself. Anyone given a choice would take a Tactical over a Strike, as they are cheaper. It’s the same reason why people take Scouts over Tacticals.

SJ

Uuuhh...We are talking about idea of STRIKE COSTING SAME AS TACTICAL!

How much tactical cost? Now put that price to strike. Why take tactical?

Seriously read what people are writing. I have been from the go against the silly idea of having grey knights cost same as tactical. We arent' talking about strike current price vs tactical. We are talking about GREY KNIGHTS WHO COST SAME AS TACTICAL!

Sheesh at the dakkadakka. Tacticals and grey knigths costing same, shootas and big shootas costing same(despite big shoota having superior stats with zero downsides). People always want to push their own army and to hell with what's good for the game.

Dude, pop your head out. No one is asking for Strikes to cost the same as Tacticals. Those are doing cost breakdowns start with Tacticals as a base, and then compare usefulness of GK addons versus the cost of those addons. Tacticals should be cheaper, but Strikers should be better, they just aren’t.

SJ

All power armor with 1 wound deserves about a 3 point drop. Strikes are due for the same cost drop.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Marmatag wrote:

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:

 IronBrand wrote:

Reemule wrote:

There needs to be a Goodwin's law, or a Moore's law of gaming. Call it the gamer Law. Players are terrible at balance. And they don't think they are.

Rosewater's law, players are great at finding problems but terrible at finding solutions.

More like terrible at agreeing on solutions.

I can solve the current set of problems in 5 seconds. I might create new and different problems, but I would solve the current ones.

Well that's hardly any good now is it?
"Oh, good news, I solved the roach infestation by burning down the house. The bad news is that I don't have a house."

Great point, balance is a binary state. It is either perfect, or awful, with 0 middle ground. It is impossible to make iterative improvements to a game. Since GW cannot make the game perfect in 1 update, they should logically never make updates, because it's wasted energy. At least, according to Dakka Dakka.

I almsot didn't realize you were being sarcastic there. Well done. Agreed.

I think the main thing is the minutia on people’s balance disagreements and the ideas they have for them to get balanced and what they would need to do.

If there is a spectrum between stop the presses on Orktober, while all available GW staff re-write Grey Knights for emergency publication, to well eventually 2 days before 9th is announced they get a 1 line fix in some distant faq…

GW has proven time and time again that they prefer to:

1. Wait a problem out. Maybe incompetence, maybe they know some other product is coming that makes stuff better. But just wait and see how it is in 6 months.
2. Most minimal conceivable change to make a very gentle fix. Run of 3 that is so panned is an example. In a world of all those loopholes and ways it doesn’t help at all.. it actually combined with the proposed CP by Detachment might just fix soup.

So with that information, why do people just keep coming out screaming about how something needs a codex rewrite? All things show you should be hoping for Strike teams to get a couple points shaved off, and Land Raiders to get the ability to fall back and fire. That leads to the hostility.

I have seen the old GK codex, it doesn't look much different then the index or the last codex. I has a bit more options, but from what I understand about differences between 7th and 8th is that GW decided to cut a lot of options from a lot of books. So considering the books are almost the same, and GK were bad in 6th, 7th and are bad in 8th, I have a question about the part about waiting it out, because there is something coming up in six months. Since GK were in 6th ed how many years pasted 4-5? that is between 8 and 10 6months reflection times for GW staff. I think it is understandable that with that much time, people kind of a expect to see something tangible, other then some smoke and mirrors stuff about needing another 6-12 months.

GKs had some amazing options in 5th that where cut, proably only fair as it was nesscary but a lotta the cuts also ruined what made the army work, in 7th they did OK as they had access to some amazing deep strike, but 8th removed that option so... yeah GKs are hurting, due to a number of little changes to the core rules as well as removal of elements of GKs, GKs really need a ground level rethink IMHO. problem is a near total reboot of the codex would piss as many people off as it'd help as it would likely mean a MASSIVE amount of change. and 40k players ultimately wanna run the same list from edition to edition and be top tier powerful. (don't get me wrong they accept it's not possiable but that IS the ideal)

BrianDavion wrote:
. problem is a near total reboot of the codex would piss as many people off as it'd help as it would likely mean a MASSIVE amount of change.

Then do it? If it needs a massive overhaul then give it a massive overhaul. No half measures. So what if it pisses off a lot of people? If it works then it works.
As long as it works and GW didn't take 5 seconds to come up with some half-arsed solution whilst not considering any problems that may arise, it should be fine.

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:
. problem is a near total reboot of the codex would piss as many people off as it'd help as it would likely mean a MASSIVE amount of change.

Then do it? If it needs a massive overhaul then give it a massive overhaul. No half measures. So what if it pisses off a lot of people? If it works then it works.
As long as it works and GW didn't take 5 seconds to come up with some half-arsed solution whilst not considering any problems that may arise, it should be fine.

I mean... That is the philosophy of 8e, for better and for worse.

Stux wrote:

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:
. problem is a near total reboot of the codex would piss as many people off as it'd help as it would likely mean a MASSIVE amount of change.

Then do it? If it needs a massive overhaul then give it a massive overhaul. No half measures. So what if it pisses off a lot of people? If it works then it works.
As long as it works and GW didn't take 5 seconds to come up with some half-arsed solution whilst not considering any problems that may arise, it should be fine.

I mean... That is the philosophy of 8e, for better and for worse.

Not really. They didn't do enough.
If they did enough, so many armies and rule interactions wouldn't be having problems right now. Its as if they gave up half-way. And a lot of the changes were poorly thought out.
Grey Knights wouldn't be in the situation they are in, Monoliths would work as intended, 3+ armor saves are still lackluster unless wound bloated, fall back would have actual penalties, flyers wouldn't be useless in practice, CP farms wouldn't be a thing, etc.

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

Stux wrote:

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:
. problem is a near total reboot of the codex would piss as many people off as it'd help as it would likely mean a MASSIVE amount of change.

Then do it? If it needs a massive overhaul then give it a massive overhaul. No half measures. So what if it pisses off a lot of people? If it works then it works.
As long as it works and GW didn't take 5 seconds to come up with some half-arsed solution whilst not considering any problems that may arise, it should be fine.

I mean... That is the philosophy of 8e, for better and for worse.

Not really. They didn't do enough.
If they did enough, so many armies and rule interactions wouldn't be having problems right now. Its as if they gave up half-way. And a lot of the changes were poorly thought out.
Grey Knights wouldn't be in the situation they are in, Monoliths would work as intended, 3+ armor saves are still lackluster unless wound bloated, fall back would have actual penalties, flyers wouldn't be useless in practice, CP farms wouldn't be a thing, etc.

Primaris was a massive shake up with both lore and on the tabletop. The general rules for 8th are also the biggest shakeup since 3e.

It pissed a lot of people off, but they decided that big shakeup would be worth it in the long run.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
You know what... Saying that, they're blatantly going to do Primaris GKs eventually. That will be a huge shakeup.

Stux wrote:

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

Stux wrote:

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:
. problem is a near total reboot of the codex would piss as many people off as it'd help as it would likely mean a MASSIVE amount of change.

Then do it? If it needs a massive overhaul then give it a massive overhaul. No half measures. So what if it pisses off a lot of people? If it works then it works.
As long as it works and GW didn't take 5 seconds to come up with some half-arsed solution whilst not considering any problems that may arise, it should be fine.

I mean... That is the philosophy of 8e, for better and for worse.

Not really. They didn't do enough.
If they did enough, so many armies and rule interactions wouldn't be having problems right now. Its as if they gave up half-way. And a lot of the changes were poorly thought out.
Grey Knights wouldn't be in the situation they are in, Monoliths would work as intended, 3+ armor saves are still lackluster unless wound bloated, fall back would have actual penalties, flyers wouldn't be useless in practice, CP farms wouldn't be a thing, etc.

Primaris was a massive shake up with both lore and on the tabletop. The general rules for 8th are also the biggest shakeup since 3e.

It pissed a lot of people off, but they decided that big shakeup would be worth it in the long run.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
You know what... Saying that, they're blatantly going to do Primaris GKs eventually. That will be a huge shakeup.

So? They still did a poor job. I will not deny that it was a shake up, but I will not accept that they couldn't have done more or better, or that it wasn't a half-arsed job. There so many oversights and ports of the worst of 7th that the game doesn't feel finished.

They introduced hit modifiers, but kept overwatch hitting only on 6s from 6th and 7th ed, and didn't add any positive modifiers

They kept flyers, but didn't work them so that they don't die due to running out of space to move.

They added a psychic phase, but didn't give every faction some sort of psy-defence so they have something to do during the opponent's psychic other than take a bunch of mortal wounds.

They added the option of leaving combat, but didn't really add penalties or attacks of opportunity. So the falling back squad can't shoot back...unless they are ultramarines, have FLY, and as they left combat in their turn the squad they were engaged with is now exposed to be shot. Wooo, what a penalty! Ironically, the initiative stat, which they removed, could have been used here.

There's probably more, but that's from the top of my head. And that's just the core rules.
Introducing primaris means nothing in terms of gameplay. Its just another type of marine to be sold, like they've always been doing. Its only significant in terms of lore.

Wow. That's a lot of salt to process!

Whether you like it is not terribly relevant to me. In fact it's precisely my point. You said you didn't care if the shakeup pissed some people off. Well welcome to 8e, the edition that shook everything up, pissed some people off, but is generally still regarded on balance to be a very positive step.

So yeah, they will shake up GKs. They'll give them a bunch of Primaris based new units, and it'll be a big change to the available tactics and army builds. And judging from attitude you'll probably hate it in the face of most people having a blast.

Stux wrote:
Wow. That's a lot of salt to process!

Whether you like it is not terribly relevant to me. In fact it's precisely my point. You said you didn't care if the shakeup pissed some people off. Well welcome to 8e, the edition that shook everything up, pissed some people off, but is generally still regarded on balance to be a very positive step.

So yeah, they will shake up GKs. They'll give them a bunch of Primaris based new units, and it'll be a big change to the available tactics and army builds. And judging from attitude you'll probably hate it in the face of most people having a blast.

Only if they don't do a good job. You seem to misunderstand. Its not the change I don't like. Its that they didn't do it right.
Considering how mediocre GK are right now, it would be hard to screw it up more though.

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

Stux wrote:
Wow. That's a lot of salt to process!

Whether you like it is not terribly relevant to me. In fact it's precisely my point. You said you didn't care if the shakeup pissed some people off. Well welcome to 8e, the edition that shook everything up, pissed some people off, but is generally still regarded on balance to be a very positive step.

So yeah, they will shake up GKs. They'll give them a bunch of Primaris based new units, and it'll be a big change to the available tactics and army builds. And judging from attitude you'll probably hate it in the face of most people having a blast.

Only if they don't do a good job. You seem to misunderstand. Its not the change I don't like. Its that they didn't do it right.

For its flaws, I'd still disagree. All in all I think they did a great job with 8e. They didn't do SOME things right. GK's current state being one of them. But overall for me it is a massive step forward from 7e.

Stux wrote:

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

Stux wrote:
Wow. That's a lot of salt to process!

Whether you like it is not terribly relevant to me. In fact it's precisely my point. You said you didn't care if the shakeup pissed some people off. Well welcome to 8e, the edition that shook everything up, pissed some people off, but is generally still regarded on balance to be a very positive step.

So yeah, they will shake up GKs. They'll give them a bunch of Primaris based new units, and it'll be a big change to the available tactics and army builds. And judging from attitude you'll probably hate it in the face of most people having a blast.

Only if they don't do a good job. You seem to misunderstand. Its not the change I don't like. Its that they didn't do it right.

For its flaws, I'd still disagree. All in all I think they did a great job with 8e. They didn't do SOME things right. GK's current state being one of them. But overall for me it is a massive step forward from 7e.

Well, yes, we can agree on that.
7th was terrible. I like 8th too, its just that I think they could have done a lot more refining, especially in terms of how they handled the codices.
In fact, most of the problems I have with 8th is because its still too much like 7th; the flyer movement rules and the overwatch rule are a direct port over from 7th edition. And they are they still terrible.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 IronBrand wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:
Great point, balance is a binary state. It is either perfect, or awful, with 0 middle ground. It is impossible to make iterative improvements to a game. Since GW cannot make the game perfect in 1 update, they should logically never make updates, because it's wasted energy. At least, according to Dakka Dakka.

That's what most of the complaints about the rule of 3 seem to boil down to on here. Complaining about how even though it dealt with stuff like flyrant spam they should do away with it because it didn't solve every problem with unit balance.

That's because Rule Of Three doesn't fix units that are broken.

Rule of 3 is absolutely mandatory for this game not to be a total joke. I hope it becomes a permanent rule. One of the best rules they've released.

 Marmatag wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 IronBrand wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:
Great point, balance is a binary state. It is either perfect, or awful, with 0 middle ground. It is impossible to make iterative improvements to a game. Since GW cannot make the game perfect in 1 update, they should logically never make updates, because it's wasted energy. At least, according to Dakka Dakka.

That's what most of the complaints about the rule of 3 seem to boil down to on here. Complaining about how even though it dealt with stuff like flyrant spam they should do away with it because it didn't solve every problem with unit balance.

That's because Rule Of Three doesn't fix units that are broken.

Rule of 3 is absolutely mandatory for this game not to be a total joke. I hope it becomes a permanent rule. One of the best rules they've released.

How do you figure? That's a bandaid on a gunshot wound.

Better than letting the gunshot wound go untreated.

Treating the gunshot wound would be ideal, but that takes time.

Bharring wrote:
Better than letting the gunshot wound go untreated.

Treating the gunshot wound would be ideal, but that takes time.

And how would one treat it?
Which units are OP? Why are they OP? Do they serve a specific role in the army that nothing else can fill? Are they only OP if taken en masse? These are all important questions when concerning balance.

I'll expand my comment.

The questions:
Which units are OP?
Why are they OP?
Do they serve a specific role in the army that nothing else can fill?
Are they only OP if taken en masse?

Are all non-trivial to answer, even for a single army or certain units. Answering all those questions for every unit in the game? Not a "get it done now" thing. Hence, the need for a bandaid. Rule of 3 minimizes (to some extent) the damage caused by balance mistakes. Which makes the game better.

Ideally, it'd be used temporarily while they fix all their mistakes. Practically, the game is too complex for mere mortals to truly balance. A better job than current? That's easy. But that's almost always easy.

They believed 'Rule of 3' would do more good for balance than anything else they could get out there in as short a timeframe. I think they were right. That shouldn't preclude answering Cthululs questions. But why wait until we've answered those to implement the bandaid?

Because some units aren't OP when you bring 3 of them, but are OP when you bring 10 (or, a lot).

Because cost scaling is linear, whereas tabletop value isn't.

Are 3 Plagueburst Crawlers OP? No, but they're strong.
Are 6 Plagueburst Crawlers OP? Yeah.

Are 3 Ravagers OP? No, but they're strong.
Are 8 Ravagers OP? Yes.

Are 3 Flyrants OP? No, but they're strong.
Are 10 Flyrants OP? Yes, clearly.

Are 3 Commanders OP? No, but they're strong.
Are 10 Commanders OP? Yes, clearly.

Etc

 Marmatag wrote:
Because some units aren't OP when you bring 3 of them, but are OP when you bring 10 (or, a lot).

Because cost scaling is linear, whereas tabletop value isn't.

Are 3 Plagueburst Crawlers OP? No, but they're strong.
Are 6 Plagueburst Crawlers OP? Yeah.

Are 3 Ravagers OP? No, but they're strong.
Are 8 Ravagers OP? Yes.

Are 3 Flyrants OP? No, but they're strong.
Are 10 Flyrants OP? Yes, clearly.

Are 3 Commanders OP? No, but they're strong.
Are 10 Commanders OP? Yes, clearly.

Etc

Isn't it more like - 3 of these type units aren't OP because you might be forced to take another unit that is not OP? Yet - can still load your list up with 3 more OP units of the same power level and end up with an equally powerful army?

The issue is cost. Undercosted units are undercosted whether you have 1 or 10 or them.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Rule of 3 is GW's half assed method of capping an unbalanced unit. Well...at least they can only bring 3 of them.

Or in the case of lots of units - they can bring a lot more just by taking units in Squads...or with a slightly different data slate. Or if it's a troop they can take unlimited. The rule is not very good IMO. I am fine playing with it though - I am for anything that adds variety.

You aren't understanding the concept of relative rate of return.

Effectiveness isn't linear, points are.

 grouchoben wrote:
I'm going to try and be the little ray of sunshine that says 'sure, go ahead and play Grey Knights'!

Their codex was early in the release schedule, meaning they have some veryyyy conservative rules-writing: GW were scared of breaking the game, due to their combo-style psyker powers and their super-common teleportation ability.

So go in with your eyes open: you will be facing an up-hill challenge. having said that there are a handful of strong units you can base your army around, as long as you don't mind the idea of ALSO buying some guard, or ad mech? (The Knights function best as a strike force, dropping the hammer whilst another detachment rains shots and holds objectives.)

So Voldus is a great HQ, great caster, very good in close combat. Draigo is tough, vicious in combat, and buffs well - but he's expensive. the Grandmaster in a nemesis dreadknight suit is expensive but very powerful. The basic troop choice of strike squad is great, and lays down lots of dakka. One venerable dread in a list is a great option, as uniquely, he can hide behind line of sight blocking terrain, and snip away at enemy tanks. Your apothecaries are the best available to marines, and they function as action heroes, hitting things on the head with massive hammers, and healing themselves or others when they get damaged. After that there's some pretty good units (Paladins, Stormravens, Interceptors), and then a sharp falloff.

So it's doable, and I suspect Grey Knights are top of the list for armies to get a buff when the new CHapter Approved tweaks come out. Long story short, if you think they're cool, then follow your heart. Research your faction. Buy and build wisely. And take immense satisfaction when you win against players using your cunning, not your auto-win button.

Voldus is horrible in a grey Knights army because any spells he’d cast are trash offensive dmg spells, or he’d be casting utility spells that your other units need.

Draigo is overcosted and inferior to other 200-250 point beat sticks. Compare him to Celestine, Slamguinius or shield captain bikers.

Voldus is great dropping in with a small team, buffing them, casting vortex, etc. You're right that he's trash in a pure GK list due to oversubscription of spells, but I'm not recommending that (who would?). If you're taking a GK batallion or vanguard though, he's excellent for getting your key spells off, and smashing things with his hammer. Maybe GK's best HQ?

Draigo is overcosted compared to the 3 most undercosted HQs in the game, correct.

How overcosted is Draigo though to the other Chapter Master equivalents though? He's got the same capabilities offensively and defensively but he's REALLY lacking in the support department.

He has better capabilities offensively and defensively than Dante or Azrael though! S8/-4/D3 vs S6/-3/D1d3. He also has +1w, can deny twice, is 3++ and is one of the only units in the game that can have a 2++. That's streets ahead of either in defensive profile.

No invuln bubble for him like with Azrael, but exactly the same as Dante's buffing. Plus he can cast 2/deny 2.

He's 240pts vs their 215/180pts, I think that's pretty fair. (Azrael is better imo, but hey, it's not a total wash!)

Draigo is a great beatstick and, if you have 2cp spare, is in the very top bracket of most tanky HQs in the game.

Two questions, how do you get free 2 CP in a GK army and how does a unit of the speed of Draigo get to actually use his beatstickiness ? Because I get how a slamginius gets in to melee, and I get that azrael is a bubble of inv+re-rolls for hellblasters, am not getting how the stuff with draigo should happen. If you take him you have to take one fewer NDKs, this means there is going to be only one NDK and one gets focused fired very fast. So by taking a draigo you would more or less eliminate the only other good HQ for GKs. And you do need a second one for those battalion CP.

Voldus is great dropping in with a small team, buffing them, casting vortex, etc. You're right that he's trash in a pure GK list due to oversubscription of spells, but I'm not recommending that (who would?). If you're taking a GK batallion or vanguard though, he's excellent for getting your key spells off, and smashing things with his hammer. Maybe GK's best HQ?

For fewer points you could have BA hammer cpts and you get 3 units of scouts, and he can't be denied by anything else but something with a detachment of DE. Also same with draigo, I don't know how you get the smashing part with him, everything that does melee is going to be faster then him, so he will either be out of charge range all the time, or he will be the one getting charged and it is not like he is super resilient. He can swing one time after he kicked the bucket, but that is a lot of points invested in to killing 2-3 shining spears.

Slamguinius is the most efficient beatstick in the Imperium, maybe the game, so long as you can feed him the CPs... Compare him to ANY other HQ and they will fall short.

Draigo is not worth his points.

He doesn't offer enough utility.

Deny the witch is handy, but if you're playing GK you're already saturated with denies.

You can get better, cheaper melee out of a Smash Captain. Even without the relics or stratagems.

As far as Grey Knights go, you are better off including a Bro Cap, because he'll have a 5+++ and be generally cheaper. Or, just spring for another GMNDK.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
How overcosted is Draigo though to the other Chapter Master equivalents though? He's got the same capabilities offensively and defensively but he's REALLY lacking in the support department.

Compared to Calgar and Trajen he doesn't seem unreasonably costed. Calgar gives you god mode CP and reduced damage - Tragen can heal wounds or fight again and gives a nice reroll 1's to wound bubble in addition to reroll al hits which all these guys do hes got a 3++ too - Dragio gives you 3++ / psychic abilities and denies and flat 3 damage.

I feel like Calgar is probably the best deal out of all of them though because reroll 1's to wound is available from an Lt. and CP regen helps your army stay in the game longer. Draigo seems like he should be in between these 2. Be costs as much as Trajen.

Calgar is actually seen in quality tournament lists.

Now that might have a lot to do with a more robust model line in space marines, but he is a decent mini-replacement to Guilliman depending on what you want to accomplish.

Outside of the GMDK I think the brother captain and voldus are your best HQ options. If only GK had smite similar to TS. Where they could do d3 mortals on a roll of a 10 and 1 on a 5. Plus heros getting normal smite. Then Brother Captain would be a boss.

Then all you gotta do for the daemon rule is make it always 3 and d6 min 3 on an 11. So what if GK wreck daemon...they are supposed to wreck daemon. Plus...that stratagem....

Best HQ option is actualy Bro Champ - cheaper and can wound anything on 5+ (4+ with hammerhand, 3+ with trait if you really want to buff him up).

Draigo is useful on 2-3 stormraven build - he is not worth his points alone but with ravens he is useful (and he can gate to stay with them in aura turn 1), otherwise is badly overcosted.

Guys, whole codex is overcosted crap and discussion what is less crappy than another makes no sense. From competitive side GK are dead (MAYBE draigoRavens can play, but not with current Castellan meta) so if you are fielding GK you play friendly game anyway so you can bring paladins, termies, whatever, you play for fun. At least do some stuff like dakka Ven Dred astral aiming to wallhack and teleport that psybolt land rider to enemy face and have some fun

Forfiter wrote:
Best HQ option is actualy Bro Champ - cheaper and can wound anything on 5+ (4+ with hammerhand, 3+ with trait if you really want to buff him up).

Draigo is useful on 2-3 stormraven build - he is not worth his points alone but with ravens he is useful (and he can gate to stay with them in aura turn 1), otherwise is badly overcosted.

Guys, whole codex is overcosted crap and discussion what is less crappy than another makes no sense. From competitive side GK are dead (MAYBE draigoRavens can play, but not with current Castellan meta) so if you are fielding GK you play friendly game anyway so you can bring paladins, termies, whatever, you play for fun. At least do some stuff like dakka Ven Dred astral aiming to wallhack and teleport that psybolt land rider to enemy face and have some fun

Essentially this.

I played Draigo Ravens back in 2017 and it was OK. I have an overall winning record with GK at tournaments. But, you just have hard counters, where it's kind of stupid and over before any dice are rolled.