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

Grey Templar wrote:I think the reason people call GKs cheesy is because they thought they could use the same tactic they used elsewhere. They assume their melee unit can take them out.

I call GK's cheesy because I can't even deploy a single model in my army half the time...

Warp Quake = most broken ability in the game.
Thanks Ward for shelving my entire freaking army!!!

Grey Knights in and of themselves aren't broken; the issues are as follows:

a) They're a relatively new army, so people haven't figured out the tricks to squashing them yet.

b) They were written with very few 'bad' units in their Codex. Every rulebook has got a few units that don't measure up and are infrequently seen in competitive lists (Rangers, Support Weapon Platforms for the Eldar, Sky Rays, Sniper Drones for the Tau, Whirlwinds, Scout Bikes, Techmarines, and the Legion of the Damned for Codex Marines, etc.), the Grey Knights don't suffer from this problem. I could make a list using Purgators, regular PAGKs, regular Terminators, no psycannons at all, and do just fine.

c) Their individual soldiers are somewhat more powerful than anyone else's. Compare: Regular Tactical Marine to tactical Grey Knight: Identical statline, the GK gets a slightly better gun and a Force Weapon, the GK can Deep Strike, the GK doesn't get the two-weapon bonus attack, the GK squad has more and more versatile heavy weaponry, and the squad can use a psychic power to make themselves stronger. For only +4pts a model? Woo! Great deal!

However, consider:

a) Tricks to counter hated GK powers/weapons/units exist. Shadow in the Warp and Runes of Warding shut down their psychic tricks relatively effectively, Mind War can drop Apothecaries, TH/SS Terminators can stall GK power weapons pretty much indefinitely. Grey Knights don't have a lot that can handle long-ranged enemies, deploy far back and drop ordnance templates/plasma cannons on them. They're new, they're cool, but they're far from unstoppable.

b) This is mostly irrelevant. Whether or not their 'bad' units are 'bad' in the metagame sense doesn't mean their 'good' units are any better. Paladins/Purifiers don't become unbeatable just because Purgators are decent.

c) Yeah, sure, you're paying very little more for a unit that has a heck of a lot more offensive power. BUT: This unit has to get in close to be effective (GK Tactical squads don't have the long-ranged options available to regular Tactical Squads), and it's no tougher. So your ten uber-killy Force-Weapon-equipped squad putting out an ungodly amount of short-ranged fire dies just as easily when a Basilisk sneezes on them as a normal Tactical Marine squad would.

In conclusion: Grey Knights are good, yes. They're near or at the top of the metagame these days, they can deal with most situations, they're powerful, they're cheap to build, and they look cool. They're also undersized (in model count terms), severely lacking in long-ranged weaponry, and rely a lot more on fewer significant rolls (psychic tests, attacks with fewer weapons) than larger armies. They're far from broken/overpowered.

Experiment 626 wrote:

Grey Templar wrote:I think the reason people call GKs cheesy is because they thought they could use the same tactic they used elsewhere. They assume their melee unit can take them out.

I call GK's cheesy because I can't even deploy a single model in my army half the time...

Warp Quake = most broken ability in the game.
Thanks Ward for shelving my entire freaking army!!!

True, but a warp quake spam list is not the most competitive list as it is good against 1 army that doesn't show up very much.

That list is what, 2 Grand Masters and 4 Strike/Interceptor squads. Thats alot of points for a lame gimmick.


You have my permission to drop kick any player pulling such a D-bag move. I play Purifiers, I don't run Warp Quake in my army.

Psyco-Trope Grenades, you mean psyco-BROKE grenades. man i hate those things

I'm not seeing how they are lacking in long ranged weaponry between razorbacks, chimeras, 6 possible dread slots to spam 5pt psybolts on, etc, and lots of move+shoot 24" (effective 30" threat radius) weaponry. They may lack for long range anti-AV14 and pieplates, but they have plenty of ways to reach out and touch an opponent at range. I'd much rather try and outshoot Eldar than GK's.

Well, i think technically, the Grey Knight is the best codex of the Warhammer 40k line. It is simply super-duper player friendly. Its only promblem is that the other codicies are way less convenient (less player friendly), so the outer balance is completely off.

I think that in a perfect codex, any and every build is equally competent. You can just randomly pick some units with random upgrades and still have a decent army with only a little less effectiveness than a min/maxed army (because that's how people have fun: using the units they like, and not the units they have to). And the GK codex pretty much accomplishes this.

Grey Templar wrote:

Experiment 626 wrote:

Grey Templar wrote:I think the reason people call GKs cheesy is because they thought they could use the same tactic they used elsewhere. They assume their melee unit can take them out.

I call GK's cheesy because I can't even deploy a single model in my army half the time...

Warp Quake = most broken ability in the game.
Thanks Ward for shelving my entire freaking army!!!

True, but a warp quake spam list is not the most competitive list as it is good against 1 army that doesn't show up very much.

That list is what, 2 Grand Masters and 4 Strike/Interceptor squads. Thats alot of points for a lame gimmick.


You have my permission to drop kick any player pulling such a D-bag move. I play Purifiers, I don't run Warp Quake in my army.

Nope, you only 20 models to -over a Daemon army. A couple small GKSS's to babysit, and some of those lovely Interceptors who are so awsome at getting their psycannons to side/rear-shot your opponent's vehicles.
Spread your squads out the full 2" coherency against Daemons, and even 20 guys on a 6'x4' table becomes pretty much an auto-lose for any Daemon army because you also need to take into account your average scatter range. A 12" quake bubble on 10 guys can sudenly either make it a 'stupidly risky move' or outright lock-off a roughly 36" 'ish square area of table.

You're either forced well back and then shot down without a sweat, or else you're risking a 50/50 shot of your unit/s auto-dying. Either way, Daemons as an army are unplayable right now in areas with lots of GK saturation.
Add 10 more warp quake guys, and the Daemons can't get a single model onto the table unless you can roll a 'Hit' for the tiny little 8"x8" coner that's almost impossible for the GK to cover on turn 1. (at which point, you likely get no more than 2 actual units into play, or a few MC's + 1 unit.)

Outside of someone running either;
a) A pure Crowe-tax purifyer spam army
b) A pure Henchmen build
I have yet to see any local GK play NOT include at least a 10 strike squad or 10 man interceptor squad. And most armies typically include both!

As a fellow Space Wolves player... Paladins might be scary, but the stupid Crowe list or w/e with Purifier spam? Shoot that crap off the table. EASY. I include some PGs and PCs to deal with Paladins. Lay down the St8 first, maybe get a few, and then wrap on in the plasma to chip away.

Also, multi-assault them into oblivion AFTER you have taken them down a bit with your Long Fangs. I leave my Thunderlord/Cav in reserve as they usually get focused first turn. By the time they roll on the board, there is a good chance they can assault the turn they arrive. With Rune Priest + WTN, you have a chance to shut down their tricks and either wipe them up with S10 thunderhammers or lock them up.

I actually want a 2K Draigowing because it is 23 models (mine would be). I'd make them a cross of Space Wolves and GK Termies because I play the Storm Wardens, so I do what I want!

AtoMaki wrote:Well, i think technically, the Grey Knight is the best codex of the Warhammer 40k line. It is simply super-duper player friendly. Its only promblem is that the other codicies are way less convenient (less player friendly), so the outer balance is completely off.

I think that in a perfect codex, any and every build is equally competent. You can just randomly pick some units with random upgrades and still have a decent army with only a little less effectiveness than a min/maxed army (because that's how people have fun: using the units they like, and not the units they have to). And the GK codex pretty much accomplishes this.

So what your saying is, Grey knights are not OP, every other codex is UP? if that is what your saying... well thats completely wrong lol, lets put it this way, if one kid is a bully and bullies other kids because he is big, then by your (possible) reasoning its the kids fault for being to weak to stand up to the bully, so they need to change. Im of the mind, if the bully is the issue... get rid of it, not the kids, so release (never gonna hapen ever) an update to change a few points levels or tone some things down... but im an idiot for wanting real updates on a regular basis lol

AnomanderRake wrote:Grey Knights in and of themselves aren't broken; the issues are as follows:

a) They're a relatively new army, so people haven't figured out the tricks to squashing them yet.

b) They were written with very few 'bad' units in their Codex. Every rulebook has got a few units that don't measure up and are infrequently seen in competitive lists (Rangers, Support Weapon Platforms for the Eldar, Sky Rays, Sniper Drones for the Tau, Whirlwinds, Scout Bikes, Techmarines, and the Legion of the Damned for Codex Marines, etc.), the Grey Knights don't suffer from this problem. I could make a list using Purgators, regular PAGKs, regular Terminators, no psycannons at all, and do just fine.

c) Their individual soldiers are somewhat more powerful than anyone else's. Compare: Regular Tactical Marine to tactical Grey Knight: Identical statline, the GK gets a slightly better gun and a Force Weapon, the GK can Deep Strike, the GK doesn't get the two-weapon bonus attack, the GK squad has more and more versatile heavy weaponry, and the squad can use a psychic power to make themselves stronger. For only +4pts a model? Woo! Great deal!

However, consider:

a) Tricks to counter hated GK powers/weapons/units exist. Shadow in the Warp and Runes of Warding shut down their psychic tricks relatively effectively, Mind War can drop Apothecaries, TH/SS Terminators can stall GK power weapons pretty much indefinitely. Grey Knights don't have a lot that can handle long-ranged enemies, deploy far back and drop ordnance templates/plasma cannons on them. They're new, they're cool, but they're far from unstoppable.

b) This is mostly irrelevant. Whether or not their 'bad' units are 'bad' in the metagame sense doesn't mean their 'good' units are any better. Paladins/Purifiers don't become unbeatable just because Purgators are decent.

c) Yeah, sure, you're paying very little more for a unit that has a heck of a lot more offensive power. BUT: This unit has to get in close to be effective (GK Tactical squads don't have the long-ranged options available to regular Tactical Squads), and it's no tougher. So your ten uber-killy Force-Weapon-equipped squad putting out an ungodly amount of short-ranged fire dies just as easily when a Basilisk sneezes on them as a normal Tactical Marine squad would.

In conclusion: Grey Knights are good, yes. They're near or at the top of the metagame these days, they can deal with most situations, they're powerful, they're cheap to build, and they look cool. They're also undersized (in model count terms), severely lacking in long-ranged weaponry, and rely a lot more on fewer significant rolls (psychic tests, attacks with fewer weapons) than larger armies. They're far from broken/overpowered.

This. Very well said.

Formosa wrote:

AtoMaki wrote:Well, i think technically, the Grey Knight is the best codex of the Warhammer 40k line. It is simply super-duper player friendly. Its only promblem is that the other codicies are way less convenient (less player friendly), so the outer balance is completely off.

I think that in a perfect codex, any and every build is equally competent. You can just randomly pick some units with random upgrades and still have a decent army with only a little less effectiveness than a min/maxed army (because that's how people have fun: using the units they like, and not the units they have to). And the GK codex pretty much accomplishes this.

So what your saying is, Grey knights are not OP, every other codex is UP? if that is what your saying... well thats completely wrong lol, lets put it this way, if one kid is a bully and bullies other kids because he is big, then by your (possible) reasoning its the kids fault for being to weak to stand up to the bully, so they need to change. Im of the mind, if the bully is the issue... get rid of it, not the kids, so release (never gonna hapen ever) an update to change a few points levels or tone some things down... but im an idiot for wanting real updates on a regular basis lol

So you are saying that if there are a good thing sorrounded with not-so-good things then one should tone down the good into not-so-good and not vica versa? And yes i'm saying that the GK codex is OK (aside of its pricing issues), but the other codicies are "underpowered" in a way that they have bad and/or useless units/upgrades.

Grey Templar wrote:I think the reason people call GKs cheesy is because they thought they could use the same tactic they used elsewhere. They assume their melee unit can take them out.

If you charge any multi-wound unit into a Halberd squard you deserve to lose. GKs eat multi-wound units for breakfast.

Yes, I assume that my melee unit can take on other units of equivalent cost in CC.

I assume that my Warboss, a 100 point + model that is good at literally nothing aside from CC, would be at least competitive in CC against your army. Otherwise, what good is he?

Yea, you have to be smart with the hand to hand and to NOT assault Draigo. If I get my Thunderlord into the squad (and it has been sufficiently chipped away at by my armies guns), then 6x ST10 Thunderhammers that always hit on a 3+ will hurt (except I roll like ). I would try to get the squad Thunderhammer in there too and use one of the derpie guys to base the ICs to make sure I don't get the B2B with my Wolf Lord.

If they have those funky grenades, psychotroke (sp?), then you're better off using your hammer units to focus on any less squads. In 2K, you can have the 10 Man horror and the 5 Man support. That's the squad you want to assault while you shoot the 10 Man squad (+ Draigo, + Libby, + Tech Priest....) off the table.

TedNugent wrote:

Yes, I assume that my melee unit can take on other units of equivalent cost in CC.

Ah, in which case youre still making naive points comparisons. You do realise that comparing points between books is a really, really, naive way to compare efficiency, yes? I assume not, as you keep on doing it....

nosferatu1001 wrote:

TedNugent wrote:

Yes, I assume that my melee unit can take on other units of equivalent cost in CC.

Ah, in which case youre still making naive points comparisons. You do realise that comparing points between books is a really, really, naive way to compare efficiency, yes? I assume not, as you keep on doing it....

Yeah, because it's not like there's any objective way to - oh wait, look, points, statlines, wargear. It's almost like I could.... compare the two.

TedNugent wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:

TedNugent wrote:

Yes, I assume that my melee unit can take on other units of equivalent cost in CC.

Ah, in which case youre still making naive points comparisons. You do realise that comparing points between books is a really, really, naive way to compare efficiency, yes? I assume not, as you keep on doing it....

Yeah, because it's not like there's any objective way to - oh wait, look, points, statlines, wargear. It's almost like I could.... compare the two.

No, you cannot.

200 points of Assault Terminators and 200 points of Tactical Marines is not going to be an even fight. You pay points to do a particular job. Tac marines pay points to be scoring, have a variety of weapons, and provide some mild fire support. Assault Terminators pay for two things. Durability and the ability to beat the snot out of just about anything in melee.



A Warboss pays points to allow you to take Nobs as troops and increase a squad's CC potential. Being able to take Nobs as Troops is a big deal. Otherwise its just a better PK platform.

Purifiers(and all GKs) pay points to be a hard counter to multi-wound models. Why are you surprised that he dies to a hard counter?


You pay points for certain units with their special abilities. 300 points of Tau Broadsides will NEVER win against 300 points of Ork Boyz with hidden PKs.

I'm not surprised that they're a hard counter, what I am surprised by is that such a versatile unit can be taken as an effective troop choice and completely fill out a list comp.

It's not like my Warboss can do anything aside from CC. I can either try to fenangle him in a suicide rush towards Dreadnoughts or take my chances against Purifiers. There's not much else a Warboss can do.

PS, cost-effectiveness is a composite ratio, the effectiveness is just as important to the cost. I didn't say direct cost comparisons, I said cost-effectiveness. What I'm arguing is that you can objectively compare the effectiveness to the cost, thus allowing you to say that, point-for-point, Terminators have better assault and close combat AV, whereas Tacs objectively have better shooting (Assault Terminators have no shooting). You did just that when you said this:

Grey Templar wrote:200 points of Assault Terminators and 200 points of Tactical Marines is not going to be an even fight.

AtoMaki wrote:

Formosa wrote:

AtoMaki wrote:Well, i think technically, the Grey Knight is the best codex of the Warhammer 40k line. It is simply super-duper player friendly. Its only promblem is that the other codicies are way less convenient (less player friendly), so the outer balance is completely off.

I think that in a perfect codex, any and every build is equally competent. You can just randomly pick some units with random upgrades and still have a decent army with only a little less effectiveness than a min/maxed army (because that's how people have fun: using the units they like, and not the units they have to). And the GK codex pretty much accomplishes this.

So what your saying is, Grey knights are not OP, every other codex is UP? if that is what your saying... well thats completely wrong lol, lets put it this way, if one kid is a bully and bullies other kids because he is big, then by your (possible) reasoning its the kids fault for being to weak to stand up to the bully, so they need to change. Im of the mind, if the bully is the issue... get rid of it, not the kids, so release (never gonna hapen ever) an update to change a few points levels or tone some things down... but im an idiot for wanting real updates on a regular basis lol

So you are saying that if there are a good thing sorrounded with not-so-good things then one should tone down the good into not-so-good and not vica versa? And yes i'm saying that the GK codex is OK (aside of its pricing issues), but the other codicies are "underpowered" in a way that they have bad and/or useless units/upgrades.

Ok i get what you mean now that is a fair point, im just a stickler and want a "living" rulebook or set of rules where the ballance of the game is adressed when it is clearly out of whack, for example Psybolt Ammo should get changed to at least 20pts for the upgrade, they did it with DA to bring them up to date, so why not GK or SW to re-ballance them?

Just to be clear i also think TH/SS termies need to cost more too, same as Belial, Purifiers, Grey hunters etc

TedNugent wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:

TedNugent wrote:

Yes, I assume that my melee unit can take on other units of equivalent cost in CC.

Ah, in which case youre still making naive points comparisons. You do realise that comparing points between books is a really, really, naive way to compare efficiency, yes? I assume not, as you keep on doing it....

Yeah, because it's not like there's any objective way to - oh wait, look, points, statlines, wargear. It's almost like I could.... compare the two.

I said you can do so, just that it is a VERY naive way to compare units - you know what is meant by "naive", yes? Overly simplistic to the point ot being almost useless is another . It doesnt take into account FOC slot, for one, and I would *hope* you would have the sense to realise the importance of FOC slot? You also have to see what it brings to the army in terms of utility: a unit of TH/SS terminators bring far more to an IG army, which lacks anvil units, than it does to a BA army, so they would pay more. Its why WG TH/SS cost so much - because they can be hidden in units, etc - and so on.

It's why your initial cost comparison was so hilarious - it results in banshees being 30ppm. Same as everytime the same simplistic arguments over costs come up.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

TedNugent wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:

TedNugent wrote:

Yes, I assume that my melee unit can take on other units of equivalent cost in CC.

Ah, in which case youre still making naive points comparisons. You do realise that comparing points between books is a really, really, naive way to compare efficiency, yes? I assume not, as you keep on doing it....

Yeah, because it's not like there's any objective way to - oh wait, look, points, statlines, wargear. It's almost like I could.... compare the two.

I said you can do so, just that it is a VERY naive way to compare units - you know what is meant by "naive", yes? Overly simplistic to the point ot being almost useless is another . It doesnt take into account FOC slot, for one, and I would *hope* you would have the sense to realise the importance of FOC slot? You also have to see what it brings to the army in terms of utility: a unit of TH/SS terminators bring far more to an IG army, which lacks anvil units, than it does to a BA army, so they would pay more. Its why WG TH/SS cost so much - because they can be hidden in units, etc - and so on.

It's why your initial cost comparison was so hilarious - it results in banshees being 30ppm. Same as everytime the same simplistic arguments over costs come up.

How would you compare units then Nos?

Not JUSt on points. As I stated in the post you quoted.

Note, I havent said that it is an invalid method - just naive. Its a very basic first order comparison, and is easy to do - which is why people do it.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Not JUSt on points. As I stated in the post you quoted.

Note, I havent said that it is an invalid method - just naive. Its a very basic first order comparison, and is easy to do - which is why people do it.

So what your saying is somthing like this

1: cost of unit
2: Place on FoC
3: capabilities of unit
4: unit options
5: Ability of unit in game

As oposed to comparing just like this

1: Tac marine costs 16pts
2: GH costs 15pts

GH is better as you get more for the cost.

Is that what you mean?

Grey Templar wrote:Keep in mind, they can't be both Str5 and Instant Death at the same time. Unless you attach a very expensive character to the squad.

Does activating a Force weapon count as a psychic power? Because otherwise they have Hammerhand by nature, then activate their forceweapons. S5 + Instant Death.

Yes, GK is OP.

Honestly the only thing that can be said in their defense is that the Meta also includes SW, IG, BA, Necrons, and DE, which means that multiple armies can compete in tournaments, rather than ONLY GK having a chance, like 3.5 Iron Warriors which mercilessly dominated every event. 5e is far better balanced than previous editions (amongst codices) but that still doesn't mean that GK aren't the top of the heap.

As someone had already mentioned, the real brokenness was 7e Fantasy, where Demons were still vast levels above and beyond Dark Elves and Vampire Counts, who were themselves quite powerful. None of the armies could even compete. At least against GK you can compete. Against Demons a 12 year old won a local tournament against vastly more experienced players because his army list did all the work for him.

My concern is that, like 8e Fantasy, 6e 40k will do nothing to correct the powerlevel of GK, but will instead increase the disparity between the competitive armies (SW et al) and the non-competitive ones (Tau, Nids, Demons, SoB) making them even less likely to be seen in competative events. See 7e-8e demons (whose only "loss" was not being able to roll regen and ward saves for the same wound, slightly nerfing Plaguebunkers, and fear/terror changes, which halted terror bombing. The Fear nerf was barely felt, as demons didn't often outnumber their foes after a win (they never needed to in order to win, unlike VC) and also gained use of the Steadfast rule (which VC could not use, and combined with Fear nerf meant that VC went from tied as the DoC closest competitor to rock bottom in one fell swoop, was telling.)

Then look at 7e WE or Brets vs 8e. WE especially took it in the shorts as they could not as reliably redirect charges, march block, LOS blocking for forests, skirmish changes, or reliance on setting up inopportunistic charges for their opponants, forcing whomever charges them to face the wrong way after killing a unit (free reforms after a win.) What they did pick up was a buff to monsterous infantry and the ability to fire in two ranks. With the limited utility of BS based shooting in Fantasy in any edition (and the increased strength of warmachines in 8e) the buff to Treekin alone wasn't enough to offset the primary advantages that WE needed in order to be playable.

I worry about the same thing happening to 40k. It's one thing if you get nerfed to high hell and you were a very strong codex in the previous edition (VC) or got updated shortly after the new edition's release (ditto VC) because then you can at least bask in knowing you had a good book once and just wait for the update. But for WE who never got a 7e book and have no 8e book on the horizon, you then begin to worry about Tau and SOB in the same light.

Nagashek wrote:

Grey Templar wrote:Keep in mind, they can't be both Str5 and Instant Death at the same time. Unless you attach a very expensive character to the squad.

Then look at 7e WE or Brets vs 8e. WE especially took it in the shorts as they could not as reliably redirect charges, march block, LOS blocking for forests, skirmish changes, or reliance on setting up inopportunistic charges for their opponants, forcing whomever charges them to face the wrong way after killing a unit (free reforms after a win.) What they did pick up was a buff to monsterous infantry and the ability to fire in two ranks. With the limited utility of BS based shooting in Fantasy in any edition (and the increased strength of warmachines in 8e) the buff to Treekin alone wasn't enough to offset the primary advantages that WE needed in order to be playable.

.

my poor bretonnians...

^yes, activating the force weapons is a psychic power. They couldn't cast hammerhand as well without a character.

Nagashek wrote:

Grey Templar wrote:Keep in mind, they can't be both Str5 and Instant Death at the same time. Unless you attach a very expensive character to the squad.

Does activating a Force weapon count as a psychic power? Because otherwise they have Hammerhand by nature, then activate their forceweapons. S5 + Instant Death.

Yes, it's a psychic power. Page 50 BRB.

loota boy wrote:^yes, activating the force weapons is a psychic power. They couldn't cast hammerhand as well without a character.

(and Rigeld) Thanks for the clarification. Not a terrible deficiency, given that it's easy enough to put said IC's where they will be needed for higher strength and instakill. But still rather redundant.

they just bring that fething banner of theirs and its problem solved.

Its still a psychic test(just auto-passed) and only on Terminator/Paladin squads. They still can't HH and FW at the same time without a character.

Truth templar

I think everyone need to keep in mind how easy it is to cut the knights to blood ribbons at long range.