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.
Str 6 is a bit overdoing it. That's an average of 5.333... hull points per turn against AV11 from the Gatling Psilencer. It's also 33% stronger at killing Marines than 3 Rapid Firing BS4 Plasma Guns (4.444... wounds vs. 3.333... wounds). The base idea still holds though, what if we made it S5 Poisoned (3+)? That way a Gatling Psilencer would deal 1.777... to a Riptide (sans FNP) per turn, 8.888... wounds to Boyz per turn, all the while not murdering Power Armour more efficiently than Plasma weapons. It also has the advantage of making it more reliable compared to Force; when Force works, it's highly rewarding for the owner, while when it doesn't it's rubbish due to having to have a lower wound output.
Pozy, if 'Nids aren't a horde army, what, other than Orks, is?
For thirteen years I had a dog with fur the darkest black. For thirteen years he was my friend, oh how I want him back.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: Str 6 is a bit overdoing it. That's an average of 5.333... hull points per turn against AV11 from the Gatling Psilencer. It's also 33% stronger at killing Marines than 3 Rapid Firing BS4 Plasma Guns (4.444... wounds vs. 3.333... wounds). The base idea still holds though, what if we made it S5 Poisoned (3+)? That way a Gatling Psilencer would deal 1.777... to a Riptide (sans FNP) per turn, 8.888... wounds to Boyz per turn, all the while not murdering Power Armour more efficiently than Plasma weapons. It also has the advantage of making it more reliable compared to Force; when Force works, it's highly rewarding for the owner, while when it doesn't it's rubbish due to having to have a lower wound output.
Pozy, if 'Nids aren't a horde army, what, other than Orks, is?
S5 means it can't harm AV12, and it is not Instant Death to T3 (which under most circumstances is just taking FNP away as I don't know of any non-HQ T3 multi-wound units). But Poisoned 3+ means it starts having an effect against T5 enemies. That creates a better distinction between the Psycannon as an anti-vehicle weapon and the Psilencer as an anti-hoarde/ Monstrous Creature weapon.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/03/31 17:06:24
SGTPozy wrote: Umm... Most people play larger games than 1000 points...
My point does still stand as S6 wounds most units on a 2+, so yes it is still devastating.
Tyranids is hardly a hoarde army and that gun can only be taken by MCs... So yeah, I can see how that's a hoards army /sarcasm.
3dk a libby 2 term squads with psycannon and hammer is over 1250 points. This is the core of every GK army.
If we fail to anticipate the unforeseen or expect the unexpected in a universe of infinite possibilities, we may find ourselves at the mercy of anyone or anything that cannot be programmed, categorized or easily referenced.
- Fox Mulder
reenon wrote: I'm not quite sure what the answer is, but what other factions have good anti horde weapons that most people think are fair (in terms of str/ap/# of shots)? Why not just mimic that, and add in something with GK flavor (probably not force)? The Skitarii have a 2x wounds on a roll of 6, which could be interesting, and makes it an efficacious anti-horde weapon (maybe Heavy 4, since most GK units are relentless).
The majority of GK infantry are not Relentless. In fact, here's a list (outside of the HQ slot) of Relentless GK infantry:
Sooo... it would seem that there are twice as many non-Relentless infantry as Relentless infantry. Heavy 4 would, therefore, be a bad idea.
Experiment 626 wrote: Even in its current incarnation, the Psilencer is pretty boss at killing masses of T3/T4 5+ or worse saves. Even compared to the stronger Psycannon, as due to rounding to account for the fact you can't have decimal results with dice, they are equally effective against your typical horde unit of Guardsmen/Cultists/Boyz/Gaunts/etc... When massed together, the Psilencers are also better against T3 targets due to sheer weight of fire having a more profound impact vs. fewer higher strength shots.
Not really; as an example I ran the numbers with the assumption of a unit armed with either two Psilencers or two Psycannons, and the results ended up being that the Psycannon generally is equal to or pulls ahead of the Psilencer when killing single-wound infantry models. When considering the opportunity cost of the two weapons against each, even if the Psilencer was slightly better (it really isn't) then the Psycannon would still be overwhelmingly preferred due to being the "god gun" of the GK armory with how many things it's expected to do.
Experiment 626 wrote: S5 with or without Shred would definitely cement their role in this regard however!
Granted this takes into account that the horde unit in question is at least claiming 5+ cover save, but then, outside of playing games on Planet Bowling Ball, it's not hard to gain some kind of minor cover save. (while armies like Orks & Tyranids can generate their own moving cover with the likes of Kustom Force Fields or Venomthropes)
Sure the Psycannon can double out T3 multi-wound stuff, but there's no such thing as a multi-wound T3 [b]unit[/I] right now, outside of a Biomancy Psyker landing Enfeeble and casting it successfully on a multi-wound T4 unit... (at which point, I'd call that "tactics" )
Otherwise, multi-wound T3 is limited to only IC's, typically of the type you don't really require high strength to kill anyways!
Psycannons doubling out T3 also denies FNP, and not only that Psycannons are AP4, so the majority of T3 models are denied their armor saves. Psycannons are also still much better at killing T4+ infantry models and anything with an AV.
Still, I do agree that S5 (Shred optional) would be a great way to go with a dedicated anti-infantry profile for the Psilencer, with the Force profile being S4... though I've got another option for improving that without breaking T4 multi-wound models.
Due to the Poison Mechanics, it only comes into play against targets that the Strength value produces a poorer wound rate than the Poison roll; this helps Psilencers "up-engage" T5 multi-wound models with a success rate comparable to the current performance against T4 multi-wound models. Against a typical 3+ armor MC- T6 or otherwise- here's what happens with the Force profile:
Spoiler:
1 Psilencer produces 6 stationary shots @ BS4, for 4 hits
4 hits using Poison 4+ will produce 2 wounds
2 wounds vs 3+ armor is ~0.67 unsaved wounds
So we see that to statistically guarantee a kill on a typical 3+ armor MC using a hybrid Poison (4+) and Force profile, we'll actually need to put two Psilencers on the field, or deploy a DK with a Gatling Psilencer. Doing so will either require a glass cannon type of unit (min-size Purgation/Purifier), or a comparable investment (10-man Strike/GKT squad, Paladin squad of any kind, DK w/ Gatling Psilencer).
I'm inclined to say that that's actually pretty well balanced.
Keep in mind too, however, that moving around- which the GK infantry in general is very incentivized to do and the majority of GK infantry is not Relentless, will reduce that effectiveness quite noticeably:
Spoiler:
1 Psilencer produces 4 mobile (non-Relentless) shots @ BS4 for ~2.67 hits
2.67 hits using Poison 4+ produces ~1.33 wounds
1.33 wounds vs 3+ armor is ~0.44 unsaved wounds
It's worth noting that AP- is actually quite critical for Force-mode Psilencers, in order to keep them from instagibbing any multi-wound models- or worse, MCs!
Finally, I had an additional thought about fixing GK Dreadnoughts: what if we give them the Cleansing Flame power as their "built-in" power, the way Purifiers have? This might make GK Dreadnoughts semi-viable for anti-tarpit melee, in addition to a Skyfire option to provide additional anti-air support.
Whiskey144 wrote: Finally, I had an additional thought about fixing GK Dreadnoughts: what if we give them the Cleansing Flame power as their "built-in" power, the way Purifiers have? This might make GK Dreadnoughts semi-viable for anti-tarpit melee, in addition to a Skyfire option to provide additional anti-air support.
I'd second that. The Wounds caused by Cleansing Flame would probably be more valuable than a 6++. It would also allow the Dreadnought to pull double duty, like the Grey Knights' other units are expected to do. And as previously suggested, a Sky-fire option is a must to make the Dreadnoughts viable.
I like the latest version of the Psilencer we've compiled here. It serves as a good anti-hoarde weapon and a good anti- Monstrous Creature weapon.
Against Hoard units (T3, 5+),
Stationary/Relentless: (12)(2/3)(5/6)(2/3) = 4.44 unsaved Wounds
Mobile (6)(2/3)(5/6)(2/3) = 2.96 unsaved Wounds
Against the Typical Daemon (T4+, 5+)
Stationary/Relentless: (12)(2/3)(2/3)(2/3) = 3.56 unsaved Wounds
Mobile (8)(2/3)(2/3)(2/3) = 2.37 unsaved Wounds
Against the Typical Space Marine (T4+, 3+)
Stationary/Relentless: (12)(2/3)(2/3)(1/3) = 1.78 unsaved Wounds
Mobile (8)(2/3)(2/3)(1/3) = 1.19 unsaved Wounds
Against the Typical Terminator (T4+, 2+)
Stationary/Relentless: (12)(2/3)(2/3)(1/6) = 0.89 unsaved Wounds
Mobile (8)(2/3)(2/3)(1/6) = 0.59 unsaved Wounds
Still, I do agree that S5 (Shred optional) would be a great way to go with a dedicated anti-infantry profile for the Psilencer, with the Force profile being S4... though I've got another option for improving that without breaking T4 multi-wound models.
Due to the Poison Mechanics, it only comes into play against targets that the Strength value produces a poorer wound rate than the Poison roll; this helps Psilencers "up-engage" T5 multi-wound models with a success rate comparable to the current performance against T4 multi-wound models. Against a typical 3+ armor MC- T6 or otherwise- here's what happens with the Force profile:
Spoiler:
1 Psilencer produces 6 stationary shots @ BS4, for 4 hits
4 hits using Poison 4+ will produce 2 wounds
2 wounds vs 3+ armor is ~0.67 unsaved wounds
So we see that to statistically guarantee a kill on a typical 3+ armor MC using a hybrid Poison (4+) and Force profile, we'll actually need to put two Psilencers on the field, or deploy a DK with a Gatling Psilencer. Doing so will either require a glass cannon type of unit (min-size Purgation/Purifier), or a comparable investment (10-man Strike/GKT squad, Paladin squad of any kind, DK w/ Gatling Psilencer).
I'm inclined to say that that's actually pretty well balanced.
Keep in mind too, however, that moving around- which the GK infantry in general is very incentivized to do and the majority of GK infantry is not Relentless, will reduce that effectiveness quite noticeably:
Spoiler:
1 Psilencer produces 4 mobile (non-Relentless) shots @ BS4 for ~2.67 hits
2.67 hits using Poison 4+ produces ~1.33 wounds
1.33 wounds vs 3+ armor is ~0.44 unsaved wounds
It's worth noting that AP- is actually quite critical for Force-mode Psilencers, in order to keep them from instagibbing any multi-wound models- or worse, MCs!
The only big note on the idea of a Poison + Force Psilencer is that Bloodthirsters are actually the only Greater Daemon to get an armour save. The others only get it as a 16% or roughly 36% chance when rolling once or twice on the Greater Gifts table.
Mostly though, Mr. Magic Turkey, Papa Nurgle, and the Kipper pretty much rely on just their base T6 and 5++ for protection. (and then pray for a pair of decent rewards!) Keep in mind too, it's quite often that a DoC Prince will forego the cost of the 3+ armour save in order to keep costs down when going for the winged versions...
Hence, against them, being able to wound on a strait 4+ with an instant kill effect can be brutal. Same goes for all three types of C'tan as well - they only have their natural T7 and 4++.
I know there's not a lot of MC's without 3+ or better saves, (I'm honestly not sure about all the new Tyranid gribblies), but I think that since they do exist, Poison + Force can't really be calculated properly to balance against both ends of scale... 10-15pts is fair for example against the majority of 3+ or better save MC's. But against the 4++ and worse versions, you'd probably want an additional +10pts 'tax' since volume of shots + set 4+ to-wound roll will all but insure a wound sneaks through, then Force kicks in, and Boom! Bye-bye 275+ pts (not so)Greater Daemon!
Whiskey144 wrote: Finally, I had an additional thought about fixing GK Dreadnoughts: what if we give them the Cleansing Flame power as their "built-in" power, the way Purifiers have? This might make GK Dreadnoughts semi-viable for anti-tarpit melee, in addition to a Skyfire option to provide additional anti-air support.
I'd rather see a version of Holocaust for Dreads and especially Paladins... Flame that can be spammed by any army capable of massing WC's is hilariously brutal.
I once ran Ahriman in a Rhino and double Flamed from the top hatch... nuked both winged Nurgle Princes among neutering the other squads in range. (admittedly, my rolls were above average) Sure he Periled like a champ! But still, 2 winged Nurgle Princes on their own is close on 500pts just vaporised.
I've even contemplated a CSM list that could run 4 Lv3's and have them all roll on Santic... that alone would've given me 4 psykers with a 61% shot at each of them landing Flame. In a pair of Rhinos for added lolz.
Granted Dreads on their own are slow, but consider that with ally shenanigans, you can get your Dreads and/or Purifiers into Drop Pods for easy massing within prime nuking range.
(and IIRC, can a 10-man Purifier squad still split into Combat Squads when deploying via Drop Pod?)
For anti-tarpitting, which seems to be the main concern for close combat dreads, why not a return to the old Holocaust ability, which laid down the large 5" blast template anywhere on the casting model's base. (potentially even centered right over him for when you're completely surrounded?!)
S5/ap6/Soul Blaze for WC1?
It was awesome back in the 'Hunter 'dex for clearing out masses of weak grunts - I used it regularly with an Inquisitor to run into large blobs, let them kill his retinue (back when it was possible to legally keep IC's from ending up in BtB contact) and then nuking half or more of whatever unit they were fighting.
Worked like a charm!
reenon wrote: I'm not quite sure what the answer is, but what other factions have good anti horde weapons that most people think are fair (in terms of str/ap/# of shots)? Why not just mimic that, and add in something with GK flavor (probably not force)? The Skitarii have a 2x wounds on a roll of 6, which could be interesting, and makes it an efficacious anti-horde weapon (maybe Heavy 4, since most GK units are relentless).
The majority of GK infantry are not Relentless. In fact, here's a list (outside of the HQ slot) of Relentless GK infantry:
Sooo... it would seem that there are twice as many non-Relentless infantry as Relentless infantry. Heavy 4 would, therefore, be a bad idea.
You are correct , I was being pretty myopic when posting that and was thinking about what my GK lists ends up looking like (I usually only have 1 unit of PAGK with the rest in TDA). I think the math works out with regard to effective wounds, so my *only* nitpick is that poison doesn't seem very "fluffy." My solution, use the exact same rules and call it something else, like "Blessed Bullets" or some equally cheesy IoM wording.
I haven't dissected the he Salvo 8/12 solution as much, but how hilarious would drop podding a combat squad of purifiers with 4x Psilencer's + 2x cleansing flames be? Does the Gatling Psilencer go to 16/20?
reenon wrote: I'm not quite sure what the answer is, but what other factions have good anti horde weapons that most people think are fair (in terms of str/ap/# of shots)? Why not just mimic that, and add in something with GK flavor (probably not force)? The Skitarii have a 2x wounds on a roll of 6, which could be interesting, and makes it an efficacious anti-horde weapon (maybe Heavy 4, since most GK units are relentless).
The majority of GK infantry are not Relentless. In fact, here's a list (outside of the HQ slot) of Relentless GK infantry:
Sooo... it would seem that there are twice as many non-Relentless infantry as Relentless infantry. Heavy 4 would, therefore, be a bad idea.
You are correct , I was being pretty myopic when posting that and was thinking about what my GK lists ends up looking like (I usually only have 1 unit of PAGK with the rest in TDA). I think the math works out with regard to effective wounds, so my *only* nitpick is that poison doesn't seem very "fluffy." My solution, use the exact same rules and call it something else, like "Blessed Bullets" or some equally cheesy IoM wording.
I haven't dissected the he Salvo 8/12 solution as much, but how hilarious would drop podding a combat squad of purifiers with 4x Psilencer's + 2x cleansing flames be? Does the Gatling Psilencer go to 16/20?
I'm interested in seeing what you think of the Salvo 8/12 on the Psilencer. I like the idea of giving Poison a needlessly flowery name in typical IoM fashion.
What value would you place on the proposed Psilencer: 36", S5, AP-, Salvo 8/12, Poisoned (3+)?
I hadn't really figured out the Gatling Psilencer yet. I suspect I'd double the maximum number of shots for the Psilencer, but reduce the range to 24" Gatling Psilencer: 24", S5, AP-, Heavy 12, Poisoned (3+). That way you just double the results you had from the Psilencer's number crunching.
On a separate note: What would you think of Interceptors having Move Through Cover? It would allow them to Shunt into cover without having to take Dangerous Terrain tests.
I'm interested in seeing what you think of the Salvo 8/12 on the Psilencer. I like the idea of giving Poison a needlessly flowery name in typical IoM fashion.
What value would you place on the proposed Psilencer: 36", S5, AP-, Salvo 8/12, Poisoned (3+)?
I hadn't really figured out the Gatling Psilencer yet. I suspect I'd double the maximum number of shots for the Psilencer, but reduce the range to 24" Gatling Psilencer: 24", S5, AP-, Heavy 12, Poisoned (3+). That way you just double the results you had from the Psilencer's number crunching.
On a separate note: What would you think of Interceptors having Move Through Cover? It would allow them to Shunt into cover without having to take Dangerous Terrain tests.
Honestly, I think with that many shots, (which is a bit much - even a Splinter Cannon is only 4/6), Poisoned 4+ is more than sufficient. 3+ is going to outright murder Greater Daemons with the exception of the Bloodthirster, as the other three can only at best ever gain a 31% chance at having a 3+ save. For the LoC/GUO/Kipper, T6/5++ is their main defense.
S5/ap-, Salvo 4/6, Shred would be solid.
And really, Dangerous Terrain isn't really that dangerous anymore... First you need to roll a 1, then you need to fail an armour save. Outside of really bad luck, you'd be challenged to lose more than one or two marines over the course of the game to DT tests.
Bill1138 wrote: I like the latest version of the Psilencer we've compiled here. It serves as a good anti-hoarde weapon and a good anti- Monstrous Creature weapon.
Against Hoard units (T3, 5+),
Stationary/Relentless: (12)(2/3)(5/6)(2/3) = 4.44 unsaved Wounds
Mobile (6)(2/3)(5/6)(2/3) = 2.96 unsaved Wounds
Against the Typical Daemon (T4+, 5+)
Stationary/Relentless: (12)(2/3)(2/3)(2/3) = 3.56 unsaved Wounds
Mobile (8)(2/3)(2/3)(2/3) = 2.37 unsaved Wounds
Against the Typical Space Marine (T4+, 3+)
Stationary/Relentless: (12)(2/3)(2/3)(1/3) = 1.78 unsaved Wounds
Mobile (8)(2/3)(2/3)(1/3) = 1.19 unsaved Wounds
Against the Typical Terminator (T4+, 2+)
Stationary/Relentless: (12)(2/3)(2/3)(1/6) = 0.89 unsaved Wounds
Mobile (8)(2/3)(2/3)(1/6) = 0.59 unsaved Wounds
I rather disagree- I don't particularly care for this incarnation of the Psilencer; it feels like it infringes on the Gatling Psilencer too much. Moreover, I'm personally rather fond of a Force weapon that's a gun, so I'd like to recommend the "dual profile" solution, wherein you can pick either S4+Force or S5+Shred; the former for gibbing stuff, the latter for gunning down infantry.
Experiment 626 wrote: The only big note on the idea of a Poison + Force Psilencer is that Bloodthirsters are actually the only Greater Daemon to get an armour save. The others only get it as a 16% or roughly 36% chance when rolling once or twice on the Greater Gifts table.
Mostly though, Mr. Magic Turkey, Papa Nurgle, and the Kipper pretty much rely on just their base T6 and 5++ for protection. (and then pray for a pair of decent rewards!) Keep in mind too, it's quite often that a DoC Prince will forego the cost of the 3+ armour save in order to keep costs down when going for the winged versions...
Hence, against them, being able to wound on a strait 4+ with an instant kill effect can be brutal. Same goes for all three types of C'tan as well - they only have their natural T7 and 4++.
I can see why a 4+ of some kind would be worse off- but how do you propose to keep a Psilencer effective against T4 and T5 multi-wound infantry models, while not infringing too heavily on MCs? I don't think that there's really a way to word it so that it has equal effectiveness against T4 and T5 infantry models, while reducing effectiveness against T6+.
Experiment 626 wrote: I know there's not a lot of MC's without 3+ or better saves, (I'm honestly not sure about all the new Tyranid gribblies), but I think that since they do exist, Poison + Force can't really be calculated properly to balance against both ends of scale... 10-15pts is fair for example against the majority of 3+ or better save MC's. But against the 4++ and worse versions, you'd probably want an additional +10pts 'tax' since volume of shots + set 4+ to-wound roll will all but insure a wound sneaks through, then Force kicks in, and Boom! Bye-bye 275+ pts (not so)Greater Daemon!
AFAIK, all the Tyranid MCs are 3+ armor. Also, it's important to remember that in order to get a min-size unit of two Psilencers in order to get guarantee kill results on-the-move (either because you DS in, or because you're advancing on an objective, for example) you need two Psilencers, which either requires glass-cannon min-sized Purgation/Purifier squads, or very expensive Strike/GKT/Interceptor/Paladin squads. Is 5 T4/3+ wounds really that hard to remove before it gets into the "danger zone"?
Experiment 626 wrote: I'd rather see a version of Holocaust for Dreads and especially Paladins... Flame that can be spammed by any army capable of massing WC's is hilariously brutal.
I once ran Ahriman in a Rhino and double Flamed from the top hatch... nuked both winged Nurgle Princes among neutering the other squads in range. (admittedly, my rolls were above average) Sure he Periled like a champ! But still, 2 winged Nurgle Princes on their own is close on 500pts just vaporised.
I've even contemplated a CSM list that could run 4 Lv3's and have them all roll on Santic... that alone would've given me 4 psykers with a 61% shot at each of them landing Flame. In a pair of Rhinos for added lolz.
Granted Dreads on their own are slow, but consider that with ally shenanigans, you can get your Dreads and/or Purifiers into Drop Pods for easy massing within prime nuking range.
(and IIRC, can a 10-man Purifier squad still split into Combat Squads when deploying via Drop Pod?)
For anti-tarpitting, which seems to be the main concern for close combat dreads, why not a return to the old Holocaust ability, which laid down the large 5" blast template anywhere on the casting model's base. (potentially even centered right over him for when you're completely surrounded?!)
S5/ap6/Soul Blaze for WC1?
It was awesome back in the 'Hunter 'dex for clearing out masses of weak grunts - I used it regularly with an Inquisitor to run into large blobs, let them kill his retinue (back when it was possible to legally keep IC's from ending up in BtB contact) and then nuking half or more of whatever unit they were fighting.
Worked like a charm!
While returning Holocaust would be nice, I don't foresee it happening. It's also worth noting that we could easily keep it from getting "out of control", as it were, by keeping Dreadnoughts at ML1, and even reducing Purifiers to ML1 instead of 2- this could moderately reduce the amount of WC running in the army, on top of the fact that a Dread isn't going to be likely to cast Cleansing Flame unless it can get into range of something. In order to do that, you need to either bring allied Pods, walk the Dread into range, or pack the Dread into a Stormraven. This is either expensive, ineffective, suicidal, or some combination of all three.
It's also worth noting that Dreads use a, IIRC, 60mm base- 5" is 127mm, centering up will mean that you can catch just one "wave" of dudes- you'll have to either bring in friends, or deal with being held up in combat for multiple turns. That's kind of a problem, since the whole point is "anti-tarpit".
And yes, the Combat Squad rule allows the relevant unit to Combat Squad when exiting a Dedicated Transport; how that works out with an allied Pod... I'm not entirely sure; I'll have to check, I think.
I would also like to throw out another iteration of the Psycannon and Heavy Psycannon:
Spoiler:
Psycannon
36" Salvo 2/3 S6 AP4 Psybane
Psybane: Wounds/damage inflicted by this weapon penalize invulnerable saves by -1; this may stack with Banishment, but may not reduce a save to worse than 6+. Successful invulnerable saves against this weapon must also be re-rolled.
Heavy Psycannon
36" Heavy 6 S6 AP4 Psybane
36" Heavy 1 S6 AP4 Psybane, Shred, Large (5") Blast
The idea is that it's dropped down a bit in raw firepower to allow the introduction of a dedicated anti-armor weapon- likely a melta of some kind- while also making it distinctive and still useful. Also helps alleviate 2++ re-rollable shenanigans, by being able to penalize the save (and stack with Banishment) and also requires successful saves be re-rolled to hopefully fail. The template mode of the Heavy Psycannon getting Shred is to also compensate for the loss of Rending and going to S6 instead of 7.
Other thought: Dreadnoughts with access to the Heavy Psycannon, Heavy Incinerator, and Gatling Psilencer as an alternative to, say, a MM or AC?
S5 AP- Shred certainly is an option; 12 shots land around 1.2 wounds on a GUO (not taking FNP into account), but at the same time it'd do less than one wound to a Wraithknight. Interestingly enough, assuming I didn't screw up the math, it'd also do 2.222... wounds to a Riptide (sans FNP). Assuming that the Heavy Psilencer is a 12-shot weapon, this seems about right; enough to seriously hurt without completely maiming the target. On the other hand, it'd also be slightly better at killing MEQ than the Psycannon, which doesn't seem right for an anti-horde weapon. This would, however, let the Psycannon be reimagined as a better anti-armour weapon.
EDIT: Dreadnoughts with Chapter-specific weapons really should be a thing, similarly Razorbacks and Land Raiders really should have an option to field the Chapter-variant weapons as well.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/03/31 22:46:16
For thirteen years I had a dog with fur the darkest black. For thirteen years he was my friend, oh how I want him back.
I think the main hangup is people are getting hung up on form over function. They want the Psilencer's profile to look a certain way, or there are certain special rules that they're afraid of.
Force is inherently an anti-Monstrous Creature/Character killer. But the number 1 role the Grey Knights need the Psilencer to fill is anti-hoarde, and the Psilencer can not be made into a proper anti-hoarde weapon and still have Force without being disproportionately good at killing Monstrous Creatures.
That is why I believe the best solution is to have the weapon simply cause enough wounds to handle hoards, and potentially cause enough wounds to the Multi-wound models to kill them, without needing it to be "Instant Death".
My suggestion, compiled from the suggestions I agreed with, fulfills the function.
It causes upwards of 4 unsaved Wounds on T3 units, whereas for tougher units it causes closer to 2-3 unsaved Wounds. It is enough to make Monstrous Creatures cautious, but it isn't a lucky shot that "insta-gibs" a Monstrous Creature, leaving no one fulfilled, both knowing the MC got the short end of the stick.
If there is any mathematical reason why the:
Psilencer: 36", S5, AP-, Salvo 8/12, Poisoned (3+)
Gatling Psilencer: 24", S5, AP-, Heavy 24, Poisoned (3+)
profiles do not fill the roles of Anti-hoarde/MC, or are too disproportionatly powerful, please share.
However, it's getting tedious when a couple individuals say that something is too overpowered, and then give no evidence whatsoever. The Grey Knights have almost no access to Anti-hoarde. The best we have is Cleansing Flame, which is a WC2 9" bubble, that can only be cast by one Elite unit, Crowe, and possibly a couple other HQ's if they roll it. We don't get any of the Baneblade variants. We don't get Torrent AP3 like the Helldrakes. We don't get sheer volume of fire like Orks, or Guard.
The Grey Knights having one weapon that compensates for the drastic shortage of anti-infantry firepower to bring them back into the shooting phase is not broken.
Bill1138 wrote: That is why I believe the best solution is to have the weapon simply cause enough wounds to handle hoards, and potentially cause enough wounds to the Multi-wound models to kill them, without needing it to be "Instant Death".
This is called an 'Incinerator'.
The GK don't lack for anti-infantry firepower, the holes are in fighting heavy infantry (so little AP 1-3 firepower in the Codex) and in fighting heavy vehicles.
Bill1138 wrote: That is why I believe the best solution is to have the weapon simply cause enough wounds to handle hoards, and potentially cause enough wounds to the Multi-wound models to kill them, without needing it to be "Instant Death".
This is called an 'Incinerator'.
The GK don't lack for anti-infantry firepower, the holes are in fighting heavy infantry (so little AP 1-3 firepower in the Codex) and in fighting heavy vehicles.
The Incinerator is great for anti-infantry... if you don't mind waiting until they're within spitting distance. I was talking about a weapon that can thin out tarpits of Zombies, Orks, Conscripts, etc. BEFORE they lock down my unit in close combat for the rest of the game.
Look at it this way. In theory, the reason for the point values on units is so that very different armies can be built, but still be relatively even.
120pts for Grey Knights buys you 1 Strike Squad with a Psilencer, and no other upgrades.
120pts for Astra Militarum buys you 2 Veteran Squads with no upgrades.
If we assume that both should have roughly equal lethality, we can figure out how many wounds the Psilencer should deal. The difficulty with the calculations is that there are so many variables.
20 Veterans have a total of 18 shots between 12 and 24”. They are BS4, which means they hit on 3s, a 2/3 chance. Their lasguns are S3, which means they wound on 5s, a 1/3 chance. Lasguns have no AP so the Strike Squad gets their 3+ save, which is a 1/3 chance of failure.
(18)(2/3)(1/3)(1/3) = 1.33 unsaved Wounds.
1.33/5 = x/120
X = 32pts removed
Within 12”, the Veterans have 37 shots due to Rapid Fire. Each still has a 2/3 chance to Hit, 1/3 chance to Wound, and a 1/3 chance to be unsaved.
(38)(2/3)(1/3)(1/3) = 2.81 unsaved Wounds.
2.81/5 = x/120
X = 67.56pts removed
The 4 Grey Knights with Storm Bolters have a total of 8 shots, that hit on 3s, a 2/3 chance. They wound on 3s, a 2/3 chance. And Veterans are typically in cover or embarked on vehicles, so I’ll use the basic 5+ Cover save instead of the 4+ they generally have in my experience (to lower the target number for the Psilencer)
(8)(2/3)(2/3)(2/3) = 2.37 unsaved Wounds.
2.37/20 = x/120
X = 14.22pts removed
So the difference the Psilencer needs to make up is 17.78 – 53.34pts, And the Veterans being about 6 points each, means to make the two factions' shooting fair, the Psilencer needs to kill between 2.96 and 8.89 Veterans.
The current Psilencer has a heavy 6 Profile, which under these circumstances would almost certainly have moved, resulting in Snap Shots (6)(1/6)(2/3)(2/3) = 0.44 unsaved Wounds, far short of the 3-9 unsaved Wounds needed.
But if we ignore logic and assume the Psilencer was stationary, it then performs thusly. (6)(2/3)(2/3)(2/3) = 1.77 unsaved Wounds, which is 10.62 points taken. Still far short of the 3-9 Wounds needed to level the playing field.
Currently, 120pts of Grey Knights under nearly optimal conditions, cause 24.84 points of damage to Veterans by shooting, while the Veterans cause around 32-67 points of damage to the Grey Knights.
So the Grey Knights’ shooting is only about 37-78% as effective as the Veterans.
Now let us compare my suggested Psilencer: 36”, S5, AP-, Salvo 8/12, Poisoned (3+)
If it moves, (8)(2/3)(5/6)(2/3) = 2.96 Wounds, which is 17.78 points, which is dead on to the Veterans’ low-end value.
If it is stationary, (12)(2/3)(5/6)(2/3) = 4.44 Wounds, which is 26.67 points which falls shy of splitting the difference between the Veterans' low and high-end values.
I would say that this proves that as they currently stand, the Grey Knights are in fact, lacking in their anti-infantry, and that my suggestion is balanced to the basic firepower other armies have at their disposal. Now, if you have a better suggestion than this for Heavy Infantry, by all means, share it.
As for Heavy Armor, that is the Psycannon's job, so once that's fixed it will be taken care of.
You didn't add anything to conversation regarding the Psilencer, that is, unless you're saying that it needs to be an AP1-3 anti heavy-Infantry/Armor weapon, which I don't think you are.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2015/04/07 15:23:45
so terrible to you? I can only assume that's the case, since you insist on replacing it with something that literally doubles the RoF and confers 3+ Poison.
Also, why is that the Psycannon has the "job" of anti-armor? Why can't it be a general purpose ranged weapon, that penalizes invulnerable saves? Why can't we introduce another specialty weapon that's dedicated to anti-armor duty?
You should answer these questions, and a good answer is not "Psycannons are currently anti-vehicle, so they should stay that way", because right now Psycannons are just plain anti-everything, and they only do the job half-assed, and shouldn't be doing everything anyway.
so terrible to you? I can only assume that's the case, since you insist on replacing it with something that literally doubles the RoF and confers 3+ Poison.
Also, why is that the Psycannon has the "job" of anti-armor? Why can't it be a general purpose ranged weapon, that penalizes invulnerable saves? Why can't we introduce another specialty weapon that's dedicated to anti-armor duty?
You should answer these questions, and a good answer is not "Psycannons are currently anti-vehicle, so they should stay that way", because right now Psycannons are just plain anti-everything, and they only do the job half-assed, and shouldn't be doing everything anyway.
Your method is needlessly complicated, and you haven't shown any flaw in the balance of my proposal, nor have you shown the math on how your proposal performs. My suggestion is based on how the weapon performs, while yours is about how the profile looks. You have given no reason to heed your suggestion as an equivalent or superior option to mine.
The Psycannon has been the workhorse of the Grey Knights since Daemonhunters. The profile has changed each edition, but it remains the Grey Knights' best anti-vehicle option. It isn't the anti-vehicle weapon because I say so. It is because it is and has been for a considerable length of time. And any army that was started before 7th Edition has a plethora of Psycannons modeled on units.
If your proposed new weapon is worse than the Psycannon, then it is useless, and no one will take it. If it out-performs the Psycannon, then all of those Psycannon units are no more useful to their owners than they are now, which means you still didn't fix the problem.
The Grey Knights are a small army, and every unit is expected to fill multiple roles, whereas other armies have the benefit of specializing each unit to a specific role, and don't have to pay the expense of it being margionally capable of performing other roles. The Psycannon is anti-vehicle, but it has some anti-infantry applications, because the Grey Knights can't afford for such an expensive upgrade to only be able to do one thing.
so terrible to you? I can only assume that's the case, since you insist on replacing it with something that literally doubles the RoF and confers 3+ Poison.
Also, why is that the Psycannon has the "job" of anti-armor? Why can't it be a general purpose ranged weapon, that penalizes invulnerable saves? Why can't we introduce another specialty weapon that's dedicated to anti-armor duty?
You should answer these questions, and a good answer is not "Psycannons are currently anti-vehicle, so they should stay that way", because right now Psycannons are just plain anti-everything, and they only do the job half-assed, and shouldn't be doing everything anyway.
Your method is needlessly complicated, and you haven't shown any flaw in the balance of my proposal, nor have you shown the math on how your proposal performs. My suggestion is based on how the weapon performs, while yours is about how the profile looks. You have given no reason to heed your suggestion as an equivalent or superior option to mine.
The Psycannon has been the workhorse of the Grey Knights since Daemonhunters. The profile has changed each edition, but it remains the Grey Knights' best anti-vehicle option. It isn't the anti-vehicle weapon because I say so. It is because it is and has been for a considerable length of time. And any army that was started before 7th Edition has a plethora of Psycannons modeled on units.
If your proposed new weapon is worse than the Psycannon, then it is useless, and no one will take it. If it out-performs the Psycannon, then all of those Psycannon units are no more useful to their owners than they are now, which means you still didn't fix the problem.
The Grey Knights are a small army, and every unit is expected to fill multiple roles, whereas other armies have the benefit of specializing each unit to a specific role, and don't have to pay the expense of it being margionally capable of performing other roles. The Psycannon is anti-vehicle, but it has some anti-infantry applications, because the Grey Knights can't afford for such an expensive upgrade to only be able to do one thing.
Actually, the Psycannon was not in any way an anti-vehicle weapon back in the Daemonhunter codex days... It was actually either 18"/Assault 3 or 36"/Heavy 3, with its shots being S6/ap4. It was essentially, a +1S Heavy Bolter than could move-and-shoot and also nuked all invuln saves. (as there were far, far fewer units who relied entirely upon invulns back then)
It was Ward who obnoxiously made it into a 'better Lascannon' vs. vehicles.
If anything, the Psycannon should go back to its original role of being a S6/multi-shot gun that instead of outright removing an invuln save, either removes all positive modifiers to invulns OR outright drops ALL invulns to a 5+ at base.
- Leave the Psilencer as the gun for nuking multi-wound opponents. (S5 shred/S4 Force + Daemonbane)
- Psycannon goes back to a (likely now) 4 shots, with the invuln knocking ability, and perhaps a rule allowing for 6's to-wound counting as ap2? (slight MEQ/TEQ ability + deal with invuln reliant units)
- Incinerator remains the way to deal with masses of cheap infantry cowering in cover!
Grey Knights however are not really meant to be aces against heavily armoured vehicles... from their inception in 3rd edition as their own Daemonhunters codex, being weak in the anti-tank department has always been their Achilles heel. (just like Daemons, Orks & Tyranids are pretty poop at killing av13+ outside of punching the things)
Grey Knights have always been heavily reliant on allied help from either Marines or Guard to deal with massed armour. Just like Daemons *have* to bring in CSM "friends" to capably deal with av12+ vehicles at range, or Orks deal with Land Raiders & Russes by power klawing them, etc...
This isn't a knock on Grey Knights being unfinished or lacking in internal balance, it's just the nature of the army, and it's always been there.
Bill1138 wrote: Your method is needlessly complicated, and you haven't shown any flaw in the balance of my proposal, nor have you shown the math on how your proposal performs. My suggestion is based on how the weapon performs, while yours is about how the profile looks. You have given no reason to heed your suggestion as an equivalent or superior option to mine.
Needlessly complicated? So, like all the other dual-profile guns in the game, of which the Heavy Psycannon is just one example? Are you trying to insult the intelligence of GK players every, that they are so dumb that they cannot handle a weapon with two profiles?
As far as weapon performance, well, let's see what we have:
Psilencer, S5, Shred:
Spoiler:
Assuming stationary, 6 shots @ BS4, 4 hits
T3 Infantry 4 hits generate ~3.33 wounds, plus an extra ~0.56 wounds from Shred
Total is ~3.89 wounds
6+ Armor: ~3.24 unsaved wounds
5+ Armor: ~2.59 unsaved wounds
4+ Armor: ~1.95 unsaved wounds
T4 Infantry 4 hits generate ~2.67 wounds, plus an extra ~0.89 wounds from Shred
Total is ~3.56 wounds
6+ Armor: ~2.97 unsaved wounds
5+ Armor: ~2.37 unsaved wounds
4+ Armor: ~1.78 unsaved wounds
Your proposal of a Salvo 8/12 S5 Poison (3+) Psilencer is as follows:
Spoiler:
Assuming stationary, 12 shots @ BS4, 8 hits
T3 Infantry 8 hits generate ~6.66 wounds
Total is ~6.66 wounds
6+ Armor: ~5.55 unsaved wounds
5+ Armor: ~4.44 unsaved wounds
4+ Armor: ~3.33 unsaved wounds
So we see that S5+Shred isn't actually that far off from straight S5+Poison (3+) even though the Shred profile has half as many shots. Against T3 infantry the extra RoF of your proposed Poison Psilencer will net around one to two extra unsaved wounds, but against T4 the gap closes even further. Granted, you could take two of your Psilencers and get even better performance, but I think that you're ultimately scaling the Psilencer in a way that doesn't suit it- As it so happens, the S5+Shred profile actually has better wounding potential against T5 targets- while Poison (3+) guarantees a 3+ to-Wound roll, S5+Shred will statistically get a wounding rate of ~75%, as compared to ~66-67% for S5+Poison (3+).
There's also the fact that, at present, weapons with a RoF above 10 are incredibly rare, and I don't think it would be well-received for the GKs to get a fairly basic infantry weapon that's S5, can pump out 8-12 shots per turn, and has 3+ Poison. Most analogues top out at around 4-6 shots per turn, and weapons that use the Poison trait and have a 3+ or better Poison roll are incredibly rare as well- most of them, IIRC, tend to be combat weapons, or short-ranged pistols, rather than 36" range murderbeasts.
There's also two other things I find better about my suggestion:
1) Being able to choose S5+Shred for anti-horde infantry duty, or S4+Force for killing median save multi-wound models is a great way to give versatility, something you seem to be adamant that GK infantry should have.
2) You don't need to roll as many dice at any given time. Shred does give re-rolls to wound, admittedly, but I'd rather have re-rolls than have to roll a bucket of dice just for the Psilencer in the squad.
Oh, and before I forget, if the basic Psilencer is Salvo 8/12... does that mean we kick the Gatling Psilencer of the DK all the way up to an enormous twenty-four shots- which, incidentally, makes it even better than an actual battle tank weapon?
Bill1138 wrote: The Psycannon has been the workhorse of the Grey Knights since Daemonhunters. The profile has changed each edition, but it remains the Grey Knights' best anti-vehicle option. It isn't the anti-vehicle weapon because I say so. It is because it is and has been for a considerable length of time. And any army that was started before 7th Edition has a plethora of Psycannons modeled on units.
The Psycannon has been the workhorse of the GKs because it's been either the best option or the only ranged weapon upgrade that GK infantry could take. The original profile was, in fact, an enormously gakky anti-vehicle weapon. S6 with 3 shots wasn't even considered AV when it was introduced. It's still not great AV, and generally only works in certain armies because they can spam assloads of it.
The oldest incarnation that I can remember used the following profile:
Psycannon 18" Assault 3 S6 AP4
36" Heavy 3 S6 AP4
*Invulnerable Saves may not be taken against the Psycannon
In what world is that a "good" anti-vehicle weapon?
Bill1138 wrote: If your proposed new weapon is worse than the Psycannon, then it is useless, and no one will take it.
Except the definition of "worse" seems to be somewhere around "I hate it", "It's not a Psycannon", "It's dumb", "It doesn't due the things a Psycannon does". By that metric, I think that Psycannons in their current state are the worst weapon in the game, because they do not conform to the initial concepts of Psycannons that I accepted when I first looked at PDF copy of a Daemonhunters army book- which GW at one time released for free. If only they still did things like that...
In any case, my goal is to create a distinctive, focused weapon system that is optimized for killing vehicles, and is reasonably effective at fighting MCs as well.
Bill1138 wrote: If it out-performs the Psycannon, then all of those Psycannon units are no more useful to their owners than they are now, which means you still didn't fix the problem.
Given the above stated goal of a distinctive, focused weapon that is optimized toward a particular role, then I disagree- Psycannons would still be better for general purpose, as they should remain moderate RoF and Strength, while the proposed anti-armor weapon would be very focused and specialized; you don't take psychic meltaguns to fight Guardsmen, after all.
It's also worth noting that, as far as GKTs/Paladins go, Psycannons are still the best option. For PAGKs, Psycannons are only bad due to the fact that Salvo rules are poorly designed.
Bill1138 wrote: The Grey Knights are a small army, and every unit is expected to fill multiple roles, whereas other armies have the benefit of specializing each unit to a specific role, and don't have to pay the expense of it being margionally capable of performing other roles. The Psycannon is anti-vehicle, but it has some anti-infantry applications, because the Grey Knights can't afford for such an expensive upgrade to only be able to do one thing.
So in other words, GKs are an Elite Generalist army, similar to regular Marines, only GKs are more Elite than regular Marines. The problem with your line of thought is that currently generalist units are bad, and not only that but there's a tendency for even somewhat generalized units to be equipped toward a focused role.
GKs are a generally small army, and often smaller than most. We all realize that. But having a weapon that is specialized towards a task, rather than a gun that does many things sort of well and one thing reasonably well (IE, the current Psycannon) is, quite frankly, bad game design. You don't see other armies complaining that their dedicated anti-vehicle weapons are only good at killing a very small subset of enemies (IE, vehicles), do you?
I mean, where are the complaints that Haywire Blasters are terrible at killing infantry? Or that Heavy Bolters can't hurt heavy armor? Or that Grav-guns are terrible at killing low-save infantry models?
No other army in the game can get a weapon which not only could be expected to, but is demanded to, engage any target in the game with reasonable success. I do not see why we should keep Pyscannons as an anti-vehicle weapon, when such weapons are invariably specialized and limited in application.
Experiment 626 wrote: [Grey Knights however are not really meant to be aces against heavily armoured vehicles... from their inception in 3rd edition as their own Daemonhunters codex, being weak in the anti-tank department has always been their Achilles heel. (just like Daemons, Orks & Tyranids are pretty poop at killing av13+ outside of punching the things)
Grey Knights have always been heavily reliant on allied help from either Marines or Guard to deal with massed armour. Just like Daemons *have* to bring in CSM "friends" to capably deal with av12+ vehicles at range, or Orks deal with Land Raiders & Russes by power klawing them, etc...
This isn't a knock on Grey Knights being unfinished or lacking in internal balance, it's just the nature of the army, and it's always been there.
However, I also do not see why GKs cannot have a short/mid range weapon (18-24" maximum) that is specialized toward killing armor. There are no vehicle-heavy armies which cannot project substantial firepower to 24". Most armies that are not vehicle heavy can still shoot well at 24".
I do not see why GKs have to be limited to punching AV14 things to death, when I find it unreasonable to expect that it will always be possible to get into combat with a vehicle (protip: it won't).
It's the same kind of argument that many Tau players apply to the Riptide: it's okay that it's so deadly at shooting, because it folds like a piece of wet cardboard in combat (of course, it doesn't really fold in combat either, so....)
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/04/02 00:02:37
Whiskey144, I expect this may be the last time I address you before potentially hitting that all too inviting "Ignore" button. It really depends on how you respond.
The Grey Knights have fewer units than most other armies. You acknowledged this. If we have fewer units, that means the other Codexes have MORE units. If they have more units, and those units are each specialized to specific roles, then they can make good use of specialized weapons that compliment the role the unit is designed for. Are you keeping up with this?
The Grey Knights have FEWER units, which means they have to pull double duty. Every Unit has a combination of abilities and Gear that makes them margionally capable of filling multiple roles. This makes them more expensive than the most similar units in other Codexes, which is why the Grey Knights are such a small army compared the other Codexes. Are you still with me?
If I'm paying the points for a unit to be able to fulfill multiple roles, then paying extra for a special weapon that only fills one roll, I am paying extra to remove value from the unit. The weapons the Grey Knights need, need to fill multiple roles so that they are not removing value from the unit they are placed in. This is not an issue with other Codexes, because they have options to load up specialized units with all anti-vehicle, or all anti-infantry weapons. The Grey Knights do not have this benefit.
Imagine for a moment you bought a car, but it was a special car that could fly up high in the sky, as well as skim through the shallows of the ocean. Now, supose someone offored you the chance to purchase an upgrade on your already expensive car, that would allow you to dive to the bottom of the ocean, but would no longer permit the car to fly. You paid for all sorts of special things related to the car being able to fly, but that one upgrade made all of that money wasted. Are you getting this yet?
The Grey Knights NEED the versatility of the Psycannon to be viable, whereas the different circumstances of the other Codexes means they DON'T NEED the same versatility in their weapons, allowing them to specialize their units.
You've repeatedly been making false comparisons between the Grey Knights and other Codexes which really have nothing to do with anything regarding the Grey Knights' internal balance.
As for your numbers on your proposition.
You only did T3-4, and only up to a 4+ save. You may have missed this, but Monstrous Creatures go clear up to at least T8 with the Wraithknight, and plenty of units have access to 3+ or even 2+ saves.
Your suggestion is roughly less than 2/3 of the effectiveness of my proposition, which as I showed was already on the low end of what the Grey Knights needed to be competitive in the shooting phase, meaning your profile falls short. And that's just against weak units with poor saves. If you look at the weapons through better saves or higher Toughness, you'll see that mine holds pretty strong while yours tapers off into nothing about halfway through. My proposition has the versatility the Grey Knights need. Yours does not.
I already told you to not get hung up over what the profile looks like. Your focus should be over how it performs in the game. Ultimately, for game Ballance, the "FUNCTION" is important, which is what my proposition has. The "FORM" is not, which primarily what you've been arguing.
The combination of stats and rules I proposed is uncommon, but they came from observation of what rules result in the desired function, and still fit the Fluff. The Emperor personally saw that the Grey Knights were given the best and rarest weapons and gear available to the Imperium of Man, so this weapon being highly irregular is not to be unexpected. The only oddity which someone else suggested is that the name of the "Poisoned" rule seems out of place, but can be easily amended by giving it a new flowery or pseudo-latin name, while doing the same thing. This wouldn't be the first Codex to do that.
The Trouble with Grey Knights having everything limited to short range is that each of our models is more expensive than other codexes equivalents, yet we die just as easily. I can load up a PAGK to about 30pts, and he'll still die exactly as easily as a basic model the Space Marines may field for 14 points or so. Other armies have a lot of Melta, Plasma, or other equivalent weapons that would ignore the Grey Knights' armor, so they can easily die before they get a chance to use all of that expensive gear they purchased.
This is why the Grey Knights need some ranged options, to soften areas for the short-ranged unit to go in. without it being suicide. And as per my suggestions, a couple weapons with a 36" range statistically able to kill a few models from a single unit is not going to break the game. My propositions have the versatility the Grey Knights need, and the effectiveness to allow them to participate in the shooting phase.
Gatling Psilencer: 24", S5, AP-, Heavy 24, Poisoned (3+)
Heavy Psycannon: 24", S7, AP4, Heavy 6, Rending
If you're going to compare something's firepower to a Tank, perhapse you should actually look at its cost relative to the tank you're comparing it to. If a Dreadknight costs more than the tank you're comparing it to, then just maybe, it should be able to do a bit more than that Tank, you know, so it isn't horrendously overpriced.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/04/02 04:26:04
In case you don't understand what Bill is saying, I'll toss it another way.
Grey Knight models pay for power weapons and stormbolters.
We give those up when we take a special weapon, such as the psyguns or incinerator. So while on paper it looks like we only spend 5 points for an incinerator, it really is 11 points total and the melee advantage.
So we should be much more effective in the shooting phase than as we give up an opportunity cost.
I think the disconnect here is that the OP seems to be aiming to bring the GK codex up to he point that it can:
1) Have every unit be equally viable when compared to the currently held 'best units' in the book.
2. Be able to field highly competitive lists drawn solely from within Codex: Grey Knights, and be able to compete on the same level as other top end lists typically seen in highly competitive Tournaments and/or 'Winning is #1 priority' metas...
At least, that's how the thread is reading IMHO.
Unfortunately, the problem with this kind of approach is that outside of Eldar & Decurion Necrons, no one ever really plays truly "Competitive" lists with just 1 codex anymore...
Marines for example tend towards the likes of Gravbike White Scars + Knights/GK's/other. IH's & Fists bring Draigo + Dreadknight & occasionally Loth for GoI based Centstars. GK's themselves bring Tiggy + Centstar or SW's for drop podding...
Bringing a single book up to the point it is entirely 100% self sufficient and can compete top level on it's own only ends up with a monstrosity like 5th ed Grey Knights or 7th ed Daemons of Chaos. (or the current Decurion Necrons, which few people seem to enjoy fighting.)
Trying to aim purely for near perfect internal balance is likewise impossible, as there will always be one or two or more "best" options, which power gamers will spam to no end...
The 5th ed GK codex was hailed as being the most internally balanced book for example, yet still, all we saw for the most part was still just 3 main lists that utilised less than half the book.
Your "fixes" for the Psilencer and Psycannon for example...
Yes you've vastly improved the Psilencer, but the Psycannon is equally bumped up in power, and because of S7 + Rending, it's still leagues better than the Psilencer overall, due to it being an outright, 'catch all' problem solver.
Despite getting more shots overall, the Psycannon is still the same range, negates 4+ saves, can double-out T3 (combos w/Enfeeble), S7 + weight of fire neuters av11/12 quite effectively, still wounds most MC's on 3's AND Rending provides ready counters to both av13/14 and MEQ's/TEQ's...
There's literally nothing the Psycannon can't do, hence, it's a no-brainer choice to take over the Psilencer, as GK's don't need help killing masses of GEQ's/OEQ's.
If I were making a purely 100% "Competitive" list with these changes, I'd still only look at the Psycannon, simply because when going purely for perfect optimisation, redundancy always trumps specialisation.
Instead of having 1 unit that's solely focused on killing just MC's & GEQ blobs and will fall flat against anything else, I can simply give every single unit the ability to equally counter everything from GEQ hordes, to MEQ/TEQ units, to MC's, to vehicles of any configuration since my S7/Rending gun is the perfect cure-all.
Experiment 626 wrote: I think the disconnect here is that the OP seems to be aiming to bring the GK codex up to he point that it can:
1) Have every unit be equally viable when compared to the currently held 'best units' in the book.
2. Be able to field highly competitive lists drawn solely from within Codex: Grey Knights, and be able to compete on the same level as other top end lists typically seen in highly competitive Tournaments and/or 'Winning is #1 priority' metas...
At least, that's how the thread is reading IMHO.
Unfortunately, the problem with this kind of approach is that outside of Eldar & Decurion Necrons, no one ever really plays truly "Competitive" lists with just 1 codex anymore...
Marines for example tend towards the likes of Gravbike White Scars + Knights/GK's/other. IH's & Fists bring Draigo + Dreadknight & occasionally Loth for GoI based Centstars. GK's themselves bring Tiggy + Centstar or SW's for drop podding...
Bringing a single book up to the point it is entirely 100% self sufficient and can compete top level on it's own only ends up with a monstrosity like 5th ed Grey Knights or 7th ed Daemons of Chaos. (or the current Decurion Necrons, which few people seem to enjoy fighting.)
Trying to aim purely for near perfect internal balance is likewise impossible, as there will always be one or two or more "best" options, which power gamers will spam to no end...
The 5th ed GK codex was hailed as being the most internally balanced book for example, yet still, all we saw for the most part was still just 3 main lists that utilised less than half the book.
The current problem with the game, is that each codex is so internally broken that they can hardly field a competative list without abusing the allies system, combining special rules between Codexes that were not intended to be used together.
If each Codex is balanced internally, and the allies matrix is fixed to prevent some of the nonsense we're seeing at the moment, then it is perfectly possible to create a scenario where a single-Codex army is just as viable as allied armies.
This isn't about making the Grey Knights "top-tier". As we see with the current Daemons, being balanced while everyone else is in the crapper makes an army top-tier. Ideally, if every Codex recieves the same balance, then the tier system dissolves, and we're left with armies of comperable power but different play stiles.
Your "fixes" for the Psilencer and Psycannon for example...
Yes you've vastly improved the Psilencer, but the Psycannon is equally bumped up in power, and because of S7 + Rending, it's still leagues better than the Psilencer overall, due to it being an outright, 'catch all' problem solver.
Despite getting more shots overall, the Psycannon is still the same range, negates 4+ saves, can double-out T3 (combos w/Enfeeble), S7 + weight of fire neuters av11/12 quite effectively, still wounds most MC's on 3's AND Rending provides ready counters to both av13/14 and MEQ's/TEQ's...
There's literally nothing the Psycannon can't do, hence, it's a no-brainer choice to take over the Psilencer, as GK's don't need help killing masses of GEQ's/OEQ's.
If I were making a purely 100% "Competitive" list with these changes, I'd still only look at the Psycannon, simply because when going purely for perfect optimisation, redundancy always trumps specialisation.
Instead of having 1 unit that's solely focused on killing just MC's & GEQ blobs and will fall flat against anything else, I can simply give every single unit the ability to equally counter everything from GEQ hordes, to MEQ/TEQ units, to MC's, to vehicles of any configuration since my S7/Rending gun is the perfect cure-all.
Daemons have AV13. The Psycannon cannot be made made any less able to handle vehicles without essentially neutering the army. The reason it has the profile it does, is because the ANY army has to be at least marginally able to handle vehicles, and the Grey Knights with their generalist build cannot have a weapon over-specialized to the point of only being able to do one thing, because that wastes the rest of the points in wargear the models have (which we do not have the option to drop for a price decrease)
The primary reason we aren't seeing any Strike Squads or Purgation Squads is because the Psycannon and Psilencer both are not competatively useable on them, and Purifiers are still around because of ML2 and Cleansing Flame, while the Interceptors have mobility the Grey Knights typically lack.
As for the Psycannon being better than the Pilencer for all purposes, have you looked at how they mathematically compare? Here's a few rough benchmarks from hoarde units up to Monstorus Creatures and Vehicles.
The Psycannon is clearly the only option against vehicles, but against Wound models the Psilencer clearly takes the lead, in some instances being at least twice as effective as the Psycannon.
The Psilencer is the best Anti-Wound option.
The Psycannon is the best Anti-AV option.
So you may only take the Psycannon in your lists, but if you do, you will not have nearly as much anti-infantry or anti-Monstrous Creature capability as someone who takes Psilencers.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2015/04/03 03:41:22
Bill1138 wrote: Whiskey144, I expect this may be the last time I address you before potentially hitting that all too inviting "Ignore" button. It really depends on how you respond.
Oh, I'm quaking in my baby seal leather boots!
Bill1138 wrote: *snipped generally fallacious and/or irrelevant argumentation*
Yeah, see, here's the problem. The profile you're proposing? It's the kind of thing that is never found on widely-available infantry weapons. Let's consider a contemporary, the Splinter Cannon:
36" Salvo 4/6 S(X) AP5 Poison (4+)
Straight off the bat, the primary automatic support weapon of the Dark Eldar, a faction/army that is renowned for their use of poison armaments has a worse Poison roll than your Psilencer proposal. It also has half the RoF- as I mentioned, there currently do not exist infantry weapons, especially widely available ones (and in a GK list, a Psilencer is widely available), with a RoF above 6. Not only that, but Salvo 8/12 with S5 makes it ridiculous good at glancing light armor to death, and with the great options for deployment and mobility that the GK army has- widespread DS and Interceptor Squad shunts, for example- you can murder light armor using what is ostensibly an "anti-horde" weapon. Let's look at some numbers:
vs AV10:
~1.78 HPs, plus a roll on the damage table
vs AV11:
~0.89 HPs removed, no damage table roll
That sounds pretty unimpressive, right? Well, think about the fact that that is one weapon. Say you took an Interceptor Squad, Combat Squad them with 5 bolter dudes for objective grabbing and the other 5 having two Psilencers with your proposed profile. You'll now remove around ~3.56 HPseven if you move. Which means that you're killing a light vehicle every turn, or you're flanking something and shooting it in the back. Every turn.
That's actually a frighteningly efficient anti-vehicle killer when you consider how mobile some units can be in the GK list, and for what is supposedly an "anti-horde" weapon. But let's dig more into it:
The closest equivalent weapon to your proposal is the "Taurox Gatling Cannon", which has the following profile:
24" Heavy 10 S4 AP-
It is only available on the IG Taurox Prime transport, in a twin-linked mounting. The Taurox Prime is an AV11/10/10, 3HP transport vehicle that can hold 10 mans, and has four fire points. It is also a Fast vehicle, though it isn't a Skimmer. A Taurox Prime so equipped costs 90 points, for a chassis that is incredibly fragile and can only be taken for Tempestus Scions and Scion Command Squads. On average, the weapon will kill ~4 T3/5+ infantry.
Four. It is only able to manage that many because of twin-linking. In fact, the "exact" number is 3.96 dead T3/5+ infantry per turn. Technically speaking, your proposal kills almost 12.5% more infantry per turn- and it's not twin-linked for extra accuracy, so the "ceiling" for maximum potential lethality hasn't even been reached. The Taurox Gatling Cannon is pretty much at maximum efficiency, and kills 3.96 T3/5+ infantry per turn. Your Psilencer profile kills more and isn't even close to "maximum potential"- throw in twin-linking, for example, and and suddenly your killing ~5.93 T3/5+ infantry per turn, 50% more than the Taurox Gatling Cannon.
I don't understand how you do not realize that it is not acceptable for a widely-available infantry weapon to perform a rare, expensive armament. I mean, you're getting near to Punisher Gatling Cannon levels of firepower here, and that level of "dakka", if you will, is reserved only for very particularly types of platforms- things like artillery models, vehicles, and MCs.
Bill1138 wrote: If you're going to compare something's firepower to a Tank, perhapse you should actually look at its cost relative to the tank you're comparing it to. If a Dreadknight costs more than the tank you're comparing it to, then just maybe, it should be able to do a bit more than that Tank, you know, so it isn't horrendously overpriced.
A LR Punisher costs 160 points with a set of HB sponsons to maximize the amount of S5 shooting it has. With the addition of Relic Plating, Recovery Gear, and Fire Barrels to deter assaults (it's a 24" range main gun, it's going to be getting into assault range), it now costs ~170 points. Most often, not only will the LR Punisher be taken with a Tank Commander aboard- which puts it at a minimum of 200 points base- it'll often be taken with Pask aboard, who puts the tank clear up at 240.
And that's not counting the fact that a Tank Commander unit isn't just the command tank, but also a second Leman Russ tank- Even without Pask, and using the cheapest "buddy tank", you're looking at an investment of around 320 points minimum.
It's also important to realize that with your profile change, the Dreadknight has a far superior weapon system- it gets four more shots, BS4 by default (rather than requiring what is effectively a 150 point upgrade just to have BS4 instead of BS3), and Poison (3+). Not only that, but a Dreadknight has the option for the Personal Teleporter, making it a Jump MC and giving it the option to perform a 30" shunt move once per game. Combined with the durability advantages of a MC compared to a vehicle- namely that it is far more difficult to one-shot, loses no effectiveness for taking damage, and cannot actually be rendered impotent by shooting the primary weapon off- and that is pretty much on the same level as a Riptide as far as brokenness goes.
As it stands, DKs are by far not overpriced. Quite frankly I would consider Dreadknights to be very barely balanced- the profile that they carry is incredibly potent, but the armaments that the platform can carry force it into the teeth of all the weapons that can do the most damage to it, like Grav, Plasma, and even Melta.
Quickjager wrote: In case you don't understand what Bill is saying, I'll toss it another way.
Grey Knight models pay for power weapons and stormbolters.
We give those up when we take a special weapon, such as the psyguns or incinerator. So while on paper it looks like we only spend 5 points for an incinerator, it really is 11 points total and the melee advantage.
So we should be much more effective in the shooting phase than as we give up an opportunity cost.
However, in comparison to other models, that's still an awesome deal- a Heavy Flamer is S5/AP4, and typically costs 10 points for most Imperial infantry models that can take one. An Incinerator costs 5 points from the armory, plus the roughly 5-6 points you've mentioned for giving up the Stormbolter, force weapon, and combat ability.
An Incinerator, however, is S6, and Soul Blaze. The latter is admittedly not that useful- it generally requires a lot of dice to really leverage. Strength 6 though? Yeah, that's freakin' amazing. I mean, IIRC the new Skitarii Sicarian infantry (the Sicarian Infiltrator and Sicarian Ruststalker) are all T3/2W/4+, so not only do you bypass their cover thanks to be a Template, and their armor thanks to AP4, but you also double them out thanks to S6! Against single-wound T3 infantry, you'll get the benefit of denying FNP rolls.
I'd say that that would make an Incinerator, in terms of raw value, worth 15 points. So not only are GKs getting a 5-6 point discount for giving up their Stormbolter, Force weapon, and ability in close combat, but they're still getting a 4-5 point discount on top of that!
Another example is Psycannons, which cost 15 points in the GK armory. Adding the 5-6 points you mentioned makes Psycannons worth 20-21 points; however, the Assault Cannon, which is the closest weapon, profile-wise, to the Psycannon, is S6; S7 is a hugely useful jump, and probably, again, worth 5 points. So a Psycannon is probably worth around 25 points, but GKs are absorbing 5 points of that in the loss of the Stormbolter and Force weapon, and getting the other 5 points taken off with no penalty!
Adding to that, GKTs get to keep their Force weapons, likely adding in even more of a discount to GK weapons!
Bill1138 wrote: Daemons have AV13. The Psycannon cannot be made made any less able to handle vehicles without essentially neutering the army. The reason it has the profile it does, is because the ANY army has to be at least marginally able to handle vehicles, and the Grey Knights with their generalist build cannot have a weapon over-specialized to the point of only being able to do one thing, because that wastes the rest of the points in wargear the models have (which we do not have the option to drop for a price decrease)
The primary reason we aren't seeing any Strike Squads or Purgation Squads is because the Psycannon and Psilencer both are not competatively useable on them, and Purifiers are still around because of ML2 and Cleansing Flame, while the Interceptors have mobility the Grey Knights typically lack.
Part of the problem with PAGK is that, like most MEQ, they aren't particularly survivable in the current "spam S6/7=win" meta. Purifiers get into lists because of ML2- so they make better WC batteries- and Cleansing Flame, which is awesome. Interceptors, again, have some mobility thanks to a 30" shunt move, and so also get a pass... to a degree.
Unfortunately I very rarely see lists with either of these two units anyways- mostly its GKTs, a Librarian, some DKs, and then whatever's left is usually used to either bulk these units out or upgrade equipment, or just get more of these units.
Bill1138 wrote: Daemons have AV13. The Psycannon cannot be made made any less able to handle vehicles without essentially neutering the army. The reason it has the profile it does, is because the ANY army has to be at least marginally able to handle vehicles, and the Grey Knights with their generalist build cannot have a weapon over-specialized to the point of only being able to do one thing, because that wastes the rest of the points in wargear the models have (which we do not have the option to drop for a price decrease)
No, it's because Matt Ward had his faults and sometimes he fethed up and got things wrong. Psycannons are one of the things he got wrong- deal with it. They never should have been Rending in the first place, and considering he introduced the Psilencer, I don't see why he couldn't have also introduced some kind of fancy psychic meltagun, or even given the Psilencer a melta mode. For most part I think the guy made good crunch*, but he's only human and sometimes he messed up.
As previously mentioned, GKs are actually getting two discounts on their special weapons:
1) They get a discount out of losing their Stormbolters and Force weapons.
2) They get a discount out of thin air, because reasons.
Truthfully, I find this to be acceptable... for the most part. Psycannons, are, IMO, a huge offender of this, and also a huge reason for why people hated GKs so much. Most of your changes would make people hate GKs even more, and generally end up with most GK players being stigmatized for their choice of army and perhaps even cause those players to not actually get games as people refuse to play against them.
*Ward's problems with crunch seem to be occasional mistakes, realistically speaking- his 5th ed Marine book was actually very well balanced against its competition, IMO. Fluff though... they should really have kept Ward away from the fluff with a 10 or 12 foot pole. He has some ideas that have potential- Draigo and Crowe are both pretty cool- it's just that he isn't good at writing the background. It's a shame too, because Draigo is actually a tragic figure when you think through the character and his situation, it's just Ward didn't write him very well so he comes off as being "super-duper Gary Stu who kills daemons and doesn't afraid of anything", instead of the tragedy and symbolism that he represents. This aside, now returning to our regularly scheduled program:
In any case, I want to zero in on this:
Bill1138 wrote: Daemons have AV13. The Psycannon cannot be made made any less able to handle vehicles without essentially neutering the army.
There's a way to fix this. It's called giving the GKs some kind of AV weapon. A specialty melta, would IMO, suit the GKs the best.
Bill1138 wrote: As for the Psycannon being better than the Pilencer for all purposes, have you looked at how they mathematically compare? Here's a few rough benchmarks from hoarde units up to Monstorus Creatures and Vehicles.
*snip maths*
AV13, 5++ (Soulgrinder) Psilencer: cannot harm it.
The Psycannon is clearly the only option against vehicles, but against Wound models the Psilencer clearly takes the lead, in some instances being at least twice as effective as the Psycannon.
No, it's clearly a gakky option. "Good" AV comes in two forms:
1) That which can reliably hull things out
2) That which can reliably penetrate armor
Your numbers are wrong; it is, in fact, the case that your Psilencer proposal is actually equal in effectiveness vs AV10 targets, when compared to the Psycannon.
Bill1138 wrote: The Psilencer is the best Anti-Wound option.
The Psycannon is the best Anti-AV option.
So you may only take the Psycannon in your lists, but if you do, you will not have nearly as much anti-infantry or anti-Monstrous Creature capability as someone who takes Psilencers.
It's a good thing horde infantry are not common at all, since footslogging hordes are generally gak in the current "spam S6/7=win" meta, then, isn't it. It's also a good thing that Psycannons can still reliably wound most MCs anyways, and that the numbers they'll be taken in completely alleviate the problem of MCs.
Oh, and the fact that realistically, only a small number of MCs are actually useful and/or awesome, and the relevant models are always one per slot.
When it comes down to it Bill, you and I have very different opinions on what balance is, informed on particular viewpoints:
For myself, I am considering this from a high-level game design perspective- IE, what are the ripple effects. It's why, while I would like S5+Force for Psilencers, I recognize that that is not a particularly great idea and should be set aside as a method to make Psilencers viable- the ripple effects (IE, the invalidation of most multi-wound infantry models) are simply unacceptable, even if the thought process behind the change is reasonable.
When I look at balancing Psilencers, I look at what the equivalents are, and how it is possible to make a balanced option within the confines of existing precedents, fluff, and the current mechanics. And when I see your proposed profile, I see something that is horrendously broken.
To that end, here is my next iteration on Psilencers, Psycannons, Incinerators, and my first iterations on Nemesis Force weapons. Before I start in on that, I want to take a quick detour to look at GK infantry, and also revisit and address this:
Bill1138 wrote: [120pts for Grey Knights buys you 1 Strike Squad with a Psilencer, and no other upgrades.
120pts for Astra Militarum buys you 2 Veteran Squads with no upgrades.
If we assume that both should have roughly equal lethality, we can figure out how many wounds the Psilencer should deal. The difficulty with the calculations is that there are so many variables.
Spoiler:
20 Veterans have a total of 20 shots between 12 and 24”. They are BS4, which means they hit on 3s, a 2/3 chance. Their lasguns are S3, which means they wound on 5s, a 1/3 chance. Lasguns have no AP so the Strike Squad gets their 3+ save, which is a 1/3 chance of failure.
(20)(2/3)(1/3)(1/3) = 1.48 unsaved Wounds.
1.48/5 = x/120
X = 35.52pts removed
Within 12”, the Veterans have 40 shots due to Rapid Fire. Each still has a 2/3 chance to Hit, 1/3 chance to Wound, and a 1/3 chance to be unsaved.
(40)(2/3)(1/3)(1/3) = 2.96 unsaved Wounds.
2.96/5 = x/120
X = 71.11pts removed
The 4 Grey Knights with Storm Bolters have a total of 8 shots, that hit on 3s, a 2/3 chance. They wound on 3s, a 2/3 chance. And Veterans are typically in cover or embarked on vehicles, so I’ll use the basic 5+ Cover save instead of the 4+ they generally have in my experience (to lower the target number for the Psilencer)
(8)(2/3)(2/3)(2/3) = 2.37 unsaved Wounds.
2.37/20 = x/120
X = 14.22pts removed
So the difference the Psilencer needs to make up is 21.3 – 56.89pts, And the Veterans being about 6 points each, means to make the two units’ shooting fair, the Psilencer needs to kill between 3.55 and 9.48 Veterans.
The current Psilencer has a heavy 6 Profile, which under these circumstances would almost certainly have moved, resulting in Snap Shots (6)(1/6)(2/3)(2/3) = 0.44 unsaved Wounds, far short of the 4-9 unsaved Wounds needed.
But if we ignore logic and assume the Psilencer was stationary, it then performs thusly. (6)(2/3)(2/3)(2/3) = 1.77 unsaved Wounds, which is 10.62 points taken. Still far short of the 4-9 Wounds needed to level the playing field.
Currently, 120pts of Grey Knights under nearly optimal conditions, cause 24.84 points of damage to Veterans by shooting, while the Veterans cause around 35-71 points of damage to the Grey Knights.
So the Grey Knights’ shooting is only about 35-75% as effective as the Veterans.
Now let us compare my suggested Psilencer: 36”, S5, AP-, Salvo 8/12, Poisoned (3+)
If it moves, (8)(2/3)(5/6)(2/3) = 2.96 Wounds, which is 17.78 points, which is pretty close to the 21.3pts for the Veterans’ low-end value.
If it is stationary, (12)(2/3)(5/6)(2/3) = 4.44 Wounds, which is 26.67 points which is still just above the balance for the Veterans’ low-end value.
I would say that this proves that as they currently stand, the Grey Knights are in fact, lacking in their anti-infantry, and that my suggestion is balanced to the basic firepower other armies have at their disposal. Now, if you have a better suggestion than this for Heavy Infantry, by all means, share it.
Your comparison, is, for one, wrong. IG Veterans are armed with 9 lasguns; the sergeant carries a laspistol, which is 12" S3 AP- Pistol, and so only provides one shot at 0-12", and nothing at 12-24".
Two squads of IG in Rapid Fire range will produce 36 lasgun shots and 2 laspistol shots. All told, this is 38 S3/AP- shots. Let's run some numbers, shall we?
Spoiler:
IG Vets, BS4, no upgrades
18 Lasguns, 2 Laspistols, Rapid Fire range:
38 shots @ BS4, produces ~25.35 hits, and ~8.44 wounds
8.44 wounds vs 3+ armor is ~2.81 unsaved wounds
So, outside of Rapid Fire range, we get these results:
So while the numbers were off, they were close- but still, they were off. Here's the thing though- in order to actually get good results, the IG player has to bring two squads and get them to Rapid Fire range- and even with the Grenadiers doctrine for 4+ armor, T3/4+ armor infantry are just not survivable. Not only that, but they're also very slow.
In any case, let's look at what happens if the Strike Squad shoots first, with no special weapon of any kind:
10 shots is 6.67 hits, which is then ~4.45 wounds;
5+ Armor: ~4.45 unsaved wounds, Vets take almost 50% casualties, Ld check required
5+ Cover: ~2.97 unsaved wounds, Vets take 30% casualties, Ld check required
4+ Save: ~2.23 unsaved wounds, Vets take ~20-30% casualties, Ld check likely
So we see that even without an upgrade, the min-size Strike Squad is still quite lethal to their Veteran nemeses. Not only that, but GKs aren't really an assault-y army. Sure, they get Force Weapons for everybody, but they're mostly going to be stuck in combat not really killing anything due to low attack volume. But they can shoot at anywhere from 0-24" with full effect from their basic weapons. Going to 36"+Salvo on their longer-ranged specials means that they want to sit in a sweet spot of 18". For giggles though, let's see what happens with a Strike Squad that has a current Psilencer:
So we see that there's improvement gained- maybe not a lot, but the big benefit is that when moving around, at 18" (IE, half-range for 36" Salvo) we're getting almost the same effectiveness as a current Heavy 6 Psilencer- I'd say that that is a huge improvement.
Now, insofar as the next iteration I'd like to propose for GK specialty weapons (and Nemesis Force weapons), I'll be making a second post for that, as I still need to properly distill my thoughts on Nemesis Force weapons and how they could be improved without making them broken.
There are individuals for whom I have chosen to select "ignore". They rub me the wrong way, but that is not do say that they cannot have valid points. If you think someone I may have ignored had a good point, please quote the relevant part of their post with your explanation of why you think it is good so I will see it.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/04/06 20:00:21
Bill1138 wrote: +1 Ignored. That's not said as some sort of childish punishment, only to point out that if he gives any good suggestions, I won't see them unless someone else re-posts them, because I'm tired of fishing through his snarky messages to find the useful bits.
Unfortunately for you, it comes off as exactly that. It's perfectly okay though, because you've given me a perfect opportunity to not double post. Thank you, oh wonderful minion /because I'm "snarky"
In any case, I'll be cutting this a little short, as I've an early start tomorrow... I hate early starts. Let's begin with specialty GK firearms:
Pinning is godly. Having a weapon that can force pinning checks like that will allow GK infantry to advance unhindered by enemy fire- or allow them to slaughter multi-wound infantry models by switching to the Force "mode". A possible addition is giving the non-Force profile- IE, the S5+Shred profile- Soul Blaze as well; however, upping it to S5/Shred+Pinning IMO is a better solution, and would probably be well balanced at the current 10 point price.
Psycannons
Spoiler:
36" Salvo 2/3 S6 AP4 Psybane, Psi-Shock
Psybane: invulnerable saves taken against this weapon cannot be improved beyond the base save, and suffer an additional -1 penalty to a minimum of 6+. This effect may stack with Banishment, to a minimum of 6+. Vehicles hit with a weapon using this trait suffer an automatic Crew Stunned result in addition to all other effects
More-or-less, your anti-deathstar, general purpose, psyker-killer. Psi-Shock is the same as a Condemnor Boltgun or throwing the Psyk-Out grenades. The extra Crew Stunned debuff of Psybane when used against vehicles also means that even if you don't kill a vehicle, you've taken it out of play for a turn (or more, since you could potentially stunlock things with this).
Since you can inflict Crew Stunned, with just a hit- no glance/pen required- you can control enemy vehicle movement. That's incredibly powerful... and doesn't require any firepower upgrade. In fact, to help balance that out, it needs a downgrade! I considered Soul Blaze, but decided that it wouldn't really fit with the weapon's background. The Crew Stunned effect is arguably similar... but I thought that emphasizing the general-purpose nature of the Psycannon with a Salvo 2/3 S6 profile and a vehicle debuff would be a good way to help gentle the blow of losing Rending- even though Rending should never have been on it in the first place. Psi-Shock, OTOH, fits with the background, and also provides a good way to debuff enemy psykers.
I'd also like to mention that this profile for the Psycannon would actually incur a 5-point price drop, so Psycannons would now cost 10 points; when factoring in the extra 5/6 points you're paying for losing the Force weapon (really, that's the important thing that you lose when it comes down to it) would mean that a Psycannon would have a raw cost 15 points- for a gun that's 36", Salvo 2/3, S6, and has the anti-invuln properties- and the vehicle debuff- that's actually a pretty good place for it to be, IMO.
I do want to make clear with a quick note, that when I talk about "raw cost" and "actual cost", the former is what the weapons profile- it's Strength, AP, range, RoF, and any special traits- would make the weapon cost. The "actual cost" is what an army will pay to put it on the field. Some armies get discounts on the "raw cost" of a weapon- with GKs it's mostly folded into the loss of a Force Weapon for PAGK models, and presumably the base price of everybody in the case of GKTs and the fact that an Incinerator has an approximate "actual cost" that's about 5 points less than it should be.
Still, none of this is set in stone, as it were- I'd like feedback on this, naturally.
Incinerators Fine as-is, IMO. Soul Blaze is nice but not super awesome, while S6 is beastly, especially with the addition of the Skitarii Sicarian infantry models, who are T3/2W/4+.
To comment about Incinerator cost, since I did mention it a few lines up: no, I do not think Incinerators need any price changes. They're really fine as-is; I merely mentioned Incinerator pricing as a way to show that GK specials are generally being discounted in several ways- not all of which are being payed for with the loss of other equipment.
The new kid on the block, the Psi-Melta is what I propose for the GKAV weapon. Considering, for example, a shunting Interceptor squad- against vehicles, with the objective of getting into melta range, you'll have ~39" threat range. Which is pretty good, but with only two shots you're not in any way guaranteed to destroy a tank. Even back in 5th Ed, it took three BS4 meltas to guarantee a vehicle kill- and in 5th AP1 pretty much got you a 50% chance of getting an Explodes result!
For the Force profile, you have a 42" threat range, yes. However, let's consider the effects of 2, S6/AP2 Force shots against a typical T6 MC:
Spoiler:
2 shots @ BS4 is ~1.33 hits, wounding on 4+ (S6 vs T6), is ~0.67 wounds
Versus 3+/2+ armor, you inflict the wound unsaved, and so have a fair chance of gibbing it. However, DKs, Riptides, and all Daemons MCs have an invulnerable save that further reduces this to:
6++: ~0.56 unsaved wounds
5++: ~0.44 unsaved wounds
4++: ~0.34 unsaved wounds
3++: ~0.22 unsaved wounds
2++: ~0.11 unsaved wounds
So as we see, against a run-of-the-mill Carnifex, this is actually somewhat dangerous- but Carnifexes are fairly cheap, and almost never fielded solo... at least, insofar as they are not the only big mean nasty ugly gribbly beasty on the board.
Against a Riptide, DK, or other T6 MC with an invulnerable save, however, it's not nearly as dangerous- that invulnerable save, even at 5++, is hugely beneficial. Even a 6++ can mitigate the potential damage. And against a Wraithknight, you're better off just trying to pump regular S8/AP1 melta shots into it.
Another option for GKAV armaments is to allow Purgation Squads and GK Dreadnoughts to have access to Conversion Beamers, which have the following profile:
Spoiler:
0-18" Heavy 1 S6 AP- Small (3") Blast
18-42" Heavy 1 S8 AP4 Small (3") Blast
42-72" Heavy 1 S10 AP1 Small (3") Blast
I'm not really a fan of this idea, as it seems contrary to the general design of the GK army as being strong mid-range shooting with good assault deterrence (how much do you really want to charge a unit armed almost entirely with combat Force weapons?). Still, I could see arguments for it.
Heavy Psycannon
Spoiler:
24" Heavy 6 S7 AP4 Psybane, Psi-Shock
24" Heavy 1 S7 AP4 Large (5") Blast, Psybane, Psi-Shock, Shred
Heavy Psycannons being S7 isn't much of a problem... as long as they stay at 24". There are very few weapons with a Strength of 7 or higher with a range beyond 24", and most of them are Heavy 1- the few that fire multiple shots are almost never mounted on something as relatively durable and mobile as a Dreadknight. The Blast mode getting Shred is to help offset the loss of Rending, as well as make it a more attractive option than just hammering away with S7 shots. The change of Salvo 3/6 to Heavy 6 is due to the fact that Heavy Psycannons are only deployable on Dreadknights, who are themselves Relentless, being MCs.
Gatling Psilencer
Spoiler:
36" Heavy 12 S5 AP- Shred, Pinning
36" Heavy 12 S4 AP- Force
Gatling Psilencers being 36" rather than 24" like the S7 Heavy Psycannon is to help provide different options- do you want more range, with options for Pinning or Force, or do you want the benefits of Psybane and a pie plate.
Heavy Incinerators Much like Incinerators, I find these to be fine as-is.
I also do not think that Dreadknights need access to a DK-sized melta weapon, as the current options- even amended as above, are perfectly sufficient for it.
Now, to Nemesis Force Weapons:
IMO, these weapons lost some of their coolness in the updated for, what, 7th? codex. So let's see if we can't bring some of that back in interesting, flavorful ways that provide compelling choices.
Nemesis Force Swords
Spoiler:
S:User AP3 Melee, Force, Daemonbane, Parry
Parry: Models with a Nemesis Force Sword have a 5+ invulnerable save in close combat. If the model already has an invulnerable save, it instead gains +1 to its save. This effect may stack with Sanctuary, but may not be increased beyond 3+. This save may not be re-rolled]
Nemesis Force Swords bring back some of that "slightly tougher in combat" aspect that they used to have, which was really awesome and flavorful IMO. I initially thought that a 6++ would be good for models that don't get invulns in combat, but I ultimately decided that a 5++ is a little bit better and helps make the Sword a more compelling option. Also note the specific mentions of Sanctuary and re-rollable saves- a Parry save can't be re-rolled, and you can't buff it higher than 3++. Also remember that it only applies in combat, so it doesn't help against shooting attacks.
Nemesis Force Halberds
Spoiler:
S:User+1 AP3 Melee, Force, Daemonbane, Two-Handed
S:User AP3 Melee, Force, Daemonbane, Two-Handed, Long Reach
Long Reach: When using a weapon with this trait, the owning model fights at +1 Initiative for all close combat purposes. On a turn that the owning model successfully charges, the bearer may fight at +2 Initiative for that phase of combat
Simply put, I rather liked the advantage that Halberds conferred back in 5th, in that the long reach allowed them to fight at a higher Initiative value. I'd like to bring that back, but it has some drawbacks- you only get +1 Initiative, rather than the old +2, unless you charge, and then it's only for that phase too.
Alternately, you can instead take the +1S bonus that it currently provides, which is still pretty good on its own.
Nemesis Daemonhammer
Fine as-is, IMO.
Nemesis Warding Stave
While I'm not sure how I feel about the change to Concussive+Adamantium Will instead of a combat-only 2++, I think that it's legitimately interesting and probably more viable. Not only that, but it probably is more generally useful, particularly with the changes to the Psychic Phase (IE that there is one) in comparison to previous editions.
Nemesis Falchions
Falchions are... interesting. On the one hand, they're curiously a Specialist Weapon, even though it's only possible to carry two and no other CCWs anyway, and they still carry all the benefits of Nemesis Force Weapons, in addition to be AP3. But they don't really... pop, I guess? They somewhat lack in the department of "cool things" that the other weapons can get- particularly with the addition of "Parry" to Nemesis Swords. So, I've a bit of a crazy idea:
Allow models with the unit type "Infantry (Character)" to gain the Rampage rule when equipped with Nemesis Falchions. So, here, it's a character-only option, rather than a "Rampage for errybody" deal, as not only is that a lot of dice rolling but it could potentially become very very broken- A Strike Squad dude with Falchions has two Attack base, 3 on the charge, and could potentially end up with a whopping 6 (!) S4/AP3 Force weapon attacks.
As incredibly entertaining as that might be... I don't think it's good for balance, and hence I would recommend that they get Rampage on Character-models only.
The other option is simply allowing Falchions to give a +1 Attack bonus in addition to the current bonus for wielding two CCWs.
Nemesis Greatsword
The DK-only weapon, I find to be in a good spot, and in no need of any changes.
Pretty much, just giving it an extra shot; this is mostly on the basis that the Terminator and Stormbolter threads that were active a while ago generally agreed on Stormbolters getting an extra shot and a full-BS Overwatch option. I haven't included the latter here for simplicity's sake; moreover, I recommend againstGK-specific Stormbolters getting the upgrade to Assault 3 (instead of 2) or full-BS Overwatch, as they already have fairly good midrange firepower projection, and the extra shots are, as yet, unnecessary.
However, should it become clear that Assault 3 should also be extended to the GK-specific Stormbolters, then I will likely amend this recommendation. However, given that all GK infantry carry Stormbolters, I cannot recommend under any circumstance that the GKs get full-BS Overwatch Stormbolters, as that would be quite horrendously broken.
Insofar as the other Relics, I do not find any of them to be in any particular need of mechanical fixes- some may need price drops, but overall are quite functional, with the following exception:
Bone Shard of Solor
Simply add in a notation that the invulnerable save granted by the Bone Shard (under the relevant conditions), may not be improved by Sanctuary, under any circumstances. Additionally, the invulnerable save so-granted may not be re-rolled if failed.
I would, however, like to see an at-Initiative AP2 combat weapon Relic option for the GKs, as most armies with Relics are these days getting an AP2-at-Initiative Relic weapon. Some form of Sword, perhaps...
5th version:
Promethium Reserve Tanks: as a new option for vehicles with flamer-type weapons that grants the weapons a 6” Torrent. The price could vary by vehicle based on effectiveness or be a per-weapon upgrade. This upgrade would be available to other codexes.
Grey Knight Chapter Tactics: These are the rules that apply across the Grey Knight Codex in the same way the Space Marine Chapter Tactics affect the chosen Chapter. If you think this is too much, compare them to the Iron Hands’ Chapter Tactics.
The Aegis
Prefered Enemy (Daemons)
Psyker Mastery Level 1, with Purity of Spirit
Daemonology (Sanctic): Replace the #4 power (Purge Soul) with a Blessing that improves the AP of shooting weapons by 1. This would not apply to psychic shooting attacks.
4. Psychic Infusion …………………..Warp Charge 1
The Grey Knights focus their psychic might through their blessed ammunition to increase its deadly potential. Psychic Infusion is a blessing that targets the Psyker. Whilst the power is in effect, the AP of weapons fired by the unit are improved by 1.
HQs I’d leave their options the same, but a few of their base prices are too high for what they’re capable of.
125pts- Brother-Captain:
150pts- Brother-Captain Stern:
100pts- Brotherhood Champion:
125pts- Castellan Crowe:
Troops: Strike Squad:
Make Rites of Teleportation a special rule for Strike Squads instead of being a Detachment benefit for the Nemesis Strike force, but also have it reduce scatter to 1D6.
Elites 100pts – Dreadnought: Add a new piece of Wargear that grants the Dreadnought the option to use Skyfire each shooting phase.
Paladins: At their current price, give them Sanctuary.
Heavy: Purgation Squad: replace Hammerhand Psychic power with the Psychic Infusion power
Dreadknight: Add an Iron Halo as an optional upgrade.
*Special Weapons: new (and hopefully improved suggestion) The Grey Knights have 3 Special Weapons: the Incinerator, the Psilencer, and the Psycannon. As they currently stand the Psilencer and Psycannon are not good upgrades for PAGK. I would like to see that fixed.
Incinerator: Template, S6, AP4, Assault 1, Soulblaze (No change)
Psilencer: 24”, S4, Ap-, Assault 6, Poisoned 3+, Force (Being as other Codexes rely on template weapons for anti-hoarde, the Psilencer doesn't really have to be anti-hoarde. This profile makes it good at killing Monstrous Creatures, though not as good as my previous suggestion, yet removes most of the anti-infantry ability it had. It is also much closer to a traditional weapon profile than my previous suggestion.)
Psycannon: 36”, S7, AP4, Salvo 2/4, Rending, Lance (This doubles its effectiveness against Soulgrinders, and helps against AV 14, but doesn’t do anything at all to its effectiveness against lighter armor.
*For the sake of Fluff explanations, “Poisoned” and “Lance” would probably be given new overly flowery or pseudo-Latin names and descriptions to make them more in line with the Imperium’s lore, but would still be the exact same rules.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2015/04/07 15:28:49
How about if the Ordo Malleus Inquisitor was added back into the Grey Knight Codex to give the Grey Knights a cheap HQ option? After all, the Grey Knights work very closely with the Ordo Malleus in the fluff.
)
, I was being pretty myopic when posting that and was thinking about what my 
