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.

tyrranids ARE a subpar codex, so it isn't fair to use them as any sort of measuring stick for or against that army being OP.

pretre wrote:

Tomb King wrote:The fluff thing is three tiered 3 strikes and your out. One he killed a primarch, two he lives in the warp, three he needs a daemonic incursion just to continue his tenure as grand master. Ide hate to be his second in command. What there is a daemonic incursion??? Alright lads im not longer in charge and we need to get this to do list to the grand master... lets go.

Let's keep the fluff-hate to another thread and talk about the competitive aspects, please.

Sorry to bring the fluff bunny in the thread I was just stating personally why I dislike draigo. I just couldnt really get into the fluff of the GK because of that and thats what I like about armies. That and the bad rep the army procured before I ever looked at them helped in my decision not to ever field them.

targetawg wrote:

Tomb King wrote:

Eidolon wrote:

These kind of negative attitudes are what drag the hobby down.

A lot of people have argued that GK are actually doing that but it is being mitigated some as more people step away from the codex or run more optimal list for the greater good ...

Grey knights are to 40k = Warriors of Chaos are to Fantasy.

I'm with Eidolon, these kind of negative attitudes are one of the primary downers for the hobby. A lot of players start armies because they like the models, they played them previously when they WEREN'T good, or they like the story/feel behind them. Those players now have to listen to incessant crapping on their army, people whining about playing them, people refusing to play them, and more. That's pretty discouraging once you've put hundreds of dollars into an army, and isn't the community that 40k should have.

I am sorry to say it but as you can tell by the length of the thread or by just walking in to a tournament with grey knights it is the reality. People openly dislike the army for one reason or another whether you accept that reality or not is up to you. I understand where your coming from as some grey knight players trudged on through the days where they sucked and now that they got a good codex they get the hate as well. The negative attitudes didnt just spring up over night either. I am a CJ major and you learn about the bad apple theory where there are a few bad officers who supposedly give the rest a bad name. The same applies to grey knights. The codex is strong enough that a comfortable number of power gamers jumped on the band wagon and ran the meanest list they could think of for a while until they burned out some of the lower tier armies. I do fine against GK myself but I have several armies. Some people have 1 maybe 2 armies and if your one of those lower tier armies and you run into one of the power builds + a less then humble opponent it can be a real bad experience and leave you with a lasting impression of that army as well as the player. The discouraging part is a two sided blade my friend. Its the lack of diversity that makes people not wanting to play GK because most of the list is one of the three power list. Sometimes you dont even need to see your opponents list you just say grey knights? Alright take a quick glance at his army and you can tell his build almost instantly. I went to a tournament a while back where I played CSM + CSM + GK with my sisters and the tournament before that was Lysander marines + Lysander Marines + Necron/Tau alliance (no ringer). I had to faced 5 of 6 players with power armor. The funnest game of all of those was against the Tau/Necrons because it was different. Something out of the norm that I was not used to playing and they were actually newer players so it was a nice friendly game that ended in a draw

Hence this statement being made.

And the fact that such a statement can be made with regards to the balance of any one army compared to any other is a bad sign indeed.

Ideal balance has all armies being comparable to one another. Unfortunately we've seen enough times in both WFB and 40k that the whole 'seperate author' approach leads to some bizarre variation between books and their equivalent tiers...even more so when an author's works start to vary amongst themselves!

gendoikari87 wrote:tyrranids ARE a subpar codex, so it isn't fair to use them as any sort of measuring stick for or against that army being OP.

When the codex in question is one of the primary driving forces making them so, yes. But then every codex I listed is considered "subpar". I listed half the games codex's. There are a lot of reasons for that. GKs are one of the biggest such reasons. They're game breaking and alter meta in awful ways. That necrons and blood angels are a lower tier purely because of their existence is telling. Blood angels are a fifth edition codex. They have a lot of powerful and versatile choices and army builds. There is an army composed entirely of I6 force weapons though, thus any power armor based assault army is relegated into the second tier by default. That is idiotic at a basic level. GKs shouldn't exist as they do. No army should have nothing but force weapons, no army should be able to take 2 wound terminators as troops, no army should be able to freely deny the deployment of deep strike based armies, no army should be able to freely beat hordes. They do all of this. They break bare conceptual rules in this games balance and they do it in stupid ways.

ShumaGorath wrote:

targetawg wrote:

Tomb King wrote:

Eidolon wrote:

These kind of negative attitudes are what drag the hobby down.

A lot of people have argued that GK are actually doing that but it is being mitigated some as more people step away from the codex or run more optimal list for the greater good ...

Grey knights are to 40k = Warriors of Chaos are to Fantasy.

I'm with Eidolon, these kind of negative attitudes are one of the primary downers for the hobby. A lot of players start armies because they like the models, they played them previously when they WEREN'T good, or they like the story/feel behind them. Those players now have to listen to incessant crapping on their army, people whining about playing them, people refusing to play them, and more. That's pretty discouraging once you've put hundreds of dollars into an army, and isn't the community that 40k should have.

That road goes two ways, imagine the tyranid player who has sunk 4-5 hundred dollars into his army and gets to put it in a box in the attic because a 200 dollar flavor of the month super army with blatantly over the top rules makes it thoroughly unplayable (moreso than even wolves or IG had done). Ditto for daemons. Ditty for Dark eldar (a new codex) Ditto for blood angels (a new codex). Ditto for Dark angels. Ditto for Chaos. Ditto for Orks. Hell, necrons sit on that list too (also a new codex).

So yeah, an unfun over the top army with bad fluff thats ludicrously popular because its cheap easy and powerful ruins the game for just about half the games other armies. The hate is unfortunate and in most cases it's not the fault of the GK player, but the hate is justified. It's an army that is bad for the game at large, and it is that in a highly visible way.

It's the direction of the hate, that tyranid player (who btw, tyranids REALLY aren't that bad if you know how to play well) doesn't have to play against GK's in just for fun games. If it's a tournament, he does, and he can direct his hate towards GW without vocalizing it at a player (which is typically what does happen). And have we already forgotten that miserable time period that was Nidzilla in 4th? The years that they ruled the roost with quite possibly the easiest army to play, ever, (push forward dakka fexes, shoot dakka fexes) and were nigh -unstoppable for everyone. I don't remember Nidzilla ever garnering this much poor community behavior.

Also, Draigowing is not that competitive of an army, you just listed several codexes that have very GOOD matchups versus draigowing. Dark Eldar? They outrange draigowing significantly, are too fast to catch, and your typical venom spam list puts out ~100 shots per turn, just from the venoms!

Hate is never justified towards a player, and that's what ends up happening. Your opinion is it's bad for the game at large, but name one event draigowing has won. Name one. The closest anyone came is blackmoor (a very experienced player) and a lot of the reason he did is because of the NOVA format, which allowed him to turn every game into a KP game with excellent tactics.

I can understand why people get angry, your basically calling their skills into question, but at the same time...

Ill play your GK/SW and you can play my non Vulkan vanilla marines with their 260 point devastators and their assault marines that get beat up by everyone with two arms and I will spank you around like a red headed step child 99 games out of 100.

Some of the lists posted here are good vanilla lists and ill steal some of them, but seriously, you need to just accept what is blindingly obvious and if your so bothered about people thinking your only winning because you rolled GKs, go play Tau.

Hate is never justified towards a player, and that's what ends up happening. Your opinion is it's bad for the game at large, but name one event draigowing has won. Name one. The closest anyone came is blackmoor (a very experienced player) and a lot of the reason he did is because of the NOVA format, which allowed him to turn every game into a KP game with excellent tactics.

I can name several in my local area, and local events are the vast majority of competitive venues for 40k players. Top tables at RTTs bleach the game. You'll never see nids, you'll never see tau, you'll never see DAs or DAs. People bring the top tier to major 7 round tournies and the metagame becaomes rock paper scissors of GKs, IG and SWs in most (with inconsistent outliers).

Everyone knows more than one draigowing player. They're exceptionally common and exceptionally good at beating most armies in the game. If the GK player is good and is running henchmen or purifier spam the situation is made much worse as those armies are much less vulnerable and every bit as powerful. The army is broken at a conceptual level and that angers people. During the reign if nidzilla there was still the feeling that they could be beaten. That is not a feeling some armies have against draigowing. They take game balance and break it over their knee.

mattyrm wrote: I can understand why people get angry, your basically calling their skills into question, but at the same time...

Ill play your GK/SW and you can play my non Vulkan vanilla marines with their 260 point devastators and their assault marines that get beat up by everyone with two arms and I will spank you around like a red headed step child 99 games out of 100.

Some of the lists posted here are good vanilla lists and ill steal some of them, but seriously, you need to just accept what is blindingly obvious and if your so bothered about people thinking your only winning because you rolled GKs, go play Tau.

Except that isn't the case. There ARE good vanilla lists. There ARE good tau lists. Heck, a good tau list with a good general is an absolute GK-nightmare!

Here's an example, I've won 3 GT's now, I'd consider myself at least a pretty good player, and I've been in the hobby ~15 years. Other than those 3 wins, I've consistently placed near the top at events.

At a recent RTT (we've got some very, very good guys locally) I played:

My most recent brew of GK's, admittedly a pretty wonky version made more for fun, and faced:

DOA - BA - I won, not a landslide though (this guy went 4-0 day one at nova, and 2-2 i think day 2, thats a very high placing against tough competition)
Vanilla SM - Khan Bikers - I lost (This guy has won 1 GT, and I think 2, but don't quote me on that)
Tau - I lost - and I got tabled. I haven't been tabled by anyone in probably 3-4 years. (I know he's won a GT or two, though typically in fantasy...ohhhh how sad I am!)

The difference was those were exceptional players and even using "terrible" books, they were able to execute a gameplan versus big bad GK's with at the least, a 'good' player at the helm.

Before writing off books like Vanilla SM and Tau, try tweaking your approach, list, and tactics. People are still winning and placing highly with them.

ShumaGorath wrote:
Everyone knows more than one draigowing player. They're exceptionally common and exceptionally good at beating most armies in the game. If the GK player is good and is running henchmen or purifier spam the situation is made much worse as those armies are much less vulnerable and every bit as powerful. The army is broken at a conceptual level and that angers people. During the reign if nidzilla there was still the feeling that they could be beaten. That is not a feeling some armies have against draigowing. They take game balance and break it over their knee.

I know one. I don't play Draigowing, though I have his model and more than enough termies. I don't like it. Your second statement I agree with completely. The rest of what you say isn't something I can agree with. I've seen Draigowing beaten, and not by tailored lists. Whether that's due to luck, a bad GK player, or a good opponent, I can't say, but I've seen it happen.

The statement that comes to mind back when the GK codex first came out was this (and I'm paraphrasing): "A veteran DH player will be an amazing GK player." They went from having one of the worst codexes to having what's (easily) arguably one of the best, and they did it in such a way that their old tactics still work in the new codex.

I feel like we're still going around in circles. It seems like nothing has been introduced into this thread since page 5 or so.

Maybe I'll try to get my Nids up to a decent 2500 points for 'Ard Boyz rather than using the GK one I had planned, just to see how I'd do.

targetawg wrote:

It's the direction of the hate, that tyranid player (who btw, tyranids REALLY aren't that bad if you know how to play well) doesn't have to play against GK's in just for fun games. If it's a tournament, he does, and he can direct his hate towards GW without vocalizing it at a player (which is typically what does happen). And have we already forgotten that miserable time period that was Nidzilla in 4th? The years that they ruled the roost with quite possibly the easiest army to play, ever, (push forward dakka fexes, shoot dakka fexes) and were nigh -unstoppable for everyone. I don't remember Nidzilla ever garnering this much poor community behavior.

Also, Draigowing is not that competitive of an army, you just listed several codexes that have very GOOD matchups versus draigowing. Dark Eldar? They outrange draigowing significantly, are too fast to catch, and your typical venom spam list puts out ~100 shots per turn, just from the venoms!

Hate is never justified towards a player, and that's what ends up happening. Your opinion is it's bad for the game at large, but name one event draigowing has won. Name one. The closest anyone came is blackmoor (a very experienced player) and a lot of the reason he did is because of the NOVA format, which allowed him to turn every game into a KP game with excellent tactics.

If its a tournament, why is he bringing nids. Im the nid guy who sunk $500 into my army, and I love it. I bring them out for friendly games, I play them against beginners and casuals. But I would never bring the army to a tournament. Does it suck that nids arent more powerful? Sure, but I dont direct my hate at everyone who bought dark eldar and grey knights over it. What targetawg here says about nidzilla is also true, they were, for a long time, a very dominant army, and never got the kind of hate that draigowing got.

I guess, this is the first time I have ever seen a bad/casual army list, one that I would put firmly in the fluff bunny instead of competitive category get so much consistent hate.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

mattyrm wrote:

My nids are 12-0 in tournaments. My gk are 12-0, my mechdar are like 21-3, my space wolves are 8-1. Now this is all local, but, Im pretty sure im not winning because of grey knights. And yes, if you feel draigowing is unbeatable, I will call your skills into question. If you said that storm guardians on foot were tabling your mech guard, I would call your skills into question too.

Far as your point about wolves/gk v your vanilla marines, sure, gk and sw will win that most times, assuming you take a good gk/sw list and the vanilla army is bad enough to run missile devs and assault marines. I mean, if I write up a really bad grey knights army, and you have a good vanilla list, youll win 99 out of 100 games, so im not seeing the point in this post.

Except that isn't the case. There ARE good vanilla lists. There ARE good tau lists. Heck, a good tau list with a good general is an absolute GK-nightmare!

Here's an example, I've won 3 GT's now, I'd consider myself at least a pretty good player, and I've been in the hobby ~15 years. Other than those 3 wins, I've consistently placed near the top at events.

At a recent RTT (we've got some very, very good guys locally) I played:

My most recent brew of GK's, admittedly a pretty wonky version made more for fun, and faced:

DOA - BA - I won, not a landslide though (this guy went 4-0 day one at nova, and 2-2 i think day 2, thats a very high placing against tough competition)
Vanilla SM - Khan Bikers - I lost (This guy has won 1 GT, and I think 2, but don't quote me on that)
Tau - I lost - and I got tabled. I haven't been tabled by anyone in probably 3-4 years. (I know he's won a GT or two, though typically in fantasy...ohhhh how sad I am!)

The difference was those were exceptional players and even using "terrible" books, they were able to execute a gameplan versus big bad GK's with at the least, a 'good' player at the helm.

Before writing off books like Vanilla SM and Tau, try tweaking your approach, list, and tactics. People are still winning and placing highly with them.

I agree, I am terrified of running into a good tau army. Tau and guard are my worst match ups as a grey knights player.

[

My nids are 12-0 in tournaments. My gk are 12-0, my mechdar are like 21-3, my space wolves are 8-1. Now this is all local, but, Im pretty sure im not winning because of grey knights. And yes, if you feel draigowing is unbeatable, I will call your skills into question. If you said that storm guardians on foot were tabling your mech guard, I would call your skills into question too.

Interesting that you have on random recall the results of your last 19 3-round tournaments (and you've never tied).

targetawg wrote:

mattyrm wrote: I can understand why people get angry, your basically calling their skills into question, but at the same time...

Ill play your GK/SW and you can play my non Vulkan vanilla marines with their 260 point devastators and their assault marines that get beat up by everyone with two arms and I will spank you around like a red headed step child 99 games out of 100.

Some of the lists posted here are good vanilla lists and ill steal some of them, but seriously, you need to just accept what is blindingly obvious and if your so bothered about people thinking your only winning because you rolled GKs, go play Tau.

Except that isn't the case. There ARE good vanilla lists. There ARE good tau lists. Heck, a good tau list with a good general is an absolute GK-nightmare!

Here's an example, I've won 3 GT's now, I'd consider myself at least a pretty good player, and I've been in the hobby ~15 years. Other than those 3 wins, I've consistently placed near the top at events.

At a recent RTT (we've got some very, very good guys locally) I played:

My most recent brew of GK's, admittedly a pretty wonky version made more for fun, and faced:

DOA - BA - I won, not a landslide though (this guy went 4-0 day one at nova, and 2-2 i think day 2, thats a very high placing against tough competition)
Vanilla SM - Khan Bikers - I lost (This guy has won 1 GT, and I think 2, but don't quote me on that)
Tau - I lost - and I got tabled. I haven't been tabled by anyone in probably 3-4 years. (I know he's won a GT or two, though typically in fantasy...ohhhh how sad I am!)

The difference was those were exceptional players and even using "terrible" books, they were able to execute a gameplan versus big bad GK's with at the least, a 'good' player at the helm.

Before writing off books like Vanilla SM and Tau, try tweaking your approach, list, and tactics. People are still winning and placing highly with them.

Mate, you clearly know the game far better than I do!

The point is, I dont play tourneys often (only played one) and I only play maybe 1-2 times a month with 2-3 mates, I own 4000 pts worth of SM and about 500pts of dwarves, and thats about it.

I don't care that much, I don't play that much, I'm not a fan boy and I'm not a powergamer, and that in essence is why I'm bothering to speak, because in my eyes, it proves exactly my point!

In the GK/SW codex, quite clearly you get more bang for your buck. I know this from reading numerous pages on the topic and numerous conversations about it. I look at the lists I see and think "Ok, I wouldn't have a sniff if I played those guys!"

Clearly you can build good vanilla lists, you can most definitely. Im sure there are several that can compete top tier, but the point is simply this.

If two noobs, who know little and are both bad at the game, make a noob list each, and have a noob game, the SW/GK player will almost certainly wipe the floor with the vanilla player.

You can make decent lists with vanilla if you know your gak and your a good player, but if you just pick two lists and play with your noob mate, you will auto lose, and thus by definition, the codex is overpowered then surely?

I told you guys, I hadn't even read the codex SW when I played in the tourney, and I was left utterly bewildered by SW. Long fangs at 115 with the capability to split fire? I pay 230 for 4 ML, that can target two vehicles. They pay the same for 8 ML, that can target 4 vehicles, and when they get assaulted they all have an extra attack!?

If the new guy can pick up a dex and wipe the other new guy 9/10, then by definition the books OP surely?

ShumaGorath wrote:

My nids are 12-0 in tournaments. My gk are 12-0, my mechdar are like 21-3, my space wolves are 8-1. Now this is all local, but, Im pretty sure im not winning because of grey knights. And yes, if you feel draigowing is unbeatable, I will call your skills into question. If you said that storm guardians on foot were tabling your mech guard, I would call your skills into question too.

Interesting that you have on random recall the results of your last 19 3-round tournaments (and you've never tied).

Given that some people wield wld stats as penis size around here, it's not surprising. The lack of ties is interesting however. Frankly, any time I see a distribution of over 2:1 wins over loses, I assume it to be garbage data. For a game based upon random chaos (die rolls), it's difficult to believe you win EVERY game.

mattyrm wrote:

targetawg wrote:

mattyrm wrote: I can understand why people get angry, your basically calling their skills into question, but at the same time...

Ill play your GK/SW and you can play my non Vulkan vanilla marines with their 260 point devastators and their assault marines that get beat up by everyone with two arms and I will spank you around like a red headed step child 99 games out of 100.

Some of the lists posted here are good vanilla lists and ill steal some of them, but seriously, you need to just accept what is blindingly obvious and if your so bothered about people thinking your only winning because you rolled GKs, go play Tau.

Except that isn't the case. There ARE good vanilla lists. There ARE good tau lists. Heck, a good tau list with a good general is an absolute GK-nightmare!

Here's an example, I've won 3 GT's now, I'd consider myself at least a pretty good player, and I've been in the hobby ~15 years. Other than those 3 wins, I've consistently placed near the top at events.

At a recent RTT (we've got some very, very good guys locally) I played:

My most recent brew of GK's, admittedly a pretty wonky version made more for fun, and faced:

DOA - BA - I won, not a landslide though (this guy went 4-0 day one at nova, and 2-2 i think day 2, thats a very high placing against tough competition)
Vanilla SM - Khan Bikers - I lost (This guy has won 1 GT, and I think 2, but don't quote me on that)
Tau - I lost - and I got tabled. I haven't been tabled by anyone in probably 3-4 years. (I know he's won a GT or two, though typically in fantasy...ohhhh how sad I am!)

The difference was those were exceptional players and even using "terrible" books, they were able to execute a gameplan versus big bad GK's with at the least, a 'good' player at the helm.

Before writing off books like Vanilla SM and Tau, try tweaking your approach, list, and tactics. People are still winning and placing highly with them.

Mate, you clearly know the game far better than I do!

The point is, I dont play tourneys often (only played one) and I only play maybe 1-2 times a month with 2-3 mates, I own 4000 pts worth of SM and about 500pts of dwarves, and thats about it.

I don't care that much, I don't play that much, I'm not a fan boy and I'm not a powergamer, and that in essence is why I'm bothering to speak, because in my eyes, it proves exactly my point!

In the GK/SW codex, quite clearly you get more bang for your buck. I know this from reading numerous pages on the topic and numerous conversations about it. I look at the lists I see and think "Ok, I wouldn't have a sniff if I played those guys!"

Clearly you can build good vanilla lists, you can most definitely. Im sure there are several that can compete top tier, but the point is simply this.

If two noobs, who know little and are both bad at the game, make a noob list each, and have a noob game, the SW/GK player will almost certainly wipe the floor with the vanilla player.

You can make decent lists with vanilla if you know your gak and your a good player, but if you just pick two lists and play with your noob mate, you will auto lose, and thus by definition, the codex is overpowered then surely?

I told you guys, I hadn't even read the codex SW when I played in the tourney, and I was left utterly bewildered by SW. Long fangs at 115 with the capability to split fire? I pay 230 for 4 ML, that can target two vehicles. They pay the same for 8 ML, that can target 4 vehicles, and when they get assaulted they all have an extra attack!?

If the new guy can pick up a dex and wipe the other new guy 9/10, then by definition the books OP surely?

I think this may be the disconnect between us: we just have different definitions for what constitutes OP (and there's nothing wrong with that!)

Back somewhere in the long long ago of this thread, the conversation started based on tournament results, that GK were OP, so my thought was - no, this isn't the case. In the tournament world, GK are def. top tier, but they aren't OP or broken. There have been over time lists that were OP/Broken, the biggest being Nidzilla, which rampaged on everyones face in the tourney scene for a while, which got to the point that you were in one of two camps: "i think i have a novel way to take out nidzilla!" or "i give up, Im playing nidzilla".

However, seeing where you're coming from, I get your point. I don't agree that thats how I'd define OP, but i will agree that it is MUCH easier to build a viable GK list then it is a viable Tau/Vanilla SM list. I think this isn't the fault of the GK's however, you're comparing old books (which by now are so out of date they have primarily a handful of passable builds) with a new book that was designed with almost every entry being decent. There are very few (if any) wrong choices in the GK book.

If you gave a new player codex SW/Necron/BA/IG, I think you'd find they provided a much tougher game for Codex - GK. (Mind you I still think the GK book is more beginner-forgiving then the aforementioned ones).

daedalus wrote:Given that some people wield wld stats as penis size around here, it's not surprising. The lack of ties is interesting however. Frankly, any time I see a distribution of over 2:1 wins over loses, I assume it to be garbage data. For a game based upon random chaos (die rolls), it's difficult to believe you win EVERY game.

Maybe he was listing them in L-W-D format. He may be playing in an area that uses no-draw missions. A lot of our local stores have moved to this format, which I like.

I'm seeing a lot of "myths" in these threads such as:


Tyranids are bad.

Tau sucks.

Vanilla marines just cannot compete.


IMHO, that is all bunk. Give them a general who knows how to run them and all can compete, even excel.

mattyrm wrote:
If the new guy can pick up a dex and wipe the other new guy 9/10, then by definition the books OP surely?

That depends on a lot of things though. I've been tabled by a Deathwing player who has played all of about 3 games since he last played in 3rd edition. And I'm what I'd consider a Vet at this point. Does that make DA OP?

You also have to consider the power difference in codexes. If your scenario occurred, and a person picked, say, Tau, and the other person picked Orks, or, taken to an extreme, one picked Daemonhunters (in an alternate universe where GK never happened) and the other picked SW, I don't think there would be a contest.

jy2 wrote:I'm seeing a lot of "myths" in these threads such as:
Tyranids are bad. Tau sucks. Vanilla marines just cannot compete.
IMHO, that is all bunk. Give them a general who knows how to run them and all can compete, even excel.

To be fair, you're seeing them in a thread that itself is based on trying to debunk internet hyperbole. It was inevitable that it would leak in.

pretre wrote:

daedalus wrote:Given that some people wield wld stats as penis size around here, it's not surprising. The lack of ties is interesting however. Frankly, any time I see a distribution of over 2:1 wins over loses, I assume it to be garbage data. For a game based upon random chaos (die rolls), it's difficult to believe you win EVERY game.

Maybe he was listing them in L-W-D format. He may be playing in an area that uses no-draw missions. A lot of our local stores have moved to this format, which I like.

No-draw sounds interesting. I will have to contemplate that.

If you gave a new player codex SW/Necron/BA/IG, I think you'd find they provided a much tougher game for Codex - GK. (Mind you I still think the GK book is more beginner-forgiving then the aforementioned ones).

Necrons and BA are still facing a steep uphill battle against GKs. Close combat based MEQ forces are non viable in the matchup and few of the necrons popular tricks work particularly well against GKs (it's hard to make that scarab farm work when DCAs can instakill 30+ scarabs in a single assault). The external balance of GKs makes them overpowered in effectively half or more of a random sampler of matchups. Those aren't the ones major tournaments will provide since tournaments revolve around the high tier, but that impact on the consideration of tier viability implies a power level beyond the norm.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

jy2 wrote:I'm seeing a lot of "myths" in these threads such as:


Tyranids are bad.

Tau sucks.

Vanilla marines just cannot compete.


IMHO, that is all bunk. Give them a general who knows how to run them and all can compete, even excel.

Show me the tau player that can beat close combat BAs, Orks, tyranids, Space wolves, Dark Eldar, or Daemons without extreme luck. I will then show you someone that doesn't exist.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

pretre wrote:

jy2 wrote:I'm seeing a lot of "myths" in these threads such as:
Tyranids are bad. Tau sucks. Vanilla marines just cannot compete.
IMHO, that is all bunk. Give them a general who knows how to run them and all can compete, even excel.

To be fair, you're seeing them in a thread that itself is based on trying to debunk internet hyperbole. It was inevitable that it would leak in.

I think you mean "trying to debunk hyperbole with hyperbole".

daedalus wrote:No-draw sounds interesting. I will have to contemplate that.

A lot of stores bill it as 'Nova format'. It works out well, in my experience.

pretre wrote:

daedalus wrote:No-draw sounds interesting. I will have to contemplate that.

A lot of stores bill it as 'Nova format'. It works out well, in my experience.

His win loss ratio is still ludicrous and likely a plain lie.

ShumaGorath wrote:

If you gave a new player codex SW/Necron/BA/IG, I think you'd find they provided a much tougher game for Codex - GK. (Mind you I still think the GK book is more beginner-forgiving then the aforementioned ones).

Necrons and BA are still facing a steep uphill battle against GKs. Close combat based MEQ forces are non viable in the matchup and few of the necrons popular tricks work particularly well against GKs (it's hard to make that scarab farm work when DCAs can instakill 30+ scarabs in a single assault). The external balance of GKs makes them overpowered in effectively half or more of a random sampler of matchups. Those aren't the ones major tournaments will provide since tournaments revolve around the high tier, but that impact on the consideration of tier viability implies a power level beyond the norm.

Both of these below are within the "competitive scene" ie, players that really know their stuff, and make competitive/optimized lists

BA don't have a very bad match, DOA-BA do have a bad match. But the codex in general does just fine, especcially since GK competitive builds focus on torrent typically (psybacks ahoy!) and BA's rocking FNP giggle about that. Unfortunately, the most commonly seen build is the DOA one, and it's just not very good versus anything that beats it in combat (and there's more than GK's on that ticket)

Necrons on the other hand, I'll just completely disagree with. Necrons just won templecon, for one. And DCA's do not instakill scarabs. DCA's with an IC + rad grenades or with double hammer hand may, but that situation should not be happening to the necron player, unless he's made some mistakes. Otherwise, scarabs are a nightmare for GK's. Theres way too many, they have good cover saves so they don't care about torrent, they annihilate light tanks with ease, and they are mind blowing versus dread spam (which most GK's tend to do).

Your standard 'sit and shoot guard 2.0 coteaz list with 6 psybacks + 3+ psyfle dreads get's roflstomped by scarab farm.

mattyrm wrote:

If the new guy can pick up a dex and wipe the other new guy 9/10, then by definition the books OP surely?

Yes and no. What it could mean is the book has a larger 'lower end'. Defined as having to put in minimal effort/experience to win games. However, the 2 books might be much closer at the 'higher end' where both players have lots of experience. A good example of this is green tide. Which tends to clean up against beginners and people who havent played it, but doesnt do so well against experience. With that said, I think mech coteaz is the closest to broken we have right now, but you have to remember that nob bikers and mech guard were also very very good when they first came out.

daedalus wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

My nids are 12-0 in tournaments. My gk are 12-0, my mechdar are like 21-3, my space wolves are 8-1. Now this is all local, but, Im pretty sure im not winning because of grey knights. And yes, if you feel draigowing is unbeatable, I will call your skills into question. If you said that storm guardians on foot were tabling your mech guard, I would call your skills into question too.

Interesting that you have on random recall the results of your last 19 3-round tournaments (and you've never tied).

Given that some people wield wld stats as penis size around here, it's not surprising. The lack of ties is interesting however. Frankly, any time I see a distribution of over 2:1 wins over loses, I assume it to be garbage data. For a game based upon random chaos (die rolls), it's difficult to believe you win EVERY game.

I have a very good memory, I can remember things back to when I was just over a year old. The gk tournaments are all in the last 2 months, the nids I remember well because I retired them from tournament play. Now that I think of it, the wolves are 7-1-1, because I did tie one game. The mechdar was from a 3 months period where I played non stop in tournaments about 3 years ago. Its not that hard to remember these things.

pretre wrote:

daedalus wrote:Given that some people wield wld stats as penis size around here, it's not surprising. The lack of ties is interesting however. Frankly, any time I see a distribution of over 2:1 wins over loses, I assume it to be garbage data. For a game based upon random chaos (die rolls), it's difficult to believe you win EVERY game.

Maybe he was listing them in L-W-D format. He may be playing in an area that uses no-draw missions. A lot of our local stores have moved to this format, which I like.

You can believe or not believe it all you want, but its not garbage. Its not a scientifically exact method of determining skill, but dont discount it because you dont think its possible. Theres alternate possibilities, other than me making up this stuff.

jy2 wrote:I'm seeing a lot of "myths" in these threads such as:


Tyranids are bad.

Tau sucks.

Vanilla marines just cannot compete.


IMHO, that is all bunk. Give them a general who knows how to run them and all can compete, even excel.

Well, I think nids are bad. BUT, you are correct, this deserves at least some clarification. Nids suck at the high end competitive level, they dont have the tools to compete with the mech lists out there. Its sad, but its true. This isnt saying a good player cant make wonderful things happen with them, but its unreliable. Far as tau sucking, thats silly, they have a great monobuild. I have no real knowledge about vanilla marines in high end play.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

targetawg wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

If you gave a new player codex SW/Necron/BA/IG, I think you'd find they provided a much tougher game for Codex - GK. (Mind you I still think the GK book is more beginner-forgiving then the aforementioned ones).

Necrons and BA are still facing a steep uphill battle against GKs. Close combat based MEQ forces are non viable in the matchup and few of the necrons popular tricks work particularly well against GKs (it's hard to make that scarab farm work when DCAs can instakill 30+ scarabs in a single assault). The external balance of GKs makes them overpowered in effectively half or more of a random sampler of matchups. Those aren't the ones major tournaments will provide since tournaments revolve around the high tier, but that impact on the consideration of tier viability implies a power level beyond the norm.

Both of these below are within the "competitive scene" ie, players that really know their stuff, and make competitive/optimized lists

BA don't have a very bad match, DOA-BA do have a bad match. But the codex in general does just fine, especcially since GK competitive builds focus on torrent typically (psybacks ahoy!) and BA's rocking FNP giggle about that. Unfortunately, the most commonly seen build is the DOA one, and it's just not very good versus anything that beats it in combat (and there's more than GK's on that ticket)

Necrons on the other hand, I'll just completely disagree with. Necrons just won templecon, for one. And DCA's do not instakill scarabs. DCA's with an IC + rad grenades or with double hammer hand may, but that situation should not be happening to the necron player, unless he's made some mistakes. Otherwise, scarabs are a nightmare for GK's. Theres way too many, they have good cover saves so they don't care about torrent, they annihilate light tanks with ease, and they are mind blowing versus dread spam (which most GK's tend to do).

Your standard 'sit and shoot guard 2.0 coteaz list with 6 psybacks + 3+ psyfle dreads get's roflstomped by scarab farm.

my guard 2.0 army has no desire to fight scarab swarms. Ever, feth those things. And yeah, DCA with brokennades inquisitor will probably destroy scarabs in assault, but uh, thats a lot more points. Sort of like how draigo+5 paladins will destroy 10 scarab bases in assault.

Heres something for you guys, my list of things in the gk book that might actually be 'overpowered'

halberds
psycho and rad nades, especially that they work defensively
fortitude on acolyte transports.

this is about it.

Eidolon wrote:I have a very good memory, I can remember things back to when I was just over a year old. The gk tournaments are all in the last 2 months, the nids I remember well because I retired them from tournament play. Now that I think of it, the wolves are 7-1-1, because I did tie one game. The mechdar was from a 3 months period where I played non stop in tournaments about 3 years ago. Its not that hard to remember these things.

Excellent memory and tournament ace! It gets better and better.

You can believe or not believe it all you want, but its not garbage. Its not a scientifically exact method of determining skill, but dont discount it because you dont think its possible. Theres alternate possibilities, other than me making up this stuff.

Occam's Razor. Either you are a previously unknown tournament ace that completely sweeps local RTTs without losing or there is a bit of wiggle in the actual facts.

Either way, your tournament record and other characteristics are off topic. Individual people's tournament records in general are pretty irrelevant. As I said earlier, we need to look at large groups of results to make any kind of assumptions.

Necrons on the other hand, I'll just completely disagree with. Necrons just won templecon, for one. And DCA's do not instakill scarabs. DCA's with an IC + rad grenades or with double hammer hand may, but that situation should not be happening to the necron player, unless he's made some mistakes.

The techmarine is an independent character. In a situation between equally skilled opponents it's unlikely that it wouldn't happen.

Otherwise, scarabs are a nightmare for GK's. Theres way too many, they have good cover saves so they don't care about torrent, they annihilate light tanks with ease, and they are mind blowing versus dread spam (which most GK's tend to do).

But like most effective counters to GKs they have an incredibly potent and commonly used counter to your counter. DCAs are not expensive and they're broadly effective against most armies in the game, which means that they'll see play commonly.

Your standard 'sit and shoot guard 2.0 coteaz list with 6 psybacks + 3+ psyfle dreads get's roflstomped by scarab farm.

Until the DCA squad with techmarine gets out of it's (loaned) chimera and vaporizes the entire squad after your scarabs kill a psyback. If they don't have a DCA deathstar counter then sure, you'll crush them. That's uncommon though, and thats a single vulnerable GK build out of a fair number.

BA don't have a very bad match, DOA-BA do have a bad match. But the codex in general does just fine, especcially since GK competitive builds focus on torrent typically (psybacks ahoy!) and BA's rocking FNP giggle about that.

Until the MSU build with it's six psyfledreads torrents out your sanguinary priests (no fnp vs the psyfles). The DCAs demolish everything in the BA book as well and don't need to be used proactively when the BA army is the one charging. It's hard to avoid a multi assault when it's a multi assault that follows you breaking a few minimal hench squads.

Theres a reason GKs are considered a hard counter to BAs.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

I have a very good memory, I can remember things back to when I was just over a year old. The gk tournaments are all in the last 2 months, the nids I remember well because I retired them from tournament play. Now that I think of it, the wolves are 7-1-1, because I did tie one game. The mechdar was from a 3 months period where I played non stop in tournaments about 3 years ago. Its not that hard to remember these things.

A tournament golden god who also has flawless recall. We are honored by such an august presence.

ShumaGorath wrote:

If you gave a new player codex SW/Necron/BA/IG, I think you'd find they provided a much tougher game for Codex - GK. (Mind you I still think the GK book is more beginner-forgiving then the aforementioned ones).

Necrons and BA are still facing a steep uphill battle against GKs. Close combat based MEQ forces are non viable in the matchup and few of the necrons popular tricks work particularly well against GKs (it's hard to make that scarab farm work when DCAs can instakill 30+ scarabs in a single assault). The external balance of GKs makes them overpowered in effectively half or more of a random sampler of matchups. Those aren't the ones major tournaments will provide since tournaments revolve around the high tier, but that impact on the consideration of tier viability implies a power level beyond the norm.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

jy2 wrote:I'm seeing a lot of "myths" in these threads such as:


Tyranids are bad.

Tau sucks.

Vanilla marines just cannot compete.


IMHO, that is all bunk. Give them a general who knows how to run them and all can compete, even excel.

Show me the tau player that can beat close combat BAs, Orks, tyranids, Space wolves, Dark Eldar, or Daemons without extreme luck. I will then show you someone that doesn't exist.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

pretre wrote:

jy2 wrote:I'm seeing a lot of "myths" in these threads such as:
Tyranids are bad. Tau sucks. Vanilla marines just cannot compete.
IMHO, that is all bunk. Give them a general who knows how to run them and all can compete, even excel.

To be fair, you're seeing them in a thread that itself is based on trying to debunk internet hyperbole. It was inevitable that it would leak in.

I think you mean "trying to debunk hyperbole with hyperbole".

I have beaten one the best daemon player in my area with my Tau. He travels to tournaments with his daemons and wins nearly every one that he enters. So tau can beat daemons it just how you play them. You have to pue pue them a lot. I also beat Vulcan SM, and Lash CSM Berzerker rhino rush. Then again I am one of the few undefeated Tau players still alive. I dont wanna tarnish my record by fielding them more often hehe.

<snip; please don't quote giant blocks of conversation, or your posts may be subject to deletion --Janthkin>

I wont jump on the personal attacks here and we should probably mitigate further comments and just agree the data is unsupported. However, you comment that some of those wins are 3+ years old and your posting them for viability in a Grey Knights thread which haven't been out for even a year yet. Ide say those statistics are no longer relevant to the current meta.

Tomb King wrote:
I wont jump on the personal attacks here and we should probably mitigate further comments and just agree the data is unsupported. However, you comment that some of those wins are 3+ years old and your posting them for viability in a Grey Knights thread which haven't been out for even a year yet. Ide say those statistics are no longer relevant to the current meta.

Fair enough. Now stop quoting the whole thread everytime you respond, TK.

pretre wrote:

Tomb King wrote:
I wont jump on the personal attacks here and we should probably mitigate further comments and just agree the data is unsupported. However, you comment that some of those wins are 3+ years old and your posting them for viability in a Grey Knights thread which haven't been out for even a year yet. Ide say those statistics are no longer relevant to the current meta.

Fair enough. Now stop quoting the whole thread everytime you respond, TK.

Im tired and I dont have to read it you do. I guess I could be more considerate. For now however enjoy the wall of text!