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.

AlmightyWalrus wrote:They want the power of a Dreadnought but don't want to be Dreadnoughts, so they get Dreadknights.

What can a Dreadnought do that a Grandmaster cannot? A Grandmaster is perfectly capable of facing down literally the greatest of daemons. The Dreadnought can carry ordnance in addition to being a close combat machine, but in their line of work that's generally unnecessary.

DarkHound wrote:

AlmightyWalrus wrote:They want the power of a Dreadnought but don't want to be Dreadnoughts, so they get Dreadknights.

What can a Dreadnought do that a Grandmaster cannot? A Grandmaster is perfectly capable of facing down literally the greatest of daemons. The Dreadnought can carry ordnance in addition to being a close combat machine, but in their line of work that's generally unnecessary.

Why does the US need Aircraft Carriers when they have Nukes? A Dreadnought or Dreadknight enables someone less powerful than a Grand Master to fight Greater Daemons.

Yet I'm almost certain there are more Grandmasters and Brother-captains than there are Dreadnoughts. If the Grey Knights are the size of three Chapters, they've probably got around 45 such ranked individuals.

DarkHound wrote:Yet I'm almost certain there are more Grandmasters and Brother-captains than there are Dreadnoughts. If the Grey Knights are the size of three Chapters, they've probably got around 45 such ranked individuals.

8 BroCaps, 8 GMs and Draigo as per Codex: Grey Knights, for a total of 17. Also, Dreadnoughts let's them preserve BroCaps and GMs when they fall in battle, keeping their wisdom and skill available for future missions.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Blaktoof - so its "unfluffy" due simply to your own opinion on what counts as fluffy?

Yawn

Also -you see people spam Dknights? Really? Theyre hideously uncompetitive.

I realize you ca not accept anyone who disGrees with you ever.

HOwever literally 93% of the fluff prior to the release of the current codex. Makes no mention of dreadnaughts in anyway in gk stories. Dreadnaughts have existed since RT times but have not been pivotal in the backstory, infact they are very rarely mentioned. However 100% of tourney viable or competitive lists include dreadnaught spam. Hence its pretty unfluffy. Honestly I don't know why you are arguing that point, you have no stance other than some troll rant that's pretty much a personal attack.

Can you put forth some background examples of how they GKs commonly deploy as many dreadnaughts as possible to perhaps back up your standpoint ?

blaktoof wrote:Can you put forth some background examples of how they GKs commonly deploy as many dreadnaughts as possible to perhaps back up your standpoint ?

I already did, but you're apparently too busy bashing people to notice.

AlmightyWalrus wrote:

blaktoof wrote:

The dreadknight fluff is that it was created to battle powerful daemons by being a giant robotic baby Bjorn of the emperors will. If you think about it there is no place for this model as conceptualy it is just the equivalent of dreadnaught with special rules. GKs already have dreads but do not like to become dreads for fluff reasons already stTes by DH.

They want the power of a Dreadnought but don't want to be Dreadnoughts, so they get Dreadknights. Not to be rude, but that didn't require much coherent thought to figure out.

Let's use another example: Someone plays with three Dreads and three Knights, runs an AdMech/henchman list and just calls them Skiitari vehicles and Knights. There, got you a not-far-fetched fluffy explanation. You could also have the army be part of the Grey Knight prescense around Cadia, which almost certainly includes Dreadnoughts and Dreadknights. There's another not-far-fetched explanation that also has the benefit of keeps the models counting as what they are.

I agree that it's unlikely to be the case, but flat out saying it is impossible seems a bit silly TBH.

That's a very fluffy example however the admech =/= GKs. At all. Even if you use the rules from the GK codex to represent them you have taken the rules to make a fluffy army from a codex that isn't yours to make your army, which is cool- just like saying you don't care about fluff and want a competitive army.

However your not playing a GK army so how fluffy it is for a GK army is a non factor.

right ?

blaktoof wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:Blaktoof - so its "unfluffy" due simply to your own opinion on what counts as fluffy?

Yawn

Also -you see people spam Dknights? Really? Theyre hideously uncompetitive.

I realize you ca not accept anyone who disGrees with you ever.

HOwever literally 93% of the fluff prior to the release of the current codex. Makes no mention of dreadnaughts in anyway in gk stories. Dreadnaughts have existed since RT times but have not been pivotal in the backstory, infact they are very rarely mentioned. However 100% of tourney viable or competitive lists include dreadnaught spam. Hence its pretty unfluffy. Honestly I don't know why you are arguing that point, you have no stance other than some troll rant that's pretty much a personal attack.

Can you put forth some background examples of how they GKs commonly deploy as many dreadnaughts as possible to perhaps back up your standpoint ?

There were GK dreadnoughts in the DH codex.

And Nos is not saying "its my way or the highway", he is saying that you don't determine whats fluffy or not.

Dreadnoughts may not be a desirable fate but, like many other things the GKs do, they are a necessity. They don't like to end up in a dreadnought, but that individual will accept that it is required for the chapter's mission to be fulfilled. Thats what the GKs are, the ultimate in self-sacrifice for a greater purpose. They do it so that Mankind can live safe from the Daemonic threat.

You can't really use the lack of Dreadnoughts in GK stories as an example because GKs don't show up that often in BL literature and never in a situation where a GK dreadnought would be/could be deployed.

AlmightyWalrus wrote:8 BroCaps, 8 GMs and Draigo as per Codex: Grey Knights, for a total of 17. Also, Dreadnoughts let's them preserve BroCaps and GMs when they fall in battle, keeping their wisdom and skill available for future missions.

Nevermind, that's much fewer than I anticipated. I expected, with such high mortality rates, that heroes would emerge left and right.

My biggest issue isn't that Dreadknights exist, it's how they were realized. A new kind of power armor that turns them into a MC? Makes sense in moderation. A Terminator strapped to the front of a Dreadnought? wat.

blaktoof wrote:

AlmightyWalrus wrote:

Let's use another example: Someone plays with three Dreads and three Knights, runs an AdMech/henchman list and just calls them Skiitari vehicles and Knights. There, got you a not-far-fetched fluffy explanation. You could also have the army be part of the Grey Knight prescense around Cadia, which almost certainly includes Dreadnoughts and Dreadknights. There's another not-far-fetched explanation that also has the benefit of keeps the models counting as what they are.

I agree that it's unlikely to be the case, but flat out saying it is impossible seems a bit silly TBH.

That's a very fluffy example however the admech =/= GKs. At all. Even if you use the rules from the GK codex to represent them you have taken the rules to make a fluffy army from a codex that isn't yours to make your army, which is cool- just like saying you don't care about fluff and want a competitive army.

However your not playing a GK army so how fluffy it is for a GK army is a non factor.
right ?

See the bolded part; I know it's shaky. You've done nothing to refute my second example though, and I'm not gonna let you cherry-pick your way ou of this one.

blaktoof wrote:
I realize you ca not accept anyone who disGrees with you ever.

Yeah, whatever. I'm pointing out that YOU, as in YOUR opinion, does not define what is fluffy and unfluffy.

blaktoof wrote:HOwever literally 93% of the fluff prior to the release of the current codex.

I must have imagined those GK Dreadnoughts in the prior codex. "Literally" you are wrong.

Oh, and "nought"

blaktoof wrote:Makes no mention of dreadnaughts in anyway in gk stories.

So, in the GK novels, how many times has a dreadnought made sense given what they are doing? In the ones I have read dreadnoughts wouldnt have really helped matters.

It still doesnt prove your contention that it is "unfluffy" to field 3 dreadnoughts. Not at all.

blaktoof wrote: Dreadnaughts have existed since RT times but have not been pivotal in the backstory, infact they are very rarely mentioned. However 100% of tourney viable or competitive lists include dreadnaught spam.

Gee, guess my top ten placed army in the last 50 player tournament (5 games) isnt competitive then. With no dreadnoughts. No purifiers. No paladins. Oh look! The plural of "anecdote" isnt "Evidence"

blaktoof wrote: Hence its pretty unfluffy. Honestly I don't know why you are arguing that point, you have no stance other than some troll rant that's pretty much a personal attack.

I am arguing that YOU cannot determine what is fluffy and unfluffy in terms of fielding units from a codex. GW have MADE IT FLUFFY to field 6 dreadnoughts, same as they did with 4th ed SM which could also field 6 dreads (and oh look, they're 1/3rd the size of GK and so are likely to have 1/3rd the dreadnoughts....shock!) *if you want to field them*

I'm arguing that, essentially, your argument is crap. Because it is, for all the reasons people have given here.

blaktoof wrote:Can you put forth some background examples of how they GKs commonly deploy as many dreadnaughts as possible to perhaps back up your standpoint ?

Can you find where it is unfluffy for them to do so? Anything? For exsample, a statement saying that they never field more than 1? Anywhere? No? Shock.

The viciousness in this thread.

*Insert comment regarding sexual activity of participants*

GK,SW and BA IMO are in the same boat. They are made and design to be beginner armies and that's it. I started with SW when you was allowed to bring termie armour into your scout squad. But now I play tau and orks because there is no challenge in playing DK,SW and BA.

thevirus wrote: I started with SW when you was allowed to bring termie armour into your scout squad.

Why would that be a big deal? Because they have the chance to outflank on any table edge? You can only bring one (via Wolf Guard), right?

AlmightyWalrus wrote:

blaktoof wrote:Can you put forth some background examples of how they GKs commonly deploy as many dreadnaughts as possible to perhaps back up your standpoint ?

I already did, but you're apparently too busy bashing people to notice.

considering I have made no personal attacks and only nosferatu has in my exchange I'm done replying to you as you lack reading comprehension skills on any level. You are more then welcome to take that as my first bash in this thread.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

nosferatu1001 wrote:

blaktoof wrote:
I realize you ca not accept anyone who disGrees with you ever.

Yeah, whatever. I'm pointing out that YOU, as in YOUR opinion, does not define what is fluffy and unfluffy.

blaktoof wrote:HOwever literally 93% of the fluff prior to the release of the current codex.

I must have imagined those GK Dreadnoughts in the prior codex. "Literally" you are wrong.

Oh, and "nought"

blaktoof wrote:Makes no mention of dreadnaughts in anyway in gk stories.

So, in the GK novels, how many times has a dreadnought made sense given what they are doing? In the ones I have read dreadnoughts wouldnt have really helped matters.

It still doesnt prove your contention that it is "unfluffy" to field 3 dreadnoughts. Not at all.

blaktoof wrote: Dreadnaughts have existed since RT times but have not been pivotal in the backstory, infact they are very rarely mentioned. However 100% of tourney viable or competitive lists include dreadnaught spam.

Gee, guess my top ten placed army in the last 50 player tournament (5 games) isnt competitive then. With no dreadnoughts. No purifiers. No paladins. Oh look! The plural of "anecdote" isnt "Evidence"

blaktoof wrote: Hence its pretty unfluffy. Honestly I don't know why you are arguing that point, you have no stance other than some troll rant that's pretty much a personal attack.

I am arguing that YOU cannot determine what is fluffy and unfluffy in terms of fielding units from a codex. GW have MADE IT FLUFFY to field 6 dreadnoughts, same as they did with 4th ed SM which could also field 6 dreads (and oh look, they're 1/3rd the size of GK and so are likely to have 1/3rd the dreadnoughts....shock!) *if you want to field them*

I'm arguing that, essentially, your argument is crap. Because it is, for all the reasons people have given here.

blaktoof wrote:Can you put forth some background examples of how they GKs commonly deploy as many dreadnaughts as possible to perhaps back up your standpoint ?

Can you find where it is unfluffy for them to do so? Anything? For exsample, a statement saying that they never field more than 1? Anywhere? No? Shock.

Other than the dreadnaught entry in the current codex I can't seem to find any mention of the common deployment of large amount of dreadnaughts in GK OPERATIONS IN A SINGLE CODEX, OR BLACK library book. I think that's enough to say the background story of this game system does not consider it normal, or "fluffy" to field large amounts of dreadnaughts in a GK army. This isn't iron hands, and I'm beginning to think you believe being allowed to take so.ething by rules = background fluff. I'm sorry it doesn't. I also don't care about your army composition or win record and the fact you bring it up only proves you are a fanboi ranting about some facet of your beloved army that is a point of contention that you personally dislike for illogical reasons.

all I'm saying is people who have large amounts of dreadnUghtz in their army and are playing GK are not creTing an army list based on fluff or ba ground story of the GKs. Because it's not in their background story at all anywhere to deploy large amounts of dreadnaughts. Sorry, that's a fact the game developers created not me. I really don't care that your a canboi and anyone commenting logically and factually about something you dislike bothers you.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Rules =/= fluff and fluff =/= rules.

blaktoof wrote:
considering I have made no personal attacks and only nosferatu has in my exchange I'm done replying to you as you lack reading comprehension skills on any level. You are more then welcome to take that as my first bash in this thread.

blaktoof wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:Blaktoof - so its "unfluffy" due simply to your own opinion on what counts as fluffy?

Yawn

Also -you see people spam Dknights? Really? Theyre hideously uncompetitive.

I realize you ca not accept anyone who disGrees with you ever.

Nos posts a valid argument, you respond with "you're not respecting my opinion!". While he could be doing it in a more polite manner, bashing him back isn't the solution. I'd also consider calling everyone who claims to be playing a fluffy list while having Dreadknights in it liars "bashing". It doesn't have to be a personal attack to be bashing.

My challenge still stands: Why could it not be a part of the Grey Knights presence near the Eye of Terror? You can keep dodging the question all you want, but it isn't going to stop me from asking repeatedly.

DarkHound wrote:
My biggest issue isn't that Dreadknights exist, it's how they were realized. A new kind of power armor that turns them into a MC? Makes sense in moderation. A Terminator strapped to the front of a Dreadnought? wat.

The Dreadknight, much like the Tau Crisis Suit, is a 40k spin on an anime favorite. In the case of the Dreadknight, it's the Landmate, from the Appleseed series.

It kind of makes sense to have the arms free like that. The pilot's arms can't go inside the Dreadknight's arms, because they don't bend in the same places, but the arms have to be free to move, because that's how he controls the dreadknight. Personally, I prefer the Dreadknight model to the Dreadnought model.

Actually on the topic of the thread, I want to start a GKs army when I get bored with my Tyranids. Why? Well, my first inkling of desire to play GKs came from reading Inquisitor Valeria's fluff. I love the religious / chivalric imagery of the models, I love the connection to the inquisition, I like Terminators as Troops, I like the wackiness of the henchmen, I like not needing transports to be effective, I like the reasonable financial investment, and, yes, I love the idea of maybe, just maybe, being able to kill that stupid Rune Priest with his stupid Jaws of the World Wolf and all of the stupid Grey Hunters and all of their stupid Razorbacks and all of the stupid Venoms with their stupid Splinter Cannons and all of the stupid Trueborn with their stupid Blasters and dance on their graves. I want some payback, sue me. With GKs, I can get payback by buying a reasonable number of models that I love.

blaktoof wrote:

Other than the dreadnaught entry in the current codex I can't seem to find any mention of the common deployment of large amount of dreadnaughts in GK OPERATIONS IN A SINGLE CODEX, OR BLACK library book. I think that's enough to say the background story of this game system does not consider it normal, or "fluffy" to field large amounts of dreadnaughts in a GK army. This isn't iron hands, and I'm beginning to think you believe being allowed to take so.ething by rules = background fluff. I'm sorry it doesn't. I also don't care about your army composition or win record and the fact you bring it up only proves you are a fanboi ranting about some facet of your beloved army that is a point of contention that you personally dislike for illogical reasons.

You may want to inspect your keyboard. I don't think it's doing what you are trying to make it do. Personally, I'm not aware of anything outside of the 3rd edition Daemonhunters codex (which, like it or not, doesn't matter anymore) that implies Dreadnoughts are not commonly used. They mention that GK don't like being put in them, because they want to die and rest with their brothers. They're not commonly used in the fluff, true, but that doesn't mean that they wouldn't/couldn't be if the situation arose. Nothing I am aware of has ever said "We have less than X of these, and won't use them or put fallen knights in them."

You are arguing that the absence of evidence is the evidence of absence. By the same token, I could argue outrageous things, like that Grey Knights absorb oxygen directly through their skin, and have enchanted holy felafel where their lungs would normally be situated, since it's never mentioned in any of the books that they actively breathe. Or for that matter, that you are a bad person for naming any of your Crimson Fists with Slavic names, since all of the well-known ones are very clearly Latin in nature.

I think you'll find that the dreadknight is a dry run for changes to machines of that ilk for 6th ed, that's just my guess.

Isengard wrote:I think you'll find that the dreadknight is a dry run for changes to machines of that ilk for 6th ed, that's just my guess.

I don't know why people are so angry about it, still. I mean, in a lot of ways it has better rules than walkers, sure, but in plenty of other ways, it has worse rules as a result of it. It's supposed to represent that the DK is a more agile, "naturally" moving war machine. It's not a box on squatty little legs that exists primarily as a ranged weapons platform, it's an actual bipedal device with human-like movements.

blaktoof wrote:considering I have made no personal attacks and only nosferatu has in my exchange I'm done replying to you as you lack reading comprehension skills on any level. You are more then welcome to take that as my first bash in this thread.

I pointed out your argument didnt have any basis. You respond with saying people have no reading comprehension skills. Genius

blaktoof wrote:Other than the dreadnaught entry in the current codex I can't seem to find any mention of the common deployment of large amount of dreadnaughts in GK OPERATIONS IN A SINGLE CODEX, OR BLACK library book.

So, apart from the FLUFF in the CODEX you cannot find anything FLUFFY to ... wait, theres your issue. Staring you literally in the face.

What about in the 3rd ed book? They certainly talk about GK dreadnoughts being used. You could take 3 then as well. Was that unfluffy?

DreadnOUGHT. No "A" there. Given your complete nerd rage about them please try to use the correct spelling.

I thi

blaktoof wrote:nk that's enough to say the background story of this game system does not consider it normal, or "fluffy" to field large amounts of dreadnaughts in a GK army. This isn't iron hands, and I'm beginning to think you believe being allowed to take so.ething by rules = background fluff. I'm sorry it doesn't. I also don't care about your army composition or win record and the fact you bring it up only proves you are a fanboi ranting about some facet of your beloved army that is a point of contention that you personally dislike for illogical reasons.

God your argument gets worse. You were saying that ALL competitive lists involve scads of dreadnoughts. I pointed out my list, by your definition, was not competitive - yet it is. Thus I proved your fallacy (one of many) in pluralising "anecdote' into "evidence"

the fact you didnt recognise this, and your earlier comment about others reading comprehension, makes the juxtaposition highly amusing.

I am not a fanboi. I have an army that is hugely fun to play as it is challenging for me and my opponents. You, on the other hand, come across as a typical frothing mouthed fanboy who has their own, fixed idea on fluff that isnt based in reality nor grounded in the reality that *gasp* GW change their own fluff all the damn time. As they are allowed to - it's theirs, not yours remember?

blaktoof wrote:all I'm saying is people who have large amounts of dreadnUghtz in their army and are playing GK are not creTing an army list based on fluff or ba ground story of the GKs. Because it's not in their background story at all anywhere to deploy large amounts of dreadnaughts. Sorry, that's a fact the game developers created not me. I really don't care that your a canboi and anyone commenting logically and factually about something you dislike bothers you.

Logically? Nope, you havent done so as yet - you havent even answered AW's entirely logical scenario involving EoT
Factually? Nope, you havent managed that yet, either.

Your only "fact" (as in, something actually written down) is that GK dont like being put into Dreadnoughts. Thats true. However you have then LEAPED across from that into some wholly made up, fantasy world where this means they dont have many dreadnoughts, and never deploy large numbers (never mind 3 isnt a large number, unless you truly believe 1500 points is the whole battle - you wouldnt be that blinkered, would you?) in any battle ever, for any reason

THIS is WHOLLY a fantasy on your part, because there is nothing written to actually back it up. There are no pieces of fluff anywhere that indicates your assertion to be anything more than baseless, illogical misinterpretation of a piece of fluff. Not a sausage.

So, given you have stated it is a FACT that they NEVER EVER EVER for ANY REASON deploy large numbers of 'noughts - care to give a page ref for that? Even which book you found it in? Anything? Anything at all?

Oh my. This poor horse...

So many boot marks it's disfigured.

So tragic.

I never stated that they never ever for any reason reply xx. That you made up in your head.

I stated the gk backstory does not include a large amount of dreadnaughts, it doesn't. Sorry I didn't make it up.

I'm sorry, bit the background dictates what most people view as the general way different groups in the 40k universe deploy, and interact with each other. I view the background as fluff as written. If the majority of the background for a group has them deploying in termie armor with nemesis force weapons to battle insurmountable demonic odds then most people view the army composition to be deemed fluffy if it matches that.

I realize what the rules allow, but the rules don't always match the background story or fluff. Just like the fluff doesn't always match the rules.

For example as per the rules for apoc allow for you to say take an ork army, led by ghaz. Fill put the detachments and if you have points left you can start a new detachment of IG and take yarrixk. The rules allow me to put them in base to base not locked in combat. I can pivot my models by the rules and make them lock lips. So raw i can make ghaz and yarrick make out but as per the fluff this is mostly unlikely.

Fluffwise you shouldn't be able to use assault or defensive grenades versus dark eldar because they can kick of throw them back before detonation in quite a few of the black library books.

Most people will see no relation between the stories written by GW regarding GKs in the terms of force composition and the armies many people choose to field in the game. That is what i mean by GK lists with dread SPAM are unfluffy.

I'm sort you disagree but there is literally 23 years of gw hgw backstory to not support you. :(

The absense of Dreadnoughts from the current GK fluff(of which there isn't all that much) is not evidence that they arn't used.

I have seen Ironclad Dreadnoughts mentioned in 1 BL book up to this point(Salamanders) and have seen 0 references to Landspeeder storms in any books. By your logic, they must not be used very much and as such having them is unfluffy.

Whether or not it's fluffy does not excuess how annoying the list is.

nosferatu1001 wrote:I pointed out your argument didnt have any basis. You respond with saying people have no reading comprehension skills. Genius

And yet, not one page earlier...

nosferatu1001 wrote:

DarkHound wrote:He's referring to the crypt beneath the Temple of the Emperor...

Apparently you havent learnt how to comprehend a sentence as yet. Try reading ALL of a sentence, not just fly off into a nerd rage.

I would like to point out that in the GK dread entry it states along the lines of not deploying a dread for every Tom, Dick and Harry Daemon Prince that sticks his head up because it dishonours the gift of their service because they have already died once.


Don't know if that means anythimg but there it is.

blaktoof wrote: *text*

And you're STILL dodging my question: Why can't it be a detachment of Grey Knights near the Eye of Terror? We know that there's a big GK presence there (mentioned several times in the Grey Knights trilogy) so why wouldn't they bring some Dreadnoughts there? It's the Eye of Terror, the biggest source of Chaos incursions in the Galaxy, surely the Dreadnoughts would be useful?

BTW, "dreadnaught" is a completely valid way to spell it.

SoloFalcon1138 wrote:Because it is one of the newest codexes. Wait until another round of books comes out, and see how many of your GK players switch to a newer book...

It will have to be another OP book before they jump the bandwagon to a new one.

Why were people playing SW for so long, even after the BA, Nid and DE codex came out? Its because SW were tied with the top codex with IG.
As the GK codex continues to demonstrate that its more powerful than the other's people will switch to it. They will not hop off just because a new codex comes out. They will hop off when the next best thing comes around.

Take the example of Paul Murphy, currently #4 on rankings HQ. He recently switched from BA to GK. Why? Paul is an extremely competitive player. He likes to win. He knows that the GK codex is 10%-30% better than other codex', and when hes pushing to win he knows that can give him the edge he needs. Unlike Chess, there is random elements in 40k. You cannot mitigate those. However, you can alter your chances of winning vs. an equally skilled opponent by playing the better army.
Paul is not stupid. He knows to push every advantage. As such he switched from BA (which he played for years) to the winning codex.

Mainly because I love to have people whine about it. I subsist upon the tears of cry babies. I can think if nothing more enjoyable than to beat the hell out if a whiner. All the while asking....would you like some cheese with that whine?