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.
mew28 wrote: I find it funny the rubric guy is saying "Hey my elite stye infantry is not that bad. Yours should be playable to." Except the rubrics have real durability better powers, better shoting and honestly comparable CC by time CC hits.
Except that isn't what I said, is it? Try reading it again.
I too was under the impression thats what you were saying and now I cant recall which post you said it in. Can you clarify what the relevance of you bringing up TSons was if not to make a direct analogy to GK here?
I think this whole fething forum needs a lesson in reading comprehension.
Tell me how they're worse than rubrics
How does that imply rubrics are good?
I'm done with this thread. You guys can flap your gums all you want.
mew28 wrote: I find it funny the rubric guy is saying "Hey my elite stye infantry is not that bad. Yours should be playable to." Except the rubrics have real durability better powers, better shoting and honestly comparable CC by time CC hits.
Except that isn't what I said, is it? Try reading it again.
I too was under the impression thats what you were saying and now I cant recall which post you said it in. Can you clarify what the relevance of you bringing up TSons was if not to make a direct analogy to GK here?
The whole exercise still doesn't show much that Custards are a wide margin better mathematically. On the table i'm sure there are other advantages, but I still see some interesting plays available to GK.
Like two 5 man purifiers in a rhino. Park it 11" behind the front. Let the captain charge. Next turn hope out, move, and double D6 smite. No small amount of points for that though...
And that's where Marmalade, QuickJaeger, and the others started in with their brand of debate.
I do not see where Daedalus81 made a comparison with Thousand Sons. I see many comparisons with Custodes which are backed with arguments supported by examples.
Really curious: was your impression of Daedalus81's colored in any way by the responses he received?
mew28 wrote: I find it funny the rubric guy is saying "Hey my elite stye infantry is not that bad. Yours should be playable to." Except the rubrics have real durability better powers, better shoting and honestly comparable CC by time CC hits.
Except that isn't what I said, is it? Try reading it again.
I too was under the impression thats what you were saying and now I cant recall which post you said it in. Can you clarify what the relevance of you bringing up TSons was if not to make a direct analogy to GK here?
The whole exercise still doesn't show much that Custards are a wide margin better mathematically. On the table i'm sure there are other advantages, but I still see some interesting plays available to GK.
Like two 5 man purifiers in a rhino. Park it 11" behind the front. Let the captain charge. Next turn hope out, move, and double D6 smite. No small amount of points for that though...
And that's where Marmalade, QuickJaeger, and the others started in with their brand of debate.
I do not see where Daedalus81 made a comparison with Thousand Sons. I see many comparisons with Custodes which are backed with arguments supported by examples.
Really curious: was your impression of Daedalus81's colored in any way by the responses he received?
Nothing "colored" my impression. This post here is what gave me the impression he was making an analogy between GK and TSons as an argument:
-D6MW bubble my ass, read the fething spell it is centered on the MODEL, not the UNIT, the NEAREST ENEMY MODEL but the wounds are on a UNIT basis. Vortex of Doom is literally a basic smite until it goes over a 12 in which case IT STILL IS A BASIC SMITE. The positioning of the enemy for this spell to hit more than 2 units would have to be so abhorrent that you likely deepstriked behind their lines in the first place.
As I stated - "Yes I am aware of the restrictions." I have Gateway. I can't use Gateway, because to be in position and to have the spell is pretty difficult. GK have an opportunity to just have the spell on a number of units and take advantage of the opportunity should it arise. Especially since they can pick from any model in the unit and not one very specific model like Thousand Sons.
I'm still at a loss to how this isn't what he is doing, but maybe I'm just comprehending it wrong.
mew28 wrote: I find it funny the rubric guy is saying "Hey my elite stye infantry is not that bad. Yours should be playable to." Except the rubrics have real durability better powers, better shoting and honestly comparable CC by time CC hits.
Except that isn't what I said, is it? Try reading it again.
I too was under the impression thats what you were saying and now I cant recall which post you said it in. Can you clarify what the relevance of you bringing up TSons was if not to make a direct analogy to GK here?
I think this whole fething forum needs a lesson in reading comprehension.
Tell me how they're worse than rubrics
How does that imply rubrics are good?
I'm done with this thread. You guys can flap your gums all you want.
May CA never improve your army.
Hence why before making any hard statements, I offered for you to clarify what you meant, because your post simply gave me this impression. An opportunity you decided to squander by insulting me instead, so it's whatever. Responses like this just make me think that I hit the nail on the head.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2018/05/10 03:19:05
P.S.A. I won't read your posts if you break it into a million separate quotes and make an eyesore of it.
mew28 wrote: I find it funny the rubric guy is saying "Hey my elite stye infantry is not that bad. Yours should be playable to." Except the rubrics have real durability better powers, better shoting and honestly comparable CC by time CC hits.
Except that isn't what I said, is it? Try reading it again.
I too was under the impression thats what you were saying and now I cant recall which post you said it in. Can you clarify what the relevance of you bringing up TSons was if not to make a direct analogy to GK here?
The whole exercise still doesn't show much that Custards are a wide margin better mathematically. On the table i'm sure there are other advantages, but I still see some interesting plays available to GK.
Like two 5 man purifiers in a rhino. Park it 11" behind the front. Let the captain charge. Next turn hope out, move, and double D6 smite. No small amount of points for that though...
And that's where Marmalade, QuickJaeger, and the others started in with their brand of debate.
I do not see where Daedalus81 made a comparison with Thousand Sons. I see many comparisons with Custodes which are backed with arguments supported by examples.
Really curious: was your impression of Daedalus81's colored in any way by the responses he received?
This post here is what gave me the impression he was making an analogy between GK and TSons as an argument:
-Because spending CP on a below average unit in a army that has trouble getting CP is bad. It still takes a DS slot as well which means something else will be slogging up the board.
-D6MW bubble my ass, read the fething spell it is centered on the MODEL, not the UNIT, the NEAREST ENEMY MODEL but the wounds are on a UNIT basis. Vortex of Doom is literally a basic smite until it goes over a 12 in which case IT STILL IS A BASIC SMITE. The positioning of the enemy for this spell to hit more than 2 units would have to be so abhorrent that you likely deepstriked behind their lines in the first place.
As I stated - "Yes I am aware of the restrictions." I have Gateway. I can't use Gateway, because to be in position and to have the spell is pretty difficult. GK have an opportunity to just have the spell on a number of units and take advantage of the opportunity should it arise. Especially since they can pick from any model in the unit and not one very specific model like Thousand Sons.
I'm still at a loss to how this isn't what he is doing, but maybe I'm just comprehending it wrong.
No, you are reading that comment correctly, you are simply misrepresenting it's relevance.
It's called cherry picking and it's very dishonest.
mew28 wrote: I find it funny the rubric guy is saying "Hey my elite stye infantry is not that bad. Yours should be playable to." Except the rubrics have real durability better powers, better shoting and honestly comparable CC by time CC hits.
Except that isn't what I said, is it? Try reading it again.
I too was under the impression thats what you were saying and now I cant recall which post you said it in. Can you clarify what the relevance of you bringing up TSons was if not to make a direct analogy to GK here?
I think this whole fething forum needs a lesson in reading comprehension.
Tell me how they're worse than rubrics
How does that imply rubrics are good?
I'm done with this thread. You guys can flap your gums all you want.
May CA never improve your army.
Hence why before making any hard statements, I offered for you to clarify what you meant, because your post simply gave me this impression. An opportunity you decided to squander by insulting me instead, so it's whatever. Responses like this just make me think that I hit the nail on the head.
Well, what that makes me think about is Bolter and Chainsword, and their ban on whining about Grey Knights in the Forums.
Part of the reason for this ban, beyond the fact no one really wants to hear all the bellyaching, is the lengths people will go to make each other sound stupid.
Case in point.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/05/10 03:24:25
OK, so my impression of what he said was right, but it doesn't count because "cherry picking"¿ I fail to see how it's at all dishonest to say he said that, but it seems like you've just picked a "side" to ride on and I'm sure there's more excuses coming next time that you're forced to admit you're wrong, so I'm out, this argument doesn't even concern me, was just a soft query from a neutral observer, and I was giving full party for an explanation that I was more than open to hearing. Now I'm kinda starting to believe you guys don't actually have an explanation. I wasnt trying to convince you of anything and believe me there's no way I'm sticking around to try. Can't reason with a position that someone hasn't reasoned themselves into. Have a nice day with all of that.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2018/05/10 03:36:30
P.S.A. I won't read your posts if you break it into a million separate quotes and make an eyesore of it.
SHUPPET wrote: OK, so my impression of what he said was right, but it doesn't count because "cherry picking"¿
No, it's cherry picking, because out of all the points made in 20 posts, you are selecting the single item that validates your point. There are dozens of other points dealing with Custodes and that accurately represents his argument.
SHUPPET wrote: I fail to see how it's at all dishonest to say he said that, but it seems like you've just picked a "side" to ride on and I'm sure there's more excuses coming next time that you're forced to admit you're wrong, so I'm out, this argument doesn't even concern me, was just a soft query from a neutral observer, and I was giving full party for an explanation that I was more than open to hearing.
Yeah... or maybe you could provide another example to support your point. Totally possible I missed something.
SHUPPET wrote: Now I'm kinda starting to believe you guys don't actually have an explanation. I wasnt trying to convince you of anything and believe me there's no way I'm sticking around to try. Can't reason with a position that someone hasn't reasoned themselves into. Have a nice day with all of that.
Actually, I did offer an explanation and it is that you are cherry picking your points. Before that I offered links to all of his posts and a summary of each which directly contradicts what you are saying. I've also admitted I may have missed something, which is an invitation to provide more information to clarify your point.
SHUPPET wrote: OK, so my impression of what he said was right, but it doesn't count because "cherry picking"¿
No, it's cherry picking, because out of all the points made in 20 posts, you are selecting the single item that validates your point. There are dozens of other points dealing with Custodes and that accurately represents his argument.
I didn't have a point in this debate. At no point did I weigh in on GK, and at no point have I said that this was the entirety of his argument, and at no point did I say the rest of his points were no good. I wouldn't even know. I'm fresh to 8th and haven't even looked at GK yet. You're completely projecting a bunch of other gak due to the argument you are tied up in with other users.
All I ASKED was if this was not a comparison that he did use to make point, as was claimed by another user, and as I was under the impression he had done myself.
Which you later confirmed to be the case by yourself.
And no you didn't offer an explanation. You just said the words "cherry-picking" and "dishonest" which doesn't explain anything, it's just 1 word excuses.
So thanks. My impression was right. Have a nice day.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/05/10 04:01:59
P.S.A. I won't read your posts if you break it into a million separate quotes and make an eyesore of it.
It seems that if you have no experience with how GK play in 8th, you have no dog in this fight. Sure, you can bring experience with similar armies into the conversation, but any arguments one way or the other are moot given your lack of understanding of the actual issues being discussed.
And the cherry picking argument is a red haring falicy. Of course citing specific quotes can be dismissed as cherry picking when those quotes are taken out of context, but where they taken out of context? It doesn’t seem so given the context is in regards to the issues GK currently have in 8th versus how other armies are able to deal with the same issues.
Just saying.
SJ
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/05/10 14:24:23
“For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world.”
- Ephesians 6:12
But you don't have to be a GK player to have experience with how GK play. You could see them on the other side of the table.
Beyond that, reason, consideration, and research can mean a lot. Playing GK certainly means you're more likely to have considered some GK-specific aspects, but it also means you're less likely to have fully considered the change from the perspective of other armies - both for those who have similar to either what you have or to the change you are suggesting, and for those who will face the GK.
Not having played GK is a very reasonable and sizable grain of salt, but it isn't a disqualify all thought produced from the non-GKer.
Back to the Necron Monolith example. You don't have to be a Necron player to know that the suggestion was terrible. You don't need to be a CWE player to know giving Eldrad a "2+: win the game" psykic power is a bad idea. The Necrod/CWE players might have more insight to the finer points of balance, but not a monopoly on understanding.
Except he's admitted he hasn't played against GK, either. His knowledge of the codex comes entirely from reading statlines. Is that a good basis for an informed opinion? Of course not. And this isn't some silly intellectual exercise, he's also proposed things - looking purely on paper - that are beyond awful on the table. And no one is trying to disqualify all thought, but this specific person, who is really, really uninformed.
I remember a thread that raged at the end of 7th, into early 8th, about how overpowered Necrons were. Because everyone was looking purely at the datasheets, with no experience in 8th. Do you remember it? Everyone was relating their experiences in 7th, reading the datasheets, and drawing conclusions from that in theory hammer. The analysis was centered around marines, which are in a very bad spot, but it still was an overwhelming majority conclusion that Necrons were very strong.
There seems to be this notion that because you have an opinion, it automatically has some value. This is not true.
And your example of hyperbole doesn't really hit the mark. No one is making arguments like that here.
Galas wrote: I remember when Marmatag was a nooby, all shiney and full of joy. How playing the unbalanced mess of Warhammer40k in a ultra-competitive meta has changed you
Bharring wrote: He'll actually *change his mind* in the presence of sufficient/sufficiently defended information. Heretic.
jeffersonian000 wrote: It seems that if you have no experience with how GK play in 8th, you have no dog in this fight. Sure, you can bring experience with similar armies into the conversation, but any arguments one way or the other are moot given your lack of understanding of the actual issues being discussed.
And the cherry picking argument is a red haring falicy. Of course citing specific quotes can be dismissed as cherry picking when those quotes are taken out of context, but where they taken out of context? It doesn’t seem so given the context is in regards to the issues GK currently have in 8th versus how other armies are able to deal with the same issues.
Just saying.
SJ
Very well said, which is I think why when I gently asked for a clarification I was met with anger, accusations and insults instead of just explaining what he actually meant - seems there is no other explanation, it looks like it means exactly what it says it does.
P.S.A. I won't read your posts if you break it into a million separate quotes and make an eyesore of it.
As I recall, with the Decurion thing, it really was that bad - it's just the next two codexes did it *worse*. So it was only supreme cheese for a month. But it was about as cheesy as predicted.
Sorry let me clarify - i was referencing a thread discussing the quality of Necrons in 8th edition, before the edition was released, based on information and datasheets for warriors and other things. It involved a significant amount of mathhammer that showed how difficult it was to remove them in a points efficient way, but in the context of tools that weren't total garbage in 7th.
Galas wrote: I remember when Marmatag was a nooby, all shiney and full of joy. How playing the unbalanced mess of Warhammer40k in a ultra-competitive meta has changed you
Bharring wrote: He'll actually *change his mind* in the presence of sufficient/sufficiently defended information. Heretic.
Bharring wrote: Yeah, any source is limited - analysis, insight, or experience.
There are certainly experienced people who don't know what they're talking about, too, on just about any subject.
This is definitely true.
I don't like to trot out gaming resumes though when it comes to these discussions, because it gets into a measurement thing rather than an actual discussion.
As long as there's at least some thought and reason behind a suggestion i'm happy to discuss it. But the things that are being proposed by the contrarians in the thread are just silly, and we're seeing half assed math hammer that starts with incorrect data sheets (i mean, really?) and also ignores tons of variables (like the benefit of Fly or being untargetable).
Galas wrote: I remember when Marmatag was a nooby, all shiney and full of joy. How playing the unbalanced mess of Warhammer40k in a ultra-competitive meta has changed you
Bharring wrote: He'll actually *change his mind* in the presence of sufficient/sufficiently defended information. Heretic.
This thread became interesting. Don't worry Daedelus we won't get a CA change, we didn't last time.
Marmatag, people were just doing a kneejerk response to your suggestions, that was it. It was kind of hilarious seeing them say how over the top they were in such roundabout ways without actually offering their thoughts on where GK should be.
If people want this to avoid the thread from becoming a GK wish list, they can instead keep proposing New *cough* ideas on how to use the limited selection we have.
Purifiers in a Rhino is not anywhere near a good thing. Neither is +1 to deny when the biggest threat is shooting. Is it nice? Not really, we were gonna get beaten without that psychic power anyway.
I'll just double down, here's the mono-Grey knights list I would run, based on (a) what i think is good and (b) what models i have, with the knowledge that i am wholly unwilling to spend another red cent on anything marines until they aren't complete ass.
essentially move everything forward, gate of infinity draigo into the maelstrom, shunt the interceptors, and go ham alpha as best you can, with full hit rerolls.
This will get you to day 2, because you'll probably face people on day 1 that aren't super competitive and won't have ratlings/scout sentinels to completely negate the mechanics of your army. 48 assault cannon shots, 36 from the interceptors with psychic ammunition, 18 from the GMNDK with the other psybolt ammunition, 24 hurricane bolter shots. If someone lets you in range you'll be spitting out a lot of dice. Turn 2 if your ravens aren't dead, you disembark with your strike squads, shoot and charge.
Is this competitive? Nope. It is a gimmick. And gimmick lists can beat meta lists because some people won't expect them. It's not a good list, and i know it. Obviously you need to go first.
And i only built it as mono-Gk because once you start going down the allies road there are flatly better ways to spend your points than Grey Knights even in a soup scenario.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2018/05/10 16:48:20
Galas wrote: I remember when Marmatag was a nooby, all shiney and full of joy. How playing the unbalanced mess of Warhammer40k in a ultra-competitive meta has changed you
Bharring wrote: He'll actually *change his mind* in the presence of sufficient/sufficiently defended information. Heretic.
As an extension of what Quickjager was referencing - my post are mostly "Slow down, don't dismiss all non-GK players because you don't like one idea offered by one".
I wasn't commenting directly on GK viability.
(Unless this is the same "GK are worst faction" thread - that's clearly incorrect, but that's another discussion.)
Quickjager wrote: This thread became interesting. Don't worry Daedelus we won't get a CA change, we didn't last time.
Marmatag, people were just doing a kneejerk response to your suggestions, that was it. It was kind of hilarious seeing them say how over the top they were in such roundabout ways without actually offering their thoughts on where GK should be.
If people want this to avoid the thread from becoming a GK wish list, they can instead keep proposing New *cough* ideas on how to use the limited selection we have.
Purifiers in a Rhino is not anywhere near a good thing. Neither is +1 to deny when the biggest threat is shooting. Is it nice? Not really, we were gonna get beaten without that psychic power anyway.
For real, my suggestions were strong boosts but they're what the army needs to be *competitive* as a true Grey Knights army. Much of the suggestions should be given to normal marines as well, such as terminators being 5T S5. When you actually start building out a GK list, you'll see how many shortcomings they have, especially if you go monofaction.
And the best part is, it's not that hard to deny GK powers. GK are not immune to counter-psykers. As Tyranids I laugh at their powers. Yes you have +1 to cast and everyone can cast, and deny, but you still only get ONE attempt at GoI per turn. ONE attempt at astral aim. And guess what? I will be attempting to deny those. And IF you succeed in casting them, i will deny you almost 50% of the time.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Bharring wrote: As an extension of what Quickjager was referencing - my post are mostly "Slow down, don't dismiss all non-GK players because you don't like one idea offered by one".
I wasn't commenting directly on GK viability.
(Unless this is the same "GK are worst faction" thread - that's clearly incorrect, but that's another discussion.)
I don't really care who is the worst faction, it's always easy to find someone who has it worse even if only 3 people in the entire world play the army monofaction. Is inquisition worse than GK? The answer might surprise you, it's "who cares?" Gk are bad regardless of whether or not inquisition is a joke.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/05/10 16:56:09
Galas wrote: I remember when Marmatag was a nooby, all shiney and full of joy. How playing the unbalanced mess of Warhammer40k in a ultra-competitive meta has changed you
Bharring wrote: He'll actually *change his mind* in the presence of sufficient/sufficiently defended information. Heretic.
