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.

 aphyon wrote:
3rd ed-AKA demon hunters-lore accurate, excels at fighting demons and chaos. hard counter for the 3.5 chaos codex.

CSM with marines and artillery rolled GK like expensive tactical marines. Daemon-heavy lists is where their rules come in for better and for worse.
IMO the best 'anti-chaos' parts of the daemonhunters books were the non-specific anti daemon rules. Str 6 ccws were a much better fit than str 4 power weapons without being dead weight against 95% of opponents for example, and wargear that defended against more generic threats like deepstrikes and psykers.

The rest of their options should have followed suit - defensive grenades instead of chaos-only sacred incense for example. Thematic and practical vs daemons but also a valid all-comers choice.
Instead their rules were so narrowly defined that half of them didn't work by 5th edition and the codex was ass-tier, even against daemons.

And I prefer progressive scoring, since it encourages the game to be more active throughout every turn instead of just the end.

I don't find that to be true at all, having played and still actively play multiple games a week with end of game scoring, you are always active through every turn, thinking ahead about priority targets that may become a problem later in the game. i do play other systems with progressive scoring, but the mechanics are different, such as they do not have a turn limit so scoring a certain number of points is set up to end the game.

CSM with marines and artillery rolled GK like expensive tactical marines.

LOL no...... i play against guard, and one of them is a DKOK player, so just no in my experience.

IMO the best 'anti-chaos' parts of the daemonhunters books were the non-specific anti daemon rules.

and 95% of the wargear, vehicle upgrades and psyker powers.

Instead their rules were so narrowly defined that half of them didn't work by 5th edition and the codex was ass-tier, even against daemons.

Your recollections might be a bit off, as somebody who still uses GKs from the demon hunters codex as allies or as part of a pure inquisitorial force in the 5th ed core rules.....they work just fine. i put them up against all sorts of codexes from various editions-

3.5 chaos is obvious as it is the one used by everybody here, but i have done battle against guard from 5th, eldar (4th and 5th), dark eldar(5th) tau (4th), marines (both 4th and 5th), black templar (4th) etc....

It is also priceless when my opponents fail their shrouding checks and can't even see the GKs to shoot at them. doesn't happen often but such fun when it does.

 aphyon wrote:
LOL no...... i play against guard, and one of them is a DKOK player, so just no in my experience.
/ as somebody who still uses GKs from the demon hunters codex as allies or as part of a pure inquisitorial force

Hybrid sure - because I have no idea what a pure Grey Knight player under 5e rules is supposed to do against a 5e mechanised guard list played competently. Shrouding doesn't even protect against direct artillery hits.

The books heavy/anti-tank support consists of dreadnoughts and landraiders, neither of which were shrouded and the latter of which shouldn't see the second turn against big gunlines. The compulsory troops choices - the only things that scored - came in at 150pts for 5 single wound models with no invulnerables, enhanced mobility, or transport options other than landraiders.


As allies they were better because you were taking less of them and more of something else - especially when daemonic infestation stopped being a thing as it didn't scale, one inquisitor in your army and you've got infinite daemons.
I don't mean to dismiss the good parts of the faction as Stormtroopers with 5e vehicle costs were decent, GKT were solid, mystics were in high demand.

But a list built around multiple scoring squads of PAGK rather than vets and inducted forces? Not even nuffle can roll enough triple 1s to save them.

 aphyon wrote:
and 95% of the wargear, vehicle upgrades and psyker powers.

Best as in the sense of well written from a game design perspective.

Too much of the daemonhunters stuff was dead weight due to overspecialisation - there really was no good reason why the sacred hull didn't just apply a -1 leadership to everyone for example. Particularly egregious as the chaos book (among others) gained not one but two Ld reduction vehicle upgrades with no such target restrictions.

(compare sacred hulls to the 3.5 blasphemous rune, 4e dirge caster, etc. Also consider that the difficult daemonic charge rules were already costing you daemonic infestation and then you had to pay extra on top).

I don't think you remember how shrouding works in the demon hunters codex. if you failt to see them you cannot shoot at them and you lose the option to shoot anybody else.

If your using the 5th ed GK codex it is even worse for the guard since your going to be in their face with any unit with a teleporter on turn 1 (once per game 30" move) including the baby carriage. you will be in assault on turn 2 minimum.

Best as in the sense of well written from a game design perspective.

See the previous post from insectum7

It all depends on what you're trying to accomplish with said design. If your goal is equally leveled armies targeting tournaments and pick-up games, then the 3rd ed GK book is not a good one. But if your goal is to faithfully represent the lore in codex form, then the Daemonhunters codex is fantastic.

I am in the second group as such the demon hunters codex is "the best" because it is narrowly tailored to fit the universe.

 aphyon wrote:
I don't think you remember how shrouding works in the demon hunters codex. if you failt to see them you cannot shoot at them and you lose the option to shoot anybody else.

Guess range and ordinance were explicitly excluded, if you were out of range they just scattered twice as far - and only if they scattered at all.
Local players were fond of their vindicators.

I am in the second group as such the demon hunters codex is "the best" because it is narrowly tailored to fit the universe.

I guess I don't feel the two need to be exclusive.

A.T. wrote:

I am in the second group as such the demon hunters codex is "the best" because it is narrowly tailored to fit the universe.

I guess I don't feel the two need to be exclusive.

They don't need to be exclusive. However I think it's better that they can be exclusive. Otherwise you have a paradigm where nothing in the lore can be represented unless it can be turned into a fully functioning, tournament balanced faction. That drains a lot of freedom of possibility, and makes the lore that much more difficult to explore and represent.

Guess range and ordinance were explicitly excluded, if you were out of range they just scattered twice as far - and only if they scattered at all.
Local players were fond of their vindicators.

True, but i never found it to be a problem.

That drains a lot of freedom of possibility, and makes the lore that much more difficult to explore and represent.

It is one of the reasons current 40K is so bland (many of the complaints i hear from people who play it), If you go by the GW guidelines it is chess style mirrored tables, trap cards- in the form of stratagems, and pre-made cookie cutter army builds thanks to detachments and wargear limitations.

It does make for a greater balance system for tournament style play of a game, but it is not a wargame set in the 40K setting. you end up with yellow marines, white marines and blue marines basically being the same with one bespoke special ability which is laughable compared to the richness they once had in lore based rules. I think it was 9th when i asked a player what made the white scars different in that edition....and all it was, is the ability to charge after advancing....compared to an entire page of special rules they used to have when it was based on the lore-born in the saddle, bike squads, mounted veterans, counter attack, hit and run, power lances and FOC alterations/unit restrictions and requirements.



Im not playing 40k to be frustrated or win tournaments, i playing to represent my faction in the universe for some fun games with friends. Using models i like not ones i am being forced to use.

There are around 1,000 White Scars in 40k.
There are millions of Guardsmen from a host of different planets.

Shouldn’t those regiments get more differentiation (being from different planets with different cultures, upbringing, training, equipment…) than one chapter of Marines?

 Insectum7 wrote:
Otherwise you have a paradigm where nothing in the lore can be represented unless it can be turned into a fully functioning, tournament balanced faction.

Ii'm not suggesting some kind of 4e Eldar wrecking, Matt Ward inspiring meme book here, just the basics. Don't make things specialised for the sake of it (i.e. sacred hull vs blasphemous runes) and make the remaining specialist gear widely available and outrageously cheap.

Because the trouble with making something so narrowly focussed is that it either crushes the thing it is focussed against or it is balanced down to make that fight 'fair', at which point it is only focussed relative to its mediocrity in all other circumstances.

 aphyon wrote:
True, but i never found it to be a problem.

What would your go-to grey knights list be at say, 1750pt? Assuming 5e rules and 3e daemonhunters.
I don't have much context beyond how they used to play in 3-5e rather than prohammer.

JNAProductions wrote:There are around 1,000 White Scars in 40k.
There are millions of Guardsmen from a host of different planets.

Shouldn’t those regiments get more differentiation (being from different planets with different cultures, upbringing, training, equipment…) than one chapter of Marines?

they actually had it at one time.

The 3.5 guard codex had the rules to build every guard regiment. you had the amy specialization rule set to choose from, the list of doctrines contained rules sets in different sections --infantry, light infantry, mechanized, jungle fighters, airborne, hardened, sharpshooters, xeno fighters

https://www.scribd.com/doc/87548122/Imperial-Guard-Codex-Original

FW also continued this, most notably with DKOK and elysians,

What would your go-to grey knights list be at say, 1750pt? Assuming 5e rules and 3e daemonhunters.
I don't have much context beyond how they used to play in 3-5e rather than prohammer.

We play 2k points. i usually use a GK grand master in terminator armor and a 9 terminator retinue squad as allies(that's a spendy unit clocking in at over 600 points), but i can throw them together with my guard storm troops (as inquisitorial STs) and some other units to make a full demon hunters army. i have lots of options.

 aphyon wrote:
We play 2k points. i usually use a GK grand master in terminator armor and a 9 terminator retinue squad as allies, but i can throw them together with my guard storm troops (as inquisitorial STs) and some other units to make a full demon hunters army

Ah. Much the same way I used to play them - one squad allied into a better army because the rest of the GK were ... generously substandard.

When referring to daemonhunter GK armies getting rolled earlier I meant the full experience. 2+ squads of power armour playing for 5 troop-scoring only objectives, no artillery, no melta, no plasma, no light transports or fast units, and no chance against a conscious opponent.


As a cherry-pick though the terminators were a solid mix of power weapons and psy-hood, albeit not in such a large squad IMO until the stormshield update. The infamous leafblower even featured a little allied DH,

So I am not a fan of overly specialised armies or rules that only counter one force, but IMO the daemon hunters codex from 3rd actually did a good job at balancing that.

They followed the self contained rules philosophy, where if you are going to add some unbalancing mechanic, you add its opposite balancing mechanic to the game when using it.

ie, when daemon hunters deployed the opponent could draw on daemons for their army.

I actually think this type of thing should have been done more, rather than less. Because it allows levels of asymmetry to the game without unbalancing it. Examples include, catachans having jungle terrain, wood elves with similar, the necrons in BFG having OP ships but different victory conditions etc.


It's an effective way for you to model a faction's uniqueness and potential speciality while balancing it at the same time.

It's probably not great for tournament balance which is why it didn't stay around, but in terms of representing flavour and balancing it at the same time, it was great.

A.T.

i have the option to bring various vehicles and dreadnoughts for a pure demon hunters force or if i need more bodies i can bring allies from other inquisitorial ordos, but what i really enjoy is being able to use 3 assassins.

It's probably not great for tournament balance which is why it didn't stay around,

Probably a mix of that as GW started putting more focus on tourneys and the original design team starting to leave the company. the 3rd and 4th ed codexes had the most narrowly tailored thematic rules for each faction(guard doctrines/craftworlds/orc clanz/space marine chapters/demon hunters/witch hunters/3.5 chaos codex etc...) By the time 5th ed was done, almost all the original crew in the game design department had left. i think Jervis and like one other guy was left IIRC. i've always held that when Andy left (halfway through 4th) as chief game designer the game really started to slide. designing some of 5th was his last blessing on the game.