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.

Sasa0mg wrote:I just think its one in a line of new generation dex's that people will just have to bare with until there codex in turn is updated. Necrons are strong, DE are strong, GK are strong. doesn't anyone seem to think its just following the trend of newly released dex's vs old ones?

Sure it will upset the meta more then perhaps previous edition dex releases but I think its just a matter of dealing with it (preferably quietly) until all are updated.

A couple of things...

If that is what the trend is, that is to say, codex creep, it's both unethical and it upsets the meta, neither of which are good, and neither of which should you sit for quietly. This is not an answer to the problem of whether the GK dex is overpowered relative to other dexes that should satisfy you. It's an indication that GW are willing to upset their game's balance in order to introduce progressively more awesome units. That means two things for us as consumers. One, we'd better be prepared to shell out in order to stay on the top end of that curve if we want to actually be competitive. The other side of that is that some people get frustrated when they purchase a codex that hasn't been 5th Editionfied. The second thing is that we're going to have to realize that this hobby might never stay imbalanced, it may perhaps even become intentionally imbalanced in the long, drawn out process of updating codexes.

And then there's the simple fact that GW didn't have to release any imbalanced codexes, nor did they have to introduce codex creep. They could, and they should, simply introduce codexes that are in line with the previous edition, with new and interesting elements that are nevertheless balanced, in the same way that RTS sequels are (ideally) released, and then progressively refining and tweaking balance issues until the game is fun and competitive for everyone regardless of the race they choose and no one has to feel left out for not getting their favorite race's edition on time.

This is all assuming that there is codex creep, which is a thing I don't think has been sufficiently established.

I would like to reiterate my original post from WAY before this thread exploded into the unknown. Fantasy Daemons broke an entire game system, GK have not. Therefore the title is false.

Welcome to page 52. This post probably belonged on page 20, back when people might have maybe disagreed with you.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

TedNugent wrote:

This is all assuming that there is codex creep, which is a thing I don't think has been sufficiently established.

The fog is gonna have to be pretty damn thick to be able to hide the mountain of evidence for codex creep. Its a pretty sunny day though, that stuffs easy to see.

The difference between fielding the best IG and fielding the best GK is that fielding optimal IG costs a lot of money compared to GK so you don't see it so much.

OverwatchCNC wrote:

Dok wrote:Speaking of Space Marines, one of the hardest games I've played was against a C:SM Vulkan army. The only reason I won was because he was scared of bringing his LRC full of terms into LoS of my vindicaire. But if he would've brought them in to party, I certainly would've lost.

That list still has plenty of life and will hold it's own against any of the flavors of GK presented in this thread.

QFT

I used my Salamanders against GK a number of times before selling them off. I won8 of 10 games against GK with my Salamanders. GK are not overpowered or unbalanced.

Chaos 3.5? Now that was the most overpowered 40k book GW has put out in a decade. Perhaps we need to reassess how long a decade is and what books were put out in that time frame.

Also, since you only said "book GW has put out..." and not 40k book GW has put out. I would like to state that Fantasy Daemons under 7th edition Fantasy would clearly take the prize as "most overpowered book GW has put out in a decade." It isn't even questionable.

ShumaGorath wrote:

I would like to reiterate my original post from WAY before this thread exploded into the unknown. Fantasy Daemons broke an entire game system, GK have not. Therefore the title is false.

Welcome to page 52. This post probably belonged on page 20, back when people might have maybe disagreed with you.

I made this point on page 8, see my quote of myself above. If I remember correctly the point was ignored much like it will be now. Even at that point the discussion was no longer a "discussion". I recently caught up with the thread because a friend of mine encouraged me to, I may need to end out friendship

I made this point on page 8, see my quote of myself above. If I remember correctly the point was ignored much like it will be now. Even at that point the discussion was no longer a "discussion". I recently caught up with the thread because a friend of mine encouraged me to, I may need to end out friendship

This is a place where only the damned can reside. The emperors light does not shine here.

ShumaGorath wrote:

Mannahnin wrote:It's a solid book with a lot of good units. The reasons why you mostly see the same units over and over have more to do with convenience, cost, and quick learning curve to use. The scariest players I've faced using DE in the last year are Ben Mohlie and Sean Nayden. Ben's list featued the court. Sean's tournament list includes Incubi, Talos, and Harlequins. There's a good player named Hans here in the Northeast who regularly runs Grotesques.

I'll trust you on it. Those units are very under represented in my local area and typically aren't topics of conversation online. I don't attend high end tournaments very often though, so the best players probably unlock the secret karate of those units.

I'm sure there are local guys who use this stuff too; though if a player does attend the big events it can act as a spur to finding new combinations as opposed to just imitating other people. Hans' list is otherwise fairly traditional mech DA (although he uses the bomber as well); Ben's list was mech but with aethersails to allow him to deploy way the heck back if not going first, but still jet right into people's faces for assault even when going second and deploying back. Sean's list is webway-based, using no vehicles, big packs of beasts and 15-man squads of wyches for the core of the army, and talos/incubi/archon/drazhar for assault support. He's got some very good battle reports on his blog. He also runs drop pod/dreadnought-based Vanilla as his other main tournament army (and wacky ambush-based Tyranids for his newest), and surprises people frequently with good and unusual combinations.

http://sean-letitallburn.blogspot.com/

Anyway, this is all a bit of a divergence. IME you see fewer DE at events because it is more expensive to build an army, more challenging to paint, and most builds don't have the resiliency that an MEQ army does. GK are actually somewhat similar in terms of both codices having a range of nasty units, but they are cheaper to build, easy to paint, and (mostly) more durable on the table.

OverwatchCNC wrote:

OverwatchCNC wrote:

Dok wrote:Speaking of Space Marines, one of the hardest games I've played was against a C:SM Vulkan army. The only reason I won was because he was scared of bringing his LRC full of terms into LoS of my vindicaire. But if he would've brought them in to party, I certainly would've lost.

That list still has plenty of life and will hold it's own against any of the flavors of GK presented in this thread.

QFT

I used my Salamanders against GK a number of times before selling them off. I won8 of 10 games against GK with my Salamanders. GK are not overpowered or unbalanced.

Chaos 3.5? Now that was the most overpowered 40k book GW has put out in a decade. Perhaps we need to reassess how long a decade is and what books were put out in that time frame.

Also, since you only said "book GW has put out..." and not 40k book GW has put out. I would like to state that Fantasy Daemons under 7th edition Fantasy would clearly take the prize as "most overpowered book GW has put out in a decade." It isn't even questionable.

ShumaGorath wrote:

I would like to reiterate my original post from WAY before this thread exploded into the unknown. Fantasy Daemons broke an entire game system, GK have not. Therefore the title is false.

Welcome to page 52. This post probably belonged on page 20, back when people might have maybe disagreed with you.

I made this point on page 8, see my quote of myself above. If I remember correctly the point was ignored much like it will be now. Even at that point the discussion was no longer a "discussion". I recently caught up with the thread because a friend of mine encouraged me to, I may need to end out friendship

I also made the point about 7th edition chaos deamons back on page 29. The problem is many 40k players are so completely ignorant about warhammer fantasy battle, so when you tell them that literally 90% of the armies in a tournament were chaos deamons or vampire counts they think you are making gak up. Thus they have no idea about just how broken games workshop can make an army book.

On a side note as a CSM player I would say 4th edition CSM was far more broken when it came out than 3.5 ever was and should take the title of most broken 40k book to ever come out. At the time of it's release transport vehicles were still following 4th edition transport rules and 4th edition prices (Add about 15 points to every transport). For those that don't remember 4th ed vehicle rules I'll do a quick summary.

Glance had it's own table instead of a -2 and it went as following
1-2: shaken (no shooting)
3: stunned (no move or shoot)
4: weapon destroyed
5: immobilized
6: wrecked passengers are entangled (same as pinned but no pin and it affects fearless units), and take a wound on a 4+, if the vehicle moved >6 reroll all failed to wound rolls"

Penetrating hit
1: Stunned (no move or shoot), all passengers must disembark & take a pin test, if the vehicle moved 6" or more all passengers take a wound on a 4+
2: Weapon destroyed and stunned, all passengers must disembark & take a pin test, if the vehicle moved 6" or more all passengers take a wound on a 4+
3: Immobilized and stunned, all passengers must disembark & take a pin test, if the vehicle moved 6" or more all passengers take a wound on a 4+
4-5: wrecked all passengers are entangled (same as pinned but no pin and it affects fearless units), and take a wound on a 4+ if the vehicle moved >6" reroll all unsuccessful wound rolls on passengers.
6: Explodes all passengers are entangled (same as pinned but no pin and it affects fearless units), and take a wound on a 4+ if the vehicle moved >6" reroll all unsuccessful wound rolls on passengers.

Ordinance penetrating hit
1: Stunned (no move or shoot), all passengers must disembark & take a pin test, if the vehicle moved 6" or more all passengers take a wound on a 4+
2: Weapon destroyed and stunned, all passengers must disembark & take a pin test, if the vehicle moved 6" or more all passengers take a wound on a 4+
3: Immobilized and stunned, all passengers must disembark & take a pin test, if the vehicle moved 6" or more all passengers take a wound on a 4+
4: wrecked all passengers are entangled (same as pinned but no pin and it affects fearless units), and take a wound on a 4+ if the vehicle moved >6" reroll all unsuccessful wound rolls on passengers.
5: Explodes all passengers are entangled (same as pinned but no pin and it affects fearless units), and take a wound on a 4+ if the vehicle moved >6" reroll all unsuccessful wound rolls on passengers.
6: Vehicle annihilated: Vehicle goes poof along with the passengers all of whom are removed from play with no saves

Given the expensive 4th ed transport costs, brutal vehicle damage tables, passengers being forced to disembark on a penetrating hit, and my favorite passengers can only disembark from access hatches under all circumstances (if the hatch on a single access hatch vehicle is blocked passengers are removed from play) chaos 4.0 (Duel lash, 6 oblits, plague marines) was far more broken when it came out than GK is now.

DE are a good book thered probably be more players but their a pricy army and hard to play. Other top armies are good beacuse of their #s and durabality and firepower. De have only one of those and are top whats that say abut their firepower? On the note about necrons a few pages back winning alot its beause they are so unique with how they run with nightfight lists and global effects they will really change the meta game and make people take flamers to deal with scarbs. I think Gk are slighly op but if the rumors about the new editon are true about kp games then they wont be super good like they are now. I belive the Gk book was writen to be balanced in 6th editon like the necron book is probably ment for 6th editon.

Here's an interesting bit of stat's to nibble on, a very good breakdown provided by Kirby after their 3++ con

http://www.3plusplus.net/2012/02/3con-initial-statistics-dig.html

Note where GK's place in the overall and amongst the top tables

Orks, DE, and BA are OP!!!!! They each have half again as many wins as losses! Ridiculous!!!!

In all seriousness I'm pretty sure the breakdown is similar (regarding GK's) here. It isn't that they are OP or winning all events. It's that generally 1/5-1/8 of the field is GK which makes it look like they are over the top.

targetawg wrote:Here's an interesting bit of stat's to nibble on, a very good breakdown provided by Kirby after their 3++ con

http://www.3plusplus.net/2012/02/3con-initial-statistics-dig.html

Note where GK's place in the overall and amongst the top tables

well in terms of win/loss they place below orks, blood angels, dark angels, dark eldar and eldar. That's below two of the oldest codexes.

Hulksmash wrote:Orks, DE, and BA are OP!!!!! They each have half again as many wins as losses! Ridiculous!!!!

In all seriousness I'm pretty sure the breakdown is similar (regarding GK's) here. It isn't that they are OP or winning all events. It's that generally 1/5-1/8 of the field is GK which makes it look like they are over the top.

It's interesting that despite having one of the worst w/l ratios in the tourney (significantly worse than the GKs) they come in and defend the wolves codex as powerful but take special time to note that the GKs aren't. I sense someone having an axe to grind.

Wow, you either intentionally missed where they addressed it or maybe didn't understand it but he pointed out that the Space Wolves that did make it to day 2 in the higher bracket had the highest win percentage. Where as the GK's (approximately the same amount) that made day two were toward the bottom.

What he did was show that even among the better players at that tournament that the GK codex isn't over the top. That way people couldn't say it was just bad players bringing them down due to numbers. Granted it's a limited test sample but I'd be interested in a similar breakdown from Adepticon and Nova this year. Mostly because I don't think that GK's are OP, just that they slot in well in 5th edition.

Wow, you either intentionally missed where they addressed it or maybe didn't understand it but he pointed out that the Space Wolves that did make it to day 2 in the higher bracket had the highest win percentage.

Yes, because one person won all his games. That invalidates nothing since his contribution was still in the original total (implying that the other players lost a significant portion of theirs). They made an exception to skew the statistics.

Where as the GK's (approximately the same amount) that made day two were toward the bottom.

Just as the space wolves were overall. They specifically made mention that the sample size invalidated many of these comparisons.

What he did was show that even among the better players at that tournament that the GK codex isn't over the top. That way people couldn't say it was just bad players bringing them down due to numbers.

He specifically mentions that due to popularity that could well be what is occurring.

Granted it's a limited test sample but I'd be interested in a similar breakdown from Adepticon and Nova this year. Mostly because I don't think that GK's are OP, just that they slot in well in 5th edition.

I'd be interested in seeing matchups. My contention wasn't that GKs were OP in this tournament, it was that their reporting had clear bias (probably influenced by this awful tyrannical thread). The results of this tournament go against many commonly accepted tropes. Eldar slotted very high, space wolf win loss was abysmal, IG was perfectly average, dark angels had the best w/l in the field, etc. When observations are heavily skewed by single matchups (as they are here) the results become questionable. This tournament will be useful in aggregate with others, but anomalous on it's own.

Hulksmash wrote:Orks, DE, and BA are OP!!!!! They each have half again as many wins as losses! Ridiculous!!!!

In all seriousness I'm pretty sure the breakdown is similar (regarding GK's) here. It isn't that they are OP or winning all events. It's that generally 1/5-1/8 of the field is GK which makes it look like they are over the top.

That Hulksmash is OP!!!1 he should be nerfed for winning games.

He is right about that, I still hear people whine and complain about SW and Guard and those books came out years ago. What about SM stormshields? If Matt Ward did one good thing is that with every codex he does, he makes something that is broken but it balances itself out with other broken units from other armies. I feel that most of the recent imperial armies are far superior to their xenos counterparts but still it takes a degree of player skill to make it work. I used to think anime fans were real whiny then I ran into WoW players and thought differently, but I have to say that sometimes I feel like we are the whiniest bunch of people when it comes to stuff.

I would be interested in seeing data upon how many minds have been changed by this thread.

There are two ways to convince me that gk are the most overpowered book GW has put out in a decade.

1. An exceptional tournament player, Dash, Hulk, Blackmoor, Davefay etc . Gets beaten by a novice player using GK. That is highly unlikely, and as far as I know it hasn't occurred.

2. The GK book breaks 40k 5th as badly as Daemons broke Fantasy 7th. That isn't the case either.

thehod wrote:
He is right about that, I still hear people whine and complain about SW and Guard and those books came out years ago. What about SM stormshields? If Matt Ward did one good thing is that with every codex he does, he makes something that is broken but it balances itself out with other broken units from other armies. I feel that most of the recent imperial armies are far superior to their xenos counterparts but still it takes a degree of player skill to make it work. I used to think anime fans were real whiny then I ran into WoW players and thought differently, but I have to say that sometimes I feel like we are the whiniest bunch of people when it comes to stuff.

An ex-girlfirend of mine called it Whinehammer, because of how much we bitched about things during the game. After a while, it led to introspection, and analysis. At first, we were pissed at each other's armies. Then we thought about it, and realized that it was a matter of expectations, and that one of us was taking a lamer army than the other, so then we got pissed at each other. After more introspection, I then became a little obsessed with the statistics, and the fact that I couldn't evaluate what were valid tactics because dice rolls swung so wildly in any direction. I have a notebook with frightening amounts of situations where the game swung both, wildly in my favor, and wildly out of it.

Eventually, it's gotten to the point for me where I've stopped trying to evaluate the game or my list, and just take what I think feels like I'm the most comfortable with, and then I play the best game I can. Trying to take this game/thread seriously is just following down the route of madness.

Also, the historical guys are definitely the whiniest. Always push off the blame on those guys.

Also, the historical guys are definitely the whiniest. Always push off the blame on those guys.

You don't know whining until you've seen whinehammer played in Maine. We take that gak to the next level. It is an artform.

Btw yesterday Ghengiscon as won with a GK army for those keeping track with an attendance of 45+ players.

Tau won a 30 man tournament this last weekend. Tau are to OP. And it was 4 units of fire warriors, and 2 full units of kroot. only a couple suits. Sister's of Battle are winning and doing well at local tournaments too. Just wait till SoB's start winning the GTs.

Nids won the tourney last weekend. 35 people

thehod wrote:Btw yesterday Ghengiscon as won with a GK army for those keeping track with an attendance of 45+ players.

Inquisitor_Dunn wrote:Tau won a 30 man tournament this last weekend. Tau are to OP. And it was 4 units of fire warriors, and 2 full units of kroot. only a couple suits. Sister's of Battle are winning and doing well at local tournaments too. Just wait till SoB's start winning the GTs.

Draigo wrote:Nids won the tourney last weekend. 35 people

Are these all 3 round tournaments or 5 to 6 round tournaments? If they are only 3 then they are kind of invalid data as the match-ups could skew the results tremendously.

Cygnar won in my local area two weeks ago.

ShumaGorath wrote:Cygnar won in my local area two weeks ago.

Who is cygnar?

Tomb King wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:Cygnar won in my local area two weeks ago.

Who is cygnar?

Ultramarines successor chapter. They use a lot of variant dreadnoughts.

Back on topic... Kirby did a bunch of analysis on 3++ Con's results for DE and GK vs different types of players (winning and losing players).

Interesting stuff to read through and relevant to what we were talking about:
http://www.3plusplus.net/2012/02/3-con-statistics-deeper-look-at-dark.html

well, i left for a while to get some real life things done (had a daughter, built a few new firearms, spending time at the range with dad, so on and so forth) and its nice to know that in a few months nothing has really changed.

pretre wrote:Back on topic... Kirby did a bunch of analysis on 3++ Con's results for DE and GK vs different types of players (winning and losing players).

Interesting stuff to read through and relevant to what we were talking about:
http://www.3plusplus.net/2012/02/3-con-statistics-deeper-look-at-dark.html

Thank you, even more evidence that grey knights are not OP.

Sc077y wrote:well, i left for a while to get some real life things done (had a daughter, built a few new firearms, spending time at the range with dad, so on and so forth) and its nice to know that in a few months nothing has really changed.

Congrats on the birth of your daughter! Plus ca change, plus c'est la meme chose.

pretre wrote:Back on topic... Kirby did a bunch of analysis on 3++ Con's results for DE and GK vs different types of players (winning and losing players).

Interesting stuff to read through and relevant to what we were talking about:
http://www.3plusplus.net/2012/02/3-con-statistics-deeper-look-at-dark.html

Interesting read, but I really wish he had more data to work with. A few dozen players and armies isn't going to prove anything overall.

Until he can put together some manner of database with hundreds if not thousands of tournament games, all run with the same style of mission, with similar terrain, this type of math hammering will be limited.