Switch Theme:

8th Ed. Grey Knight Tactica Discussion - Mathhammer (Data To be Revised)  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


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.




Made in us
Unshakeable Grey Knight Land Raider Pilot




Audustum wrote:
Spartacus wrote:
I mean.. they've explicitly said in that little publication that any unit already deployed is unaffected by the new rule.

Perhaps its time to move past the technical wording that currently exists and see what form the rule should really take once it is finally updated based on the obvious intention which has been clearly spelled out?


Not quite. They said "units that set up after the game begins". Shunt and GoI make units arrive and set up after the game begins, it's in the RAW for those abilities.

So like I said, the RAI seems clear, but they didn't actually fix the RAW problem.


But they then go on to say that units are exempt if they are 'already-deployed'. You need to be already deployed on the table to use GOI or shunt. Seems pretty clear cut to me.
   
Made in us
Stoic Grail Knight




Spartacus wrote:
Audustum wrote:
Spartacus wrote:
I mean.. they've explicitly said in that little publication that any unit already deployed is unaffected by the new rule.

Perhaps its time to move past the technical wording that currently exists and see what form the rule should really take once it is finally updated based on the obvious intention which has been clearly spelled out?


Not quite. They said "units that set up after the game begins". Shunt and GoI make units arrive and set up after the game begins, it's in the RAW for those abilities.

So like I said, the RAI seems clear, but they didn't actually fix the RAW problem.


But they then go on to say that units are exempt if they are 'already-deployed'. You need to be already deployed on the table to use GOI or shunt. Seems pretty clear cut to me.


I've read it multiple times and I do not see a general exemption for 'already-deployed' like you do. Do you mean #1 under Weird Boyz? I don't know the exact text of Da Jump, but GoI and Shunt aren't technically 'moving'. Something like Warptime is 'moving'. GoI and Shunt actually take you off the board and make you arrive a second time.

The Facebook team also contradicted the graphic in their responses to comments on the graphic. It's just a mess there.

As I said before, I agree the RAI is clear: they WANT GoI and Shunt to be able to go outside the deployment zone, but RAW-wise you still can't. This shouldn't be hard to correct, but here we are. They should really hire the MtG rules writers as independent contractors.
   
Made in us
Unshakeable Grey Knight Land Raider Pilot




Audustum wrote:
Spartacus wrote:
Audustum wrote:
Spartacus wrote:
I mean.. they've explicitly said in that little publication that any unit already deployed is unaffected by the new rule.

Perhaps its time to move past the technical wording that currently exists and see what form the rule should really take once it is finally updated based on the obvious intention which has been clearly spelled out?


Not quite. They said "units that set up after the game begins". Shunt and GoI make units arrive and set up after the game begins, it's in the RAW for those abilities.

So like I said, the RAI seems clear, but they didn't actually fix the RAW problem.


But they then go on to say that units are exempt if they are 'already-deployed'. You need to be already deployed on the table to use GOI or shunt. Seems pretty clear cut to me.


I've read it multiple times and I do not see a general exemption for 'already-deployed' like you do. Do you mean #1 under Weird Boyz? I don't know the exact text of Da Jump, but GoI and Shunt aren't technically 'moving'. Something like Warptime is 'moving'. GoI and Shunt actually take you off the board and make you arrive a second time.

The Facebook team also contradicted the graphic in their responses to comments on the graphic. It's just a mess there.

As I said before, I agree the RAI is clear: they WANT GoI and Shunt to be able to go outside the deployment zone, but RAW-wise you still can't. This shouldn't be hard to correct, but here we are. They should really hire the MtG rules writers as independent contractors.


Yeah its there under the first entry Re: Da Jump (which has the same wording as GOI BTW).

According to that it does indeed count as 'moving', and is also not affected by the beta rule.

My group will not be using the rules, they're a bit of an insult to be honest.
[Thumb - Untitled.png]

   
Made in us
Judgemental Grey Knight Justicar






Audustum wrote:
Spartacus wrote:
I mean.. they've explicitly said in that little publication that any unit already deployed is unaffected by the new rule.

Perhaps its time to move past the technical wording that currently exists and see what form the rule should really take once it is finally updated based on the obvious intention which has been clearly spelled out?


Not quite. They said "units that set up after the game begins". Shunt and GoI make units arrive and set up after the game begins, it's in the RAW for those abilities.

So like I said, the RAI seems clear, but they didn't actually fix the RAW problem.


You have got to be trolling. Just dumb.

4k
2k
1.5k
1k
 
   
Made in de
Focused Dark Angels Land Raider Pilot




Germany

We need to keep mailing GW for GK Buffs ( 40kFAQ@gwplc.com)

Imho:

Purifiers need an additional attack and point reductions.
(All) terminators need an additional wound.
   
Made in dk
Sneaky Sniper Drone




I wrote them earlier this week. Still no reply, but hopefully the more complains they get , the more likely they are to do something.
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut




Aeri wrote:
We need to keep mailing GW for GK Buffs ( 40kFAQ@gwplc.com)

Imho:

Purifiers need an additional attack and point reductions.
(All) terminators need an additional wound.

That's not what Terminators need. At all. The troop one needs a good point reduction and Paladins should all be WS/BS2+. This pretty much fixes the offensive issues. Defensively this is the best Terminators have been almost ever.

CaptainStabby wrote:
If Tyberos falls and needs to catch himself it's because the ground needed killing.

 jy2 wrote:
BTW, I can't wait to run Double-D-thirsters! Man, just thinking about it gets me Khorney.

 vipoid wrote:
Indeed - what sort of bastard would want to use their codex?

 MarsNZ wrote:
ITT: SoB players upset that they're receiving the same condescending treatment that they've doled out in every CSM thread ever.
 
   
Made in de
Focused Dark Angels Land Raider Pilot




Germany

Yeah, that's why terminators fall like flies once out in the open.
Never were in a situation where my terminators needed a better ws/bs. There is a rerolllbubble next to them at all times anyways. Be it full rerolls or only 1s.
   
Made in us
Ancient Chaos Terminator





Eye of Terror

Lawrence from Tabletop Tactics proposed giving Terminators a 2d6 reoll for armor saves, keeping the highest.

I thought this was a clever solution to the Terminator problem. I wasn't sure if it was clever because it addresses the durability problem, or because it was simple to implement.

Defensively this is NOT the best Terminators have been. That was 2nd edition, where I could sit a squad of Terminators in front of an entire Tyranid army and know they were semi-safe. 2 wounds is a Plasma Gun shot away from death on a 5+.

   
Made in de
Focused Dark Angels Land Raider Pilot




Germany

This sounds not too bad!
Well, hope you guys will mail gw aswell to promote the much needed buff to durability
   
Made in dk
Sneaky Sniper Drone




I was thinking About Going with a batallion with voldus, gmdk and 3x5 ss. A vanguard with gmdk with 3x5 interceptors and two stormtalons.. voldus, interceptors and talons starts on the board and all 3 ss and both GMDK go for DS turn 2.. Turn 1; talons fly up and blod sh*t up, interceptors shunts up the board and voldus GOI. Turn 2 rest of the guys join the party.. could it work ?
   
Made in us
The Conquerer






Waiting for my shill money from Spiral Arm Studios

What TDA needs is for saves is a 1+ save to counter the dice mods.

Self-proclaimed evil Cat-person. Dues Ex Felines

Cato Sicarius, after force feeding Captain Ventris a copy of the Codex Astartes for having the audacity to play Deathwatch, chokes to death on his own D-baggery after finding Calgar assembling his new Eldar army.

MURICA!!! IN SPESS!!! 
   
Made in us
Stoic Grail Knight




Spartacus wrote:
Audustum wrote:
Spartacus wrote:
Audustum wrote:
Spartacus wrote:
I mean.. they've explicitly said in that little publication that any unit already deployed is unaffected by the new rule.

Perhaps its time to move past the technical wording that currently exists and see what form the rule should really take once it is finally updated based on the obvious intention which has been clearly spelled out?


Not quite. They said "units that set up after the game begins". Shunt and GoI make units arrive and set up after the game begins, it's in the RAW for those abilities.

So like I said, the RAI seems clear, but they didn't actually fix the RAW problem.


But they then go on to say that units are exempt if they are 'already-deployed'. You need to be already deployed on the table to use GOI or shunt. Seems pretty clear cut to me.


I've read it multiple times and I do not see a general exemption for 'already-deployed' like you do. Do you mean #1 under Weird Boyz? I don't know the exact text of Da Jump, but GoI and Shunt aren't technically 'moving'. Something like Warptime is 'moving'. GoI and Shunt actually take you off the board and make you arrive a second time.

The Facebook team also contradicted the graphic in their responses to comments on the graphic. It's just a mess there.

As I said before, I agree the RAI is clear: they WANT GoI and Shunt to be able to go outside the deployment zone, but RAW-wise you still can't. This shouldn't be hard to correct, but here we are. They should really hire the MtG rules writers as independent contractors.


Yeah its there under the first entry Re: Da Jump (which has the same wording as GOI BTW).

According to that it does indeed count as 'moving', and is also not affected by the beta rule.

My group will not be using the rules, they're a bit of an insult to be honest.


I see what you're saying. Strictly speaking, though, you can also read it as carving an exception for Da Jump. Shunt/GoI don't actually move units, as I said, they re-deploy them. The addendum there says "like all abilities that MOVE..." so it wouldn't apply to them. Da Jump is worded similarly so we'd want to draw a 1 for 1, but then we're looking at applying a rule for 'moving' to multiple unspecified abilities which are not, in fact, moving. It basically makes the entire rule system break down.

This is sadly super easy to fix. You just change each of the bespoke rules (such as Da Jump, GoI, Shunt, e.t.c.) to say: "This unit does not count as reinforcements" at the end. Done.

 Homeskillet wrote:
Audustum wrote:
Spartacus wrote:
I mean.. they've explicitly said in that little publication that any unit already deployed is unaffected by the new rule.

Perhaps its time to move past the technical wording that currently exists and see what form the rule should really take once it is finally updated based on the obvious intention which has been clearly spelled out?


Not quite. They said "units that set up after the game begins". Shunt and GoI make units arrive and set up after the game begins, it's in the RAW for those abilities.

So like I said, the RAI seems clear, but they didn't actually fix the RAW problem.


You have got to be trolling. Just dumb.


And the worst poster in the thread award goes too....


Anyway, regarding an actual GK Tactical solution, I don't think there is one. We can replicate our old tactics by taking Outrider Detachments, but now we'll be SUPER CP starved for doing so. We either have to wait for a T2 offensive, which will get us blown out of the water for a turn as our mandatory 50% faffs about or we can do a T1 with mass shunt and GoI. This T1 is super limited though because we can only bring one unit of Paladins/GMDK along for the ride and, as said, we basically have no CP.

I may slot Voldus into a Space Marine soup detachment (since they share the Adeptus Astartes keyword), but otherwise the Grey Knights don't really have a place in tournaments.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/04/22 19:30:38


 
   
Made in nz
Unshakeable Grey Knight Land Raider Pilot




^^

Its a pretty basic inference that you have to pick up and move the unit in order to 're-deploy it' (your language, not theirs). I don't hold it against GW that they don't spoon-feed us perfect rules language every time they release something, after doing so much already to make it clear how it should be played.

Whatever, makes no difference to me as I said.
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut




Aeri wrote:
Yeah, that's why terminators fall like flies once out in the open.
Never were in a situation where my terminators needed a better ws/bs. There is a rerolllbubble next to them at all times anyways. Be it full rerolls or only 1s.

"Falling like flies" is an exaggeration. They've gained durability to most weapons besides just a few (like a couple AP-2 weapons and Autocannons). Better BS/WS2+ is always good.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 techsoldaten wrote:
Lawrence from Tabletop Tactics proposed giving Terminators a 2d6 reoll for armor saves, keeping the highest.

I thought this was a clever solution to the Terminator problem. I wasn't sure if it was clever because it addresses the durability problem, or because it was simple to implement.

Defensively this is NOT the best Terminators have been. That was 2nd edition, where I could sit a squad of Terminators in front of an entire Tyranid army and know they were semi-safe. 2 wounds is a Plasma Gun shot away from death on a 5+.

And make the game even slower?

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/04/23 04:00:59


CaptainStabby wrote:
If Tyberos falls and needs to catch himself it's because the ground needed killing.

 jy2 wrote:
BTW, I can't wait to run Double-D-thirsters! Man, just thinking about it gets me Khorney.

 vipoid wrote:
Indeed - what sort of bastard would want to use their codex?

 MarsNZ wrote:
ITT: SoB players upset that they're receiving the same condescending treatment that they've doled out in every CSM thread ever.
 
   
Made in de
Focused Dark Angels Land Raider Pilot




Germany

How did they get tougher against anything but a standard boltgun?
   
Made in us
The Conquerer






Waiting for my shill money from Spiral Arm Studios

Terminators are more durable if you just look at their stats. But when you consider that a LOT of weapons gained multiple wounds of some kind as well as save modification the story changes.

Self-proclaimed evil Cat-person. Dues Ex Felines

Cato Sicarius, after force feeding Captain Ventris a copy of the Codex Astartes for having the audacity to play Deathwatch, chokes to death on his own D-baggery after finding Calgar assembling his new Eldar army.

MURICA!!! IN SPESS!!! 
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut




Aeri wrote:
How did they get tougher against anything but a standard boltgun?

Non-charged Plasma, Lascannons (1/6 of the time), sniper rifles, Grav Guns and Cannons (1/3 of the time in addition to wounding less), Tau Plasma (S6 after all), etc.

I already granted there are weapons they are less durable to like Basilisks, Inferno and Special Issue Bolters, Autocannons, Gauss Blasters...however, the amount of weaponry they're more durable to is totally increased.

CaptainStabby wrote:
If Tyberos falls and needs to catch himself it's because the ground needed killing.

 jy2 wrote:
BTW, I can't wait to run Double-D-thirsters! Man, just thinking about it gets me Khorney.

 vipoid wrote:
Indeed - what sort of bastard would want to use their codex?

 MarsNZ wrote:
ITT: SoB players upset that they're receiving the same condescending treatment that they've doled out in every CSM thread ever.
 
   
Made in ro
Regular Dakkanaut





Played with the FAQ for the 1st time this weekend, which also happened to be my first game vs the new Tau codex, Let's just say 5+ overwatch wasn't great, every non-GMDK/Celstine charge I did ended up with the charging unit being obliterated in overwatch.

Anyway, Interceptors are ok I guess, I do like their extra movement but I would rather have kept Strike squads, what I really miss is being able to both Deep Strike Draigo and the GMDK, both together sucked up so much firepower on the 1st turns. On the other hand Celestine with a Seraphim squad mix really well with GK for extra force in the Alpha strike if you get 1st turn.

One thing I am really waiting for now is the Knight Codex, hopefully there will be one allegiance/new model that mixes well with GK. I have been thinking really seriously of getting a Knight Crusader for a while.

This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2018/04/23 09:18:22



 
   
Made in dk
Sneaky Sniper Drone




So... That's it? we're just screwed? nobody got any ideas (not changes to rules, but ideas that work with the rules we have atm)
to what we can do?
   
Made in us
The Conquerer






Waiting for my shill money from Spiral Arm Studios

Thenord wrote:
So... That's it? we're just screwed? nobody got any ideas (not changes to rules, but ideas that work with the rules we have atm)
to what we can do?


Sadly yes. GW screwed up big time.

Self-proclaimed evil Cat-person. Dues Ex Felines

Cato Sicarius, after force feeding Captain Ventris a copy of the Codex Astartes for having the audacity to play Deathwatch, chokes to death on his own D-baggery after finding Calgar assembling his new Eldar army.

MURICA!!! IN SPESS!!! 
   
Made in ro
Regular Dakkanaut





I mean, what can we? There were already few ways of playing GK before the faq, now even less


 
   
Made in us
Ancient Chaos Terminator





Eye of Terror

Thenord wrote:
So... That's it? we're just screwed? nobody got any ideas (not changes to rules, but ideas that work with the rules we have atm)
to what we can do?


Seek alternate opinions, look at how other players are using them, watch battle reports, ask questions on forums, share your army lists, and stop engaging in purely negative dialogue about the army.

GK are not as bad as people make them out to be, "general consensus" on the Internet is always off by a wide margin. Most of the conversations about GK center on competitive players whining about not having silver-bullet copy-and-paste lists that place reliably in the top 10 at events. This says something about players more than the army.

Grey Knights have been challenging to play in every edition, this one is no different. I'm putting together a Storm Raven / NDK build similar to the one in the following battle report. You will notice they almost beat a fairly competitive Eldar list and would have done better post-FAQ. Notice how the GK player was using beta Smite rules, if he was using the rule in the FAQ it would have meant 2 more dead Wave Serpents early game. It would have meant one more living Interceptor squad late game.



   
Made in us
Hooded Inquisitorial Interrogator





Played a match over the weekend against T'au. 2,000 points. He had 2 Yvahras 2 coldstar commanders, a couple firrewarrior squads, a fireblade and darkstrider. He was Tau Sept.

I had my GMDK, Draigo, 3x10 interceptor squads, 3x5 ss, a brotherhood champion (my warlord), Eisenhorn, his daemonhost, and 2 inquisitors. I had 10 CP. I actually did fairly well. Turn 1 I wiped out most of his drones with mass bolter fire. He came in and destroyed my dreadknight and draigo however with his stormsurge, both commanders and both yvahras, as well as half an interceptor squad. I terrified a Yvahra, and charged in managing to kill one and got te other down to about 8 wounds. In the end I was tabled on turn 5, but all he had left was a yvahra with 6 wounds, a commander that had taken 3, and an untouched stormsurge which I had ignored because it really wasn't doing much. It was actually a very close game. If I could've saved Draigo or the Dreaknight I think I would have won.

That being said I didn't really need deepstrike in this match so that chasnge didn't really affect me. Also to be honest I feel the true heroes of that match were the inquisitors, who did much more with dominate/terrify and their combi-plasmas then really any of the rest of my army

There is no such thing as a plea of innocence in my court. A plea of innocence is guilty of wasting my time. Guilty. - Lord Inquisitor Fyodor Karamazov

In an Imperium of a million worlds, what is the death of one world in the cause of purity?~Inquisition credo

He who allows the alien to live, shares its crime of existence. ~Inquisitor Apollyon
 
   
Made in us
Devestating Grey Knight Dreadknight







 techsoldaten wrote:
Thenord wrote:
So... That's it? we're just screwed? nobody got any ideas (not changes to rules, but ideas that work with the rules we have atm)
to what we can do?


Seek alternate opinions, look at how other players are using them, watch battle reports, ask questions on forums, share your army lists, and stop engaging in purely negative dialogue about the army.

GK are not as bad as people make them out to be, "general consensus" on the Internet is always off by a wide margin. Most of the conversations about GK center on competitive players whining about not having silver-bullet copy-and-paste lists that place reliably in the top 10 at events. This says something about players more than the army.

Grey Knights have been challenging to play in every edition, this one is no different. I'm putting together a Storm Raven / NDK build similar to the one in the following battle report. You will notice they almost beat a fairly competitive Eldar list and would have done better post-FAQ. Notice how the GK player was using beta Smite rules, if he was using the rule in the FAQ it would have meant 2 more dead Wave Serpents early game. It would have meant one more living Interceptor squad late game.




You have totally opened m fething eyes mate. Good on you for proving me wrong.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Its almost like you ignored players want to actually play with something else besides Stormravens and GMDK.

Shame on them for wanting terminators to be better than trash.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/04/23 18:54:41


 SHUPPET wrote:

wtf is this buddhist monk ascendant martial dice arts crap lol
 
   
Made in us
Executing Exarch




I'd love to watch this but I don't think that I can take 2 hours of those two guys. Is there some way to get a summary/break down?
   
Made in us
Ancient Chaos Terminator





Eye of Terror

 Quickjager wrote:
You have totally opened m fething eyes mate. Good on you for proving me wrong.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Its almost like you ignored players want to actually play with something else besides Stormravens and GMDK.

Shame on them for wanting terminators to be better than trash.




Note my point about not engaging in purely negative dialogue about the army.

Nice example of race-to-the-bottom thinking. Grey Knights are so bad there's no reason even to discuss what might work. Anything that doesn't agree with this outlook is insensitive to those who can't use their favored unit. So just scream and froth at the mouth and the magic outrage fairy will get around to making it all better. Or something.

No wonder people believe GK are hopeless.

I played CSMs for a long time and know what it's like when the rules work are designed to work against you. Grey Knights are about where Chaos was in 6th edition after the Eldar Codex hit.

Unlike 6th edition, there's a rules team that registers constructive feedback.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Leo_the_Rat wrote:
I'd love to watch this but I don't think that I can take 2 hours of those two guys. Is there some way to get a summary/break down?


They are a little exuberant, but I appreciate them for doing this.

The Eldar army features a lot of Wave Serpents, Yrvane, Guardians, and other units. The GK army is built around Storm Ravens, Drago, Interceptors, NDKs and Celestine.

Eldar go first. Turn one doesn't go all that well for the GK player. Turn two, the Eldar kill Celestine, then the GK player kills about a third of the Eldar army. Turn three, there's a lot of psychic shenanigans.

The GK player was using the beta rules for smite, and applying them wrong - I think. It was being used as a minus to cast, not an increase to the warp charge. The Eldar player denied like 4 smites in a single turn, and it had an impact on the game.

Eventually, the Eldar won, but they were reduced to a Farseer and a few models. There was a fateful charge that did not work out with Drago, had it happened GK would most likely have won.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2018/04/23 21:32:10


   
Made in nz
Unshakeable Grey Knight Land Raider Pilot




The old beta smite rule was a -1 modifier to your test roll. They changed that in the latest FAQ to +1 to the required result. Was meant to make it still possible to get the full D6 smite on subsequent casts, but also makes those smites harder fo deny as a side effect.

Re: GK needing buffs, I am hopefull still. This new deepstrike rule has generated so much hate that I am highly doubtful it will survive in its current form, if at all. I didnt expect any attention in terms of points cuts from the FAQ because those changes were really designed to tackle major imbalances. GW hasn't forgotten about GK entirely (see the addenum omitting Tsons and GK from the smite nerf), we just need to catch their attention at the appropriate time using the appropriate tone, because they apparently have started reading emails and facebook posts.
   
Made in us
Devestating Grey Knight Dreadknight







If you think we actually spent 53 pages NOT dicussing how to make GK works then your brain is in a worse state than the GK codex.

We already know what works, we already know wargear is best for X enemy, we know because between the twenty-something players who have actually contributed we can hash out a good gameplan. How about we look at you instead.

"Most of the conversations about GK center on competitive players whining about not having silver-bullet copy-and-paste lists that place reliably in the top 10 at events. This says something about players more than the army."

Okay character attacks on COMPETITIVE (Oh the irony) GK players alright par for the course for someone who probably played AGAINST 5th ed GK. Nothing new.

"Grey Knights have been challenging to play in every edition, this one is no different."

If by challenging you mean that key aspects of the army are implemented in a flawed manner on historically below average units yes. Flawed units that are based off OTHER flawed units like the Tac Marine or Terminators. Oppressively powerful anti-daemon rules that literally ruin the game for said players or literally go the other way and are so underwhelming in effect for the sheer penalties it carries.

It doesn't matter if the rule writers listen, because the rule writers forget GK exist half the time. You know what would have been a great rule from the start of 8th? If you could put all your units in deepstrike and half DO have to come down turn 1 in your own deployment zone, then having an all deepstrike army would be valuable. I think I might even write an email with that idea attached, hell take it even farther with an additional rule saying that if your opponent has elected to set up no models on board during deployment their deployment zone is 6 inches smaller to represent the lack of presence. You know what would have been nice? Purifiers having 2 attacks instead of their smite being nerfed. The rule of 1 being lifted under certain army conditions would have been nice as well.

Chaos has never had the actual rules of an edition work AGAINST you. The worse off you've ever been is that you get hatred or fear on the same unit from 3 different rules while paying a cost for it, WHILE having a lackluster codex where you ask "Well why do the Loyalist have X but we don't? Did we chuck all our assault cannons out the airlock when we defected?".

Lets return to my first point. We did talk about GK, we know they aren't good, we know they are workable, but if any baseline codex is a porta-potty then we're a damn hole in the ground. Yea our 'hole in the ground' codex serves its purpose, but don't try to sell me the idea that it is anything but a hole in the ground and that the fact after 1 remodel (Chapter Approved) it is still a fething hole in the ground. Yea I am negative to such an extent I might be a 2nd coming of Martel, but if you want me to work with you on your army I'll be happy to; just don't expect me to glad I have leaves to wipe with.

 SHUPPET wrote:

wtf is this buddhist monk ascendant martial dice arts crap lol
 
   
Made in de
Mindless Spore Mine





 techsoldaten wrote:
 Quickjager wrote:
You have totally opened m fething eyes mate. Good on you for proving me wrong.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Its almost like you ignored players want to actually play with something else besides Stormravens and GMDK.

Shame on them for wanting terminators to be better than trash.




Note my point about not engaging in purely negative dialogue about the army.

Nice example of race-to-the-bottom thinking. Grey Knights are so bad there's no reason even to discuss what might work. Anything that doesn't agree with this outlook is insensitive to those who can't use their favored unit. So just scream and froth at the mouth and the magic outrage fairy will get around to making it all better. Or something.

No wonder people believe GK are hopeless.

I played CSMs for a long time and know what it's like when the rules work are designed to work against you. Grey Knights are about where Chaos was in 6th edition after the Eldar Codex hit.

Unlike 6th edition, there's a rules team that registers constructive feedback.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Leo_the_Rat wrote:
I'd love to watch this but I don't think that I can take 2 hours of those two guys. Is there some way to get a summary/break down?


They are a little exuberant, but I appreciate them for doing this.

The Eldar army features a lot of Wave Serpents, Yrvane, Guardians, and other units. The GK army is built around Storm Ravens, Drago, Interceptors, NDKs and Celestine.

Eldar go first. Turn one doesn't go all that well for the GK player. Turn two, the Eldar kill Celestine, then the GK player kills about a third of the Eldar army. Turn three, there's a lot of psychic shenanigans.

The GK player was using the beta rules for smite, and applying them wrong - I think. It was being used as a minus to cast, not an increase to the warp charge. The Eldar player denied like 4 smites in a single turn, and it had an impact on the game.

Eventually, the Eldar won, but they were reduced to a Farseer and a few models. There was a fateful charge that did not work out with Drago, had it happened GK would most likely have won.



And the major problem is that we cannot take Celestine in an Auxiliary Deatchment anymore as we cannot mix with the new Rule

"All of the units in each Detachment in your Battle-forged army must have at least one Faction keyword in common. In addition, this keyword cannot
be Chaos, Imperium, Aeldari, Ynnari or Tyranids,"
*edit* Also the old Beta Smite Rules .. this was way before the FAQ

That whole "it was so close" Army is not usable anymore with the new FAQ rules so the point that "it was close versus Ynnari" is moot

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/04/23 22:33:51


 
   
 
Forum Index » 40K Tactics
Go to: