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.

@Stoffer: Are you trying to say that Necrons are terribly broken? Your second sentence is a bit confusing.

Just gonna say that since the (arguably nearly as broken) space wolves veteran player got trashed by some newbie with a standard (broken) GK army of psy-dreads, deathcult and purifiers with halberds, GK are looking too good.

juraigamer wrote:Just gonna say that since the (arguably nearly as broken) space wolves veteran player got trashed by some newbie with a standard (broken) GK army of psy-dreads, deathcult and purifiers with halberds, GK are looking too good.

Remember that Tony was just 'some newbie' when he took Nova.

juraigamer wrote:Just gonna say that since the (arguably nearly as broken) space wolves veteran player got trashed by some newbie with a standard (broken) GK army of psy-dreads, deathcult and purifiers with halberds, GK are looking too good.

Single games can also be very matchup dependent. I wouldn't rush to call his opponent a newbie simply because he has no major tournaments under his belt. 40k isn't a particularly difficult game to play or win, you don't need to be some sort of separate breed to defeat the "best". There's a low skill ceiling, especially with armies like GKs and Space Wolves (SWs being arguably easier to play than the Inquisitorial GKs in that specific matchup).

I would have to say that the evidence is wrong, people are bringing GK because like alot of people here (while they are an easier skill level to use) think that they are drastically broken.

Notice that 7 out of 16 GK players aren't no.1

Just because more people brought them to the event doesn't mean anything if they're not winning. Yes it only increases the chance of having a GK army in the top 5, but if that many GK armies can't take top spot? I don't think it proves anything tbh.

@Sasa0mg: I think that you're absolutely right. The Adepticon seems to indicate that people have really psyched themselves up for what armies are 'good' and which are not.
No Tyranids, no Sisters in a 250 person tournament?
22% GK?

I think this falls in the realm of 'self-fulfilling prophecy'. edit: Misread a results thread earlier. My bad. Also, what is up with BoK's page load times. Geeze.

Sasa0mg wrote:I would have to say that the evidence is wrong, people are bringing GK because like alot of people here (while they are an easier skill level to use) think that they are drastically broken.

Notice that 7 out of 16 GK players aren't no.1

Just because more people brought them to the event doesn't mean anything if they're not winning. Yes it only increases the chance of having a GK army in the top 5, but if that many GK armies can't take top spot? I don't think it proves anything tbh.

But.. They won?

As an aside, I would have loved to take Sisters to a tournament with 1/4 GKs. Would have had a field day.

pretre wrote:@Sasa0mg: I think that you're absolutely right. The Adepticon seems to indicate that people have really psyched themselves up for what armies are 'good' and which are not.
No Tyranids, no Sisters in a 250 person tournament?
22% GK?

I think this falls in the realm of 'self-fulfilling prophecy'. In the end though, a Necron player still won.

I thought the final table was space wolves vs GKs.

Yeah, notice the single Necron in a field of GK players. People bring them to tournaments because they're terribly broken and it's telling that 7 out of 16 players in the final field are GK players.

There's two issues with this comment
1) You can't look at numbers in a vacuum. If 50% of the field is GKs and 1% is Necrons, then Necrons would have had a stronger showing per player (thats just an example, not actual numbers). We don't have all the stats yet but even when we do, there's very little we can do to isolate the actual reasons for the results, meaning we can't get a feel for how much was skill, dice luck, matchup and mission combination were a factor. So while I love looking at stats and talking about what they mean, you can't use it to make some definite statement like GKs are broken.

2) I think its the hyperbole like "they're terribly broken" that is really the sticking point and reason this thread even exists.

Strong? Strongest codex? Some undercosted, wtf things in the codex? Sure, all reasonable statements. Its the casual way people throw out 'broken' that is really just too much to stand. They are beatable. They have weaknesses. Their strengths come with some costs. Great players playing GKs were and are beaten by good players with other lists all the time. Look at it like a challenge, adjust your army and play and deal with them just like every other time a meta changing rule or dex comes out.

Or if you can't beat em, join them -- then lament the nerfs they get in 6ed :p

pretre wrote:I think this falls in the realm of 'self-fulfilling prophecy'. edit: Misread a results thread earlier. My bad. Also, what is up with BoK's page load times. Geeze.

That Necron army had the best score from Day 1, but they did not win. Grey Knights won the tournament.

Game 5 (Sunday Round 1)
Alexander Fennell (Necrons – Winner) vs. Tim Gorham (Grey Knights)
Tony Grippando (Grey Knights) vs. Reece Robbins (Eldar – Winner)
Mike Mutscheller (Space Wolves) vs. Nick Nanavati (Grey Knights – Winner)
Justin Cook (Grey Knights) vs. Brad Chester (Grey Knights – Winner)
Bill Kim (Chaos Daemons) vs. Dave Ankarlo (Grey Knights – Winner)
Jose Mendez (Dark Angels) vs. Tony Kopach (Space Wolves – Winner)
Joakim Engstrom (Grey Knights) vs. Paul Murphy (Grey Knights – Winner)
Doug Johnson (Orks – Winner) vs. Brett Perkins (Imperial Guard)

Game 6 Winner Brackets (Sunday Round 2)
Reece Robbins (Eldar) vs. Paul Murphy (Grey Knights – WINNER)
Alexander Fennell (Necrons – WINNER) vs. Doug Johnson (Orks)
Brad Chester (Grey Knights – WINNER) vs. Dave Ankarlo (Grey Knights)
Tony Kopach (Space Wolves – WINNER) vs. Nick Nanavati (Grey Knights)

Game 7 Winner Brackets – (Sunday Round 3)
Alexander Fennell (Necrons) vs. Brad Chester (Grey Knights) – LIVESTREAM
Tony Kopach (Space Wolves – WINNER) vs. Paul Murphy (Grey Knights)

Game 8 (Sunday Round 4)
Tony Kopach (Space Wolves) vs. Brad Chester (Grey Knights)

Final Results: Warhammer 40K Championships Warmaster – Brad Chester (Grey Knights)

kronk wrote:

pretre wrote:I think this falls in the realm of 'self-fulfilling prophecy'. edit: Misread a results thread earlier. My bad. Also, what is up with BoK's page load times. Geeze.

That Necron army had the best score from Day 1, but they did not win. Grey Knights won the tournament.

That probably explains my confusion. I blame lack of sleep. Also, still need an answer as to why BoK's page loads suck so bad.

ShumaGorath wrote:

pretre wrote:@Sasa0mg: I think that you're absolutely right. The Adepticon seems to indicate that people have really psyched themselves up for what armies are 'good' and which are not.
No Tyranids, no Sisters in a 250 person tournament?
22% GK?

I think this falls in the realm of 'self-fulfilling prophecy'. In the end though, a Necron player still won.

I thought the final table was space wolves vs GKs.

That might be my fault. Necrons were at the top of the heap out of 16 on day 1 and I posted such (pretre then misinterpreted). In day 2 Necrons eventually lost in the semi-finals to the ultimate winner of the event.

Sasa0mg wrote:I would have to say that the evidence is wrong, people are bringing GK because like alot of people here (while they are an easier skill level to use) think that they are drastically broken.

Notice that 7 out of 16 GK players aren't no.1

Just because more people brought them to the event doesn't mean anything if they're not winning. Yes it only increases the chance of having a GK army in the top 5, but if that many GK armies can't take top spot? I don't think it proves anything tbh.

Maybe I'm not understanding what you said here, but if I am, this is just about the craziest thing I've ever heard.

So because 7 of the 8 GK players who were in the top 16 didn't win the evidence is wrong? If there were 16 GK armies in the top 16 would that further cement your position since all of those 15 other guys couldn't win with their GKs?

When looking at the results, GK had 50% of the field for all of the final rounds (8/16, 4/8, 2/4, 1/2). They were the only army that was meaningfully over-represented in the final rounds as well. When you have 8 of the final 16 from a single faction and the other 8 finalists are from 7 other factions, that should be a pretty big red flag. I don't think that GK are some magical win button, but it's pretty safe to say that they're currently the "best" of all the available factions.

@winterman: WHY HAVE YOU FAILED ME?!?!?!
@Amerikon: I think what he's trying to say is that all the competitive players are taking them because of the perception that they are OP. Then, because they are the top players, of course they filter to the top.

Not to call people out, but Nick N played GK at Adepticon and he's only a part-time GK player, IIRC. I'm sure he's not the only one in the top guys.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
So, I just did a real quick Rankings HQ search to see what the GK players played last year or at other big events:

Brad Chester - SW last year, GK this year
Tim Gorham - SW last year, GK this year
Paul Murphy - IG and BA, swapped to GK for Atlanta and Adepticon
Nick Nanavati - Tyranids, Chaos Daemons, GK at Nova and Adepticon
Dave Ankarlo - Only GK results
Tony Grippando - Unclear, Orks at ToS
Joakim Engstrom - No good history, just a Adepticon TT from last year with no army listed
Justin Cook - DA last year.

Not to slander anyone, but the SW last year, GK this year ones are pretty amusing. I think this shows a little of the 'switch to GK for big events since they are the OP' mentality though. There is also a lot to be said for small, elite armies being easier on your brain when you need to play 10+ games in a weekend.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Darthdiggler wrote a good post re: my last line in the Adepticon thread:
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/90/444738.page#4192183

Not to slander anyone, but the SW last year, GK this year ones are pretty amusing. I think this shows a little of the 'switch to GK for big events since they are the OP' mentality though. There is also a lot to be said for small, elite armies being easier on your brain when you need to play 10+ games in a weekend.

You could just as easily say that the OP mentality brought them to space wolves or IG (who themselves were undoubtedly overpowered until the next big thing came along). I'd rather simply assume that skilled players are gravitating to the book that they perceive as more powerful. Since they're fairly skilled you could probably assume that they would actually be able to meaningfully review the codex's power level and determine its capabilities without external pressure. If they all did that then it should say something about the power-level of the book itself. That being that it's the most powerful book currently available against the widest variety of opponents. Which is likely is.

pretre wrote:@Stoffer: Are you trying to say that Necrons are terribly broken? Your second sentence is a bit confusing.

No, I think Necrons are a pretty good example of a strong release that doesn't steamroll the competitive community.

pretre wrote:@Amerikon: I think what he's trying to say is that all the competitive players are taking them because of the perception that they are OP. Then, because they are the top players, of course they filter to the top.

I think I did misunderstand what he was saying. I thought his point was that 7 of the GK players in the top 16 failed to win, which is completely insane because, of course, the 8th GK player actually won and, as they say, there can be only one. But it looks like there was some confusion about how many GK players were in the final rounds (7 or 8) and a mistaken post somewhere about Necrons winning it all. I'll settle down now.

Still, I think the results are a pretty strong indicator as to how good GK are. If you have the best players switching from Wolves to GK there has to be a reason.

1) It can be that they heard GK were OP and decided to bandwagon.
2) It can be that they actually analyzed the GK book and decided they were better than Wolves.
3) It can be that they thought they'd have an easier time playing/transporting a smaller army.
4) Something else entirely.

I'd think that 1 or 2 would be the most likely reason for a switch and since I like to give people the benefit of the doubt I'll assume that the top players aren't lemmings who just glom on to the latest FotM. That makes me think reason 2 is the most reasonable. And even if they were switching for some other reason, you'd still have a reality where the top players were (mostly) playing the same army. So on some level that would actually have to be considered the "best" army.

EDIT: I got ninja'd by ShumaGorath!

pretre wrote:

juraigamer wrote:Just gonna say that since the (arguably nearly as broken) space wolves veteran player got trashed by some newbie with a standard (broken) GK army of psy-dreads, deathcult and purifiers with halberds, GK are looking too good.

Remember that Tony was just 'some newbie' when he took Nova.

my thoughts exactly... Uknown name =/= Noob

For what its worth Nick plays me weekly at the LFGS... Nick almost brought bugs to Adepticon : )

Stoffer wrote:

pretre wrote:@Stoffer: Are you trying to say that Necrons are terribly broken? Your second sentence is a bit confusing.

No, I think Necrons are a pretty good example of a strong release that doesn't steamroll the competitive community.

Exactly, this is what the new codexes should do, not cause mass conversions. I don't mean that everyone needs to be on the level of play that the old tau codex is at, but a new codex shouldn't be leagues apart from recent codexes (see tyranids).

juraigamer wrote:

Stoffer wrote:

pretre wrote:@Stoffer: Are you trying to say that Necrons are terribly broken? Your second sentence is a bit confusing.

No, I think Necrons are a pretty good example of a strong release that doesn't steamroll the competitive community.

Exactly, this is what the new codexes should do, not cause mass conversions. I don't mean that everyone needs to be on the level of play that the old tau codex is at, but a new codex shouldn't be leagues apart from recent codexes (see tyranids).

I still maintain that the problem with tyranids is the problem with the edition more than the powerlevel of the book (though to what degree those are inseparable is YMMV). Remove 26" movement melta/ doubletap plasma drops from all basic transports, remove wound allocation bs and make it so that you can consolidate after combat with a vehicle (not being able to is nonsensical and a holdover from the bad old days) while changing the way that kill points work and removing True Line of Sight and the nids come back into being at a respectable tier. Those are all obvious and likely changes in sixth.

MDizzle wrote:The Simple fact is GK are OP I don't think you can deny that if you have played Vs it or read the book. The fact is GK have an answer to everything and that is why they are OP.

GKs are one of the top three army books without a doubt, but they are not OP compared to the other top books, and to many of the other armies out there near the top.

Smitty0305 wrote:the codex is broken.

anyone saying the codex isnt broken is a GK player who doesnt like the idea that their CODEX not their TACTICS are the reason they win games.

What an ignorant thing to say, and what a slap in the face to the eight GK players who played their way into the top sixteen. A codex or army list will not get you into the finals at Adepticon. It takes real skill, and guys like Reece proved that skill trumps lists with his footdar.

If the GK book was so broken, why didn't we see all GKs in the finals?

frgsinwntr wrote:

pretre wrote:

juraigamer wrote:Just gonna say that since the (arguably nearly as broken) space wolves veteran player got trashed by some newbie with a standard (broken) GK army of psy-dreads, deathcult and purifiers with halberds, GK are looking too good.

Remember that Tony was just 'some newbie' when he took Nova.

my thoughts exactly... Uknown name =/= Noob

For what its worth Nick plays me weekly at the LFGS... Nick almost brought bugs to Adepticon : )

Nick is a good player. He had Tyranids at the Colonial and did well in a field that had a lot of Grey Knight armies available. He ran into GK once? Orks 3x and something else from memory. Playing well and finishing 5th? Kudo's to him for playing well and doing well at a large event.

frgsinwntr wrote:

pretre wrote:

juraigamer wrote:Just gonna say that since the (arguably nearly as broken) space wolves veteran player got trashed by some newbie with a standard (broken) GK army of psy-dreads, deathcult and purifiers with halberds, GK are looking too good.

Remember that Tony was just 'some newbie' when he took Nova.

my thoughts exactly... Uknown name =/= Noob

Brad Chester is a well-known killer from the Toledo community; a peer of guys like Greg Sparks, so I am advised.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

pretre wrote:@winterman: WHY HAVE YOU FAILED ME?!?!?!
@Amerikon: I think what he's trying to say is that all the competitive players are taking them because of the perception that they are OP. Then, because they are the top players, of course they filter to the top.

In my experience the opposite is true. Top players are largely divided into two groups: Those who have switched to GK because they are the strongest book, and they feel that is the best move, and those who refuse to use GK out of pride/stubbornness. Rather like many people refused to field Siren Princes or HarlieFalcon armies back in the day.

One of those GK players in the final sixteen was playing in literally his first big singles event.

Mannahnin wrote:

In my experience the opposite is true. Top players are largely divided into two groups: Those who have switched to GK because they are the strongest book, and they feel that is the best move, and those who refuse to use GK out of pride/stubbornness.

QFT!!! There is a third group that just hates seeing the same army over an over but relatively true statement.


It has not been said yet but a team of 4 GK players took the Team Tournament as well.

Mannahnin wrote:

pretre wrote:@Amerikon: I think what he's trying to say is that all the competitive players are taking them because of the perception that they are OP. Then, because they are the top players, of course they filter to the top.

In my experience the opposite is true. Top players are largely divided into two groups: Those who have switched to GK because they are the strongest book, and they feel that is the best move, and those who refuse to use GK out of pride/stubbornness. Rather like many people refused to field Siren Princes or HarlieFalcon armies back in the day.

One of those GK players in the final sixteen was playing in literally his first big singles event.

Interesting, not that he can't be a great player for his first event, but still interesting.

Tomb King wrote:

Mannahnin wrote:

In my experience the opposite is true. Top players are largely divided into two groups: Those who have switched to GK because they are the strongest book, and they feel that is the best move, and those who refuse to use GK out of pride/stubbornness.

QFT!!! There is a third group that just hates seeing the same army over an over but relatively true statement.


It has not been said yet but a team of 4 GK players took the Team Tournament as well.

several of my buddies again. Nick N and Andrew G. I believe hulk smash and Aaron Along also.

Tomb King wrote:

-666- wrote:SW and IG are just as broken as GK. Its a fact.

As for nids they have been removed from competitive play which is sad. Second event in a row that 0 were represented.

I think that is more that people don't have the gumption to play them in a large event such as Adepticon. That in and of itself doesn't mean they are not competitive.

-666- wrote:

Tomb King wrote:

-666- wrote:SW and IG are just as broken as GK. Its a fact.

As for nids they have been removed from competitive play which is sad. Second event in a row that 0 were represented.

I think that is more that people don't have the gumption to play them in a large event such as Adepticon. That in and of itself doesn't mean they are not competitive.

there are a few ways to think about lists...

1) you need a list that will have the best match ups most of the time. This limits your mistakes or limits the effects of mistakes
2) you need a list that will give your opponents a hard match

GKs are both of these... they are resilient... one small piece breaks and they don't fall apart... and they are STRONG... basically GK lists make the opponents game much harder... "psychotropic grenades do what? What?! rad grenades change my ID toughness?!?)

@frgsinwntr

Yeppers. You got the names right I built a team of ringers to carry me as far in the standing as possible. Turned out we managed to win.

@Thread

I stand by GK's not being broken. I think proliferation is making people cranky. I'll point out that personally the codex that is my bane is Chaos. I've lost more to Chaos in the last year than all other books combined. I think I've only lost to GK's twice since they came out....might be off by one

And with some of the stuff I picked up this weekend I'll either finish repainting my Nids or finish off my Necrons now that the new models are coming out.