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.

Space Wolves are the most broken and overpowerd book ever produced by GW, there is no debate

Riddick40k wrote:Space Wolves are the most broken and overpowerd book ever produced by GW, there is no debate

Well, there you have it folks.

Glad we could finally settle the issue.

2 thoughts.

1. do you think if 6th edition only had force weapons be power weapons when they are activated, GK would become more "fair" ?

2. were there any good inquisitional based armies that weren't just razorback spam?

Grundz wrote:2 thoughts.

1. do you think if 6th edition only had force weapons be power weapons when they are activated, GK would become more "fair" ?

2. were there any good inquisitional based armies that weren't just razorback spam?

I actually think #1 makes sense for ALL force weapons... thats a pretty cool idea

Pony_law wrote:@redbeard: The game will always seem to have been more fun in the past because 1) it was newer and there was still the thrill of discovery and 2) you were younger. Your memories of your previous games are probably enhanced by nestolgia for your youth. It happens with everything we experience.

I would find your argument easier to accept if :

a) I hadn't gotten into the game well into my 30s. I'm not seeking to recreate my youth.

and

b) It is still a lot of fun when played with artificial restraints on transport-hammer.

I played four highly enjoyable games at Adepticon - in a narrative campaign-in-a-day event. Orks versus Dark Angels with decidedly unbalanced missions, some of which favoured the Dark Angels and some of which favoured the Orks. But they were fun, we had assault phases that weren't swinging at tanks. We had shooting phases that didn't involve vehicle damage tables. The game still has many good mechanics and tends to work, as long as we're not all in metal boxes. But as soon as the optimized transport lists come out, all bets are off, and it really feels more like a slog than a game.

Also on wheather or not the game has a low skill ceiling, I think 40k is best described as hard to learn easy to master.

Also explaining why the same 30 or so players keep winning events in fields of 256. It's not like the other 220 players don't know the rules... I think you've got it backwards. It's easy to learn the game. The nuances of the mechanics are tricky, and keeping up to date with what your opponent's army is capable of is time consuming, though probably not hard. And yet, I don't think these are the real skills needed. I don't know everything about the most recent codexes, but I'm aware enough to ask my opponent what things do, and factor them in.

I think the real skills are having a 'feel' for when you need to move, when you need to switch from kill-what-you-can, to kill-what-you-must mode and the like, I'm not sure it can be taught. Some people have it and some people never will. Some people continually make poor deployment decisions. They make poor target priority decisions. They play low-odds chances on the off-chance that something miraculous will happen, and blame the dice when it doesn't. They end up a turn away from where they need to be because they castled too long, or took a meaningless shooting phase rather than watching the objectives. And they keep doing it.

Look back through the last five or six years of Adepticon results, and not only will you see the same names at the top of the pack, but you'll also see a lot of familiar names in the middle of the pack. They keep entering, and they continue to get pedestrian mid-field results. (P.S. I use adepticon as the example because the past results for several years are all available on their website, and sortable. I'm sure the same results would come from any GT though, with the same names...)

The evidence suggests that the game is more complicated than you claim. Some people get it, some people don't.

Grundz wrote:2 thoughts.

1. do you think if 6th edition only had force weapons be power weapons when they are activated, GK would become more "fair" ?

Not at all - It's not having power weapons that is making Grey Knights unfair. It's having dirt-cheap scoring units available, and vehicles that cannot be suppressed.

2. were there any good inquisitional based armies that weren't just razorback spam?

If you look at the lists on BoK, I think you'll find that few of them were "just" razorback spam. On the other hand, I think all of them used razorbacks to some extent, though some of the lists had as few as two.

If by "good", you mean lists that made it to day two. There were plenty of Grey Knight armies that did not have any razorbacks. These, however, did not make it to day two, so they may not meet your definition of good.

Redbeard wrote:It's not having power weapons that is making Grey Knights unfair.

I think you might find that 'nid players disagree with you. Or Ork players. Or any player that doesn't enjoy seeing an expensive multi-wound model die to a schmo striker with a force weapon.

newbis wrote:

Redbeard wrote:It's not having power weapons that is making Grey Knights unfair.

I think you might find that 'nid players disagree with you. Or Ork players. Or any player that doesn't enjoy seeing an expensive multi-wound model die to a schmo striker with a force weapon.

Don't let them get in combat with your expensive, multi-wound models then. Both armies possess plentiful, cheap bubblewrap that are taken in almost every build of those armies (termagants + spawned termies from tervigons = endless bubblewrap) and ork boyz

In the tyranid example, just bubble wrap and spawn-wrap from the tervigons to replenish the buffers, in the ork example I can only assume you mean Ghazgull, in which case just hold him out of the assault (by stringing him behind so he can't make base) or make his save an invul with his waagh during the main round of combat.

Monster Rain wrote:

Riddick40k wrote:Space Wolves are the most broken and overpowerd book ever produced by GW, there is no debate

Well, there you have it folks.

Glad we could finally settle the issue.

pretre is the most awesomest guy in the history of dakkadakka, there is no debate.


Wow, that tactic works on so many things!

If you look at the lists on BoK, I think you'll find that few of them were "just" razorback spam. On the other hand, I think all of them used razorbacks to some extent, though some of the lists had as few as two.

If by "good", you mean lists that made it to day two. There were plenty of Grey Knight armies that did not have any razorbacks. These, however, did not make it to day two, so they may not meet your definition of good.

I suppose I worded it incorrectly, but I mean using henchmen as the actual main fighting portion of the force, not just death cult in a storm raven or a way to get cheap razorbacks or chimera's My original concept for this army was to go admech, with 3 dreadknights, possibly 3 ven. dreads, and interceptors supporting a strong core of infantry, but at most 6 squads of 12 guardsmen does not a strong infantry core make

newbis wrote:

Redbeard wrote:It's not having power weapons that is making Grey Knights unfair.

I think you might find that 'nid players disagree with you. Or Ork players. Or any player that doesn't enjoy seeing an expensive multi-wound model die to a schmo striker with a force weapon.

Seems like you are missing something. I responded to someone who asked if making the GK take a psychic test before their force weapons counted as power weapons would help. Each of the examples you have provided above would be unaffected by that change. The force weapons would still be force weapons, and the complaints you raise are not about the power weapon aspect, but about the instant-kill ability, which already requires a test to activate.

As someone who primarily plays orks, I can safely say that grey knights having power weapons is about the least thing I am concerned about, and would rather they lost just about anything else first. I mean, oooh, I lose my 6+ save...

Redbeard wrote:
As someone who primarily plays orks, I can safely say that grey knights having power weapons is about the least thing I am concerned about, and would rather they lost just about anything else first. I mean, oooh, I lose my 6+ save...

As a Daemon player, I can safely say that I'd much rather see GK's lose the utter abomination that is Warp Quake before losing their pointy death sticks. I mean, ooooh look, all my saves are invulnerable!

If you wanna know why I hate GK so much just read my latest game in my report of Adepticon. It was depressing!

The biggest thing seems to be the multitude of ways they alter how your units function.

People will complain about the perceived strength of units/vehicles in a new book being overly powerful for their cost.

But nothing is more aggravating than having the very way your units perform being altered and screwed around with.

Eldarain wrote:The biggest thing seems to be the multitude of ways they alter how your units function.

People will complain about the perceived strength of units/vehicles in a new book being overly powerful for their cost.

But nothing is more aggravating than having the very way your units perform being altered and screwed around with.

My biggest issue with them is their ability to ignore 33% of the vehicle damage chart for little to no extra cost.

Tomb King wrote:

Eldarain wrote:The biggest thing seems to be the multitude of ways they alter how your units function.

People will complain about the perceived strength of units/vehicles in a new book being overly powerful for their cost.

But nothing is more aggravating than having the very way your units perform being altered and screwed around with.

My biggest issue with them is their ability to ignore 33% of the vehicle damage chart for little to no extra cost.

I'm not a big fan of the vehicle damage system to begin with. But I definitely agree with you on that being out of place comparatively.

My point about the near-universal power weapons was that, from a pure game design perspective, it's an obvious red flag. There are things that are considerably more unbalanced in the GKs codex (as has been pointed out very well above), most of which should have been spotted at the design stage too, through intuition, but the power weapons issue could have been spotted through logic (no intuition required).

Proper playtesting would, of course, have exposed *all* the balance issues. The universal power weapons one certainly isn't the worst from a balance perspective, but it's easily the worst indication that GW's oversight process regarding game balance is utterly screwed, as is their training of game designers, because it's basically Schoolboy Error #1 from every game design textbook.

The problem with power weapons in the first place is their unbalanced nature. The basics of 40k come from a 3+ roll system. Hit, wound, save (with the occasional FNP). Power weapons take it down to a 2 roll system. Further more, many units invest a fair amount of points in their defense stats like terminators and marines. Guardsmen having a 1/3rd chance to survive a given wound vs marines having 2/3rds chance; a power weapon negates these both to 0 meaning a wound against a guardsmen in 50% more effective while against a marine, it's 200% more effective. A sanguinary guard with it's 2+ suffers a 500% more effective wound from a power weapon. With FNP involved it becomes even worse. Guardsmen with FNP survive 2/3rds of the wounds dealt, marines 5/6ths and sanguinary guard 11/12ths. Power weapons become 200%, 500% and 1100% more effective respectively. The scaling proves that their nature is inherently flawed. This is why usually they aren't rampant in a codex and tends to be a touch pricey. When given on the scale that it is to grey knights, coupled with their low cost relative to their counterparts, it is a problem.

It's not just what it does to the top contenders, IG, SW and Necrons, but what it does to every other codex as well. I don't care how many GKs you claim to stomp with Chaos or Eldar, the numbers don't add up and not everyone is trying to run top tier lists. In friendly games they are distinctly unfriendly.

Surtur wrote:The problem with power weapons in the first place is their unbalanced nature. The basics of 40k come from a 3+ roll system. Hit, wound, save (with the occasional FNP). Power weapons take it down to a 2 roll system. Further more, many units invest a fair amount of points in their defense stats like terminators and marines. Guardsmen having a 1/3rd chance to survive a given wound vs marines having 2/3rds chance; a power weapon negates these both to 0 meaning a wound against a guardsmen in 50% more effective while against a marine, it's 200% more effective. A sanguinary guard with it's 2+ suffers a 500% more effective wound from a power weapon. With FNP involved it becomes even worse. Guardsmen with FNP survive 2/3rds of the wounds dealt, marines 5/6ths and sanguinary guard 11/12ths. Power weapons become 200%, 500% and 1100% more effective respectively. The scaling proves that their nature is inherently flawed. This is why usually they aren't rampant in a codex and tends to be a touch pricey. When given on the scale that it is to grey knights, coupled with their low cost relative to their counterparts, it is a problem.

It's not just what it does to the top contenders, IG, SW and Necrons, but what it does to every other codex as well. I don't care how many GKs you claim to stomp with Chaos or Eldar, the numbers don't add up and not everyone is trying to run top tier lists. In friendly games they are distinctly unfriendly.

I agree

I have actually stopped playing GK with my Ravenwing entirely, its so broken vs ravenwing it not even funny... ok it is funny but you get what i mean.
My stuff is more expensive, less resiliant (6 man bike sqaud) and have the same speed (tank spam), i have chalked up 2 wins vs knights when they came out but now i cant deal with the 6 psybolt dreads (eat my speeders turn 1 usually)
or the las/plas razorspam..

does it annoy me a little... sure... but im patient and my time is coming, when Dark angel codex comes out and is insanely overpowered with 15pts TH/SS termies and free ignore stunned/shaken (were stubborn right?) i will lord it over the grey knight players.... ah bandwagoners.... this sucks im off to play war machine... ah that sucks too... fantasy? well least thats not as... Deamons eh... right then.... play doe!!!

Hammerhand alone ruins bikes. Throw in some S5 stormbolters and your benefits become null.

Ravenwing has been overcosted an uncompetitive for ages. While GK's might make that even worse, it is hard to slide much further down the scale for ravenwing.

Yes, but there are also C:SM bikers and Khan armies which suffer similarly.

Surtur wrote:Yes, but there are also C:SM bikers and Khan armies which suffer similarly.

Meh, space marine bikers have always sucked in close combat. Thundercav, dark eldar beasts and wraits were a bigger hit to bikers than hammerhand. Against purifiers you usually don't have to assault, with thundercav, you don't get to make that decision

There are bigger hits against bikes, sure (Venom Cannons eat them alive, too, like they do anything that's not a tank). But the point is that GKs, yet again, also eat them alive. They don't really have any weaknesses -- any bad matchups. They can *always* play to their strengths, in every game, because they have strengths in every possible part of the game.

It does become a challenge when one army is the best close combat army, best shooting army, best psychic army, and with the aid of one or two characters the best scoring army as well.

Not that they're anywhere near as over the top as the last iteration of WHFB Daemons were in 7th, but they're rough.

I think it says a lot about the Codex's balance (and not in a good way) that this thread has made it to 65 pages and has had lots of input from veteran tournament players whilst doing so.

Just Dave wrote:I think it says a lot about the Codex's balance (and not in a good way) that this thread has made it to 65 pages and has had lots of input from veteran tournament players whilst doing so.

yeah i have been reading it since it started and expected a long whine fest that degenerated into power games calling others noobs and noobs saying that GK are "suxxors" but its really hasnt been like that at all, well done to all dakkarites... we rock

I think that the codex allows you to keep it simple and win which rubs off on people the wrong way. Combine that with how cheap it is to build some of those list they became very popular really fast.

Mannahnin wrote:
Not that they're anywhere near as over the top as the last iteration of WHFB Daemons were in 7th, but they're rough.

I know this is a bit of a derail, but on the topic of weird codices; can anyone explain to me how the 7th Ed Chaos Daemons books broke WHFB? I leafed through it and it seemed astonishing similar to the 40k book in the rules. I know both games are not the same, but it puzzles me a bit that one book can be game-shattering while the other is seen as...barely adequate.

Sephyr wrote:

Mannahnin wrote:
Not that they're anywhere near as over the top as the last iteration of WHFB Daemons were in 7th, but they're rough.

I know this is a bit of a derail, but on the topic of weird codices; can anyone explain to me how the 7th Ed Chaos Daemons books broke WHFB? I leafed through it and it seemed astonishing similar to the 40k book in the rules. I know both games are not the same, but it puzzles me a bit that one book can be game-shattering while the other is seen as...barely adequate.

If you don't know the WHFB rules, then there is no short explanation. Suffice it to say that Daemons had overwhelmingly powerful magic available, at only moderate cost, coupled with some of the nastiest HtH options available en masse in the game. While the stat lines of 40k & WHFB daemons are similar, almost nothing about their game play is.

Sephyr wrote:

Mannahnin wrote:
Not that they're anywhere near as over the top as the last iteration of WHFB Daemons were in 7th, but they're rough.

I know this is a bit of a derail, but on the topic of weird codices; can anyone explain to me how the 7th Ed Chaos Daemons books broke WHFB? I leafed through it and it seemed astonishing similar to the 40k book in the rules. I know both games are not the same, but it puzzles me a bit that one book can be game-shattering while the other is seen as...barely adequate.

Nurgle allowed for a ward save followed by a regen save (5+ then 4+) as well as being t4, meaning they were tough to kill. Khorne has always strikes first and killing blow, allowing them to destroy your front rank before you got to swing which meant you didn't get to attack back. Tzeench allowed for power dice and dispel dice from every block of horrors you brought, allowing you to do as you pleased during your magic phase and deny them their magic phase. To my knowledge Slaanesh was the most balanced of the 4 gods with some decent perks, but nothing game breaking. 8th ed broke all 3 of the super gods powers. Nurgle could only take one type of special save, you always got to attack and the nature of magic changed taking away khorne's brokeness, and power dice are generated differently meaning tzeench was actually kind of at a loss after 8th. Slaanesh stayed about the same since it didn't rely on these tactics.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
So does anyone care to explain how the Grey Knights jumped from 22% of overall participation to 44% of the top 16 at Adepticon?