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.

OverwatchCNC wrote:

mattyrm wrote: Well, 66 pages in, I say we give Shuma a hearty back slap.

31% agree with him, and 23% say the GK are overpowered.

Only 3% they are average, and 3% say they are definitely not over powered.

Majority rules chaps.

Seems to me, If you think GK aint broke, you dont want to be honest with yourself because you play the sneaky grey mother fethers.

Ummm...

56% of people answering the poll answered with a "No" in some way shape or form.

To be fair, the poll's responses are basically unusable for anything, well, except determining how awesome TK is, and how many people want this thread to die. Speaking of wanting the thread to die, I wish I could recast my vote. :(

This does not however mean that they are armies that are well balanced or that evenly skilled players with other armies stand a good 50/50 chance of beating them

Very true. But what if the other armies have simply not 'changed up' to factor in the likelihood of meeting new builds (ie not adapted to a changed metagame)? then the picture is cloudier. I don't disagree that three GK lists have changed the metagame. I do doubt they're as 'broken' as some folk claim. they just do well against some very common currently fashionable builds.

Were it the case that all army builds at a certain point value were roughly equal (eg foot Dark Eldar were as good as vehicle-borne Dark Eldar and Ork armies maximising on Fast Attack choices were about as good as those going with massed deffrollas) then there would be more merit to the argument. But whether we like it or not, some lists do much better than others (from within the same codex). So list building becomes something tailored to likely opposition. For a while now that's resulted in mainly light/medium vehicle spam as the most common competitive builds. Two GK lists are effective, one very effective, against such builds. I'm unconvinced that mkes them broken rather than just meta changing. Can one design a competitive list that will take down Coteaz spam and still be competitive against other commonly met builds? I think so (though in fairness probably not from some codices, but that was true before GK,, some codexes just could not cope effectively with certain builds from other codices).

daedalus wrote:

OverwatchCNC wrote:

mattyrm wrote: Well, 66 pages in, I say we give Shuma a hearty back slap.

31% agree with him, and 23% say the GK are overpowered.

Only 3% they are average, and 3% say they are definitely not over powered.

Majority rules chaps.

Seems to me, If you think GK aint broke, you dont want to be honest with yourself because you play the sneaky grey mother fethers.

Ummm...

56% of people answering the poll answered with a "No" in some way shape or form.

To be fair, the poll's responses are basically unusable for anything, well, except determining how awesome TK is, and how many people want this thread to die. Speaking of wanting the thread to die, I wish I could recast my vote. :(

I Agree. On all counts.

OverwatchCNC wrote:

mattyrm wrote: Well, 66 pages in, I say we give Shuma a hearty back slap.

31% agree with him, and 23% say the GK are overpowered.

Only 3% they are average, and 3% say they are definitely not over powered.

Majority rules chaps.

Seems to me, If you think GK aint broke, you dont want to be honest with yourself because you play the sneaky grey mother fethers.

Ummm...

51% of people answering the poll answered with a "No" in some way shape or form.

6% said they are just another 5E book or merely average. 54% said they are either overpowered (one of the "no, not *THE* most broken") or yes, the most broken.

The other options are nonsense options that don't say anything either way.

Seems to me, If you think GK aint broke, you dont want to be honest with yourself because you play the sneaky grey mother fethers.

Seems to me, If you think GK are broken, you dont want to be honest with yourself because you haven't adapted to the sneaky grey mother fethers.

Fixed that for you...

Kanluwen wrote:I don't think "majority rules" really apply to an opinion question...especially not when you look at the results.

31% say they're "the most overpowered book that GW has put out in decades"(something which gets leveled at every book when it comes out).
23% say "No, but they are overpowered."
23% say "No, they are just a good 5th edition book."

Grey Knights is certainly a book with a bit of heft to it, and it certainly can shut down some of the older books with ease. That does not necessarily mean it is overpowered though.

"some of" translating to "Everything except Space Wolves or Imperial Guard with relatively little player skill." So yes, it does mean that.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Blood and Slaughter wrote:

Seems to me, If you think GK aint broke, you dont want to be honest with yourself because you play the sneaky grey mother fethers.

Seems to me, If you think GK are broken, you dont want to be honest with yourself because you haven't adapted to the sneaky grey mother fethers.

Fixed that for you...

Quick note here, the method for adapting to grey knights is to play grey knights according to recent tournament results and most forms of bare logic. Well, that or play an IG mech gunline and pray you don't roll up against necrons, DOA, or one of the other lists that hardcounters that but is devoured by GKs.

You might want to put that into a footnote in your post.

ShumaGorath wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:I don't think "majority rules" really apply to an opinion question...especially not when you look at the results.

31% say they're "the most overpowered book that GW has put out in decades"(something which gets leveled at every book when it comes out).
23% say "No, but they are overpowered."
23% say "No, they are just a good 5th edition book."

Grey Knights is certainly a book with a bit of heft to it, and it certainly can shut down some of the older books with ease. That does not necessarily mean it is overpowered though.

"some of" translating to "Everything except Space Wolves or Imperial Guard with relatively little player skill." So yes, it does mean that.

"Shut down" does not equate to "beat". It means the other person has absolutely no chance, whatsoever, no matter how skilled or tailored their list is.

Sidenote:
I think it should be clear that I'm not saying "They're underpowered" or anything of that nature.

I'm saying they're not what people make them out to be. The book is powerful with a lot of options.

Kanluwen wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:I don't think "majority rules" really apply to an opinion question...especially not when you look at the results.

31% say they're "the most overpowered book that GW has put out in decades"(something which gets leveled at every book when it comes out).
23% say "No, but they are overpowered."
23% say "No, they are just a good 5th edition book."

Grey Knights is certainly a book with a bit of heft to it, and it certainly can shut down some of the older books with ease. That does not necessarily mean it is overpowered though.

"some of" translating to "Everything except Space Wolves or Imperial Guard with relatively little player skill." So yes, it does mean that.

"Shut down" does not equate to "beat". It means the other person has absolutely no chance, whatsoever, no matter how skilled or tailored their list is.

I think people in this thread really need to establish what the term "Overpowered" means in their heads. Also, by your definition right there "Shutting down" would be a subset of "beat." Both imply that the book is too powerful.

I think it should be clear that I'm not saying "They're underpowered" or anything of that nature.

I'm saying they're not what people make them out to be. The book is powerful with a lot of options.

I think judging by past precedent you appear unwilling to ever call a spade a spade in relation to GW. This book is plainly overpowered, pure mathematical and cost driven comparisons to every other book in the game bares that out to be true. Tournament results bare that out to be true. That every person defending gray knights only actual defense is "Well you just haven't specced your army to beat them" which directly implies that I have to form an army specifically to beat them and them alone to have a chance bares that out to be true. This thread is ridiculous, the number of backflips and hoop jumps apologists are making is stunning. They'd be gold medalists for sure.

Are they unbeatable? With two similarly skilled players playing standard all comers lists in standard GW missions they are all but unbeatable for a significant number of lists in a significant number of armies. The closest the game has come to that in recent memory is in high armor mech spam from IG and they have more specific weaknesses. Before that it was nob bikers which a significant portion of the field had little to no chance against. These things have come around before, and GKs are it right now.

Quick note here, the method for adapting to grey knights is to play grey knights according to recent tournament results and most forms of bare logic. Well, that or play an IG mech gunline and pray you don't roll up against necrons, DOA, or one of the other lists that hardcounters that but is devoured by GKs.

You might want to put that into a footnote in your post.

Part of what I'm saying is that people may be adapting to the various GK builds by playing GK (I wish people would stop implying that all GK builds are the same, as I've pointed out there's a huge difference between Coteaz and Draigo lists and that neither has the advantages of the other) rather than devising lists from other armies that can cope.

I don't see that Necrons are necessarily 'devoured' by either Coteaz lists or Draigo ones, in fact I think there are some pretty nasty Necron builds for either to face.

What it may be fair to say is that it is hard to build a list that can cope equally well with Draigo lists and Coteaz lists so if you plan for one and meet the other you may be knackered. But then again if I plan for Venom spam and encounter Orks I may be knackered too...

What it may be fair to say is that it is hard to build a list that can cope equally well with Draigo lists and Coteaz lists so if you plan for one and meet the other you may be knackered. But then again if I plan for Venom spam and encounter Orks I may be knackered too...

You may be, but if your'e playing as GKs you won't. That being the problem, their extreme non standard spam and death star builds are still frighteningly capable against almost every other army in the game while almost every other army in the game has to build specifically to fight them. What's worse is that armies specifically built to fight them still aren't a particularly sure thing. This creates a situation wherein they are better than most armies in most situations; which were there an actual definition of overpowered in this discussion that would probably be it.

In major tournaments right now, successful armies fall into two subsets. Armies built to counter grey knights, and grey knights. This most recent adepticon hit post parity with those two stats and the anti GK spam builds couldn't be in enough matches to keep the GKs from winning against everything not built to fight them, which saw them average a 2-1 win ratio and have 200% average representation in the top 16. Leafblower did something similar in it's primetime though it was never as popular an army so it wasn't as strangling a force in the meta.

"leafblower" also was never a well defined list style, with the actual "leafblower" list that won rarely resembling what most would consider such an actual "leafblower". "Leafblower" went from describing a single list, to anything with tanks and templates, to pretty much any IG army that wasn't designed completely around non-mechanized infantry platoons. The "dominance" of the "Leafblower" was always rather ill defined and never as well represented at high end events as SW's or GK's became.

It's also a highly annoying term in addition to being extremely vague.

Blood and Slaughter wrote:
Part of what I'm saying is that people may be adapting to the various GK builds by playing GK (I wish people would stop implying that all GK builds are the same, as I've pointed out there's a huge difference between Coteaz and Draigo lists and that neither has the advantages of the other) rather than devising lists from other armies that can cope.

That's the crux of the issue. GK do indeed have something for everyone. The problem is between the complaining about Draigo making Paladins troops and OX inquisitors being a cheap source of grenades and Coteaz making henchmen troops, and GMs giving you whatever you happen to feel like you want at any given time, people forget that you can't take all of them, and then, even if you could, you couldn't afford all the cool stuff at once.

Look at Brad's list from Adepticon:

Coteaz
GKGM, Rad, Psychostroke

10 purifiers with Rhino
10 purifiers with Rhino

Scoring Chimera
Scoring Chimera
Scoring Chimera
Scoring Razorback, TLHB
Scoring Razorback, TLHB
Razorback, TLHB (Something actually scary in this one, 6 DCA)

3 psyfleman dreads.

Shootingwise, you have:

27 S4 shots
18 S6 shots with 9 of them twin linked
16-24 S7 rending shots at 24" range
12 S8 shots, twin-linked

I can make an IG list that has:

36 shots S6
32 shots S7, 28 of them twin linked
8 shots S8
2 shots S9

Sure, a lot of my list is BS3, not 4, but I have twice as many shots in a lot of places. How, bullet for bullet, is the winning list more "overpowered" than mine? I mean, sure, he's got attacks and power weapons, and psychic abilities, and whatever, but he has to get to me to use them.

It seems like the most "overpowered" parts of GK are simply a natural extension of the mechspam present since IG.

Keep in mind that a lot of that IG shooting can be suppressed without having to be killed, where the GK shooting isn't as easily suppressed.

Additionally, what IG list gives you that sort of output?

daedalus wrote:

Blood and Slaughter wrote:
Part of what I'm saying is that people may be adapting to the various GK builds by playing GK (I wish people would stop implying that all GK builds are the same, as I've pointed out there's a huge difference between Coteaz and Draigo lists and that neither has the advantages of the other) rather than devising lists from other armies that can cope.

That's the crux of the issue. GK do indeed have something for everyone. The problem is between the complaining about Draigo making Paladins troops and OX inquisitors being a cheap source of grenades and Coteaz making henchmen troops, and GMs giving you whatever you happen to feel like you want at any given time, people forget that you can't take all of them, and then, even if you could, you couldn't afford all the cool stuff at once.

Look at Brad's list from Adepticon:

Coteaz
GKGM, Rad, Psychostroke

10 purifiers with Rhino
10 purifiers with Rhino

Scoring Chimera
Scoring Chimera
Scoring Chimera
Scoring Razorback, TLHB
Scoring Razorback, TLHB
Razorback, TLHB (Something actually scary in this one, 6 DCA)

3 psyfleman dreads.

Shootingwise, you have:

27 S4 shots
18 S6 shots with 9 of them twin linked
16-24 S7 rending shots at 24" range
12 S8 shots, twin-linked

I can make an IG list that has:

36 shots S6
32 shots S7, 28 of them twin linked
8 shots S8
2 shots S9

Sure, a lot of my list is BS3, not 4, but I have twice as many shots in a lot of places. How, bullet for bullet, is the winning list more "overpowered" than mine? I mean, sure, he's got attacks and power weapons, and psychic abilities, and whatever, but he has to get to me to use them.

It seems like the most "overpowered" parts of GK are simply a natural extension of the mechspam present since IG.

He's the one beating the ork horde, draigowing, necron and blood angels armies that you're losing to while only doing marginally worse against the the things your army is made to fight.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Vaktathi wrote:Keep in mind that a lot of that IG shooting can be suppressed without having to be killed, where the GK shooting isn't as easily suppressed.

Additionally, what IG list gives you that sort of output?

A list with 3 hydra batteries and a lot of chimeras.

ShumaGorath wrote:
Automatically Appended Next Post:

Vaktathi wrote:Keep in mind that a lot of that IG shooting can be suppressed without having to be killed, where the GK shooting isn't as easily suppressed.

Additionally, what IG list gives you that sort of output?

A list with 3 hydra batteries and a lot of chimeras.

Right, I play a list with lots of hydras and chimeras, but you'd have very little upgrades in a 2k list with that loadout. You'd be taking infantry platoons in chimeras and no upgrades basically, was trying to get a better handle on exactly what was being fielded as it looked rather odd.

Vaktathi wrote:Keep in mind that a lot of that IG shooting can be suppressed without having to be killed, where the GK shooting isn't as easily suppressed.

Additionally, what IG list gives you that sort of output?

GK Chimeras don't have fortitude, so you could at least suppress those.

The list was basically infantry platoon spam with missile launchers and autocannons in chimeras, and then 7 hydras. Two CCS (in chimeras) have lascannons. there's 7 Infantry squads between three Platoons.

In retrospect, I also considered the chimeras having heavy flamers, not even heavy bolters, so figure in about 36 heavy bolter shots in there too if you want, but I forgot the heavy bolters on Brad's list too, so that bumps up the total a bit.

Frankly, I'd think it would do well enough against Ork Horde. It has more heavy shooting than most other armies have total.

Edit: Link to list. http://dl.dropbox.com/u/75694181/HWSpam.pdf

daedalus wrote:

Vaktathi wrote:Keep in mind that a lot of that IG shooting can be suppressed without having to be killed, where the GK shooting isn't as easily suppressed.

Additionally, what IG list gives you that sort of output?

GK Chimeras don't have fortitude, so you could at least suppress those.

The list was basically infantry platoon spam with missile launchers and autocannons in chimeras, and then 7 hydras. Two CCS (in chimeras) have lascannons. there's 7 Infantry squads between three Platoons.

In retrospect, I also considered the chimeras having heavy flamers, not even heavy bolters, so figure in about 36 heavy bolter shots in there too if you want, but I forgot the heavy bolters on Brad's list too, so that bumps up the total a bit.

Frankly, I'd think it would do well enough against Ork Horde. It has more heavy shooting than most other armies have total.

It'll have issues when ghazgull walks up your back board edge with 20 friends, but most semi mobile gunlines do.

Vaktathi wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:
Automatically Appended Next Post:

Vaktathi wrote:Keep in mind that a lot of that IG shooting can be suppressed without having to be killed, where the GK shooting isn't as easily suppressed.

Additionally, what IG list gives you that sort of output?

A list with 3 hydra batteries and a lot of chimeras.

Right, I play a list with lots of hydras and chimeras, but you'd have very little upgrades in a 2k list with that loadout. You'd be taking infantry platoons in chimeras and no upgrades basically, was trying to get a better handle on exactly what was being fielded as it looked rather odd.

Then he runs into an actual mech guard list and see's all the S6 count for nothing and one manticore wrecking his day. Sure you could maybe(BS3 shooting that he can ignore shaken and stunned results) beat those GK but you kind of ignored the rest of the meta.

Look. I hate this discussion, but I am of the opinion that GK are breaking the game. Look at the adepticon results. It's sickening.

The arguement of "this discussion happens after every book" stops here. There was zero discussion about Necrons or DE breaking the game.

The dicussion didn't happen because they didn't wear Power Armor. I'd point out that Necrons have won the same if not more GT's this year than GK's and that's with the book still being in the testing phases for most good players. But they are Xenos so we'll never hear their broken. Similar to how Orks continually perform highly but were never broken

Hulksmash wrote:The dicussion didn't happen because they didn't wear Power Armor. I'd point out that Necrons have won the same if not more GT's this year than GK's and that's with the book still being in the testing phases for most good players. But they are Xenos so we'll never hear their broken. Similar to how Orks continually perform highly but were never broken

Large swathes of the community haven't adopted the book with the rest of it gearing specifically to fight it. They've slid well into a GK centric meta, but the question that's important should be "why are the GKs so popular in the first place."

Of course they aren't, everyone on the internets knows that orks suck. They're just as bad as necrons, dark eldar, tyranids, and all of those other armies that have won major events in the last few months.

ShumaGorath wrote:question that's important should be "why are the GKs so popular in the first place."

I assume it's because new players try to figure out what army they want to play and then see threads on popular wargaming websites with 2000+ posts in them talking about how powerful Grey Knights are.

I play them because I played them when they were called Daemonhunters, and I liked them because they were that unique army no one played or saw.

It's a little late now for that, but that's everyone else's problem, not mine.

Blood and Slaughter wrote:

Seems to me, If you think GK aint broke, you dont want to be honest with yourself because you play the sneaky grey mother fethers.

Seems to me, If you think GK are broken, you dont want to be honest with yourself because you haven't adapted to the sneaky grey mother fethers.

Fixed that for you...

So you play Grey Knights then?

I don't care either way, I play maybe 12 games a year with a couple mates, dont enter tourneys, and havent played against GK!

But I have integrity and I can fething read. And Im merely sticking my oar in and opening my mouth because when a man is right, a man is right. Credit where its due and all that. Shuma opened his mouth early on and it appears he was right on the money.

I don't play that often, but I bought and read the codex, and sat and read this thread, and read tourney reviews when Im relaxing, and browse through army lists and so forth, and it is patently obvious to a layman or someone without a dog in said hunt who can be honest about things, and say that at the very very least GK are overpowered. Maybe not the most for a decade, but overpowered.

Take a Nids list against a top tier GK list and its almost impossible to win! Isn't that the very definition of overpowered? Regardless of your tactical decisions you lose anyway?! Insta gibbing your high-value multi wound models?

You just seem to be taking it personally because you think your hot gak because you can win a table top wargame with an overpowered codex, and most men would rather deny a hard truth than face it.

Newsflash. Even if you are awesome at 40k (which I doubt, because your record is only good with GK) your not really a hot shot anyway. Your just a bloke who plays 40k. Its hardly up there with winning the 100 meter sprint at the olympics is it?

daedalus wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:question that's important should be "why are the GKs so popular in the first place."

I assume it's because new players try to figure out what army they want to play and then see threads on popular wargaming websites with 2000+ posts in them talking about how powerful Grey Knights are.

I play them because I played them when they were called Daemonhunters, and I liked them because they were that unique army no one played or saw.

It's a little late now for that, but that's everyone else's problem, not mine.

Ahh, and their popularity with "new players" explains their repeated placement above curve in most major tournaments? Ignoring final win results they have almost unversally had positive win ratios. A high level of popularity with "new players" would imply a lower win rate, one below 50%, and yet the effect is the opposite.

Do you really think the newbs coming out of the woodwork is why they show up so much? If you do will you admit that inexperienced players are doing better than they should because the book is overpowered?

Orks are sneaky good, because even when you lose to them you usually get to look over at a large pile of dead models. This is somewhat satisfying, even with a Massacre loss. Ignore the fact each one is 6 points a pop - it looks impressive!

The odds to make a re-rolled 5+ is 1/3 + 2/3*1/3 == 5/9 (a little over 50%)

ShumaGorath wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:I don't think "majority rules" really apply to an opinion question...especially not when you look at the results.

31% say they're "the most overpowered book that GW has put out in decades"(something which gets leveled at every book when it comes out).
23% say "No, but they are overpowered."
23% say "No, they are just a good 5th edition book."

Grey Knights is certainly a book with a bit of heft to it, and it certainly can shut down some of the older books with ease. That does not necessarily mean it is overpowered though.

"some of" translating to "Everything except Space Wolves or Imperial Guard with relatively little player skill." So yes, it does mean that.

Exactly. Out of 77% of people, the worst answer is "No they are just good"

calypso2ts wrote:Orks are sneaky good, because even when you lose to them you usually get to look over at a large pile of dead models. This is somewhat satisfying, even with a Massacre loss. Ignore the fact each one is 6 points a pop - it looks impressive!

The odds to make a re-rolled 5+ is 1/3 + 2/3*1/3 == 5/9 (a little over 50%)

Orks are only good because of red paint syndrome(everything has +1" move) and your opponents ability to make the game only go 2 turns if he moves them all one at a time and thinking about each move.

I have noticed that SW and BA players around me who were previously defending there codex as not being overpowered before GK came out are are all now saying "omg GK so overpowered".

mattyrm wrote:

Blood and Slaughter wrote:

Seems to me, If you think GK aint broke, you dont want to be honest with yourself because you play the sneaky grey mother fethers.

Seems to me, If you think GK are broken, you dont want to be honest with yourself because you haven't adapted to the sneaky grey mother fethers.

Fixed that for you...

So you play Grey Knights then?

I don't care either way, I play maybe 12 games a year with a couple mates, dont enter tourneys, and havent played against GK!

But I have integrity and I can fething read. And Im merely sticking my oar in and opening my mouth because when a man is right, a man is right. Credit where its due and all that. Shuma opened his mouth early on and it appears he was right on the money.

I don't play that often, but I bought and read the codex, and sat and read this thread, and read tourney reviews when Im relaxing, and browse through army lists and so forth, and it is patently obvious to a layman or someone without a dog in said hunt who can be honest about things, and say that at the very very least GK are overpowered. Maybe not the most for a decade, but overpowered.

Take a Nids list against a top tier GK list and its almost impossible to win! Isn't that the very definition of overpowered? Regardless of your tactical decisions you lose anyway?! Insta gibbing your high-value multi wound models?

You just seem to be taking it personally because you think your hot gak because you can win a table top wargame with an overpowered codex, and most men would rather deny a hard truth than face it.

Newsflash. Even if you are awesome at 40k (which I doubt, because your record is only good with GK) your not really a hot shot anyway. Your just a bloke who plays 40k. Its hardly up there with winning the 100 meter sprint at the olympics is it?

Classic internet syndrome.

You read things on the internet, have, admittedly, no real world experience with the topic, and yet you're talking down to the guy who plays the game and puts his record up for everyone to see. Classy.

OT Necrons are better than GKs. I have come to this conclusion slowly, since there aren't many Necron players (because they are a xenos faction not because "they aren't zomg OP like GK lulz") in my area. But they pack some serious, serious, competitive elements. I used to think the whole codex was over costed but I am beginning to realize that initial assessment is wrong.