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.

Well, OBVAIOUSLY, jy2 is actually part of some super secret cabal trying to secretly delude the world, as we know it, in to accepting that Grey Knights are actually well balanced in comparison with other 5th edition armies. You're probably actually the ringleader of said organization, Pretre! I'm on to you!

The only question left is, why?

It also bears mentioning that he has used all the different basic types of GK armies in these reports.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

daedalus wrote:Well, OBVAIOUSLY, jy2 is actually part of some super secret cabal trying to secretly delude the world, as we know it, in to accepting that Grey Knights are actually well balanced in comparison with other 5th edition armies. You're probably actually the ringleader of said organization, Pretre! I'm on to you!

The only question left is, why?

I would have gotten away with it too, if it wasn't for you, daedalus, and your're stupid dog!

pretre wrote:
And I disagree with your basic premise of comparing just the entries. Comparing lists is much better.

I see you have backed up this opinion with some well-reasoned thoughts.

I'm an engineer. And in engineering, which is not all that different from game design (both follow principles of costs and interactions within systems), there is the widespread application of unit tests. You don't just throw components together and hope that the sum of those components works, you test the components individually, in addition to testing the whole. Note, I'm not saying there is no merit in comparing lists. But, there is also value in comparing entries, and unfortunately, this is something GW just fails to do.

Realistically, in terms of how they are applied, what are the differences between long fangs, blood angel devastators, space marine devastators, and chaos marine havoks? There is absolutely no reason that you cannot compare those units. You can say, well, the blood angels might get furious charge. Or that the devastators can add an ablative wound. The havoks can take autocannons. And the long fangs can split fire. And, once you've done that, you can analyze which of those impact the role that the unit serves on the field. Ablative wounds are nice - yet you do pay for them. Splitting fire is very nice. Having night vision is also nice on a sit-back-and-shoot unit. Once you've done this, then you can modify the costs of the units, maintaining balance. This isn't that hard. And, spending even a little time doing it would avoid the situation where the equivalent unit with the most advantages for its role also costs the least. It's no surprise that you see Long Fangs in almost every competitive space wolf list, but I've never seen havoks in a competitive chaos marine list (if there even is such a thing anymore).

A good design team would do this. A good design team would realize that havoks aren't as good as long fangs, and then they're adjust the cost of the unit appropriately. Maybe it's one point less per man. Or five points less per weapon. But a good designer wouldn't just throw a bunch of units into the codex and hope that a workable list falls out, anymore than a well-designed car doesn't just haphazardly throw components together and hope to get good MPG.

Compare this to other games, both tabletop and computerized. M:tG has a defined pricing model. You don't get certain effects for less than so many mana. WoW has the idea of Damage-per-second. There may be different routes to get there, but at some point, there's a defined model for how much damage a character can put out. These companies aren't just hoping to get it right, they're testing. And, they're comparing their new designs with established baselines.

Going to your 500 pt comparison:

SM Chaplain (100) or a generic librarian for his hood
5 Marines w combimelta
Razorback w Las/Plas
5 Marines w combimelta
Razorback w Las/Plas
2 Landspeeders with dual heavybolters.

You can have your 4 psicannons with their 24" range. I get 4 heavy bolters and 2 lascannons at range.

Agreed the GK will own me if I get out of my vehicles but I don't intend to. I should kill about 4 GK each turn without cover or 2+ with. Without cover I will kill the GK in 5 turns. To meet or match my mobility the GK is going to have to run and that means he is not going to be shooting at me for at least one turn.

Go to 1000 pts and probably I am going to add two rhinos and two autocannon dreads to the GK. The marine, why not add 2 more razorbacks and 4 more dual HB land speeders or convert the 6 speeders into 3 typhoons.
If the marine can keep it at long range, it is 8 S8 autocannon shots versus 4 S9 lascannon shots and 4 S8 missile shots (or 36 S5 heavy bolter shots). Go to 1500 and the GK is almost forced into taking another troop choice, the marine can comfortably add two more troops in las/plas razorbacks and now can look at diversifying with heavy slot choices, more speeders or elite slot choices.

To me, it is advantage SM all the way.

I would not bring up WoW or MtG for ideas of balance. Are were you not there for their balance problems? People constantly gave blizzard a hard time for needing to "nerf" damage by dual weapon fighters, beastform druids, deathknights in general with extra emphasis on unholy. Magic has had more woes then anyone can care to count trying to find a balance. Its why during tournaments for the longest time they restricted only the newest 3 editions for tournament but still failed because they allowed the "core" sets to be used which reprinted some of the games most problematic cards such as birds of paradise.

So no it isnt that easy. There has never been a mass game that makes everyone happy or suits everyone. Those games even had sets and things done at the same time and failed to achieve the zen you all think the gk broke so severely.

Instead of hating the newer codexes which clearly outshine the old why not question why going into 6th there still are 4th edition codexes or whether the new edition will do anything or add new issues since there are so many yet resolved in 5th.

Redbeard wrote:
Realistically, in terms of how they are applied, what are the differences between long fangs, blood angel devastators, space marine devastators, and chaos marine havoks? There is absolutely no reason that you cannot compare those units. You can say, well, the blood angels might get furious charge. Or that the devastators can add an ablative wound. The havoks can take autocannons. And the long fangs can split fire. And, once you've done that, you can analyze which of those impact the role that the unit serves on the field. Ablative wounds are nice - yet you do pay for them. Splitting fire is very nice. Having night vision is also nice on a sit-back-and-shoot unit. Once you've done this, then you can modify the costs of the units, maintaining balance. This isn't that hard. And, spending even a little time doing it would avoid the situation where the equivalent unit with the most advantages for its role also costs the least. It's no surprise that you see Long Fangs in almost every competitive space wolf list, but I've never seen havoks in a competitive chaos marine list (if there even is such a thing anymore).

How much of that is bad game design, and how much of it is old codex syndrome? I'm docking points if you say they're the same thing.

A good design team would do this. A good design team would realize that havoks aren't as good as long fangs, and then they're adjust the cost of the unit appropriately. Maybe it's one point less per man. Or five points less per weapon. But a good designer wouldn't just throw a bunch of units into the codex and hope that a workable list falls out, anymore than a well-designed car doesn't just haphazardly throw components together and hope to get good MPG.

The thing about MtG is that the rules for it are fairly static. Beyond additional keywords like phasing (shows you when I stopped playing the game) there's not really been any major rules changes since early on. Warhammer changes meaningfully every few years, and we're on the cusp of it happening again. Your comparison is between one of the first 5th edition codices, and what could well be the first codex designed with 6th edition changes in consideration. A similar comparison might be between Tau and Orks. I'm not saying that I expect that every tac marine to get a power weapon in 6th edition, but I wouldn't be surprised if the playing field gets leveled when time comes.

Redbeard wrote:

pretre wrote:
And I disagree with your basic premise of comparing just the entries. Comparing lists is much better.

I see you have backed up this opinion with some well-reasoned thoughts.

TBH, I had started to write a whole treatise with two different lists and thought differently of it. Looks like I didn't choose poorly after all.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
And I second Draigo's points on WOW/MTG. I've played both extensively (although not at the competitive level) and balance is something constantly strived for and never found.

There's a reason that MTG only allows recent editions (codex creep) and that WoW has pages of patch updates every patch (moving target syndrome). It is because they are constantly trying to balance their games and failing (although they do try harder and get a more balanced product than GW).

And again, if GK are so OP where's the actual evidence. Still no proof there.

Draigo wrote:I would not bring up WoW or MtG for ideas of balance. Are were you not there for their balance problems? People constantly gave blizzard a hard time for needing to "nerf" damage by dual weapon fighters, beastform druids, deathknights in general with extra emphasis on unholy.

A general rule of game design is that people complain far more if you ever reduce anything than if you boost things. People will always complain about nerfing. You'll hear far less complaints about over-boosting - even in this thread there are plenty of people arguing that GK are not overpowered, or, at least not overly over powered. At least Blizzard did the right thing and made that nerf.

Magic has had more woes then anyone can care to count trying to find a balance. Its why during tournaments for the longest time they restricted only the newest 3 editions for tournament but still failed because they allowed the "core" sets to be used which reprinted some of the games most problematic cards such as birds of paradise.

I disagree with your analysis. MtG has restricted tournaments to latest sets to keep the game revolving, not because they're failing to balance it. Furthermore, when a card does slip past their playtest process, they take steps to restrict and/or ban it from competitive play.

Instead of hating the newer codexes which clearly outshine the old why not question why going into 6th there still are 4th edition codexes or whether the new edition will do anything or add new issues since there are so many yet resolved in 5th.

I don't hate newer codexes. I hate their lackluster approach to game design (or, perhaps their sales-centric approach). It is indeed a good question why the rules cycle is shorter than the codex revamp cycle. It's also a good question why they believe that they can redo all the rules without redoing all the costs at the same time. They do this version after version, basically ensuring that at any snapshot point in time, at least three armies are seriously outdated. It's a very good question, and the only answer that I can come up with is that they don't care. They make rules to sell models, not to make a good game. They pay lip service to the idea that equal points means balanced game, but in reality, that's not their goal, their goal is to drive sales of the most recent models. And in this, at least, they succeed.

daedalus wrote:
The thing about MtG is that the rules for it are fairly static. Beyond additional keywords like phasing (shows you when I stopped playing the game) there's not really been any major rules changes since early on. Warhammer changes meaningfully every few years, and we're on the cusp of it happening again.

Yes. The thing about cars is that the design for them is fairly static as well. MtG's main rules are well-written and allow for them to run a cycle every year. Warhammer (either version)'s rules are poorly written and require a full rewrite every four or five years. The codexes cycles through even slower than that.

Your comparison is between one of the first 5th edition codices, and what could well be the first codex designed with 6th edition changes in consideration....

But because of their design structure, this is always an issue. Some codexes are always very dated. Some codexes are always from a version ago. (Sometimes, some are at risk of being two version ago). This is only good for driving sales of newer models. It's a horrible way to design a game.

pretre wrote:
And I second Draigo's points on WOW/MTG. I've played both extensively (although not at the competitive level) and balance is something constantly strived for and never found.

As opposed to GWs games, where balance is never striven for in the first place.

And again, if GK are so OP where's the actual evidence. Still no proof there.

Well, define "so". GK are more powerful than Space Marines. The proof is found in comparing like units. GK terminators are outright better than SM Terminators. GKSS are given far more than four points of advantages over Tac Marines. GK vehicles are significantly harder to suppress than Space Marines vehicles for a marginal cost boost (fortitude costs less than SM extra armour).

Do these things make then "so" over-powered? I don't know, what's the criteria based on. Maybe GK are not overpowered, and SM are underpowered. I don't have much of an opinion in terms of this. What I do know is that, if GK are the baseline, then lots of other codexes are underpowered, and if Space Marines are the baseline, the GK are overpowered - but so are some other codexes.

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

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

Redbeard wrote:I disagree with your analysis. MtG has restricted tournaments to latest sets to keep the game revolving, not because they're failing to balance it. Furthermore, when a card does slip past their playtest process, they take steps to restrict and/or ban it from competitive play.

Look at what you get for one and one black now and what you got for it 2-5-10 years ago. There's definitely creep.

As opposed to GWs games, where balance is never striven for in the first place.

You're being flip, but yeah, GW has always focused on the hobby first. It is one of the greatest points of annoyance for competitive players.

Well, define "so". GK are more powerful than Space Marines. The proof is found in comparing like units. GK terminators are outright better than SM Terminators. GKSS are given far more than four points of advantages over Tac Marines. GK vehicles are significantly harder to suppress than Space Marines vehicles for a marginal cost boost (fortitude costs less than SM extra armour).

Do these things make then "so" over-powered? I don't know, what's the criteria based on. Maybe GK are not overpowered, and SM are underpowered. I don't have much of an opinion in terms of this. What I do know is that, if GK are the baseline, then lots of other codexes are underpowered, and if Space Marines are the baseline, the GK are overpowered - but so are some other codexes.

I give you that a GK SS is more powerful than a tactical marine. No one disputes that. What we dispute is that this makes them 'OMG OP' and unbalanced. The empirical data shows that although a GK is more powerful they are still balanced by points costs and available options in the codex in the competitive scene.

So then the interesting question is, if when comparing SS to Tacs, does the fact that they're more powerful impact the game? Does the one argument of SS/Tac imbalance prove out some fundamental imbalance throughout the entire codex? I think that's what Pretre is getting at. Maybe I'm wrong.

The only place we have that we can collect reliable information from concerning that is in the tournament scene, because anything else we obtain is going to be of players of disparate or suspect levels of skill, and still no one has shown that they've been doing disproportionately better than any of the other power armies. The battle reports jy2 puts out are good, but it would seem one person's experiences with them, however well chronicled, probably shouldn't count as evidence.

That tells me that one of the following is occurring: The best players stick with the codex they're most comfortable with; the dice rolling has more significance than army composition; or that the power imbalance present is superficial.

Redbeard wrote:
Well, define "so". GK are more powerful than Space Marines. The proof is found in comparing like units. GK terminators are outright better than SM Terminators.

TH/SS Terminators say "whut?".

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

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

QFT

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

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

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

Orks is the most ovepowered book GW put out in the last decade. They are still strong, but with 4th rules/missions they were just brutal.

daedalus wrote:That tells me that one of the following is occurring: The best players stick with the codex they're most comfortable with; the dice rolling has more significance than army composition; or that the power imbalance present is superficial.

Well said.

Some armies just can't handle some GK builds, I think that is more of a problem with the actual armies rather than GK, though GK are definitely a very solid army.

Hasn't this always been the case in 40k though? There have always been certain armies/units that people took/spammed and steamrolled certain other armies while getting steamrolled themselves by the right build.

The internet seems to go in circles/cycles where something new comes out or some combo is publicized and people go "OP OP!" as perhaps a knee jerk reaction. I think AT BEST we can say GK are OP compared to certain armies (sadly, nids) but in general, they are fairly balanced.

I REALLY wish GW would emphasize army balance and streamline their codex/army/rules designs, compared to GW, Privateer press is OP =(.

mortetvie wrote:Some armies just can't handle some GK builds, I think that is more of a problem with the actual armies rather than GK, though GK are definitely a very solid army.

Hasn't this always been the case in 40k though? There have always been certain armies/units that people took/spammed and steamrolled certain other armies while getting steamrolled themselves by the right build.

This has always been the way of things. Build an unbalanced list and you will get steamrolled.

I REALLY wish GW would emphasize army balance and streamline their codex/army/rules designs, compared to GW, Privateer press is OP =(.

Isn't PP the one where you bring two army lists just in case you're playing against the guy who has the counter to your 'my caster/jack/crazy combo wins the game in one turn' list?

Lol, yes in some tournaments you can bring 2 lists but I've usually only played with 1.

And I tend to go for an ultra balanced list, especially with my Eldar (Try to have something for everything) and it works out really well...

I think it takes a certain intuition and vision to build a genuinely competitive and balanced list. I've found, for example, the GK lists I've run that had a little mix of things do a lot better than focused spam lists.

mortetvie wrote:Lol, yes in some tournaments you can bring 2 lists but I've usually only played with 1.

And I tend to go for an ultra balanced list, especially with my Eldar (Try to have something for everything) and it works out really well...

I think it takes a certain intuition and vision to build a genuinely competitive and balanced list. I've found, for example, the GK lists I've run that had a little mix of things do a lot better than focused spam lists.

Yep. TAC lists have always fared better in the long run than tailored or FOTM lists. I think once people get over the statblock shock for GK, they will realize that.

Funnily enough - after reading Post to Post...I have a few things I would like to venture an opinion on...

1.Augustus has the casual fun gamer opinion down Pat, they are OP'd no doubt.

2. Redbeard is an absolute Guru - Engineers know best.

3.Mortevie is one astute cookie.

4. When Vanilla Marine Codex V6 comes out - this thread will seem tame.

I am loving this eight page geek internet arguement fest, all over which toy soliders are the most powerful. FYI it is not Grey Knights

If your signature is at all accurate you have at least $10,000 in miniature toymans. You sir do not have the right to be calling anyone "geek".

collecting toy soliders isn't geeky, ok I'll give you playing with them is geeky, however arguing about them (when things are plainly clear) is uber geek. It's just a fight over the internet between two no names, when I say that I mean both are just people on the other side of the PC who they will probably (or never want to) meet.

Oh, three of those armies are gone. Perhaps call it $6,000 maybe?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Btw, love that sig. Robo-Chicken from the old Sonic cartoon.

mercer wrote:when I say that I mean both are just people on the other side of the PC who they will probably (or never want to) meet.

This is a valid observation, but I don't argue my point against "the other side" for the sake of trying to convince them. It became clear enough by page 2 that attempting to change their minds wasn't possible. I keep beating my head against the wall for the lurker's sake. I'm trying to limit and counter hyperbole, which is something you might have noticed tends to be rampant around here.

I just have one question.....for the LOVE of GOD why is this thread not dead yet....it is always back up....and I dont even care about GK.....however you got me thinking....how much DO i have in mini's....

I have mentioned this before but my biggest issue with gk is that they can beat daemons without the daemons placing a model. Imagine if the next eldar codex has altioc rules that go "Due to there experience fighting necrons on a 4+ each necron unit taken counts as destroyed instead of being deployed as the rangers attacked them when slumbering."

DevianID wrote:I have mentioned this before but my biggest issue with gk is that they can beat daemons without the daemons placing a model. Imagine if the next eldar codex has altioc rules that go "Due to there experience fighting necrons on a 4+ each necron unit taken counts as destroyed instead of being deployed as the rangers attacked them when slumbering."

And that's a legitimate complaint. I've completely agreed through the entire thread, Warp Quake is stupid. Incredibly stupid. It should be a 4+ to suffer a mishap, or be a (mildly expensive) upgrade, or something like that.

About the only condolences I can offer on that subject is that at least in order to cover the board with it on turn 1/2, you'd have to build a rather lackluster list.

Why do people post threads like this? In history, armies have been considered unbeatable (German Wehrmacht, Napoleon's armies) then someone figured out a way to beat them, and it wasn't such a big deal. There are weak points in the GK codex, players just have identify them or come up with strategies to defeat them.

DoctorZombie wrote:Why do people post threads like this? In history, armies have been considered unbeatable (German Wehrmacht, Napoleon's armies) then someone figured out a way to beat them, and it wasn't such a big deal.

In most cases, it was effectively by playing with what would be, in a 40k sense, significantly more points (case in point, it was hard for the Wehrmacht to win when for every tank they have in the field they'd have to face 10-15 or more between the Soviets, Americans and Brits)

Not really an option in most 40k games. (and yeah, they definitely were kinda big deals )

Vaktathi wrote:

DoctorZombie wrote:Why do people post threads like this? In history, armies have been considered unbeatable (German Wehrmacht, Napoleon's armies) then someone figured out a way to beat them, and it wasn't such a big deal.

In most cases, it was effectively by playing with what would be, in a 40k sense, significantly more points (case in point, it was hard for the Wehrmacht to win when for every tank they have in the field they'd have to face 10-15 or more between the Soviets, Americans and Brits)

Not really an option in most 40k games. (and yeah, they definitely were kinda big deals )

Last time I checked IG can still take a significantly larger number of tanks than GK. IG is also one of the worst matchups for GK, so... I think your own example proves the previous point. Find a way to beat it and quit whining about it, or wait until the next codex comes out because this thread will be reborn over and over. "Black Templars are the most overpowered book GW has put out in a decade." "Chaos Legions are the most overpowered book GW has put out in a decade." "Tau are the most overpowered book GW has put out in a decade." "Eldar are the most overpowered book GW has put out in a decade." "Daemons are the most overpowered book GW has put out in a decade." blah blah blah.

Again, this point is made entirely moot by the fact that in 40k Chaos 3.5 and Orks were clearly more OP than GK are now. They were both released in the last decade. And if this thread is about GW books as the title suggests and not just 40k GW books than Daemons in Fantasy during 7th edition is clearly the most OP book in the last decade and I would argue EVER.