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.

Experiment 626 wrote:Actually, against those 'o so cleaver GK players, the mishap chart suddenly only has 2 possible results.

And clearly AlmightyWalrus, you constantly choose to ignore the point that you only need 1 freaking 10 man squad to screw over a Daemon army! God forbid they get combat squaded to cover more area.
You don't need to cover the whole table, just force the Daemons to drop 24" or more away from you and you're laughing.

Which is why I'm comparing it to fighting Space Wolves as Black Templars: you're not going to lose automatically, you're just going to have to fight uphill to win. Which, of course, you'd know if you hadn't ignored what I wrote in the first place.

Testify wrote:If you remove Vendettas you can't really call the IG codex unbalanced at all. Even if you mech up with AV12 spam, each time one of them moves there's a 1 in 6 chance it will be immobilised if you play with decent amount of terrain.
And when they're popped, the unit inside will die, pin and flee, in that order.
And the less said about blobs the better.

i think if you removed vendettas, melta/plasma vets, hydras and maybe manticores the codex would not be that great, but we do have those things, and while we might not be OP compared to SW and GK, IG is definitely a very strong codex

ZebioLizard2 wrote:

captain collius wrote:

daedalus wrote:There was quite a bit of groaning here locally about SW after they dropped. I'm guessing it went like IG. Nowadays, I don't feel like there's nearly as many people who get as huffy about IG as there was a couple years ago.

There almost always is. New codex=grumbles it should be a part of our understanding of the hobby. Heck when i started playing and my brother showed me what brightlance did I thought that was OP its just the way things are.

Necrons havn't quite caused the grumbling of Gray Knights.

True but Necrons don't seem that bad ) because we haven't had a major tournament where they are at full strength I think that now that all the models have been released you will see Necrons make jumps up the table.

They are not OP, they are just very good probably on par with SW.

dajobe wrote:

Testify wrote:If you remove Vendettas you can't really call the IG codex unbalanced at all. Even if you mech up with AV12 spam, each time one of them moves there's a 1 in 6 chance it will be immobilised if you play with decent amount of terrain.
And when they're popped, the unit inside will die, pin and flee, in that order.
And the less said about blobs the better.

i think if you removed vendettas, melta/plasma vets, hydras and maybe manticores the codex would not be that great, but we do have those things, and while we might not be OP compared to SW and GK, IG is definitely a very strong codex

Hydras are only "OP" if your opponent has a gak load of AV 11. Assuming they move, they can shoot one autocannon, and S7 really isn't great against AV12 or higher.
Melta/plasma vets aren't as good as many think because there's a one in six chance of them being immobilised in any turn (certainly any turn you intend them to be useful), and when destroyed the troops inside are usually dead. It's not like like rhinos where you need to pop the transport THEN the guys inside.
Manticores are good, but not OP.
The only thing in the guard codex that's genuinly "OP" is the Vendetta. 130 points for three AV12 TL lascannons is pretty nifty.

Necrons take a better player to do better things with. The way the army is designed requires smarter play. GK require no such thing. Purifier spam your way to victory.

You pretty much have a tier list of books right now. Looking something like this.

S tier. Grey Knights.
A tier, SW, BA, IG,Necrons,DE.
B tier, Templars, vanilla marines, eldar. Orks, DA.
C tier, Daemons, Nids, Sisters. Tau. Chaos.

The difference between is tier is noticable but you can beat an army in the tier above you. Trying to beat an army two tiers above you is like smashing your face against a wall and hoping the wall breaks first.

EDIT: forgot a few races.

IcedAnimals wrote:GK require no such thing. Purifier spam your way to victory.

Which is exactly the thing people said about SW and IG before hand. Remember when Leafblower degenerated into a term for any IG list containing one or more chimeras and hydras? Apparently not. Your list also lacks DA, who I'm personally more terrified of than GK, any day.

Yeah, you may also want to include CSM and Orks.

dajobe wrote:i think if you removed vendettas, melta/plasma vets, hydras and maybe manticores the codex would not be that great, but we do have those things, and while we might not be OP compared to SW and GK, IG is definitely a very strong codex

Its my theory that the IG codex will get a boost in the 6th edition ruleset. Here are my reasons why I suspect this will be the case.

* Rapid fire changes help blob squads. 4 PGs in a squad are 8 STR 7 AP2 shots at 24". Combined with 4 LC/ML, that's a ton of dead MEQ.
* GW is pushing flyers. I expect them to be a critical component of 6th. IG have the best flyer in the game.
* AV 14 vehicles are rumored to get a buff. I expect we will see the "Return of the Russ"
* Hydras, while more fragile with less cover saves, will be extremely effective on smacking down flyers.
* Removing KPs and replacing it with VPs helps IG. A 55 point chimera is a great buy, even if used as a portable roadblock.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

Experiment 626 wrote:Actually, against those 'o so cleaver GK players, the mishap chart suddenly only has 2 possible results.

Only if they're cheating.

No, they aren't. Going by RAW, it's perfectly legal, (and a downright TFG move), to place any unit rolling a 'misplaced' result within the range of a quake bubble which then once again triggers warp quake's effect. (because your 'misplaced' unit for all intents and purposes is still making a 'legal deep strike move'.)

No forum I've been on and no one I've brought up the problem with can state that this is an illegal use of the rules. You're simply a dirty, filthy hobo if you do pull that one on a Daemon player. (or anyone deploying via deep strike for that matter!)

Experiment 626 wrote:And clearly AlmightyWalrus, you constantly choose to ignore the point that you only need 1 freaking 10 man squad to screw over a Daemon army! God forbid they get combat squaded to cover more area.
You don't need to cover the whole table, just force the Daemons to drop 24" or more away from you and you're laughing.

So it makes it more difficult for you to win? DOes that mean noone should ever get DS defence?

Experiment 626 wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:

Experiment 626 wrote:Actually, against those 'o so cleaver GK players, the mishap chart suddenly only has 2 possible results.

Only if they're cheating.

No, they aren't. Going by RAW, it's perfectly legal, (and a downright TFG move), to place any unit rolling a 'misplaced' result within the range of a quake bubble which then once again triggers warp quake's effect. (because your 'misplaced' unit for all intents and purposes is still making a 'legal deep strike move'.)

Arguably you're not Deep Striking anymore, you're being placed as the result of a Mishap, which is not the same thing. This has been through YMDC several times without a consensus though, so let's leave it at that.

Experiment 626 wrote:
No, they aren't. Going by RAW, it's perfectly legal, (and a downright TFG move), to place any unit rolling a 'misplaced' result within the range of a quake bubble which then once again triggers warp quake's effect. (because your 'misplaced' unit for all intents and purposes is still making a 'legal deep strike move'.)

No forum I've been on and no one I've brought up the problem with can state that this is an illegal use of the rules. You're simply a dirty, filthy hobo if you do pull that one on a Daemon player. (or anyone deploying via deep strike for that matter!)

This must be wrong. You're not deep striking after the mishap has occurred, you're deploying the unit, albeit in a deep strike formation, but not re-deep striking them. Otherwise what is preventing me from just deepstriking the unit within 1" of an enemy unit, triggering the mishap again?

Also, at the risk of being pedantic, Warp Quake does say it triggers after rolling scatter. You don't roll scatter for Misplaced.

Experiment 626 wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:

Experiment 626 wrote:Actually, against those 'o so cleaver GK players, the mishap chart suddenly only has 2 possible results.

Only if they're cheating.

No, they aren't. Going by RAW, it's perfectly legal, (and a downright TFG move), to place any unit rolling a 'misplaced' result within the range of a quake bubble which then once again triggers warp quake's effect. (because your 'misplaced' unit for all intents and purposes is still making a 'legal deep strike move'.)

No forum I've been on and no one I've brought up the problem with can state that this is an illegal use of the rules. You're simply a dirty, filthy hobo if you do pull that one on a Daemon player. (or anyone deploying via deep strike for that matter!)

Experiment 626 wrote:And clearly AlmightyWalrus, you constantly choose to ignore the point that you only need 1 freaking 10 man squad to screw over a Daemon army! God forbid they get combat squaded to cover more area.
You don't need to cover the whole table, just force the Daemons to drop 24" or more away from you and you're laughing.

So it makes it more difficult for you to win? DOes that mean noone should ever get DS defence?

There's a huge difference between deep strike defenses like the C'tan 6" power and/or wargear that knocks out the effects of icons/teleport homers within a short distance, and the strait up & outright d-bag'ish -you that is warp quake...

Sure it's not 100% impossible for me to win when I'm forced to deploy 24" or so away from the waiting GK line that easily outguns me. Me actually winning the game though would be a minor miracle!

daedalus wrote:

IcedAnimals wrote:GK require no such thing. Purifier spam your way to victory.

Which is exactly the thing people said about SW and IG before hand. Remember when Leafblower degenerated into a term for any IG list containing one or more chimeras and hydras? Apparently not. Your list also lacks DA, who I'm personally more terrified of than GK, any day.

People said that about the previous books RIGHT after they came out. But stopped saying it after a couple months once the "sky stopped falling" GK have been out for over a year. The sky is falling excuse stopped being viable last year. And thanks for the reminder about DA. I am surprised I forgot them since they are my cousins favorite army and one I play quite often. However nothing about DA compares to GK. DA can field a lot of terminators. Terminators are about the worst thing GK can field. That says something when the best thing DA can field is equivalent to the worst thing GK are fielding.

IcedAnimals wrote:
People said that about the previous books RIGHT after they came out. But stopped saying it after a couple months once the "sky stopped falling" GK have been out for over a year. The sky is falling excuse stopped being viable last year.

Actually, Leafblower came out some time after the IG release. There's a BOLS post still bitching about it in April 2010, namely that Darkwynn was just seeing Leafblower clone after Leafblower clone at Adepticon that year. The IG codex came out in May 2009, by the way.

Sound familiar? It should.

And as far as SW go, I still cringe every time I set up 'Nids across from them. Long Fangs piss me off more than Psyflemen, at least, with respect to MCs. At least I get the armor save from the psyfleman. Don't even get me started on that rules trainwreck that is JotWW.

And thanks for the reminder about DA. I am surprised I forgot them since they are my cousins favorite army and one I play quite often. However nothing about DA compares to GK. DA can field a lot of terminators. Terminators are about the worst thing GK can field. That says something when the best thing DA can field is equivalent to the worst thing GK are fielding.

Frankly, I'm not sure I know how to craft a response to an argument the basis of which is "DA terminators are equivalent to GK terminators". I really don't. I'm sorry.

Sometimes I really wonder if people play the same 40k I do. I mean, I realize that we call it the same thing, we use (I assume) the same books. I just don't get it.


As an unrelated thought, perhaps DA are not as, uh... traumatic, I guess, to you because you play them all the time? How often do you play against GK, just for a baseline comparison? Your cousin DOES know about the updated FAQ for them, right?

I agree that Grey Knights are really powerful but imo Necrons are worse. Think out of all the battle reports and all the games i've played against them I only seen the loose once or twice. Necrons just run over all GK armies on Dakka for example. So to only make alo tof posts regarding GK seems a bit silly.

Formosa wrote:
hell yeah some armies or all armies should have some form of DS defence, however no army should have acess to an ability or power that can stop and ENTIRE army from deploying at all (emphasis on "can" as in "may")

So Tau are too cheesy and should be nerfed? Those infiltrating Kroot, man! Too much!

IcedAnimals wrote:

daedalus wrote:

IcedAnimals wrote:GK require no such thing. Purifier spam your way to victory.

Which is exactly the thing people said about SW and IG before hand. Remember when Leafblower degenerated into a term for any IG list containing one or more chimeras and hydras? Apparently not. Your list also lacks DA, who I'm personally more terrified of than GK, any day.

People said that about the previous books RIGHT after they came out. But stopped saying it after a couple months once the "sky stopped falling" GK have been out for over a year. The sky is falling excuse stopped being viable last year. And thanks for the reminder about DA. I am surprised I forgot them since they are my cousins favorite army and one I play quite often. However nothing about DA compares to GK. DA can field a lot of terminators. Terminators are about the worst thing GK can field. That says something when the best thing DA can field is equivalent to the worst thing GK are fielding.

Im and expert DA player, havent moved from the codex since it came out (have tried a few other armies but always stuck with DA), now im not gonna jump down your neck cos i think i know what you tried to say.

(normal) terminators for GK are not a great option and for DA its there best option, the worst option for GK is equivilant to the best option from the DA book.

I think thats what you were getting at, if so i disagree, but this is because of the DA book not the GK one to be fair, our termies should be the best in the game bar paladins... no one else should have anything close to DW termies, but this is a fluff thing not a rules one.

With a bit of luck the new edition will help adress some of the DW weakness (and ravenwing) VS some of the newer armies

Experiment 626 wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:

Experiment 626 wrote:Actually, against those 'o so cleaver GK players, the mishap chart suddenly only has 2 possible results.

Only if they're cheating.

No, they aren't. Going by RAW, it's perfectly legal, (and a downright TFG move), to place any unit rolling a 'misplaced' result within the range of a quake bubble which then once again triggers warp quake's effect. (because your 'misplaced' unit for all intents and purposes is still making a 'legal deep strike move'.)

No forum I've been on and no one I've brought up the problem with can state that this is an illegal use of the rules. You're simply a dirty, filthy hobo if you do pull that one on a Daemon player. (or anyone deploying via deep strike for that matter!)

Then you havent *actually* read the rules, because when you Place a unit after a mishap it is NOT deepstriking, just being placed in a valid deepstrie foramtion - ie concentric circles. Try that again. Anyone who tries that is cheating you.

For those who dont get why DA Termies > GKT, then they need to understand what "stormshields" are and what they do. The TH instakilling the, at best, 4++ save paladins (whcih are usually in the minority) are also a bit of a help. Fearless is also quite a big help. Cyclones, which also instakill paladins, are quite good. And bikers who can scout and give you homers to drop said termies in with no scatter first turn also do quite well.

AlmightyWalrus wrote:Space Wolves do everything Templars do except Black Tide and Assault Terminators better, often for cheaper as well. It's a major disadvantage, just as Warp Quake leaves Daemons at a major disadvantage. That said, since you obviously didn't read the thread I'll say it again: total board-wide WQ requires a specific type of list that isn't very common and still isn't guaranteed. Tau can infiltrate large numbers of Kroot that at maximum coherency makes deep striking dangerous indeed, and yet no one is raging about how OP Tau are (for good reason). Warp Quake, dangerous as it is, isn't an instantly killing power. You've got 3 results on the mishap table after all.

Furthermore, I find the "tons of Marine models" strange: GK don't use the same Infantry models as other Space Marine Codices, and yet you felt the need to bring this up for some reason. The comment suggests to me that you're of the opinion that Space Marines get some sort of power boost compared to other Codices. I'm not going to debate this in this thread, as it's off topic, but suffice it to say that I feel that this isn't true.

There is a difference between Deep Strike being dangerous and Deep Strike being impossible.

As for your second paragraph you obviously have ignored the fact that aside from the basic SM codex, the various chapter specific books are all in the top levels of OP competitiveness these days apparently.

Skriker

IcedAnimals wrote:

daedalus wrote:

IcedAnimals wrote:GK require no such thing. Purifier spam your way to victory.

Which is exactly the thing people said about SW and IG before hand. Remember when Leafblower degenerated into a term for any IG list containing one or more chimeras and hydras? Apparently not. Your list also lacks DA, who I'm personally more terrified of than GK, any day.

People said that about the previous books RIGHT after they came out. But stopped saying it after a couple months once the "sky stopped falling" GK have been out for over a year. The sky is falling excuse stopped being viable last year. And thanks for the reminder about DA. I am surprised I forgot them since they are my cousins favorite army and one I play quite often. However nothing about DA compares to GK. DA can field a lot of terminators. Terminators are about the worst thing GK can field. That says something when the best thing DA can field is equivalent to the worst thing GK are fielding.

Then He's not doing it right. GK terminators can get beaten by DW anytime you have a decent DW player. Remember we can spam (and we have to) Missiles and Stormshields we can even put them on the same model.

This does not stop Grey Knight from having a counter to everything.

Basically the problem is a average grey knights TAC list is far more capable than most lists. However a TAC DW list is far harder to kill as we can bring massed 3++

I don't understand why everyone thinks GK is OP. I still haven't lost to GK and I play 'Nids.

DragonRider wrote:I don't understand why everyone thinks GK is OP. I still haven't lost to GK and I play 'Nids.

Well done, no really well done, nids vs GK is a uphill struggle.

but one example of you doing well vs GK doesnt help the myriad of other less skilled nid players doing as well, but like i said kudos

DragonRider wrote:I don't understand why everyone thinks GK is OP. I still haven't lost to GK and I play 'Nids.

Care to share a batrep and/or lists?
Not that I'm questioning you, I just always want to learn.

Regarding this "glass cannon" and "low model count" business - what about Sternguard? Sternguard are 25 points a model before upgrades, and a 5 point combi-melta upgrade per unit drags you up to 30 pts a model. The advantage is that this unit has the offensive flexibility to take on a wide range of opponents. Why are Sternguard so widely recommended and so seriously considered by Space Marine players?

Could it be that a player first pays out the wazoo for Power Armor, seeing as it's the second best armor save in the rulebook, and then pays separately for offensive capability? Whyy. What a thought.

Suffice to say, any C:SM list with a Tactical-Sternguard or Tac-Termie combo is going to suffer from similar manpower limitations to C:SM.

But if you'd rather run a list chalk-full of vanilla Tacs with Bolters and a 4-4-4 / 3+ line, be my guest if it's so bloody awesome.

I mean - realistically, what kind of model count are we actually talking about here? Are we talking about a serious difference in terms number of transports taken, model count, survivability, between the two Codexes?

Yikes, talk about stil missing the wood for the trees...

They are a source of concentrated melta - THE weapon of 5th edition. This option has to be paid for, and if youve been paying attention means that costs more than if it were standard

They paying 7ppm more than a tac squad for the options they can take IN THE CONTEXT OF the codex they are in

Something being 30ppm doesnt make it a bad option in and of itself. I'd hope you would realise this....

Skriker wrote:
As for your second paragraph you obviously have ignored the fact that aside from the basic SM codex, the various chapter specific books are all in the top levels of OP competitiveness these days apparently.

Skriker

What is this, I don't even? Did you just call Dark Angels and Black Templars OP?

DragonRider wrote:I don't understand why everyone thinks GK is OP. I still haven't lost to GK and I play 'Nids.

What sort of lists did you have, what did he have? I'm not doubting you or anything but that's an uphill struggle to say the least...

AlmightyWalrus wrote:

Skriker wrote:
As for your second paragraph you obviously have ignored the fact that aside from the basic SM codex, the various chapter specific books are all in the top levels of OP competitiveness these days apparently.

Skriker

What is this, I don't even? Did you just call Dark Angels and Black Templars OP?

Yes... yes he did... even i cant believe this one lol

Fenric wrote:I agree that Grey Knights are really powerful but imo Necrons are worse. Think out of all the battle reports and all the games i've played against them I only seen the loose once or twice. Necrons just run over all GK armies on Dakka for example. So to only make alo tof posts regarding GK seems a bit silly.

How are Necrons a more powerful codex than Grey Knights? And I'm not quite sure how they run over all GK armies.

Formosa wrote:

AlmightyWalrus wrote:

Skriker wrote:
As for your second paragraph you obviously have ignored the fact that aside from the basic SM codex, the various chapter specific books are all in the top levels of OP competitiveness these days apparently.

Skriker

What is this, I don't even? Did you just call Dark Angels and Black Templars OP?

Yes... yes he did... even i cant believe this one lol

Note to self: DA=OP when the book is one of the older books in use. Also BT=OP even though there book was released 7 YEARS AGO.