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.

Ok Grey knights are overpowered for the simple reason that they are too cheap for what you get. Take a 5 mand strike squad for 10 more points than a space marine tactical squad you get 5 storm bolters, 5 force weapons and 4 extra attacks. Now throw in that they will likely be strength 5 in assault for free. That is rediculous. This unit should cost about 50-75 points more. Of course this happens all over the codex and not just in the troop choice section.

Are they unbeatble? of course not they are a low count army so they can be out stratagied by better generals especially in objective based games. Also 40k is a dice game and anyone can roll bad for a game or two. They don't sweep tournaments because the best generals don't nessicarily switch to grey knights because they are the most powerful, some people play the army they do for reasons like fluff or whatever. What GK do do is take mediocer players and make them tournament winning or placeing players.

Hopefully with 6th Edition GW will realize their mistakes and make GK cost what they should. I don't think they should buff other codexs like SM but a shrike squad should have a base price of at least 150, and their upgrades should cost an appropriate amount. Do this throughout the codex so GK field about 3/5ths the amount of modles as SM do (as a default and not just when they spam terminators or palidins)and they will be about right

Pony_law wrote:Ok Grey knights are overpowered for the simple reason that they are too cheap for what you get. Take a 5 mand strike squad for 10 more points than a space marine tactical squad you get 5 storm bolters, 5 force weapons and 4 extra attacks. Now throw in that they will likely be strength 5 in assault for free. That is rediculous. This unit should cost about 50-75 points more. Of course this happens all over the codex and not just in the troop choice section.

Are they unbeatble? of course not they are a low count army so they can be out stratagied by better generals especially in objective based games. Also 40k is a dice game and anyone can roll bad for a game or two. They don't sweep tournaments because the best generals don't nessicarily switch to grey knights because they are the most powerful, some people play the army they do for reasons like fluff or whatever. What GK do do is take mediocer players and make them tournament winning or placeing players.

Hopefully with 6th Edition GW will realize their mistakes and make GK cost what they should. I don't think they should buff other codexs like SM but a shrike squad should have a base price of at least 150, and their upgrades should cost an appropriate amount. Do this throughout the codex so GK field about 3/5ths the amount of modles as SM do (as a default and not just when they spam terminators or palidins)and they will be about right

This is why we can't have nice things.

Grey Knights aren't OP or even that meta-shaking-- they're harsh against Drop Pod and DoA lists, but those are largely dead already. I think the new Codex: Necrons will have a much bigger impact on people's lists.

IG are op, SW are op, BA are op, and anything that has come out since orkz. They cleary have more bang for the buck point wise compared to Tau, CSM, etc. It is not fair that gh, ba assault marines are cheaper then 1k sons and do more. Its not fair to eldar that guardians are garbage and not 6 pts like a vastly superior ork boy. Bloodletters are broken cause theyre dirt cheap and carry power weapons with an invuln. Barely more expensive then DCA. Using MtG, WoW etc for balance and most these examples are superficial and flawed since MtG etc are full of balance issues and most the new codexes are can field similar power for the same low costs mean that they are op. The entire game of 40k is busted and broken so lets all complain. I mean it worked s well before when people complained. You telling me orkz and IG are broken when as 4th edition theyre more powerful then some 5th edition stuff? Wheres the creep? Looks like they were so vastly powerful that they still are constantly winning shows you how busted they were.

@Redbeard

You are arguing way beyond the scope of my response. I was responding solely against your idea that units should be balanced against similar units in other codexes.

I believe the best design decision, where possible, is to make most units within a codex viable options (with the knowledge that some choices will be included for the reasons I mentioned before re: why havocs are included but suck). I acknowledge that GW has definitely screwed this up in the past. However, none of these points disprove the idea that you should NOT balance units across codexes.

I do recognize your point that = points = a fair fight. I don't disagree with that general assumption works on a theoretical level. Once I start thinking about the game on a business level and when you factor in the fact that the fluff is hard to completely rewrite to fit design decisions lest the nerds rage, you realize there are certain tradeoffs that need to be made. You could easily make Havocs worth taking, but then you'd run into the problem of overly similar forces I was referring to before. I agree that we already tread a dangerous line of MEQ armies playing similarly, but you're fooling yourself if you really believe BA DOA plays the same as Tony Kopach space wolves plays the same as BT Termie spam, etc. etc. etc. Those armies would play A LOT more similar if all the armies had appropriately-costed tank hunting termies with 2 cyclones per 5 and cheap long fangs.

Again, I totally agree that GW screwed up the points costs of many dark eldar units invalidating many choices and hurting sales of those units. However, your point only proves that internal balance WITHIN codexes is important. We were originally discussing balancing units ACROSS codexes which is completely different.

I'd say we largely agree on the within codex idea with the caveat that some choices are included as sub-par options for fluff / completeness or economic reasons, but units should never be balanced across codexes.

OMG 10 pages, people, GK are out, they are here, deal with it or quit.

gendoikari87 wrote:OMG 10 pages, people, GK are out, they are here, deal with it or quit.

Pretty sure that violates forum rules but still... Truth.

OverwatchCNC wrote:

gendoikari87 wrote:OMG 10 pages, people, GK are out, they are here, deal with it or quit.

Pretty sure that violates forum rules but still... Truth.

It's just people whining because their army isn't new anymore.

People, FACT: Grey knight strike squads are not highly undercosted, at most they are a point or two cheaper than they should be because they lack any serious long ranged anti-tank firepower.

Fetterkey wrote:Grey Knights aren't OP or even that meta-shaking-- they're harsh against Drop Pod and DoA lists, but those are largely dead already. I think the new Codex: Necrons will have a much bigger impact on people's lists.

^ This is the correct answer.

gendoikari87 wrote:

OverwatchCNC wrote:

gendoikari87 wrote:OMG 10 pages, people, GK are out, they are here, deal with it or quit.

Pretty sure that violates forum rules but still... Truth.

It's just people whining because their army isn't new anymore.

People, FACT: Grey knight strike squads are not highly undercosted, at most they are a point or two cheaper than they should be because they lack any serious long ranged anti-tank firepower.

So, the army doesn't have any long range AT guns on dreads, land raiders, razorbacks, stormravens, henchmen, vindicare assassins, conversion beamers, etc? And that's why they need undercosted troops? Many other (most) armies have troops units without long range AT options or with rather poor long range AT options, since when has that been the role of such units and a justification for undercosting their capabilities?

Leenus wrote:
I believe the best design decision, where possible, is to make most units within a codex viable options (with the knowledge that some choices will be included for the reasons I mentioned before re: why havocs are included but suck). I acknowledge that GW has definitely screwed this up in the past. However, none of these points disprove the idea that you should NOT balance units across codexes.

Okay, so codex one is internally balanced, and has two good heavy support options, let's call them Chaos Predators and Havoks. (Chaos Predator == Havoks)

Codex two is also internally balanced, and has two good heavy support choices, let's say, Long Fangs and Predators. (Long Fangs == Predator)

Now, if Long Fangs are better than Havoks, (Long Fangs > Havoks), it doesn't take a whole lot of math to prove that every heavy support option in codex two is better than every heavy support option in codex one.

There's your proof for why you should balance units across codexes. Because if you don't, and you achieve internal balance, then the entire weaker codex, by simple logic, is weaker than the entire stronger one. And there's no way that leads to a balanced game.

I do recognize your point that = points = a fair fight. I don't disagree with that general assumption works on a theoretical level. Once I start thinking about the game on a business level and when you factor in the fact that the fluff is hard to completely rewrite to fit design decisions lest the nerds rage, you realize there are certain tradeoffs that need to be made. You could easily make Havocs worth taking, but then you'd run into the problem of overly similar forces I was referring to before.

I disagree. You're hand-waving away the concept of restricting what is available, as well as the fact that people will simply gravitate to what models and themes they like.

Consider the Chaos 3.5 codex. It had the standard list, as well as eight variant lists representing the differences between the legions. Each one had different restrictions, different strengths, different weaknesses, but, as they came from the same parent codex, you could imagine them as nine different codexes that had ideal unit-to-unit comparisons between them.

Did people play them the same? Not at all. Centurian99 played Night Lords. Kenny from the Wrecking Crew (unsure of his handle here) had a nasty Death Guard army. Blackmoor ran 1000 Sons. Tony Grippando played World Eaters. Inquisitor_Malice ran Word Bearers. I played Emperor's Children. Each of these forces had significantly different play styles, in spite of being balanced against each other.

People still picked their armies to go with a play style they liked, the difference was, they were all viable and balanced (well, at least if you banned the minor psychic powers tables, which most events did). Creating balance does not lead to everyone playing the same, because people don't do that. Creating balance leads to more variety, because there are more viable options. You don't have to rule out all the under-powered stuff right off the bat.

I agree that we already tread a dangerous line of MEQ armies playing similarly, but you're fooling yourself if you really believe BA DOA plays the same as Tony Kopach space wolves plays the same as BT Termie spam, etc. etc. etc. Those armies would play A LOT more similar if all the armies had appropriately-costed tank hunting termies with 2 cyclones per 5 and cheap long fangs.

Again, you're neglecting availability. Space Wolves play differently than DOA Blood Angels because Space Wolves don't have Descent of Angels. DOA will always play differently, whether you cost it appropriately or not, because Space Wolves don't have access to it. Mech Blood Angels plays differently than Mech Space Wolves, not because of the points, but because Mech Blood Angels have scouting transports and fast, mid-ranged options, and Mech Space Wolves do not. These two forces won't play the same, even if you price them appropriately.

Creating game imbalances to achieve variation is poor design. And you can try and justify it as a business decision, but at the end of the day, it's still poor game design.

I'd say we largely agree on the within codex idea with the caveat that some choices are included as sub-par options for fluff / completeness or economic reasons, but units should never be balanced across codexes.

That's such a large caveat that I cannot endorse any part of that statement. The only way to achieve variety is to balance units both within and between codexes. There is zero reason why a predator in one MEQ codex should ever cost more or less than the same predator in another. (Note: Blood Angel predators are fast, and as such, a slight point increase there is expected)

On their basic squads? no. They don't. They don't have access to things like long fangs or devastator squads, or predators with triple lascannons. And again, they aren't undercosted by much. A point or two at most. So yes it is a fair trade off.

Many other (most) armies have troops units without long range AT options or with rather poor long range AT options

name one that isn't ork boyz or Grey hunters. And Grey hunters at least get melta and boyz get rockets.

@ Polonius

A few things. First, sure, "baseless" is a bit over the top. I know you understand my point though, so let's not derail based on that word. Someone posting in this thread and saying "I beat my friend who plays GK" or "I never beat my friend who plays GK" doesn't really help determine if GK are overpowered.

Tournaments are an excellent *indicator* if a book is overpowered. It gives us the best look at GK played in a competitive setting against other competitive lists where people, on average, play to win. It's not perfect. There will be outliers. That's why it's necessary to use a lot of tournaments. But I think showing that GK win an abnormal amount of tournaments (in battle points) is a far, far, far, far, far more persuasive than any personal anecdote or unit by unit analysis. Do you really believe otherwise? Are you telling me that if GK won every tournament, you would say "they're not overpowered" ?????? I 100% doubt it.

I will point out that in 7th edition fantasy, people cried out that Daemons were overpowered. Whines? Truth? Who knows. What I do know is that people did some reviews of tourney results and you'd see that daemons were a hugely disproportionate number of the top spots. That evidence helps convince me that there was something to the complaints. Other supporting evidence would be that ETC gave them ~200 points less and they STILL did excellent in battle points. There are a lot of variables in that data, but it still helps tease out some interesting things.

Now, a lot of this comes down to your definition of overpowered. To me, overpowered means that an army is miles stronger than the competition (e.g. 7th daemons at release). The game will never be truly balanced. GK might be slightly stronger than the competition, but certainly not over the top. I believe that if they were really over the top, the results would start to reflect in tournaments as it did with 7th daemons.


@Everyone else. You *cannot* analyze units in vacuum. Saying a 6 point guardian is a ripoff compared to a 6 point ork when it comes to stats / weapons, only shows me you do not understand the concept of unit interactions within a codex. To use an extreme example to a highlight the point: If the ork codex's strongest gun was str 4, the 6 point boy certainly would not be imbalanced. The strength of the core boy would balance against the lack of AT (similar to the current situation). Again, extreme example, but I hope you get the point. Likewise, the 6 point guardian is actually far more powerful than the common ork boy if the eldar book suddenly has a farseer that can cast a power of 2+ invulnerable save or what have you. However, that eldar army is not necessarily imbalanced compared to the orks, if the farseer costs 800 points.

You *must* look at units in context to the entire army. No battle is fought 1 unit vs 1 unit. Additionally, it's far wiser to debate list versus list to really see if there's any imbalance. Far too often people spout off how GK can get a scoring dreads, storm ravens with crazy pysker killing missiles, unkillable paladins, crazy shrouding psykers. Far too often, those people forget to mention that you can only fit half of that stuff in a list, because of points. So while many books have "answers to everything" (IG is an amazing example), you can't fit in an answer to everything when you actually build the list.

@Leenus Your at everyone point has been stated over and over but has fallenon deaf ears. The gk are op crowd wont hear that so your wasting your breath. Look at every thread that says gk re op and pt cost is their main arguement because nothing else even remorely does their arguement any justice.

As far as victory pts, you also arent mentioning the large volume of players playing the new codex so they have more oppurtunity for pts. 1 tau player shows up and 5 gk show up.. not accurate assumptions til both have closer number of tau-gk players. This book is way too new to even use its "new" status be an arguement for them winning alot. They have a higher probability with more players.

Leenus wrote:
Tournaments are an excellent *indicator* if a book is overpowered.

Not always. What if one unit is a book is seriously overpowered, and the rest of the book is underpowered. Tournament players would spam that one unit, and probably win a lot of games. Non-tournament players would wonder why they lost so much.

@Everyone else. You *cannot* analyze units in vacuum.

You're right. But, you can analyze units in the role they're designed for. You cannot compare Howling Banshees to Long Fangs. It's easier to compare Dark Reapers to Long Fangs. It's downright trivial to compare Devastators to Long Fangs.

Saying a 6 point guardian is a ripoff compared to a 6 point ork when it comes to stats / weapons, only shows me you do not understand the concept of unit interactions within a codex.

To say that a 6 point guardian is not a ripoff compared to a 6 point ork and blame it on unit interactions shows me that you don't understand how to appropriately price things.

The ork codex actually illustrates this concept fairly well. An ork boy is 6 points. He gets shot, he falls down. A Big Mek is 35 points. He can fix your vehicle. A Big Mek can take a piece of wargear that gives a 5+ save to all those ork boyz. That piece of wargear is more expensive that the mek. Good players will attempt to maximize the return on the investment in the mek by getting multiple units under the shield. That's tactics. But, appropriate costing doesn't say the ork should be 8 points because he might get a cover save. The cost of the apothecaries in the Blood Angel codex is another good example. You might argue that they're too cheap for what they provide, but the cost is put on the force multiplier, not applied to the whole force because it might get multiplied.

Comparing a guardian to an ork boy is absolutely a reasonable comparison to make. Both have few special rules. Both are the core troops for their force, and are therefore required to hold objectives. Both are generalist units that excel at nothing. Any escalators that exist within the scope of the army should not be accounted for in their base price, they should be accounted for by the escalator. If the Eldar don't have a farseer, they get no benefit from psychic powers. If they have no avatar, they are not fearless. If the orks have no mek, they do not get a cover save. Why should these potential escalators be a consideration in the cost of the unit? Why isn't a warboss versus an autarch worth consideration?

@ Redbeard

Except here's where your "proof" falls apart. Because the codexes are aimed to be balanced across the codex as a whole, ideally a FA, T, HQ or E slot will be better in the Chaos codex than the equivalent in the SW codex.

GW doesn't always do the best job at balancing the codexes with each other, but, again, it's the army as a WHOLE that matters, not the individual units. I guess you're right that "they fail to compare units across codexes" but I'd argue that they "fail" because the comparison is completely unnecessary.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
You're telling me I don't understand how to appropriately price things, but you're telling me to ignore the effects units will have on each other when used in unison? You have to be trolling me at this point.

So there's no confusion, I think a 6 pt guardian *IS* a ripoff compared to an ork boy. However, it's not because the ork is better than the guardian. It's because of how all the other units interact with the individual units.

I began to type a bunch of examples, but if you truly believe that army wide interactions don't matter, I think we're done debating.

Leenus wrote:
You're telling me I don't understand how to appropriately price things, but you're telling me to ignore the effects units will have on each other when used in unison? You have to be trolling me at this point.

Not at all. I think I laid out examples of how to account for things working together. A unit should have a fair price. If something else in the codex makes it worth more, then that something should be priced in accordance with the advantage it brings.

You should not be penalized with a high base-price on a unit because of the potential that something else will make it more valuable. That only reduces variety as it forces you to take the multiplier effect in order to get your fair value.

You appear to be saying that you believe an ork should cost more because he will have a mek to give him a cover save. I'm saying he shouldn't, because I'm not required to take the mek, and the price on the forcefield is where the adjustment should be made, not the price of the boy. We may end up at the same price for mek + forcefield + boyz, but my boyz are still useful without the mek, whereas your boyz would be overpriced without him.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Leenus wrote:I began to type a bunch of examples, but if you truly believe that army wide interactions don't matter, I think we're done debating.

No please, share your examples. I do think that army-interactions matter. I simply believe that the cost for the interactions needs to be paid in the least restrictive place.

People I have done the math.

GREY KNIGHTS ARE NOT UNDERCOSTED if you want the proof I have the calculator.

@redbeard Thats speaking with a lot of hind sight and seein the effects. Thats years of viewing a codex. There is no way you can be that accurate unless you did live demos for years. In a controlled setting you can balance things but once released it wil have a lot of different new variables added. So then what band units in certain pt values? Limit the use of vehicles? Yea Idk how well thatll work with the current price of models and trying to bring in new players. Card games can do that do the the lower prices but this would be a hard sell.

Grey knights aren't OP... we just don't know how to counter them yet.

I wish people would stop complaining about every new book. Everyone was gak scared when the Blood angels codex came out, the space wolves codex.. yet I can pull an easy win against anything either throws at me, because I know how to counter them

give it time, GK will not seem so OP anymore.

@Draigo

I'd say the power of the book has a direct influence on the number of people that play that book. Tau aren't played as much, because they clearly suck. There's variance for "new" army and viability of different builds, but are you really telling me an overpowered army that warrants this much screaming is remotely likely to be heavily underrepresented at a tournament? Absolutely not.

@ Redbeard

Ok, so the boys aren't costed in relation to the mek. However, you're flat out saying the Mek is costed in relation to the effect it has on the boys. That sounds like to me that units are costed relative to the effect they have on the rest of the army (proving my point... see above).

We might then realize that guardians are overcosted compared to orks, because the guardians' "synergy cost" is included in their cost (not the farseer), whereas the orks' "synergy cost" is included in the mek. So what? They got the individual unit costs wrong, but they got the aggregate army cost right. That only further proves that we should evaluate ARMY versus ARMY, which, if you read above, is my exact point. If they got the Army cost wrong, then we have located an overpowered army, which is the point of this thread.

If you want to prove me wrong, attack the core argument.

@Leenus Ig, sw, ba and orkz even now still have a strong following. thats more telling then an army less than a yr old. its also helped that draigo armies have low cost so it is always suggested.

Leenus wrote:
We might then realize that guardians are overcosted compared to orks, because the guardians' "synergy cost" is included in their cost (not the farseer), whereas the orks' "synergy cost" is included in the mek. So what?

So what? This is clearly a limiting factor on the codex. If I pay a fraction of the cost of a farseer, even when I don't take one, whenever I use guardians, then guardians are priced incorrectly. I am forced to use a unit that I may not want to use, if I want to get full value from my guardians. The mek provides synergy for any other unit in the codex, as such, his upgrade cost is correctly charged when you take him. The farseer can also provide synergy for any unit in the codex, yet this synergy cost is only tacked onto the price of guardians? You cannot see how this is flawed? Or you just think it's okay to be flawed, provided that occasionally we get a workable list?

They got the individual unit costs wrong, but they got the aggregate army cost right. That only further proves that we should evaluate ARMY versus ARMY, which, if you read above, is my exact point. If they got the Army cost wrong, then we have located an overpowered army,

I thought your "exact" point was that you cannot compare units from different codexes. In fact, I believe your exact words, at some point, were you should NOT balance units across codexes. Your "exact" point seems to keep changing. It's hard to hit a moving target. My point is that you can, and you should, if you want a balanced game.

which is the point of this thread.

Heh. This thread is like a winding river. I don't think the thread can be said to have a point.

If you want to prove me wrong, attack the core argument.

I'm not attacking anything, nor do I care whether you think you're right or wrong. You are defending a design methodology that can be proven to be flawed based on the idea that if you take some specific units, you end up with a workable whole. The fact that every once in a while a blind squirrel finds a nut does not mean we should all strive to be blind squirrels.

gendoikari87 wrote:People I have done the math.

GREY KNIGHTS ARE NOT UNDERCOSTED if you want the proof I have the calculator.

lol. Nice.

I'm not attacking anything, nor do I care whether you think you're right or wrong. You are defending a design methodology that can be proven to be flawed based on the idea that if you take some specific units, you end up with a workable whole. The fact that every once in a while a blind squirrel finds a nut does not mean we should all strive to be blind squirrels.

Prove? on what methodology, where is your evidence, because I can prove via my point cost calculator that they are in fact, costed very close to what they should be.

I think GK is one of the best designed codices in fifth edition. The codex covers all it's bases - any inherent weakness can be negated in one way or another... much like eldar back in the days of third edition. There are lots of good builds - you aren't restricted to one specific type of list to field a competitive army. Other codices, especially most of the xenos races, we're not as well designed or apprently to the same degree of effort... take Tyranids as the classic example how not to design a codex. It seems GK have the ability to easily beat certain armies without much effort. If all codices were designed to same degree as GK I don't think there wouldn't be this discussion.

gendoikari87 wrote:Prove? on what methodology, where is your evidence, because I can prove via my point cost calculator that they are in fact, costed very close to what they should be.

Wait, you were serious?

gendoikari87 wrote:On their basic squads? no. They don't. They don't have access to things like long fangs or devastator squads, or predators with triple lascannons. And again, they aren't undercosted by much. A point or two at most. So yes it is a fair trade off.

That's not really how game balance is supposed to work. If you're really really good at one thing and a support option would make you ridiculous, undercosting the already really good options you do have isn't a way to do that.

And as is, they're already able to pack in more fearsome long range AT power than several other armies that don't get the super cool CC shock troops to boot either.

name one that isn't ork boyz or Grey hunters.

Really?

Sisters of Battle (nothing long ranged but Heavy Bolters, unless you want to count Multi-Melta's as long range AT guns which I don't think most do)

Eldar (oh sweet, single BS3 heavy weapon in Guardian squads!)

Necrons (they have Gauss, but that's not long range AT nor particularly good AT)

Chaos Daemons (didn't see that one?)

Tyranids (again, didn't see that one?)

Tau Empire (pulse rifles and kroot...no organic AT weaponry at all much less long ranged AT guns)

Even most of the SM books aren't by any means gifted with long range AT guns in Troops units. Hooray we get a single heavy weapon that necessitates 4-9 other dudes being paid for and doing nothing when it's used! The same applies to Chaos Space Marines only moreso because they don't even get the option to combat squad. I can't recall the last time I saw heavy weapons in basic CSM squads, IIRC it was back in 4E.


Only two armies can pack lots of potential long range AT capability into troops units. The Imperial Guard because, well, it's what they do, and...Grey Knights utilizing Henchmen and Jokaero.

And Grey hunters at least get melta and boyz get rockets.

And 24" S7 AP4 Rending 2-4 shot Psycannons somehow don't count at all here...? Also, lets not forget Henchmen and their 3 melta ability and Jokaero

People I have done the math.

Uh, sweet...what on earth did you base everything on?

GREY KNIGHTS ARE NOT UNDERCOSTED if you want the proof I have the calculator.

Nice of you to tell us so forcefully, show us the math then and the likely highly subjective valuation given to wargear/rule upgrades.

Guardians are 8 points and not 6.

The GK codex came out this Spring. Before many serious tournament players had a chance to make the army for the 2011 tournament season. To use tourney results from this past year to "prove" anything is insincere at the least.

I know a lot of top players nationwide and almost none of them used GK this past season. In fact there is only one.

Why are so few top players using GK? Some players just finished a new army and want to play that. Others feel that playing the GK will dimish their wins in the eyes of their peers. There are a host of reasons not to play them last season.

Right after a codex comes out the majority of people using that codex are not top tourney players but people who want to gain an edge as fast as possible. I can go to a 24 person tourney where there will be 8 GK players, but maybe 1 of those players has won an overall before. That's what you see at tourneys right now.

Starting with Adepticon, I predict you will see the full force of the GK codex. It is to tempting to abuse the Adepticon TT HQ rules with GK's. I suspect there will be mostly two types of team lists. Grek Knights and those designed to beat Grey Knights (if there is such a thing).

From the 1000 point Adepticon Team Tournament armies the 1850-2000pt tournament armies for 2012 will grow out of those and next year will showcase Grek Knights.

That's my prediction.

pretre wrote:

gendoikari87 wrote:Prove? on what methodology, where is your evidence, because I can prove via my point cost calculator that they are in fact, costed very close to what they should be.

Wait, you were serious?

Yes. It's not perfect but it gets very very close to the 5th edition stuff. Things like grey hunters have to be adjusted for after the fact due to codex's not being developed in a vaccume though.

Nice of you to tell us so forcefully, show us the math then and the likely highly subjective valuation given to wargear/rule upgrades.

I already did, look back by about a page, and for the second point see above.