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.

 Hollow wrote:
The snake is chewing on its own tail.

A poll appears on Dakka (A place where an tiny minority of people interested in 40k post) A tiny minority of those people, vote in that poll. Then a thread is made claiming that the result of that poll is somehow conclusive evidence that something is a certain way. No.

Mmm hmm.

Despite the very loud opinions of a very small group of players, the problems with the Codex are often overstated and it's worth seeking opinions about them elsewhere. Bolter and Chainsword, for instance, has banned whining about Grey Knights in response to the tone here on Dakka, you can actually have an intelligent discussion about GK over there. Various YouTube channels have Battle Reports that provide some fairly insightful commentary on how they actually perform, Tabletop Assault and Tabletop Tactics come to mind. Even Miniwargaming brings up some good points every once in a while.

But most of the complaints you will read about GK here on Dakka are pure garbage. Just malcontents endlessly repeating the same nonsense and telling each other good job. Easily triggered with obvious deficits in reading comprehension and quantitative reasoning. They all want you to read their 50 page thread and feel slighted if you can't recall the details of their moaning from 9 months ago.

The Codex has serious flaws, no doubt. GW could salvage Grey Knights if they chose to. I think it comes down to cost of units and mechanics, and here's some of the ways they could be made better:

1) Improve Terminators: 3 wounds or better saves through rerolls / extra dice. I have 20 of them and any AP negative, d2 weapon kills them. Since there's so few, they don't really stand a chance.

2) Improve Psychic: Remove restrictions around using the same power more than once a turn in matched play. If you think about it, each unit is paying the same for psychic powers, but once you get past 7 units, there's nothing left to cast. And, quite frankly, some of the powers are not worth casting.

3) Improve Psychic Powers: Vortex of Doom affects the nearest model and, RAW, would often result in hitting the unit that cast the power. Let them pick a model in 18 inches. There's other problems with other powers, but I don't need to go into them.

4) Improve the Psycannon / Psilencer: ... with a focus on anti-vehicle. It's needed. This could make Purgation squads relevant.

5) A Stratagem that improves the chances for a charge for a unit: maybe with an extra dice? It's sorely needed.

6) Release Agents of the Imperium: ... and let's see some synergy with Inquisitors. I almost want to say any criticism of Grey Knights is going to be premature until we see this book, there's a lot of room to improve. So long as there's an option for cheap henchman and some buffs from Inquisitors (beyond morale,) I would rather see changes there. Fundamentally, the cost of Strike Squads and Intercessors is about right compared to other PA units. What they are missing is a cheap source of buffs, and I would like to have a complete picture of the benefits of a full Inquisition army before calling for massive changes.

After all, this is 8th edition, and mixing your armies is the new norm. The people baying for 'pure' competitive Grey Knights armies really need to stop living in the past.

A.T. wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:
Points - Overcosted

A lot of content, but as a designer feel i'd zone out before I hit the half way mark.

The (hopefully constructive) point being that nobody at GW is going to want to read through that to try and figure out what you are making a good argument for being bad, and what is just bad because everything is bad.

I feel like if GW's designers are going to slap a "tl;dr" on feedback then we have much bigger problems than Grey Knights underperforming.

A.T. wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:
Points - Overcosted

A lot of content, but as a designer feel i'd zone out before I hit the half way mark.

The (hopefully constructive) point being that nobody at GW is going to want to read through that to try and figure out what you are making a good argument for being bad, and what is just bad because everything is bad.

That wasn't written for designers, it was written for another poster.

I wouldn't waste my time with writing a comprehensive post for the designers. They would not read it, and I know this. They don't know who I am, and they have no reason to place value on my feedback, just like I have no reason to place value on Grey Knights. So we find ourselves at an impasse; I want a better army, and GW is focusing on their newer releases.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 techsoldaten wrote:

Despite the very loud opinions of a very small group of players, the problems with the Codex are often overstated

I love reading comments like this, purposefully vague, and contrarian, with no data to back it up. So i'll ask you:

What is the appropriate way to characterize the problems with the codex?

Please use examples & data to support your claims.

 Marmatag wrote:

A.T. wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:
Points - Overcosted

A lot of content, but as a designer feel i'd zone out before I hit the half way mark.

The (hopefully constructive) point being that nobody at GW is going to want to read through that to try and figure out what you are making a good argument for being bad, and what is just bad because everything is bad.

That wasn't written for designers, it was written for another poster.

I wouldn't waste my time with writing a comprehensive post for the designers. They would not read it, and I know this. They don't know who I am, and they have no reason to place value on my feedback, just like I have no reason to place value on Grey Knights. So we find ourselves at an impasse; I want a better army, and GW is focusing on their newer releases.

And people who actually do deal with the design teams at GW occassionally do offer advise on how to constructively offer advice in a way that the team would consider.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lo6VMmmdnyo

This video talks about providing feedback for the new FAQ. It offers some hints about the tone one should consider when addressing the rules team.

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:
I actually shot them a note after the assault cannon nerf.

To paraphrase, it was essentially this:

"Hello,

I understand that the cost of assault cannons is increasing. I believe this is because of Razorbacks, and Storm Ravens over performing.

However, this performance is generally in the context of lists with access to hit & wound rerolls. For instance, Roboute Guilliman and the Ultramarines are where these vehicles are seen in tournaments.

Grey Knights armies also depend on these vehicles, but don't have the same access to rerolls as other armies. Is there going to be a quid-pro-quo kind of balance change for Grey Knights? Because this army was made worse by the recent change, yet is already chronically under represented.

Best,
me"

Well - its a good guess as to why they increased the cost. You'd really expect though that with Guilli costing 360 points - his own cost justified the cost of the rerolls. They still felt a futher need to increase his cost an additional 40 points even after every unit he was used to buff got increased as well.

I have a theory about whats going on right now at GW. They have a boner for jetbikes (thats about as far as I got).


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kharneth wrote:

 Hollow wrote:

Leo_the_Rat wrote:
So, Hollow, who do you feel has the worst codex army and why? .

I don't think in this way. The idea that there is a "worst" codex smacks of juvinelieve, simplistic reasoning devoid of nuance or understanding. It's like asking which is worse out of the rock, paper or scissors. It's situational. Everything about it is situational. I have seen GK beat most other factions in person and you can see them do well v multiple other factions online in dozens of batreps. Using the most recent GT results from London is sooooo silly it actually makes my head hurt. The game is situational. It's why keyboard warrior's crying continually about balance drives me up the wall... mainly because they don't seem to have a grasp for what they are complaining about or what they are asking for. Currently, all factions can build lists to beat all other factions. GK can beat all other factions, but it is situational.

What do you have to say regarding Marmatag's analysis? Exaggeration?

It's 100% on point.

Gulliman is problematic because he's a force MULTIPLIER, in a points costing situation where balance is purely additative.

 Marmatag wrote:

 techsoldaten wrote:

Despite the very loud opinions of a very small group of players, the problems with the Codex are often overstated

I love reading comments like this, purposefully vague, and contrarian, with no data to back it up. So i'll ask you:

What is the appropriate way to characterize the problems with the codex?

Please use examples & data to support your claims.

No.

Even in the challenge you've laid out, any evidence I could offer is anecdotal. You asking me to persuade you that your self-image is incorrect doesn't work. It's not possible to do that.

So, again, garbage. Grow up and stop trying to bait people into endless arguments about why your opinion is superior.

 techsoldaten wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:

 techsoldaten wrote:

Despite the very loud opinions of a very small group of players, the problems with the Codex are often overstated

I love reading comments like this, purposefully vague, and contrarian, with no data to back it up. So i'll ask you:

What is the appropriate way to characterize the problems with the codex?

Please use examples & data to support your claims.

No.

Even in the challenge you've laid out, any evidence I could offer is anecdotal. You asking me to persuade you that your self-image is incorrect doesn't work. It's not possible to do that.

So, again, garbage. Grow up and stop trying to bait people into endless arguments about why your opinion is superior.

Again, we have comprehensive tournament data for over a year now which proves the point, ignoring of course the mathematical analysis you can effortlessly perform when constructing an Imperium list.

You're acting like this is entirely made of opinion, when it's not. When we say options are inefficient, that is demonstrably true. When we say GK are not doing well in tournaments, that is demonstrably true.

And you aren't saying anything in the first place. "Things are often overstated." That's your reading of it. Why is your opinion of anyone's response worth a scotch farthing? Unless you can show why it's overstated, you're just making noise.

 Hollow wrote:

Leo_the_Rat wrote:
So, Hollow, who do you feel has the worst codex army and why? .

I don't think in this way. The idea that there is a "worst" codex smacks of juvinelieve, simplistic reasoning devoid of nuance or understanding. It's like asking which is worse out of the rock, paper or scissors. It's situational. Everything about it is situational. I have seen GK beat most other factions in person and you can see them do well v multiple other factions online in dozens of batreps. Using the most recent GT results from London is sooooo silly it actually makes my head hurt. The game is situational. It's why keyboard warrior's crying continually about balance drives me up the wall... mainly because they don't seem to have a grasp for what they are complaining about or what they are asking for. Currently, all factions can build lists to beat all other factions. GK can beat all other factions, but it is situational.

Everything is situational. Yes, it's possible that a little league baseball team from Turkey could beat the NY Yankees while playing in a major league park while playing for their lives. Possible yes, probable no. That is the laziest form of answer that can be given. The thing is most people would like to have a good chance of winning with their armies regardless of who they play. Playing with mono-GK usually means that the probability of winning is less than the average.

Basically what you've written is that you think this thread is a waste of time and energy but you have to put your 2 cents in just to show everyone that that is the case. You put forth no effort to answer the question and have not added anything of a constructive nature to the discussion. Why did you even bother to post?

 Hollow wrote:

Leo_the_Rat wrote:
So, Hollow, who do you feel has the worst codex army and why? .

I don't think in this way. The idea that there is a "worst" codex smacks of juvinelieve, simplistic reasoning devoid of nuance or understanding. It's like asking which is worse out of the rock, paper or scissors. It's situational. Everything about it is situational. I have seen GK beat most other factions in person and you can see them do well v multiple other factions online in dozens of batreps. Using the most recent GT results from London is sooooo silly it actually makes my head hurt. The game is situational. It's why keyboard warrior's crying continually about balance drives me up the wall... mainly because they don't seem to have a grasp for what they are complaining about or what they are asking for. Currently, all factions can build lists to beat all other factions. GK can beat all other factions, but it is situational.

I had a retort to the OP, but this post pretty much sums it up and saves me a lot of typing. Slow golf clap for Hallow.

I do however disagree with the general notion of "Currently, all factions can build lists to beat all other factions.".

 techsoldaten wrote:

 Hollow wrote:
The snake is chewing on its own tail.

A poll appears on Dakka (A place where an tiny minority of people interested in 40k post) A tiny minority of those people, vote in that poll. Then a thread is made claiming that the result of that poll is somehow conclusive evidence that something is a certain way. No.

Mmm hmm.

Despite the very loud opinions of a very small group of players, the problems with the Codex are often overstated and it's worth seeking opinions about them elsewhere. Bolter and Chainsword, for instance, has banned whining about Grey Knights in response to the tone here on Dakka, you can actually have an intelligent discussion about GK over there. Various YouTube channels have Battle Reports that provide some fairly insightful commentary on how they actually perform, Tabletop Assault and Tabletop Tactics come to mind. Even Miniwargaming brings up some good points every once in a while.

But most of the complaints you will read about GK here on Dakka are pure garbage. Just malcontents endlessly repeating the same nonsense and telling each other good job. Easily triggered with obvious deficits in reading comprehension and quantitative reasoning. They all want you to read their 50 page thread and feel slighted if you can't recall the details of their moaning from 9 months ago.

The Codex has serious flaws, no doubt. GW could salvage Grey Knights if they chose to. I think it comes down to cost of units and mechanics, and here's some of the ways they could be made better:

1) Improve Terminators: 3 wounds or better saves through rerolls / extra dice. I have 20 of them and any AP negative, d2 weapon kills them. Since there's so few, they don't really stand a chance.

2) Improve Psychic: Remove restrictions around using the same power more than once a turn in matched play. If you think about it, each unit is paying the same for psychic powers, but once you get past 7 units, there's nothing left to cast. And, quite frankly, some of the powers are not worth casting.

3) Improve Psychic Powers: Vortex of Doom affects the nearest model and, RAW, would often result in hitting the unit that cast the power. Let them pick a model in 18 inches. There's other problems with other powers, but I don't need to go into them.

4) Improve the Psycannon / Psilencer: ... with a focus on anti-vehicle. It's needed. This could make Purgation squads relevant.

5) A Stratagem that improves the chances for a charge for a unit: maybe with an extra dice? It's sorely needed.

6) Release Agents of the Imperium: ... and let's see some synergy with Inquisitors. I almost want to say any criticism of Grey Knights is going to be premature until we see this book, there's a lot of room to improve. So long as there's an option for cheap henchman and some buffs from Inquisitors (beyond morale,) I would rather see changes there. Fundamentally, the cost of Strike Squads and Intercessors is about right compared to other PA units. What they are missing is a cheap source of buffs, and I would like to have a complete picture of the benefits of a full Inquisition army before calling for massive changes.

After all, this is 8th edition, and mixing your armies is the new norm. The people baying for 'pure' competitive Grey Knights armies really need to stop living in the past.

You really need to learn to statistic. That poll had 620 votes. 397 (over 60%) said Grey Knights we're the worst. A sample size of 600 gives you an error rate of about 4%. So even if the error swung ENTIRELY in your favor, over 50% of the playerbase at large believes GK to be the worst.

Now, you could try attacking the poll as not being a representative sample, but that requires you to actually put forward something besides 'nah, they be whiners'.

You'd have to have almost 400 people creating accounts just to say Grey Knights are the worst. That's pretty unrealistic for any Grey Knight defender to actually believe.

 Marmatag wrote:

 techsoldaten wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:

 techsoldaten wrote:

Despite the very loud opinions of a very small group of players, the problems with the Codex are often overstated

I love reading comments like this, purposefully vague, and contrarian, with no data to back it up. So i'll ask you:

What is the appropriate way to characterize the problems with the codex?

Please use examples & data to support your claims.

No.

Even in the challenge you've laid out, any evidence I could offer is anecdotal. You asking me to persuade you that your self-image is incorrect doesn't work. It's not possible to do that.

So, again, garbage. Grow up and stop trying to bait people into endless arguments about why your opinion is superior.

Again, we have comprehensive tournament data for over a year now which proves the point, ignoring of course the mathematical analysis you can effortlessly perform when constructing an Imperium list.

You're acting like this is entirely made of opinion, when it's not. When we say options are inefficient, that is demonstrably true. When we say GK are not doing well in tournaments, that is demonstrably true.

And you aren't saying anything in the first place. "Things are often overstated." That's your reading of it. Why is your opinion of anyone's response worth a scotch farthing? Unless you can show why it's overstated, you're just making noise.

A better way of looking at it may be to stay on topic. Bringing up the issue of tournaments has nothing to do with the tendency of players on Dakka to overstate their point.

I have not discussed points (the cost of a unit) related to Grey Knights units on Dakka, except to say that Strike Squads are costed comparatively to Tacticals. Feel free to go through my posts, but there's not much to be learned in analytic conversation with the 'Grey Knights Experts' on Dakka. So I don't bring it up.

So what is this mathematical analysis you speak of? Perhaps you are confusing my posts with those of someone else.

With regards to the value of my opinion, one might ask why you believe yours are worth so much. The post you put in this thread clearly took time and effort to put together. It's not the first time I've read the same points from you, my impression is they are repeated tirelessly in the Tactics thread or anywhere else on Dakka that someone dares to discuss Grey Knights as something other than a colossal failure.

I like knowing the people I interact with on forums. It is hard for me to understand anyone putting an hour or so of their time into repeating the same points for the upteenth time, only for Leo The Rat to say what a spot on analysis that was. I am betting Leo would be willing to say the same thing were you to simply post a link to the original moaning and bellyaching - have you asked him? It could save everyone a lot of energy.

And why does Leo The Rat's praise matter so much in the first place? He's just another player posting on Dakka who seems a little effusive. The pronounced need for external validation usually stems from some other deficit in one's life, I can't imagine bad rules for Grey Knights drive you to behave this way. There must be something else...

But I really wish to avoid changing the subject.

Going back to the point about things being overstated, please understand it's not the points you make, it's the overwhelming, full court press to convince everyone how bleak your vision for Grey Knights is, combined with your absolute dedication to distorting everything someone else says. In this thread, you have offered me an impossible challenge, you have misquoted my content on the site, you have told me my opinion does not matter, and said everything that possibly could be said about Grey Knights has already been discussed.

Most people would call this trolling. I spent some time dissecting SlowTank's activity last week, maybe you are hoping I would do the same with yours.

But you're not worth it. I mean, you're the person who trash talks the army you supposedly collect. One might wonder why, if they are this bad, you haven't moved on.

"What do you think is the worst?"
and
What is the worst.

Are two entirely different things.

 Hollow wrote:
"What do you think is the worst?"
and
What is the worst.

Are two entirely different things.

It probably is objectively the worst. I just don't think it's "unplayable garbage".

Audustum wrote:

 techsoldaten wrote:

 Hollow wrote:
The snake is chewing on its own tail.

A poll appears on Dakka (A place where an tiny minority of people interested in 40k post) A tiny minority of those people, vote in that poll. Then a thread is made claiming that the result of that poll is somehow conclusive evidence that something is a certain way. No.

Mmm hmm.

Despite the very loud opinions of a very small group of players, the problems with the Codex are often overstated and it's worth seeking opinions about them elsewhere. Bolter and Chainsword, for instance, has banned whining about Grey Knights in response to the tone here on Dakka, you can actually have an intelligent discussion about GK over there. Various YouTube channels have Battle Reports that provide some fairly insightful commentary on how they actually perform, Tabletop Assault and Tabletop Tactics come to mind. Even Miniwargaming brings up some good points every once in a while.

But most of the complaints you will read about GK here on Dakka are pure garbage. Just malcontents endlessly repeating the same nonsense and telling each other good job. Easily triggered with obvious deficits in reading comprehension and quantitative reasoning. They all want you to read their 50 page thread and feel slighted if you can't recall the details of their moaning from 9 months ago.

The Codex has serious flaws, no doubt. GW could salvage Grey Knights if they chose to. I think it comes down to cost of units and mechanics, and here's some of the ways they could be made better:

1) Improve Terminators: 3 wounds or better saves through rerolls / extra dice. I have 20 of them and any AP negative, d2 weapon kills them. Since there's so few, they don't really stand a chance.

2) Improve Psychic: Remove restrictions around using the same power more than once a turn in matched play. If you think about it, each unit is paying the same for psychic powers, but once you get past 7 units, there's nothing left to cast. And, quite frankly, some of the powers are not worth casting.

3) Improve Psychic Powers: Vortex of Doom affects the nearest model and, RAW, would often result in hitting the unit that cast the power. Let them pick a model in 18 inches. There's other problems with other powers, but I don't need to go into them.

4) Improve the Psycannon / Psilencer: ... with a focus on anti-vehicle. It's needed. This could make Purgation squads relevant.

5) A Stratagem that improves the chances for a charge for a unit: maybe with an extra dice? It's sorely needed.

6) Release Agents of the Imperium: ... and let's see some synergy with Inquisitors. I almost want to say any criticism of Grey Knights is going to be premature until we see this book, there's a lot of room to improve. So long as there's an option for cheap henchman and some buffs from Inquisitors (beyond morale,) I would rather see changes there. Fundamentally, the cost of Strike Squads and Intercessors is about right compared to other PA units. What they are missing is a cheap source of buffs, and I would like to have a complete picture of the benefits of a full Inquisition army before calling for massive changes.

After all, this is 8th edition, and mixing your armies is the new norm. The people baying for 'pure' competitive Grey Knights armies really need to stop living in the past.

You really need to learn to statistic. That poll had 620 votes. 397 (over 60%) said Grey Knights we're the worst. A sample size of 600 gives you an error rate of about 4%. So even if the error swung ENTIRELY in your favor, over 50% of the playerbase at large believes GK to be the worst.

Now, you could try attacking the poll as not being a representative sample, but that requires you to actually put forward something besides 'nah, they be whiners'.

You need to learn economics.

GW does more than $125 million a year in revenue. If 620 people represented the entire player base, that would mean they are earning ~ $200,000 per player per year.

Maybe in Westworld.

But going back to the poll, so, yeah, I agree that Grey Knights have the worst Codex. I am one of the 620 people who voted that it is.

In what way does that contradict any of my points?

The grey knights are not internally balanced, nor are they externally.

They have some okay units but nothing really synergizes. Most of the codex is too pricy for what it does and there is really only one strategy... Deep strike alpha strike that seems to work okay, which was just nerf'd. They don't have the durability for their points to slug it out with most armies. They are designed to be a glass cannon army with a nerfed cannon. They are now only okay at one thing. Killing demons (which guardsmen are waaaaay better at...specially cadia). It is a liability to bring grey knights to fight demons.

The average player will massively struggle against most armies as grey knights. There is a LOT wrong with the codex.

But to bullet point.

-lack of synergy within the codex
-poor relics
-over costed or weak strategms
-boring over priced hq
-mono build play from poor balance
-weapons cost too much
-units cost too much
-psychic powers are mediocore
-terminators are too easily dealt with
-units are point blank range fighting oriented but are mostly poor in cc
-units are made of glass
-rule of one devastates gk
-hqs don't synergize with units well
-I still miss mordrak
-pay a premium for psychic/anti demon without much yeild
-we paid for ultramarine fix
-our perferred enemy gets bonuses to fight us, thus negating usefulness
-beta rules hit grey knights the hardest
-transports are mostly useless as they are expensive in an expensive codex


Automatically Appended Next Post:
As for the bolter and chainsword being more Noble? The "how to make gk work with beta DS rule" thread has a very similar grim tone.

 techsoldaten wrote:


3) Improve Psychic Powers: Vortex of Doom affects the nearest model and, RAW, would often result in hitting the unit that cast the power. Let them pick a model in 18 inches. There's other problems with other powers, but I don't need to go into them.
.

Not sure where you got this from but the codes entry for Vortex clearly says that it hits the nearest visible ENEMY model within 12 inches. The casting unit can be hit by the splash damage if they are within 3 inches of that model, but that is not hard to avoid.

I sent a mail with a few ideas:

1) Give GK Libby & Voldus access to the generic Librarian discipline. A force multiplier that would be superb for GKs - nullzone cast on a +1 helps those force weapons do something. Might of heroes synergises very well with GK HQ units & Hammerhand. Veil of time is a good stopgap for when first to the fray isn't available. GKs *should* have both disciplines.

2) pay 1cp to 'unlock' a unit's right of banishment into a standard smite before turn 1.

3) Redress points costs for units if beta rules stay - especially strike squads. They could be a great unit, even with beta rules, if they had a haircut.

4) Revisit stratagems, and drop 3-4 new and powerful strats in for GKs to use. They are currently one of the most boring armies to play in terms of strats. Save up your CPs in chunks of 2 to make their guns as good as other armies for 1 turn; that's a morale-sapping design right there. An interrupt/punish strat for psykers within 12", for example.

(I'm not a GK player btw, but they do interest me, and I nearly went with a GK army last year, so I have some idea of how they play and what they fail at. Glad I didn't now!)

 grouchoben wrote:
I sent a mail with a few ideas:

1) Give GK Libby & Voldus access to the generic Librarian discipline. A force multiplier that would be superb for GKs - nullzone cast on a +1 helps those force weapons do something. Might of heroes synergises very well with GK HQ units & Hammerhand. Veil of time is a good stopgap for when first to the fray isn't available. GKs *should* have both disciplines.

2) pay 1cp to 'unlock' a unit's right of banishment into a standard smite before turn 1.

3) Redress points costs for units if beta rules stay - especially strike squads. They could be a great unit, even with beta rules, if they had a haircut.

4) Revisit stratagems, and drop 3-4 new and powerful strats in for GKs to use. They are currently one of the most boring armies to play in terms of strats. Save up your CPs in chunks of 2 to make their guns as good as other armies for 1 turn; that's a morale-sapping design right there. An interrupt/punish strat for psykers within 12", for example.

(I'm not a GK player btw, but they do interest me, and I nearly went with a GK army last year, so I have some idea of how they play and what they fail at. Glad I didn't now!)

GK problem right now is just that they should be a psy heavy army, but they don't manage it. Point 1 is what they need. Add a 4+ save against mortal wounds in the psy phase which increases to 2+ against Perils, which is incredibly fluffy, and the army will work correctly. The other points are not needed.

On another note, what terminators at large need, is a change to the crux. 5++ on a 2+ model is useless, change the crux rule to "Ignore AP-1 and reduce AP-2 to AP-1. AP-3 and greater are not affected". This removes some of the counters to them, while keeping available a certain number of counters like plasma (which is far less present than in the past, so it's no longer a crippling counter).

Spoletta wrote:
GK problem right now is just that they should be a psy heavy army, but they don't manage it. Point 1 is what they need. Add a 4+ save against mortal wounds in the psy phase which increases to 2+ against Perils, which is incredibly fluffy, and the army will work correctly. The other points are not needed.

On another note, what terminators at large need, is a change to the crux. 5++ on a 2+ model is useless, change the crux rule to "Ignore AP-1 and reduce AP-2 to AP-1. AP-3 and greater are not affected". This removes some of the counters to them, while keeping available a certain number of counters like plasma (which is far less present than in the past, so it's no longer a crippling counter).

Terminator saves are a very conspicuous problem with 8th edition. What should be a very durable unit goes down very easily to multi-wound guns.

I liked what Lawrence from Tabletop Tactics had a good bit to say about it after the FAQ was released. Grey Knights Terminators comes up at about 32:30 minutes in. He talks about how Terminator armor saves in 2nd edition used to be taken on 3d6.

https://youtu.be/lo6VMmmdnyo?t=32m23s

3d6 for a 2+ save. That really means they can only be hurt by anything with an AP modifier. While I think 3d6 would be extreme, I'd be willing to settle for 2d6 or 2d6 pick the best.

In that video, he also talks about how to write to Games Workshop, and what kind of feedback has the best chance of being considered.

It's worth considering what he has to say. I'm still new to Grey Knights, but I do send a letter to GW after every game to point out problems that occur.

2d6 save is incredibly unwieldy and never will make it through to GW. It is unrealistic in the utmost possible way because...

1. You are literally throwing 2 dice for every 1 the opponent wounds.

2. You would have to roll in pairs individually.

3. It could be more easily accomplished by saying subtract 2 from the AP and STR value of the weapon aiming at terminator armor.

Look if you guys actually want to help GK players just email them telling them how actual gak they are. Don't worry with how they go about it we will just get another nerf. They won't listen to these suggestions, but they listen to someone saying "Hey this army sucks help them".

 techsoldaten wrote:

Spoletta wrote:
GK problem right now is just that they should be a psy heavy army, but they don't manage it. Point 1 is what they need. Add a 4+ save against mortal wounds in the psy phase which increases to 2+ against Perils, which is incredibly fluffy, and the army will work correctly. The other points are not needed.

On another note, what terminators at large need, is a change to the crux. 5++ on a 2+ model is useless, change the crux rule to "Ignore AP-1 and reduce AP-2 to AP-1. AP-3 and greater are not affected". This removes some of the counters to them, while keeping available a certain number of counters like plasma (which is far less present than in the past, so it's no longer a crippling counter).

Terminator saves are a very conspicuous problem with 8th edition. What should be a very durable unit goes down very easily to multi-wound guns.

I liked what Lawrence from Tabletop Tactics had a good bit to say about it after the FAQ was released. Grey Knights Terminators comes up at about 32:30 minutes in. He talks about how Terminator armor saves in 2nd edition used to be taken on 3d6.

https://youtu.be/lo6VMmmdnyo?t=32m23s

3d6 for a 2+ save. That really means they can only be hurt by anything with an AP modifier. While I think 3d6 would be extreme, I'd be willing to settle for 2d6 or 2d6 pick the best.

In that video, he also talks about how to write to Games Workshop, and what kind of feedback has the best chance of being considered.

It's worth considering what he has to say. I'm still new to Grey Knights, but I do send a letter to GW after every game to point out problems that occur.

Many has been asking for Terminator to be 2d6 saves

Also to the people saying the people on the forum are dumb (oh I'm sorry you actually said they don't know better /s) for buying into the GK are crap hype.

They are really bad, and Hollow you represent a part of the Tau playerbase, you do it incredibly well. Almost as well as battlesuits are doing.

I know this isn't going to be a popular opinion, but I think the problem with the GK codex is that it exists. GW basically took a couple of expensive, specialist squads and tried to expand them into an entire army.

What's more, the 5th edition book seemed to understand that this wasn't enough to carry a codex, so it also included Inquisition stuff. But with that having been split off from GKs, you're left with an army of overequipped specialists, going up against a lot of armies they weren't designed to fight.

Basically, I think it was a mistake to have so many GK units - especially when virtually all of them do basically the same thing anyway (psykers with force weapons and storm bolters). They should be a small part of a larger marine or inquisition force, not an army in their own right.

As it stands, GW has basically written GKs into a corner. Either they leave them where they are, paying for a lot of gear they don't use, or else they make a lot of their gear free and basically turn them into Marines+2. They could remove some of their gear/powers, but at that point why even call them Grey Knights?

 TheFleshIsWeak wrote:
I know this isn't going to be a popular opinion, but I think the problem with the GK codex is that it exists. GW basically took a couple of expensive, specialist squads and tried to expand them into an entire army.

What's more, the 5th edition book seemed to understand that this wasn't enough to carry a codex, so it also included Inquisition stuff. But with that having been split off from GKs, you're left with an army of overequipped specialists, going up against a lot of armies they weren't designed to fight.

Basically, I think it was a mistake to have so many GK units - especially when virtually all of them do basically the same thing anyway (psykers with force weapons and storm bolters). They should be a small part of a larger marine or inquisition force, not an army in their own right.

As it stands, GW has basically written GKs into a corner. Either they leave them where they are, paying for a lot of gear they don't use, or else they make a lot of their gear free and basically turn them into Marines+2. They could remove some of their gear/powers, but at that point why even call them Grey Knights?

I completely agree. Grey Knights were a lot better when they were Daemonhunters and had access to Inquisitors, Henchmen, Assassins, the works.

But this particular issue could be solved with an Agents of the Inquisition Codex. I could see some tough HQs and cheap infantry putting GK units into a heavy infantry role that would be totally playable.

 Quickjager wrote:
2d6 save is incredibly unwieldy and never will make it through to GW. It is unrealistic in the utmost possible way because...

1. You are literally throwing 2 dice for every 1 the opponent wounds.

2. You would have to roll in pairs individually.

3. It could be more easily accomplished by saying subtract 2 from the AP and STR value of the weapon aiming at terminator armor.

Look if you guys actually want to help GK players just email them telling them how actual gak they are. Don't worry with how they go about it we will just get another nerf. They won't listen to these suggestions, but they listen to someone saying "Hey this army sucks help them".

2D6 save did not slow the game down in 2nd. But yeah, it's not coming back.

I seem to remember 2D6 saves on terminators and Carnifexes did slow the game down - and armies were half the size or less what they are today.

Anyway at the danger of upsetting some posters - GK are awful. Psychic is bad, Stratagems are bad, everything is overcosted versus other units. I don't really get those saying "thats just your oppinion man". I mean - it is, but its also maths. Strike squads cost a fortune and to get a vaguely respectable damage output have to be smiting something very expensive (such as an enemy strike squad) every turn. Meanwhile they are some of the weakest defensive stats per point in the game. This then filters through to everything else.
Blood Angels, Custodes and Guard are just better. This isnt situational. Its a fact.

 Quickjager wrote:
2d6 save is incredibly unwieldy and never will make it through to GW. It is unrealistic in the utmost possible way because...

1. You are literally throwing 2 dice for every 1 the opponent wounds.

2. You would have to roll in pairs individually.

3. It could be more easily accomplished by saying subtract 2 from the AP and STR value of the weapon aiming at terminator armor.

Look if you guys actually want to help GK players just email them telling them how actual gak they are. Don't worry with how they go about it we will just get another nerf. They won't listen to these suggestions, but they listen to someone saying "Hey this army sucks help them".

I don't think it's unwieldy. 2D6 pick highest is basically reroll armor save.
2D6 on a 3+ can just be roll one dice. If you didn't meet the requisite score then roll the second.

It's still more complex and won't be as fast, but I think it might be less to keep track of than -2S -2AP.

Terminators just need a points cut. They cost too much across almost all armies

 Smotejob wrote:
Terminators just need a points cut. They cost too much across almost all armies

Yes and no.

SoT are pretty decent, because they bring some good weapons and they're not forced into paying for power fists. They still suffer the overall durability problem even if they're slightly better at it.

A classic terminator is 26 points, which is clearly GW saying twice the wounds of a marine and calling it good. And in general terms that is pretty reasonable, because it's better than twice a marine, but we didn't pay points for all of that. (Assault Termies originally had a storm shield baked in, but GW fixed that in CA). Marines, too, are probably not overly durable and so the basis for the terminators is also a tad high. Still even if marines go to 12 or 11 (unlikely) terminators will drop 2 or 4 points. Certainly nothing to write home about.

The real problem (as I see it) is two-fold:

1) Mono build terminators stuck to TH/SS or PF/SB pay for weapons that they might not use to full effect a) The power fist is a shadow of it's former self and has a perception issue - it's not exceptional at killing tanks. The TH is good, but is even more expensive. 2) They are very vulnerable to D2/D3 weapons.

Standard terminators pay 54 to 81% of their base cost in weapons. Marines pay 0%. Yes, they don't have the same weapons, but when it comes to getting bodies on the table you now have 3 or 4 marines to a single terminator and suddenly the terminator's durability advantage is lost. And that is exacerbated when you shoot a D2 weapon against a marine and against a terminator. And to put salt in the wound the heavy weapons most termies can bring are way less flexible.

So, no, I don't think points will help. The weapons are mostly well costed for what they do. Adding attacks to terminators also doesn't help. You can get 40 PF/SB termies 2000 points and 153 marines. Just make them durable enough to go about their grim work and leave points as they are.