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.

Reemule wrote:
(For me 40K is only 2K armies using ITC rules)

40k from GW's perspective =/= ITC-hammer

I would tend to agree, though after two years I am still waiting to see what they do with EC and CSM in general before I can even start planning that part of my soup and though I am salty that R&H have been apparently abandoned.

Karol wrote:
They know the army is bad, what do they lose from puting out a free pdf with beta codex?

The assumption that somewhere locked away in a GW vault is a Grey Knights ruleset that magically fixes the army, and can be magically deployed is...interesting.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Excommunicatus wrote:
I would tend to agree, though after two years I am still waiting to see what they do with EC and CSM in general before I can even start planning that part of my soup and though I am salty that R&H have been apparently abandoned.

If the Vigilus II index page is to be believed, Renegades are getting something in that book. What that actually translates into, I have no idea.

Sterling191 wrote:
If the Vigilus II index page is to be believed, Renegades are getting something in that book. What that actually translates into, I have no idea.

Renegade Legions, different from Renegades & Heretics.

Sterling191 wrote:

Karol wrote:
They know the army is bad, what do they lose from puting out a free pdf with beta codex?

The assumption that somewhere locked away in a GW vault is a Grey Knights ruleset that magically fixes the army, and can be magically deployed is...interesting.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Excommunicatus wrote:
I would tend to agree, though after two years I am still waiting to see what they do with EC and CSM in general before I can even start planning that part of my soup and though I am salty that R&H have been apparently abandoned.

If the Vigilus II index page is to be believed, Renegades are getting something in that book. What that actually translates into, I have no idea.

Renegade content in that book is allready known as "the purge" red Corsairs, etc, basically 3-4 of the better known bigger warbands / upstarts.


Also ninjaed.

 Vaktathi wrote:
I mean, relative to the cavalcade of disasters that 6E and 7E were, it is in a good place.

I'd say more than this, it's in the best place it's been in since pre-fliers 5th edition.

Sterling191 wrote:

Karol wrote:
They know the army is bad, what do they lose from puting out a free pdf with beta codex?

The assumption that somewhere locked away in a GW vault is a Grey Knights ruleset that magically fixes the army, and can be magically deployed is...interesting.
.

It would be hard to make it worse. Right now any change would be nice. Strikes and GK termintors were costed like primaris marines and dudes in gravis armour. Over 8th ed, primaris recived substential point drops. If they can't write rules, then why not at least make strike costs 17pts? No magic involved.

Karol wrote:
If they can't write rules, then why not at least make strike costs 17pts? No magic involved.

Because changing the price of one unit doesnt rectify any of the underlying structural issues with the army, and making a change for no reason other than to make a change is exquisitely bad management.

Sterling191 773029 10385925 wrote: If they can't write rules, then why not at least make strike costs 17pts? No magic involved.

Because changing the price of one unit doesnt rectify any of the underlying structural issues with the army, and making a change for no reason other than to make a change is exquisitely bad management.

I gotta agree with Karol.

Maybe they can never "fix" Grey Knights. Doesn't mean they should give up on making them more playable and fun. Even if ultimately the same problems persist, some improvements can be made.

 Melissia wrote:
I gotta agree with Karol.

Maybe they can never "fix" Grey Knights. Doesn't mean they should give up on making them more playable and fun. Even if ultimately the same problems persist, some improvements can be made.

Choosing not to make a random and arbitrary price change to a single troop unit isn't remotely giving up on the army though.

If the flaws are structural, the fix has to be structural. it's not something one can (or should) bandaid. Bite the bullet and fix the overall problem.

Karol wrote:


Plus this was just an example. Why not let GK heros actually use their relics, and not limit them to characters that are never played because they are bad. Or I don't know sit down for 4-6 hours and invent 4-6 new GK stratagems. Those could even be copies of already existing ones, so GW would have to strain themself too much.

You realize you're talking about fundamental structural changes right?

Sterling191 wrote:
If the flaws are structural, the fix has to be structural. it's not something one can (or should) bandaid. Bite the bullet and fix the overall problem.

Which would be fine for a brand new codex, but not so fine for an errata or faq done in the mean time when a brand new codex probably doesn't fit in their release schedule.

You realize you're talking about fundamental structural changes right?

How long would it take them write a FAQ that Grey Knight strikes cost 17pts now and it is a beta rule? And lets assume they are using proper english, not something I use. An hour ? This isn't the biblical times. Jervis Johnsons does not have to craft a stella out of basalt for a rule of law to take effect.

If the flaws are structural, the fix has to be structural. it's not something one can (or should) bandaid. Bite the bullet and fix the overall problem.

so how do you fix the structural problem of GK? there is a limited number of units they have. GW is not making any new non primaris models. So even if a new codex would come out, the chance of a nerf is higher then the chance of a fix. GK also don't have access to primaris, but even if they had, having access to them does not fix the problem of units like strikes, termintors, paladins, purificators , you know GK units in general.

I mean I get being weary about something like codex marines. It is hard to "fix" it when there is gulliman in it. But there is no such problem with GK, and if there is they just have to make the changes a beta rule, and a beta rule they can make void at any moment. 17pts strikes start warping the meta too much, well then GW just pulls the rule. Maybe makes them 18 pts, or replaces it with something else. I mean no one is asking for GK SB being -5 rend D4 rapid fire 6. GK the way they are now are clearly over costed, I think anyone can agree on that. Plus if GW is REALLY worried about GK souping, then just added a rule that GK can't ally with any imperial army. Or that the beta rules can only be used if the army is a mono GK one. So if someone decides to slam a castellan with those GK strikes they are suddenly back to their 20+pts cost.

Well guess I'll be playing other games from other companies a while longer then.

 Melissia wrote:
Which would be fine for a brand new codex, but not so fine for an errata or faq done in the mean time when a brand new codex probably doesn't fit in their release schedule.

I don't disagree. The ultimate decision point is what is the point at which GW decides GK get moved to the front of the line. Short of that happening, nothing is really gonna happen.

Karol wrote:

How long would it take them write a FAQ that Grey Knight strikes cost 17pts now and it is a beta rule? And lets assume they are using proper english, not something I use. An hour ? This isn't the biblical times. Jervis Johnsons does not have to craft a stella out of basalt for a rule of law to take effect.

Karol, every single time somebody tries to agree with you, you move the goalposts. So by all means please continue to rant about how 17 points will both fix GK, while at the same time lamenting the fact that the basic mechanics of your army dont work and need a rework that takes more than an hour to put together.

Well, Sisters have waited about twenty years and are finally having plastics hyped up directly by GW instead of merely by GW employees, so shall we set the clock?

GW has already proved with their FAQs and CA that they do not want to change GK rules. GK aren't bad for a month. They are bad the entire edition, and from what I have been told on this forum, they were not that great in 7th edition either.
So if GW is not able to write good rules for GK, or maybe it is not possible, although I doubt it considering custodes and DW exist and are an example of working elite marine lists, then the only other way to give the army a chance is point drops.

Waiting for, as you said it, magical idea GW suddenly has and turns in to a great GW rule set for GK just won't happen. Plus it would require a new codex. And GK being a primaris less marine army are probably going to be the last codex GW thinks about updating. They may even not update it at all. I mean why bother if the army does sell, and they don't know how to write the rules.

Sterling191 wrote:

Because changing the price of one unit doesnt rectify any of the underlying structural issues with the army, and making a change for no reason other than to make a change is exquisitely bad management.

This is nonsense. Units can only be bad relative to their cost. If unit is bad, making it cheaper can make it good. It might not be the most inspired fix, but it is definitely much better than no fix at all.

 Melissia wrote:
Well, Sisters have waited about twenty years and are finally having plastics hyped up directly by GW instead of merely by GW employees, so shall we set the clock?

So I am going to be 33 when GK are going to get a good update? Well here is for hoping that mucoviscitosis won't kill me before that.

GK might get the squathammer first.

 Crimson wrote:

Sterling191 wrote:

Because changing the price of one unit doesnt rectify any of the underlying structural issues with the army, and making a change for no reason other than to make a change is exquisitely bad management.

This is nonsense. Units can only be bad relative to their cost. If unit is bad, making it cheaper can make it good. It might not be the most inspired fix, but it is definitely much better than no fix at all.

This. Lets use a non GK example. Possessed are considered to be a bad unit. What if they costs half the points, how many chaos armies would use them? What if CSM were 9-10pts? what if a dire avanger cost less then a eldar guardian?

 Dysartes wrote:

Reemule wrote:
(For me 40K is only 2K armies using ITC rules)

40k from GW's perspective =/= ITC-hammer

I don't care what prism they view it from, as long as when I play it, the way I play it, it works.

And right now it does. I'm looking forward to the tweeks. For me the tweeks I'd like to see them fix some of the GCS rough patches, and I'd like them to change the CP system from detachments to points.

Wants to use a wrench as a hammer, blames manufacturer that the wrench doesn't do a good job.

Karol wrote:

 Crimson wrote:

Sterling191 wrote:

Because changing the price of one unit doesnt rectify any of the underlying structural issues with the army, and making a change for no reason other than to make a change is exquisitely bad management.

This is nonsense. Units can only be bad relative to their cost. If unit is bad, making it cheaper can make it good. It might not be the most inspired fix, but it is definitely much better than no fix at all.

This. Lets use a non GK example. Possessed are considered to be a bad unit. What if they costs half the points, how many chaos armies would use them? What if CSM were 9-10pts? what if a dire avanger cost less then a eldar guardian?

This is like, the 50th topic you've derailed with your "GK suxxors" speeches. Everyone on this forum knows how you feel, so please stop. Find a cheaper, or even free hobby -- your on the internet you can find one, or repaint/rebash your minis into a different Space Marine army already.

Karol wrote:
This. Lets use a non GK example. Possessed are considered to be a bad unit. What if they costs half the points, how many chaos armies would use them? What if CSM were 9-10pts? what if a dire avanger cost less then a eldar guardian?

If you make a unit too cheap it doesn't make the rest of the army good, it just makes the unit too cheap. You'll see a bunch of them, perhaps as allies or perhaps even filling out whole lists. It'd be like the old gladius lists where you threw tactical marines at the table because they were basically free.

GK need to be as expensive/more expensive and stronger, they are supposed to be elites not orks.

A.T. wrote:

Karol wrote:
This. Lets use a non GK example. Possessed are considered to be a bad unit. What if they costs half the points, how many chaos armies would use them? What if CSM were 9-10pts? what if a dire avanger cost less then a eldar guardian?

If you make a unit too cheap it doesn't make the rest of the army good, it just makes the unit too cheap. You'll see a bunch of them, perhaps as allies or perhaps even filling out whole lists. It'd be like the old gladius lists where you threw tactical marines at the table because they were basically free.

GK need to be as expensive/more expensive and stronger, they are supposed to be elites not orks.

That doesn't work in 8th. Elites fail as a concept in 8th. There is just not enough upside in the base mechanics. Cheaper is better.

 Crimson wrote:

This is nonsense. Units can only be bad relative to their cost. If unit is bad, making it cheaper can make it good. It might not be the most inspired fix, but it is definitely much better than no fix at all.

Single variable analysis is the height of lunacy. But by all means, please jump on the "17ppm Strikes will fix everything" bandwagon.

If a unit's functional parts arent functional, especially in a faction that flat out doesnt work within its own ruleset, no cost will make it a working unit.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Excommunicatus wrote:
Wants to use a wrench as a hammer, blames manufacturer that the wrench doesn't do a good job.

Exactly.

Nobody said 17ppm Strikes would fix everything.

Sterling191 wrote:

 Crimson wrote:

This is nonsense. Units can only be bad relative to their cost. If unit is bad, making it cheaper can make it good. It might not be the most inspired fix, but it is definitely much better than no fix at all.

Single variable analysis is the height of lunacy. But by all means, please jump on the "17ppm Strikes will fix everything" bandwagon.

If a unit's functional parts arent functional, especially in a faction that flat out doesnt work within its own ruleset, no cost will make it a working unit.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Excommunicatus wrote:
Wants to use a wrench as a hammer, blames manufacturer that the wrench doesn't do a good job.

Exactly.

Yeah, that's false. There is a price point for every unit where it is neither autotake nor autopass. Just because GW can't find it for some units doesn't mean much. I think they are intentionally squeezing 1W loyalist power armor out of the game.

 Crimson wrote:

Sterling191 wrote:

Because changing the price of one unit doesnt rectify any of the underlying structural issues with the army, and making a change for no reason other than to make a change is exquisitely bad management.

This is nonsense. Units can only be bad relative to their cost. If unit is bad, making it cheaper can make it good. It might not be the most inspired fix, but it is definitely much better than no fix at all.

While I want to agree with you, due to soup you are wrong. Soup makes it so the problem might not be just adjusting the points for GK models, but points for several other models. Like Strike squads. If you adjust them to 16PPM (about where I think they should be in a monocodex game... Well look at all the options you just invalidated for all those other forces..

Its a huge rabbit hole topic that I know your aware of, but for what your saying to be right, you actually talking about Guardsmen getting repointed, and then Conscripts, and then scouts, and then Tac, and then Intercessors, and then Strike squads.

Now it doesn't feel like a minor tweek...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Excommunicatus wrote:
Wants to use a wrench as a hammer, blames manufacturer that the wrench doesn't do a good job.

To be clear, If your a wrench manufacter, and the vast majority of your customers are using it for a Hammer, and you keep calling it a wrench.. who is the failure here again?