Why are there so many GK players?

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.

**yamgrenade**

Honestly, them being OP is really disappointing to me. I like to be able to beat my opponent with strategy rather than cheese.

**Hyd**

Nobody forces you to resort to cheesy options though.

Define "OP".

**Draigo**

LOL I love when people say they're op. Most the noobies didn't know back in the day they were mean then too. lol People are just now sad cause instead of a squad or 2 I can now field an entire army. Most of the stuff people hate about them guess what WE HAD IT BEFORE! lol

**ZebioLizard2**

Draigo wrote:LOL I love when people say they're op. Most the noobies didn't know back in the day they were mean then too. lol People are just now sad cause instead of a squad or 2 I can now field an entire army. Most of the stuff people hate about them guess what WE HAD IT BEFORE! lol

Certainly didn't have

Psyfilemen (No twin linked S8 for you)

Different nemesis force weapons (Just a standard chart for differences amongst the units, like +2 strength for the grand master) As a result of this, basic gray knights did NOT HAVE POWER/FORCE WEAPONS)

Tt went: +2 for all, power weapons justicar/terminator/brother-captain/grand master, with Grand master having the ONLY FORCE WEAPON ABILITY. So that meant back than only the grand masters could instant kill multi-wound models.

Psycannon's were S6 AP4 18" Assault3 or 36" Heavy 3.

Psybolts made your bolters do AP4 instead of +1 to Strength

Paladins & Purifiers

Rapid stacking Strength Abilities

Warp Quake/ Fortitude/ Cleansing flame

Grand master Vehicle scoring Shenanigans

I could go on all day about what you didn't have that makes you OP now.

**Draigo**

ZebioLizard2 wrote:
Draigo wrote:LOL I love when people say they're op. Most the noobies didn't know back in the day they were mean then too. lol People are just now sad cause instead of a squad or 2 I can now field an entire army. Most of the stuff people hate about them guess what WE HAD IT BEFORE! lol

Certainly didn't have

Psyfilemen (No twin linked S8 for you)

Different nemesis force weapons (Just a standard chart for differences amongst the units)

Psycannon's were S6 AP4 18" Assault3 or 36" Heavy 3.

Psybolts made your bolters do AP4 instead of +1 to Strength

Paladins & Purifiers

Rapid stacking Strength Abilities

Warp Quake/ Fortitude/ Cleansing flame

DreadKnights

I could go on all day about what you didn't have that makes you OP now.

After they made the shunt not part of the scout move I haven't heard a peep against dk. Didn't need strength stacking since before I didn't need a psychic test to do so. Str 8 spam for psyfleman is hardly a new 5th edition and has been complained about since sw came out. Thats nothing new.

Aside from psybolt, warpquake(which only daemon players complain about), fortitude and purifiers the rest havent had much new attention. Though I must admit I enjoy people freaking out because of the net. It adds a psychological edge I myself couldn't do by myself.

**Noir**

Draigo wrote:
ZebioLizard2 wrote:
Draigo wrote:LOL I love when people say they're op. Most the noobies didn't know back in the day they were mean then too. lol People are just now sad cause instead of a squad or 2 I can now field an entire army. Most of the stuff people hate about them guess what WE HAD IT BEFORE! lol

Certainly didn't have

Psyfilemen (No twin linked S8 for you)

Different nemesis force weapons (Just a standard chart for differences amongst the units)

Psycannon's were S6 AP4 18" Assault3 or 36" Heavy 3.

Psybolts made your bolters do AP4 instead of +1 to Strength

Paladins & Purifiers

Rapid stacking Strength Abilities

Warp Quake/ Fortitude/ Cleansing flame

DreadKnights

I could go on all day about what you didn't have that makes you OP now.

After they made the shunt not part of the scout move I haven't heard a peep against dk. Didn't need strength stacking since before I didn't need a psychic test to do so. Str 8 spam for psyfleman is hardly a new 5th edition and has been complained about since sw came out. Thats nothing new.

Aside from psybolt, warpquake(which only daemon players complain about), fortitude and purifiers the rest havent had much new attention. Though I must admit I enjoy people freaking out because of the net. It adds a psychological edge I myself couldn't do by myself.

Don't forget they lost the ability to ignore inv saves.

**phantommaster**

H.B.M.C. wrote:
Great White wrote:Some people chose them because they played deamonhunters.

I played Daemonhunters. I didn't use GK's. How d'ya think I feel about the GK Codex?

Same, but at least I can have Karamazov properly in my army now even if he has been nerfed.

**Winterkit**

AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Winterkit wrote:I think the fact that Ward & co took the Inquisitors, Assassins and other cool stuff from other Imperial armies and lumped them all into GK is a factor, too. The Inquisitors and Assassins are (imho, ymmv, etc) some of the coolest units in the Imperium. Now, if you want to play them, you have to go GK (afaik? Not read the current Sisters codex).

Since the units you listed were already in the Daemonhunters Codex, "Ward & C" didn't take the Inquisitors, Assassins and "other cool stuff", rendering your argument invalid.

Read it again. My problem wasn't that they're with the Grey Knights/Daemonhunters, it's that they stripped them from other armies. I have no problem with Daemonhunters having Inquisitors; it makes sense. But making it so that only they can have them smacks of favouritism. For clarity's sake, what I'm referring to is back when the IG, etc, could take Inquisitors & Assassins (3rd Edition, iirc?). This was stripped, whereas the Grey Knights are the only ones left with those units. So, if you wish to field them, you now have to play Grey Knights, or come to some House Rules arrangement with your opponent, which is patchy at best as solutions go.

**nosferatu1001**

If youre talking codex: assasins, that was stripped from you by DH and WH. So aaaaaages ago. It is in fact one of the very few times GW has explicitly said one codex outdates another.

They removed the Ally rules from DH and WH, because, quite frankly, they sucked and sucked hard - from a balance perspective they allowed IG to circumvent their weaknesses (stuff deepstriking in causing you a problem? Take some mystics and unload some plasma into them! and so on) and could never be kept in synch correctly to keep it balanced

**speedo**

Draigo wrote:LOL I love when people say they're op. Most the noobies didn't know back in the day they were mean then too. lol People are just now sad cause instead of a squad or 2 I can now field an entire army. Most of the stuff people hate about them guess what WE HAD IT BEFORE! lol

Draigo wrote:After they made the shunt not part of the scout move I haven't heard a peep against dk. Didn't need strength stacking since before I didn't need a psychic test to do so. Str 8 spam for psyfleman is hardly a new 5th edition and has been complained about since sw came out. Thats nothing new.

Aside from psybolt, warpquake(which only daemon players complain about), fortitude and purifiers the rest havent had much new attention. Though I must admit I enjoy people freaking out because of the net. It adds a psychological edge I myself couldn't do by myself.

I just thought you should know, that sounded pretty biased, especially considering your username is Draigo. Nothing wrong with that, just bringing it to your attention

But I'd suggest, instead of stating opinions, using simple math and factual evidence to help prove points effectively without erupting flame wars. For instance, comparing the points efficiency of psyfledreads or other units with their equivalents in other armies. Or simply describing how effective certain units are with statistics. Regardless, it's apparent that many feel Grey Knights are somewhat OP, cheesy or unfair, and there's usually merit in a consensus like that. So, it's reasonable to assume that plenty have chosen Grey Knights because of their dominance in the game, if not because the price is right

Personally, Warp Quake irks me because I use a lot of GoI. And I do feel like most Codex: Grey Knights options outshine my own respective Codex: Space Marines options, but that seems to be the nature of the game, newer codices have the advantage (with a few exceptions)

Anyway, Grey Knights are cool and I'm sure plenty of people collect them for reasons other than how powerful they are

**Winterkit**

nosferatu1001 wrote:If youre talking codex: assasins, that was stripped from you by DH and WH. So aaaaaages ago. It is in fact one of the very few times GW has explicitly said one codex outdates another.

They removed the Ally rules from DH and WH, because, quite frankly, they sucked and sucked hard - from a balance perspective they allowed IG to circumvent their weaknesses (stuff deepstriking in causing you a problem? Take some mystics and unload some plasma into them! and so on) and could never be kept in synch correctly to keep it balanced

Yeah, I suspected it was a mechanics choice. Was just tossing a theory on the pile as to why people prefer GK.

**Hyd**

speedo wrote:Regardless, it's apparent that many feel Grey Knights are somewhat OP, cheesy or unfair, and there's usually merit in a consensus like that.

You're giving a lot of credit to the herd. Again, define "OP".

The very concept of GK is that indeed, they do things better than others. The Grey Knights' schtick is to emphasize quality over quantity. They're supposed to be "as superior to other Space Marines as Space Marines are superior to normal human beings" (I wouldn't take this literally, but this is how they state it). That's their theme.
On the other hand, they pay the price for it in points. The cheapest footman in the codex comes at 20 points, excluding FOC-modifying special characters. The most basic Troops unit costs 100 points for five bodies, and you're looking at much higher than that to have a functional unit.
Paladins are the best infantry in the game, and they are so heavily priced that lists that don't revolve around them usually don't include them at all.

Yes, the book contains its fair share of brainfarts as well. Purifiers are undercosted, with Crowe making it worse. Dreadnoughts' psybolts are undercosted. Coteaz is undercosted and his henchmen take it to ludicrous levels. All APCs in the game are undercosted.
Then again, Space Wolves.

So there are people who exploit these bargains, resulting in netlists.
Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but netlists aren't the be all end all of competitive play. There is a multitude of factors beside the army list that determine the outcome of a game. Generalship comes to mind, of course. Time showed that GKs are not a "I win" army. Empirical data do not point toward a clearly skewed distribution of W/L for that particular army ; it is however a strong contender amongst other strong codices. One of the book's notable strengths is that it contains no bad option, allowing for a variety of viable builds. (Note that I didn't say "no weakness".)

Here I might sound cynical, but a straightforward army with above average stats like GK makes for an effective noobstomper. It so happens that you hear a lot of complains about them in friendly environments, where winning is seldom the prime objective anyway. Does it really come off as a surprise that an army with no weak option and solid capabilities across-the-board performs well in a laid-back environment ?
You've got to consider match-ups as well. Poor match-ups exist ; so do old or poorly designed codices. It can only make things worse. But is it a reason to say GKs are too powerful ? I don't think so. Having no bad entry should be a reality for all books ; wouldn't it be a good thing if any army could be both "fluffy" and perfectly viable at the same time ?

I for one strive to be objective and will gladly discuss this matter if someone is willing to give it more thought than "lol gk op is all". Otherwise, I'll still have difficulties taking that position seriously.

**candy.man**

speedo wrote:I just thought you should know, that sounded pretty biased, especially considering your username is Draigo. Nothing wrong with that, just bringing it to your attention

But I'd suggest, instead of stating opinions, using simple math and factual evidence to help prove points effectively without erupting flame wars. For instance, comparing the points efficiency of psyfledreads or other units with their equivalents in other armies. Or simply describing how effective certain units are with statistics. Regardless, it's apparent that many feel Grey Knights are somewhat OP, cheesy or unfair, and there's usually merit in a consensus like that. So, it's reasonable to assume that plenty have chosen Grey Knights because of their dominance in the game, if not because the price is right

Personally, Warpquake irks me because I use a lot of GoI. And I do feel like most Codex: Grey Knights options outshine my own respective Codex: Space Marines options, but that seems to be the nature of the game, newer codices have the advantage (with a few exceptions)

+1 to this post. The best way to back up an argument IMO is with evidence and not blanket statements.

What irks me the most with the GK book is that it is severally undercosted, more so than any other codex to date. As someone who is a big fan of the proposed rules forum, I’m fully aware of what sort of point costing formula/template is used for 5E MEQ codices and the GK books does not follow this template. It’s really odd in that a lot of their abilities are either undercosted and the wargear upgrades discounted compared to other MEQ books. For example lets look at GKSS, a fairly upopular choice in the codex. For 220pts you get:
• 10 MEQ
• Force Weapons with bonus affects against daemons
• Storm Bolters
• 2 Psilencers
• Psybolt ammo
• Hammerhand
• WarpQuake
• Deepstrike Deployment
• Prefered Enemy: Daemons
• Ability for all members in the squad to upgrade their CC weapons.
• Psykout Grenades

The counter argument of “GK are elite and supposed to be powerful” is all well and good, as long as everything is point costed for and as seen in the above example this is not the case. The other counter argument “GK die just like any other marine” and are therefore balanced is also not an adequate counter argument as just because something can be killed, it does not make it balanced (especially if it is a point costing issue).

From a codex design perspective, GK suffer the same problem as the Chaos 3.5 codex in that units have access to too many toys and there’s too much synergy between units. There’s a popular argument used on Dakka in that GK are balanced due to the lack of long ranged AT. This is not the case IMO given that GK have access to some really effective (and cheap) long ranged AT in the form of Jokaero, Psyfilemen dreads, Psykers and Servitors (melta stormtroopers are also really good even if they aren’t a long ranged choice). The GK book IMO fails from a structural point of view as it lacks proper inherent weaknesses to counter balances its strengths.

**Smitty0305**

Before they were a good army, virtually NOBODY played them.

After their codex got revamped, a LARGE portion of the tournament community started playing them.

You have a clear before and after, with the effect being a new codex.

**sumi808**

speedo wrote:Regardless, it's apparent that many feel Grey Knights are somewhat OP, cheesy or unfair, and there's usually merit in a consensus like that.

You're giving a lot of credit to the herd. Again, define "OP".

The very concept of GK is that indeed, they do things better than others. The Grey Knights' schtick is to emphasize quality over quantity. They're supposed to be "as superior to other Space Marines as Space Marines are superior to normal human beings" (I wouldn't take this literally, but this is how they state it). That's their theme.
On the other hand, they pay the price for it in points. The cheapest footman in the codex comes at 20 points, excluding FOC-modifying special characters. The most basic Troops unit costs 100 points for five bodies, and you're looking at much higher than that to have a functional unit.
Paladins are the best infantry in the game, and they are so heavily priced that lists that don't revolve around them usually don't include them at all.

Yes, the book contains its fair share of brainfarts as well. Purifiers are undercosted, with Crowe making it worse. Dreadnoughts' psybolts are undercosted. Coteaz is undercosted and his henchmen take it to ludicrous levels. All APCs in the game are undercosted.
Then again, Space Wolves.

So there are people who exploit these bargains, resulting in netlists.
Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but netlists aren't the be all end all of competitive play. There is a multitude of factors beside the army list that determine the outcome of a game. Generalship comes to mind, of course. Time showed that GKs are not a "I win" army. Empirical data do not point toward a clearly skewed distribution of W/L for that particular army ; it is however a strong contender amongst other strong codices. One of the book's notable strengths is that it contains no bad option, allowing for a variety of viable builds. (Note that I didn't say "no weakness".)

Here I might sound cynical, but a straightforward army with above average stats like GK makes for an effective noobstomper. It so happens that you hear a lot of complains about them in friendly environments, where winning is seldom the prime objective anyway. Does it really comes off as a surprise that an army with no weak option and solid capabilities across-the-board performs well in a laid-back environment ?
You've got to consider match-ups as well. Poor match-ups exist ; so do old or poorly designed codices. It can only make things worse. But is it a reason to say GKs are too powerful ? I don't think so. Having no bad entry should be a reality for all books ; wouldn't it be a good thing if any army could be both "fluffy" and perfectly viable at the same time ?

I for one strive to be objective and will gladly discuss this matter if someone is willing to give it more thought than "lol gk op is all". Otherwise, I'll still have difficulties taking that position seriously.
speedo wrote:I just thought you should know, that sounded pretty biased, especially considering your username is Draigo. Nothing wrong with that, just bringing it to your attention

But I'd suggest, instead of stating opinions, using simple math and factual evidence to help prove points effectively without erupting flame wars. For instance, comparing the points efficiency of psyfledreads or other units with their equivalents in other armies. Or simply describing how effective certain units are with statistics. Regardless, it's apparent that many feel Grey Knights are somewhat OP, cheesy or unfair, and there's usually merit in a consensus like that. So, it's reasonable to assume that plenty have chosen Grey Knights because of their dominance in the game, if not because the price is right

Personally, Warpquake irks me because I use a lot of GoI. And I do feel like most Codex: Grey Knights options outshine my own respective Codex: Space Marines options, but that seems to be the nature of the game, newer codices have the advantage (with a few exceptions)

+1 to this post. The best way to back up an argument IMO is with evidence and not blanket statements.

What irks me the most with the GK book is that it is severally undercosted, more so than any other codex to date. As someone who is a big fan of the proposed rules forum, I’m fully aware of what sort of point costing formula/template is used for 5E MEQ codices and the GK books does not follow this template. It’s really odd in that a lot of their abilities are either undercosted and the wargear upgrades discounted compared to other MEQ books. For example lets look at GKSS, a fairly upopular choice in the codex. For 220pts you get:
• 10 MEQ
• Force Weapons with bonus affects against daemons
• Storm Bolters
• 2 Psilencers
• Psybolt ammo
• Hammerhand
• WarpQuake
• Deepstrike Deployment
• Prefered Enemy: Daemons
• Ability for all members in the squad to upgrade their CC weapons.
• Psykout Grenades

The counter argument of “GK are elite and supposed to be powerful” is all well and good, as long as units everything is point costed for and as seen above example this is not the case. The other counter argument “GK die just like any other marines” and are therefore balanced is also not an adequate counter argument as just because something can be killed, it does not make it balanced (especially if it is a point costing issue).

From a codex design perspective, GK suffer the same problem as the Chaos 3.5 codex in that units have access to too many toys and there’s too much synergy between units. There’s a popular argument used on Dakka in that GK are balanced due to the lack of long ranged AT. This is not the case IMO given that GK have access to some really effective (and cheap) long ranged AT in the form of Jokaero, Psyfilemen dreads, Psykers and Servitors (melta stormtroopers are also really good even if they aren’t a long ranged choice). The GK book IMO fails from a structural point of view as it lacks proper inherent weaknesses to counter balances its strengths.

**sumi808**

sumi808 wrote:
speedo wrote:Regardless, it's apparent that many feel Grey Knights are somewhat OP, cheesy or unfair, and there's usually merit in a consensus like that.

You're giving a lot of credit to the herd. Again, define "OP".

The very concept of GK is that indeed, they do things better than others. The Grey Knights' schtick is to emphasize quality over quantity. They're supposed to be "as superior to other Space Marines as Space Marines are superior to normal human beings" (I wouldn't take this literally, but this is how they state it). That's their theme.
On the other hand, they pay the price for it in points. The cheapest footman in the codex comes at 20 points, excluding FOC-modifying special characters. The most basic Troops unit costs 100 points for five bodies, and you're looking at much higher than that to have a functional unit.
Paladins are the best infantry in the game, and they are so heavily priced that lists that don't revolve around them usually don't include them at all.

Yes, the book contains its fair share of brainfarts as well. Purifiers are undercosted, with Crowe making it worse. Dreadnoughts' psybolts are undercosted. Coteaz is undercosted and his henchmen take it to ludicrous levels. All APCs in the game are undercosted.
Then again, Space Wolves.

So there are people who exploit these bargains, resulting in netlists.
Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but netlists aren't the be all end all of competitive play. There is a multitude of factors beside the army list that determine the outcome of a game. Generalship comes to mind, of course. Time showed that GKs are not a "I win" army. Empirical data do not point toward a clearly skewed distribution of W/L for that particular army ; it is however a strong contender amongst other strong codices. One of the book's notable strengths is that it contains no bad option, allowing for a variety of viable builds. (Note that I didn't say "no weakness".)

Here I might sound cynical, but a straightforward army with above average stats like GK makes for an effective noobstomper. It so happens that you hear a lot of complains about them in friendly environments, where winning is seldom the prime objective anyway. Does it really comes off as a surprise that an army with no weak option and solid capabilities across-the-board performs well in a laid-back environment ?
You've got to consider match-ups as well. Poor match-ups exist ; so do old or poorly designed codices. It can only make things worse. But is it a reason to say GKs are too powerful ? I don't think so. Having no bad entry should be a reality for all books ; wouldn't it be a good thing if any army could be both "fluffy" and perfectly viable at the same time ?

I for one strive to be objective and will gladly discuss this matter if someone is willing to give it more thought than "lol gk op is all". Otherwise, I'll still have difficulties taking that position seriously.
speedo wrote:I just thought you should know, that sounded pretty biased, especially considering your username is Draigo. Nothing wrong with that, just bringing it to your attention

But I'd suggest, instead of stating opinions, using simple math and factual evidence to help prove points effectively without erupting flame wars. For instance, comparing the points efficiency of psyfledreads or other units with their equivalents in other armies. Or simply describing how effective certain units are with statistics. Regardless, it's apparent that many feel Grey Knights are somewhat OP, cheesy or unfair, and there's usually merit in a consensus like that. So, it's reasonable to assume that plenty have chosen Grey Knights because of their dominance in the game, if not because the price is right

Personally, Warpquake irks me because I use a lot of GoI. And I do feel like most Codex: Grey Knights options outshine my own respective Codex: Space Marines options, but that seems to be the nature of the game, newer codices have the advantage (with a few exceptions)

+1 to this post. The best way to back up an argument IMO is with evidence and not blanket statements.

What irks me the most with the GK book is that it is severally undercosted, more so than any other codex to date. As someone who is a big fan of the proposed rules forum, I’m fully aware of what sort of point costing formula/template is used for 5E MEQ codices and the GK books does not follow this template. It’s really odd in that a lot of their abilities are either undercosted and the wargear upgrades discounted compared to other MEQ books. For example lets look at GKSS, a fairly upopular choice in the codex. For 220pts you get:
• 10 MEQ
• Force Weapons with bonus affects against daemons
• Storm Bolters
• 2 Psilencers
• Psybolt ammo
• Hammerhand
• WarpQuake
• Deepstrike Deployment
• Prefered Enemy: Daemons
• Ability for all members in the squad to upgrade their CC weapons.
• Psykout Grenades

The counter argument of “GK are elite and supposed to be powerful” is all well and good, as long as units everything is point costed for and as seen above example this is not the case. The other counter argument “GK die just like any other marines” and are therefore balanced is also not an adequate counter argument as just because something can be killed, it does not make it balanced (especially if it is a point costing issue).

From a codex design perspective, GK suffer the same problem as the Chaos 3.5 codex in that units have access to too many toys and there’s too much synergy between units. There’s a popular argument used on Dakka in that GK are balanced due to the lack of long ranged AT. This is not the case IMO given that GK have access to some really effective (and cheap) long ranged AT in the form of Jokaero, Psyfilemen dreads, Psykers and Servitors (melta stormtroopers are also really good even if they aren’t a long ranged choice). The GK book IMO fails from a structural point of view as it lacks proper inherent weaknesses to counter balances its strengths.

Quality ideas ! I like the idea of them being superior to marines and MEQs being the new "normal" soldiers than the superwarriors. Yeah maybe just make their costing following the other 5E formulae and itll be sweet

Automatically Appended Next Post:
whoops i just quoted myself - apologise !!

**Draigo**

speedo wrote:
Draigo wrote:LOL I love when people say they're op. Most the noobies didn't know back in the day they were mean then too. lol People are just now sad cause instead of a squad or 2 I can now field an entire army. Most of the stuff people hate about them guess what WE HAD IT BEFORE! lol

Draigo wrote:After they made the shunt not part of the scout move I haven't heard a peep against dk. Didn't need strength stacking since before I didn't need a psychic test to do so. Str 8 spam for psyfleman is hardly a new 5th edition and has been complained about since sw came out. Thats nothing new.

Aside from psybolt, warpquake(which only daemon players complain about), fortitude and purifiers the rest havent had much new attention. Though I must admit I enjoy people freaking out because of the net. It adds a psychological edge I myself couldn't do by myself.

I just thought you should know, that sounded pretty biased, especially considering your username is Draigo. Nothing wrong with that, just bringing it to your attention

But I'd suggest, instead of stating opinions, using simple math and factual evidence to help prove points effectively without erupting flame wars. For instance, comparing the points efficiency of psyfledreads or other units with their equivalents in other armies. Or simply describing how effective certain units are with statistics. Regardless, it's apparent that many feel Grey Knights are somewhat OP, cheesy or unfair, and there's usually merit in a consensus like that. So, it's reasonable to assume that plenty have chosen Grey Knights because of their dominance in the game, if not because the price is right

Personally, Warpquake irks me because I use a lot of GoI. And I do feel like most Codex: Grey Knights options outshine my own respective Codex: Space Marines options, but that seems to be the nature of the game, newer codices have the advantage (with a few exceptions)

Anyway, Grey Knights are cool and I'm sure plenty of people collect them for reasons other than how powerful they are

Pointing out the name isn't new and you weren't the first. Also Im incredibly biased and relish at the suffering since we had good stuff before but since no one played them besdies a select few it went under the radar. I'd go to tourneys and people had never seen them before and told me wow they must be awful I've never seen em. NOW with the new dex sudden;y everything is so shocking. lol Also reason I chose this name when I made my account is NO ONE likes his fluff and it provokes the haters.

**ifStatement**

It's an army which used to be expensive t run (only metal models) which has become more affordable with the new plastics and the fact that you can run a smaller number of models than most armies. Plus they look cool.

H.B.M.C. wrote:
Great White wrote:Some people chose them because they played deamonhunters.

I played Daemonhunters. I didn't use GK's. How d'ya think I feel about the GK Codex?

You seem pretty miserable about everything TBH.

**ZebioLizard2**

Pointing out the name isn't new and you weren't the first. Also Im incredibly biased and relish at the suffering since we had good stuff before but since no one played them besdies a select few it went under the radar. I'd go to tourneys and people had never seen them before and told me wow they must be awful I've never seen em. NOW with the new dex sudden;y everything is so shocking. lol Also reason I chose this name when I made my account is NO ONE likes his fluff and it provokes the haters.

So you pretty much picked your name just to troll? Good answer to how one should respond to you.

**Draigo**

ZebioLizard2 wrote:

Pointing out the name isn't new and you weren't the first. Also Im incredibly biased and relish at the suffering since we had good stuff before but since no one played them besdies a select few it went under the radar. I'd go to tourneys and people had never seen them before and told me wow they must be awful I've never seen em. NOW with the new dex sudden;y everything is so shocking. lol Also reason I chose this name when I made my account is NO ONE likes his fluff and it provokes the haters.

So you pretty much picked your name just to troll? Good answer to how one should respond to you.

Thats how people respond to many that have any gk picture, admit to play them etc so doesnt hurt my feelings.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also is no different to yakface and others putting mat ward fanclub on their profile.

**speedo**

Hyd wrote:
speedo wrote:Regardless, it's apparent that many feel Grey Knights are somewhat OP, cheesy or unfair, and there's usually merit in a consensus like that.
You're giving a lot of credit to the herd. Again, define "OP".

Overpowered (adj) definition: more powerful than it should be; unbalanced

In all seriousness, the statement you quoted was meant to point out that, however disagreeable, there's usually some measure of merit in a common sentiment because people aren't sheep. So yeah, I was giving credit to the herd

Draigo wrote:Pointing out the name isn't new and you weren't the first. Also Im incredibly biased and relish at the suffering since we had good stuff before but since no one played them besdies a select few it went under the radar. I'd go to tourneys and people had never seen them before and told me wow they must be awful I've never seen em. NOW with the new dex sudden;y everything is so shocking. lol Also reason I chose this name when I made my account is NO ONE likes his fluff and it provokes the haters.

It's clear you have strong convictions about your favorite army (which is natural), and in my experience, not many arguments can convince someone with strong convictions to change their mind. It's like speaking different languages to each other that neither can understand. In any case, Grey Knights aren't perfectly balanced just because you claim Codex: Daemonhunters was already a powerful codex, that's irrelevant

It's also worth remembering that this discussion is geared toward explaining why people choose Grey Knights

**Talon31**

Love small elite armies, love the idea of GK, love the fluff behind GK, love the models for GK, love that I don't have to break the bank building a new GK, love all the different tactics and quirks you get when playing GK, love the fact that I DON'T win every game with GK and against able players with good lists you can actually have an enjoyably tense close match. All of this coupled with the fact that I have always played GK in some form = me being a GK player.

I think all the GK hate basically comes down to people being annoyed at being beaten by them. Stop whining, the games about having fun!!

Every army has some rule or unit that is kickass you just have to deal with that unit or not.

**Sasa0mg**

I chose GK cus my other army is WHFB Skaven, 2000pts over 200 models. GK 2000pts, 13 models and 4 vehicles.

**sumi808**

I still think that Hyd and Candy.mans arguments a few posts further up on this page are the most persuasive and the best articulated

GK should be thought of as the new supersolders, and MEQ are the avg soldiers in the universe -> just as marines used to be supersoldiers compared to IG.

Their Pricing simply needs to conform to the formulas applied to other codexes instead of being so massivly discounted

These guys afterall are made form the genetic material of the emperor himself - not his sons

**Deadshot**

Exactly. Think of the film Irobot.

Spoiler:

**dnanoodle**

GKs already have very few models on the board. If they were actually priced according to all the toys and powers they have, they'd be unplayable. And there is a reason why people say they die just like other MEQs and TEQs. I'd hate to have even fewer guys and then set up across from an IG gun line.

The problem is trying to balance their points cost against the stuff they need to be as elite as they should be.

What are people who call them undercosted calling for? How much would be enough?

**kb305**

Hyd wrote:
speedo wrote:Regardless, it's apparent that many feel Grey Knights are somewhat OP, cheesy or unfair, and there's usually merit in a consensus like that.
You're giving a lot of credit to the herd. Again, define "OP".

The very concept of GK is that indeed, they do things better than others. The Grey Knights' schtick is to emphasize quality over quantity. They're supposed to be "as superior to other Space Marines as Space Marines are superior to normal human beings" (I wouldn't take this literally, but this is how they state it). That's their theme.
On the other hand, they pay the price for it in points. The cheapest footman in the codex comes at 20 points, excluding FOC-modifying special characters. The most basic Troops unit costs 100 points for five bodies, and you're looking at much higher than that to have a functional unit.
Paladins are the best infantry in the game, and they are so heavily priced that lists that don't revolve around them usually don't include them at all.

Yes, the book contains its fair share of brainfarts as well. Purifiers are undercosted, with Crowe making it worse. Dreadnoughts' psybolts are undercosted. Coteaz is undercosted and his henchmen take it to ludicrous levels. All APCs in the game are undercosted.
Then again, Space Wolves.

So there are people who exploit these bargains, resulting in netlists.
Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but netlists aren't the be all end all of competitive play. There is a multitude of factors beside the army list that determine the outcome of a game. Generalship comes to mind, of course. Time showed that GKs are not a "I win" army. Empirical data do not point toward a clearly skewed distribution of W/L for that particular army ; it is however a strong contender amongst other strong codices. One of the book's notable strengths is that it contains no bad option, allowing for a variety of viable builds. (Note that I didn't say "no weakness".)

Here I might sound cynical, but a straightforward army with above average stats like GK makes for an effective noobstomper. It so happens that you hear a lot of complains about them in friendly environments, where winning is seldom the prime objective anyway. Does it really come off as a surprise that an army with no weak option and solid capabilities across-the-board performs well in a laid-back environment ?
You've got to consider match-ups as well. Poor match-ups exist ; so do old or poorly designed codices. It can only make things worse. But is it a reason to say GKs are too powerful ? I don't think so. Having no bad entry should be a reality for all books ; wouldn't it be a good thing if any army could be both "fluffy" and perfectly viable at the same time ?

I for one strive to be objective and will gladly discuss this matter if someone is willing to give it more thought than "lol gk op is all". Otherwise, I'll still have difficulties taking that position seriously.

i stopped reading when you said that grey knights are supposed to be better than everyone - really sick of reading that.

lets just say it for what it is. GW made it op on purpose to increase sales.

**Draigo**

lol Wasn't that much better when you allied them with the new spac wolf dex either. Str 8 spam and tons of str 6 fw were just as prevelant. Thought it was funny to have +4 psy defense all over and you needed to roll night fight x2 just to see the old knights.

Or put them with IG and let them do things like camo cloak back in the fight, bring it down etc while the knights whomped on people in cc.

Same belly ache new generation and 3.5 chaos was still worse.. I mean could you imagine ds and then assault! mwuahaha or 2nd edition where you could run from assault to assault. People have short memories and aren't paying attention to other dexes like Crons who are cleaning house in the GT right now.

**Luke_Prowler**

Oh, let the grey knight players have their 15 minutes of fame. I'm sure they'll be whining just as loud once the 6th edition space marines/orks/eldar/whatever comes out, and all their stupid argument will get thrown right back in their faces.

**Hyd**

dnanoodle wrote:What are people who call them undercosted calling for? How much would be enough?

Let's be honest, Purifiers are a steal. They die like Marines, but for a small premium you've got a unit that makes GKSS feel utterly inadequate.
First, I can't understand why they have a discount on their NFW. It makes no sense, their 2A let them get much more mileage off their weapons. Give them the same cost as Strikers' weapons and we're looking at something more reasonable.
Then you have Cleansing Flame. I'm not even sure such a thing is priceable. It doesn't have any kind of diminishing return, its power just grows at the same rate as the number of targets increases. The more I think of it, the less I like it. If anything is genuinely overpowered in the book, it's that power.

Psybolts costing virtually nothing for Dreadnoughts is a nonsense. I usually don't take a definitive stance on things, but there's no arguing that. Look up "bargain" in a dictionary and you'll find the picture of a psyfleman.

Luke_Prowler wrote:Oh, let the grey knight players have their 15 minutes of fame. I'm sure they'll be whining just as loud once the 6th edition space marines/orks/eldar/whatever comes out, and all their stupid argument will get thrown right back in their faces.

See, that's exactly the kind of childish posts coming from "the herd" that comforts me in my opinion that for each droplet of actual argument against GK, there's a metric ton of senseless bitching.

kb305 wrote:i stopped reading when you said that grey knights are supposed to be better than everyone - really sick of reading that.

Good, I wouldn't want to give you a headache with a thought-provoking post.
Just so you know though, Daemonhunters and their "elite of the elite" theme have been around since 2003. The very concept of the Grey Knights is even older.

speedo wrote:there's usually some measure of merit in a common sentiment because people aren't sheep.

Well, this is certainly too optimistic a view for me.
It doesn't seem unreasonable to me to state that the burden of the proof lies on the speaker. And yet, I have yet to hear actually thought-out and sensible opinions about the matter. This thread is an example. In fact, posts that boil down to "QQ" just undermine their stance. We have a few examples here. There seems to be bitterness and internet rage where I'm expecting food for thought. That's just not constructive. I'm not all that interested in a discussion where I'm providing the thinking for both sides. (Note that I'm not including you in that.)

To clarify, I'm not saying the GK codex isn't a strong book. It is, clearly. I'm challenging the claim that it is "overpowered", because I think we have yet to see such a thing. That's why I'm asking for a definition of "OP". I say it's strong ; some say it's too strong. Where is the limit ? That's the kind of definition that would take us somewhere.