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.

I really hate when people call the GKs cheese when a Guard mech list can blast them away. Anything that excels at range can really take them down. People that call them cheese are technically hypocrites because their army will be updated soon enough and when everyone complaints about that army the person owning them will be saying the same thing as I am.

I'm going to try to start off this flamebait thread on a relatively nice note. Let's try to set the tone for a reasonable discussion hmm?

Grey Knights are a very powerful army. Like all marines, they are capable of simply pointing themselves at threats and ignoring all else until the threat is destroyed, rinse, repeat. Furthermore, like marines, they are much more forgiving than other, less tough, less elite armies (e.g. accidentally straying into assault range will not mean the death of a unit - in fact, you can still win if your opponent whiffs).

Grey Knights augment these strengths by having tons of other elite goodies to make them even better. They also have very few obvious weaknesses for players to exploit, unlike other codices which make weaknesses very clear on statlines and in penalties within special rules.

Finally, Grey Knights have access to some potent (and IMHO, pretty cheesy) force multiplier HQ choices like Crowe and Coteaz, which allow you to get past the "small, elite force" setup which forms the foundation of Grey Knight weaknesses.

Now, what are some GK weaknesses? With the exception of the top-tier spam lists (like Coteaz and Crowe), which are primarily only susceptible to the other standard top-tier lists (e.g. IG, SW, etc), Grey Knights are slow and expensive. Even in Rhinos or Razorbacks, they're not much different gameplay-wise than regular marines, but are somewhat more expensive. Whittling them down and then destroying them piecemeal is a good strategy. Forcing them into choke-point assaults where they can't all get engaged is also a good tactic. Pretty soon they won't have anything on the table capable of putting up a fight, and the battle is basically over.

Prioritizing powerful units like Dreadnoughts and Paladin Deathstars (all Paladins are Deathstars really...) and transports can go a long way towards splitting up a Grey Knight force. Also, remembering the Grey Knight avenues of attack is key to outplaying a Grey Knight player. Don't Deep Strike against well-deployed Strike Squads/Interceptors, don't charge Ork Boyz into Purifiers, etc.

Anyway, that's how people can see them as cheese; they are a powerful army with little to no unit-by-unit weaknesses, and at least two highly competitive list-types, the sum of which requires an opponent to skillfully manipulate the GK player and take advantage of army-wide weaknesses (like speed, range, leadership reduction + fallback escorts, etc) in order to reduce a GK army to a manageable size.

The only real major thing, that I personally consider OP, is Fortitude. it is just too good.

Xcaliber covered everything pretty well though.

I can understand that they are I powerful army but every army in Warhammer 40k in my opinion has a counter to another army I think that any grey knight list can't beat mech guard. Like 6 leman russ and vet sqds with meltas. It's the anti-grey knight list I think. Obiviously that guard list would fall to a BA Assault Marine list.

I just hate the fact people even refuse to play against me when I field GKs. I agree with you they have few weaknesses but that's because they are a small elite army.





Automatically Appended Next Post:

Sasori wrote:The only real major thing, that I personally consider OP, is Fortitude. it is just too good.

Xcaliber covered everything pretty well though.

haha I can agree with you on that!

Stormtrooper520 wrote:I really hate when people call the GKs cheese when a Guard mech list can blast them away. Anything that excels at range can really take them down. People that call them cheese are technically hypocrites because their army will be updated soon enough and when everyone complaints about that army the person owning them will be saying the same thing as I am.

Cheese? I could care less about that.

My issue is with two things:
a) all the gamers that hopped on the bandwagon after the Codex came out (and got significantly better.) Many of them will talk about how awesome Draigowing is, in the same tone that you'd hear a father bragging about how his kid beat up another kid at school on Monday. Seriously?


b) Daemonhunters, I played. And had a significantly sized force. I dropped them, because Codex Grey Knights threw fluff out the window in the name of "awsum", and went from an army that took skill to play, to one that is a near "instant win" card against certain armies. 4 points more than a Vanilla Tac Marine, buys you a Storm Bolter, access to Psychic powers, and a Force/Power weapon. Again...seriously?

I hate that Codex Grey Knights allows mediocre players to perform on par with excellent players, even when both Codexi were written in the current edition.

If I could change the codex I would bump up the costs of the HQs and Troops. 20 points per model for a space marine with a force weapon with powers is a bit, over the top.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I think GW messed up the points cost a lot

Crowe fluff could use work.

DreadlordME! wrote:Crowe fluff could use work.

And Draigo fluff (/Matt Ward) could go away.

When is GW making a Xenos inquisitor model?

Matt Ward should get sucked into the warp and stop ruining codexes lol

Grey Knights are considered cheese because they have upgrades that no other army gets, and they get them for next to nothing.

A tac marine has a bolter and a bolt pistol. A 5 man squad has no options except on the sarge, and costs 90 points.

A 5 man GKSS has a storm bolter, and a force weapon with extra rules, plus a useful psychic power for anti deepstrike AND a useful psychic power for +1 strenght. They can get 1 of 3 shooting weapon options, with the flamer being s6 and the psycannon able to kill every model in the game, while also firing on the move. The sarge still gets cc weapon options, but so does the entire squad now. They pay 10 points more than the tactical squad for all of this.

So 10 points, 2 points per model, gets you an upgraded gun, an extra heavy weapon, more powerful heavy weapons, upgraded cc weapons, the ability to buy as many cc weapons as you want, 2 psychic powers, anti daemon powers, psychic defense, and the same transport options.

Whats worse, Grey Knight strike squads are considered inferior troop units to unlocked purfiers and henchmen squads.

So, when your playing regular marines with a tactical squad, and your opponent upgrades every possible thing you do for 2 points/model on the first 5 models... what does that make you feel like?

Thus spake people who dont understand oppurtunity costs.

ACTUAL grey knights are not cheese; you pay a reasonable price for them because a) you have no access to melta, THE weapon of 5th ed, and b) you HAVE to pay for them, even if you dont need the abilities.

Everyone stating that GKSS / GKP / etc are cheese are entirely missing the real cheese: henchmen squads.

A tooled up 1750 point henchmen army will OUTSHOOT a guard army, wwill outlast them (negating stunned and shaken 11/12 times) and will have jsut as many scoring units.

The, reason, IMO, that GKs are cheese is 1. what the other guys said, and 2. the fact that they have access to some truly ridiculous stuff, like Mr. Draigo (bad fluff, not to mention his t and s of 5; no marine should have that) and is incredibly good against my poor CSm's. An example; they do not cost much more than a csm, and they are better at range, much better at close combat, and have psychic powers. not to talk about that my army's best invul save is 4+ and GK has 2+. And the dreadknight.

Grey Knights are fine.

The only unit unintentionally underpriced unit is most likely the Psyfleman-Dread, as it mitigates the Grey Knights range-problem a bit too easily.

But again, not nearly as badly balanced/priced as, say, SW Long Fangs, IG Vendettas or DE Ravagers all told.

I played a guy at the last tourny I went to (it was a friendly local one), and basically throughout the game that he had 2+ invulns across the board. I heard people complaining about the army here on dakka and I thought I recalled hearing about the 2+ invuln. However, I later find out that it's 2+/4++ or something along those lines, so the demo charge I threw at them that did nothing should have def did something.

Also, it took about 220 lasgun shots to fell the guys dreadknight, lmao.

2+ invul is ONLY in combat and ONLY one model per unit -= ward stave

They only get a 4++ when in combat using a Force Sword.

Zweischneid wrote:Grey Knights are fine.

The only unit unintentionally underpriced unit is most likely the Psyfleman-Dread, as it mitigates the Grey Knights range-problem a bit too easily.

But again, not nearly as badly balanced/priced as, say, SW Long Fangs, IG Vendettas or DE Ravagers all told.

Dark Eldar Ravagers badly priced? 11 front armor.....

nosferatu1001 wrote:2+ invul is ONLY in combat and ONLY one model per unit -= ward stave

They only get a 4++ when in combat using a Force Sword.

It was a 1k pt game, he ran a dread knight, the throne walker, and two 5 or so man squads of termies.

So you're saying those termies were just 2+ at ranged and thats it?

I need to get around to reading that book. The rules and statlines anyways.

Negator80 wrote:

Zweischneid wrote:Grey Knights are fine.

The only unit unintentionally underpriced unit is most likely the Psyfleman-Dread, as it mitigates the Grey Knights range-problem a bit too easily.

But again, not nearly as badly balanced/priced as, say, SW Long Fangs, IG Vendettas or DE Ravagers all told.

Dark Eldar Ravagers badly priced? 11 front armor.....

3 Lascannons alone cost Marines 105 pts.... WITHOUT even the (stationary) Marines to use them nor a Lance-special rules attached... much less a vehicle that can move 12" and shoot or get 3++ cover saves (or even 5++ saves just like that). I don't care if it has front armour 5. For that price, you shouldn't be able to get even the 3 Dark Lances, much less a vehicle to mount them on or a crew to operate them. For the first-turn devastation it can cause, the Ravager is too cheap as it is even if it would auto-destruct after the first turn with no need for the enemy to even shoot it. I have not ever seen a Ravager deployed that DID NOT make its points back turn 1; turn 2 at the latest. It's the most lazy, unimaginative, unchallenging type of spam-unit 40K (along with Long Fangs) and a good example of precisely of the sort of bad Codex-writing that has been responsible for the dumbing down of the game.

Basically what's been covered. They cost slightly more than a CSM, but are infinitely better.

Stormtrooper520 wrote:People that call them cheese are technically hypocrites because their army will be updated soon enough and when everyone complaints about that army the person owning them will be saying the same thing as I am.

They'd be hypocrites if they were calling cheese while playing CSM 3.5. Don't worry, though. If Chaos ever get their cheese back, I'll be saying 'Hell yeah we've got cheese! Wanna battle?'

Zweischneid wrote: It's the most lazy, unimaginative, unchallenging type of spam-unit 40K (along with Long Fangs) and a good example of precisely of the sort of bad Codex-writing that has been responsible for the dumbing down of the game.

No, no. If you want a good example of bad Codex writing, compare the Imperial Guard Codex and the Tyranid Codex for competitiveness and then realize that it was written by the same person (or persons), Robin Cruddace (and Co.)

My personal experience with Grey Knights is that their not that bad. Sure I struggle a little with Mech Tau, but after getting all the Grey Knights on foot, I can basically kite the entire army with what Devil Fish/Fire Warriors I have left. The thing that I will point out though is that the Grey Knights seem way more potent psyker wise than the Eldar, the supposed masters of sorcery and witchcraft.

The GK is the hands down best CC army on the board. that should change ur tack to fight at rng to counter. the hammer will take land raders out. so when you think assault marines are ur answer your going to fail

Zweischneid wrote:

Negator80 wrote:

Zweischneid wrote:Grey Knights are fine.

The only unit unintentionally underpriced unit is most likely the Psyfleman-Dread, as it mitigates the Grey Knights range-problem a bit too easily.

But again, not nearly as badly balanced/priced as, say, SW Long Fangs, IG Vendettas or DE Ravagers all told.

Dark Eldar Ravagers badly priced? 11 front armor.....

3 Lascannons alone cost Marines 105 pts.... WITHOUT even the (stationary) Marines to use them nor a Lance-special rules attached... much less a vehicle that can move 12" and shoot or get 3++ cover saves (or even 5++ saves just like that). I don't care if it has front armour 5. For that price, you shouldn't be able to get even the 3 Dark Lances, much less a vehicle to mount them on or a crew to operate them. For the first-turn devastation it can cause, the Ravager is too cheap as it is even if it would auto-destruct after the first turn with no need for the enemy to even shoot it. I have not ever seen a Ravager deployed that DID NOT make its points back turn 1; turn 2 at the latest. It's the most lazy, unimaginative, unchallenging type of spam-unit 40K (along with Long Fangs) and a good example of precisely of the sort of bad Codex-writing that has been responsible for the dumbing down of the game.

A single damage result per ravager on average is hardly overpowered. In fact darklances are barely adequate longrange AT weapons for their price. The lance rule is nice but how much AV 13+ stuff do you actually see on the table? In fact against most lists three lascanons would be vastly superior. The Ravager itself is very thinskinned ( yay, av11 + open toped ) and probably won't see the end of round 2.

Stormtrooper520 wrote:I really hate when people call the GKs cheese when a Guard mech list can blast them away. Anything that excels at range can really take them down.

Just becasue mech IG can blast them doesn't mean other armies can deal with them, and GK's can make armies very similar to mech IG. GK's can fit in 6 squads of troops with 3 meltas each in Chimeras with Coteaz and 3 Psyrifle dreads in 1000pts with points to spare.

People that call them cheese are technically hypocrites because their army will be updated soon enough

Huh? On what planet does that logic follow? They call them cheese because their armies will be updated at some vague point in the future so they're hypocrites? Methinks you don't understand that word.

and when everyone complaints about that army the person owning them will be saying the same thing as I am.

Zweischneid wrote:
3 Lascannons alone cost Marines 105 pts.... WITHOUT even the (stationary) Marines to use them nor a Lance-special rules attached... much less a vehicle that can move 12" and shoot or get 3++ cover saves (or even 5++ saves just like that). I don't care if it has front armour 5. For that price, you shouldn't be able to get even the 3 Dark Lances, much less a vehicle to mount them on or a crew to operate them. For the first-turn devastation it can cause, the Ravager is too cheap as it is even if it would auto-destruct after the first turn with no need for the enemy to even shoot it. I have not ever seen a Ravager deployed that DID NOT make its points back turn 1; turn 2 at the latest. It's the most lazy, unimaginative, unchallenging type of spam-unit 40K (along with Long Fangs) and a good example of precisely of the sort of bad Codex-writing that has been responsible for the dumbing down of the game.

DE Ravagers haven't really changed much in 13 years. They never seemed to be much of an issue before. Long Fangs can be fairly resilient and pack in almost twice as much firepower and can hit two different targets, Vendettas are much hardier and can carry troops with multiple deployment tricks. Ravagers are easily taken care of, they're a heavy weapons platform that's easier to kill than a Rhino. They've never been an issue for me in my games against Dark Eldar. I think I can count on one hand the number of times I've seen one live through the entire game since 4E.

Necoshea - no, terminators are terminators, 2+/5++ when shooting. In close combat if his terminators (not dreadknight) have the default Force Swords this increases to a 4++. The warding stave is only a 2++ in close combat.

@Nosferatu A bit more complicated than what I'm used to (5+, I never have to worry about rolling for saves because I never get them! Easy mode!), but I think I've got it now.

I really don't see why people complain so much about vendettas. Yes, they are cheap, bringing 3 TL Lascannons for 130 pts, but they have AV 12 and their base puts them so far in the air that they'll NEVER get a cover save from most terrain. Honestly I think the Doom is far worse than the Vendetta.

Necroshea wrote:
I really don't see why people complain so much about vendettas. Yes, they are cheap, bringing 3 TL Lascannons for 130 pts, but they have AV 12 and their base puts them so far in the air that they'll NEVER get a cover save from most terrain. Honestly I think the Doom is far worse than the Vendetta.

As someone who owns 3 vendettas, I'll explain a bit.

The vendetta allows one to take significant long range firepower in an FoC slot that really isn't about providing that capability, keeping those HS slots open for pie-plates and more big guns.

Additionally, the Scout ability gives it a lot of flexibility and some very powerful turn 1 defensive capability (hey I get a 4+ cover save turn 1 from my scout move!)


I think if it were moved to HS instead of FA you'd see most complaints about it disappear as you wouldn't get the long range AT plus the pieplates to follow up the vendetta popping transports.

Zweischneid wrote:Ravager whining

First of all, DE do not equal Space Marines. Second of all, darklances aren't lascannons. Lascannons on devastator squads are stupidly overpriced anyway. Regardless, Ravagers are good but far from game breaking. AV11 open topped can get wrecked by a heavy bolter. They're scary but can't hold up to a stiff breeze. It's almost like being a glass cannon is what the entire Dark Eldar army is buiilt around! Who knew!

Brother SRM wrote:

Zweischneid wrote:Ravager whining

First of all, DE do not equal Space Marines. Second of all, darklances aren't lascannons. Lascannons on devastator squads are stupidly overpriced anyway. Regardless, Ravagers are good but far from game breaking. AV11 open topped can get wrecked by a heavy bolter. They're scary but can't hold up to a stiff breeze. It's almost like being a glass cannon is what the entire Dark Eldar army is buiilt around! Who knew!

Lascannons on devastators are not stupidly overpriced in comparison to well-written Codexes who don't hand out cheese like there's no tomorrow (e.g. those ineptly written pieces of junk that include Long Fangs or Ravagers). AV11 doesn't matter as the low cost of Ravagers (much like Long Fangs)., the lack of serious FoC competition due to horrid internal balance and the utter lack of cross-unit synergies allows DE to mindlessly spam that stuff, making up fragility with target saturation. Landraiders don't survive most games either. It's a non issue as Ravager put out 50% more shots a turn than a LC-Landraider at litte over 1/3 the price, better target saturation and an irrelevant weakness that doesn't in any way impede a Ravagers abiltiy to full-fill its role of de-meching an opponent in the early turns of a game.

But you are right. DE do not equal Space Marines, other than perhaps Space Wolves. These are simply cheesily written Codexes. Overpowered/Underpriced isn't even the worst of it. What's so sad about these is that they insult a gamers intelligence by straightjacketing into far too easy, far too straight forward, far too reliable, far too brainless spam-strategies that gut the game of any last inkling of subtelty or finesse that it may have once had before the coming of Phil Kelly.

Zweischneid wrote:AV11 doesn't matter as the low cost of Ravagers (much like Long Fangs)., the lack of serious FoC competition due to horrid internal balance and the utter lack of cross-unit synergies allows DE to mindlessly spam that stuff, making up fragility with target saturation.

The fragility very much does matter, because even anti-infantry weapons can be used to good effect against it. I've played more than one game against DE where the ravagers never got to shoot.

Landraiders don't survive most games either

usually because they're trying to deliver troops and get within meltagun and CC range.

It's a non issue as Ravager put out 50% more shots a turn than a LC-Landraider

The Lances are merely equal to or outright inferior to the lascannons against anything but an AV14 target, against anything AV12 and below the lascannon is superior. The Land Raider also gets to reroll misses, making the Ravagers effective shot output only about 13% greater, and this is if we're ignoring the heavy bolter.

at litte over 1/3 the price

About 40% of the cost. It cannot carry troops, much less heavily armored assault troops, and isn't unvulnerable to all but the heaviest anti-tank weapons, can't split fire, and can't fire even when shaken/stunned, and doesn't have the diverse array of weapons that LR's have available to them.

better target saturation and an irrelevant weakness that doesn't in any way impede a Ravagers abiltiy to full-fill its role of de-meching an opponent in the early turns of a game.

On average, 3 Ravagers with 9 Dark Lances will inflict a single Destroyed result against AV11 vehicles assuming no cover save, or 1.66 combined destroyed/immobilized results against AV11. 3 TLLC Razorbacks against the Ravagers are on average going to inflict 1 destroyed result back.

Seems like the Ravagers are at wee bit of a disadvantage there.

But you are right. DE do not equal Space Marines, other than perhaps Space Wolves. These are simply cheesily written Codexes. Overpowered/Underpriced isn't even the worst of it. What's so sad about these is that they insult a gamers intelligence by straightjacketing into far too easy, far too straight forward, far too reliable, far too brainless spam-strategies that gut the game of any last inkling of subtelty or finesse that it may have once had before the coming of Phil Kelly.

Do you even play this game? DE are not an easy army to play, they fall apart if you can bring any reliable amount of fire to bear against them, and, as shown above, the much vaunted Ravagers aren't the de-meching machines you think they are.