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.

So 14 pages and it all boils down to this vvv ? Really, I demand satisfaction when I read a 14 page hate thread!

Tomb King wrote:

daedalus wrote:. ALL of the 5th edition 'dexes are nasty. Hell, you can even make outright vicious 'Nid builds, if you don't mind spamming a lot, and I don't mean Tervigons.

And you lost me... Here! Nids are fun but with GK, SW, IG, and of course Dark Eldar. They just have no say in a competitive environment. How many top 5 places with Nids have you seen since grey knights hit, or lets even back it up further, since their FAQ hit. Find a different angle for your feverish argument against the masses.

But now we're arguing the same thing as the GK argument, just on the opposite end of the spectrum. How many Nid players show up to tournaments? Now consider how many SW/GK/BA players show up for a tournament? In most of them that I've played in, I don't even encounter a non-SM variant, except maybe Orks.

The Nid list I run is pretty nasty when I do play it. It usually centers around genestealer spam with a small handful of big creatures thrown in. It has done well enough playing against other people to have me convinced that they're also not as bad as the internet groupthink would lead you to believe.

ShumaGorath wrote:

Don't underestimate the importance of giving Dev's FNP in how you compare them versus long fangs. A couple ablative bodies and 1 sang priest means those 3 dev units are nigh-impossible to kill without actually engaging them in combat. Engaging them in combat is no easy feat since they're far away, and you're generally being rushed by a ton of jumper marines, so you have to deal with them first.

Against long fangs, I typically just torrent them with Psybacks/Psyfle Dreads/Storm bolters that have moved up. I won't kill them all, but I'll cause morale checks (painful when deployed near the edge) or kill off enough missiles/etc. to blunt their effectiveness. Against BA devs, this won't cut it.

As awful as comparative theoryhammer discussions are, I feel that I have to interject something. You are comparing the combined cost effectiveness of a full dev army backbone with FNP support to three min maxed long fang squads. There is a difference of several hundred points between these two formations in isolation. One is nearly twice the cost of the other. This negates such a comparison entirely since it is discounting any possible supporting/non elements within the space wolf army that would utilize those points.

You may now return to bickering.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

pretre wrote:

Experiment 626 wrote:Please explain to the Daemon players (such as myself) how GK's are balanced?!? You know, when you show up to your average game night and the quake-shunt lists come to play. God forbid 'prefered enemy' turns out in 6th as it's rumored...

If guys are pulling out a quake-shunt list on you at game night just because you play daemons, then you probably play with a bag of dicks. List tailoring is a dick move normally, but in casual 'game night' games? Pure dickery.

It effects space marine drop pod and BA DOA forces as well doesn't it? It's not really just a monobuild against demons. It's got good use against Dark Angels and a couple popular tyranid builds as well. Besides, the point was primarily that a power that cheaply negates the capacity of an army to function at a basic level is inherently unbalanced and stupid.

The difference is 50 points, the cost of the sang priest. The ablative bodies are worth taking, but in the comparison the point still stands that 15 marines with missiles + fnp, versus 15 without fnp, are very different beasts.

The points aren't that dissimilar until you start taking ablative wounds, which isn't really the point of the comparison, just mentioned as something that most people would in fact do.

daedalus wrote:The Nid list I run is pretty nasty when I do play it. It usually centers around genestealer spam with a small handful of big creatures thrown in. It has done well enough playing against other people to have me convinced that they're also not as bad as the internet groupthink would lead you to believe.

Especially since, as has already been established, some of the most vocal and bitter haters actually haven't even played the armies in question.

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

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

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

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

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

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

That's my prediction.

This is a good post. At the tournaments I have attended this year, I have mostly not seen top players fielding GK. It's mostly been semi-skilled guys who jumped on the bandwagon and have speedpainted a quickie army, but don't have the real gaming chops to dominate with it. That being said, even top players I know, when matched up against those GKs, have to work for their wins. The genuinely high-quality players I've seen fielding GKs have been stomping people. Look at Nick Nanavati's results with his early in the year before he switched out of using the GKs due to finding them kind of an easy button. Or Neil Gilstrap at Battle for Salvation.

I think there are still some top players who are likely to keep turning up their nose at GKs this year, but more who will build them now, both because they've had a season of using their last army, and because the Adepticon TT gives them a good reason to build 1k worth, and they might as well complete it from there. This year's results should give us a clearer picture of how strong GKs are in big events.

daedalus wrote:

Kepora wrote:
Um...

When addressing an audience, it is generally considered poor form to stammer or use filler words, such as "um" or "like", or any other words of the sort. The fact that this pervades into your writing, where temporal flow is not something measurable by your audience, is not encouraging.

DE balance otu by being a glass cannon, so you still have to position and play smart or anythign that survives the alpha-strike will SHRED your army. GKs, on the other hand, are nigh-invincible uber-marines

Dark lances insta-kill Paladins. Everything else dies like all other marines, except without storm shields. Where's the nigh-invincible uber-marines?

whom are marines whom are better than the marines whom are better than those other marines".

http://www.grammarbook.com/grammar/whoVwhom.asp

Though, in all fairness, I have yetto play them, so I'm holding my true judgement of them until I get that opportunity.

Really? Cause, like, it sounds like you have yielded judgement unto those whom you've not yet played. (Irony, or is it?)

I still think Space Wolves are the most broken (Loganwing w/ Ragnar attached, 3+ to hit ANYTHING in combat via wolfdick necklaces, VERY cheap Longdwarves, Eternal Warrior spam, and Thunderwolves whom are somehow Toughness 5 multi-wound models while bikers andTyphus are 4(5) and Nurgle Lords on bikes are 4(6)?)

I had to read this a couple times, mostly to try to figure out what "Longdwarves" was a reference to. I guess cause they're beardy? Outside of the Eternal Warrior spam (what does that?), I think I agree with you. SW are nasty. ALL of the 5th edition 'dexes are nasty. Hell, you can even make outright vicious 'Nid builds, if you don't mind spamming a lot, and I don't mean Tervigons.

Alright, wasn't the most well thought-out post I've ever made. I'll concede that.

-Insta-killing Paladins is true...but that's if someone's fileidng Paladins. And they're out in the open instead of deployed in cover. And not in a Land Raider Crusader or the likes. Marines die, but they're still tough-they ARE mairnes, after all.
-...damn, you got me on the who vs. whom thing. Normally I'm better about that!
-Someone else already made the Long Wangs joke, and there was another phallus joke in the post, so... *shrug* As for Eternal Warrior, my main issue's with the Lone Wolves, the guys whom WANT to die yet are able to take Terminator armor, storm shields, have FNP and EW. Logan having it isn't as bad, but I'm likely missing a few ICs; I'll dig up the .pdf in a bit. I've face a few lists that ran dual Lone Wolves and varying degrees of Loganwing, and I can say that it takes a pretty rediculous amount of attention to get rid of a pair of Termie armor/chainfist/storm shield (and in a couple of cases, a pair of cyberwolves each) Lone Wolves, which can be a problem then they're lurking around an objective, and the fact that they don't give up a Kill Point unless they SURVIVE...

Mannahnin wrote:
This is a good post. At the tournaments I have attended this year, I have mostly not seen top players fielding GK. It's mostly been semi-skilled guys who jumped on the bandwagon and have speedpainted a quickie army, but don't have the real gaming chops to dominate with it. That being said, even top players I know, when matched up against those GKs, have to work for their wins. The genuinely high-quality players I've seen fielding GKs have been stomping people. Look at Nick Nanavati's results with his early in the year before he switched out of using the GKs due to finding them kind of an easy button. Or Neil Gilstrap at Battle for Salvation.

I think there are still some top players who are likely to keep turning up their nose at GKs this year, but more who will build them now, both because they've had a season of using their last army, and because the Adepticon TT gives them a good reason to build 1k worth, and they might as well complete it from there. This year's results should give us a clearer picture of how strong GKs are in big events.

See, I think the real test will be 'How do GK's stack up in 6th ed?'

2012 is still going to be a heavily biased year because we have a new edition dropping and if 8th ed fantasy showed us anything, we can expect;
a) 2-3 armies will get massive (likely unintended) buffs to their overall effectiveness. Look at WoC, DoC & Dwarfs in fantasy as all 3 got significant power boosts with their easy access to great weapon infantry hordes.

b) Most armies will transition 'well enough' in that they'll have a good deal of buffs countered by some of their current power builds taking a hit on the chin. Lizzies for example were annoying as piss with MSU skirmishing skinks poisoning everything to death, but now have had to shift back to ranked saurus and are still a rock solid army!

c) 2-3 armies will got horrifically hosed and be rendered all but unplayable outside of 1-2 specific cookie-cutter builds. *cough*undeadandwoodelves*cough*

Once 2013 hits I think things will start to really show just how powerful/broken GK's really are. Daemons were bemoaned almost universally as broken beyond sin in 7th ed fantasy, for example, and after almost 2 years of 8th ed, we have seen that without doubt Daemons really are the most powerful book because even an edition that was ment to 'reel them in' has done less than expected to curb the army from roflstomping at the tournament level. (instead of horror spam, it's just changed to lore of life heralds + 'letters spam)
IF GK's come 2013 are still a top contending army, then it will likely prove that the book was/is horribly unbalanced because typically the top armies from one edition become the new losers of the new edition. (look at VC's who got shoehorned into requiring 1 cookie-cutter build to even win a game!)

7th ed Fantasy was dominated by Daemons, VC's & Dark Elves. Not tournaments tend to have quite balanced showings overall, with the new 'filth' being Daemons, Chaos Warriors & Skaven.
I think after the initial 6-8 month ajustment period of 6th ed 40k we'll see the likes of SW's, BA's & GK's replaced by other armies with GK's still holding their place right around the top.

Just my 2 cents.

Experiment 626 wrote:

Mannahnin wrote:
This is a good post. At the tournaments I have attended this year, I have mostly not seen top players fielding GK. It's mostly been semi-skilled guys who jumped on the bandwagon and have speedpainted a quickie army, but don't have the real gaming chops to dominate with it. That being said, even top players I know, when matched up against those GKs, have to work for their wins. The genuinely high-quality players I've seen fielding GKs have been stomping people. Look at Nick Nanavati's results with his early in the year before he switched out of using the GKs due to finding them kind of an easy button. Or Neil Gilstrap at Battle for Salvation.

I think there are still some top players who are likely to keep turning up their nose at GKs this year, but more who will build them now, both because they've had a season of using their last army, and because the Adepticon TT gives them a good reason to build 1k worth, and they might as well complete it from there. This year's results should give us a clearer picture of how strong GKs are in big events.

See, I think the real test will be 'How do GK's stack up in 6th ed?'

2012 is still going to be a heavily biased year because we have a new edition dropping and if 8th ed fantasy showed us anything, we can expect;
a) 2-3 armies will get massive (likely unintended) buffs to their overall effectiveness. Look at WoC, DoC & Dwarfs in fantasy as all 3 got significant power boosts with their easy access to great weapon infantry hordes.

b) Most armies will transition 'well enough' in that they'll have a good deal of buffs countered by some of their current power builds taking a hit on the chin. Lizzies for example were annoying as piss with MSU skirmishing skinks poisoning everything to death, but now have had to shift back to ranked saurus and are still a rock solid army!

c) 2-3 armies will got horrifically hosed and be rendered all but unplayable outside of 1-2 specific cookie-cutter builds. *cough*undeadandwoodelves*cough*

Once 2013 hits I think things will start to really show just how powerful/broken GK's really are. Daemons were bemoaned almost universally as broken beyond sin in 7th ed fantasy, for example, and after almost 2 years of 8th ed, we have seen that without doubt Daemons really are the most powerful book because even an edition that was ment to 'reel them in' has done less than expected to curb the army from roflstomping at the tournament level. (instead of horror spam, it's just changed to lore of life heralds + 'letters spam)
IF GK's come 2013 are still a top contending army, then it will likely prove that the book was/is horribly unbalanced because typically the top armies from one edition become the new losers of the new edition. (look at VC's who got shoehorned into requiring 1 cookie-cutter build to even win a game!)

7th ed Fantasy was dominated by Daemons, VC's & Dark Elves. Not tournaments tend to have quite balanced showings overall, with the new 'filth' being Daemons, Chaos Warriors & Skaven.
I think after the initial 6-8 month ajustment period of 6th ed 40k we'll see the likes of SW's, BA's & GK's replaced by other armies with GK's still holding their place right around the top.

Just my 2 cents.

Quoted for truth! I have my fingers crossed about the new vampire release in January. The tomb kings book was disappointing for the most part. Cool new toys and different type of army but not as durable and magic which is the new craze isn't strong enough.

Grey knights are to 40k what daemons are to fantasy. Had a tzeentch player snipe my vampire lord on turn 1 of a tournament out of my unit for the instant win before I moved a model fun game glad I drove 4 hours to play.

Tomb King wrote:

Experiment 626 wrote:

Mannahnin wrote:
This is a good post. At the tournaments I have attended this year, I have mostly not seen top players fielding GK. It's mostly been semi-skilled guys who jumped on the bandwagon and have speedpainted a quickie army, but don't have the real gaming chops to dominate with it. That being said, even top players I know, when matched up against those GKs, have to work for their wins. The genuinely high-quality players I've seen fielding GKs have been stomping people. Look at Nick Nanavati's results with his early in the year before he switched out of using the GKs due to finding them kind of an easy button. Or Neil Gilstrap at Battle for Salvation.

I think there are still some top players who are likely to keep turning up their nose at GKs this year, but more who will build them now, both because they've had a season of using their last army, and because the Adepticon TT gives them a good reason to build 1k worth, and they might as well complete it from there. This year's results should give us a clearer picture of how strong GKs are in big events.

See, I think the real test will be 'How do GK's stack up in 6th ed?'

2012 is still going to be a heavily biased year because we have a new edition dropping and if 8th ed fantasy showed us anything, we can expect;
a) 2-3 armies will get massive (likely unintended) buffs to their overall effectiveness. Look at WoC, DoC & Dwarfs in fantasy as all 3 got significant power boosts with their easy access to great weapon infantry hordes.

b) Most armies will transition 'well enough' in that they'll have a good deal of buffs countered by some of their current power builds taking a hit on the chin. Lizzies for example were annoying as piss with MSU skirmishing skinks poisoning everything to death, but now have had to shift back to ranked saurus and are still a rock solid army!

c) 2-3 armies will got horrifically hosed and be rendered all but unplayable outside of 1-2 specific cookie-cutter builds. *cough*undeadandwoodelves*cough*

Once 2013 hits I think things will start to really show just how powerful/broken GK's really are. Daemons were bemoaned almost universally as broken beyond sin in 7th ed fantasy, for example, and after almost 2 years of 8th ed, we have seen that without doubt Daemons really are the most powerful book because even an edition that was ment to 'reel them in' has done less than expected to curb the army from roflstomping at the tournament level. (instead of horror spam, it's just changed to lore of life heralds + 'letters spam)
IF GK's come 2013 are still a top contending army, then it will likely prove that the book was/is horribly unbalanced because typically the top armies from one edition become the new losers of the new edition. (look at VC's who got shoehorned into requiring 1 cookie-cutter build to even win a game!)

7th ed Fantasy was dominated by Daemons, VC's & Dark Elves. Not tournaments tend to have quite balanced showings overall, with the new 'filth' being Daemons, Chaos Warriors & Skaven.
I think after the initial 6-8 month ajustment period of 6th ed 40k we'll see the likes of SW's, BA's & GK's replaced by other armies with GK's still holding their place right around the top.

Just my 2 cents.

Quoted for truth! I have my fingers crossed about the new vampire release in January. The tomb kings book was disappointing for the most part. Cool new toys and different type of army but not as durable and magic which is the new craze isn't strong enough.

Grey knights are to 40k what daemons are to fantasy. Had a tzeentch player snipe my vampire lord on turn 1 of a tournament out of my unit for the instant win before I moved a model fun game glad I drove 4 hours to play.

Oh my God, I feel sorry for you. But I guess you have seen it coming.

Speaking as someone who was more into WHFB than 40k, prior to 8th, I can't say I think GK are as bad as WHFB Daemons.

Interestingly internet celebrity Goatboy has publicly given up on Grey Knights. After playing them exclusively for the last 6 weeks he has come to the conclusion that they are to easy to win with, his games are not fun and he thinks they are bad for the future of 40K.

Here is his article.

http://www.belloflostsouls.net/2011/12/goatboys-40k-im-done-with-grey-knights.html


Mannahnim has mentioned a few other nationwide top level tournament players who have come to similar conclusions since trying out Grey Knigts for possible tourney play. I wonder how many more will follow suit or how many will take them anyway. If GK are the quickest path to tourney success, will that be viewed as a plus or minus to top level players who have already won at the national level.

I, along with a few others, feel it is more of an accomplishment to win with 'lesser' perceived lists. To paraphrase Blackmoor: If you win with Grey Knights it is expected. If you win with Footdar it is legendary

"Internet celebrity"? I guess it's easier to say than "guy on the internet with a modicum of popularity among a small community of tabletop wargamers", but still...

So anyway, I guess if people are actually shelving them because they're "too easy" to win with then that kinda proves everyone screaming about "WAAC" play on the internet wrong, doesn't it? Those people who are constantly accusing competitive players of just wanting "easy wins" with their "point and click" spam armies that "play themselves".

I don't understand how you can use conjecture to assume an army is over/under powered. Especially when you have actual results.

Check out the Nova Open results. Grey Knights are right in line with all the other top armies.

My money would be that this data is consistent with every other major tournament as well.

Timmah wrote:I don't understand how you can use conjecture to assume an army is over/under powered. Especially when you have actual results.

Check out the Nova Open results. Grey Knights are right in line with all the other top armies.

My money would be that this data is consistent with every other major tournament as well.

But why do that when you could just use self-righteous internet hate? I mean, conjecture is a type of evidence, right? Right?

Tomb King wrote:

Grey knights are to 40k what daemons are to fantasy.

Didn't Ward write both? *ducks*

puma713 wrote:

Tomb King wrote:

Grey knights are to 40k what daemons are to fantasy.

Didn't Ward write both? *ducks*

Haha, run man run!

GK overpowered? I don't see that this is really the case. They have nice toys but they pay for it and GK lists are always small and elitisch.
Remember the tri-Falcon Eldar armies back in the 4th ed? They were more powerful than any GK in the 5th ed can be.

There are no op armies theres powerfull armies and competitve armies. Even in my short 40k carrer ive seen people play every army but Sisters and deamons well and thats cause no one plays them. If competitve warhammer is like mtg the metagame changes weekly and lists are good or bad solely based on the metagame. I have a feeling 6th edition will make some powerfull armies good and some of the weaker armies ok. I hope in the new edition there will be some kindda way to deter power listing or a way to make it harder. Just the 2cents of a casual player.

Khardrock11 wrote:There are no op armies theres powerfull armies and competitve armies. Even in my short 40k carrer ive seen people play every army but Sisters and deamons well and thats cause no one plays them. If competitve warhammer is like mtg the metagame changes weekly and lists are good or bad solely based on the metagame. I have a feeling 6th edition will make some powerfull armies good and some of the weaker armies ok. I hope in the new edition there will be some kindda way to deter power listing or a way to make it harder. Just the 2cents of a casual player.

7th ed Daemons in Fantasy was definitely OP, so there can be such a thing as an OP army.

Khardrock11 wrote:There are no op armies theres powerfull armies and competitve armies. Even in my short 40k carrer ive seen people play every army but Sisters and deamons well and thats cause no one plays them. If competitve warhammer is like mtg the metagame changes weekly and lists are good or bad solely based on the metagame. I have a feeling 6th edition will make some powerfull armies good and some of the weaker armies ok. I hope in the new edition there will be some kindda way to deter power listing or a way to make it harder. Just the 2cents of a casual player.

Unfortunately, Warhammer (both Fantasy and 40K) are nothing like MtG. GW has never even hinted that they attempt to make a cohesive, balanced rule set designed for competitive play, while MtG has very tightly written rules and supports competitive play. This lack of tight rules designed for competitive play is what allows for different armies in Warhammer to be unbalanced.

One look at the "rules questions" section of any GW fan site will demonstrate how poorly written GW's rules are. If they cannot even be bothered to write a tight rule set, I doubt that GW will ever produce a truly balanced set of armies. And, yes, I believe the two issues are directly related. What makes armies balanced is the relationship between the rules of the various armies. If GW cannot even write rules for the basic game that are without tremendous ambiguity and grey area, how can we expect them to write rules from army to army that mesh well?

MtG is balanced? News to me. I was under the impression that they purposely make certain cards overpowered to get people to either buy more boosters or buy the card directly for an inflated price.

They make ridiculous combos and such but then limit the heck outta them for tourneys after you have bought and done the spending. lol

Draigo wrote:They make ridiculous combos and such but then limit the heck outta them for tourneys after you have bought and done the spending. lol

Yeah.... no.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Luke_Prowler wrote:MtG is balanced? News to me. I was under the impression that they purposely make certain cards overpowered to get people to either buy more boosters or buy the card directly for an inflated price.

If you think MtG is less balanced than any of the wargames most often discussed on this forum, I don't know what to tell you

Luke_Prowler wrote:MtG is balanced? News to me. I was under the impression that they purposely make certain cards overpowered to get people to either buy more boosters or buy the card directly for an inflated price.

Draigo wrote:They make ridiculous combos and such but then limit the heck outta them for tourneys after you have bought and done the spending. lol

I guess haters will hate, but MtG has lasted this long primarily because the makers spend a tremendous amount of effort towards both tournament analysis and balance. Their online version even furthers this by them creepily obtaining statistics on what cards the winning decks use and the percentage chance of a deck winning if given cards are included, etc. The game has pretty much zero rules confusion.

Basically, if you're up for playing a balanced game, play MtG or a board game. Warhammer is meant to be for fun and 'competitive play' is a joke for balance reasons alone.

MtG players complaining about balance issues are a vocal minority that are quickly addressed by the makers themselves via bannings/restrictions/etc. Warhammer players complaining about balance issues are a plurality that entirely goes ignored by GW.

Perhaps you can more accurately compare Warhammer to RTS games where stat tweaks could go a long way towards balance and not require the retcon of millions of cards. But then again, that would only occur if GW cared about balance.

You can say what you want but birds of paradise, tolarion academy, moxes, and various other cards through out mtg life have not been balanced in any shape or form. Priestess infinite fire balls, Horseshoe crab infinite psychic gift, infinite slivers, etc do not say balance.

I find it very, very interesting that people often stop playing strong armies, because of the perception of "auto win" yet I rarely see these people as the ones winning GTs with these so called easy win armies. If its so easy, do it. But what these people discover is that they dominate their local circut, they get beat when they play strong GT players. It's less the army and more the player.

The point is... If GK were so strong and so easy win, people would be piloting them to GT top spots (like 7th demons). It leads me to believe they aren't as dominant as people say, unless your assumption is all top players have shunned them, which is probably a bad assumption.

Of course, this is for tournament play only. In casual play it's up to you and your opponent to pick lists to suit the difference in skill level based on the desired level of "fun".


@labmouse

"garbage in garbage out" is a common financial modeling term that basically means your model is only as good as your assumptions. It's not even remotely a personal attack and was referencing the prior post about the strength of assumptions. Let's not be so quick to jump into the middle of a conversation and get defensive as someone else's forum champion if you don fully understand what is being said.

puma713 wrote:

Tomb King wrote:

Grey knights are to 40k what daemons are to fantasy.

Didn't Ward write both? *ducks*

Hey! Think we can get him to right tau next?

ph34r wrote:

Luke_Prowler wrote:MtG is balanced? News to me. I was under the impression that they purposely make certain cards overpowered to get people to either buy more boosters or buy the card directly for an inflated price.

If you think MtG is less balanced than any of the wargames most often discussed on this forum, I don't know what to tell you

Oh, I know that, I'm just saying it's not squeaky clean either.

Compare the GT circuit to a game of poker or texas hold'em. You could start out with the best cards but if things dont go your way then you can still lose. Sure its nice to have those bullets (aka A,A) in the hole (aka your hand). You will win most of those hands but there is still a chance for an upset. The reason grey knights dont win every GT is because just that. There is still a chance for an upset. Inquisitor heavy grey knights could run into dark angels or another low KP army in annihalation. Draigo wing could run into a Horde Nid list on an objective based game and roll gakky.


An army can still be over-powered but this game is still based on dice and if you roll bad you can lose with any army. This effects everyone including 7th daemons for fantasy.

DarthDiggler wrote:Interestingly internet celebrity Goatboy has publicly given up on Grey Knights. After playing them exclusively for the last 6 weeks he has come to the conclusion that they are to easy to win with, his games are not fun and he thinks they are bad for the future of 40K.

Here is his article.
http://www.belloflostsouls.net/2011/12/goatboys-40k-im-done-with-grey-knights.html

Mannahnin has mentioned a few other nationwide top level tournament players who have come to similar conclusions since trying out Grey Knigts for possible tourney play. I wonder how many more will follow suit or how many will take them anyway. If GK are the quickest path to tourney success, will that be viewed as a plus or minus to top level players who have already won at the national level.

I, along with a few others, feel it is more of an accomplishment to win with 'lesser' perceived lists. To paraphrase Blackmoor: If you win with Grey Knights it is expected. If you win with Footdar it is legendary

In fairness, this isn't the first time this has happened, by a long shot. 4th ed Eldar based on Harlequins in Falcons. 3rd-4th ed Craftworld Ulthwe Eldar lists that were just one giant Seer Council with two minimum guardian lists and couldn't lose VP matchups against many opponents. 3rd ed Iron Warriors. 3rd/4th ed CSM with Siren Princes. Many top players turned up their noses at these older Easy Button lists too.

7th ed (and even 8th, to a fair extent) Chaos Daemons in WHFB was even moreso.

I think GK get the rep they do in part because we felt like GW had managed such a great job at balancing 5th ed, with its objective-based & KP missions, eschewing Victory Points, that we were done with those days.