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 do believe that GK are alittle op, undercost...yes, but not broken. The last GT that I attended I had to play against 3 GK players out of 6 games, and I only won 2 out 3 games, but I had to work for it. SW was an all drop pod list....ball to the wall. Now I still play my GK , and only have one REAL GK in the whole list, Mordark, plus Coteaz. My other list does have Dragio, even though many players believes that its a point and click army, then you are wrong. I do have think about when do I start to move, do I assult this turning or wait, does my Vindi assissan takes out the armour 14 or do I get rid of SS? I don't believe that GK are an auto win, even in the hands of an experience player.

Draigo wrote: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.

If you are going to reference broken cards/combos at least reference good relevant ones.

Like Time Vault/Voltaic Key, Stoneforge Mystic/Equipment, Tinker/anything, Past in Flames/Red Rituals.

MtG definitely has cards that are better than others, but the game as a whole is balanced. No one is going to win with 60 islands in MtG, just like no one is going to win with 100 guardians in WH40k.

That doesn't mean the game either game isn't balanced. Both have units/cards that are not worthwhile, but as a whole both are balanced. (provided you exclude a couple of the old 40k armies)

Dude I can name more combos that were broken as hell and sorry you dont find my examples relevant but those were good examples of broken cards. Hard to keep up with every set that comes out. lol

Draigo wrote: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.

Wizards banned Tolarian Academy and The Moxen. This is them caring about game balance and admitting their mistake. GW would never do such a thing.
Psionic Gift and Horseshoe Crab were never in the same standard format. Your argument here is analogous to someone saying nowadays that Chaos Basilisks are broken or that Eldar Black Guardians are overpowered in today's meta.
Three-card-combos such as "infinite slivers" and "Priestess of Titania" are legitimate tactics and have never unbalanced the game.

You really don't know what you're taking about. As someone that still plays Magic competitively, I assure you that the game had a bumpy start but is now one of the best examples of surprisingly good balance in spite of its variety.

Games Workshop doesn't even make an effort. They did so once in 2003 with the Chapter Approved iterations where they tweaked things around, but since then, they refuse to listen to their fans and critics. The lack of balance isn't really the key issue here. GW's unwillingness to even attempt balance is at fault. To compare, Wizards spends extensive effort to at least strive for balance; they release constant FAQs and updates to their banned/restricted lists multiple times per year even for casual formats. RTS developers such as Blizzard and even the damned EA release occasional patches which tweak costs and stats of their units. GW does none of these things. GW just sells us the equivalent of DLC every few months where you have to spend tons of money in order to be even remotely competitive.

Get over it cry babies. go find a girlfriend or something instead of complaining about the rules of a game.

This is not a useful or appropriate contribution to the thread. -Mannahnin

The Grundel wrote:Get over it cry babies. go find a girlfriend or something instead of complaining about the rules of a game.

This is not a useful or appropriate contribution to the thread. -Mannahnin

Wish I could.. but my fiance would be pissed .

Can we keep it about warhammer, not gonna lie I dont know two gaks about magic haha.

Draigo wrote:You can say what you want but birds of paradise, tolarion academy, moxes

While I enjoyed the game with moxes, you're talking about things that haven't been available for over fifteen years. All gaming companies will have the occasional unforseen interaction slip past the playtesters. At least WotC has a defined process for playtesting that isn't getting a few minis out of the case and seeing what happens.

Mannahnin wrote:
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.

I never felt that they did a good job with 5th ed. One only needs to look at the disparity among the MEQ lists to see how poorly balanced it is. Among MEQ lists, we have four different pricing models for heavy support troop units, three different pricing models for predators, and a design model that encourages buying as few troops as possible in order to take their underpriced transport. This doesn't even consider the largely unplayed xenos armies. Well, most of them weren't designed for 5th, so we can ignore that they simply don't work, and nids, well, it's okay that they're an exception too.

Seriously, the only balance in 5th is that if you take the most boring power builds from about five codexes, they all play reasonably well against each other. Sucks if you don't want to be forced into a parking lot build or think that some of those xenos models look cool though.

What's more, the delicate balance between MSU and Kill Points has pretty much been undone by more recent tournament design that puts all three mission goals in every game and says you only need to score two of them to win. Sure, the MSU list has to win those other two, but that's not that hard, compared to the design restriction that, I believe, was intended to give near auto-losses to MSU spam armies when Kill Points are the sole consideration for victory.

What's more, the delicate balance between MSU and Kill Points has pretty much been undone by more recent tournament design

Whilst largely disagreeing with your first point, I wholeheartedly agree with this. Tournament organisers often seem to think KP's are 'broken' and so try to 'fix' them wereas they are (I think) intended as a disincentive to MSU spam and they're actually an important part of 5th edition that MSU spammers just don't like much.

Redbeard wrote:

Mannahnin wrote: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.

I never felt that they did a good job with 5th ed. One only needs to look at the disparity among the MEQ lists to see how poorly balanced it is. Among MEQ lists, we have four different pricing models for heavy support troop units, three different pricing models for predators, and a design model that encourages buying as few troops as possible in order to take their underpriced transport. This doesn't even consider the largely unplayed xenos armies. Well, most of them weren't designed for 5th, so we can ignore that they simply don't work, and nids, well, it's okay that they're an exception too.

Seriously, the only balance in 5th is that if you take the most boring power builds from about five codexes, they all play reasonably well against each other. Sucks if you don't want to be forced into a parking lot build or think that some of those xenos models look cool though.

I disagree. I think most of the older books can still compete, albeit often while being pigeonholed into one or two builds. I agree that GW screwed up on the Tyranids, but mostly in two places. Overloading the Elites with the needed antitank, and boning them repeatedly in their FAQ. There are still a couple of good and competitive builds, but they're not quite as good as they could be, and there should be a more reliable Reserve build, which the FAQ messed up. As long as you have decent terrain on the tables, those stock-standard mech spam armies aren't all that. Obviously there's room for different opinions here. I also agree with some of the previously-expressed thoughts that having different pricing models for the same type of unit in different books can be acceptable within the larger context of the list.

Redbeard wrote:What's more, the delicate balance between MSU and Kill Points has pretty much been undone by more recent tournament design that puts all three mission goals in every game and says you only need to score two of them to win. Sure, the MSU list has to win those other two, but that's not that hard, compared to the design restriction that, I believe, was intended to give near auto-losses to MSU spam armies when Kill Points are the sole consideration for victory.

Largely agree, although I will say that in there are differences here. In the "win more of the three" Adepticon variant I felt like KPs had a substantial impact. I saw a LOT more low-KP armies in play at the Adepticon Champs, and Jay Woodcock's Tyranids beat me to get into the Finals in part because he had the edge in KP. I think some other variations on the missions, like the one where Seize Ground is always 5 objectives, and they're forced to be spread out across the table (rather than being placed close together by an infantry horde), are more stacked to screw low-KP armies and benefit MSU.

I feel the hate flowing through this thread, it gives nerds focus.

But seriously WOW this is still going on for 16 pages?!

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.

GK vs SW it is really 50/50 and comes down to actual skill of players and BA may be disadvantaged vs GK but still can pull something and IG can hold on against GK. Overall I agree with Timmah's assertion that GK are in line with the rest of the top armies. I do not feel GK are broken or op for most of the 5th edition armies but there are some auto-lose options if taken that can put a real hurt on some of the non-5th armies. Mindstrikes spelt the doom of eldar bike councils. Purifiers and NFW make ork hordes or nobs worthless. GK are the bane of deamons. GK do what chaos does, but better. But what really do hurt some HtH armies vs GK is the combo of rad and psycotroke grenades that can single handily turn the assault depending on the result from making an entire ork horde kill themselves to giving bloodcrusher deathstar only 1 attack. And the grenades work if the unit assaults or is assaulted so no real defense except for killing the grenade dispenser guy (good luck with that). Other than that, GK are largely fine.

Redbeard said it best with that 5th edition is balanced with the current 5th edition codexes and most of the 4th edition armies fall behind or struggle.


@Mannahnin very good points you bring up and I love my tyranids just a few minor tweaks and I can compete with other top armies with ease.

thehod wrote: Redbeard said it best with that 5th edition is balanced with the current 5th edition codexes and most of the 4th edition armies fall behind or struggle.


@Mannahnin very good points you bring up and I love my tyranids just a few minor tweaks and I can compete with other top armies with ease.

Tyranids. Nobody loves us. One whole edition of Ninjafexes did this to us guys. This is how they punished us.

With Pyrovores.

(Seriously....why the Pyrovore? I think we can find more explanations for the duck-billed platypus than the Pyrovore!)

thehod wrote:
...Redbeard said it best with that 5th edition is balanced with the current 5th edition codexes and most of the 4th edition armies fall behind or struggle.

Seems that everyone has completely forgotten that Daemons were in fact the first 5th ed codex... So really, you can slap Daemons right alongside Tyranids as the 'faildexes' of 5th ed.

I think GK's could still be right up there with the other highly competitive armies with even a little tonning down of their shinanigans;
- remove psychos
- rads don't effect instant death thresthold
- winning flame only hits models in BtB
- warp quake only 6" range - cannot remove Marks of Chaos or daemonic steeds
- hammerhand bonus applies after other modifiers such as daemonhammers
- psybolts cost +25pts for dreads
- swap the costs of falchions & halberds across all units

Now the army still looks dead hard, but the most obnoxious abuses aren't quite as big of a 'WTF?!' moment for opponents.

Experiment 626 wrote:

thehod wrote:
...Redbeard said it best with that 5th edition is balanced with the current 5th edition codexes and most of the 4th edition armies fall behind or struggle.

Seems that everyone has completely forgotten that Daemons were in fact the first 5th ed codex... So really, you can slap Daemons right alongside Tyranids as the 'faildexes' of 5th ed.

I think GK's could still be right up there with the other highly competitive armies with even a little tonning down of their shinanigans;
- remove psychos
- rads don't effect instant death thresthold
- winning flame only hits models in BtB
- warp quake only 6" range - cannot remove Marks of Chaos or daemonic steeds
- hammerhand bonus applies after other modifiers such as daemonhammers
- psybolts cost +25pts for dreads
- swap the costs of falchions & halberds across all units

Now the army still looks dead hard, but the most obnoxious abuses aren't quite as big of a 'WTF?!' moment for opponents.

Add in a bit about making henchmen squads having a minimum size such that they can't be 67pt scoring Chimeras and you've pretty much solved the issues with the army, though I'd also probably bump cost on Purifiers slightly as even with nerfed cleansing flame at 24pts they're still ridiculously good (really, 24pts they'd still be really good without cleansing flame at all).

Experiment 626 wrote:
I think GK's could still be right up there with the other highly competitive armies with even a little tonning down of their shinanigans;
- remove psychos
- rads don't effect instant death thresthold
- winning flame only hits models in BtB
- warp quake only 6" range - cannot remove Marks of Chaos or daemonic steeds
- hammerhand bonus applies after other modifiers such as daemonhammers
- psybolts cost +25pts for dreads
- swap the costs of falchions & halberds across all units

I feel like I've seen this list elsewhere...

What issue is there with rad grenades affecting the instant death threshold? Mind you, the army can boost their strength with two other psychic powers, and have force weapons. I guess at least they have to deal with psychic defense then, but realistically, they probably already were.

With the changes you recommend to Cleansing Flame, how would you recommend that they deal with Orks/Nid horde lists? I'm kind of surprised you don't have problems with Sanctuary also.

I couldn't disagree with your proposed changes to warp quake. I'd even go so far as to make it have to originate from one particular model in the unit, rather than the unit itself.

Do your hammerhand changes take into account the fact that they're not going to have a meltagun? Shall they hope for that lucky 6 to penetrate a Land Raider in exchange for getting so close?

I'm not entirely sure I can dignify your psybolt ammo comment with a response. Is your problem even WITH psybolt ammo, or is it actually Fortitude you don't like? Do I need to explain the advantages/disadvantages of Psifleman Dreads versus Long Fangs again?

Your final comment about falchions and halberds highlights one interesting point though: Falchions are overpriced.

I see what your problem is with the codex, and I agree that it's an issue: The good stuff is too obviously good stuff. It annoys me too. I wish there was a reason to take falchions or psilencers. Indeed, half the codex is basically unused because the other half is obviously good. However, making good stuff bad is not the secret to balance.

As long as "Jaws of the World Wolf" exists I really don't see why people don't hate on SW at least as much as they do GKs.

I hate nothing in the game more than that stupid power.

I have 15 years wargaming experience, and have played 40K since 3rd edition. I can tell you that the Grey Knights are overpowered. They have access to many game changing special powers and
equipment, and do not pay a premium price for them.

With that being said, are they instant win? No. The last 3 times I have played Grey Knights, I tabled them using my Fatecrusher Daemons. One of the players was a tournament champion using
Draigo Wing. I would also be very confident playing them with my Dual Lash + Obliterators Chaos Space Marine List.

They definitely have an edge, and are not balanced against other codex’s for the amount of points things cost. However, I believe this advantage isn't large enough to make them unbeatable.

I believe a lot of the power curve in the codex is tied directly to Games Workshop wanting increased financial results. I am completely serious on this. I honestly feel that the marketing &
executive teams worked closely with games development, and "instructed" them to make the army dead hard. This "encourages" players to buy the army in order to have an edge in the game.

Personally, I love tabling Grey Knights, especially with my Fatecrusher Daemons. It is very satisfying, and always brings a lot of onlookers at the local shop.

NoArmorSave wrote:I have 15 years wargaming experience, and have played 40K since 3rd edition. I can tell you that the Grey Knights are overpowered. They have access to many game changing special powers and
equipment, and do not pay a premium price for them.

I have 2 years of wargaming experience. I can tell you that they're not, but it's not going to matter, because I don't back my statement up.

Here's something that bothers me. The formula for the classic argument follows as such:

"X is overpowered. Here's the unquantifiable reasons why I make this assertion.

I, of course, never have a problem playing against them and in fact win most games against them, in spite of my previous claim that they're overpowered. What a tactical genius I must be.

Clearly, I am amazing, and GW power creeps to sell models."

I have seen similar arguments made in "X is overpowered" threads since I joined Dakka.

AlmightyWalrus wrote:

NoArmorSave wrote:I have 15 years wargaming experience, and have played 40K since 3rd edition. I can tell you that the Grey Knights are overpowered. They have access to many game changing special powers and
equipment, and do not pay a premium price for them.

I have 2 years of wargaming experience. I can tell you that they're not, but it's not going to matter, because I don't back my statement up.

My 2 cents.

Are they the "most overpowered book GW has put out in a decade"? IMO, no. 7th edition Demons, 3.5 Chaos (for the time) and several others across several editions might hold that distinction.

Are they overpowered in a game breaking fashion? Again, IMO no. They are a top end list but not a clear auto win.

Are they overpowered at all? This is subjective and depends where you draw the line for over powered. If you figure there are 14-16 armies in 40k, and anything over the 50% mark in terms of power is "over-powered", then GK being top 3 are clearly over-powered. If you draw the over-powered line above the best that existed pre-GK codex, then they aren't over-powered, as they seem to hang out more or less fine with SW, IG and to a lesser extent DE and BA in the upper tier.

It's all opinion really. If you feel SW and IG were broken, then odds are you feel GK are broken as well. If you thought SW/IG were okay then GK aren't really significantly better, if better at all, then those 2.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

daedalus wrote:Here's something that bothers me. The formula for the classic argument follows as such:

"X is overpowered. Here's the unquantifiable reasons why I make this assertion.

I, of course, never have a problem playing against them and in fact win most games against them, in spite of my previous claim that they're overpowered. What a tactical genius I must be.

Clearly, I am amazing, and GW power creeps to sell models."

I have seen similar arguments made in "X is overpowered" threads since I joined Dakka.

There's the factor of player skill in there as well. I mean, I've beaten GK every game I've played against them with my Tyranids and if I went straight off personal experience I'd say they were the worst army in the game. Having actually read the book and figured out what they are capable if I were playing with them I see that they clearly aren't terrible, just my opponent was awful. A lot of the quoted comments comes from the fear of your opponent actually doing things right and realizing you wouldn't be able to do much to beat him if he did. EG, I don't fear the GK codex, I fear GK in the hands of a good player.

NoArmorSave wrote:I have 15 years wargaming experience, and have played 40K since 3rd edition. I can tell you that the Grey Knights are overpowered. They have access to many game changing special powers and
equipment, and do not pay a premium price for them.

With that being said, are they instant win? No. The last 3 times I have played Grey Knights, I tabled them using my Fatecrusher Daemons. One of the players was a tournament champion using
Draigo Wing. I would also be very confident playing them with my Dual Lash + Obliterators Chaos Space Marine List.

They definitely have an edge, and are not balanced against other codex’s for the amount of points things cost. However, I believe this advantage isn't large enough to make them unbeatable.

I believe a lot of the power curve in the codex is tied directly to Games Workshop wanting increased financial results. I am completely serious on this. I honestly feel that the marketing &
executive teams worked closely with games development, and "instructed" them to make the army dead hard. This "encourages" players to buy the army in order to have an edge in the game.

Personally, I love tabling Grey Knights, especially with my Fatecrusher Daemons. It is very satisfying, and always brings a lot of onlookers at the local shop.

Wait, What. Grey Knights are overpowered, I can beat them with Deamon. The army they have the most buffs vs.

OK, makes sense .

Carnage43 wrote:My 2 cents.

Are they the "most overpowered book GW has put out in a decade"? IMO, no. 7th edition Demons, 3.5 Chaos (for the time) and several others across several editions might hold that distinction.

Are they overpowered in a game breaking fashion? Again, IMO no. They are a top end list but not a clear auto win.

Are they overpowered at all? This is subjective and depends where you draw the line for over powered. If you figure there are 14-16 armies in 40k, and anything over the 50% mark in terms of power is "over-powered", then GK being top 3 are clearly over-powered. If you draw the over-powered line above the best that existed pre-GK codex, then they aren't over-powered, as they seem to hang out more or less fine with SW, IG and to a lesser extent DE and BA in the upper tier.

It's all opinion really. If you feel SW and IG were broken, then odds are you feel GK are broken as well. If you thought SW/IG were okay then GK aren't really significantly better, if better at all, then those 2.

This is a great summation of how I feel as well. Exalted!

Monster Rain wrote:As long as "Jaws of the World Wolf" exists I really don't see why people don't hate on SW at least as much as they do GKs.

They don't? Because I'm pretty sure they do.

In answer to the OP: So what? I agree that GK are overpowered (so are BA, SW and some IG lists), but how does that affect your life? GW isn't going to listen to the forums (we all know this), so just learn to deal with the most common builds.

biccat wrote:GW isn't going to listen to the forums (we all know this), so just learn to deal with the most common builds.

But apparently Warren Buffet will:

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/411913.page

Or Congress:

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/400688.page

Or the White House press office:

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/396088.page

Shockingly, people enjoy discussing things they cannot control.

Carnage43 wrote:

There's the factor of player skill in there as well. I mean, I've beaten GK every game I've played against them with my Tyranids and if I went straight off personal experience I'd say they were the worst army in the game. Having actually read the book and figured out what they are capable if I were playing with them I see that they clearly aren't terrible, just my opponent was awful. A lot of the quoted comments comes from the fear of your opponent actually doing things right and realizing you wouldn't be able to do much to beat him if he did. EG, I don't fear the GK codex, I fear GK in the hands of a good player.

Oh, admittedly so. I've tabled people playing GK with Nids, just as I've been wiped playing GK against other armies when I'm not playing well. It all comes down to skill and mistakes, but by that same logic, you shouldn't fear the army, you should fear the player. I submit that either the game is more balanced than people are willing to admit, or that the game has NEVER been balanced, and complaining about it now as if it's suddenly a surprise is disingenuous at best.

I mean, even in chess, does not the person moving first always have an advantage?

Polonius wrote:
But apparently Warren Buffet will:

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/411913.page

Actually, I've long since suspected Frazzled of being Warren Buffet.

Polonius wrote:Shockingly, people enjoy discussing things they cannot control.

I'm not sure what your objection to my post is. The OP (and many, many others) have expressed their opinion as to either the overpowered, competitive, fair, or underpowered (ok, maybe not the last one) nature of Grey Knights.

Do you somehow think that my opinion - that GK are here to stay and won't change - is somehow less valid?

DarkStarSabre wrote:

(Seriously....why the Pyrovore? I think we can find more explanations for the duck-billed platypus than the Pyrovore!)

Don't bring platypi down to that level. At least they're poisonous.

daedalus wrote:

Carnage43 wrote:

There's the factor of player skill in there as well. I mean, I've beaten GK every game I've played against them with my Tyranids and if I went straight off personal experience I'd say they were the worst army in the game. Having actually read the book and figured out what they are capable if I were playing with them I see that they clearly aren't terrible, just my opponent was awful. A lot of the quoted comments comes from the fear of your opponent actually doing things right and realizing you wouldn't be able to do much to beat him if he did. EG, I don't fear the GK codex, I fear GK in the hands of a good player.

Oh, admittedly so. I've tabled people playing GK with Nids, just as I've been wiped playing GK against other armies when I'm not playing well. It all comes down to skill and mistakes, but by that same logic, you shouldn't fear the army, you should fear the player. I submit that either the game is more balanced than people are willing to admit, or that the game has NEVER been balanced, and complaining about it now as if it's suddenly a surprise is disingenuous at best.

I mean, even in chess, does not the person moving first always have an advantage?

It doesn't all come down to mistakes and skill. It comes down to mistakes, skill, dice rolls, and the power of the tools at your disposal. The Grey Knight Codex gives players additional tools and power that other Codex's do not offer.

If a brand new player picks up Grey Knights as a starting army, chances are he will have more success than if he picked up a different army. The reason being are the over the top power(s), abilitie(s), and option(s) that the
codex offers. I will put it a different way; if 2 brand new players both picked up new armies, the new player fielding Grey Knights would likely win more often against the other new player that chose a different army.

Additionally, the Grey Knight Codex is so strong, that it allows new players to compete with veteran players using lower tier codexes. I have witnessed this myself several times.

It is not a balanced codex, and almost every veteran player that I have spoken with agrees.

NoArmorSave wrote:I have 15 years wargaming experience, and have played 40K since 3rd edition. I can tell you that the Grey Knights are overpowered. They have access to many game changing special powers and
equipment, and do not pay a premium price for them.

With that being said, are they instant win? No. The last 3 times I have played Grey Knights, I tabled them using my Fatecrusher Daemons. One of the players was a tournament champion using
Draigo Wing. I would also be very confident playing them with my Dual Lash + Obliterators Chaos Space Marine List.

They definitely have an edge, and are not balanced against other codex’s for the amount of points things cost. However, I believe this advantage isn't large enough to make them unbeatable.

I believe a lot of the power curve in the codex is tied directly to Games Workshop wanting increased financial results. I am completely serious on this. I honestly feel that the marketing &
executive teams worked closely with games development, and "instructed" them to make the army dead hard. This "encourages" players to buy the army in order to have an edge in the game.

Personally, I love tabling Grey Knights, especially with my Fatecrusher Daemons. It is very satisfying, and always brings a lot of onlookers at the local shop.

+1 to this. I have been following 40k since third as well.

This largely sums up my opinions regarding GK. I think one of the main issues with the book is that it has been point costed using a dramatically cheaper point cost model than previous 5E books (most likely to generate more sales). Another issue IMO is that the book appears to be balanced in a vacuum comparison (i.e. when comparing GK against itself or in isolated scenarios). I will agree however that GK are not game breaking broken but it doesn’t mean the book is well balanced (or well written) either.

Personally if the nemesis force weapons (available to rank and file), psychic abilities (such as hammerhand, cleansing flame etc) and special grenades (such as rad and psychotroke) were toned down somewhat (both in power and point cost), I could see the book being more balanced.

Im hoping that there is something in 6th(which seems prety likely soon) will have some knid of changes that balance out grey knights. Maybe something like taking model count into consideration or new rapid fire rules to give other armies a boast. Something more punidhing them perals might balance them out.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Has anyone tried to compare the total people playing gk to avg. win percent?

AlmightyWalrus wrote:
I have 2 years of wargaming experience. I can tell you that they're not, but it's not going to matter, because I don't back my statement up.

Then what's your point of posting?