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, something I've noticed the last couple of days.. For months people have been complaining their off about how OP grey knights are and yadayada (let's not get trapped in that snakepit and just accept that people complain). Now that it seems that you are allowed to take allies in sixth edition a LOT of people are suddenly coming up with combinations that involve taking a couple of grey knights units as a detachment. Am I the only one who thinks this is completely hypocritical? First everyone keeps complaining that they're ridiculous and no fun to play and now people are dying to take a couple of units out of their codex to bolster their own forces..

Your opinions on the matter? Am i the only one who is bothered by this? (and no i do not play grey knights)

I think the vast majority of them are to show how broken they think the system is given the information they have on how it will work.

Yeah, there was a thread about making the most broken army list, and GK featured prominently. They weren't about making a list they would actually use.

Dheneb wrote:Yeah, there was a thread about making the most broken army list, and GK featured prominently. They weren't about making a list they would actually use.

They never did make a good list combining anything with GK though.

Either because of failure to realize rules (You cannot fortune anything but Eldar), or because it's against the current rumors allocation for forces (1 of each, not 3 slots for psyflemen)

I've had this happen to myself really... I started collecting 40k with what I thought were cool models, the new Grey Knights kits, without a clue about playing the game.
When I started playing, as the only GK player in my friends group, every single game I played people were complaining about how broken and OP my grey knights were, no fun to play etc etc, which made me decide to start another army sooner than planned just to be rid of the constant complaining

Now with allies coming back into the game, the same player who used to complain the hardest, is planning to take those very same GK units he complained about in his IG army!? And I've seen this happening online as well...

I have to agree with robbietobbie that when so much of the community was complaining about Grey Knights, its strange to see all the plans taking shape to bring GK units into their armies...

Well, of course they're going to do that.

"They're overbearingly powerful. Which is why I'm going to take them, BECAUSE they're powerful."

I think a lot of this is mis-representation, over-generalised and other big words...

Congratulations, grasshopper. You've discovered that people often find an advantage unfair right about to the point where they can benefit from it.

the insidious thing is that this is a pretty universal tendency. Every western nation has an ethnic/racial/religious minority that has far less economic and political power than the majority. Still, you can go into any bar and find a working class majority member that will rant on cue about the unfair advantages the minority has.

That all said, it's not pure hypocrisy. For a veteran player with a large, painted army, adding a few units of GK is no different than any other army evolution. Switching completely to GK is a dramatic shift, in time, money, and mindset.

ZebioLizard2 wrote:

Dheneb wrote:Yeah, there was a thread about making the most broken army list, and GK featured prominently. They weren't about making a list they would actually use.

They never did make a good list combining anything with GK though.

Either because of failure to realize rules (You cannot fortune anything but Eldar), or because it's against the current rumors allocation for forces (1 of each, not 3 slots for psyflemen)

What they did manage to do though was find ways to take bottom teir codex's and bring them up so they are more competitive.

An example would be Eldar with Tau Broadsides and Crisis suits.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Polonius wrote:That all said, it's not pure hypocrisy. For a veteran player with a large, painted army, adding a few units of GK is no different than any other army evolution. Switching completely to GK is a dramatic shift, in time, money, and mindset.

Which is probably why GW wants to allow allies. It promotes model sales

It all comes back to the "because now I can" mentality.

Let's face it, no matter how laid back you are, it's no fun to consistently lose all the time, especially when you percieve your losses as being decided more by your opponent's codex choice than their overall skill. (seriously, how much chance does a Daemon or Tyranid player *really* have vs GK's?!)
So now that you can add those very same rage-inducing models, it becomes a "here's a taste of your own OP , see how you like it you dirty cheese monkey!!!"

I know I myself would absolutely love to ruthlessly crush a number of gakheads that have made my gaming experiences so misserable as of late because of their GK gimmiks that g oso far as to deny me from even putting a single freaking model on the table!
However, I myself won't touch those GK's... I'll just ally in something else to make the loss more humiliating for them!

Polonius wrote:
Every western nation has an ethnic/racial/religious minority that has far less economic and political power than the majority. Still, you can go into any bar and find a working class majority member that will rant on cue about the unfair advantages the minority has.

That's because group-based advantages and "power' are not actually given to the individuals in the group, whereas corrective measures taken to help the minorities are. The fact that Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, Larry Ellison, and most corporate CEOs are white males doesn't help me in the least, whereas the fact that there are minority hiring quotas actively hurts me. It is not hypocritical to complain about this, it's a poorly designed system that rewards individuals who may not need it based on belonging to a group that, as a whole, does, and punishes other individuals who actually need that help, based on their belonging to a group that, as a whole, does not.

Redbeard wrote:

Polonius wrote:
Every western nation has an ethnic/racial/religious minority that has far less economic and political power than the majority. Still, you can go into any bar and find a working class majority member that will rant on cue about the unfair advantages the minority has.

That's because group-based advantages and "power' are not actually given to the individuals in the group, whereas corrective measures taken to help the minorities are. The fact that Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, Larry Ellison, and most corporate CEOs are white males doesn't help me in the least, whereas the fact that there are minority hiring quotas actively hurts me. It is not hypocritical to complain about this, it's a poorly designed system that rewards individuals who may not need it based on belonging to a group that, as a whole, does, and punishes other individuals who actually need that help, based on their belonging to a group that, as a whole, does not.

Lol, thanks for proving my point, which is that people tend to focus on the advantages they don't get, not the ones they enjoy.

Just seems, for the most part, to be a 'If you can't beat them, join them' mentality.
But who knows, maybe GK's will be hit hard by 6th (doubtful) so they wont be AS tempting for alot of people to ally.

Redbeard wrote:

Polonius wrote:
Every western nation has an ethnic/racial/religious minority that has far less economic and political power than the majority. Still, you can go into any bar and find a working class majority member that will rant on cue about the unfair advantages the minority has.

That's because group-based advantages and "power' are not actually given to the individuals in the group, whereas corrective measures taken to help the minorities are. The fact that Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, Larry Ellison, and most corporate CEOs are white males doesn't help me in the least, whereas the fact that there are minority hiring quotas actively hurts me. It is not hypocritical to complain about this, it's a poorly designed system that rewards individuals who may not need it based on belonging to a group that, as a whole, does, and punishes other individuals who actually need that help, based on their belonging to a group that, as a whole, does not.

And the of course having a natural privilege of being the majority gives you no benefits individually.

The fact that the systems which were, and in many places still are needed (though they do need some work done on them), makes the majority bitter and upset about the minority and view them as a whole negatively because of said "benefits" doesn't help me much at all.

That and its not like we can't forget that they were made when most of the majority were just basically racist holes who would of rather kept the minorities as just things down in their place.

I know i know, snores all around, but its not like you can just ignore it when there are still plenty of gakheads like that around.


On topic, Yes, people will usually complain about what is unfair to them, but will then turn around and use said "unfair advantages" if they ever got the chance.

With all the power creep in the codices and whatnot, the deal has always been "Since you can't join them, beat them".

Allies will finally let people do the opposite, it seems. And in a competitive game, did anyone really expect people to stick to a 'pure' army and getting roflstomped, refusing to fill that gap in their meta and saying no to tasty meltas, psychic defense or long-range artillery, because doggone it, they'll show the world that SOMEONE still has values here!!

Simple old saying... if you can't beat them, join them. That's why everyone's talking about taking GK allies. Also that doesn't really make him a hypocrite, just a whiner... if he had said 'I would NEVER play GK because they make it no fun for my opponent' and then started talking about taking them that would make him a hypocrite.

@OP


You are assuming that the people who complained are the same people who now wants to bring GK allies.

I still hope allies are an optional rule / opponents consent thing.

labmouse42 wrote:

Polonius wrote:That all said, it's not pure hypocrisy. For a veteran player with a large, painted army, adding a few units of GK is no different than any other army evolution. Switching completely to GK is a dramatic shift, in time, money, and mindset.

Which is probably why GW wants to allow allies. It promotes model sales

Brilliant!!!

On a personal level, i despise the Grey Knights and if i could, would refuse to accept them as an actual army. As such i do not plan to take them as allies (IG however..). But yeah, people who booed them before will probably be snatching up a couple squads right away, if they do let them, i'll just crush them under my black power armored boot. However, hypocrisy is one of the many inevitable things in life, like it or not.

Phototoxin wrote:I still hope allies are an optional rule / opponents consent thing.

No need to hope. I can assure you it's not as bad as what people think. The rules for allies are in the book, this much is for sure, but the usage of them...

Steelmage99 wrote:@OP


You are assuming that the people who complained are the same people who now wants to bring GK allies.

Ofcourse I don't keep track of everyone's specific opinions but there's guaranteed to be people fitting the description. I know a gaming buddy of mine does.. And yeah I get that people with weak codexes might see it as a way to become more competitive but honoustly if you've bashed someone else's army for being OP and 'insta-win' and then plan to take them as allies that spells hypocrit to me

im gonna be useing an Ordo Xenos Inquisitor with my Dark Angels and maybe some henchman with shotguns (they can have that right?) for arbites to hunt some alien scum!!

I plan on rarely even using the allies thing. Personally, I want to play the armies I have because of the fluff, and alliances in 40k happen very rarely, so I think apocalypse has that covered. The only time I can see myself using them is in a game where both sides are using them, and it's an alliance that both makes sense and doesn't necessarily include some of the more brutal combinations.

That's just me though. To each their own.

Allies in 40k happen a hell of alot to be fair, not between imp and non imp alot, but things like crusades and there like happen all the time

Robbietobbie wrote:Ofcourse I don't keep track of everyone's specific opinions but there's guaranteed to be people fitting the description.

Wait, so you're complaining about people being hypocritical, with no actual evidence of anyone being hypocritical... just on the basis that someone probably is?

Seriously?