Author |
Message |
 |
|
 |
Advert
|
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. |
|
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2009/01/29 00:16:57
Subject: Re:5th edition grey knights?
|
 |
Trigger-Happy Baal Predator Pilot
|
Caleth its cool man just diffrent opinions so doesnt bother me that much. Its just I strongly think that preferd enemy would be much better then changing the NFW.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2009/01/29 00:17:29
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2009/01/29 01:48:34
Subject: 5th edition grey knights?
|
 |
Regular Dakkanaut
|
Here is my experience with NFW having played heaps of games against them (seriously over 20 games).
Str 6 is probably the best component of these weapons. It means that most of the time any daemon your wounding is going to be wounded more often than not. I know its the same as other races too but! consider this, many other races that are worth between 14-16pts per model have a respectable save, 4+ or 3+ which granted isn't invul but against a standard NFW that doesn't matter. Daemons on the other hand on the majority have a 5+ save.
Combined with the WS5 this is the reason that when I charge 10 bloodletters and skulltaker into a squad of 8 GK's all my daemons eventually die before they can do much at all. Firstly the GK's hit first with 17 attacks, against bloodletters half are going to hit, against any other daemon with ws4 most are going to hit. Then roll again and take out the 1's, so maybe thats going to save a few but more than likely I am still going to have to make a whole bunch of unreliable 5+ saves. Lost half my squad and if the GK player is smart skull taker too as he directs the Justicar's NFW against skulltaker (who has iron hide).
Now mathhammer aside, put this into an actual real game perspective. I didn't actually get into combat with 10 bloodletters and skulltaker. I deep striked in and ran a bit, took a round of shooting with a psycannon and storm bolters. Next turn I moved and then pondered whether I should risk trying to assault through difficult terrain or should I run more to guarantee next turn I'll get into combat. If I run I am going to take another round of shooting, if I risk assaulting and miss I'll take another round of shooting. When I finally get into combat I am lucky to have half my squad.
So now given all that do you really think NFW should ignore invulnerable saves?
With regards to the power weapon NFW. That is actually pretty good. The player I play against always manages to get one onto my independant character who has taken iron hide (3+ save). A daemon prince for example has a pitiful 5+ invul and is a 4 wound monstrous creature. So pretty much you can always expect a daemon player to take a iron hide when he can. More often than not though he gets into combat and is suddenly having to make 3 5+ saves from a NFW that wounded him on a 3+ and is ignoring iron hide.
NFW are good, and more to the point they are very good against daemons in particular, simply because saves are not a strong point for daemons to begin with so it hardly matters that they get them against NFW.
This is a perfect example of making the GK's good against daemons but not making them mean against daemons. Everyone seems to think that the best way to represent the fluff of GKs in game is to give them rules specifically against daemons. This is a terrible decision for game balance, not just for the daemons but for the GK's too. GK's aren't exactly a very powerful army against anything but daemons. The best solution is to give GK's abilities that justify their points across all the races.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2009/01/29 15:39:47
Subject: 5th edition grey knights?
|
 |
Neophyte Undergoing Surgeries
*Behind you* BOO!
|
Neo, a problem with your theoretical is that Bloodletters are I4 base and have furious charge. they ought to go before the GKs you charge. Also I'm only proposing that GK's Grandmaster ignore invul totally. The other just force a reroll, and of those only ones that would are justicars and up.
So to use your theoretical Bloodletters charge in and go at STR5 I5. They might or might not make it to be fair, but on 2d6 you have a reasonable chance. So they will strike first, out of ten models you have 3 attacks plus 5or six from skull taker which are also I5.
Starting with the 30 attacks half will hit, 15. 2/3 will wound, 10. Of which your enemy will get no armor save. You just wiped the squad. Before they get to attack you. That doesn't even count the craziness that is skull taker rending on a 4+.
Remember the rule for the GK rites of exorcism simply requires you to roll dice for assault range as if you were in difficult ground. So in your theoretical scenario, about 160 pts of bloodletters wipes or near wipes a 275 with justicar squad. Now assuming non perfect dice rolls, you still win combat by a large margin, and becuase of fearless the GK's are forced to take lets say 5 more wounds if we assume you killed only 8 they GK's killed 3 of you. You now kill at least one if not both when they take the extra wounds.
So while I'm not sure how you play in a real game but it would seem that GK's need the turn of shooting to even have a chance against you. Also under the theoretical scenario, the changes I've proposed to NFW wouldn't even effect you. But at best the justicar is forcing one or two rerolls on a 5+ save. Pretty fair if he @ 50 pts managed to survive that onslaught.
Where you would see the most damage would be against GK termies because all of them would have the invul reroll, but that's one squad at ~46 pts a model.
In a real life situation, like the one you've described I can't comment because I don't know all the variables, most of what your describing is stuff that everyone has to deal with. Oh crap the Tau are camped in cover can i get into CC with them or am I going to get rapid fired to all hell and back.
To your point about GK's across all races, giving NFW the ability to cause rerolls on invul saves is usefull against all races, some just less so than others. I'll be looking to see if in my earlier post I was clear enough about my opinion on the levels of NFW.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2009/01/29 22:51:51
Subject: 5th edition grey knights?
|
 |
Regular Dakkanaut
|
Caleth, the bloodletters do not strike first. Because they had to make a difficult terrain roll their initiative is reduced to 1.
I am guessing you are interpreting "All daemons attempting to charge Grey Knights must roll dice for their Assault range as if they were moving in difficult ground." as being a case of them just rolling two dice and not technically taking a "difficult terrain test".
No one I play against interprets the rule that way and I don't either. Two reasons why,
1. The term 'difficult terrain test' did not exist in the context (3rd ed rulebook) of when the daemon hunters codex was printed. The ruling was just some text in a paragraph under terrain. So they are hardly going to write "Daemons need to take a difficult terrain test when assaulting Grey Knights" which is probably how they would write it today.
2. Intent wise. I do not think it is GW's intent to create endless rules that count as other rules but aren't those rules. They seem to be on a path of streamlining and consistency (well at least more so than in the past). Its like the argument about 'instant death' and slain outright. They should be the same thing and I do believe that if GW ever rewrote such rules in a new codex they would replace it with the instant death term.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2009/01/29 23:11:51
Subject: 5th edition grey knights?
|
 |
Decrepit Dakkanaut
|
@Neo: I believe "slain outright" and "Instant Death" are two different things, when you consider things like Vortex Grenades and Destroyer weapons in Apocalypse...
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2009/01/29 23:33:25
Subject: 5th edition grey knights?
|
 |
Sslimey Sslyth
Busy somewhere, airin' out the skin jobs.
|
NeoMaul wrote:Caleth, the bloodletters do not strike first. Because they had to make a difficult terrain roll their initiative is reduced to 1.
I am guessing you are interpreting "All daemons attempting to charge Grey Knights must roll dice for their Assault range as if they were moving in difficult ground." as being a case of them just rolling two dice and not technically taking a "difficult terrain test".
No one I play against interprets the rule that way and I don't either. Two reasons why,
1. The term 'difficult terrain test' did not exist in the context (3rd ed rulebook) of when the daemon hunters codex was printed. The ruling was just some text in a paragraph under terrain. So they are hardly going to write "Daemons need to take a difficult terrain test when assaulting Grey Knights" which is probably how they would write it today.
2. Intent wise. I do not think it is GW's intent to create endless rules that count as other rules but aren't those rules. They seem to be on a path of streamlining and consistency (well at least more so than in the past). Its like the argument about 'instant death' and slain outright. They should be the same thing and I do believe that if GW ever rewrote such rules in a new codex they would replace it with the instant death term.
Even if your interpretation is wrong,all a Grey Knight player has to do against any deamon besides Nurgle (who have cloud of flies) is stand around in difficult terrain waiting for the daemon to get tired of taking stormbolter rounds to the face.
....I know thats what 'I' do against Khorne.
Basically, Khorne DOESNT go first against a Grey Knight unit....ever.
|
I have never failed to seize on 4+ in my life!
The best 40k page in the Universe
COMMORRAGH |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2009/01/29 23:48:27
Subject: 5th edition grey knights?
|
 |
Neophyte Undergoing Surgeries
*Behind you* BOO!
|
Neo, back in 3rd ed making things that over wrote rules happened all the time complexity was king and clarity of intent suffered. I would personally have to disagree with the interpretation that it effectively makes them mobile difficult terrain.
I also asked our local GK players and both of them agreed that rites of exorcism didn't play that way. So at least around here it doesn't play that way. (This is more an issue of interpretation.) I'd ask some local red shirts but it seems when ever I ask a question I get 3 different answers.
With such a fundamental disagreement on how rites works I'm not sure we can reach a compromise.
Edit:
DeadShane, do you play people that are only Khorne? The players I know that run Daemons use the skittles approach, for exactly that reason. Opponents hide in cover, burn'em out with Flamers of Tzeentch, or while you're lounging in cover I'll go cap the objectives that you're not sitting on. Or I'll go you one better, becuase Bloodletters run 60% the cost of a GK troops squad I'll just take, 16 to your ten, you' probablly can't kill'em all before I get to you. Also this particular problem is not unique to GK's and Khorne Deamons, it describes alot of situations. Assault Termies from C:SM have no frag grenades and go last assaulting into cover. It's not a valid argument to say that you'll never ever go first as Deamons.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2009/01/30 00:12:09
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2009/01/30 00:45:15
Subject: 5th edition grey knights?
|
 |
Regular Dakkanaut
|
JohnHwangDD wrote:@Neo: I believe "slain outright" and "Instant Death" are two different things, when you consider things like Vortex Grenades and Destroyer weapons in Apocalypse... 
Using the force weapon description in the Daemon Hunters book for this example.
The vortex grenade and D weapon descriptions do not say slain outright. Destroyer weapons actually inflict instant death, but with one additional clause, if the model is immune to instant death then it takes 1 wound instead. That is very different to slaying outright. Vortex grenades are different even still. They have no comparison to the rules written in the daemon hunters codex for a force weapon. The vortex grenade removes models with no regard to hitting, wounding or saves. You simply just remove them.
If they were to write these rules today and they wanted GK force weapons to destroy daemons, I reckon they would say "this weapon inflicts instant death even if the model is immune to instant death." What I am inclined to believe they were thinking back then though was that this weapon is a force weapon just like every other force weapon we have printed in other codices, it kills outright, nothing is immune to the concept of instant death so there's no need for us to specify that it doesn't work against such models.
And this is supported by the current rendition of the force weapon rules.
And Caleth I agree that we will not be able to reach a compromise as is always the case with interpretations. At the least you must be able to understand why give the interpretation I and a lot of people I play against (including red shirts) go by, increasing the power of NFW is not a good idea. I can understand why you might want to boost their power a bit given that you play without the reduction in initiative.
Sadly this whole mess just needs a codex revision to sort itself out or at the very least a FAQ. Its very annoying not knowing how I am suppose to play my army. I suppose though that this affects me more so than others as I play with three seperate players who run with GK armies. Most chaos daemon players probably wouldn't encounter GKs that often :(
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2009/01/30 01:12:23
Subject: 5th edition grey knights?
|
 |
Decrepit Dakkanaut
|
I guess the key point is that, if your Daemons aren't Daemons for Sustaind Assault, then the GK shouldn't get their bonuses against them, either.
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2009/01/30 01:43:54
Subject: 5th edition grey knights?
|
 |
Regular Dakkanaut
|
JohnHwangDD wrote:I guess the key point is that, if your Daemons aren't Daemons for Sustaind Assault, then the GK shouldn't get their bonuses against them, either.
I agree with you dude.
Just becomes a problem because some people I play against don't see it that way. Its also a bit of a downer considering me and my friend choose these armies to face off against each other in a fluffy kinda way.
I hope that Inquisitor Codex isn't too far away.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2009/02/02 17:54:22
Subject: 5th edition grey knights?
|
 |
Neophyte Undergoing Surgeries
*Behind you* BOO!
|
Neo, I understand completely why you'd not want to bump NFW if you play Rites that way. So maybe what we can do is agree on a common interpretation to use going forward.
If we are rewriting rules why don't we ask ourselves if we like how it functions?
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2009/02/02 23:55:52
Subject: 5th edition grey knights?
|
 |
Trigger-Happy Baal Predator Pilot
|
That would be a great idea.
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2009/02/03 00:06:21
Subject: 5th edition grey knights?
|
 |
Neophyte Undergoing Surgeries
*Behind you* BOO!
|
So first then since it seems to be the monkey wrench in the works Should Rites continue to function in the manner it currently is seen to? IE the GK's are difficult terrain?
If no how do we fix it? Simply forcing a LD test to see if they can assault is kinda a waste since everything (minus fateweaver) is LD 10. Would it be better if it worked like having defensive grenades? Should we view it as my group interpreted it that it only a check to see if they can cover the ground but doesn't reduce the initative? Should the rule grant a -1 to Daemons LD checks to resolve combat against GKs? Or is there a better suggestion?
Edit: clarity
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2009/02/03 00:08:11
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2009/02/03 00:16:48
Subject: 5th edition grey knights?
|
 |
Decrepit Dakkanaut
|
IMO, Rites should go away for something simpler and different. The -1 Ld and Difficult Ground bits don't work in 5E. I'd suggest it simply be the rationale for GK being Fearless. Or mabye granting Furious Charge.
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2009/02/03 01:01:36
Subject: 5th edition grey knights?
|
 |
Neophyte Undergoing Surgeries
*Behind you* BOO!
|
I don't know DD STR7 and I5 on the charge? Also that would apply for Justicars and Terminator which have PW under the current rules.
I think using that as the rationale for Fearless works, which while it sucks that it can cause more wounds is extremely fluffy. It also causes less issues with over costing to balance against daemons.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2009/02/03 01:38:28
Subject: 5th edition grey knights?
|
 |
Decrepit Dakkanaut
|
Against most infantry S6 vs S7 doesn't really matter as you're always wounding on a 2+. It's the I5 that matters and makes GK badass, as they'll strike before other I4 MEQs.
Fearless is the easiest effect, IMO.
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2009/02/03 02:11:15
Subject: 5th edition grey knights?
|
 |
Neophyte Undergoing Surgeries
*Behind you* BOO!
|
Your right against infantry I'm just thinking about Dreads, MC's and high toughness units. It means basic GK's can pop even an Ironclad dread.
But if you assume fearless to be worth less points now that it has a significant draw back and we drop the in difficult terrain aspect... it might be about even. Hard to say I don't have even a rough idea about relative costs.
What it does for sure is make them eaiser to assault but alot harder when they assault.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2009/02/03 02:24:18
Subject: 5th edition grey knights?
|
 |
Regular Dakkanaut
|
Ok, so these are my thoughts:
Skew DH to be good vs daemons because of their rules, but do have little to no specific anti daemon rules. This will serve to make the army better balanced versus other army types, and the GKs won't be paying for abilities that never come into play.
So on that route: No Sustained attack, no rites of exorcism, etc, but do keep powers that work on everyone, like the shroud.
Shroud improvement: change to 2d6x4, so that it will actually matter a little.
Psycannon, increase to str7. (meh, mostly for wraithlords and things with armor saves, and some light vehicle av or maybe go with a HvyPsycannon variant that is str8 ap3 hvy 2 but can only be vehicle mounted cuz the psychic kick on it is too great or some fluff like that)
Forceweapons, if Eternal warrior, cause an additional wound instead of outright death. Not going to kill just any of the big bads in one swing, but certainly will help.
The -1 initiative sacred incense change to work vs all opponents, up the cost by 5pts, one per army. The grimoire would stay anti daemon but get lowered to 10 pts, DaemonHammer works on all monstrous creatures as well as daemons, same pt cost, update it to SM codex rules though, no stun-locking.
Psychic powers, i'm tempted to just replace them all with the SM codex powers, and give the psychic hood the same nerf of course.
Rites of Exorcism gets replaced with a psychic power that can be bought by Justicars on PAGKs that give them defensive grenades. (simliar to enhance or other eldar passive powers)
Keep the autohood if any GK gets targeted.
Update their stormshields to the 3++ invulnerable, give them a veteran brocap similiar to Stern in stats, so they can get something in between the 1 w brocap and the giant pointsink that is a GKGM.
GK Dreads -- give them the Shroud rule as a wargear option, option for two DCCWs, venerable option, up WS to 6 for the ven, twin linked psycannon as a wep option.
GKLR, Redeemers with twin linked Incinerator cannons (same thing as flamestorm minus invulnerables-- but more costly in points) option to go for a twinlinked psycannon to replace the heavy bolter. same pintle options as SM codex.
Razorbacks or Rhinos for storm troopers, with twin linked psycannon options or twin linked incinerator. points in line with SM codex, chimera in line with the new IG codex.
Fast attack slot, valkyries if the IG get them, some sort of Jumppack GK equivalent. Wings, teleporters, Hoverbikes, or even normal bikes, i don't care, as long as it looks cooler than a normal marine. The pts cost would be fairly ludicrous, which would keep them from being too good.
I'd like an updated troop slot of PAGK trading in their storm bolters for storm shields and maybe frags?
Assassins i'll touch on another time, daemonhosts need eternal warrior, and maybe give the inquisitor the ability to modify the power roll by 1 if he has a heirophant in his party, with the ability to reroll completley as well if has two? I mean, you're giving up GKs for these guys, you need to make them good. Radical inquistiors need more unique choices, maybe mutant squads, ogryns or something, but thats kind of a big other post.
|
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2009/02/03 04:07:58
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2009/02/03 02:38:34
Subject: 5th edition grey knights?
|
 |
Decrepit Dakkanaut
|
Fearless is still good, as it guarantees they don't run away, so the GK can DS and *will* Score / Contest unless they're wiped out.
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2009/02/03 03:13:46
Subject: 5th edition grey knights?
|
 |
Neophyte Undergoing Surgeries
*Behind you* BOO!
|
Sorry the "it sucks" part wasn't a reference to the acutal rule more how it interacts with the combat resolution. It benefits are great, it's just that down side can be really nasty.
I tend to see it more with my friend who runs DW termies. It's usually those extra wounds that wipe his squad and free up the opponent to do what ever he was trying to prevent. I'd think that GKs would have a similar problem being a low model count army. But as I said I think the change means that you can justify doing something like Furious Charge.
@ferrous: there's a lot there I'll mull it over and see if I have any questions tomorrow.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2009/02/03 23:35:06
Subject: 5th edition grey knights?
|
 |
Trigger-Happy Baal Predator Pilot
|
I do think fearless would be a great add on as well as the whole psychic cannons as upgrades for their vehicles. However I am againts just replacing all of their psychic powers with the SM powers just b/c of fluff reasons even though I am not a big fluff guy I think that since they have their own codex they should get diffrent powers. The upgraded stormshields is a must but I like their psychic hoods gives them a little edge.
Edit: I also like the giving the dreads shrouding and think it would be overkill to give it to all vechiles. I also really would like to see GK with Jumppacks and Storm Shields however bikers would be a cool add on as well. (Maybe both?) I also think that they should have some specific anti deamon powers and deamons should get a plus to balance out these powers. (Just adds more variants and mixes up games(.u can chose to play without the)).
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2009/02/03 23:40:20
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2009/02/04 05:46:43
Subject: 5th edition grey knights?
|
 |
Neophyte Undergoing Surgeries
*Behind you* BOO!
|
Well ferrous I think Emrab has a point just cutting and pasting the SM powers would cut alot of flavor out of the dex.
Personally I love Holocaust Psychic Power, esp when combined with Termie GK. It's just fun to watch things disappear like that.
A "Heavy Psycanon" could be interesting. Make it a LR upgrade and a Dreadnought upgrade. There is an issue with AP though. Maybe if the ignores invul was equal to the AP of the weapon?
Speaking of dreads Vens @ WS6? I have to disagree. I think if you included the shrouding rule and left everything else equal to the SM dex it would be more than fine. Maybe a points tweak. Or this would be a great time to include the Chappy dread from Forgeworld.
As for fast attack, wings are kinda a chaos and sisters shtick, hover bikes are Eldar territory. I think just altering the Vanguard rules would make the most sense. Just get rid of that stupid declaring who to charge bit. Or have a deal with a teleport "blast wave". Drop a pie plate that deals a str 3 or 4 ap- hit where they are coming in.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2009/02/04 15:13:39
Subject: 5th edition grey knights?
|
 |
Pulsating Possessed Space Marine of Slaanesh
|
JohnHwangDD wrote:Preferred Enemy is probably the *worst* thing you could give Grey Knights because it is a huge, but very narrow benefit. If you cost for it, GK are too expensive except against Daemons.
Codex: Daemonhunters, what was I thinking? These guys must be really good at fighting Tau and everybody else all at once.
lolzman wrote:wow you guys are tough on grey knights they arent that good they cant be too much or theyll be run over by orks cheap large units
QFT.
I think you guys are missing out on the point that GK are meant to be expensive. They're supposed to be one-trick ponies. They're Daemonhunters for crying out loud, not WeDestroyEverythingAndDaemonhunters.
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2009/02/04 16:37:23
Subject: 5th edition grey knights?
|
 |
Hardened Veteran Guardsman
CNY
|
Asmodeus:
Having overpriced units and having fun playing one or two armies while getting hammered by everyone else does not a fun army make.
The objective of this thread is to discuss how to make Grey Knights less of one trick ponies. It is to discuss how to make them a useful army against everyone while giving them abilities against daemons that don't require special rules.
Yes, they're daemonhunters. They should have some rules that make them better at killing daemons than the average bear. It doesn't have to make them useless at killing everyone else.
|
STAND FAST AND DIE LIKE GUARDSMEN |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2009/02/04 16:49:21
Subject: 5th edition grey knights?
|
 |
Pulsating Possessed Space Marine of Slaanesh
|
bryantsbears wrote:Asmodeus:
Having overpriced units and having fun playing one or two armies while getting hammered by everyone else does not a fun army make.
The objective of this thread is to discuss how to make Grey Knights less of one trick ponies. It is to discuss how to make them a useful army against everyone while giving them abilities against daemons that don't require special rules.
Yes, they're daemonhunters. They should have some rules that make them better at killing daemons than the average bear. It doesn't have to make them useless at killing everyone else.
The way I understood it, and I may be wrong here, but I thought the current codex was released with the idea of it being: "Yeah, you can field this as an army, but it's meant to be used as allies."
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2009/02/04 17:24:08
Subject: 5th edition grey knights?
|
 |
Hardened Veteran Guardsman
CNY
|
That's what it's become. It's a lot easier to sell models if you can plunk them down besides your established army.
But it's not Codex: SMurf/IG allies. It's Codex: Daemonhunters. If you're going to write a codex and support a line for said army, it would be preferably if it exists in a playable form as a stand alone codex.
Right now, it's not.
|
STAND FAST AND DIE LIKE GUARDSMEN |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2009/02/04 17:37:57
Subject: 5th edition grey knights?
|
 |
Pulsating Possessed Space Marine of Slaanesh
|
bryantsbears wrote:That's what it's become. It's a lot easier to sell models if you can plunk them down besides your established army.
But it's not Codex: SMurf/IG allies. It's Codex: Daemonhunters. If you're going to write a codex and support a line for said army, it would be preferably if it exists in a playable form as a stand alone codex.
Right now, it's not.
I can understand that and appreciate it, but I still think they they should still be an elitist force. I'm sorry, but I just don't see them fielding an entire army to go and fight Tau on the borders of the Eastern Fringe. Its not gonna happen.
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2009/02/04 17:47:37
Subject: 5th edition grey knights?
|
 |
Hardened Veteran Guardsman
CNY
|
They might not bring out the Grey Knights to bring the pain to the Damocles Gulf, but they might send the Grey Knights if the Tau have some warp-tainted object in their possession. Similar circumstances apply to other factions.
They will get involved with more than just "oh crap - daemons!"
|
STAND FAST AND DIE LIKE GUARDSMEN |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2009/02/04 18:56:01
Subject: 5th edition grey knights?
|
 |
Trigger-Happy Baal Predator Pilot
|
Yeah theres a section in the codex that allows the opposing player to take a greater deamon for 100 points so fluff wise they just go where they think deamons could be or are attacking. They could go into an area to catch the thing early instead of waiting for it to get to the "oh crap-daemons!" stage.
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2009/02/04 20:35:59
Subject: 5th edition grey knights?
|
 |
Decrepit Dakkanaut
|
Asmodeus wrote:JohnHwangDD wrote:Preferred Enemy is probably the *worst* thing you could give Grey Knights because it is a huge, but very narrow benefit. If you cost for it, GK are too expensive except against Daemons. Codex: Daemonhunters, what was I thinking? These guys must be really good at fighting Tau and everybody else all at once. I think you guys are missing out on the point that GK are meant to be expensive. They're supposed to be one-trick ponies. They're Daemonhunters for crying out loud, not WeDestroyEverythingAndDaemonhunters.
Then in that case, they don't need a Codex. They can be two Inquisition list entries and an Apocalypse Datasheet.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2009/02/04 20:36:15
|
|
 |
 |
|