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.

Edits: To clarify, I've only EVER been a GK fan, for about 10 years now and JUST began collecting, because money.

What they did to GK with this detachment change was two-fold.
1st, the number of DKs we could take went from 6>4.I typically only use 5. They were not overly broken and a point increase would have been good.
2nd. I lose the ability to take 2 different KEY brotherhood spells, Aegis and Lodestone. I had these two different detachments designed for one to be very tanky and the other one very killy. Now that is completely F--Ked.

I do not see this changing anytime soon and I understand the need for balance, but the difference in power I now possess feels too bad to continue.

Before I post this I just want to note that I haven't yet bought all my models in physical form, so GW will personally be losing hundreds of currency units. F__k them for such a careless change.

/bow

 Bosskelot wrote:
4 of them is still incredibly powerful

Yes

as is only being able to take a single Brotherhood.

No, and this is where I drew the line. 4 DK is fine, w/e Ill take a squad of interceptors, but when you remove my ability to also play Terminators effectively, nah, have a nice day.

Honestly, I really couldn't care less. Mixing factions within the same army should have been penalized a while ago, outside of narrative, do what you like battles. It always led to having your cake and eating it too scenarios. Sisters players will need to change, as will Tsons and GKs. So what?

The only thing I sympathize with is those who deliberately painted their army differently because GW said detachments with different orders/kabals etc had to be identifiable on the table. That should never have been a thing with this change on the horizon.

people will drop cash and chase the meta....well, guess what, that changes. If you just buy for your own enjoyment, GW can never take that away.

 bullyboy wrote:

people will drop cash and chase the meta....well, guess what, that changes. If you just buy for your own enjoyment, GW can never take that away.

To clarify, I've only EVER been a GK fan, for about 10 years now and JUST began collecting, because money.

I don't know about any new rule changes but I have bowed out of 40k for awhile now. Between dropping new editions one after another or GW issuing a ton of extra books for 40k and now Killteam. It's tough to keep up even if you have the money. I'm not going to scrap my 40k stuff. I'll just wait to see how it all changes. In the meantime I'll just keep enjoying Star Wars Legion and hope GW slows down the book dumps.

GW's focus on the list building paradigm, and "meta" may increase sales in the short term, but I see it churning through players in the long term.

I was initially unhappy with 8th, then I saw the writing on the wall after the end of the index phase. If Gw wants to create a balanced game with holisitc design amongst the codexes I'll be interested. Right now it's not worth my time or money.

If you have an army painted in the colors of three different subfactions I feel for you and hope you have a gaming group that's not into tournament play.
If you're only picking what sounds best and have to explain to your opponent what unit belongs to what subfaction this day because they're all looking the same... Well, I guess it will improve the experience for your opponents.

We solved this problem a while ago because our group plays 5th edition and i use my GKs the way they were intended-to aid imperial forces when fighting chaos or demonic forces. not as a stand alone full army. i still use the 3rd ed GK codex as it does the force in the way the lore describes them.

I run a grand master with a 9 terminator retinue (and occasionally one of the assassins, since i own all four). and he joins my space marines or my mechanicus force as needed to spice up the army lists.

We have a guy in our group building a stormtrooper themed inquisitorial force out of the same codex.

To the wider point GW have become as a company that is why i play so many other games (see my sig) or editions of 40K where GW isn't involved to Feth things up anymore.

See, people who spam a single unit like Dreaknights are the most unfun kind of opponent. So if you 'only' take five I would have never bothered to play against you in the first place.

And mixing factions to squeeze out every single special rule you could from those spammed units? I am rather glad that issue is getting slammed.

I do feel bad for a few people after this. Orks lost half of their fun because they were designed to abuse this mechanic. Hopefully the Guard comes through better though - next year when they finally get updated.

And two separate spellings to avoid the profanity filter. Tell us how you really feel.

Seems like an overreaction. This change only applies to matched play games using the 2022 book.
No bearing on narrative play or open play or groups that just wanna stick to 2021 book.

Instead of outright quitting, how about expanding into the other modes of play?

Veldrain wrote:
So if you 'only' take five I would have never bothered to play against you in the first place.

You don't have that choice in competitive play. I think that's where the misunderstanding is here, and balancing is based on competitively play.

“That unit I spammed… I now can’t take as many in one of three game modes available so I quit.”

What???

Do people not know that the GK codex only has two heavy weapon platforms or something? Given the choice between the DK or a land raider I know which one I'd choose to take a bunch of.

 JohnnyHell wrote:
“That unit I spammed… I now can’t take as many in one of three game modes available so I quit.”

What???

I also took a full unit of Terminators, a unit no1 wanted to touch in competitive play, so if you want to talk gak, stop. You're just a clown..


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Sim-Life wrote:
Do people not know that the GK codex only has two heavy weapon platforms or something? Given the choice between the DK or a land raider I know which one I'd choose to take a bunch of.

They read the OP and think I'm some WAAC, even though I put my Edit at the top for a reason.

What a stupid fething thread.

This change is solely for Matched Tournament Play. Nothing is stopping you from running mixed subfactions in your normal matched play games, or even in the missions from this book, if you're not actively playing in events or practice games for those events.

Secondly the idea that NDK's weren't overly broken is hilarious. 4 of them is still incredibly powerful, as is only being able to take a single Brotherhood. Unless Interceptors have massively increased in points the army is still in the top tier of power easily.

Calling it careless is also hilarious because this has been on the cards for a long, long time. They should have nipped it in the bud at the start of 9th at least (what will all the other anti-soup going on) and letting it keep going is certainly careless. But like the flyer change this has been an inevitability for quite a while.

I don't care. Oh, you "only" use 5 NDK, what god damn gentleman /sarcasm. You know what I do care, I think your posts in this thread are annoying. The HQ NDK was a mistake in the first place and the 4th should not even be possible. Feth NDK, they are ugly and stupid.

@sim no, people know that just isn't true, there are Dreadnoughts, Flyers and (original do not steal) Devastators. On the other hand, people know that NDK are super competitive at the moment and see someone whining about not being able to bring 5.

 Bosskelot wrote:
4 of them is still incredibly powerful

Yes

as is only being able to take a single Brotherhood.

No, and this is where I drew the line. 4 DK is fine, w/e Ill take a squad of interceptors, but when you remove my ability to also play Terminators effectively, nah, have a nice day.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 vict0988 wrote:
I don't care. Oh, you "only" use 5 NDK, what god damn gentleman /sarcasm. You know what I do care, I think your posts in this thread are annoying. The HQ NDK was a mistake in the first place and the 4th should not even be possible. Feth NDK, they are ugly and stupid.

@sim no, people know that just isn't true, there are Dreadnoughts, Flyers and (original do not steal) Devastators. On the other hand, people know that NDK are super competitive at the moment and see someone whining about not being able to bring 5.

Read the post I just made, clown.

I don't get you _SeeD_, GK should still be pretty strong after these changes and if you don't even have the models what bothers you?

I'm sure you'd be able to find out different builds that work at competitive levels. If not just wait for some reviews on the internet, they'll figure it out for you.

 Blackie wrote:
I don't get you _SeeD_, GK should still be pretty strong after these changes and if you don't even have the models what bothers you?

I'm sure you'd be able to find out different builds that work at competitive levels. If not just wait for some reviews on the internet, they'll figure it out for you.

I have spent many hours on Table Top Simulator, hammering out a unique list that had a bright future lol.
Can't think of a better way to describe it.
Does that make more sense? I'm glad you asked, it's just that OPs need to only be so long.

 vict0988 wrote:


@sim no, people know that just isn't true, there are Dreadnoughts, Flyers and (original do not steal) Devastators. On the other hand, people know that NDK are super competitive at the moment and see someone whining about not being able to bring 5.

Dreadnaughts and fliers aren't heavy weapon platforms though. They're fairly fragile units that can take heavy weapons. Thats like complaining about Guard players taking Leman Russes when sentinels, heavy weapon squads and valkyries exist.

Why should anyone care if some random guy on the internet quits? A Powergamer without models?

You will not be missed.

 Lord_Valorion wrote:
Why should anyone care if some random guy on the internet quits? A Powergamer too?

You will not be missed.

I know you don't care enough to read all the comments here, but I'm not a powergamer. Please stop with the false imagery.

You spam the best unit of a faction like there is no tomorrow. You are the archetype of Powergamer and i am glad you leave.

 Lord_Valorion wrote:
You spam the best unit of a faction like there is no tomorrow. You are the archetype of Powergamer and i am glad you leave.

I play competitively with the army I've only ever played. That is not powergaming, it's excelling at your particular army.
And I really hope you don't mean that, because I will come back one day and if we ever play, losing to me then would feel even more painful.

 Lord_Valorion wrote:
You spam the best unit of a faction like there is no tomorrow. You are the archetype of Powergamer and i am glad you leave.

But its fine if he spams gakky units? How about if GW nerfs NDKs hard in CA2022 and he still plays them? Is he still a power games? How about if he does what you say and spams gakky units then they become OP at GWs whims?

I used to play a heavy melee carnifex nid list and now I think through sheer random chance that happens to be the best Nid list going now? Does that make me WAAC now because GWs random throw at a dart board of rules writing made my list good? What if I write a new list themed around hormogaunts and I field all 120 of them that I own and the 9th Ed book ends up making it "unfun" and "WAAC"? Is that my fault or GWs?

Can we get some clarification on what is considered WAAC and what is considered a thematic list that got lucky because GW cannot into rules?

 _SeeD_ wrote:

 Blackie wrote:
I don't get you _SeeD_, GK should still be pretty strong after these changes and if you don't even have the models what bothers you?

I'm sure you'd be able to find out different builds that work at competitive levels. If not just wait for some reviews on the internet, they'll figure it out for you.

I have spent many hours on Table Top Simulator, hammering out a unique list that had a bright future lol.
Can't think of a better way to describe it.
Does that make more sense? I'm glad you asked, it's just that OPs need to only be so long.

if you were planning to play competitive 40K, then leaving now is the best decision, because rules changes like this are a basic fact of life. strong units get nerfs, weaker units get buffs. OP tricks get blocked, and new ones are discovered. If your immediate reaction to finding out your (planned and not yet purchased) list of units and game strategy needs to change is to question your basic desire to play at all, them get out now before you've sunk anymore cash into a hobby that will do this to you repeatedly.

if the painting and modelling side still intrests you, then go do that, or go play crusade games where the army selection rules are totally different. but competitive, matched play 40K does things like this all the time to try and improve balance, or tone down a OP unit combo.

And, as you can see form the reactions of several dakka posters, "Only" 5 dread knights would still be considered OP by most people, and meta chasing even by those that don't object. Those things are really good, and anyone taking lots of them is going to be considered to be playing a WAAC list, regardless of having a sub-optimal unit or two in the list.

xerxeskingofking wrote:

 _SeeD_ wrote:

 Blackie wrote:
I don't get you _SeeD_, GK should still be pretty strong after these changes and if you don't even have the models what bothers you?

I'm sure you'd be able to find out different builds that work at competitive levels. If not just wait for some reviews on the internet, they'll figure it out for you.

I have spent many hours on Table Top Simulator, hammering out a unique list that had a bright future lol.
Can't think of a better way to describe it.
Does that make more sense? I'm glad you asked, it's just that OPs need to only be so long.

if you were planning to play competitive 40K, then leaving now is the best decision, because rules changes like this are a basic fact of life. strong units get nerfs, weaker units get buffs. OP tricks get blocked, and new ones are discovered. If your immediate reaction to finding out your (planned and not yet purchased) list of units and game strategy needs to change is to question your basic desire to play at all, them get out now before you've sunk anymore cash into a hobby that will do this to you repeatedly.

if the painting and modelling side still intrests you, then go do that, or go play crusade games where the army selection rules are totally different. but competitive, matched play 40K does things like this all the time to try and improve balance, or tone down a OP unit combo.

And, as you can see form the reactions of several dakka posters, "Only" 5 dread knights would still be considered OP by most people, and meta chasing even by those that don't object. Those things are really good, and anyone taking lots of them is going to be considered to be playing a WAAC list, regardless of having a sub-optimal unit or two in the list.

Best post so far.

I'm sorry, written text can be very ambiguous about things like tone, was a genuine thanks or a sarcastic one?

xerxeskingofking wrote:
I'm sorry, written text can be very ambiguous about things like tone, was a genuine thanks or a sarcastic one?

Most people here are misinterpreting my intentions, so it's fine.
It was a real compliment.

 _SeeD_ wrote:

 Blackie wrote:
I don't get you _SeeD_, GK should still be pretty strong after these changes and if you don't even have the models what bothers you?

I'm sure you'd be able to find out different builds that work at competitive levels. If not just wait for some reviews on the internet, they'll figure it out for you.

I have spent many hours on Table Top Simulator, hammering out a unique list that had a bright future lol.
Can't think of a better way to describe it.
Does that make more sense? I'm glad you asked, it's just that OPs need to only be so long.

No, I honestly don't think it does. Maybe you're new to 40k, but we can't expect to play the exact same lists for more than some months, especially those that are designed on spamming a few specific units. That's true since almost 5 years now, while in the past things were changed slowlier but still people needed to adapt at some point.

It's a very good thing actually, if things always stay the same everyone would play the very same few lists.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

xerxeskingofking wrote:


if you were planning to play competitive 40K, then leaving now is the best decision, because rules changes like this are a basic fact of life. strong units get nerfs, weaker units get buffs. OP tricks get blocked, and new ones are discovered. If your immediate reaction to finding out your (planned and not yet purchased) list of units and game strategy needs to change is to question your basic desire to play at all, them get out now before you've sunk anymore cash into a hobby that will do this to you repeatedly.

if the painting and modelling side still intrests you, then go do that, or go play crusade games where the army selection rules are totally different. but competitive, matched play 40K does things like this all the time to try and improve balance, or tone down a OP unit combo.

And, as you can see form the reactions of several dakka posters, "Only" 5 dread knights would still be considered OP by most people, and meta chasing even by those that don't object. Those things are really good, and anyone taking lots of them is going to be considered to be playing a WAAC list, regardless of having a sub-optimal unit or two in the list.

To me the goal of a competitive player should be being good at the game, not being good with one list. That means being able to field multiple build and probably multiple armies at events. Especially if you mostly or only play simulators, with free access to every possible combination of units.

 Blackie wrote:


To me the goal of a competitive player should be being good at the game, not being good with one list. That means being able to field multiple build and probably multiple armies at events. Especially if you mostly or only play simulators, with free access to every possible combination of units.

To me, I not only want to win at that level, but do so in a unique way. Not only did I make terminators work, but the list was actually good. Also, this is my first time playing as a GK fan.
Does this make more sense now?
I'm not trying to be just a mindless metadrone, OK?
This is a legitimate grievance. I think people just read "5 DKs" and went mindnumb or something. FFS.