Martel732 wrote:
they are liabilities because they are so flimsy per point

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
they are liabilities because they are so flimsy per point

Stop thinking about the math for a moment. If you've contained them to their side of the table you're likely way ahead on holds by turn 3. If they have weak chaff then it isn't improbably to do well on kill and kill more.

Hold
Hold More
Kill
-- If you don't get Kill More its a wash, but is otherwise a 2 point swing in your favor.

That could give enough of a buffer even if your opponent does well on secondaries.

bananathug wrote:
There can't be that many 5-1 lists with BA having a 35% win rate over 110 games from Nov through first week of jan. But sure, it's just that martel is playing them wrong...

Scouts are nothing more than a cheap source of CP since a TFC picks one to two up per turn and a lot of marine lists are rocking 2-3 so you are losing all of your scouts t1 (because as BA you usually aren't starting something more threatening on the table that marines need to slow/kill with TFC). Giving up easy kill/kill more in ITC.

The 5-1 BA lists are usually BA soup(not really BA lists) for the deepstrike elements backed by the mathammer stuff from SM books.

bananathug wrote:
There can't be that many 5-1 lists with BA having a 35% win rate over 110 games from Nov through first week of jan. But sure, it's just that martel is playing them wrong...

Scouts are nothing more than a cheap source of CP since a TFC picks one to two up per turn and a lot of marine lists are rocking 2-3 so you are losing all of your scouts t1 (because as BA you usually aren't starting something more threatening on the table that marines need to slow/kill with TFC). Giving up easy kill/kill more in ITC.

The 5-1 BA lists are usually BA soup(not really BA lists) for the deepstrike elements backed by the mathammer stuff from SM books.

 Daedalus81 wrote:
Stop thinking about the math for a moment. If you've contained them to their side of the table you're likely way ahead on holds by turn 3. If they have weak chaff then it isn't improbably to do well on kill and kill more.

the_scotsman wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
"I was able to really see the value of units beyond numbers. The balance you have to strike between having enough teeth, while also making yourself a challenge for your opponent to navigate around upon the board, and also having enough tools tricks and utility on the board, is what you need to leverage the options you have that your opponent doesn't"

This kinda sounds like buzzword soup. Don't all these things boil down to numbers and special rules? So you are really talking about leveraging special rules?

No, obviously not. What is the one thing, the number one thing you complain about on these boards day in and day out?

How would a game go if your opponent took their models and deployed them base-to base in old pre-7th ed deep strike formation, and tried to play the game the same way?

Would you have an easier time than if they deployed their units in straight lines, bases 31mm apart, preventing you from moving through them?

People on this forum spend basically all their time trivializing every single aspect of the game that is not a simple mathmatical comparison of how many models of unit X can weapon Y kill, when pretty much any mission format whether that's ITC or CA2019 scores the majority of its points or all of its points based on units moving to a location and securing an objective.

Damage and Durability numbers tell you basically nothing about how a model actually scores you points and wins you games. A model's capacity to move to an objective, prevent opposing models from moving, and secure objectives over enemy units is how models express the majority of their in-game power, and none of that can be mathhammered.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Take the Contorted Epitome as an example. It's not particularly killy, but the utility it provides is through the roof, both in defending against psychic powers and changing the dynamic around countering melee units. How do you value that?

Also, there's plenty of times when 10 mortal wounds are markedly inferior to better psy weapons. The concept of "wasted" or "effective" wounds has already been discussed earlier in the thread. Maximum damage is not always what wins you games. I'd rather kill a crucial target than do more spread-out damage to the enemy army.

The mathhammer crowd will never not see super-smites as the superior option, because there is no way you can simulate the limitations of smite relative to the psy weapon boost (range, the opponent's capacity to deny, the risk of perils, the other powers you give up to smite, and biggest of all the requirement that the closest enemy unit be targeted cannot be simulated through math.)

The psi weapon boost causes any given GK squad with a single psilencer to deal .666 more damage on average against any target where they gain a wound shift from the str (e.g., an Imperial Knight or a Primaris Marine). The smite boost causes them to deal 1 more damage. On paper, that means you should always take the super-smite. But all I need to attack that knight is to have my squad within 24", and to smite it I need to be 18" away AND it needs to have no screen in the psychic phase (which means I had to kill the screen last turn, I can't shoot them out of the way first).

It also ignores that I can pop psybolt ammo to make my storm bolters also count as psi weapons and deal 2 damage, and I can pop Bring Down the Beast to up my wound rolls from .333 to .55. A 10-man squad with 2 psilencers that drops BDTB and psybolts deals 17 damage to an IK, and Rotate does nothing to stop it.

Martel732 wrote:
I don't contain them.

Slipspace wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Slipspace wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Yoyoyo wrote:
That whole spiel is based around the idea there are no rock-paper-scissors mechanics in 40k, only rocks and better rocks.

Why would you ever use the new Grey Knights Tide that affects Psi Weapons when you can affect the whole army's save or generate 10+ more Mortal wounds a turn?

Because you have less control over where those Mortal Wounds go? Because the unit you need to remove isn't in range for your Smites? You can even do both in the same turn since the only way to change the Tide is via a psychic power you can dish out 2W Smites for an entire phase then change the Tide as your last cast and get the benefit on your shooting too. This is a perfect example of where just looking at the raw numbers doesn't lead to useful conclusions.

You can't be serious. This isn't like the Mortal Wounds are random. You're literally doubling your output.

A simple example should show you how you're wrong. Let's assume you have some sort of MSU GK army and you can dish out 15 Smites a turn. Now you can do 30MW instead of 15 with the correct Tide active. But let's also assume you're up against Orks and the enemy army is screened out by a wall of Grots. You're suggesting killing 30 Grots rather than 15 is better than making a potentially huge amount of your shooting much better so you can kill things like bikers or Nobz or just hordes of Orks instead of insignificant Grots? That's wrong. Better example, with more practical use: you're up against Tau and you know you can shoot and remove the Drone screen near a Riptide and then kill it with enhanced Psi weapons. According to you, I should stay in my extra MW Tide so I can really, really Smite a bunch of Drones to death rather than make a more intelligent decision to play in such a way as to remove one of my enemies main threats.

Yes, it's situational, and yes, you're likely to use the MW tide from turn 2 in most cases, but it's completely incorrect to claim there's never a good reason to use a different Tide, especially when GK can switch between them relatively easily.

Tyel wrote:
I might have misunderstood Grey Knights, its not my faction, but isn't the clutch play going to be doing both?

Break out the smites, switch over with your last caster, then have 10 stormbolters get the damage output of 2 riptides for a turn (plus psilencers and cannons etc), then switch back at the start of your psyhic phase and drop the smites again.

Its perhaps a bit clunky, but doesn't seem that unrealistic to do.
The weakness of smiting is the range (can be buffed etc, but still.)

The melee tide would seem to be the one where you are left going "this doesn't feel that great?"

the_scotsman wrote:

Spoiler:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
"I was able to really see the value of units beyond numbers. The balance you have to strike between having enough teeth, while also making yourself a challenge for your opponent to navigate around upon the board, and also having enough tools tricks and utility on the board, is what you need to leverage the options you have that your opponent doesn't"

This kinda sounds like buzzword soup. Don't all these things boil down to numbers and special rules? So you are really talking about leveraging special rules?

No, obviously not. What is the one thing, the number one thing you complain about on these boards day in and day out?

How would a game go if your opponent took their models and deployed them base-to base in old pre-7th ed deep strike formation, and tried to play the game the same way?

Would you have an easier time than if they deployed their units in straight lines, bases 31mm apart, preventing you from moving through them?

People on this forum spend basically all their time trivializing every single aspect of the game that is not a simple mathmatical comparison of how many models of unit X can weapon Y kill, when pretty much any mission format whether that's ITC or CA2019 scores the majority of its points or all of its points based on units moving to a location and securing an objective.

Damage and Durability numbers tell you basically nothing about how a model actually scores you points and wins you games. A model's capacity to move to an objective, prevent opposing models from moving, and secure objectives over enemy units is how models express the majority of their in-game power, and none of that can be mathhammered.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Take the Contorted Epitome as an example. It's not particularly killy, but the utility it provides is through the roof, both in defending against psychic powers and changing the dynamic around countering melee units. How do you value that?

Also, there's plenty of times when 10 mortal wounds are markedly inferior to better psy weapons. The concept of "wasted" or "effective" wounds has already been discussed earlier in the thread. Maximum damage is not always what wins you games. I'd rather kill a crucial target than do more spread-out damage to the enemy army.

The mathhammer crowd will never not see super-smites as the superior option, because there is no way you can simulate the limitations of smite relative to the psy weapon boost (range, the opponent's capacity to deny, the risk of perils, the other powers you give up to smite, and biggest of all the requirement that the closest enemy unit be targeted cannot be simulated through math.)

The psi weapon boost causes any given GK squad with a single psilencer to deal .666 more damage on average against any target where they gain a wound shift from the str (e.g., an Imperial Knight or a Primaris Marine). The smite boost causes them to deal 1 more damage. On paper, that means you should always take the super-smite. But all I need to attack that knight is to have my squad within 24", and to smite it I need to be 18" away AND it needs to have no screen in the psychic phase (which means I had to kill the screen last turn, I can't shoot them out of the way first).

It also ignores that I can pop psybolt ammo to make my storm bolters also count as psi weapons and deal 2 damage, and I can pop Bring Down the Beast to up my wound rolls from .333 to .55. A 10-man squad with 2 psilencers that drops BDTB and psybolts deals 17 damage to an IK, and Rotate does nothing to stop it.

LOL the capacity to deny, or that you'd be giving up other powers that you're only going to cast one of anyway when the Sanctic table is already bad as is. Psi Weapons are also subject to a LOT more external factors like cover, army abilities, and being more subject to Strats affecting offensive output.
No, a Tide affecting just a few weapons is not on the same level as army wide cover or doubling your Smite output, which you already pay for existing as a Grey Knight.

Yeah so, this kind of absolutist thinking right here. Thanks for providing a solid example.

1) GK currently have 2 psychic disciplines. The new one contains a buff to reroll all hit rolls while within half range, a power that grants a unit JSJ, a power that gives you a command point in an extremely elite army, and a melee-range power that on average rolls deals 5.3MW to an enemy unit. Asserting that you'd always want to give up those new powers as well as Hammerhand, Gate and Sanctuary to smite is just kind of laughable.

2) You do not need to choose between super-smites and super-psi weapons. You can have both in a turn. You can choose to swap at the beginning of the psychic phase (if you want to swap to super-smite) or at the end, if you want to swap away. If you go second, you most likely started in cover for your enemy's turn, swapped to smite for all your powers, then turn 2 started in Smite and swap to Psi Weapons as your last cast just in time for all your deep strikers to have shown up to maximise your offensive power.

GK currently have about 7 psychic powers that are unequivocally good, that you basically always want to try to be using, 4 that are situational, and 1 that's just always bad. Given how elite the army is and how much their huge number of single-unit buffs incentivizes large units, I don't know if you're doing yourself any favors trying to play the army as just smitespam.list

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:

Spoiler:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
"I was able to really see the value of units beyond numbers. The balance you have to strike between having enough teeth, while also making yourself a challenge for your opponent to navigate around upon the board, and also having enough tools tricks and utility on the board, is what you need to leverage the options you have that your opponent doesn't"

This kinda sounds like buzzword soup. Don't all these things boil down to numbers and special rules? So you are really talking about leveraging special rules?

No, obviously not. What is the one thing, the number one thing you complain about on these boards day in and day out?

How would a game go if your opponent took their models and deployed them base-to base in old pre-7th ed deep strike formation, and tried to play the game the same way?

Would you have an easier time than if they deployed their units in straight lines, bases 31mm apart, preventing you from moving through them?

People on this forum spend basically all their time trivializing every single aspect of the game that is not a simple mathmatical comparison of how many models of unit X can weapon Y kill, when pretty much any mission format whether that's ITC or CA2019 scores the majority of its points or all of its points based on units moving to a location and securing an objective.

Damage and Durability numbers tell you basically nothing about how a model actually scores you points and wins you games. A model's capacity to move to an objective, prevent opposing models from moving, and secure objectives over enemy units is how models express the majority of their in-game power, and none of that can be mathhammered.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Take the Contorted Epitome as an example. It's not particularly killy, but the utility it provides is through the roof, both in defending against psychic powers and changing the dynamic around countering melee units. How do you value that?

Also, there's plenty of times when 10 mortal wounds are markedly inferior to better psy weapons. The concept of "wasted" or "effective" wounds has already been discussed earlier in the thread. Maximum damage is not always what wins you games. I'd rather kill a crucial target than do more spread-out damage to the enemy army.

The mathhammer crowd will never not see super-smites as the superior option, because there is no way you can simulate the limitations of smite relative to the psy weapon boost (range, the opponent's capacity to deny, the risk of perils, the other powers you give up to smite, and biggest of all the requirement that the closest enemy unit be targeted cannot be simulated through math.)

The psi weapon boost causes any given GK squad with a single psilencer to deal .666 more damage on average against any target where they gain a wound shift from the str (e.g., an Imperial Knight or a Primaris Marine). The smite boost causes them to deal 1 more damage. On paper, that means you should always take the super-smite. But all I need to attack that knight is to have my squad within 24", and to smite it I need to be 18" away AND it needs to have no screen in the psychic phase (which means I had to kill the screen last turn, I can't shoot them out of the way first).

It also ignores that I can pop psybolt ammo to make my storm bolters also count as psi weapons and deal 2 damage, and I can pop Bring Down the Beast to up my wound rolls from .333 to .55. A 10-man squad with 2 psilencers that drops BDTB and psybolts deals 17 damage to an IK, and Rotate does nothing to stop it.

LOL the capacity to deny, or that you'd be giving up other powers that you're only going to cast one of anyway when the Sanctic table is already bad as is. Psi Weapons are also subject to a LOT more external factors like cover, army abilities, and being more subject to Strats affecting offensive output.
No, a Tide affecting just a few weapons is not on the same level as army wide cover or doubling your Smite output, which you already pay for existing as a Grey Knight.

Yeah so, this kind of absolutist thinking right here. Thanks for providing a solid example.

1) GK currently have 2 psychic disciplines. The new one contains a buff to reroll all hit rolls while within half range, a power that grants a unit JSJ, a power that gives you a command point in an extremely elite army, and a melee-range power that on average rolls deals 5.3MW to an enemy unit. Asserting that you'd always want to give up those new powers as well as Hammerhand, Gate and Sanctuary to smite is just kind of laughable.

2) You do not need to choose between super-smites and super-psi weapons. You can have both in a turn. You can choose to swap at the beginning of the psychic phase (if you want to swap to super-smite) or at the end, if you want to swap away. If you go second, you most likely started in cover for your enemy's turn, swapped to smite for all your powers, then turn 2 started in Smite and swap to Psi Weapons as your last cast just in time for all your deep strikers to have shown up to maximise your offensive power.

GK currently have about 7 psychic powers that are unequivocally good, that you basically always want to try to be using, 4 that are situational, and 1 that's just always bad. Given how elite the army is and how much their huge number of single-unit buffs incentivizes large units, I don't know if you're doing yourself any favors trying to play the army as just smitespam.list

1. All those new powers are only available on Characters, which does not affect the rest of Grey Knights paying to be Psykers in the first place. You therefore have three powers you're using in an army that's already basically about MSU. Somehow I'm just doubting there's gonna be a problem there.
2. Swapping requires you to cast a power in the first place. I'm either keeping Smite, switching to Smite from Cover, or even switching to the rerolling 1s to wound.
Psi Weapon boost would be worth it on occasion if it affected vehicles or Dreadknights or our Incinerators. It does not.

the_scotsman wrote:
SG seems like a strange choice to handle hordes. I've only faced them a few times, but they seemed to be anti-elite specialists without much in terms of volume of fire. The Death...guys were the anti-horde ones, having both regular boltguns and chainswords.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:
SG seems like a strange choice to handle hordes. I've only faced them a few times, but they seemed to be anti-elite specialists without much in terms of volume of fire. The Death...guys were the anti-horde ones, having both regular boltguns and chainswords.

Well, remember the angelus boltguns and most weilding encarmine swords.

The boltgun is a short range bolt rifle, basically. And with essentially 4A each hordes should go down fast with no armor save on top of being pretty durable models that can take a lot of AP0 swings and not blink. A 10 man can clear 30 GEQ between shooting and melee (with reroll 1s to hit and provided ranges work out)

Martel732 wrote:


It's really hard to get 30 Geq with a single squad. 12" range is really short.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Tyel wrote:
I might have misunderstood Grey Knights, its not my faction, but isn't the clutch play going to be doing both?

Break out the smites, switch over with your last caster, then have 10 stormbolters get the damage output of 2 riptides for a turn (plus psilencers and cannons etc), then switch back at the start of your psyhic phase and drop the smites again.

Its perhaps a bit clunky, but doesn't seem that unrealistic to do.
The weakness of smiting is the range (can be buffed etc, but still.)

The melee tide would seem to be the one where you are left going "this doesn't feel that great?"

It's unreliable in the IGOUGO system. It's better just to stick to either more Smites (which would really affect the Riptide too) or Cover to really force the Tau to spend even more Markerlights.