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.

erewego86 wrote:They're obviously very powerful, but overpowered? What would that mean?

I've never lost a game to Grey Knights because they just don't have the numbers to keep up a war of attrition. On the other hand, they all have force weapons, excellent guns, and the Dreadknight. But all of these advantages basically boil down to having better elites than everyone else and being able to kill everyone else's elites really well.

The flip side: they just cannot win or even tie against my 150+ model green tide army. They simply do not have the numbers to kick out enough fire, or to hold objectives, or to even survive a round of CC.

So I would proffer that GK is not overpowered (whatever that is), but may be advantaged when playing against other small, elite armies.

Omg just saw your name. Did you see that superbowl commercial with the dog? If you had a dog like that you would be king.

I think that the reason that GK seems so overpowered is because they are/were likely the first 6th ed. codex.

I think that the reason that GK seems so overpowered is because they are/were likely the first 6th ed. codex.

I believe Necrons where the first real 6th Edition codex. The most obvious, anyway. I'm not sure GW thinks that far ahead, but I like to think so.

ShumaGorath wrote:

Overall, GK are very balanced on all fronts. Unless your army is super specialised in one department, then you will find it hard to win against GK.

I really don't understand this. What armies do you play against GKs? Didn't you earlier state that you didn't regularly play them? There are matchups where there is legitimate and serious unbalance. GKs vs dark angels can not be won by the dark angels without the knights making immense mistakes. Same with most tyranid builds. Codex marines vs GKs and most BA builds are in the same boat. Even dark eldar have an intensely difficult time with most GK builds. These aren't outliars, these are repetitious and played out scenarios that has lead to an anti GK backlash that was much worse than the anti IG or lashwhip chaos backlashes were. There are numerous items in that book (halberds, psychotropes, psycanons, etc) that are commonly considered overpowered and undercosted and the book is an entire army based on force weapons which is inherently unbalancing at it's barest level as it ignores two defensive strategems that many armies rely on.

It is not balanced on all fronts. At all. It's not even close. Whether its overpowered or not isn't even relevant here (for "balance" concerns), its at it's barest an incredibly unbalanced book because it's basic equipment is an extreme derivation of a specialized weapon and it can wound allocate almost every model in its army at once.

I played kanwall orks, av13/razorback mech BA, Space wolf shotty list and IG mech. (look for my topics in army lists or just the topics i posted to see their army lists) I use purifer rhino spam. "earlier" that much been ages ago, I have now recently started testing them out again every competitive lists from all armies. Dark angel is not that good a codex, deathwing or ravenwing is not enough to win. However, if your gonna call a codex is most overpowered then it must be compared with the top lists. e.g. space wolf, blood angel, dark eldar, IG

From the current games,

GK won agaist IG by a bit because they are so anti mech. (IG went first)
GK lost to orks by 1 KP, ended turn 5 if there were 1 more turn they would lost by 2 KP (GK went first)
GK won vs BA by 5 KP
GK won against SW by 3 KP

Draigo wrote:@marthike

The last few have been on topic. They were discussing the points made that GK made certain armies completely unviable. The points were they can be or could not be so saying that the people are inexp or dont know is not accurate just because they have differing opinions.

pretre wrote:

Tomb King wrote:
Alright for the masses this game has been scheduled on vassal:

alright so:

JY2's MSU mech purifier spam(per his request I will be running this list) vs above nids list on wednesday February 8th on vassal at 7:30 EST 8:30 CST. If you all would like to observe the game. The mission is modified annihilation. If one nid model survives the game he wins. Further info is listed in my previous post.

Cocky, aren't you?

Kairos wrote:1 - Their basic strike squad is 4 pts more than a tactical Marine.

And substantially worse as a unit. Grey Knight Strike Squads are IMO one of the worst Troops choices in the game.

Kairos wrote:2 - Aegis on everything & reinforced Aegis on the Psyriflemen.

This does nothing in most games.

Kairos wrote:3 - Purifiers (that can easily be spammed) Orks & Tyranids don't have an answer if the GK player is skilled. DE close combat armies are also invalidated.

Orks? Shoot them. Tyranids? Shadow in the Warp. DE close combat armies? Shoot them. Also, remember-- if you have an army with no solutions to armies that can beat them in CC, then you have a bad army.

Kairos wrote:4 - Fortitude

Fortitude is indeed very strong. It's probably the strongest element of the Codex.

Kairos wrote:5 - Force Weapons on every model (this is way, way nasty and it is basically provided for free)

Force Weapons are not particularly strong in this edition. Grey Knights are difficult to defeat with

Kairos wrote:6 - Summoning a Land Raider filled with Grey Knights into your opponents deployment zone

So it can eat melta and die? Why?

Kairos wrote:7 - Psyriflemen - This single unit drastically dropped the DE Codex power level

Psyflemen are strong but not unstoppable. Other units that already exist in other books are much stronger in this role-- Hydras, for instance.

Kairos wrote:8 - Librarian - Psychic powers are too powerful and undercosted

Uh, no? Space Marine Librarians have powers that are debatably better for far fewer points. Grey Knight Librarians are good, but Null Zone and Gate of Infinity are still unparalleled.

Kairos wrote:9 - Paladin wound allocation

I don't really find this a significant threat. Your mileage may vary, but Nob Bikers aren't really scary anymore, and Nob Bikers 2.0 (now with worse saves and slower movement!) aren't exactly scaring me, even though their shooting power is admittedly quite strong.

Kairos wrote:10 - Paladin's are virtually untouchable in close combat, except against huge units of Bloodcrushers

What about TH/SS Terminators?

Kairos wrote:11 - Warp Quake spam

This sucks for some armies, but has no effect in the majority of games. Also, the armies that Warp Quake spam is good against-- most notably DoA-- aren't viable against Grey Knights anyway. In general, DoA armies do very poorly against armies that can beat them in assault, Warp Quake or no Warp Quake.

Kairos wrote:12 - Teleport Shunting

Post-FAQ, this is entirely balanced and reasonable.

Kairos wrote:13 - Psychotroke Grenades & Rad Grenades

These are very strong but can often be avoided or picked off.

Kairos wrote:14 - Henchmen armies are open to all kinds of build abuse

Like what, making a bad version of an IG army?

Kairos wrote:Can they be beat? Absolutely, but they will win far more often than they will loose. They also hard counter many different builds and grossly unbalanced the overall meta game for the worse. In the hands of a really good player with a deep knowledge of the game, they are beyond broken, and if that player can do any list tailoring before a game; forget it.

I shifted two or three units in my list when Grey Knights came out-- just as I shifted two or three units in my list when the Necrons came out recently. New books obviously change the game, but claiming that it's a change for the worse seems to be a rather myopic view. Overall, I think Grey Knights are a book like any other. Just as I had to adjust my list and tactics to deal with Necron Scarabs, I had to adjust my list and tactics to deal with Psyflemen outclassing my Riflemen and with the plethora of psychic powers available to the Knights-- but following these changes, I definitely think my vanilla Marine army can hang with the GK. Overall, I think a lot of these things are just attitude problems. An adaptive player will in most cases be able to shift their build and/or tactics to deal with "new kids on the block" quite easily, especially in the relatively balanced days of 5th edition.

And substantially worse as a unit. Grey Knight Strike Squads are IMO one of the worst Troops choices in the game.

In what bizzaro universe are they worse than tactical marines? How? How can they be worse? What role do they perform in an inferior capacity at cost?

Saying they're the worst troop choice is a bit of an overstatement. There are still guardians and hormagaunts out there.

Dok wrote:Saying they're the worst troop choice is a bit of an overstatement. There are still guardians and hormagaunts out there.

And tactical marines, scouts, firewarriors, thousand suns, the list goes on.

Tactical marines are not the worst troop choice for C:SM. They are by far the best choice. Scouts are terrible. If you want to go back to unit comparison, a tactical squad would wipe the floor with anyone on that list with the exception of thousand sons. The only problem with thousand sons is that they are prohibitively costed for a low return on firepower.

Tac marines beat Strikes in three major ways:
Long Range Fire-
Free Missile Launcher or a Las Cannon is a great option I wish I could have as a GK player.

Affordability-
A ten man tac with minimal upgrades is always going to be less expensive than a Strike Squad, who really only best the Tacs in close combat, which is not something either side is trying to get out of their troop choices.

Flexibility-
A tac squad with a Las Cannon and a Fist is an immensely versitile unit that is still less expensive than even an ungeared Strike unit. A tac unit in a pod can come down and snap up late game objectives, which is something Strikes will never do. Tac marines will always contribute something to the game, wheras Strike units are generally only taken as 5hp Psycannons that huddle on objectives trying not to die.

This is all academic, anyhow, because competitive GK troop choices generally involve Paladins, Crow Tax Purifiers, or Henchmen derps, anyhow. Anyone actually running strikes is doing you a favor.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
ps- Strikes are definately not the worst Troop choice in the game, but they are certainly among the worst MEQ ones. Xenos troop choices just suck all the way around and there is no changing that any time soon.

ShumaGorath wrote:

And substantially worse as a unit. Grey Knight Strike Squads are IMO one of the worst Troops choices in the game.

In what bizzaro universe are they worse than tactical marines? How? How can they be worse? What role do they perform in an inferior capacity at cost?

Tactical Marines are a solid core unit. They use both available transports effectively, have weapon options that synergize well with Combat Squads, can use the amazing Combat Tactics rule to avoid giving enemy assault elements a "pit stop" or jumping-off point, etc. Grey Knight Strike Squads pay a lot of points for things they don't use, don't use transports effectively, don't synergize well with other options, and aren't even good at sitting on objectives since they cost so much and don't have long-range weapons.

Dok wrote:Saying they're the worst troop choice is a bit of an overstatement. There are still guardians and hormagaunts out there.

That's fair. I think GKSS are basically objectively worse than Purifiers, though, so taking them seems like more of an error than taking hormagaunts-- most of the time when I see GKSS, I think "well, I guess this person didn't look at the costs for Purifiers." While GKSS might not be the worst overall Troops choice, they strike me as a very underwhelming choice both in comparison to other MEQ Troops and in comparison to other options in their own Codex.

Tac marines beat Strikes in three major ways:
Long Range Fire-
Free Missile Launcher or a Las Cannon is a great option I wish I could have as a GK player.

Oh, you want a 170 point (minium) missile launcher instead of two str8 twin linked autocanons that can move and fire for like 50 less? I'm sure you that ap3 will make all the difference in the world.

Affordability- A ten man tac with minimal upgrades is always going to be less expensive than a Strike Squad, who really only best the Tacs in close combat, which is not something either side is trying to get out of their troop choices.

And shooting. Mobility. Versatility. Usefulness. If all I wanted tacs for was the ability to absorb and put out anti infantry firepower then they'd be great (well, no, they're actually bad at that for cost too). It's too bad being a cheap bullet sink that loses to almost everything in close combat is actually a pretty bad thing to be in warhammer 40k. (also the strikes win against them in shooting too).

Flexibility-
A tac squad with a Las Cannon and a Fist is an immensely versitile unit that is still less expensive than even an ungeared Strike unit.

Actually it's the same cost. 4 points per model more for strikes = 40. 25+15 for unit upgrades = 40. As for "immensely versatile" thats true. It's also very bad at every role it could be conceived to have for it's cost. It's a poor generalist in a game where generalist units are already bad by design.

This is all academic, anyhow, because competitive GK troop choices generally involve Paladins, Crow Tax Purifiers, or Henchmen derps, anyhow. Anyone actually running strikes is doing you a favor.

And competitive marine lists usually feature minimum tactical squads with no scouts. Running tacs doesn't do you a favor either.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Tactical Marines are a solid core unit. They use both available transports effectively, have weapon options that synergize well with Combat Squads, can use the amazing Combat Tactics rule to avoid giving enemy assault elements a "pit stop" or jumping-off point, etc.

No, not really. They use razorbacks poorly. You can't razorspam with the list since you need 10 for special weapons and that forces combat squadding which ups kill points. They have weapon options that force combat squads which again, is a downside in killpoints missions. They also overpay for poor stats and an incredibly poor level of CC ability for their cost and given role. As for combat tactics, it's great in theory, but in practice is nigh useless. Against even a remotely skilled player it will never occur and half the time your units will be running off the board edge if you try since mid fielding them is suicide thanks to their uselessness in combat.

Grey Knight Strike Squads pay a lot of points for things they don't use, don't use transports effectively, don't synergize well with other options, and aren't even good at sitting on objectives since they cost so much and don't have long-range weapons.

Which is why they are used differently. Also, please stop stating that paying 170 points for a missile launcher is "effective" or "useful". It's not. It's a joke. Besides, the strikes aren't for holding backfield, thats where the scoring psyfledread sits.

ShumaGorath wrote:

And substantially worse as a unit. Grey Knight Strike Squads are IMO one of the worst Troops choices in the game.

In what bizzaro universe are they worse than tactical marines? How? How can they be worse? What role do they perform in an inferior capacity at cost?

Both of you complaining here have you seen Battle Sisters? lol

Tomb King wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

And substantially worse as a unit. Grey Knight Strike Squads are IMO one of the worst Troops choices in the game.

In what bizzaro universe are they worse than tactical marines? How? How can they be worse? What role do they perform in an inferior capacity at cost?

Both of you complaining here have you seen Battle Sisters? lol

Technically they have a much lower cost per special weapon and against most armies are equally durable (that toughness and strength don't mean much in the face of missile spam, IG templates, and hammerhand). I'd take sisters over tacs. They're better at their only useful role (melta drops and spammability) then tacs are at theirs (backfield objective squatting).

Neither are great mind you. Ones just more specialized and cheaper then the other.

ShumaGorath wrote:

Tomb King wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

And substantially worse as a unit. Grey Knight Strike Squads are IMO one of the worst Troops choices in the game.

In what bizzaro universe are they worse than tactical marines? How? How can they be worse? What role do they perform in an inferior capacity at cost?

Both of you complaining here have you seen Battle Sisters? lol

Technically they have a much lower cost per special weapon and against most armies are equally durable (that toughness and strength don't mean much in the face of missile spam, IG templates, and hammerhand). I'd take sisters over tacs. They're better at their only useful role (melta drops and spammability) then tacs are at theirs (backfield objective squatting).

Neither are great mind you. Ones just more specialized and cheaper then the other.

lol look at the point cost then apply the ability to take powerfist etc.. and the fact that marines can combat squad and have ATSKNF and for the final nail.. they can only be taken in numbers of 10 and are the only troop choice available with a MM as the longest range anti-tank weapon available.

On a side note about sisters.. Those organ tanks are obnoxious when running a walking pally list when your opponent keeps rollin 5-6s shots with all 3..

lol look at the point cost then apply the ability to take powerfist etc.. and the fact that marines can combat squad and have ATSKNF and for the final nail..

You're adding cost and upgrades to a unit with no active role and who, even with that fist, will lose in combat to almost every other commonly taken unit in the game. (those upgrades also make them much more expensive then a double melta sisters squad and those upgrades are required.

they can only be taken in numbers of 10 and are the only troop choice available with a MM as the longest range anti-tank weapon available.

If you're using them to stand and shoot beyond 24" then you're using them very wrong. They're sacrificial scoring speedbumps with numerous melta weapons. Thats about it. Oddly, thats all tacticals are in most competitive marine lists except they do it worse and more expensively. Comparing them to things like BA assault marines or grey hunters highlights how bad the sisters are at cost, but the same comparisons make the tacs look like rotten fruit.

Sisters know what they want to do. They have a role and for what they cost they do it ok. The tacticals have no role and do their varied tasks poorly. They're too pricey to squat on an objective, they get to few specials to melta drop, they get too few heavy weapons to be a ranged threat for their cost, and they're too fragile to tank assaults or be a buffer.

ShumaGorath wrote:

Tac marines beat Strikes in three major ways:
Long Range Fire-
Free Missile Launcher or a Las Cannon is a great option I wish I could have as a GK player.

Oh, you want a 170 point (minium) missile launcher instead of two str8 twin linked autocanons that can move and fire for like 50 less? I'm sure you that ap3 will make all the difference in the world.

It's not a "170 point missile launcher." In most cases, it's an 80 point missile launcher that also scores. Is it efficient to take Tactical squads for their ability to shoot missile launchers? Trivially no. Is it efficient to take Tactical squads for their ability to score while also projecting some long-range firepower? Trivially yes.

ShumaGorath wrote:

Affordability- A ten man tac with minimal upgrades is always going to be less expensive than a Strike Squad, who really only best the Tacs in close combat, which is not something either side is trying to get out of their troop choices.

And shooting. Mobility. Versatility. Usefulness. If all I wanted tacs for was the ability to absorb and put out anti infantry firepower then they'd be great (well, no, they're actually bad at that for cost too). It's too bad being a cheap bullet sink that loses to almost everything in close combat is actually a pretty bad thing to be in warhammer 40k. (also the strikes win against them in shooting too).

Tacs don't "lose to almost everything in close combat." They have above average CC ability. Are they worse than Assault Marines or Grey Hunters in assault? Sure-- that's not their role, after all-- but Tacs can still whomp on Dark Eldar, Imperial Guard, Necrons, and even Orks in a pinch, as well as many Tyranid and Eldar units.

ShumaGorath wrote:And competitive marine lists usually feature minimum tactical squads with no scouts. Running tacs doesn't do you a favor either.

I've never seen a competitive non-biker marine list in a serious competitive points bracket that didn't have 20+ Tactical Marines.

ShumaGorath wrote:They use razorbacks poorly.

That's not true. Just because you can't spam them doesn't mean you use them poorly. Combat Squads combine naturally with Razorbacks to form a very effective set of units for your Troops slot.

ShumaGorath wrote:You can't razorspam with the list

Razorspam isn't a good army.

ShumaGorath wrote:They have weapon options that force combat squads

Which you don't have to use. The old standby is 10 Tactical Marines, meltagun, multi-melta, Sergeant with combi-melta, Rhino with dozer blade. This unit is very powerful with or without Combat Squads and exerts good control of the middle of the board. It's not "forced" to use Combat Squads-- you use Combat Squads to adapt to the situation and opponent.

ShumaGorath wrote:They also overpay for poor stats and an incredibly poor level of CC ability for their cost and given role.

I think MEQs have neither "poor stats" nor "an incredibly poor level of CC ability for their cost." Even a few Marines can easily take out squads from other armies in CC.

ShumaGorath wrote:As for combat tactics, it's great in theory, but in practice is nigh useless.

You may be using it wrong.

ShumaGorath wrote:Against even a remotely skilled player it will never occur

Yes, because skilled players roll better in CC?

ShumaGorath wrote:and half the time your units will be running off the board edge if you try since mid fielding them is suicide thanks to their uselessness in combat.

If you think that Tactical squads are bad in midfield, you're bad at playing Space Marines.

Also, please stop stating that paying 170 points for a missile launcher is "effective" or "useful". It's not. It's a joke.

I've never said that, and I don't pay 170 for a missile launcher. You have to view the unit as a whole.

ShumaGorath wrote:Besides, the strikes aren't for holding backfield, thats where the scoring psyfledread sits.

Scoring Psyflemen aren't too good. They require specific HQs, can't be reliably fielded in numbers, and make the opponent's target priority completely trivial.

Draigo wrote:On a side note about sisters.. Those organ tanks are obnoxious when running a walking pally list when your opponent keeps rollin 5-6s shots with all 3..

I've said this before, but everytime I go to a tournament with my Sisters I cross my fingers and hope for terminator armies with Draigo right at the top.

They just don't stand a chance.

Yeah. Sisters are dramatically underrated-- if not for the incredible costs associated with collecting them I would field a Sisters army myself.

Fetterkey wrote:Yeah. Sisters are dramatically underrated-- if not for the incredible costs associated with collecting them I would field a Sisters army myself.

So as not to derail, we have a thread re: this already:
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/427233.page

It's not a "170 point missile launcher." In most cases, it's an 80 point missile launcher that also scores. Is it efficient to take Tactical squads for their ability to shoot missile launchers? Trivially no. Is it efficient to take Tactical squads for their ability to score while also projecting some long-range firepower? Trivially yes.

They'll be spending half that game either going to ground to avoid losing everyone to two plasma canon shots or moving so that their static 80 point missile (which is still a terrible point value) can see something. Lone marine missile launchers aren't a particularly viable or valuable shooting platform. It's icing on a cake made of trash.

Tacs don't "lose to almost everything in close combat." They have above average CC ability.

Not for what they cost.

Are they worse than Assault Marines or Grey Hunters in assault? Sure-- that's not their role, after all-- but Tacs can still whomp on Dark Eldar, Imperial Guard, Necrons, and even Orks in a pinch, as well as many Tyranid and Eldar units.

Which Tyranid or dark eldar units? Certainly not any of the ones they'd ever actually be in assault with. Oddly, thats true of necrons and IG as well. Tacs tie necrons statistically one on one and lose to basic warriors at cost. It's pathetic. What are tacs beating? Basic guardians? 5 man termagaunt squads? Unsupported dark eldar warriors? That sure sounds useful.

I've never seen a competitive non-biker marine list in a serious competitive points bracket that didn't have 20+ Tactical Marines.

Thats because in the game of warhammer 40k you need 2 troops choices.

That's not true. Just because you can't spam them doesn't mean you use them poorly.

It does actually. Razorspam works because MSU provides too many weaponized targets for the average army to engage efficiently. When you have 3 razorbacks suddenly its a lot easier. Razors aren't great for the cost in low numbers. A 70 point lascanon on av11 is kinda lame and razors are bad dedicated transport vehicles.

Which you don't have to use. The old standby is 10 Tactical Marines, meltagun, multi-melta, Sergeant with combi-melta, Rhino with dozer blade. This unit is very powerful with or without Combat Squads

No. It isn't. Not for 250 points. It's actually god awful for 250 points. You know whats around 250? 30 boyz. w/nob, 20 necron warriors, 10 strikes in a rhino, 5 grey hunters and 10 long fangs, 6 GK terminators, 25 hormugaunts with poison, 10 BA assault marines in a rhino with all equipment. Theres no making that cost look good for that unit. Almost every other army gets something similar in use and better.

I think MEQs have neither "poor stats" nor "an incredibly poor level of CC ability for their cost." Even a few Marines can easily take out squads from other armies in CC.

A tac marine at 17 PPM base 170/10) has 1 attack. You get 3 ork boyz for that. Thats 9 attacks, 12 on the charge. You get 1.2 grey hunters, thats 2-3 attacks. You get 2 hormugaunts, thats 4 attacks, 6 on the charge. Where exactly are they good or comparable to these units? Hell, IG vets have more CC output then marines at cost. Thats truly pathetic.

You may be using it wrong.

Nope, it's just an overtrumped and poor ability that most marine armies scoring well in tournaments don't even have access to.

Yes, because skilled players roll better in CC?

No, because good players don't cause trivial casualties to a squad and thus let you freely fall back when they're setting up for an assault.

If you think that Tactical squads are bad in midfield, you're bad at playing Space Marines.

I'm sure spending 2 turns to set up midfield (thus not shooting that heavy weapon turning them into overcosted and much worse gray hunters) and then being assaulted (and losing because they aren't gray hunters) is what great marine players do every day. Sure.

I've never said that, and I don't pay 170 for a missile launcher. You have to view the unit as a whole.

As a whole it's poor.

Scoring Psyflemen aren't too good. They require specific HQs, can't be reliably fielded in numbers, and make the opponent's target priority completely trivial.

As opposed to sitting with 5 marines in the back as you were advocating? Come now. Do better than that.

Tomb King wrote:

NeutronPoison wrote:Well, my super-tailored anti-GKs is:

Tervigon, AG/TS, Catalyst, Scything Talons, Cluster Spines - 200

3 Hive Guard - 150
3 Hive Guard - 150
2 Hive Guard - 100

10 Termagants - 50
Tervigon, AG/TS, Catalyst, Scything Talons, Cluster Spines - 200
10 Termagants - 50
Tervigon, AG/TS, Catalyst, Scything Talons, Cluster Spines - 200
7+1 Genestealers, Broodlord
6+1 Genestealers, Broodlord

Trygon - 200
Trygon - 200
Trygon, AG - 210

I've tabled Crowe / Purifiers / Dreads with this. It seems like most people don't quite understand how many psycannon shots it takes to drop a FnP Trygon, or how little this Tyranids list actually needs the Trygons (once you've shot down the Trygons, the Tervigons, 'Stealers, buffed-up gaunts, and Hive Guard chew through Purifers pretty easily, since Cleansing Flame is more or less a non-factor under Shadow at Ld 7 due to 2 stacking Auras of Despair off of the Broodlords.

Granted, this list runs out of steam against SW and flails ineffectively against DE. I do think it exposes GKs weaknesses pretty nicely, though. I imagine Jump BA would present similar problems to Crowe / Purifier / Dreads (although maybe not to a Paladinstar).

My TAC is pretty different from this, and tends to wind up getting ground down by Psycannon fire against smart GKs players (not-so-smart GKs players don't keep their distance and get eaten in CC), but that's really more because of how many concessions I have to make just to feel like I have a chance against DE.

Alright for the masses this game has been scheduled on vassal:

alright so:

JY2's MSU mech purifier spam(per his request I will be running this list) vs above nids list on wednesday February 8th on vassal at 7:30 EST 8:30 CST. If you all would like to observe the game. The mission is modified annihilation. If one nid model survives the game he wins. Further info is listed in my previous post.

That's going to be a tough battle for the GK's. One of the few armies I actually have problems with with my Crowe-Purifiers are tervigon-nids. You may be able to beat him, but unless his generalship is really bad, a board-wipe is highly unlikely. As a matter of fact, it's going to be a tough fight just to win the game.

jy2 wrote:That's going to be a tough battle for the GK's. One of the few armies I actually have problems with with my Crowe-Purifiers are tervigon-nids. You may be able to beat him, but unless his generalship is really bad, a board-wipe is highly unlikely. As a matter of fact, it's going to be a tough fight just to win the game.

I told him he was being cocky.

Not like vassal or single games prove much anyways, but it is in good fun.

Wow, never thought that I´d actually wholeheartedly agree with shuma but the dude is right.

Tactical marines are awesome.

Combat squadding is amazing. The kill points issue is massively, massively overrated. It is not easy to kill 25 marines sitting in the back shooting missiles at things, and it is not easy to get the heavy weapons to stop shooting: you need to focus enough ranged anti-infantry to kill 5 marines just to stop 1 missile launcher from shooting (compare to Long Fangs - 5 dead LF = 4 dead missiles).

At the same time, you've got 5 rhinos with double-melta squads in them getting in your opponent's face. The really important thing is that you don't care about sacrificing the melta squads - you've got 5 more scoring units!

Tac marines being bad in CC is a bonus. It means they rarely get wiped out, but they usually lose combat. Losing combat is awesome, because you get to run away!

<text redacted --Janthkin>

Janthkin wrote:Because people don't seem to understand, a moderation note:

We don't close threads that continue to garner polite and topical conversation.

We do sanction posters who drag threads off-topic (including repeated cries to close a thread), or are rude to other posters.

If you don't have something topical to add to a thread, don't post.

If you don't care to read a thread, don't click on it.

NeutronPoison wrote:Tactical marines are awesome.

Combat squadding is amazing. The kill points issue is massively, massively overrated. It is not easy to kill 25 marines sitting in the back shooting missiles at things, and it is not easy to get the heavy weapons to stop shooting: you need to focus enough ranged anti-infantry to kill 5 marines just to stop 1 missile launcher from shooting (compare to Long Fangs - 5 dead LF = 4 dead missiles).

At the same time, you've got 5 rhinos with double-melta squads in them getting in your opponent's face. The really important thing is that you don't care about sacrificing the melta squads - you've got 5 more scoring units!

Tac marines being bad in CC is a bonus. It means they rarely get wiped out, but they usually lose combat. Losing combat is awesome, because you get to run away!

You just described a 1250 point army with almost no ranged firepower and who will get rolled by one th/ss terminator squad.

Straw man for the win!

I was comparing Tac Marines directly to Strike Squads, not Psyflemen, Greyhunters, BA Assault Marines, or any of the other half dozen well known power units people are pulling out of their ass to make Tac Marines look bad. Tacs get more for their points than Strikes do. This is not even debatable. A tac unit with a missle launcher and fist (or Melta/Fist in a pod) has more tactical applications than a similarly costed Strike Squad, purely in anti-mech ranged options alone. The Strikes kill one or two more MEQs per round of close combat, but they bring nothing else to the table and a ten man Tac squad is not rendered suddenly useless when the enemy moves 25" away.

But, hey feel free to score some epeen points by bagging on me by making unrelated comparissons. And also, there isn't a non MEQ book out there that wouldn't kill to have Tactical Marines as a troop choice. Xenos troop choice make Tac Marines look like Purifiers.

Phazael wrote:Straw man for the win!

I was comparing Tac Marines directly to Strike Squads, not Psyflemen, Greyhunters, BA Assault Marines, or any of the other half dozen well known power units people are pulling out of their ass to make Tac Marines look bad. Tacs get more for their points than Strikes do. This is not even debatable. A tac unit with a missle launcher and fist (or Melta/Fist in a pod) has more tactical applications than a similarly costed Strike Squad, purely in anti-mech ranged options alone. The Strikes kill one or two more MEQs per round of close combat, but they bring nothing else to the table and a ten man Tac squad is not rendered suddenly useless when the enemy moves 25" away.

But, hey feel free to score some epeen points by bagging on me by making unrelated comparissons. And also, there isn't a non MEQ book out there that wouldn't kill to have Tactical Marines as a troop choice. Xenos troop choice make Tac Marines look like Purifiers.

I don't think you know what a straw man argument is.