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.

I still dont see how its different for a gk player to spam the field with an army full of dk, i mean they are literally way too cheap! Deservers to be at least another 40 points base.

If you compare them to any of the other units "that are cheese" the dk will them up the ass. How you ask? Well force and sanctuary my friend, force will leave that "cheese" monster crying on the floor grasping his .
And all that is said is "mono build"

Im in no way justifying riptide, wraith knight and serpant spam but im not the one trying to say my army is bad

 Quickjager wrote:
Being able to take a Land Raider is pointless, the current way the codex is structured you are forced into a alpha strike formation if you want to take pure Grey Knights. If you ally however some options do open up.

Besides you're just listing stuff, let me do that for Tau, (for some reason the only people complaining in this thread are Tau players?)

Firewarriors are the best troop in the game, so I need to list why they are amazing.

They are 4+ which is amazing because it is the equivalent of scout armor and most factions have to pay much more for. They got assault grenades for free and if they wanr defensive ones they just need to pay 2 points on one model for them.

They got str 5 guns that are 30 inch range so they can reach out and touch most factions before they get in range. If they don't feel like having that extra range they can switch to an assault weapon that fires twice and has pinning on it.

They can take a markerlight which is awesome because it synergizes with the entire army and can ignore cover saves on anything no matter the level of the save, it can also increase their BS to eliminate their weakness there.

In overwatch they can support their other units so you aren't looking at just 1 unit of snapshots but up to 4!

all this for 54 point, or a 110 if you max the unit out and take nades.

These guys are basically the IG Scions except better in everyway. AND they're in the troop slot that doesn't require a HQ to unlock!

Got multiple stuff wrong here.

No assault grenades, no way to get them. these are defensive greandaes.
The buy option are haywire, who could be awesome-with any way to get them to the enemy.
Squads are 6-12, not 6-10.
Unlike scions, they don't bring meltaguns, plasmaguns, hotshots, deepstrike or MTC into play. their value starts and ends in pumping pulse fire, who is nice, but in the end deals no more damage than a BS4 bolter against your likely target.
Markerlights are inferior to orders. by a longshot. anything a markerlight does, an order does too, and orders does alot that markerlights do not.

Fire warriors are solid troops,won't argue otherwise. but I'd trade them for GK termies in a flash despite how much they mismatch the rest of the army.

Also, the reason only tau complain is because we've seen both ends of the stick in a short duration (at least the pre 6th guys), the lowest of the low, and the gods. and now we sit in a healthy place in the "high, but not too high" spot.
You can't call out others who want undserving buffs when you are doing the same, but we do not feel any need for buffs, so we allow ourselves to call out.

Yes, many codcies are behind, many things still need fixes need fixes-some withing our own codex (mostly to nerf the absurdly efficient IA and HYMP). but GK are not one of them, they are standing strong and all their choices are viable at least as niche picks, and sometimes a niche pick is all that matters for a pick to be or importance.

Amen Brother!

I swear I can't take any of you three seriously. I say I want to buff Purgation squads to give them more of a chance on the field than the Dreadknight, you say "NO"

Then you say NERF THE DREADKNIGHT! When that won't change anything, you will always see the dreadknight on the table from now on, because MC are broken.

If you three can't actually CONTRIBUTE to this discussion on HOW to balance them, then you should leave the thread. SGTPozy, you are the worst, 25% of your post are in this thread yet you act like a mewling baby.

GUESS WHAT!?! ALL the GK players on this forum looked at the codex when it came out and said "Well looks like it's Codex: DreadKnight now". This codex has horrible internal balance, yet all you guys do is say, nerf the Dreadknight/Monstrous Creatures.

Were asking for a REBALANCE, so sit down and read the actual thread proposals.

 Quickjager wrote:
I swear I can't take any of you three seriously. I say I want to buff Purgation squads to give them more of a chance on the field than the Dreadknight, you say "NO"

Then you say NERF THE DREADKNIGHT! When that won't change anything, you will always see the dreadknight on the table from now on, because MC are broken.

If you three can't actually CONTRIBUTE to this discussion on HOW to balance them, then you should leave the thread. SGTPozy, you are the worst, 25% of your post are in this thread yet you act like a mewling baby.

GUESS WHAT!?! ALL the GK players on this forum looked at the codex when it came out and said "Well looks like it's Codex: DreadKnight now". This codex has horrible internal balance, yet all you guys do is say, nerf the Dreadknight/Monstrous Creatures.

Were asking for a REBALANCE, so sit down and read the actual thread proposals.

Well said.

This thread has boiled down to three types of posts:

1) "GK need to stop whining! Haha your codex got nerfed!"
2) "OMG stop complaining about one crappy unit, DREADKNIGHTS are so broken!"
3) "Back when I played GK, young whippersnappers, you literally had to guess the range on barrage weapons."
4) Actually useful, interesting discussion about balancing units/weapons/wargear and how it could be less of an "auto take/not take" codex.

Please, friends, try to be in category 4.

DoW

 DogOfWar wrote:
Well said.

This thread has boiled down to three types of posts:

1) "GK need to stop whining! Haha your codex got nerfed!"
2) "OMG stop complaining about one crappy unit, DREADKNIGHTS are so broken!"
3) "Back when I played GK, young whippersnappers, you literally had to guess the range on barrage weapons."
4) Actually useful, interesting discussion about balancing units/weapons/wargear and how it could be less of an "auto take/not take" codex.

Please, friends, try to be in category 4.

DoW

I notice we're ignoring:

5) "GKs should be half the cost and have access to everything in the SM codex."

They basically already do with allies... and like some of us have already pointed out that would be idiotic because...

A) Doesn't fit the fluff
B) Might be a TAD bit undercosted
C) Well... then GK wouldn't be... GK.

GK have the problem that the DE are having right now. We are a codex that is meant to be taken as a allied force. Yes we can be alright on our own, but it is when we are allied that we become a reckoning force.

That and we both lack a way of dealing with AV12-13 reliably.

It all goes back to the damn FoC...

It goes back to bad design on virtually every level.

- The Core Rules are a convoluted mess, packed with a stupid number of different unit types that all require specialist weapons to kill. We need one sort of weapon to kill light vehicles, another to kill heavy vehicles, another to kill fliers, a different one to kill MCs etc. etc. I think the best sumation I've seen is:

it used to be that units in the codex were either rocks, scissors or paper and to build an army what you had to do was bring a few rocks, two pairs of scissors and a pad of paper to create a balanced army. Now the game is more like rock, paper, Scissors, chair, table, car, tree, hat, scarf, gloves, kitchen sink.

- The designers either don't care about the meta in any way, or are just completely ignorant of it. So, we have a meta that includes a ton of vehicles, but GKs and DE actually had their anti-vehicle made worse.

- General laziness and over-reliance on allies/unbound. Since the 2011 lobotomy of the entire GW team, they are unable to grasp that many of us started an army to play that specific army, and that the ally rules can go screw themselves. Instead, they keep trying to force us to take allies by giving books really bad weaknesses (like the aforementioned lack of anti-vehicle in GKs or DE). Every book should be able to stand up on its own - we shouldn't ever need to take allies to fulfil something as basic as anti-vehicle weapons. But then, I also think the ally rules could be vastly improved by simply removing 'Battle Brothers'.

Don't get me started on how GK allies with SW so that the BATTLE-BROTHERS can have access to drop pods....

 vipoid wrote:

 DogOfWar wrote:
Well said.

This thread has boiled down to three types of posts:

1) "GK need to stop whining! Haha your codex got nerfed!"
2) "OMG stop complaining about one crappy unit, DREADKNIGHTS are so broken!"
3) "Back when I played GK, young whippersnappers, you literally had to guess the range on barrage weapons."
4) Actually useful, interesting discussion about balancing units/weapons/wargear and how it could be less of an "auto take/not take" codex.

Please, friends, try to be in category 4.

DoW

I notice we're ignoring:

5) "GKs should be half the cost and have access to everything in the SM codex."

Yes, we're ignoring strawmen. What do you suggest we do with them?

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:


Yes, we're ignoring strawmen. What do you suggest we do with them?

Put them on the list with the rest of the strawmen?

 vipoid wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:


Yes, we're ignoring strawmen. What do you suggest we do with them?

Put them on the list with the rest of the strawmen?

The only other one I can see is the whippersapper one, you can't deny that there's an awful lot of people in this thread who can't accept any buffs to bad units becuase good units exist.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

The only other one I can see is the whippersapper one, you can't deny that there's an awful lot of people in this thread who can't accept any buffs to bad units becuase good units exist.

And you're really saying that every suggestion for "balancing" GKs in this thread has been perfectly reasonable and not at all OP?

 vipoid wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

The only other one I can see is the whippersapper one, you can't deny that there's an awful lot of people in this thread who can't accept any buffs to bad units becuase good units exist.

And you're really saying that every suggestion for "balancing" GKs in this thread has been perfectly reasonable and not at all OP?

Less OP than they've been made out to be, and at least it's people trying to be constructive, as opposed to just shouting "OP!!" at everything. GKTs really aren't that good. They're not bad, but they're not the best thing ever either.

 vipoid wrote:
It goes back to bad design on virtually every level.

- The Core Rules are a convoluted mess, packed with a stupid number of different unit types that all require specialist weapons to kill. We need one sort of weapon to kill light vehicles, another to kill heavy vehicles, another to kill fliers, a different one to kill MCs etc. etc. I think the best sumation I've seen is:

it used to be that units in the codex were either rocks, scissors or paper and to build an army what you had to do was bring a few rocks, two pairs of scissors and a pad of paper to create a balanced army. Now the game is more like rock, paper, Scissors, chair, table, car, tree, hat, scarf, gloves, kitchen sink.

- The designers either don't care about the meta in any way, or are just completely ignorant of it. So, we have a meta that includes a ton of vehicles, but GKs and DE actually had their anti-vehicle made worse.

- General laziness and over-reliance on allies/unbound. Since the 2011 lobotomy of the entire GW team, they are unable to grasp that many of us started an army to play that specific army, and that the ally rules can go screw themselves. Instead, they keep trying to force us to take allies by giving books really bad weaknesses (like the aforementioned lack of anti-vehicle in GKs or DE). Every book should be able to stand up on its own - we shouldn't ever need to take allies to fulfil something as basic as anti-vehicle weapons. But then, I also think the ally rules could be vastly improved by simply removing 'Battle Brothers'.

I think the flaw is partly in the rock/paper/scissors mindset of many players.

I see that my highest preforming units on the long run are usually NOT the specialists, unless in cases I directly counter a known enemy (for example I'll bring tons of fusion against my necron buddy as he loves his tanks, and he knows my general list guildlines ahead, so we both get to counter each other)
But in a TAC game against the unknown? the units that brings me the most power in the long run are often the units who are doing a little bit of multiple jobs.
Good anti-infantry or anti-tank, but most MCs don't care-railheads.
Good anti-MC or anti-infanrt, but cant harm tanks-ionheads.
Medicore at everything, but always gets somehting done (unless flying)-Ralai.
Decent AA, decent anti-infantry and light transports, but hardly scratches tanks and MCs-dakkatide.

The uber specilist fusion suits who are the GODS of tank hunting? (maybe even best in the game at it), they don't pull in the long run, BECAUSE they are "rock", and only "rock". the hammerhead is a little "rock" and a little "paper"

People think the list of things you need to counter consisted of:
1-Light infantry.
2-MeQ.
3-TeQ.
4-MCs.
5-FMCs.
6-light transposts.
7-flyers.
8-heavy armor.


But its just false. you dont NEED to have a "perfect counter" to each and every one. you just need the majorety of your army to not be completely helpless against most possible threats.
An anti-MeQ specialist is probably still doing fine against most MCs and horde units, the same anti-FMC unit is your any-flyer unit.
A generic anti infantry unit can probably be a level of threat to horde, MeQ and TeQ alike, an anti-tank unit can probably be useful against MCs, and WILL destroy the transport if you need him to.

The key is to find overlaps, making each portion of your army cover multiple grounds, and multiple different units to cover the same ground. over-specializing is more efficient point wise, but also brakes down when your dedicated counter is taken out or overwhelmed, but it just does not happen to overlap style armies.
That's part of the reason necron held so high for so long, they have natural overlap in that their small-arms (natural anti-infantry) also serve as backup anti-tank, the DE with their poison shot treat infantry and MCs alike.

And I think that this flawed thinking is what makes GK players misunderstand their true power. and calling for buffs for "balance"
Yes, their units are not often the best at any one job (unless said job is killing daemons), but they are versatile on the field.
That Termie can handle a firefight not horribly, will beat many units in CC, and is a threat to light transports and MCs alike, with proper weapon choice anything without wings is concerned.
And yes, they appear to lack a dedicated anti-tank gun, but the psycannon grants a decent coverage there (1/18 hits will glance 1/9 will pen against AV14, thats 6/24 damage results, a melta in range gets 26/36, but 1/4 as many attempts-its almost the same! and the psycanonn has far better range, more expensive, but not BAD at it.), the very same gun will also brake apart transports, threaten MCs well and has the RoF to not be useless against lighter infantry. its a VERY powerful gun because its GOOD ENOUGH for a very large number of targets.

I wont go into every single choice and why are they so flexible, and by such efficient, and some ARE lesser than others in this aspect. but gray knights seem to keep chasing the dedicated answers, not noticing they got some of the best all-purposes around, and that all-purpose is generally a better choice than specialist, if only for the fact that a curveball wont leave you hanging, like a tankless list makes pure melta units feel neglected.

All purpose units are only good, if they have SOME specialist behind them.

Psycannon WAS a GREAT weapon, so good in fact many players realized they needed to stick as many of them in a list as possible. PAGK were the cheapest platform for them and provided the most ablative wounds.

The Psycannon is STILL a great weapon... on terminators. Do you realize how expensive that gets? 185 for one psycannon that doesn't gimp you.

This is the same problem DE are having, people say "NO DE ARE FINE YOU GOT AV, DARK LANCES!", but they run into the problem "do we max out our AV and take bad troops to put in the skimmers, or do we take good troops but gimp our AV?"

Look at your arguments! It is all about the terminator! You aren't even considering Strike Squads! THATS THE PROBLEM! You're looking at this one unit and saying that it is good against another unit, that ISN'T equivalent in points (Which is fine). It's like the Hammerhead vs. Riptide.

 BoomWolf wrote:

I think the flaw is partly in the rock/paper/scissors mindset of many players.

I see that my highest preforming units on the long run are usually NOT the specialists, unless in cases I directly counter a known enemy (for example I'll bring tons of fusion against my necron buddy as he loves his tanks, and he knows my general list guildlines ahead, so we both get to counter each other)
But in a TAC game against the unknown? the units that brings me the most power in the long run are often the units who are doing a little bit of multiple jobs.
Good anti-infantry or anti-tank, but most MCs don't care-railheads.
Good anti-MC or anti-infanrt, but cant harm tanks-ionheads.
Medicore at everything, but always gets somehting done (unless flying)-Ralai.
Decent AA, decent anti-infantry and light transports, but hardly scratches tanks and MCs-dakkatide.

The uber specilist fusion suits who are the GODS of tank hunting? (maybe even best in the game at it), they don't pull in the long run, BECAUSE they are "rock", and only "rock". the hammerhead is a little "rock" and a little "paper"

Sorry, I'm a little confused, which are your highest performing units?

 BoomWolf wrote:

People think the list of things you need to counter consisted of:
1-Light infantry.
2-MeQ.
3-TeQ.
4-MCs.
5-FMCs.
6-light transposts.
7-flyers.
8-heavy armor.


But its just false. you dont NEED to have a "perfect counter" to each and every one. you just need the majorety of your army to not be completely helpless against most possible threats.

Not so sure about that. I think it depends strongly on what sort of 'generalist' units you have. I mean, some armies have access to pretty good 'all-rounder' weapons that can form a solid core (with some limited specialists to help against troublesome targets), but others just don't have such variable weapons.

 BoomWolf wrote:

An anti-MeQ specialist is probably still doing fine against most MCs and horde units,

Have to disagree here. I can think of very few weapons that are good against MEQ, MCs *and* hordes. Seems like most are going to be ineffective against at least one of those (any blasts will be pretty bad against MCs, whilst weapons like Plasmaguns will be wasted against hordes).

 BoomWolf wrote:
the same anti-FMC unit is your any-flyer unit.

And some armies struggle equally against both.

Also, most skyfire weapons seem designed around an autocannon profile - which is useful only against the lightest fliers and flying MCs.

 BoomWolf wrote:

A generic anti infantry unit can probably be a level of threat to horde, MeQ and TeQ alike, an anti-tank unit can probably be useful against MCs, and WILL destroy the transport if you need him to.

No disagreement here.

 BoomWolf wrote:

The key is to find overlaps, making each portion of your army cover multiple grounds, and multiple different units to cover the same ground. over-specializing is more efficient point wise, but also brakes down when your dedicated counter is taken out or overwhelmed, but it just does not happen to overlap style armies.
That's part of the reason necron held so high for so long, they have natural overlap in that their small-arms (natural anti-infantry) also serve as backup anti-tank, the DE with their poison shot treat infantry and MCs alike..

Again though, many armies just don't have that kind of overlap.

e.g. a Psycannon has a great deal of versatility - being able to threaten virtually any unit type (though, you'd still want more dedicated anti-tank for use against Land Raiders and such).

However, try to find that kind of versatility in, say, the DE book. I think you'll struggle.

Never studied the DE book, but I'm sure I can find at least a handful of cases if I do, now is not the time though its 3:30am.

Heck, go basic. their basic anti-infantry guns are anti-MC in nature because everything is poison. your MC is not doing any better than a multiwound marine.
I assume their overlaps will be in different places than the tau, due to the VERY different nature of how they work. I cannot pull stuff out of memory as I havent even faced them in a long, long time (early 6th)


As for why you "can think of very few weapons that are good against MEQ, MCs *and* hordes.", its exacly the point that you are looking too HIGH
I'm not looking for the gun/sword that will be amazing at each. I'm looking for the gun/sword that will be decent at each.
Plasmas are OVERKILL even for MeQ. the S too high, and you pay for it. the ap is too good for a meq and nearly every MC as well, and again you pay for it.

The problem is, some people dont have true anti-MeQ weapons to compare, at least not in gun form, and they take anti TeQ or anti-tank or anti-MC quality guns. they NATURALLY won't work VS hordes at all.

But true anti-MeQ weapons like the ion cannon will, eldar shurikens, necron gauss cannon/staff of light (multishot S5AP3), slanasshi deamon charges, even standard power swords provide a threat to some degree to horde and MC alike.
To be an "anti MeQ" weapon you don't need to wound on a 2+ and ignore armor, you need a balance of RoF, S, AP and supplementing rules so that you can kill in a relativly decent fasion.
Terminators fear the lasgun more than the bolter. the bolter is stronger, the lasgun has friends.



And yes, these apparently not-hot units are my top performers.
Commander ralai, hammerheads with ion/rail cannons (depends on list), a riptide set to spit out bullets with a heavy burst cannon and tons of wargear.
A HYMP broadside or iontide would probably preform even higher, but that's because they are so damn good at EVERYTHING and I am annoyed by just how obviously OP these two guns are compared to their counterparts, so I never take them. but I do take specalist crisis suits as gapfiller when needed (or when known list countering is in play)






Quickjager

You look at the terminators (or even strikes) as a mere platform for the psycannon, and that is sad. they are SO much more.they are also good mid-point assault units, objective campers, psyker beacons, ect, ect. you will never get anyhting done with a squad if you look at it at the mere gun it carriers.
Heck I'm TAU and I don't do that! and I'm all ABOUT guns. but I know to look for that extra value "can it raodblock?" "can it stand on objectives under fire?" "can it get itself stuck in combat with someone who didn't bother to think of his units as more than guns and brought nothing else?"

DE are fine with AV, but not because of dark lances.
Its because of dark lances, and haywire blasters, blasters, dark scythe, heat lance and deepstrike without error or just fast moving gunboats to deploy these guns.
I'd say 2 dedicated anti-tank guns and widely-available generic anti-tank guns are enough to at least be playing on the field. they don't have to ace everything-but they are playing.

My arguments are all about the terminator because the discussion came from the point that the only reason SS look bad, is because the terminator is too damn good and stands right next to him in comparison. were the terminator not this -cheap- (and he's dirt cheap for what you get) the strike squad would suddenly look like other marines see it-a nice deal.

 total0 wrote:
I still dont see how its different for a gk player to spam the field with an army full of dk, i mean they are literally way too cheap! Deservers to be at least another 40 points base.

If you compare them to any of the other units "that are cheese" the dk will them up the ass. How you ask? Well force and sanctuary my friend, force will leave that "cheese" monster crying on the floor grasping his .
And all that is said is "mono build"

Im in no way justifying riptide, wraith knight and serpant spam but im not the one trying to say my army is bad

Dreadknights have a fine base cost. But the shunt stuff is just like Ion accelerator for a riptide.

The shunt is a 30 point upgrade that grants you jump stats and grants you a single gapcloser/escape that you cannot assault after using (when he is at his best)

The IA is a 5 point upgrade that nearly doubles the range so you don't have to get into threat range of charges or even most guns, completely removes the need to NOVA so your durability is up and greatly increase the damage output against quality targets without hurting the horde damage too much.

The shunt is NOTHING like the IA.
The shunt is solid.
The IA is absurdly broken.

I always considered the shunt upgrade to be like a guaranteed droppod.

I mean it offers more utility than that, but as for delivering units to the enemy it was my go to comparison.

 BoomWolf wrote:

The shunt is broken.
The IA is absurdly broken.

Fixed dat for ya.

Sooo WHY is it broken? How are you fixing that? Or do you want to be fed suggestions, one at a time after I thoroughly chew it for you?

Shunt is exactly like a FMC landing. It gives you 1 turn to deal with it before it charges. Are FMC broke?

raverrn wrote:
Shunt is exactly like a FMC landing. It gives you 1 turn to deal with it before it charges. Are FMC broke?

That seems like a very poor analogy.

Most FMCs who would want to assault have negligible shooting (whilst those with good shooting have little reason to land at all).

Whilst the Dreadknight has excellent combat stats, it can also bring some very impressive shooting to bear - and Shunt lets it go wherever it needs to in order to best make use of them.

As to your question though, I think both Fliers and FMCs are 'broke', because the rules for fliers are a load of nonsense.

Most FMCs really don't have both CC usefulness and decent shooting-but some exist.

And FMCs that pawn even the dreadknight in CC also exist, and they enjoy all the extra tactical abilities of the FMC status (vector strike enemy flyers, or shoot them with even medicore firepower is still better than ground-based MC that cant touch them)

Yea, you can have a knight that is a CC goody, loaded with guns and can shunt around, but at this point he costs so much he BETTER be useful.

The guns the knight pack are honestly not that amazing considering how much the overall model with all powers costs, the shunt makes a good utility and allows to catch good fire angles, but its not that devastating.

6 S7AP4 rending shots and either a S6Ap4 torrent template or 12 S4 shots. its not BAD, but when you put your knight in harms way, and unable to assault at all (where he is really good) for the turn just for that, its a tradeoff. and an okay one.


The teleportation pack is about equal to wings, and cost appropriately. each has the cases where it would have been superior.

I think the fact that people took Dreadknights by the triples even when the Personal Teleporter was 70pts speaks volumes about their efficacy.

But therein lies a lot of the problems people have with the changes to the newer codex. It's been brought up several times, in several different ways, but the biggest issue for me is that:

1) Some units that were extremely viable (perhaps not auto-take, but close to it) before the new Codex have been made even better and are definitely auto-take (Dreadknights, Terminators, Librarians).
2) Some units that were sub-par in the last Codex were (somewhat inexplicably) made less effective with changes to wargear, having unique abilities removed, or increased in cost (GKSS, Grand Masters, Purgation squads).

Some changes were good (removing the rather broken Inquisition squads and psychic vehicle nonsense), but a good deal of the changes tended to put things on the shelf and give unnecessary buffs to decent units.

I guess I would have rather had GW pull a 'Vendetta' (increasing costs so it's not ridiculously overpowered) rather than a 'Hydra' (taking away ability to shoot ground, anti-jink ability) or a 'Harker' (increasing cost, nerfing his unit, and removing 4[!] special abilities).

Any new Codex that encourages a variety of units and play styles is an improvement in my book. A new Codex that tends to steer players into one or two very obvious list builds is not so well written.

As with anything, YMMV.

DoW

 DogOfWar wrote:
I think the fact that people took Dreadknights by the triples even when the Personal Teleporter was 70pts speaks volumes about their efficacy.

But therein lies a lot of the problems people have with the changes to the newer codex. It's been brought up several times, in several different ways, but the biggest issue for me is that:

1) Some units that were extremely viable (perhaps not auto-take, but close to it) before the new Codex have been made even better and are definitely auto-take (Dreadknights, Terminators, Librarians).
2) Some units that were sub-par in the last Codex were (somewhat inexplicably) made less effective with changes to wargear, having unique abilities removed, or increased in cost (GKSS, Grand Masters, Purgation squads).

One thing I heard was that the SM Librarian got buffed in the 6th edition codex because no one in the GW studio used them. So, the strongest HQ in 5th got buffed because the GW team don't understand their own game.

I bring this up because I suspect it holds true for a lot of other cases where bad units are made worse or good units are made better.

Grey Knights have always had a problem with PA and they will unless someone comes up with a great way to fix it. In the end of the day their still marines and die easily.
I will never run a strike squad/purgation while their like this, purifiers are my suicide squad ie get in burn then die. (usually out of a stormraven)
But I do agree that dreadknights need a nerf. The easiest would be to make them a lord of war.

Making Dreadknights a LoW is a horrible way to balance them. It also makes no sense such a slot needs to be reserved for named characters (like they;re doing lately).