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.

Martel732 wrote:
Tactics are sadly rather limited in this game.

Preposterous! The application of better tactics is a panacea!

This reasoning is exactly why I don't think drop pods are all that, particularly for BA. Oh, look! Assault Orks! We can drop close and die, or drop further away, and die two turns later.

Shunting as the primary trick has the exact same problem.

Nuggs,
If an opponent can easily shut down Deep Strike, it doesn't matter if I'm doing it on turn 1 or turn 2. Grey Knights have flashy things that usually don't work as well as other players like to claim.

Freezerassassin,
If you've read my other thread as you claim, you should have encountered my counter-argument for slapping Scouts onto Strike Squads, yet you make the very same argument without addressing the issues I have with it.

And as I'm getting tired of saying, Deep Strike isn't "no risk" And Infiltrators typically have to deploy 18+" from enemy units. The arriving units are dropping into the lion's den, and if the opponent deployed properly, something should be able to shoot at and/or assault the arriving units. The reduced scatter just cuts the chance to kill themselves by teleporting into an enemy unit (The Grey Knight army is small enough as it is without us dying before reaching the battlefield).

Auto-turn 1 DS with reduced scatter was an early attempt I made for the Strike Squads, but people freaked out about that just as much as any other suggestion I've made.

Ideally Strike Squads would be unique. The idea of swapping them out for Scouts is making a point that the unit changes I was suggesting would not be overpowered, because it already exists in other Codexes. But you are objectively wrong when you say that Purgation Squads aren't the Grey Knights' Devestator Squads, as their datapage says that's what they are outright.

Your solutions don't fix the problems I was trying to address.

ZebioLizard2,
You are correct that other codexes have cheap units they can Deep Strike as "sacrificial units", while the Grey Knights don't have any units cheap enough to be able to afford to sacrifice in such a manner.

Personally, I have hated deep strike since 5th. By hated, I mean, hated using it for my own list. Not hated played against it. Although that's true in the case of SW, it's mostly not true for any other list.

 Bill1138 wrote:
Nuggs,
If an opponent can easily shut down Deep Strike, it doesn't matter if I'm doing it on turn 1 or turn 2. Grey Knights have flashy things that usually don't work as well as other players like to claim.

Freezerassassin,
If you've read my other thread as you claim, you should have encountered my counter-argument for slapping Scouts onto Strike Squads, yet you make the very same argument without addressing the issues I have with it.

And as I'm getting tired of saying, Deep Strike isn't "no risk" And Infiltrators typically have to deploy 18+" from enemy units. The arriving units are dropping into the lion's den, and if the opponent deployed properly, something should be able to shoot at and/or assault the arriving units. The reduced scatter just cuts the chance to kill themselves by teleporting into an enemy unit (The Grey Knight army is small enough as it is without us dying before reaching the battlefield).

Auto-turn 1 DS with reduced scatter was an early attempt I made for the Strike Squads, but people freaked out about that just as much as any other suggestion I've made.

Ideally Strike Squads would be unique. The idea of swapping them out for Scouts is making a point that the unit changes I was suggesting would not be overpowered, because it already exists in other Codexes. But you are objectively wrong when you say that Purgation Squads aren't the Grey Knights' Devestator Squads, as their datapage says that's what they are outright.

Your solutions don't fix the problems I was trying to address.

ZebioLizard2,
You are correct that other codexes have cheap units they can Deep Strike as "sacrificial units", while the Grey Knights don't have any units cheap enough to be able to afford to sacrifice in such a manner.

The data page for Purgation Squads say they look like Devestartors, but have a very different doctrine. That manifests now in shorter range weaponry, where we used to have unique psychic powers. If they became effective close-in fire support (which my suggestions would do), then I would use them and I think other people would too. you are entitled to your opinion however, so I'm sorry we disagree.

If I may redirect this thread away from proposed rules and back to the original topic, which I'm not certain was completely answered. Either that, or let this thread fade into obscurity.

Why do some people hate the Grey Knights so much?

As best as I can tell, some people just played against the Grey Knights at the end of 5th edition when the Grey Knights were actually overpowered, and they've carried that hatred through the rest of time for some reason. And the other people played against the Grey Knights before whatever faction they were playing got it's new beefed up Codex capable of easily matching the Grey Knights, yet they too retained a deep seated hatred for the Grey Knights that they'll take to their graves.

Some hate the Grey Knights players for fielding the same cookie-cutter army every other Grey Knight player fields, but don't acnowledge that even when the Grey Knight players only field the absolute best their Codex has to offer, they are only a match for other codexes with enough internal variety to field a plethora of different army builds. This reason doesn't seem any more justified than the other two.

Are harbored jealousy, and current boredom the only reasons Grey Knights players take so much grief?

anyway infiltrate is too powerful, but scout would certinly work. The thing is to add CHOICES, not "obvious must takes" (which is what infiltrate would be. it'd be a blatent no brainer. we want to open GKs up to a mix of tatical options. not further enchourage a single mono-build) Scout would give GKs a choice. "take a risk and drop right in my enemies face. or drop a little bit off but still be must closer to them"

Yet again the idea is to give options and variaty. Strike squads need something to make em useful... this doesn't mean they should be "auto-take" good

BrianDavion wrote:
anyway infiltrate is too powerful, but scout would certinly work. The thing is to add CHOICES, not "obvious must takes" (which is what infiltrate would be. it'd be a blatent no brainer. we want to open GKs up to a mix of tatical options. not further enchourage a single mono-build) Scout would give GKs a choice. "take a risk and drop right in my enemies face. or drop a little bit off but still be must closer to them"

Yet again the idea is to give options and variaty. Strike squads need something to make em useful... this doesn't mean they should be "auto-take" good

Dude, I just posted a reminder that that wasn't the topic of this thread.

 Bill1138 wrote:

Why do some people hate the Grey Knights so much?

As best as I can tell, some people just played against the Grey Knights at the end of 5th edition when the Grey Knights were actually overpowered, and they've carried that hatred through the rest of time for some reason. And the other people played against the Grey Knights before whatever faction they were playing got it's new beefed up Codex capable of easily matching the Grey Knights, yet they too retained a deep seated hatred for the Grey Knights that they'll take to their graves.

Shockingly, people are quite loath to forgive overnight the fact that Grey Knights singlehandedly ruined the game for them... And yes, I get it - I play Daemons for feth's sake! We're still the ultimate group of automatic TFG's because of the whole, "well they're Daemons - they should be overpowered" bs Ward spouted.

And whether Grey Knight players care to admit or not, their 5th edition codex did outright destroy the game for a goodly number of players. Not the least of which, being Daemon, Tyranids, Blood Angels & Chaos Marine who pretty much got relegated to shelf decorations.
There was nothing more depressing and rage inducing than getting to sit around for an infuriating 20+ minutes, while your opponent painstakingly measures out their full 2" coherency across 30 dudes in order to ensure almost the entire table bar a tiny little corner is covered by Warp Quake... and then finished off by "juggling" your auto-misshaping units between Quake bubbles in order to either auto-wipe your entire army, or else keep units in perpetual Reserves. (and this wasn't even a tournament game!)

And the attitude in general when called out on this kind of flagrant nonsense? No cries of re-balancing obviously broken gak, no admitting that comp was needed to reign in the seriously stupid crap, just a derisive comment about "Xenos whining" and "durp, L2P noob!lolz." (or my personal favourite, "they're Grey Knights stupid - they should be auto curbstomp Daemons!lol"
Then suddenly Xenos in general finally start getting updated, (including some equally broken & un-fun stupidity), and suddenly, the cries of the game being beyond broken and armies like GK's are no longer playable/woefully underpowered, etc...

So yeah, a good number of Xenos players especially can't help but feel that Grey Knight players are chief among the pot calling the kettle black.

 Bill1138 wrote:
Some hate the Grey Knights players for fielding the same cookie-cutter army every other Grey Knight player fields, but don't acnowledge that even when the Grey Knight players only field the absolute best their Codex has to offer, they are only a match for other codexes with enough internal variety to field a plethora of different army builds. This reason doesn't seem any more justified than the other two.

Personally, I think every single army is equally guilty of this, or rather, that people have put far too much emphasis on purely winning games only as efficiently as possible.
If your main goal is to have some fun, throw some dice, and just play a silly game of toy soldiers, then suddenly all those supposedly "useless" units are nowhere near as lamentable as the all mighty Internets make them out to be.

For example, I have a blast playing either mono or mostly Tzeentch. I even use Flamers - in units of 9. (and yes, they even actively kill gak every single game, despite Internet "wisdom" claiming that they're unplayable piles of rank monkey poo.) I also won't ever pull the re-rolled 2++ shenanigans outside of a one-time joke, just so we could enjoy a laugh at how stupid it really is.
The point is, I take units to fit my theme, and I aim to take every unit in either their God's relevant Sacred Number, or a multiple of it because it's cool and fluffy. I don't care if a second Soul Grinder is a million times more points efficient than a Burning Chariot, because I'm no out to build an unbeatable 1,000,000/0/0 record to base my ego around.

Do I win games? Sometimes. Do I care if I get tabled? Only if the game wasn't fun in the least. At the end of the day, as long as lots of stuff died in suitably horrific ways and my opponent and I got to share some good laughs, then that's all that matters.

 Bill1138 wrote:
Are harbored jealousy, and current boredom the only reasons Grey Knights players take so much grief?

Uh, you think Grey Knights have it bad... try playing DoC in Fantasy. (you occasionally still have to duck a flying case or table!)

Freezerassasin wrote:
Also, if you have a proper platform for it, the psilencer becomes a weapon that is useful for what it was designed for (throwing down a large rate of fire to crush hordes and T3/4/5 multi-wound models).

I just wanted to single this part out, because I've actually run the numbers for it, and came to the following conclusion:

There is only one thing that Psilencers can do better than Psycannons, from a practical standpoint; this one thing is killing T4- and only T4- multi-wound models, like Nobs or Tyranid Warriors.

Against literally every other target type the Psycannon ranges from nearly equal to flat-out better. I've done the math- the Psycannon is the equal (or better!) of the Psilencer against any other target type. T3 infantry standing in the open like a bunch of gormless idiots? Psycannons inflict more wounds than Psilencers, every time- oh, and Psycannons double out T3 infantry, so Psilencers with Force are actually worse against multi-wound T3 infantry (which exists.... where?). Against T4, the Psycannon generates more wounds against the likes of Ork Boyz or Tac Marines, while a Psilencer will be better for killing masses of Nobs and Tyranid Warriors- T4 is a sweet spot of sorts; you're not doubled out by S7, but it's not so high as to have low wounding rates from S4. Against T5, the Psycannon pulls ahead massively.

Against anything T6+ or with any kind of AV, the Psycannon is completely superior. It's the sad truth- if you want anti-horde, then you're going to either Incinerators, or Psycannons... but not Psilencers.

Experiment - you could not juggle between, as you were placed in a valid deepstrike formation; they themselves did not deepstrike. Sorry if your local meta didnt understand this distinction, but it was thrashed out at the time.

And whether Grey Knight players care to admit or not, their 5th edition codex did outright destroy the game for a goodly number of players. Not the least of which, being Daemon, Tyranids, Blood Angels & Chaos Marine who pretty much got relegated to shelf decorations.

What? This sounds more like Eldar then GK, considering Tyranids were awful in that edition to begin with (Want real cries of Cheese, 5th edition Tyranids vs Dark Eldar!) Blood angels was doing quite well for itself with razorbackspam alongside space wolves while Daemons weren't winning much anyways, let alone just against GK (it's what happens when your codex is forced to deepstrike and has a chance not to get it's primary wave!)

So yeah, a good number of Xenos players especially can't help but feel that Grey Knight players are chief among the pot calling the kettle black.

Or they aren't remembering well enough at all, 5th edition was the major Mech edition and if you couldn't output mech you were pretty much lost by the end of it, with the SM/SW/BA/GK devolving into razorback/double autocannon Dreadnoughts with killa kan Ork Armies alongside spammed Chimera's and the major problem was CSM and others couldn't really deal with it or had too expensive mech to deal with that.

When it comes to the 'proposed rules' thread, and the hate therein, that was less GK-specific, and more a kneejerk reaction to the proposals themselves.

When there were a few threads about Orkz, either using the old Mob Rule with the new Dex, or trying to avoid risking their Nobs in challenges, there was a lot of push back to them, too. And most players love Orkz.

I once suggested Bladestorm get removed or replaced with Shred, and everything went crazy. Or the Bolt weapons get shred thread. Or the Termies get Assault Cannons stock.

There is certainly some hatred towards GK. As discussed, its mostly around NDKs, monobuild (via crappy internal balance/thin 'dex), WC spam, and Mary Sue Better Than You fluff. But the reactions in the other thread was mostly about people looking at potential GK changes, and being unable to see it work.

We certainly have a problem with vitrol in the Proposed Rules section (more than other sections) (I know I'm one of the biggest offenders - I'm trying to be constructive). It would be nice if we had more reasonable conversations. But that is really hard.

Whiskey144 wrote:

Freezerassasin wrote:
Also, if you have a proper platform for it, the psilencer becomes a weapon that is useful for what it was designed for (throwing down a large rate of fire to crush hordes and T3/4/5 multi-wound models).

I just wanted to single this part out, because I've actually run the numbers for it, and came to the following conclusion:

Spoiler:

There is only one thing that Psilencers can do better than Psycannons, from a practical standpoint; this one thing is killing T4- and only T4- multi-wound models, like Nobs or Tyranid Warriors.

Against literally every other target type the Psycannon ranges from nearly equal to flat-out better. I've done the math- the Psycannon is the equal (or better!) of the Psilencer against any other target type. T3 infantry standing in the open like a bunch of gormless idiots? Psycannons inflict more wounds than Psilencers, every time- oh, and Psycannons double out T3 infantry, so Psilencers with Force are actually worse against multi-wound T3 infantry (which exists.... where?). Against T4, the Psycannon generates more wounds against the likes of Ork Boyz or Tac Marines, while a Psilencer will be better for killing masses of Nobs and Tyranid Warriors- T4 is a sweet spot of sorts; you're not doubled out by S7, but it's not so high as to have low wounding rates from S4. Against T5, the Psycannon pulls ahead massively.

Against anything T6+ or with any kind of AV, the Psycannon is completely superior. It's the sad truth- if you want anti-horde, then you're going to either Incinerators, or Psycannons... but not Psilencers.

While your math is cool and all, no one takes a Psilencer instead of a Pscannon. On Nemesis DreadKnights, the Heavy Psycannon is a must. The question, however, is which to take as the second weapon, the Heavy Incinerator or the Heavy Psilencer. Anecdotal evidence is showing the on two different NDKs, both should have H Psycannons, yet one should have a H Incinerator and Great Sword, while the other has a H Psilencer and Daemonhammer. Please re-run your numbers for Heavy Incinerator versus Heavy Psilencer. Or better yet, run the numbers for a Psycan-Incin-Sword verse Psycan-Psi-Hammer, and tell us which is better verse infantry, MC, and/or vehicle.

SJ

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
While your math is cool and all, no one takes a Psilencer instead of a Pscannon. On Nemesis DreadKnights, the Heavy Psycannon is a must. The question, however, is which to take as the second weapon, the Heavy Incinerator or the Heavy Psilencer. Anecdotal evidence is showing the on two different NDKs, both should have H Psycannons, yet one should have a H Incinerator and Great Sword, while the other has a H Psilencer and Daemonhammer. Please re-run your numbers for Heavy Incinerator versus Heavy Psilencer. Or better yet, run the numbers for a Psycan-Incin-Sword verse Psycan-Psi-Hammer, and tell us which is better verse infantry, MC, and/or vehicle.

SJ

The problem with doing that is I never ran the numbers for the Dreadknight-specific variants. I was focusing exclusively on the infantry-portable variations, that you can stick into a Strike Squad or on some GKTs.

Incidentally, I was using the math to prove your opening statement- nobody takes Psilencers instead of Psycannons. The reason for this is because the Psilencer has only one target type that it kills better than Psycannons- T4/2W/4+ (or poorer save) models. T4/2W/3+ is probably manageable with a Psilencer, again due to Force, but anything 2+ or better, the Psycannon's Rending wins out.

Also, it's my initial opinion that the Heavy Incinerator is better against infantry, on account of AP4+Ignore Cover, while the Gatling Psilencer, realistically, is pretty bad against MCs. The Gatling Psilencer, against a T6 MC will average ~1.34 wounds before saves. Most T6 MCs have 3+ armor (or better... damn Riptides), so you end up with ~0.44 unsaved wounds versus T6/3+, and ~0.22 unsaved wounds versus T6/2+. In contrast, the Psycannon starts at ~2.64 wounds before saves, and before accounting for Rending. Assuming I've done the numbers right, Rending will add around 0.67 unsaved wounds, in addition to the ~0.87 unsaved from the Psycannon itself against T6/3+, with ~0.44 unsaved wounds versus T6/2+.

All told, you're looking at:

Gatling Psilencer
T6/3+: ~0.44 unsaved wounds
T6/2+: ~0.22 unsaved wounds

Heavy Psycannon
T6/3+: ~0.87 unsaved wounds, + 0.67 unsaved from Rending, for a total of ~1.54 unsaved wounds
T6/2+: ~0.44 unsaved wounds, + 0.67 unsaved from Rending, for a total of ~1.11 unsaved wounds

So I must conclude that the Psycannon is more consistent and reliable against MCs. The Psilencer can- and presumably does- "win big" and manage to push even one unsaved wound with Force to gib a MC, but it's an unreliable effect. What really kills Psilencers against pretty much everything except T4 multi-wound is that they're S4. While there are some who believe that making Psilencers S5 and retaining Force would make T4 multi-wound models never be seen on the table, I would really contend that T4/multi-wound hasn't been popular on the table for several editions now; in 5th the plethora of S8+ weapons being thrown around- mostly meltas- meant that it wasn't cost-effective to field T4 multi-wound. 6th didn't really change that, while 7th has made T4 multi-wound slightly more attractive... if it's got a really good save, like MANz or Paladins do.

S5 Psilencers mean that they can gun down light T3 infantry with greater or equal effectiveness- against T3/6+, the S5 Psilencer exceeds the Psycannon, the two are equal against T3/5+, and the Psycannon very slightly pulls ahead against T3/4+ or T3/3+. The catch is that that's before factoring in cover, which then makes Psycannons markedly inferior at killing light infantry compared to an S5 Psilencer. A Gatling Psilencer at S5 also has greater potential for anti-MC duty, thanks to S5 wounding T6 on 5+, instead of S4 vs T6 on 6+; that's a really big difference.

In fact, an S5 Gatling Psilencer will average ~0.87 unsaved wounds against a T6/3+ MC- pretty much double the lethality of the S4 Gatling Psilencer.

I'm a proponent for S6 Psilencers, actually. With an AP-, S4 is just not not worth it for anything other than a Hail Mary failed save on something that should be ignoring S4 AP-. At S6, the AP is mostly irrelevant, due to wounding on 2's, allowing saves to count (reversing the low AP, high Str paradigm).

SJ

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
I'm a proponent for S6 Psilencers, actually. With an AP-, S4 is just not not worth it for anything other than a Hail Mary failed save on something that should be ignoring S4 AP-. At S6, the AP is mostly irrelevant, due to wounding on 2's, allowing saves to count (reversing the low AP, high Str paradigm).

SJ

Are you serious?

It would make psilincers a viable alternative to psycannons and incinerators. They would need to have a point increase.

You cannot say it is grey knights, or Eldar players fault for the venom, now a days it will be necrons.
The reason for the venom is that the power gamers buy the best most Op, spam it and ruin the "brand" for everyone else.
In the 6th edition book i've played striking scorpions with kroot support, got obliterated but had fun games.
But their will always be power gamers that jump on a codex and ruin it, while the fluff player or middle player will have to
take the punishment even if their list is subpar. (looking at Grey knights now they are mid level with their best units)
People still remember what they were and so will dislike it. Also their is only a handful of builds from thindex/overcosted,
meaning even in non competitive if you want to win 50% their are mandatory things you must bring.
To bring a purgation squad or strike squad is suicide, but you can get away with bringing a landraider.

SGTPozy wrote:

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
I'm a proponent for S6 Psilencers, actually. With an AP-, S4 is just not not worth it for anything other than a Hail Mary failed save on something that should be ignoring S4 AP-. At S6, the AP is mostly irrelevant, due to wounding on 2's, allowing saves to count (reversing the low AP, high Str paradigm).

SJ

Are you serious?

I'm sure he is serious that he believes Psilencers should be S6, but I rather disagree. Incidentally, if you did make Psilencers S6, the chances of killing a Riptide using:

Psilencer

6 shots, 4 hits due to BS4, 2 wounds before saves, ~0.33 unsaved wounds vs a Riptide's 2+ armor. In other words, S6 Psilencers are still bad at killing Riptides.

Gatling Psilencer

12 shots, 8 hits due to BS4, 4 wounds before saves, ~0.67 unsaved wounds vs Riptide's 2+ armor. Not terrible, but a Psycannon- let alone a Heavy Psycannon- is still probably better.

 Grey Templar wrote:
It would make psilincers a viable alternative to psycannons and incinerators. They would need to have a point increase.

TBQH, I'm of the opinion that Psilencers need a buff- I favor just a flat increase to S5 and no other change profile-wise (pricing is can be determined via testing). Incinerators are perfectly fine as-is, IMO, while Psycannons actually need a nerf, and a new weapon designed around being anti-armor/-MC/-TEQ is necessary. I'd probably say that the following changes would be good:

Incinerator

As mentioned, I find this weapon to be in a good spot. Considering what it is- an S6 template that's widely available on infantry- and particularly Jump infantry- is pretty good. AP4 just sweetens the deal.

Psilencer

36" Salvo 4/6 S5 AP- Force

The range increase is purely to compensate for the terrible Salvo mechanics; this gives the weapon a half-range of 18", which isn't too much less than the "sweet spot" of most Grey Knight shooting, which tends to be 24".

Gatling Psilencer

24" Heavy 12 S5 AP- Force

This variant doesn't get the range buff, as said buff is purely to compensate for the crap Salvo mechanics. Moreover, the Salvo rule wouldn't make any difference- the Gatling Psilencer can only be deployed by Dreadknights... which are Monstrous Creatures... which are Relentless by default.

Psycannon

36" Salvo 2/3 S6 AP4 Rending

While I am not a fan of Rending Psycannons at all, there's enough people who've lost their gak over stripping Psycannons of Rending (despite the fact that I offer a better solution to heavy armor and high-T MCs), that I thought I'd leave it for this iteration. However, once again, the range buff is purely to compensate for terrible Salvo mechanics, while the nerf to maximum RoF and Strength help keep it from being what is quite frankly an Assault Cannon +1 "because Grey Knights". Which always bugged the hell out of me- why is the Psycannon just a better AC? I mean, my proposed change is still pretty close... but it at least has the decency to be different- particularly in regards to how it functions on non-Relentless infantry models.

Heavy Psycannon

24" Heavy 6 S6 AP4 Rending
24" Heavy 1 S6 AP4 Rending, Large (5") Blast

The only changes here are the loss of a pip of Strength, and the wholesale change to Heavy rather then Salvo on the "rapid fire" mode, as it can only be field by the Dreadknight, so Salvo is actually redundant.

New Gun: the Psi-Melta

18" Assault 1 S8 AP1 Force

Yeah, yeah, a "more better" melta. For the record, I envision this weapon costing between 15 and 20 points- which is around 50-100% more than a meltagun or multi-melta. This helps cover the cost of making it a sort of "long-barreled" meltagun, and adding Force. At 18", it's still difficult to get it into position without using DS or Jump Infantry- and while both options are available to the GKs, DS is far from the most reliable thing, and the Jump Infantry are relatively fragile for how expensive they are.

This is, incidentally, the "go-to" gun for countering MCs using a pure or GK-primary list. Trying to bring a few GKs along for the ride so as to leverage Psi-Meltas probably wouldn't work very well; GKs are already expensive and aren't really suited to being a sort of "torpedo/missile" or "meltacide" unit. CSM Termicide worked because it was about 100-110 points for 3 dudes with combi-meltas with DS deployment options. It wasn't an expensive option, and for the era in which it was predominant, it was also quite good at killing any kind of vehicle.

There's not really an option to do that with GKs, especially considering I'd start Psi-Meltas around 20 points, and then discount them if, and only if, it was necessary.

That wouldn't be terrible if the psycannon kept its current rate of fire. We need all the shots we can get. Salvo 2/3 would be too far.

I'm not entirely sure why GKs need to get such weight of fire from Psycannons*- I mean, when it comes down to it, I think that Psycannons realistically need to pick two of the following- and no more:

1) Range
2) RoF
3) Strength 7
4) Rending

You can't have all of them- Psycannons are, quite frankly, just a better Assault Cannon right now. That shouldn't be the case.

Not only that, but the things which the Psycannon needs both S7, Rending and RoF against tend to be T6+ MCs or AV13+ heavy vehicles.

Introducing a "Psi-Melta"- as I proposed above- would provide an excellent option for the Psycannon to lose some of the ridiculous aspects it has- like S7 going to S6, or losing a shot when stationary, or losing Rending.

TBH what I really want to see is Psycannons going back to their Daemonhunter roots, where they're really not that special... until you notice that they ignore all Invulnerable saves.

But there's too many people that just lose their gak over that, that I've finally just given up on it.

EDIT: *By that I mean why Psycannons need to have such a high RoF when the job that they're currently called on to do- which is realistically everything, but in particular hunting AV13+ vehicles- would be filled by the edition of a GK-only variant of meltaguns.

Its because the psycannon has to do all the work all at the same time.

It needs to do anti-infantry, anti-horde, anti-elite infantry, anti-monstrous creature, and anti-tank.

If we had that psymelta that was put forth we could lose the strength on the psycannon as we would have some actual anti-tank, but it would still need to do everything else. So it would need to keep rof4, range 24, and rending.

Even with the psymelta, the psycannon wouldn't need a change. It wouldn't suddenly become op because there was an anti-tank option. And its not anywhere close to op now.

Well, if Psilencers are S5, and changed to Salvo 4/6 (and 36" range to compensate for stupid salvo mechanics), then anti-horde and anti-multi-wound infantry is covered by Psilencers.

With the Psi-Melta, anti-MC/-TEQ/-heavy armor is then covered, leaving the Psycannon as more of an anti-elite infantry and general purpose weapon.

So I understand your point, but the changes I proposed are really built on the premise that the inclusion of the "Psi-Melta" weapon to cover the bases of anti-MC and anti-vehicle is a done deal.

To answer thread title: no, you cannot take Venoms for your Grey Knights, they are Dark Eldar and you cannot ally with them .

Whiskey144 wrote:

SGTPozy wrote:

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
I'm a proponent for S6 Psilencers, actually. With an AP-, S4 is just not not worth it for anything other than a Hail Mary failed save on something that should be ignoring S4 AP-. At S6, the AP is mostly irrelevant, due to wounding on 2's, allowing saves to count (reversing the low AP, high Str paradigm).

SJ

Are you serious?

I'm sure he is serious that he believes Psilencers should be S6, but I rather disagree. Incidentally, if you did make Psilencers S6, the chances of killing a Riptide using:

Psilencer

6 shots, 4 hits due to BS4, 2 wounds before saves, ~0.33 unsaved wounds vs a Riptide's 2+ armor. In other words, S6 Psilencers are still bad at killing Riptides.

Gatling Psilencer

12 shots, 8 hits due to BS4, 4 wounds before saves, ~0.67 unsaved wounds vs Riptide's 2+ armor. Not terrible, but a Psycannon- let alone a Heavy Psycannon- is still probably better.

Not everything is about Riptides...

What about other mult-wound models like Crisis Suits, TWC, Spawn, all Tyranid MCs and Warriors, Shrikes etc?

Against 'Nids; wounding on 4s and if a single 3+ is failed the model dies...

That is not balanced at all!

The psilencer is just a badly designed weapon, it is literally all-or-nothing and isn't fun for either player.

"Oh look a lucky shot insta-gibbed your unit"
"..."
"Sorry about that, first time it has ever actually worked"

It fulfills absolutely no roles in the game, at this point the best thing that can happen to it is go die in a corner. Heavy 6 means you gotta be rooted (like hell I'm putting psilencers on my termies) and 24 inch range means you aren't hitting gak. Str 4 means it is a bolter and does nothing practically to high T monsters, the lack of an AP value means the lowliest of orks get saves. The only way I can see it ever becoming relevant is if GW decided instant death only is applied via force or specific weapon profiles, so we see more multi-wound models.

Here is an idea ignores Invuls, has rending, str4 AP- stays, feth the concept of a ranged force weapon.

It would be pretty easy to fix the Psilencer into a good anti-wound-model weapon and the Psycannon into a good anti-vehicle weapon.

Psilencer: 36", S4, AP-, Salvo 4/6, Fleshbane, Force.
Psycannon: 36", S7, AP4, Salvo 2/4, Armorbane

36" range on both because Salvo sucks, and they need at least the 18 inches if they're moving, especially when you consider what they gave up for the weapons. and the stationary 36" is balanced by the rest of the unit not being able to fire if their Special Weapon uses its maximum range.

The Psilencer becomes Salvo 4/6 instead of Heavy 6, because Heavy weapons are next to useless unless they're in a static gunline, which 7th makes difficult to begin with, and the Grey Knights are less capable than most of establishing one.

Fleshbane on the Psilencer is a counter-balance to all units always being able to use their saves against it.

Armorbane gives the Psycannon a fair shot at taking down high AV like Soulgrinders.

This makes the Psilencer the weapon to have vs Monstrous Creatures, and the Psycannon the weapon to have against Vehicles, while both are comparably good at handling Infantry. Note that the Grey Knights will practically always be outnumbered.

SGTPozy wrote:
Not everything is about Riptides...

What about other mult-wound models like Crisis Suits, TWC, Spawn, all Tyranid MCs and Warriors, Shrikes etc?

Against 'Nids; wounding on 4s and if a single 3+ is failed the model dies...

That is not balanced at all!

As you are widely recognized as a devoted Tau player- and in fact have commented about how the GKs have a gun that can "one-shot" Riptides, I figured that that was what you meant.

The biggest thing to remember is that you actually have to activate Force. Yes, I realize that there do exist some armies that either do not field psykers or do not have native access to psykers, and so popping Force is more likely to occur. Oh, and since Psilencers have no AP value whatsoever, you're still getting armor saves.

That's better than I can say for all those poor Marines facing down an IA 'Tide...

 Quickjager wrote:
The psilencer is just a badly designed weapon, it is literally all-or-nothing and isn't fun for either player.

"Oh look a lucky shot insta-gibbed your unit"
"..."
"Sorry about that, first time it has ever actually worked"

It fulfills absolutely no roles in the game, at this point the best thing that can happen to it is go die in a corner. Heavy 6 means you gotta be rooted (like hell I'm putting psilencers on my termies) and 24 inch range means you aren't hitting gak. Str 4 means it is a bolter and does nothing practically to high T monsters, the lack of an AP value means the lowliest of orks get saves. The only way I can see it ever becoming relevant is if GW decided instant death only is applied via force or specific weapon profiles, so we see more multi-wound models.

Here is an idea ignores Invuls, has rending, str4 AP- stays, feth the concept of a ranged force weapon.

I kind of like the idea that Psilencers ignore invulnerable saves, but I don't really see them making much sense to give Rending. The other problem with Psilencers is that they have only one target type- T4 multi-wound with 4+ or worse saves- that they do better against than Psycannons.

 Bill1138 wrote:
It would be pretty easy to fix the Psilencer into a good anti-wound-model weapon and the Psycannon into a good anti-vehicle weapon.

Psilencer: 36", S4, AP-, Salvo 4/6, Fleshbane, Force.
Psycannon: 36", S7, AP4, Salvo 2/4, Armorbane

36" range on both because Salvo sucks, and they need at least the 18 inches if they're moving, especially when you consider what they gave up for the weapons. and the stationary 36" is balanced by the rest of the unit not being able to fire if their Special Weapon uses its maximum range.

The Psilencer becomes Salvo 4/6 instead of Heavy 6, because Heavy weapons are next to useless unless they're in a static gunline, which 7th makes difficult to begin with, and the Grey Knights are less capable than most of establishing one.

Fleshbane on the Psilencer is a counter-balance to all units always being able to use their saves against it.

Armorbane gives the Psycannon a fair shot at taking down high AV like Soulgrinders.

This makes the Psilencer the weapon to have vs Monstrous Creatures, and the Psycannon the weapon to have against Vehicles, while both are comparably good at handling Infantry. Note that the Grey Knights will practically always be outnumbered.

Oh God no, Psycannons shouldn't be Armorbane. Certainly not with Salvo 2/4- I can't even think of an Armorbane gun that has more than one shot.

Also, a note about Psilencers being good at handling infantry....



As we see, the Psycannon- at worst- will equal a Psilencer in performance against T3/T4 infantry. In practice, the Psycannon will vastly outperform the Psilencer against everything except T4 multi-wound, low-save models, like Ork Nobs or Tyranid Warriors, and that is only the case if you can activate Force.

Again, the simpler solution to Psycannons being the "god gun" of the Grey Knights is to introduce a specialized anti-armor weapon- preferably a melta of some kind.

To plug my own opinion in shameless fashion- though amended because there are some people who just happen to lose their gak and get super-butthurt over some changes, here's a "compromise" of sorts:



This makes the Psycannon a versatile anti-light armor/elite infantry weapon, the Psilencer is either anti-infantry/-deathstar (S5, no invulns allowed), or anti-multi wound (S4, Force). The fancy new meltagun fulfills the anti-vehicle and anti-MC role, though it's geared more towards killing those particularly heavy/durable vehicles (and MCs), while Psycannons, with S6+Rending (though a lower RoF) would be good for de-meching an opponent and killing light vehicles that are really just glorified heavy weapon carriers.

Also worth noting that the "no invuln allowed" mode of the Psilencer is still AP-, and does not have Force.

Whiskey144 wrote:

SGTPozy wrote:
Not everything is about Riptides...

What about other mult-wound models like Crisis Suits, TWC, Spawn, all Tyranid MCs and Warriors, Shrikes etc?

Against 'Nids; wounding on 4s and if a single 3+ is failed the model dies...

That is not balanced at all!

As you are widely recognized as a devoted Tau player- and in fact have commented about how the GKs have a gun that can "one-shot" Riptides, I figured that that was what you meant.

The biggest thing to remember is that you actually have to activate Force. Yes, I realize that there do exist some armies that either do not field psykers or do not have native access to psykers, and so popping Force is more likely to occur. Oh, and since Psilencers have no AP value whatsoever, you're still getting armor saves.

That's better than I can say for all those poor Marines facing down an IA 'Tide...

Exactly, they CAN one-shot Riptides, just like a lucky smash attack COULD one-shot a Land Raider.
These things could happen, no matter how unlikely.

Activating force is no problem when you're playing Grey Knights and their warp charge shenanigans.

What is proposed is that the Psylincer becomes a TLDWBLW +1 since it has double the range AND force and only losing the TL... That is not okay!

If other armies can hug cover I'm pretty sure that Space Marine player can too.