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.

Remember how Chapter Approved was going to fix all this?

Yeah, right.

Same old GeeDerps. They still suck at balance.

The problem with Grey Knights is they are supposed to only fight Daemons, which means their rules have to affect daemons. These rules can't be free (That would be unfair to the Daemon Player) so the GK have to pay points for rules that would be useless 99% of the time.

As a Tson player I loathe the new smite nerf (which it was never a beta rule it seems). But not for what it does to my army. But for how badly it hurts GK's as a faction. I expect a meaty FAQ or chapter approved to fix these problems. I feel for you GK guys. But just remember that power levels is a circular thing. At one point GK's were at the top of food chain and are now at the bottom. Im sure it will swing back at some point? If this "beta" rule hits I would almost demand a FAQ for GK's to llaunch with the rule. And I am not a GK player.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

zerosignal wrote:
Remember how Chapter Approved was going to fix all this?

Yeah, right.

Same old GeeDerps. They still suck at balance.

It has helped alot. But yes, GK's and guard do illustrate they have alot more to learn about balance.

 corpuschain wrote:

 FrozenDwarf wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
Grey Knights was an over-correction for sure, but you're also not supposed to use Grey Knights as a stand-alone army.

then what is the point for the GK army to even exists?
ANY army that has a codex is ment to be able to played whitout any other mixin from other armies.

personly i am allways looking for an elite 3 wound model army but 8th aint designed for elite armys sadly, so it dont relay matters that they dont fix GK int his edition.

If you were playing 'true to the fluff', then you would make a 500-1000 pt detachment of Grey Knights from the Codex and field it alongside some other Imperial detachment. The Codex gives you lots of options to create variety, but that doesn't necessarily mean you should field 3000 pts of Grey Knights. The beauty of the hobby is you can do what you like (so you can field 3000pts of GK if you like), but people like playing against fluffy armies because it makes the game feel more embedded in the wider story of 40k.

I know from first hand experience - my army is half GK, half inquisitorial stormtroopers*, and people always get excited by how fluffy that is.

*I'm not trying to claim bragging rights - in fact, I just made the army that way because the 3rd ed daemonhunters codex told me to do it, and it was cheaper than an army of metal Grey Knights!

Why does this logic not apply to Custodes though? Not to call you out specifically, you're not really addressing Custodes here. But it's sort of an eyebrow-raising point I've seen around dakka and in other places (Reecius makes it too): if certain armies suck, people will say "well, they're not meant to be played as a standalone force". I think it's a lazy justification to not try and fix GK -- as people have noted in this thread, it wouldn't be hard to give them a little boost and be a bit more points efficient.

 corpuschain wrote:

 FrozenDwarf wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
Grey Knights was an over-correction for sure, but you're also not supposed to use Grey Knights as a stand-alone army.

then what is the point for the GK army to even exists?
ANY army that has a codex is ment to be able to played whitout any other mixin from other armies.

personly i am allways looking for an elite 3 wound model army but 8th aint designed for elite armys sadly, so it dont relay matters that they dont fix GK int his edition.

If you were playing 'true to the fluff', then you would make a 500-1000 pt detachment of Grey Knights from the Codex and field it alongside some other Imperial detachment. The Codex gives you lots of options to create variety, but that doesn't necessarily mean you should field 3000 pts of Grey Knights. The beauty of the hobby is you can do what you like (so you can field 3000pts of GK if you like), but people like playing against fluffy armies because it makes the game feel more embedded in the wider story of 40k.

I know from first hand experience - my army is half GK, half inquisitorial stormtroopers*, and people always get excited by how fluffy that is.

*I'm not trying to claim bragging rights - in fact, I just made the army that way because the 3rd ed daemonhunters codex told me to do it, and it was cheaper than an army of metal Grey Knights!

Exactly.

And yes, GK suffer from 'you are not new plastic' syndrome, and so will be nerfed or forgotten in lieu of new plastic, cuz GW wants to sell models to people who have all that they thought they ever needed, in the form of the current switch to software as a service or any other thing as a service, ownership is not good for business. SO, the current business mania is sell them a subscription and make them pay for it every wk/mnth/yr until the end of time, and kick them to the curb when they stop.
This is GWs current business strategy.
No mystery - just MBAs being MBAs.

Frankly, I like the new Goldenscaste Fraternals for their collectability,
they are nifty dudes, except for the silly hair,
but they should RARELY see a 40k table and then only in special scenarios.
NEVER should there be a Goldencaste army...
Ever.
But, GW will fudge that, to keep the credit cards swiping.
Plastic crack for the plastic crack lords, err...
hobby as a subscription service wth rules to reinforce the payment plan,
a sort of extortion, on-table performance for hire.

As a hobbyist with a bit of most everything,
I will be skipping this release however,
as with Ao$ it smells funny.

I'm still not sure what people mean when they say "standalone army" anymore.

Inquisition had a codex in 6th and 7th and has a faction and army list in 8th, but I would never call them standalone.

"Imperial Agents" was a codex in 7th and was also not a standalone army.

"Standalone army" seems like a naff term in 8th edition. It's 5th edition leaking into 8th. Even my "Imperial Guard" army includes a Mechanicus detachment, and the fact that my Sororitas army doesn't include any other detachment is actively weakening it.

My CSMs took a beating from an all-Paladin army recently. Feels like rumors about the state of their nerfedness have been greatly exaggerated.

That said, I do not understand why Custodes and Grey Knights. What is the difference supposed to be besides armor color?

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

"Standalone army" seems like a naff term in 8th edition. It's 5th edition leaking into 8th. Even my "Imperial Guard" army includes a Mechanicus detachment, and the fact that my Sororitas army doesn't include any other detachment is actively weakening it.

It's a pretty valid term for non Tyranid/Eldar Xenos, but overall I agree with this.

As for how Grey Knights should feel about Custodes? Honestly, its a pretty minor transgression compared to the Codex.... the Smite nerf.... and then Daemons randomly getting a rule that makes Grey Knights a liability vs the only niche they could claim. If anything, Custodes feel like they could be a beacon of hope that maybe GW has leaned how to fix GKs.... and will likely choose not to.

For now it's a valid term for non-Tyranid/Eldar xenos.

But that only leaves:
Orks
Necrons
Tau

I full expect at some point in the next few years to see a "Kroot Mercenaries" or "Tau Auxiliaries" book, and an Ork book allowing them to be taken with other forces (iirc the Orks often work as mercenaries. In fact I think there's an entire Clan that does mercenary work... the Blood Axes?).

Leaving only the Necrons, who may very well end up befriending the Mechanicus or something at some point during the storyline. I think there's even an "Assault on Mars" box set coming which may very well be the first toe into the pool of necron/mechanicus interaction.

 fraser1191 wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:

 Backspacehacker wrote:
I'll be god honest, idk why gk players even attempt to field their army anymore, they have just got drug over the coals constantly.

Best Grey Knights player.

People think it matters. Of course when you're one of 3 GK players at an event who really cares?

How many grey knights players do you think will be at LVO?

What happens if zero show up? lol

I know a couple people taking Grey Knights to the LVO.

But your standard Grey Knight list is:

3-4 GMNDK fully kitted
1 detachment of mortar teams + chaff
1 detachment of #Flexibility. One guy on dakka is bringing Dark Angels for plasma devs, but i think that's a mistake. Devastators are so far out of meta it's funny

In general it's people who know they're going to lose to top-tier lists but they want best faction. I've had people bringing "bottom tier" factions against me to playtest for the LVO.

Back to GK, though.
What really hamstrings GK is:

1. They have terrible psychic powers. They're really bad. Astral Aim is legit, though. In truth a faction like this should have 12+ psychic powers to pick from, and they should have some of them that can target <ADEPTUS ASTARTES> Keyword. Gate of Infinity would be super valuable if it could be cast on something other than Grey Knights.

2. They are simply overcosted. Over 50 points for a paladin? 46 points for a terminator? One paladin costs almost as much as a squad of dark reapers.

3. Their ability to get into melee is almost nonexistent. There's a reason the GMNDK is popular, and it's not because he's a melee juggernaut, it's because he's a mobile gunplatform with a high BS who brings his own rerolls, and is relatively survivable (T6, 4++). Similar reasons are why the dakka-flyrant is the best unit in the tyranid codex.

Dont' get me wrong, I think that's the right way forward; just not true for those three right now.

 LunarSol wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

"Standalone army" seems like a naff term in 8th edition. It's 5th edition leaking into 8th. Even my "Imperial Guard" army includes a Mechanicus detachment, and the fact that my Sororitas army doesn't include any other detachment is actively weakening it.

It's a pretty valid term for non Tyranid/Eldar Xenos, but overall I agree with this.

As for how Grey Knights should feel about Custodes? Honestly, its a pretty minor transgression compared to the Codex.... the Smite nerf.... and then Daemons randomly getting a rule that makes Grey Knights a liability vs the only niche they could claim. If anything, Custodes feel like they could be a beacon of hope that maybe GW has leaned how to fix GKs.... and will likely choose not to.

what deamon rule makes GKs a liability?

BrianDavion wrote:

 LunarSol wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

"Standalone army" seems like a naff term in 8th edition. It's 5th edition leaking into 8th. Even my "Imperial Guard" army includes a Mechanicus detachment, and the fact that my Sororitas army doesn't include any other detachment is actively weakening it.

It's a pretty valid term for non Tyranid/Eldar Xenos, but overall I agree with this.

As for how Grey Knights should feel about Custodes? Honestly, its a pretty minor transgression compared to the Codex.... the Smite nerf.... and then Daemons randomly getting a rule that makes Grey Knights a liability vs the only niche they could claim. If anything, Custodes feel like they could be a beacon of hope that maybe GW has leaned how to fix GKs.... and will likely choose not to.

what deamon rule makes GKs a liability?

There is a stratagem that allows Daemons to come back if they're killed by Grey Knights, or some such nonsense.

 Marmatag wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:

 LunarSol wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

"Standalone army" seems like a naff term in 8th edition. It's 5th edition leaking into 8th. Even my "Imperial Guard" army includes a Mechanicus detachment, and the fact that my Sororitas army doesn't include any other detachment is actively weakening it.

It's a pretty valid term for non Tyranid/Eldar Xenos, but overall I agree with this.

As for how Grey Knights should feel about Custodes? Honestly, its a pretty minor transgression compared to the Codex.... the Smite nerf.... and then Daemons randomly getting a rule that makes Grey Knights a liability vs the only niche they could claim. If anything, Custodes feel like they could be a beacon of hope that maybe GW has leaned how to fix GKs.... and will likely choose not to.

what deamon rule makes GKs a liability?

There is a stratagem that allows Daemons to come back if they're killed by Grey Knights, or some such nonsense.

that'd be fine and dandy if GKs where like 5th edition GKs and utterly OP against deamons. but they're not.

GK should drop all in game bonuses vs Daemons, keep that to the fluff.
Make them a proper psychic elite loyalist space marine army (So, Imperium's Thousand Sons), and then they could work and be balanced both agaisn't daemons and everything else.

To answer the OP: we’re not as salty as we could be about the Custodes codex yet because we’re still salty at Reece for being completely ignorant about how our army works.

As far as the “Daemonhunters” fans are concerned, no GK player wanted inquisition out of our codex, and you would be hard-pressed to find one who wouldn’t want it back in. Inquisition rounded out our army and gave it a unique flavor; the only reason you don’t see much of it anymore is a reluctance to use extra books and the inquisition in current form doesn’t synergize as well with us anymore in the rules. I personally would love to see a return of “Codex Daemonhunters”, with grey knights, assasins, and storm troopers; so we’re not just silver space marines.
PS: those storm troopers were metal in 3rd edition too

I really want a proper Inquisition keyword and Codex with access to DW, GK and Sisters along with the actual Inquisition stuff. That is probably the most heartbreaking thing about the GK codex being released, personally.

I miss Henchmen the most. Back in 3e they were a wildly versatile squad that could be built to do most anything you needed them to (sort of like Deathwatch Veterans today, but without being about 5pts/model too expensive and with a set of interesting role-expanding special rules), nowadays they're a squad of flak-armoured Guard Sergeants who are at least 3pts/model too expensive and have a bunch of kit that's way too expensive to waste on models with that statline, and are mostly taken to give an 8pt Elites choice to detachment min/maxxers.

BrianDavion wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:

 LunarSol wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

"Standalone army" seems like a naff term in 8th edition. It's 5th edition leaking into 8th. Even my "Imperial Guard" army includes a Mechanicus detachment, and the fact that my Sororitas army doesn't include any other detachment is actively weakening it.

It's a pretty valid term for non Tyranid/Eldar Xenos, but overall I agree with this.

As for how Grey Knights should feel about Custodes? Honestly, its a pretty minor transgression compared to the Codex.... the Smite nerf.... and then Daemons randomly getting a rule that makes Grey Knights a liability vs the only niche they could claim. If anything, Custodes feel like they could be a beacon of hope that maybe GW has leaned how to fix GKs.... and will likely choose not to.

what deamon rule makes GKs a liability?

There is a stratagem that allows Daemons to come back if they're killed by Grey Knights, or some such nonsense.

that'd be fine and dandy if GKs where like 5th edition GKs and utterly OP against deamons. but they're not.

GK get to reroll all failed wounds against daemons in the fights phase and maximize smites. As a Daemon player, it isn't a cakewalk going against Grey Knights.

The Chaos Daemon stratagem is 2CP to return a non named character daemon unit. You could cheese it by having a non GK unit finish off the daemon unit.

I have found that in a non competitive setting my GK do incredibly well. To the point that I have yet to a lose a game with them.

That is playing a Paladin force with something like a Doomglaive, Knight Errant or Sicaran Venator to deal with armor. Maybe it's just the way I play or maybe my gaming group sucks. Either way I have routinely beaten AM, Chaos and Orks or different varieties.

That being said I do agree there are some things that have been mentioned that irk me some. I think the biggest thing is GK are touted as the best of the best space marines yet have things like LD 8 and 1 attack.

Either way I think they GK look great and I think the Custodes look great as well. I will likely be starting a small force of terminators to put with my GK.

ntin wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:

 LunarSol wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

"Standalone army" seems like a naff term in 8th edition. It's 5th edition leaking into 8th. Even my "Imperial Guard" army includes a Mechanicus detachment, and the fact that my Sororitas army doesn't include any other detachment is actively weakening it.

It's a pretty valid term for non Tyranid/Eldar Xenos, but overall I agree with this.

As for how Grey Knights should feel about Custodes? Honestly, its a pretty minor transgression compared to the Codex.... the Smite nerf.... and then Daemons randomly getting a rule that makes Grey Knights a liability vs the only niche they could claim. If anything, Custodes feel like they could be a beacon of hope that maybe GW has leaned how to fix GKs.... and will likely choose not to.

what deamon rule makes GKs a liability?

There is a stratagem that allows Daemons to come back if they're killed by Grey Knights, or some such nonsense.

that'd be fine and dandy if GKs where like 5th edition GKs and utterly OP against deamons. but they're not.

GK get to reroll all failed wounds against daemons in the fights phase and maximize smites. As a Daemon player, it isn't a cakewalk going against Grey Knights.

The Chaos Daemon stratagem is 2CP to return a non named character daemon unit. You could cheese it by having a non GK unit finish off the daemon unit.

Huh, good to know that grey Knights are trash vs demons now. Might as well write a rule that reads “you win vs grey Knights”

 BaconCatBug wrote:
The problem with Grey Knights is they are supposed to only fight Daemons, which means their rules have to affect daemons. These rules can't be free (That would be unfair to the Daemon Player) so the GK have to pay points for rules that would be useless 99% of the time.

The problem with Dakkadakka posters is they think lore is accurately represented on tabletop, which means their rules are bunk. These rules can be free (Chapter Tactics, Hive Fleet, Craftworld).

People harp on about lore accuracy all the time and its BS. Grey Knights are literally SM+1 that isn't represented on tabletop at all, neither is the anti-daemon gak. So guess what? THEY SHOULDN'T HAVE TO BE AN ANTI-DAEMON ARMY ON TT.

Ffs

 Quickjager wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
The problem with Grey Knights is they are supposed to only fight Daemons, which means their rules have to affect daemons. These rules can't be free (That would be unfair to the Daemon Player) so the GK have to pay points for rules that would be useless 99% of the time.

The problem with Dakkadakka posters is they think lore is accurately represented on tabletop, which means their rules are bunk. These rules can be free (Chapter Tactics, Hive Fleet, Craftworld).

People harp on about lore accuracy all the time and its BS. Grey Knights are literally SM+1 that isn't represented on tabletop at all, neither is the anti-daemon gak. So guess what? THEY SHOULDN'T HAVE TO BE AN ANTI-DAEMON ARMY ON TT.

Ffs

It's like people almost forgot that HUGE section in the 4th edition codex that listed out reasons Grey Knights fight other armies. And there was a good number of reasons too...

I'm virtually certain that was the 3rd edition codex. I'm not aware of any codex from 4th ed that included GK.

 BaconCatBug wrote:
The problem with Grey Knights is they are supposed to only fight Daemons, which means their rules have to affect daemons. These rules can't be free (That would be unfair to the Daemon Player) so the GK have to pay points for rules that would be useless 99% of the time.

Not necessarily if you make the rule something small like reroll 1's to hit or wound in a faction dripping with that kind of stuff in the form of captains and lieutenants it could be not to the point of adding to the cost kinda like death to the false emperor is for CSM. Also demons all ready get a hard counter to their "counter" this edition.

Im not a GK player, but i feel sorry for you, not b.c of Custodes, but b.c your Codex is trash.

I'm as salty as Lot's wife, the Allarus Custodes, Wardens and Venerable Landraider are just to many points, We didn't get enough viable Stratagems or Relics and we have to wait for Forge World to give us the rules for the rest of our army.

by viable stratigiums do you mean "obviously broken ones"?

 daedalus wrote:
I'm virtually certain that was the 3rd edition codex. I'm not aware of any codex from 4th ed that included GK.

Sorry I meant 3rd. 4th is when I started and i had a mildly sizable Grey Knight army.

Why do people keep speaking about GK as SM+1 ? I have never saw that except in some forum, it is not written like that in my 4th ed codex, they are just psy/anti daemons marines (has this thing changed ?)