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.

meleti wrote:

Karol wrote:

 Rolsheen wrote:
Honestly people complaining about full Knight armies and Lords of War in general seem to be holding grudges worthy of a Dwarfen King. Lords of War can be killed just as fast as anything else in 8th, just need to play better.

Do you have any tips, how to kill three knights with a GK army?

Yep. You most likely will not win because a pure Knights list is a hard counter to GK. If you’re looking for a TAC faction right now in 8th ed, pure GK is the wrong thing to play.

My advice would be to bring a Tallarn Supreme Command detachment with a Shadowsword. Or a Knights detachment with a Knight Castellan.

GK are supposed to battle daemons and not mecha. If they suck against giant robots then GW did an awesome job writing the GK codex.

I thought that in their fluff they kill multiple deamons, and to become a paladin a GK has to kill a demon, naked without any weapons or armor. Seems like they should be able to kill some tanks that walk. They shouldn't be tougher to kill then a bloodthirster or keeper of secret.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
How did his Valiant get within 12” of your Rhino on turn 1?

How was Draigo onnthe table on turn 1? He starts off the table and can only arrive starting turn 2 per the Beta rule.

Are you not using terrain?

SJ

We are running an event and every army is allowed to infiltrate two units, I infiltrated the rhino and the strikes inside it, he infiltrated IG on a far objective and the knight with the cannon to the middle of the board. He killed draigo by drawing line of sight to him. We play with a lot of terrain half the board is some sort of terrain, only knights see over it or it has doors, windows etc So they shot through those.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

tneva82 wrote:
Good sized building wall assuming it's not riddled with holes ala GW ruin will protect anything behind it from even warlord titan.

You have weird amount of units. The knight list is just about 2k though pretty much requires gallant there. But for GK that sounds small. 3 grand master on dreadknight(these are GK's best units so better max out on them...It's not called codex GMDK without reason), 3 strike squads, 2 interceptor squads and stormhawk would be around 1650 pts. Add in some upgrades and maybe another squad. 9 units there already.

Those GMK's will really hurt knight in combat(no inv save there while you posses 4++ minimum). You should get at least 1 of knights with those.

That flier will strip wounds and be somewhat resilient. Might be off with that one but seemed like it could work. Alternatively more squads to hide around.

But best advice is hope for CA to give major boost to GK. They desperately need it.

I have only 5 strikes, and I do take them. And only 1 dreadknight, but he isn't a grandmaster, no idea if GW even sells those. Maybe they are FW, and at my store they don't play with FW stuff. I have termintors that I run as paladins, draigo, the ndk and the strikes in a rhino. I could also run an inqusitor in termintor armor, but I don't have their codex, and was told he has the wrong base size to be legally used.

 Strg Alt wrote:

meleti wrote:

Karol wrote:

 Rolsheen wrote:
Honestly people complaining about full Knight armies and Lords of War in general seem to be holding grudges worthy of a Dwarfen King. Lords of War can be killed just as fast as anything else in 8th, just need to play better.

Do you have any tips, how to kill three knights with a GK army?

Yep. You most likely will not win because a pure Knights list is a hard counter to GK. If you’re looking for a TAC faction right now in 8th ed, pure GK is the wrong thing to play.

My advice would be to bring a Tallarn Supreme Command detachment with a Shadowsword. Or a Knights detachment with a Knight Castellan.

GK are supposed to battle daemons and not mecha. If they suck against giant robots then GW did an awesome job writing the GK codex.

I'm not sure I can describe how wrong I find this statement. Every faction should be effective against all other factions. Why else would you even play the game.

jcd386 wrote:

 Strg Alt wrote:

meleti wrote:

Karol wrote:

 Rolsheen wrote:
Honestly people complaining about full Knight armies and Lords of War in general seem to be holding grudges worthy of a Dwarfen King. Lords of War can be killed just as fast as anything else in 8th, just need to play better.

Do you have any tips, how to kill three knights with a GK army?

Yep. You most likely will not win because a pure Knights list is a hard counter to GK. If you’re looking for a TAC faction right now in 8th ed, pure GK is the wrong thing to play.

My advice would be to bring a Tallarn Supreme Command detachment with a Shadowsword. Or a Knights detachment with a Knight Castellan.

GK are supposed to battle daemons and not mecha. If they suck against giant robots then GW did an awesome job writing the GK codex.

I'm not sure I can describe how wrong I find this statement. Every faction should be effective against all other factions. Why else would you even play the game.

Because your definition of "faction" is so outdated its not even funny. IoM is a faction, not GK.
GK, in their origin, where a specialized anti-daemon force meant to be used as allies.
In their fluff they are a specialized anti-daemon force meant to strike in small numbers to "assist" another group, rather than lead their own wars.

A bunch of gray knights going off to hunt orks, tau and necrons-who have nothing to do with daemons, is odd flavor-wise, and is not necessary to be "fair"
Just like bringing only nati-tank will make you weak against hordes, bringing only anti-daemons should make you struggle when there are no daemons to be found.

Because its a simple fact-daemons are a big thing, and are a BIG part of chaos. heck, even within the CSM codex a hell lot of units are classified as daemons.
And if you make GK "fair" against everyone, and then again makes them experts against daemons-then they are outrageously overpowering daemons, basically phasing them out of the game.

You cant have it both ways, there is just no way.
Either they are fair against everyone and utterly crushing daemons, or they are good against daemons but struggle otherwise
You other option is to make them fair against everyone and nothing special against daemons-and if you went that path, why bother having them in the setting to begin with? we got plenty of "even speclialer marines" around.


GK were a design mistake to make an independent codex to begin with.
When they were paired with inquisition and assassins in the same codex, it was less of a burden-but they have NEVER been an independant codex in a ruleset that didn't include allied-because they are expected to be (usually) used in cohesion with other IoM armies.

We are past the age of all codices being self-containing self-sufficient all-comer armies, the game went FAR too big for it and there are FAR too many specialized small factions to keep bitching about the fack GK are, and always were, a specialized small faction.

jcd386 wrote:

 Strg Alt wrote:

meleti wrote:

Karol wrote:

 Rolsheen wrote:
Honestly people complaining about full Knight armies and Lords of War in general seem to be holding grudges worthy of a Dwarfen King. Lords of War can be killed just as fast as anything else in 8th, just need to play better.

Do you have any tips, how to kill three knights with a GK army?

Yep. You most likely will not win because a pure Knights list is a hard counter to GK. If you’re looking for a TAC faction right now in 8th ed, pure GK is the wrong thing to play.

My advice would be to bring a Tallarn Supreme Command detachment with a Shadowsword. Or a Knights detachment with a Knight Castellan.

GK are supposed to battle daemons and not mecha. If they suck against giant robots then GW did an awesome job writing the GK codex.

I'm not sure I can describe how wrong I find this statement. Every faction should be effective against all other factions. Why else would you even play the game.

The GK codex is pretty much superfluous from a background perspective. GK were a SINGLE elite unit clad in terminator armour to combat daemons. Period. Nothing more and nothing less. And they excelled at their job. A few years later GW corporate jerks come along and force game designers to create another codex out of thin air because 40K lacks a healthy amount of power armoured goons. Then we were blessed with the GK codex including aweful baby-carriers and Draigo Superman. This was the beginning of truly atrocious fluff. I couldn´t care less, if they suck or not. But one thing should be clear: Killing daemons which are mostly cc foes requires a different skill set and resources than to fight giant mecha. Every imperial general who wastes precious daemon hunters vs. those robots should be executed on the spot for total stupidity. If you want to take down lots of armour, you call the guard.

Harlequins are in the same boat like GK. Just a nonsensical unit bloat in order to sell gamers a new codex. What will come next? Codex Kroot? Nah, that would be silly. But I expect Codex Ratlings in the future to make a short appearance.

I get that, but once GW makes a faction into a full codex, i think they owe it to the players to make it good. GK aren't even good against daemons, let alone anything else. And that isn't because of a fluff reason, it's just GW's poor understanding of the game and inability to balance things correctly.

Fluff < actual gameplay, once you put something into the game.

And just because you don't like that faction doesn't mean that people who do shouldn't be able to enjoy it as a real army.

 Strg Alt wrote:

jcd386 wrote:

 Strg Alt wrote:

meleti wrote:

Karol wrote:

 Rolsheen wrote:
Honestly people complaining about full Knight armies and Lords of War in general seem to be holding grudges worthy of a Dwarfen King. Lords of War can be killed just as fast as anything else in 8th, just need to play better.

Do you have any tips, how to kill three knights with a GK army?

Yep. You most likely will not win because a pure Knights list is a hard counter to GK. If you’re looking for a TAC faction right now in 8th ed, pure GK is the wrong thing to play.

My advice would be to bring a Tallarn Supreme Command detachment with a Shadowsword. Or a Knights detachment with a Knight Castellan.

GK are supposed to battle daemons and not mecha. If they suck against giant robots then GW did an awesome job writing the GK codex.

I'm not sure I can describe how wrong I find this statement. Every faction should be effective against all other factions. Why else would you even play the game.

The GK codex is pretty much superfluous from a background perspective. GK were a SINGLE elite unit clad in terminator armour to combat daemons. Period. Nothing more and nothing less. And they excelled at their job. A few years later GW corporate jerks come along and force game designers to create another codex out of thin air because 40K lacks a healthy amount of power armoured goons. Then we were blessed with the GK codex including aweful baby-carriers and Draigo Superman. This was the beginning of truly atrocious fluff. I couldn´t care less, if they suck or not. But one thing should be clear: Killing daemons which are mostly cc foes requires a different skill set and resources than to fight giant mecha. Every imperial general who wastes precious daemon hunters vs. those robots should be executed on the spot for total stupidity. If you want to take down lots of armour, you call the guard.

Harlequins are in the same boat like GK. Just a nonsensical unit bloat in order to sell gamers a new codex. What will come next? Codex Kroot? Nah, that would be silly. But I expect Codex Ratlings in the future to make a short appearance.

Daemonhunters on 3rd had the strike squad and the terminators + vehicles and a couple of hqs, but they were correctly used as one of 2 allies books and aimed as a wing of the inquisition. The teleporting and exo skeletons came in 5th.

I believe they were a single terminator unit in 2nd but unsure. Either way they've grown steadily, it's not like it popped up overnight. I'd argue they need more new stuff.

 BoomWolf wrote:


You cant have it both ways, there is just no way.
Either they are fair against everyone and utterly crushing daemons, or they are good against daemons but struggle otherwise
You other option is to make them fair against everyone and nothing special against daemons-and if you went that path, why bother having them in the setting to begin with? we got plenty of "even speclialer marines" around.


GK were a design mistake to make an independent codex to begin with.
When they were paired with inquisition and assassins in the same codex, it was less of a burden-but they have NEVER been an independant codex in a ruleset that didn't include allied-because they are expected to be (usually) used in cohesion with other IoM armies.

We are past the age of all codices being self-containing self-sufficient all-comer armies, the game went FAR too big for it and there are FAR too many specialized small factions to keep bitching about the fack GK are, and always were, a specialized small faction.

I remember reading an article where someone from the GW design team said that in this edition aka 8th ed, they want to make factions stronger and make it more worthwhile to play a faction. Also GK are horrible vs demons, so we are not having it any way. In fact aside for eldar, demons are the stupidest match up for GKs.

As faction goes, if you see IoM as a faction and not GK or some other codex faction. You may as well remove most of them. Nothing a GK codex with ally can do, can't be done with a combination of same ally and some other codex faction. In fact a lot of times it works better, because GK have 0 synergy with other IoM units, while something like a custodes can bring a banner that helps IG survive etc

Also if the goal of GW is for people to play multi faction, then why can eldar or IG play mono lists just fine. Same with dark eldar.

Karol wrote:


Also if the goal of GW is for people to play multi faction, then why can eldar or IG play mono lists just fine. Same with dark eldar.

does the same hold true for harlquins though?
Because they are the more fair comparison of a small-scale codex representing an uber niche force.

How about thousand sons? are they really holding their own without allies to a meaningful level beyond the magnus crutch?
Heck, they are even the same niche of magic marines. and I'm fully aware that as long I keep my TS pure (and I do, because I feel like it)-Im not going to be top tier and have every matchup be "fair".

solo inquisition?

Sisters?

Even IK only work to any degree as solo codex because they are all T8 and benefit from oversaturating AT guns.


GK are. and always have been, a mini-dex.

jcd386 wrote:
I get that, but once GW makes a faction into a full codex, i think they owe it to the players to make it good. GK aren't even good against daemons, let alone anything else. And that isn't because of a fluff reason, it's just GW's poor understanding of the game and inability to balance things correctly.

Fluff < actual gameplay, once you put something into the game.

And just because you don't like that faction doesn't mean that people who do shouldn't be able to enjoy it as a real army.

I only dislike the forced new creation of unnecessary codices. GK terminators teleporting down to the battlefield to slay greater daemons is an integral part of 40K. All the other stuff associated now with GK is imo just dumb stuff.
It is really heartbreaking to read that they can´t even battle daemons properly. I guess it has something to do that hordes flourish in 8th due to the removal of blast and template weapons. Ah, edition changes always cause such dramatic upheavals.
Grumpy GK players should just use the old daemon hunter or 2nd codex. It definitely beats ragequitting and buying a new army.

GK do have a number of anti-vehicle options though: Dreadnoughts, Land Raiders, and the Flyers, in addition to stuff like Paladins with Daemon Hammers.

Of course, most of these options are mediocre, but that's more of a problem with unit/codex balance than GK lacking options.

 Strg Alt wrote:


Harlequins are in the same boat like GK. Just a nonsensical unit bloat in order to sell gamers a new codex. What will come next? Codex Kroot? Nah, that would be silly. But I expect Codex Ratlings in the future to make a short appearance.

But I expect Codex Ratlings in the future to make a short appearance.

Codex Ratlings

a short appearance.

meleti wrote:
GK do have a number of anti-vehicle options though: Dreadnoughts, Land Raiders, and the Flyers, in addition to stuff like Paladins with Daemon Hammers.

Of course, most of these options are mediocre, but that's more of a problem with unit/codex balance than GK lacking options.

GK are very rare. Each and everyone is supposed to grab his storm bolter & nemesis weapon to hunt denizens from the warp. Just the thought of wasting their potential by ordering them to pilot vehicles is mindboggling. But I am sure the codex writers have a convenient excuse for this at hand like these guys didn´t pass the final test or are auxillary staff.

BoomWolf explained it already perfectly. GK, Harlequins and Deathwatch are all commando units. Elite and small in number trained to perform a very specific task. You add these units to a regular army but they should never be an army by themselves. If everybody is elite then none is. Now 8th came around and punished overcosted elite infantry with 1 wound. What do you do as GW? Address these problems in a way that helps owners of these minis? Nope, they create a new elite army with more wounds than 1 to boost sales.

Are Knights FLGS friendly? Well, giant robots have been introduced to 40K and they will stay. This was imo a bad decision but what do I know. These Knights can still have good games vs. other giant walker lists (IK or even Wraithknight or Gorkanaut lists in the future) or armoured companies which have a decent amount of AT. Though against all other kind of lists it would create a tedious game.
People wrote that you just have to play the objective game and outlast the opposition but where is the fun in that? You paint up 200 grunts, park them on objectives and show the four knights the middle finger because the framework of the rules won´t allow him to crush these ants due to a constrained game length. This is a recipe for a bad game and very unimmersive.
Just imagine the movie Pacific Rim with this kind of modus operandi. Instead of giant robots to combat the Kaiju threat you send in waves and waves of cannon fodder units.

 BoomWolf wrote:

Karol wrote:


Also if the goal of GW is for people to play multi faction, then why can eldar or IG play mono lists just fine. Same with dark eldar.

does the same hold true for harlquins though?
Because they are the more fair comparison of a small-scale codex representing an uber niche force.

.

they have fewer units then GK have, why should they have it better then GK. They have 1 transporter , 1 unit and some characters. We have 2 termintor units, 4 units in power armor, more heros, land raiders, rhinos, rhinos with hvy weapons and Sturmravens, on top of that we have NDKs, two dreads.

Hard to win right now with solo grey knights. They just don't counter enough but are easily countered by most armies.

Dreadknights need to double or triple team an imperial Knight to beat it. The rest of the army is pretty rough vs knights. I've had voldus do good work vs knights in a small detachment and just throw 6-8 mortal wounds at it a turn with smite+purge soul+vortex of doom. If he gets into cc and doesn't die... He can usually put 6 wounds on a knight a turn. But one solid hit from a knight chainsword will end his life.

Grey knights have one advantage on knights inn close combat... invul saves in combat.

This may also sound weird but... With hammerhand our regular troops wound on 5 with typically ap-2 and d3 wounds. You could chip through a knight fairly well like that. It's just the "not dying first that is the issue.

A hammer handed soul glaive user will get about 75% of his to be wounds.

Also, focused smites on to one Knight could pull off quite a few wounds a turn. Knight heavy armies tend to not have much chaff out in front of them. If placement is smart you could put voldus doing approx 6 mw + mw from the rest of your army. But you would have to spam it. Again, against popular belief, a brother captain can help here.

Also... Don't play with the beta test rules.

 Strg Alt wrote:

People wrote that you just have to play the objective game and outlast the opposition but where is the fun in that? You paint up 200 grunts, park them on objectives and show the four knights the middle finger because the framework of the rules won´t allow him to crush these ants due to a constrained game length. This is a recipe for a bad game and very unimmersive.
Just imagine the movie Pacific Rim with this kind of modus operandi. Instead of giant robots to combat the Kaiju threat you send in waves and waves of cannon fodder units.

Worked well enough for the Red Army.... Quantity has a quality all its own. You know, the Soviet Union may very well have defeated the Kaiju with sheer numbers and force of will alone.
But you are correct, Imperial Knights make the game very bianary, the opponent has enough anti tank to stop them, and you can have a game. The opponent doesn't, and its just either delaying the inevitable or a crushing defeat as the Knights run rampant.

I don't know. An all custodes army is going to rough to face as well. Same thing. So, should we outright refuse to play certain codexes? Pity the boy that sunk all of his savings on a pure custodes or a pure knights army. Now no one will play him...

Karol wrote:

I have only 5 strikes, and I do take them. And only 1 dreadknight, but he isn't a grandmaster, no idea if GW even sells those. Maybe they are FW, and at my store they don't play with FW stuff. I have termintors that I run as paladins, draigo, the ndk and the strikes in a rhino. I could also run an inqusitor in termintor armor, but I don't have their codex, and was told he has the wrong base size to be legally used.

Is there some sort of model difference between strikes and regular squad?

As for grandmaster dreadknight it's conversion thing but you can get that by just painting something leadershippy looking colour scheme.

If you play one of the worst if not the worst codex and dont' even field only unit worth anything in the codex no surprise you strugle.

And as for bases if it's base it originally came with it's 100% legal according to GW.

With people saying they would like a heads up if facing a Knight force, while they are a polarising army would people be expecting a heads up of other polarising armies like massive hordes. In any case from the perspective of a Knight player would you want to play against someone who will only play against you if they can tailor their force to beat you?

About as much as I would like to play against anybody who tailors lists. Winning army is hell of a lot easier if you tailor lists against it.

List tailoring is cheating. So, no.

If I'm playing at the LGS, and my opponent admits his list has no realistic point of being able to win, I'd encourage him to list tailor to give me a stronger game.

If I can play against a handicap in practice, I'll get better, till actual tourney play feels easy.

Point handicaps are MUCH better than knowledge handicaps.

What is your rational?

Well, if you give someone say 15% more points, they still have to plan and build a well-rounded list as opposed to serving the enemy army on a silver platter.

How did you arrive at 15%? How does that work better than saying Ohh, swap out that 30 man squad and that 30 man squad for some AT options?

I just made it up. I'd handicap new marine players vs Drukhari at 33%. Or even 50%.

 Humble Guardsman wrote:

 Strg Alt wrote:


Harlequins are in the same boat like GK. Just a nonsensical unit bloat in order to sell gamers a new codex. What will come next? Codex Kroot? Nah, that would be silly. But I expect Codex Ratlings in the future to make a short appearance.

But I expect Codex Ratlings in the future to make a short appearance.

Codex Ratlings

a short appearance.

I apologize. Germans are not supposed to have a sense of humour.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Volkmair wrote:
With people saying they would like a heads up if facing a Knight force, while they are a polarising army would people be expecting a heads up of other polarising armies like massive hordes. In any case from the perspective of a Knight player would you want to play against someone who will only play against you if they can tailor their force to beat you?

How you organize your games is up to you. If I am going to have a tabletop game at a weekend, I´ll make damn sure that it is not a colossal waste of time. It would be stupid for my Catachan Jungle Fighters to square off against four IK. Therefore I will have a chat with my acquaintance about points, army composition and scenario. Nowadays 40K has units with widely differing strengths and doing blind pick-up games seldom results in a satisfying game.

 Strg Alt wrote:

How you organize your games is up to you. If I am going to have a tabletop game at a weekend, I´ll make damn sure that it is not a colossal waste of time. It would be stupid for my Catachan Jungle Fighters to square off against four IK. Therefore I will have a chat with my acquaintance about points, army composition and scenario. Nowadays 40K has units with widely differing strengths and doing blind pick-up games seldom results in a satisfying game.

I think I am to this point in the game. I have no interest in playing a game where the object is to remove 50-66% of the opposing army before the other player gets a turn. Some armies just seem geared for that turn 2-3 win, and it is fine. But when I see that coming, I just extend my hand and say "good game". I'm definitely not having a good time at that point, and the game is definitely not what I expected out of it... so instead of letting them sadistically get their jollies off on an army more thought out for narrative and playing against more combined arms... I'll just shake on it and save us both the bad time

There is definitely a line between "well put together casual list" and "I'm going to throttle you competitive". Sometimes people cross over than line unexpectedly, though usually in the more pick-up oriented games... it seems like a throwback to 7th where everyone just wants to jam their opponent into submission with their newest collection of busted stuff. No interest in that :(

edit: not that I think Knights themselves are into this territory. I think they are solid and beatable. It was more an analysis on how satisfaction with pick-up games is going down due to a rise in competitive gaming at the tables.

Purifying Tempest wrote:

 Strg Alt wrote:

How you organize your games is up to you. If I am going to have a tabletop game at a weekend, I´ll make damn sure that it is not a colossal waste of time. It would be stupid for my Catachan Jungle Fighters to square off against four IK. Therefore I will have a chat with my acquaintance about points, army composition and scenario. Nowadays 40K has units with widely differing strengths and doing blind pick-up games seldom results in a satisfying game.

I think I am to this point in the game. I have no interest in playing a game where the object is to remove 50-66% of the opposing army before the other player gets a turn. Some armies just seem geared for that turn 2-3 win, and it is fine. But when I see that coming, I just extend my hand and say "good game". I'm definitely not having a good time at that point, and the game is definitely not what I expected out of it... so instead of letting them sadistically get their jollies off on an army more thought out for narrative and playing against more combined arms... I'll just shake on it and save us both the bad time

There is definitely a line between "well put together casual list" and "I'm going to throttle you competitive". Sometimes people cross over than line unexpectedly, though usually in the more pick-up oriented games... it seems like a throwback to 7th where everyone just wants to jam their opponent into submission with their newest collection of busted stuff. No interest in that :(

edit: not that I think Knights themselves are into this territory. I think they are solid and beatable. It was more an analysis on how satisfaction with pick-up games is going down due to a rise in competitive gaming at the tables.

I think knights, and just about every other big model in 40k is in the same category. They might not all be as useful as each other, but they all have similar effects on opponents. If I plop down a bunch of greater daemons in a pick up casual game, I might get some moaning and groaning (I do it often, and get moans often) however if I plopped them down in a tournament or competitive settings, I would be seen as a poor list builder. Mortarion has been in this position for quite some time, super awesome dude, giant fire magnet, and whatever he touches will probably die. However he lives in the area between competitive and casual. Too spooky to play against a new player, too squishy to play against a veteran player.

This is part of the reason I love maelstrom missions in pick up games. If I bring my monster mash list, I struggle to choose between objectives and murdering stuff. Eternal war missions are pretty much "kill as much as you can without moving off the objective" Knights will have a tough time with objectives, buuuut a lot of casual players I see just play kill points, which knights and monster mash do very well.