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.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 oni wrote:
IMO, it's a 99.999% armchair generals who are simply looking at tournament representation who are saying <Faction> is bad.

I know a couple of Grey Knights players who actively play (and in local tournaments) and they do incredibly well against all manner of opponents. Grey Knights are not bad at all let alone the worst codex. Just because they're not winning tournaments doesn't mean that they're bad.

Necrons; while I have little play experience against them (really only one game - which I lost because Forge World), I do watch a lot of battle reports on YouTube and they seem fine to me.

AdMech... Yes, there are some serious deficiencies here IMO, but I may be bias because this is the faction I'm primarily playing at the moment. However, I still win about half of my games overall and consistently place in the top 50% in my local tournaments. FYI, I have not been able to beat Grey Knights with AdMech in 8th edition; ever.

Honestly, if you can't beat Grey Knights with AdMech, that says a lot about how low of skill you have as a player. You have zero excuses.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

HuskyWarhammer wrote:

 oni wrote:
IMO, it's a 99.999% armchair generals who are simply looking at tournament representation who are saying <Faction> is bad.

I know a couple of Grey Knights players who actively play (and in local tournaments) and they do incredibly well against all manner of opponents. Grey Knights are not bad at all let alone the worst codex. Just because they're not winning tournaments doesn't mean that they're bad.

Necrons; while I have little play experience against them (really only one game - which I lost because Forge World), I do watch a lot of battle reports on YouTube and they seem fine to me.

AdMech... Yes, there are some serious deficiencies here IMO, but I may be bias because this is the faction I'm primarily playing at the moment. However, I still win about half of my games overall and consistently place in the top 50% in my local tournaments. FYI, I have not been able to beat Grey Knights with AdMech in 8th edition; ever.

I have a personal theory that people tend to put more weight to thinking an army is underpowered when they own it, and stronger when they don’t. It’s like loss aversion - you’re more likely to remember when your opponent pulled off that crazy manouver to destroy you than if he tried and failed. I also suspect that’s why the SM fanbase has been complaining so loudly this edition - they got a middle-tier army through most of it and that feels weak.

Pray tell what Grey Knights players are missing out on in their codex they just NEVER noticed even though the codex has been out for a year.

In fact do me one better. Tell all of us what we're doing wrong in the Grey Knights Tactica. I'll even give you the link to make your life easier.
https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/727042.page
Chapter Approved won't be out for a while, so your tactical genius should serve us well before we have to readjust. Looking forward to your post!

Im also always very interested in what is it that we (in my case Necron) players dont see what other people tell us whats good and what to do with necrons....Especially YouTube BatReps are a GREAT indicator of an armys power level!

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

HuskyWarhammer wrote:
Bro, I never said Grey Knights were "fine." (Actually, I agree that they're one of the bottom-tier armies right now.) You seem very intent on reading things as personal slights against you when they're nothing of the sort.

Your post was basically defending his view point on Grey Knights, so I'm overreacting to something you did not actually say. Simple.

Fixed that for you.

So maybe time to close this thread till new rumours are posted so I don't have to compulsively check it every ten minutes hoping for sweet news to only find people arguing about what's the worst Codex etc.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 oni wrote:
IMO, it's a 99.999% armchair generals who are simply looking at tournament representation who are saying <Faction> is bad.

I know a couple of Grey Knights players who actively play (and in local tournaments) and they do incredibly well against all manner of opponents. Grey Knights are not bad at all let alone the worst codex. Just because they're not winning tournaments doesn't mean that they're bad.

Necrons; while I have little play experience against them (really only one game - which I lost because Forge World), I do watch a lot of battle reports on YouTube and they seem fine to me.

AdMech... Yes, there are some serious deficiencies here IMO, but I may be bias because this is the faction I'm primarily playing at the moment. However, I still win about half of my games overall and consistently place in the top 50% in my local tournaments. FYI, I have not been able to beat Grey Knights with AdMech in 8th edition; ever.

Honestly, if you can't beat Grey Knights with AdMech, that says a lot about how low of skill you have as a player. You have zero excuses.

The GK's are so bad even index orks felt sorry for the poor fellows. It was just steamroll over and index orks were very weak to begin with...Poor knights. Hopefully CA helps them. They def deserve it


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 RandyMcStab wrote:
So maybe time to close this thread till new rumours are posted so I don't have to compulsively check it every ten minutes hoping for sweet news to only find people arguing about what's the worst Codex etc.

Or you could simply not check then and leave people discuss about current rumours? After all this forum isn't just listing rumours but also discussing about them. Funny that Discussion in discussion forum ;-)

You're not discussing the rumours.

tneva82 wrote:

Or you could simply not check then and leave people discuss about current rumours? After all this forum isn't just listing rumours but also discussing about them. Funny that Discussion in discussion forum ;-)

You do realize there is a topic associated with this discussion that you, Slayer, and your fellow netlister non-players are ignoring?

Then how do I know when actual content this thread is supposed to be about happens? Instead of discussions about WBB, GK lack of anti tank, how the AdMech line is too shallow etc.

 oni wrote:
IMO, it's a 99.999% armchair generals who are simply looking at tournament representation who are saying <Faction> is bad.

I know a couple of Grey Knights players who actively play (and in local tournaments) and they do incredibly well against all manner of opponents. Grey Knights are not bad at all let alone the worst codex. Just because they're not winning tournaments doesn't mean that they're bad.

Necrons; while I have little play experience against them (really only one game - which I lost because Forge World), I do watch a lot of battle reports on YouTube and they seem fine to me.

AdMech... Yes, there are some serious deficiencies here IMO, but I may be bias because this is the faction I'm primarily playing at the moment. However, I still win about half of my games overall and consistently place in the top 50% in my local tournaments. FYI, I have not been able to beat Grey Knights with AdMech in 8th edition; ever.

Just because they're not winning tournaments doesn't mean that they're bad.

This made me pause and reread it a few times, just to make sure I wasn't taking you out of context. Good armies win, bad armies lose, so A Priori, if an army can't win, it is by definition a bad army.

IMO, it's a 99.999% armchair generals who are simply looking at tournament representation who are saying <Faction> is bad.

Good thing you prefaced that with "In my opinion", makes your ad hominem on anyone with an evidence based view safe from criticism, since everyone is entitled to their opinion . You seem to miss the fact that the people who are among the winners circle at major events, got their because they put in the work. They looked at the data, reviewed the meta, and then went through multiple iterations of theorycrafting and testing to come up with a list that gave them the most advantages so they could get to the top easier. If they avoid certain armies it's because they feel those armies will hurt their chances of winning. So checking what forces the top players are taking, is checking what they think are the best faction combinations and units.

I know a couple of Grey Knights players who actively play (and in local tournaments) and they do incredibly well against all manner of opponents. Grey Knights are not bad at all let alone the worst codex.

The plural of anecdote is not data. It's like saying "It can't be winter, yesterday and today were warm" while looking at a calendar that says it's december 21st. The preference for personal anecdote over data is the number one human cognitive failing. It's why we have an anti-vaccine movement, it's why Goop is a product, and it's why we have so many fact resistant voters that democracies across the world are struggling to govern. If you take one thing away from this let it be this, Never trust your gut when data runs to the contrary. As a human you have so many biases that you can't even identify them all, and while you think you might be thinking clearly, you can't see the forest from the trees. If you care enough to have an opinion on something, you should care enough to put in the work to make sure it's fact based.

Necrons; while I have little play experience against them (really only one game - which I lost because Forge World), I do watch a lot of battle reports on YouTube and they seem fine to me.

The armies in youtube batreps are composed in such that the presenters think it will be a good fight, no one wants to watch a complete blow out.

I'm depressed that CA won't be out until mid December at the earliest and that we have no real rumors.

I'm also getting worried that only the very bottom armies will see improvements and that the unplayed models from other armies won't get needed improvements. I'd love Greater Daemons and the non-Nurgle Daemons to see tabletops again. Not to mention Plague Marines and the overpriced Death Guard HQs.

That poster said Necrons were fine too? They really don't know what they're talking about.

 oni wrote:
IMO, it's a 99.999% armchair generals who are simply looking at tournament representation who are saying <Faction> is bad.

I know a couple of Grey Knights players who actively play (and in local tournaments) and they do incredibly well against all manner of opponents. Grey Knights are not bad at all let alone the worst codex. Just because they're not winning tournaments doesn't mean that they're bad.

Necrons; while I have little play experience against them (really only one game - which I lost because Forge World), I do watch a lot of battle reports on YouTube and they seem fine to me.

AdMech... Yes, there are some serious deficiencies here IMO, but I may be bias because this is the faction I'm primarily playing at the moment. However, I still win about half of my games overall and consistently place in the top 50% in my local tournaments. FYI, I have not been able to beat Grey Knights with AdMech in 8th edition; ever.

There's a reason people don't use locals as evidence when arguing for or against army performance and that's because it's a really really dumb thing to do. Most local metas have a couple of halfway decent players trying desperately not to pummel the hobbyists too hard into the dirt. Even tournaments tend to see competitive players taking deliberately odd choices or entirely new army setups to test out rather than just gunning for the win.

To compare your numbers, my sisters of battle lists have not lost a single non-tournament game this entire edition and I finish top 3 consistently at tournaments. While I'm pretty good at 40k, I'm not great. I even have a primaris army I bring to goof around with that I think I've lost 2 games with ever. And again, that's not because I'm particularly skilled at the game but because building a list that isn't a random hodgepodge of nonsense is really all takes to win in locals.

It's clubbing baby seals most of the time, and even Grey Knights can club a baby seal.

 Kirasu wrote:

 oni wrote:
IMO, it's a 99.999% armchair generals who are simply looking at tournament representation who are saying <Faction> is bad.

I know a couple of Grey Knights players who actively play (and in local tournaments) and they do incredibly well against all manner of opponents. Grey Knights are not bad at all let alone the worst codex. Just because they're not winning tournaments doesn't mean that they're bad.

Necrons; while I have little play experience against them (really only one game - which I lost because Forge World), I do watch a lot of battle reports on YouTube and they seem fine to me.

AdMech... Yes, there are some serious deficiencies here IMO, but I may be bias because this is the faction I'm primarily playing at the moment. However, I still win about half of my games overall and consistently place in the top 50% in my local tournaments. FYI, I have not been able to beat Grey Knights with AdMech in 8th edition; ever.

Tournaments are a good example of what is "good" or "bad". If you lose most of your games against competitive armies played by skilled opponents then generally there are only 3 options. Your army is bad, you are not skilled or both :p Its an unfortunate truth that a lot of wargamers won't accept.

Take football, for example, if your team goes 1-15 for the year then you are a *bad* team. However if your professional team wanders over to a High School field and beats every high school team in the area that doesn't mean your team is good, it means your opponents are just that much worse than you are.

Grey Knights *are* a terrible army based on game results, model rules and points. Just because they may win in your local scene only really means the local scene isn't very strong.

This is largely why I tend to defer to high-placing tournament winning players when it comes to things outside of my own experience; I'm fully aware I'm not the best player at either of the armies I play. I win some and lose some whether I'm playing Thousand Sons or Necrons because, well, I tend to play with people who are on the same level of not-very-good that I am and none of us are playing our armies at their full potential.

Despite this I can still see the deficiencies of Necrons - they very clearly don't do what they're supposed to do as one of the marquee resilience armies relies heavily on squishy-per-point Destroyers teleporting onto the board and nuking something instantly - and the fact that better players than I agree with me (Thousand Sons have very strong characters that largely carry the faction to viability and Necrons are so weak as to not even be worth taking to a competitive setting) helps verify that my opinions are accurate despite my deficiencies as a player.

*sigh* nope, not going there.

Anyway, do you suppose we will see previews starting next week?

The fact that Chapter Approved is confirmed to have new rules for some armies (Intercessors will be getting the option to take a Power Fist, at least Imperial Fists and their Successors will). I wouldn't be surprised if we see an all new Datasheet. I am kinda hoping that the Sicarian Ruststalkers get a new datasheet. As of right now, they are trash, and the Dataspike doesn't have rules.

Are there other current models that, in the kit, do not have rules for options in the kit? If so, maybe they will fix that.

 casvalremdeikun wrote:
*sigh* nope, not going there.

Anyway, do you suppose we will see previews starting next week?

The fact that Chapter Approved is confirmed to have new rules for some armies (Intercessors will be getting the option to take a Power Fist, at least Imperial Fists and their Successors will). I wouldn't be surprised if we see an all new Datasheet. I am kinda hoping that the Sicarian Ruststalkers get a new datasheet. As of right now, they are trash, and the Dataspike doesn't have rules.

Are there other current models that, in the kit, do not have rules for options in the kit? If so, maybe they will fix that.

Could just be a little insert into the upgrade pack that <Imperial Fist> intercessor sergeants may take power fists for +x points.

 Crazyterran wrote:

 casvalremdeikun wrote:
*sigh* nope, not going there.

Anyway, do you suppose we will see previews starting next week?

The fact that Chapter Approved is confirmed to have new rules for some armies (Intercessors will be getting the option to take a Power Fist, at least Imperial Fists and their Successors will). I wouldn't be surprised if we see an all new Datasheet. I am kinda hoping that the Sicarian Ruststalkers get a new datasheet. As of right now, they are trash, and the Dataspike doesn't have rules.

Are there other current models that, in the kit, do not have rules for options in the kit? If so, maybe they will fix that.

Could just be a little insert into the upgrade pack that <Imperial Fist> intercessor sergeants may take power fists for +x points.

GW Facebook said explicitly that Power Fists for Intercessors would be in Chapter Approved.

To be honest in the future I'm hoping for a single upgrade sprue for Intercessors: Fist, Axe, Gatling Cannon, Las Talon, Powersword, Chainaxe, that kind of thing. Intercessors (outside of DW) really need a bit of help to be a threat on the table. They do a few roles pretty damn well, but actually damaging anything ain't really one of them.

 grouchoben wrote:
To be honest in the future I'm hoping for a single upgrade sprue for Intercessors: Fist, Axe, Gatling Cannon, Las Talon, Powersword, Chainaxe, that kind of thing. Intercessors (outside of DW) really need a bit of help to be a threat on the table. They do a few roles pretty damn well, but actually damaging anything ain't really one of them.

Agreed. They sometimes do surprisingly well in combat* but their guns are irrelevant. It would be great if one of them could have a Gatling gun or something.

I’ve had a theory for a long time that the “holy bolter” needs a massive upgrade. Basically every troop armed with one is bad, doing nowhere near the damage it should for its price. Sisters, DW vets and strike squads (pre needs) work because they can get loads of storm bolters instead.

 Grimgold wrote:

The plural of anecdote is not data. It's like saying "It can't be winter, yesterday and today were warm" while looking at a calendar that says it's december 21st. The preference for personal anecdote over data is the number one human cognitive failing.

And sometimes people like to ignore data when it's inconvenient to their argument. If December 20 and 21 are warm then I would be right to conclude that it is summer. But maybe that's a southern hemisphere thing

Mandragola wrote:

 grouchoben wrote:
To be honest in the future I'm hoping for a single upgrade sprue for Intercessors: Fist, Axe, Gatling Cannon, Las Talon, Powersword, Chainaxe, that kind of thing. Intercessors (outside of DW) really need a bit of help to be a threat on the table. They do a few roles pretty damn well, but actually damaging anything ain't really one of them.

Agreed. They sometimes do surprisingly well in combat* but their guns are irrelevant. It would be great if one of them could have a Gatling gun or something.

I’ve had a theory for a long time that the “holy bolter” needs a massive upgrade. Basically every troop armed with one is bad, doing nowhere near the damage it should for its price. Sisters, DW vets and strike squads (pre needs) work because they can get loads of storm bolters instead.

Absolutely. The biggest issue with bolter equipped anything is that they're pointed like superweapons but they're... not. They need some kind of rapid fire buff to put out more damage.

 RandyMcStab wrote:
Then how do I know when actual content this thread is supposed to be about happens? Instead of discussions about WBB, GK lack of anti tank, how the AdMech line is too shallow etc.

At this point I just wait on warhammer community once initial rumors play out or just wade through when there's a major presentation going. Still not as bad as the ork thread at least.

Mandragola wrote:

 grouchoben wrote:
To be honest in the future I'm hoping for a single upgrade sprue for Intercessors: Fist, Axe, Gatling Cannon, Las Talon, Powersword, Chainaxe, that kind of thing. Intercessors (outside of DW) really need a bit of help to be a threat on the table. They do a few roles pretty damn well, but actually damaging anything ain't really one of them.

Agreed. They sometimes do surprisingly well in combat* but their guns are irrelevant. It would be great if one of them could have a Gatling gun or something.

I’ve had a theory for a long time that the “holy bolter” needs a massive upgrade. Basically every troop armed with one is bad, doing nowhere near the damage it should for its price. Sisters, DW vets and strike squads (pre needs) work because they can get loads of storm bolters instead.

If the storm bolter statline is good enough, then all boltguns should just be Rapid Fire 2 and the storm bolter becomes Assault 3. Damn thing should have always been an Assault weapon alongside the assault cannon.

Wasn't the Storm bolter assault to begin with? I have no idea why they made it rapid fire 2. Did the rules writers think they were twinlinked bolters?

Nope. After removing the need to be an Assault weapon to Charge after shooting for all weapons, they made the sudden realization that a Storm Bolter is two Boltguns grafted together. They therefore did the logical thing and give it the damage output of two boltguns.

Except Assault still does something in the game? Assault went from allowing charges after shooting to allowing shooting after advancing. They could have just done that.

 Techpriestsupport wrote:
I play necxons and CSM. Unless CA2018 has something really relevant for them I think I'll pass on GW's annual tax on 40k players.

I believe Necron point drops have been rumoured for quite a bit.

CSM - well, if SM get point drops on 'shared' units like Terminators, Land Raiders etc then CSM may see similar love.

Don't treat it as an annual tax. Treat it as a convenient thing to add to a Christmas list for a confused relative who doesn't have a clue about the hobby

While I would agree, Stormbolters would be nice as Assault, possible Assault 3 because Assault 2 would have been WORSE than RF2, I also appreciate the simplicity of *most* Bolter weapons being RF.

But overall, Marine weapons are weird. Assault cannons should be Assault, Heavy Bolters should be RF and Heavy Flamers shouldn't be called "Heavy".
But we have what we have.

Side question getting back on track. With CA all but confirmed to be adding the Power Fist option to Intercessors, does anyone think this is how GW will eventually "phase out" regular Marines?
I don't think it will be anytime soon, but I would not be surprised if, in say 10 years, regular Marines and CSMs are no longer sold because Primaris equivalents will then exist with similar options.
Honestly, I kinda want that to happen now, because if regular Marines are no longer valid, the MODELS can be used as "counts as" Primaris and hardly anyone would bat an eye.
But as it stands, having both available requires you to use the "correct" model.

-

 Galef wrote:

Side question getting back on track. With CA all but confirmed to be adding the Power Fist option to Intercessors, does anyone think this is how GW will eventually "phase out" regular Marines?
I don't think it will be anytime soon, but I would not be surprised if, in say 10 years, regular Marines and CSMs are no longer sold because Primaris equivalents will then exist with similar options.
Honestly, I kinda want that to happen now, because if regular Marines are no longer valid, the MODELS can be used as "counts as" Primaris and hardly anyone would bat an eye.
But as it stands, having both available requires you to use the "correct" model.

Historically GW has been super good at providing rule support for legacy models, but that changed with AOS. I think the fate of Index options at the dawn of 9th edition will be a good indication of what to expect. And whilst I am certain the the intent is to effectively phase out old marines, it to completely happen will probably take a really long time.

YeOldSaltPotato wrote:

At this point I just wait on warhammer community once initial rumors play out or just wade through when there's a major presentation going. Still not as bad as the ork thread at least.

Thanks. I was spared the Ork thread as I don't play with or against them these days.

Got a few reports from this thread, I'd like to remind everybody present to stay on topic and that rule #1 is not optional, thanks.

 The Phazer wrote:

Mandragola wrote:

 grouchoben wrote:
To be honest in the future I'm hoping for a single upgrade sprue for Intercessors: Fist, Axe, Gatling Cannon, Las Talon, Powersword, Chainaxe, that kind of thing. Intercessors (outside of DW) really need a bit of help to be a threat on the table. They do a few roles pretty damn well, but actually damaging anything ain't really one of them.

Agreed. They sometimes do surprisingly well in combat* but their guns are irrelevant. It would be great if one of them could have a Gatling gun or something.

I’ve had a theory for a long time that the “holy bolter” needs a massive upgrade. Basically every troop armed with one is bad, doing nowhere near the damage it should for its price. Sisters, DW vets and strike squads (pre needs) work because they can get loads of storm bolters instead.

Absolutely. The biggest issue with bolter equipped anything is that they're pointed like superweapons but they're... not. They need some kind of rapid fire buff to put out more damage.

That is because GW points based on old 2nd-7th rules for Durability Stats almost exclusively. That's because when the points system was engineered that was they key. Not options, not super-weapons but usually a matrix of "toughness" and "ranged/melee" effectiveness (bs/ws). That's what baffles folks.

You can clearly see this when you use their "new" Power Level system which ignores option costs entirely. GW does not point cost the core model off of weapons options. Even more, over the editions, points don't shift much. Now the weapons options again are not flat pointed, which is even more crazy in older rules where an upgrade for one unit for x,y,z super weapon was costed differently from another unit type for same weapons. Over time that diminished.

But when you drop the "boltgun effectiveness" as part of any points equation for Space Marines (or even lasgun effectiveness for guardsmen, ask older edition guardsmen about that), it all makes a ton more sense. Which of course leads to unit effectiveness not matching up with points cost in almost any way. As it is with marines with S4 AP- Rapid Fire boltguns. Statistically, a bunch of guardsmen with flashlights are going to have more effect (in greater numbers) than your Tac Squad.

Add to that an edition that is designed to negate unit durability and the points are even more off base.. which again if you look at Power Level, the cost is more reasonable. A Tac Squad, kitted out, based on it's PL vs a kitted out Guardsman squad of equal PL, the marines win out.

In a lot of ways, with this edition points are "legacy". But GW is at least willing to adjust them. Which is important. You can't points a unit based off of 7th edition or previous costing or toughness in 8th, which is a radically different edition of the game, radical enough that it nullifies previous concepts greatly.

People wonder why my tac squads got replaced with Heavy Bolter Scouts... Because Mortal WOUNDS are OP and abuseable. That and points wise, scouts are more cost efficient. A scout has slightly less "durability" than your Marine, but his "firepower" is identical, and, possibly higher due to Hell Fire Shells. Since everyone is going to sling mortal wounds like mad on the table the 3+ vs the 4+ is really not that noticeable. Especially so since a lot of armies are going to field a lot of -3 or more save mod, or at least as much as they can. Or they are just going to throw enough dice at you at once that the difference between 30 3+ saves or 30 4+ saves just won't matter. But that is 8th and why I think it utterly sucks and have since the preview rules. Even back then I told GW all the points of failure, points of abuse, balance issues because of how durable units are effected by changes to game play. Sure enough even all this time after release of 8th. I was 100% right even before release.