Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I'm curious if anyone has ever taken what is supposed to be the worst army in the current meta to your FLGS, local GW, even a tournament just to see how well you could make the perform? Like I have heard that someone either won or placed very highly in a GT recently with a mono-GK list.

Right now, I have about 1500 points of GK that I'm painting (mainly for next year's Armies On Parade), and I'm considering taking them up to my local GW or FLGS and see how well I can do. Seeing that I haven't played any games of 8th yet (hobbyist not a gamer) and have never played GK, I'm sure I'd lose the first few games, but with a few games under my belt, I wonder if I could actually win.

Here's my current list if you're interested:



SG

Yep, and I got hammered into the ground. There wasn’t even an element of enjoyment. Taking off half your army the first turn, and then the second half the second turn, might as well not even unpack.

It can be fun and especially in a friendly game you can still do just fine if people are running casual lists. I don’t bring tournament lists to my FLGS unless I am prepping for a tournament.

Yes, for the entirety of 5th edition. Tau Empire.

I used Grey Knights in 4th edition, yes

Well, I just picked up Grey Knights as my 5th army, so if I've never done it before I'm going to do it soon.

I'm planning for my first half-army to hit the field as:



Otherwise, I've played Space Wolves this edition, which are really lowly ranked, though we have a lot of Space Wolves players, and I've played Sisters of Battle in previous editions when we were pretty bottom of the barrel.

I took like, 30 Index Rough Riders to the LGT Last year and placed in the top 3rd?


It's a handicap, not an auto lose.
But it depends if you're playing a weaker faction [Grey Knights, say] or if you're playing a weak faction with an equally weak list. And then if you're playing a list where skill plays some element, [maybe lots of deepstrike and stratagem combos] or one full of just badly pointed models that's just going to be outgunned.

I've taken one of the worst armies to my LGS, to play against new players before. One guy wanted to get his first 40k game in, so I played his Orks with my 5th edition blood angels army. Tac marines in razorbacks, assault marines, and assault terminators. We had a pretty close game.

I took inquisition/sisters to a doubles tournament in ... 6th or early 7th.

In more than one game my smashcaptain biker team-mate pretty much took on an army and a half himself.

Not through lack of trying but bringing in something that looked fresh out of 3rd edition against invisible deathstars, flyers, and wraithknights had limited success.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:
Yes, for the entirety of 5th edition. Tau Empire.

5e pure GK daemonhunters :p

(you know you aren't top tier when your troops are 150pts for 5 dismounted tactical marines with stormbolters, and your fast attack is a single sentence allowing you to deepstrike non-scoring troops)

Though tau were definitely fading fast in 5th.

A.T. wrote:
I took inquisition/sisters to a doubles tournament in ... 6th or early 7th.

In more than one game my smashcaptain biker team-mate pretty much took on an army and a half himself.

Not through lack of trying but bringing in something that looked fresh out of 3rd edition against invisible deathstars, flyers, and wraithknights had limited success.

Good times, yes? I took my Sisters to a couple of events in 7th at least one of them a doubles event. To be fair, I didn't usually do badly. I think the doubles event was the one I did worst in despite being partnered with Tau.

A.T. wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:
Yes, for the entirety of 5th edition. Tau Empire.

5e pure GK daemonhunters :p

(you know you aren't top tier when your troops are 150pts for 5 dismounted tactical marines with stormbolters, and your fast attack is a single sentence allowing you to deepstrike non-scoring troops)

Though tau were definitely fading fast in 5th.

But then you got Warded.

Well, to hear tell the Space Wolves are/were poorly rated here in 8th. And I assume that was taking into account all the options in the Codex.

Hey, guess what the 1st army I dug out of storage last year was? That's right, my SW.
(the 2nd was my box-o-Dreadnaughts - because I found that 8th allows me to field all dreads if I want. )

So. If full Codex SW are viewed as bad.... Mine must surely be worse than that, right?
The case contains;
Ragnar, Ulric (p.armor), Njal (p.armor) & Leman Russ + his wolves (the RT model, not the new FW piece).
A Rune Priest in termie armor
Several wolfgaurd in termie armor & power armor
About 20 assorted terminators
Bjorn
a 2nd dreadnaught with wolfy bitz added.
3 squads of Grey Hunters (with WG leader)
2 squads of blood claws with jump packs (think we're calling these skyclaws nowdays) & WG leaders
2 land speeders (AC/MM)
3 squads of Longfangs & WG leaders. (6 MM/2ML/2HB/2LC - mix & match to make squads)
2 squads of Scouts

While there's cosmetic bitz of more recent vintages - metal SW backpacks, SW specific shoulder pads, bases, wolfy bitz/a stray weapon or two - Model-wise none of this stuff is newer than 2e. Grey Hunter squad #3 though is a recent addition as I needed it to have the 3 troops here in 8th (so I went & hunted down a 2e box of GH). So other than 3rd squad? These models have been serving me since 2e (and the closing days of RT in the case of the termies)

None of these squads are set up/armed "optimally". Legal yes, but not optimal. So if I think a GH model looks good wielding a flamer? Then he's wielding a flamer. Not everyone who can sports a plasma pistol. I have mixes of p.fists/p.weapons/chainswords.... The only models who have claws are Bjorn & some of the termies....

Oh, and the icing on the cake? There's a drop pod for every squad that can take it. And I use them. My army is a drop pod/deep strike force. It has been since mid 2e & it'll stay that way.
I'd been using the Armor Cast ones since sometime in 2e. But I replaced them with current GW plastics last year.

So how's it done? I've won a little over 1/2 the games I've played with them. Most of the games, win or lose, have been fun (overall).
The secret is that I'm not playing against THE meta. I'm playing against A meta - of about 7 people. I know what they've got, I know how they play. And (other than 7th ed wich I skipped) I've played this army since 2e.

Why'd I pick SW? Because they were the easiest case to access in the storage unit.

ccs wrote:
Well, to hear tell the Space Wolves are/were poorly rated here in 8th. And I assume that was taking into account all the options in the Codex.

Spoiler:

Hey, guess what the 1st army I dug out of storage last year was? That's right, my SW.
(the 2nd was my box-o-Dreadnaughts - because I found that 8th allows me to field all dreads if I want. )

So. If full Codex SW are viewed as bad.... Mine must surely be worse than that, right?
The case contains;
Ragnar, Ulric (p.armor), Njal (p.armor) & Leman Russ + his wolves (the RT model, not the new FW piece).
A Rune Priest in termie armor
Several wolfgaurd in termie armor & power armor
About 20 assorted terminators
Bjorn
a 2nd dreadnaught with wolfy bitz added.
3 squads of Grey Hunters (with WG leader)
2 squads of blood claws with jump packs (think we're calling these skyclaws nowdays) & WG leaders
2 land speeders (AC/MM)
3 squads of Longfangs & WG leaders. (6 MM/2ML/2HB/2LC - mix & match to make squads)
2 squads of Scouts

While there's cosmetic bitz of more recent vintages - metal SW backpacks, SW specific shoulder pads, bases, wolfy bitz/a stray weapon or two - Model-wise none of this stuff is newer than 2e. Grey Hunter squad #3 though is a recent addition as I needed it to have the 3 troops here in 8th (so I went & hunted down a 2e box of GH). So other than 3rd squad? These models have been serving me since 2e (and the closing days of RT in the case of the termies)

None of these squads are set up/armed "optimally". Legal yes, but not optimal. So if I think a GH model looks good wielding a flamer? Then he's wielding a flamer. Not everyone who can sports a plasma pistol. I have mixes of p.fists/p.weapons/chainswords.... The only models who have claws are Bjorn & some of the termies....

Oh, and the icing on the cake? There's a drop pod for every squad that can take it. And I use them. My army is a drop pod/deep strike force. It has been since mid 2e & it'll stay that way.
I'd been using the Armor Cast ones since sometime in 2e. But I replaced them with current GW plastics last year.

So how's it done? I've won a little over 1/2 the games I've played with them. Most of the games, win or lose, have been fun (overall).
The secret is that I'm not playing against THE meta. I'm playing against A meta - of about 7 people. I know what they've got, I know how they play. And (other than 7th ed wich I skipped) I've played this army since 2e.

Why'd I pick SW? Because they were the easiest case to access in the storage unit.

I've been running
Long Fangs [Lascannons, plus Pack Leader with Cyclone Launcher and Storm Shield]
Wolf Guard
Grey Hunters [4-6 squads in most games], with Wolf Guard Terminator Pack Leaders w/ Thunder Hammers & Storm Shields
Wolf Lord in Terminator Armor with Thunder Hammer
Rune Priest[s]
Wolf Guard Battle Leaders
and when I got the new stuff, the Shadowspear Eliminators, Phobos Rune Priest, and sometimes all of Shadowspear.

I re-armed all my Terminators this summer. I play my Wolf Guard as CombiPlasma/Storm Shield, though I don't have the storm shields modeled on yet, so they're not quite WYSIWYG.

The big bucket of Thunder Hammers, lots of it outflanking and deep striking, stacking lots of -1's to hit, and the Long Fangs stratagems, goes a long way, I've been winning fairly consistently against some fairly decent lists.

I have. Its not fun. I don't like playing games where the conclusion is already known before the first turn has even started. This is largely why I got out of 40k and sold off most of my stuff for it.

I'd like to return, but they have to resolve the balance disparities first.

 auticus wrote:
I have. Its not fun. I don't like playing games where the conclusion is already known before the first turn has even started. This is largely why I got out of 40k and sold off most of my stuff for it.

I'd like to return, but they have to resolve the balance disparities first.

The balance disparity is pretty tight this edition. Even the lowest ranked armies are wholly adequate in casual settings, and can do okay when put to the competitive test.

This is with 7th Ed rules but my favorite Ork list to run a 2k point Blitzkrieg inspired Ork list.
Blitz Brigade - 5 Battlewagons (3 with Killkannons)
Dakkajet Skwadron - 3 Dakkajets
12 Tankbustas
2 Squads of Slugga Boyz (plus Nob)
10 Flash Gitz
4 MegaNobz
and Lucky Stikk Mega Armored Warboss.

In the 7th meta Orks are bottom tier and with the Orks internal balance Battlewagons, Dakkajets, and especially Flash Gitz where not rated highly. With this list though I was able to do fairly well considering that nobody really fielded enough Str 8+ weapons to deal with a wall of AV14 from range and it was oddball enough that people struggled to figure out the target priority or underestimate the firepower of Flash Gitz when left alone.

A.T. wrote:
5e pure GK daemonhunters :p

(you know you aren't top tier when your troops are 150pts for 5 dismounted tactical marines with stormbolters, and your fast attack is a single sentence allowing you to deepstrike non-scoring troops)

Pure GK in 5th wasn't bad, it just had a lot of trap options. You don't upgrade your squad leaders and take a ton of power armor GKs. A buddy of mine did consistently well at local tournaments with them. He skipped terminators entirely except for characters and had a couple missile/lascannon dreads for big targets. The Shrouding was incredibly effective at messing up shooting armies and put that many storm bolters on the table and it was basically a broom that swept everything within 24" away.

Through 4th and 5th (up to the Necron retcon), I would routinely play my Ripper Horde Nid list, 6 full squads of fully upgraded Rippers, 2 Sky Slasher squads with full upgrades, 20 upgraded Hormagaunts, a Parasite of Mortrex and/or Malanthrope depending on era.

I only ever won a few games, but I played for the Draw (since draws were actually doable then), and actually managed more Draws than Losses once I really got the hang of the list.

 Brutus_Apex wrote:
Yep, and I got hammered into the ground. There wasn’t even an element of enjoyment. Taking off half your army the first turn, and then the second half the second turn, might as well not even unpack.

No pairing is this badly imbalanced. Losing in this manner is a direct reflection of your playing ability, not the balance of the game.

I dunno. From what I hear, it's not that difficult to drop two Knights in a single turn, and that'd be half your army.

Stayed loyal to pure deathwing through 4th and 5th even part of 6th. Many of the armies I encounter in 5th were the popular and brutal stealer shock and carno spam lists. Not fun hudling in the center of the board from t2 to avoid reserve assaults while getting completely outshot by a combat army.

Never again. Deathwing I dub thee unforgiven!

Just going to leave this here... Scroll to Episode 27, mono GK list wins a 70 player tourney. Podcast talsk about some of his more pivotal games and his approach.

https://thenormalblokespodcast.com/page/2/

No pairing is this badly imbalanced. Losing in this manner is a direct reflection of your playing ability, not the balance of the game.

I'm not a great player by any stretch but I'm competent, so thanks for your condescension. Why don't you try bringing a fluffy 6th edition Chaos Marine army against a Tau/Inquisition tournament army and see how you do?

There are some VERY bad matchups. I've experienced both ends of that.

I enjoy an underdog so long as I have about a 1/4 chance of winning. Less than that, it kind of stops being fun. I want to feel like victory *could* have been mine, had I had a couple more lucky breaks, or if my opponent had misplayed a critical action... I want at least a fighting chance.

Were I to take a GK list, it would be the best I could make from that codex... though I've never really seen it. I'm just saying, I would take a weak faction and cheese the hell out of it. That's probably my favourite way to game. Playing my balls-out best, but limited by the tools at my disposal.

 Brutus_Apex wrote:

No pairing is this badly imbalanced. Losing in this manner is a direct reflection of your playing ability, not the balance of the game.

I'm not a great player by any stretch but I'm competent, so thanks for your condescension. Why don't you try bringing a fluffy 6th edition Chaos Marine army against a Tau/Inquisition tournament army and see how you do?

I pay 8th edition. Not 6th.

Back in early 6th edition, my LGS had a fairly small community with not a lot of skilled players, and I was generally tabling whoever I played whether I brought my Orks or my Space Wolves.

So I started bringing Sisters of Battle to the table, in all our out-of-print White Dwarf Codex glory. Without allies, they were just *terrible*. No AA except for fortifications or one lone absurdly expensive foregeworld flyer, acts of faith were heavily limited in use and not particularly effective to begin with, in a time where those armies who had flyers were dominating the battlefield.

It was great. I was able to play challenging games and it significantly reduced the gap between wins and losses without just having to deliberately weaken my tactics.

 Hollow wrote:

 Brutus_Apex wrote:
Yep, and I got hammered into the ground. There wasn’t even an element of enjoyment. Taking off half your army the first turn, and then the second half the second turn, might as well not even unpack.

No pairing is this badly imbalanced. Losing in this manner is a direct reflection of your playing ability, not the balance of the game.

Lol. You aren't playing 40k if you are claiming that one.

Waaaghpower wrote:
Back in early 6th edition, my LGS had a fairly small community with not a lot of skilled players, and I was generally tabling whoever I played whether I brought my Orks or my Space Wolves.

So I started bringing Sisters of Battle to the table, in all our out-of-print White Dwarf Codex glory. Without allies, they were just *terrible*. No AA except for fortifications or one lone absurdly expensive foregeworld flyer, acts of faith were heavily limited in use and not particularly effective to begin with, in a time where those armies who had flyers were dominating the battlefield.

It was great. I was able to play challenging games and it significantly reduced the gap between wins and losses without just having to deliberately weaken my tactics.

This is the spirit of 40k that a lot of people miss and what allowed for really imbalanced editions to still be fun. Matching your opponent's army and list with one of your own that has a similar "power level", for a lack of a better term, was vital to ensuring the game was fun for both parties. Its no fun fielding a squig kicker list against somebody who wanted to play a fluffy list or use one of the weaker factions. Just as its no fun bringing a fun list or using one of the neglected factions against a tournament net list unless your looking to play that extremely uphill battle. 40k is make or break by the etiquette between players and that includes self regulation in the attempt to create a fun game experience for all parties instead of just trying to go full on arms race with your opponents (unless that is the meta everyone wants to play).

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:


The balance disparity is pretty tight this edition. Even the lowest ranked armies are wholly adequate in casual settings, and can do okay when put to the competitive test.

I don't know what kind of armies you guys play, but they have to redfine the name of casual, because for GK if youbring anything, but a tournament lists your losing, and if you happen to play against a soup or a good list, there isn't even much of a game. VS chaos for example you can pick targets and you will not kill any. Ahriman is a character, DPS wil hide, plaguebearers will get back for 2CP, and your army won't have the fire and melee power to kill 2 units per turn, unless your opponent parks them in the open middle of the table. Lord Discordants, maybe get lucky shot with an astral aimed LR or dread, but that is more or less it.

Matching your opponent's army and list with one of your own that has a similar "power level", for a lack of a better term, was vital to ensuring the game was fun for both parties. Its no fun fielding a squig kicker list against somebody who wanted to play a fluffy list or use one of the weaker factions. Just as its no fun bringing a fun list or using one of the neglected factions against a tournament net list unless your looking to play that extremely uphill battle

okey, but how do you do it. Most people have 2000pts of one army. A few have maybe two armies, but don't always can soup up, or the list made out of them would not work. If one person has a bad list and another one has a normal one, there really isn't any ajdustments to be made, but even if they were the person with the normal or good list, would have to buy the models first, which if I may say so is one hell of a way to invite someone to play, and then play something they do not want to play, because if they did they would have bought the models in the first place.

Yes, not the worst but probably close. when Militarum Tempestus became their own stand alone book, I played them as such since then. Still do now but back then they were extremely bad, very few options and little to no options for running them pure.

I still do in this edition. without knights or other guard to buff them out. They were pretty tight at the start of 8th but now I'd say they are alright but still not amazing with their limited options.

When I started them though ? If they weren't worst, they were close as they were pretty bad even against very casual lists from other armies.