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 can spell out where grey Knights suck easily eneugh myself. Allow me to state some succient details as to why Grey Knights suck.


1st: their high points cost coupled with their lack of durability means that grey knights simply are unable to hold their own in combat. This is doubly the case when grey knight units may have a host of abilities that don't always synergize partiuclarly well.

2nd: the Grey Knight smite nerf was clearly intended to keep grey knights from being too powerful, but with changes to the rules to prevent smite spam from other armies it simply weakens GKs unnesscarily.

3rd: A lack of heavy weapons in their armory makes grey knights struggle to deal with nemy heavies.
4th: the Grey Knights despite having their entire army be made up of psykers only has access to one disiplne, they need another much like 1k sons.

5th: with grey Knights now all being psykers capable of casting any spell there exists insufficant differance between some GK units, such as strike squads and purifier squads. this leads to an army with an already small roster feeling very "samey"

6th: grey Knight terminators feel over costed in comparison to custodes who deliver similer performance for a cheaper price points wise

these are just obvious ones I can point out off the top of my head.

Blastaar wrote:

Thank you. It is tiring attempting to discuss player's complaints and the value of GW data collection with a crotchety old git determined to be "right."

Let's move back to the thread topic of "Hobby Positivity," shall we?

I'll let the mods deal with you, because I don't like seeing red words in my own post.

And I'm not determined to be right, it just happens naturally.

Okay, its time to knock it off. Please remember all of the rules and stick to them when posting, ie. be polite and stay on topic, they are not optional.
Thanks,
ingtær.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

AngryAngel80 wrote:How about we reach a happy medium of, letting people be positive, and letting people point out what is bad and not telling either side how to live. That is really the only thing I chimed in on.

Yeah, I can work with that. However, I'm sure you'll agree that there is a difference between "pointing out what is 'bad'" and "going into every thread with the same criticisms, even on otherwise unrelated or specifically optimistic threads".

I wouldn't have a problem with a "this is a rant thread, only rants and complaints here", but when it's nearly *every thread*? That's excessive.

I won't say why you shouldn't enjoy yourself, but please refrain from telling me why GW is amazing.

So, just to be clear, does this work the other way around? "I won't say why you should enjoy yourself, but please refrain from telling me why GW sucks"?

I would further add, if a handful of deemed negative posts on warhammer from some people online force people out of love of the hobby or the hobby in general, I'd say that person has bigger issues than not playing warhammer like inability of making choices for themselves.

Agreed, but so likewise, if people can't stand folks liking what GW do without calling them a shill or white knight, does that not also speak to their insecurity?

Again, just to clarify, it's not just "a handful of deemed negative posts" - it's a torrent of them on nearly every thread. And while criticism and discontent are all fine and dandy, when it's all you can see, surely you can see why that's a tad over-the-top?

I honestly don't see people not loving GW, or loving it all the time as an issue. I see the issue being when you can't accept that both those types actually tend to care about the hobby. Which is why you get the " negative " talk in a " positive " thread, turns out people don't like being told what to do in terms of how they view GW and what they do or don't like and why should always be " positive " otherwise they are " negative ".

But when the majority of posts and threads are telling people to view GW as this evil terrible can-do-no-good entity, that's okay?

You're absolutely right, people don't like to be told how to think and feel. So why is telling people to 'perhaps look on the bright side and find positives in their hobby' bad, but telling people that 'GW suck and you should hate them because they're a terrible company' okay?

There should be a balance, but right now, that's not what's going on.

I actually think we agree more than we disagree. One area we may agree in a round about way is I don't believe GW is malicious, they are not our enemy nor are they our friends. They are a company who wants our money and all they care about is profits. That said they are as good or bad as we allow them to be with our money being the swaying device to push them one way or the other.

I've accused them of being lazy, and dishonest in the pursuit of their profits. I don't think they are evil, nor is everyone involved with them bad. Some may just be awful at what they do and fail a lot, or just be put into a situation they can't come out clean in. Without being everywhere inside the company there is no way to know but for knowing people who typically aren't bad just self serving as is everyones nature.

This thread however wasn't made to just be positive, it was made to tell people who don't like it, they should be positive and list off ways they can fix their not happy with GW, that I disagree with. If it was made simply as, I am happy with GW, and this is how I stay that way. Anyone do that too ? I wouldn't have even said anything to that. As really that's totally cool. Then it went into " Dakka is awful, because people on Reddit say its bad, people can be negative, so we should stop being negative so people will love us more " That is hyperbole for comedy sake but basically it was that.

So if it was just a lets love GW thread, great, but it was a I love GW thread and heres why you should too and heres how you can correct your thoughts so you too can love GW. That was inevitably going to draw some hate. It was like blood in the water, and the sharks they be hungry.

Thank you for the positivity OP.

I think GW are doing well despite a few mishaps. I love playing 40k and AoS these days and the hobby is alive and well where I live thanks to GW's new approach for the most part.

This thread however wasn't made to just be positive, it was made to tell people who don't like it, they should be positive and list off ways they can fix their not happy with GW, that I disagree with

besides being rich enough to just buy in to different armies or different games, I don't really see a way to be more positive to be honest. But be rich is hard to pull off well I think.

Ok, read the various walls of text in this topic, some rather lively "arguments" as well I will try to contribute meaningfully on topic.

Being "angry" seems to be how there are "missed opportunities" by a paid and traded company that is actually called "games workshop" to take the accessibility ease of play of their games and treating it ALL as an introduction to the hobby, typically people want more.
It was rightly pointed out that it should be presented as "modular", take the base rules and just add to them.
There has been huge dissatisfaction with terrain rules, it is unfortunate that the Chapter Approved / Cities of Death terrain rules were not made official for the detail wanted for things like KillTeam.
It IS rather funny how well the Armageddon Shadow War was utterly dropped with it's Necromunda / KillTeam (prior versions) rule origins.
Yes, the new model introductions are a fantastic opportunity to introduce them into other rule-sets: An Inquisitor in 40k with a few conscripted Arbites in his retinue would be thematic and cool.

Everything I mentioned above has a theme: GW actually dusted off old game systems, updated them but appeared to not quite make a "greatest hits" or apply a "lessons learned" from them, it seems so suspiciously "change for change's sake".
One thing that is a common theme in this modern age is everything should be modular: make it so things can seamlessly plug into another thing.
Updates, Mods, keep your core "operating system" and add your fun on top of it, that is already the relationship of an army Codex for an army to operate within the confines of the BRB game system: why not a "Codex" specific for terrain?
In the past we had "Death from the Skies" for dog-fighting so we have the precedence (heck, Armageddon wars was an add-on in the past not a different rule-set, this new version is a mish-mash of new and 40k).
Eventually an 8.5 edition could be made to compile it all into an even bigger BRB.

So again, the hobby anger is that those who are long-time fans of the game, we feel we can so clearly see an opportunity for an awesome golden age for this hobby they only have to look back take their hard-won lessons and make it happen.
GW does not need our non-critical acceptance of whatever they churn out, they need a bit of "tough-love" and helpful criticism which should give wider acceptance of their product, good reviews and ultimately profits.

I have HUGE patience with newer companies because they lack the experiece, GW has no such excuse so fairly or unfairly, they are held to a higher standard.

BrianDavion wrote:
I can spell out where grey Knights suck easily eneugh myself. Allow me to state some succient details as to why Grey Knights suck.


1st: their high points cost coupled with their lack of durability means that grey knights simply are unable to hold their own in combat. This is doubly the case when grey knight units may have a host of abilities that don't always synergize partiuclarly well.

2nd: the Grey Knight smite nerf was clearly intended to keep grey knights from being too powerful, but with changes to the rules to prevent smite spam from other armies it simply weakens GKs unnesscarily.

3rd: A lack of heavy weapons in their armory makes grey knights struggle to deal with nemy heavies.
4th: the Grey Knights despite having their entire army be made up of psykers only has access to one disiplne, they need another much like 1k sons.

5th: with grey Knights now all being psykers capable of casting any spell there exists insufficant differance between some GK units, such as strike squads and purifier squads. this leads to an army with an already small roster feeling very "samey"

6th: grey Knight terminators feel over costed in comparison to custodes who deliver similer performance for a cheaper price points wise

these are just obvious ones I can point out off the top of my head.

This may seem like a derail, but its germaine to the topic.

GK is a super-elite, melee-oriented, psyker army. That alone makes them hard to balance, but I often find people are loathe to talk about their positives. Note to those reading this - don't get all rabble rabble and stop reading before the end. The general function of the army is to dakka chaff and smite and smash big stuff.

I send similar abbreviated thoughts to GW every few months.

The Good

- First, every single model in their army is capable of casting and denying as effectively as Ahriman. Perils also does not wipe out their casting ability. They do have buffs to their smite abilities to make them less weak and spammable, but that's a bit of a one-dimensional army. Note that GK are exempt from the smite restrictions like Thousand Sons.
- The high cost is buried in force weapons. Force weapons are not cheap. Getting +1A across the board was a bigger buff for GK than any other army. GK is also paying discount rates for the force weapon -- a marine used to be 13, force sword is 8, SS are 19 points (and then consider psychic abilities).
- The characters are well costed and effective.
- Every frikken infantry model can deepstrike (something that costs other marines 2 points per model)

The Bad

- The cost of their heavy weapons is a little obnoxious, because they have to "pay" for the force weapon, which is lost in the process. The design of those weapons are also not befitting the army's need to be up close. Also being forced into a force weapon will always make those models more expensive. The
- As you said, one lore for so many casters is just silly.
- Stratagems are too costly and too few.

The Fix

- Grant GK more lores to use. Lift the smite restriction and change the BC to some other ability. This will expand their functionality as well as getting them more tools to get into combat.
- Change all their man-portable heavy weapons to assault. The base cost for GK marines should be 18 (12 + 2 for force + 2 for psychic + 2 deepstrike) + 2 for storm bolter = 20 points. (slight point decreases for termies, too)
- Give GK a Super Doc that is S5 AP1 storm bolters in Tactical (or just all the time since they're not Codex Astartes). Change the stratagem to make them D2 on unmod 6s to wound.
- Modify their chapter bonus to include +1 to charges.

Jobs done. Still glass-cannon, but way more punch and utility.

Best that could be hoped for short-term without a codex though is a number of point drops and lores gained through the PA books.

BrianDavion wrote:
I can spell out where grey Knights suck easily eneugh myself. Allow me to state some succient details as to why Grey Knights suck.

Spoiler:

1st: their high points cost coupled with their lack of durability means that grey knights simply are unable to hold their own in combat. This is doubly the case when grey knight units may have a host of abilities that don't always synergize partiuclarly well.

2nd: the Grey Knight smite nerf was clearly intended to keep grey knights from being too powerful, but with changes to the rules to prevent smite spam from other armies it simply weakens GKs unnesscarily.

3rd: A lack of heavy weapons in their armory makes grey knights struggle to deal with nemy heavies.
4th: the Grey Knights despite having their entire army be made up of psykers only has access to one disiplne, they need another much like 1k sons.

5th: with grey Knights now all being psykers capable of casting any spell there exists insufficant differance between some GK units, such as strike squads and purifier squads. this leads to an army with an already small roster feeling very "samey"

6th: grey Knight terminators feel over costed in comparison to custodes who deliver similer performance for a cheaper price points wise

these are just obvious ones I can point out off the top of my head.

Hey, I just want you to know- and this isn't at all a sarcastic comment- this actually is helpful. As someone who doesn't play GK (I find them boring overall, always have)- I think this actually helps understand the argument. It sounds less like pointless mewling "boo-hoo, my army sucks" and more like something I can understand and get behind. This actually makes the issue very clear, to a point where when someone says "Hey, Grey Knights need something adjusted" I can chime in with, "Oh, yeah- absolutely- there's quite a few problems with their rules and here are some of them...".

See how this is more helpful than just saying "It sucks" and hoping GW will eventually dedicate employees and time to trying to find the problem?

Remember that if you sit on the porch and beat on the door, complaining about how cold you are outside- don't be shocked if the smartass inside throws you a coat out the window instead of letting you in.

Daedalus, because we all like alpha strike armies so much and it isn't allready a massive issue allready?

Not Online!!! wrote:
Daedalus, because we all like alpha strike armies so much and it isn't allready a massive issue allready?

Well, they're not deep striking turn 1 nor do they carry massive guns. Not of that is out of bounds compared to recent marine changes, I think (and relatively tame in my opinion). The GK army has a character to it and that needs to be preserved.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:
I can spell out where grey Knights suck easily eneugh myself. Allow me to state some succient details as to why Grey Knights suck.


1st: their high points cost coupled with their lack of durability means that grey knights simply are unable to hold their own in combat. This is doubly the case when grey knight units may have a host of abilities that don't always synergize partiuclarly well.

2nd: the Grey Knight smite nerf was clearly intended to keep grey knights from being too powerful, but with changes to the rules to prevent smite spam from other armies it simply weakens GKs unnesscarily.

3rd: A lack of heavy weapons in their armory makes grey knights struggle to deal with nemy heavies.
4th: the Grey Knights despite having their entire army be made up of psykers only has access to one disiplne, they need another much like 1k sons.

5th: with grey Knights now all being psykers capable of casting any spell there exists insufficant differance between some GK units, such as strike squads and purifier squads. this leads to an army with an already small roster feeling very "samey"

6th: grey Knight terminators feel over costed in comparison to custodes who deliver similer performance for a cheaper price points wise

these are just obvious ones I can point out off the top of my head.

This may seem like a derail, but its germaine to the topic.

GK is a super-elite, melee-oriented, psyker army. That alone makes them hard to balance, but I often find people are loathe to talk about their positives. Note to those reading this - don't get all rabble rabble and stop reading before the end. The general function of the army is to dakka chaff and smite and smash big stuff.

I send similar abbreviated thoughts to GW every few months.

The Good

- First, every single model in their army is capable of casting and denying as effectively as Ahriman. Perils also does not wipe out their casting ability. They do have buffs to their smite abilities to make them less weak and spammable, but that's a bit of a one-dimensional army. Note that GK are exempt from the smite restrictions like Thousand Sons.
- The high cost is buried in force weapons. Force weapons are not cheap. Getting +1A across the board was a bigger buff for GK than any other army. GK is also paying discount rates for the force weapon -- a marine used to be 13, force sword is 8, SS are 19 points (and then consider psychic abilities).
- The characters are well costed and effective.
- Every frikken infantry model can deepstrike (something that costs other marines 2 points per model)

The Bad

- The cost of their heavy weapons is a little obnoxious, because they have to "pay" for the force weapon, which is lost in the process. The design of those weapons are also not befitting the army's need to be up close. Also being forced into a force weapon will always make those models more expensive. The
- As you said, one lore for so many casters is just silly.
- Stratagems are too costly and too few.

The Fix

- Grant GK more lores to use. Lift the smite restriction and change the BC to some other ability. This will expand their functionality as well as getting them more tools to get into combat.
- Change all their man-portable heavy weapons to assault. The base cost for GK marines should be 18 (12 + 2 for force + 2 for psychic + 2 deepstrike) + 2 for storm bolter = 20 points. (slight point decreases for termies, too)
- Give GK a Super Doc that is S5 AP1 storm bolters in Tactical (or just all the time since they're not Codex Astartes). Change the stratagem to make them D2 on unmod 6s to wound.
- Modify their chapter bonus to include +1 to charges.

Jobs done. Still glass-cannon, but way more punch and utility.

Best that could be hoped for short-term without a codex though is a number of point drops and lores gained through the PA books.

You know you're a white knight when you say a bunch of 1 attack models having force weapons is a bonus and that Grey Knight HQ units are well costed when the Librarian and Crowe exist. And no not every Grey Knight can just Deep Strike. Some of them actually need to pay a CP for that.

Not Online!!! wrote:
Daedalus, because we all like alpha strike armies so much and it isn't allready a massive issue allready?

I'm not the most experienced player, but are alpha strikes really that bad? I agree that it is stupid when almost every game is decided in the first round, but shouldn't there be armies that excel in alpha strikes?

I mean, I played MtG casually and I hated getting my key spells countered, but still I needed to accept that counterspells are an almost defining factor of many control decks. Against some decks they are incredible powerfull against others they do almost nothing.


PS: I'm not saying that alpha strikes aren't too prevalent at the moment. I'm just trying to say that some armies should actully be better at alpha strikes than others.

AngryAngel80 wrote:I actually think we agree more than we disagree. One area we may agree in a round about way is I don't believe GW is malicious, they are not our enemy nor are they our friends. They are a company who wants our money and all they care about is profits. That said they are as good or bad as we allow them to be with our money being the swaying device to push them one way or the other.

I've accused them of being lazy, and dishonest in the pursuit of their profits. I don't think they are evil, nor is everyone involved with them bad. Some may just be awful at what they do and fail a lot, or just be put into a situation they can't come out clean in. Without being everywhere inside the company there is no way to know but for knowing people who typically aren't bad just self serving as is everyones nature.

Oh, absolutely. They might have some genuinely nice guys working for them, but their main priority is business.

This thread however wasn't made to just be positive, it was made to tell people who don't like it, they should be positive and list off ways they can fix their not happy with GW, that I disagree with. If it was made simply as, I am happy with GW, and this is how I stay that way. Anyone do that too ? I wouldn't have even said anything to that. As really that's totally cool. Then it went into " Dakka is awful, because people on Reddit say its bad, people can be negative, so we should stop being negative so people will love us more " That is hyperbole for comedy sake but basically it was that.

Nah, I can see what you mean, but I do feel that the sheer amount of threads simply devolving into complaining was something that needed to be called out. I don't agree with "you need to be positive, you're wrong for complaining!", but I do think that things could be toned down a tad, simply out of avoiding repetition.

So if it was just a lets love GW thread, great, but it was a I love GW thread and heres why you should too and heres how you can correct your thoughts so you too can love GW. That was inevitably going to draw some hate. It was like blood in the water, and the sharks they be hungry.

Absolutely.

Karol wrote:

This thread however wasn't made to just be positive, it was made to tell people who don't like it, they should be positive and list off ways they can fix their not happy with GW, that I disagree with

besides being rich enough to just buy in to different armies or different games, I don't really see a way to be more positive to be honest. But be rich is hard to pull off well I think.

You don't need to be rich to be positive. I'm unemployed, burning through whatever I have left until I can find a job, but I'm still happy with my hobby. I don't chase the meta, I don't collect units to win, and I don't play particularly powerful lists. I just really like the models being put out, I enjoy the ruleset of the game, and I'm enjoying myself with the hobby.

I'm not saying that you should be more positive yourself, or that your own experiences are invalid, but just to counter the idea that 'you need to be rich to enjoy the hobby'.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:
Daedalus, because we all like alpha strike armies so much and it isn't allready a massive issue allready?

Well, they're not deep striking turn 1 nor do they carry massive guns. Not of that is out of bounds compared to recent marine changes, I think (and relatively tame in my opinion). The GK army has a character to it and that needs to be preserved.

So basically due to that it fine that i play with 2000 pts against 1000, Butcher 500 then 1000 show up from Reserve and somehow manage to kill 1000 in order to regain lost first turn capacity and then proceeds to outdamage a normal army statistically?
I mean as you said balancing them is a massive issue, due to their nature.
Also if you say recent marine changes, which range from well done and thought out to outright questionable bs, don't you think that merits a discussion about the power standard?

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

You know you're a white knight when you say a bunch of 1 attack models having force weapons is a bonus and that Grey Knight HQ units are well costed when the Librarian and Crowe exist. And no not every Grey Knight can just Deep Strike. Some of them actually need to pay a CP for that.

You know someone spent no time considering the points when they post a disingenuous, half-assed "white-knight" dismissal.

- They're 3 force weapon attacks with falchions now.
- Crowe is 80 points - 2+/4++, reroll all hits and wounds in melee (S4 AP0 attacks), wounds grant an additional attack, 3" smite @ D6 all the time, cast and deny two, and fight again when he dies - what the hell is a better price for that, really? You might not like that he's a chaff killer with essentially 10 to 12 or more attacks against T4 or worse, but that doesn't mean he isn't good at his job. Give him D2 and call it good.
- The librarian is a terminator that gets +1/+1 and +2 to deny w/i 12", a 4++ in melee, and is a base of 113 compared to mine at 102 with no bonuses to cast or deny, worse BS/WS, and one fewer denial.

The units that can't deepstrike that you might want to:
Crowe / BC
Purifiers
Purgs
Dreadnoughts

So, yes, I am incorrect to state every infantry model could deepstrike without mentioning the additional cost 1 measly CP per unit regardless of unit including dreadnoughts whereas other armies are limited up to two units with PL restrictions and increased CP cost.

Waaaghbert wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:
Daedalus, because we all like alpha strike armies so much and it isn't allready a massive issue allready?

I'm not the most experienced player, but are alpha strikes really that bad? I agree that it is stupid when almost every game is decided in the first round, but shouldn't there be armies that excel in alpha strikes?

I mean, I played MtG casually and I hated getting my key spells countered, but still I needed to accept that counterspells are an almost defining factor of many control decks. Against some decks they are incredible powerfull against others they do almost nothing.


PS: I'm not saying that alpha strikes aren't too prevalent at the moment. I'm just trying to say that some armies should actully be better at alpha strikes than others.

I agree on the PS.

I disagree however on the conclusion.

See, normally Shocktroops live and die by their momentum and the use of either infiltration tactics or mobility tactics. (Also known as Initiative) , the issue is unlike IRL your troops can't react propperly react due to the turn based structure, (unless you are some armies with a certain stratagem type but these are rare only once and wholly dependant on subfactions) which basically allows initiative to be given to a whole army of shoock troops for in essence free, which will make them overefficent, which was also ONE of the reasons why in 7th Ed, Null deployment was so liked.
ATM there is no disadvantage to stack up on these units due to Los and terrain rules not allowing for effective Deep battle tactics, meaning that key units can just be targeted villy nilly by the shock troops which are often there to make the chaff actual capable to fight back (thanks aurahammer) .

Edit: in a way, they exemplify the core issues the strongest, by virtue of either beeing too strong or too weak.

Not Online!!! wrote:

So basically due to that it fine that i play with 2000 pts against 1000, Butcher 500 then 1000 show up from Reserve and somehow manage to kill 1000 in order to regain lost first turn capacity and then proceeds to outdamage a normal army statistically?
I mean as you said balancing them is a massive issue, due to their nature.
Also if you say recent marine changes, which range from well done and thought out to outright questionable bs, don't you think that merits a discussion about the power standard?

Out damaging isn't necessary. You play to block or clear objectives. As long as you have capacity to do that clearing off an equal number of points isn't a relevant measure of success.

A strong deepstriking force necessitates DZ spreading by the opponent, which weakens their forward position - and not all armies carry enough chaff for that purpose. Running a stormtalon to clear drop zones helps. The other end of the problem is making the charges after deepstrike, which is currently too difficult.

TLDR... I can't believe that people are still complaining about Terrain. I'll type here the same things that I tell everyone who makes this false complaint.

We have the clearest terrain rules we've ever had. Read the rule book! Read CA:2018! Apply the same abstractions we've always needed to for every edition and calm down!

Also, in my experience the people I've met face-to-face who complain about terrain always fall into one or both of the following categories.
1. They never bothered to read the terrain rules in the BRB or CA:2018.
2. They do not own the BRB and do not own CA:2018.

It's alarming how many people do not actually own the needed material or just flat out haven't bothered to read it and so don't even know the rules exist.

Also, a lot of players are treating some battlefield elements (e.g. bastions, bunkers, etc.) as terrain. These things are not terrain, not anymore. They are now, for all intents and purposes, Units, specifically Transports, just like your SM Rhino, with their own datasheets, stats and rules on how to use them in-game.

Lastly, Nova and other tournaments are altering how we think of and approach terrain in our games and in a vert detrimental way. A plethora of terrain elements with rules that can be used advantageously in-game are disappearing from tabletops everywhere (e.g. craters, barricades, tank traps, etc.).

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:

So basically due to that it fine that i play with 2000 pts against 1000, Butcher 500 then 1000 show up from Reserve and somehow manage to kill 1000 in order to regain lost first turn capacity and then proceeds to outdamage a normal army statistically?
I mean as you said balancing them is a massive issue, due to their nature.
Also if you say recent marine changes, which range from well done and thought out to outright questionable bs, don't you think that merits a discussion about the power standard?

Out damaging isn't necessary. You play to block or clear objectives. As long as you have capacity to do that clearing off an equal number of points isn't a relevant measure of success.

A strong deepstriking force necessitates DZ spreading by the opponent, which weakens their forward position - and not all armies carry enough chaff for that purpose. Running a stormtalon to clear drop zones helps. The other end of the problem is making the charges after deepstrike, which is currently too difficult.

That is maybe possible with the new armies. a big unit of buffed centurions can kill many things when it lands, same with devastators in drop pods. But if your weapon is a bolter, then 10 or 20 of them are hardly clearing objectives, if you also don't have access to rules buffing your bolter shoting or something like doctrins.

So, yes, I am incorrect to state every infantry model could deepstrike without mentioning the additional cost 1 measly CP per unit regardless of unit including dreadnoughts whereas other armies are limited up to two units with PL restrictions and increased CP cost.

how do you get crow in to charge range, when almost all marines run 12" push backers, and he can't charge flyers? Also all the marines that can take primaris have access to very good dreadnoughts that can deploy at point blank range, with no CP cost.

You don't need to be rich to be positive. I'm unemployed, burning through whatever I have left until I can find a job, but I'm still happy with my hobby. I don't chase the meta, I don't collect units to win, and I don't play particularly powerful lists. I just really like the models being put out, I enjoy the ruleset of the game, and I'm enjoying myself with the hobby.

I'm not saying that you should be more positive yourself, or that your own experiences are invalid, but just to counter the idea that 'you need to be rich to enjoy the hobby'.

I liked how the army looked. It is unfun to play with, I never played in a tournament, and never chased the meta, chasing meta with GK is not possible. I don't think there are many armies that are less powerful and with fewer options then my army. GW also is not puting out any GK models. I don't think our situations are very similar. I mean I get someone buying in to a Inari or castellan list, and then getting salty. It can be bit annoying right now, considering how much fun they had a few months ago. I think the only fun I had with my list was durning the first 2-3 demo games. then I played a few normal games, didn't understand why my army did not work. Asked on polish forums,and got laughed at, asked on 4chan and got laughed and insulted, and then came here . Which means the most fun I have playing w40k was before I actualy bought my army.

Karol wrote:

That is maybe possible with the new armies. a big unit of buffed centurions can kill many things when it lands, same with devastators in drop pods. But if your weapon is a bolter, then 10 or 20 of them are hardly clearing objectives, if you also don't have access to rules buffing your bolter shoting or something like doctrins.

We're talking 40 S5 AP1 shots for 200 points (in this theoretical buff experiment). Dakka Cents are 210 points with 36 S4 AP0 and 18 S5 AP2 turn 1, but then the SS can deepstrike and are psykers, and have better melee.

how do you get crow in to charge range, when almost all marines run 12" push backers, and he can't charge flyers?

At SoCal the first marine player to take Infiltrators was 20th or so. Infiltrators are great. Everyone has to deal with that issue should it arise, but it seems to me that most marine players would rather be on offensive footing and scorch anyone foolish enough to get close with assault centurions or other stuff.

Karol wrote:

You don't need to be rich to be positive. I'm unemployed, burning through whatever I have left until I can find a job, but I'm still happy with my hobby. I don't chase the meta, I don't collect units to win, and I don't play particularly powerful lists. I just really like the models being put out, I enjoy the ruleset of the game, and I'm enjoying myself with the hobby.

I'm not saying that you should be more positive yourself, or that your own experiences are invalid, but just to counter the idea that 'you need to be rich to enjoy the hobby'.

I liked how the army looked. It is unfun to play with, I never played in a tournament, and never chased the meta, chasing meta with GK is not possible. I don't think there are many armies that are less powerful and with fewer options then my army. GW also is not puting out any GK models. I don't think our situations are very similar.

You know I also have Grey Knights, right? They're not my main army, but I do have Grey Knights as a long term support for my larger collections.

And for what it's worth, I enjoy using them still, because we clearly have different ways of enjoying ourselves: I'm not saying you're wrong for not enjoying GK right now, but I just want to oppose the idea of "you can only enjoy 40k if you're rich and can afford to buy hot new models".

I mean I get someone buying in to a Inari or castellan list, and then getting salty. It can be bit annoying right now, considering how much fun they had a few months ago. I think the only fun I had with my list was durning the first 2-3 demo games. then I played a few normal games, didn't understand why my army did not work. Asked on polish forums,and got laughed at, asked on 4chan and got laughed and insulted, and then came here . Which means the most fun I have playing w40k was before I actualy bought my army.

Okay, if I were in this situation, I'd be asking myself a few questions:
- Is there another way I can find enjoyment from my models, such as playing in non-competitive environments, painting, modelling, or collecting?
- Do I think that things will change relatively soon so that I will start to enjoy myself? Should I hold onto my models in case the hobby becomes more receptive to my tastes?
- Is it worth continuing to engage in any hobby related activity if it reinforces an emotionally negative cycle?

If all of the above answer 'no', then I honestly have to question why anyone would continue to engage in the hobby.*

*That's not intended as some kind of "GTFO" comment, that's a "please look after your mental wellbeing, and try and break reaffirming negative loops for your own good" comment.

 Daedalus81 wrote:
At SoCal the first marine player to take Infiltrators was 20th or so. Infiltrators are great. Everyone has to deal with that issue should it arise, but it seems to me that most marine players would rather be on offensive footing and scorch anyone foolish enough to get close with assault centurions or other stuff.

Yes, they ran Scouts instead.

https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.goonhammer.com/meta-update-october-results-and-the-socal-open/&sa=D&source=hangouts&ust=1572970143157000&usg=AFQjCNHbFoLyPR957xjTilo1RcBnDQH-1Q

The data still suggests marines (esp IH) are still almost incomparably top-tier.

 TwinPoleTheory wrote:

The data still suggests marines (esp IH) are still almost incomparably top-tier.

Likely, but i'm also waiting for more tournaments. This is the first time in 8th that multiple max squads of centurions hit the table. I'm guessing a lot of people had little time to trial their submitted lists against the very recent supplements.

 Daedalus81 wrote:
Likely, but i'm also waiting for more tournaments.

How many?

 TwinPoleTheory wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:
Likely, but i'm also waiting for more tournaments.

How many?

Eleventy.

 oni wrote:
We have the clearest terrain rules we've ever had. Read the rule book! Read CA:2018! Apply the same abstractions we've always needed to for every edition and calm down!

Also, in my experience the people I've met face-to-face who complain about terrain always fall into one or both of the following categories.
1. They never bothered to read the terrain rules in the BRB or CA:2018.
2. They do not own the BRB and do not own CA:2018.

Does CA18's terrain rules change that, per the BRB, a unit standing in a forest gets cover, but a unit completely on the other side of the forest with just a foot exposed can be shot at full effectiveness and receives no benefit from cover? Genuine question, haven't checked in a while, I know Cities of Death adds an obscuring penalty but most people don't play CoD-suitable boards.

Don't forget that the biggest tournament network straight up had to houserule the game's line of sight rules in order to make it playable.

And getting into arguments over whether a vehicle is half obscured or not isn't terribly user-friendly.

I mean, you're not wrong, the rules are clear. They're clear by virtue of being simplistic and inadequate. Better terrain and cover rules are my #1 wishlist for this game.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 TwinPoleTheory wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:
Likely, but i'm also waiting for more tournaments.

How many?

Eleventy.

But in all seriousness with CA around the corner I'd probably be withholding judgement until early February (especially with Sallies and IF yet to really hit the scene). Then the next best hope for a correction would be end of March if we put in enough effort to get their attention.

 Adeptus Doritos wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:
I can spell out where grey Knights suck easily eneugh myself. Allow me to state some succient details as to why Grey Knights suck.

Spoiler:

1st: their high points cost coupled with their lack of durability means that grey knights simply are unable to hold their own in combat. This is doubly the case when grey knight units may have a host of abilities that don't always synergize partiuclarly well.

2nd: the Grey Knight smite nerf was clearly intended to keep grey knights from being too powerful, but with changes to the rules to prevent smite spam from other armies it simply weakens GKs unnesscarily.

3rd: A lack of heavy weapons in their armory makes grey knights struggle to deal with nemy heavies.
4th: the Grey Knights despite having their entire army be made up of psykers only has access to one disiplne, they need another much like 1k sons.

5th: with grey Knights now all being psykers capable of casting any spell there exists insufficant differance between some GK units, such as strike squads and purifier squads. this leads to an army with an already small roster feeling very "samey"

6th: grey Knight terminators feel over costed in comparison to custodes who deliver similer performance for a cheaper price points wise

these are just obvious ones I can point out off the top of my head.

Hey, I just want you to know- and this isn't at all a sarcastic comment- this actually is helpful. As someone who doesn't play GK (I find them boring overall, always have)- I think this actually helps understand the argument. It sounds less like pointless mewling "boo-hoo, my army sucks" and more like something I can understand and get behind. This actually makes the issue very clear, to a point where when someone says "Hey, Grey Knights need something adjusted" I can chime in with, "Oh, yeah- absolutely- there's quite a few problems with their rules and here are some of them...".

See how this is more helpful than just saying "It sucks" and hoping GW will eventually dedicate employees and time to trying to find the problem?

Remember that if you sit on the porch and beat on the door, complaining about how cold you are outside- don't be shocked if the smartass inside throws you a coat out the window instead of letting you in.

People need to make those style of complaints more often, because if all you say is "it sucks" people tune you out.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Karol wrote:

That is maybe possible with the new armies. a big unit of buffed centurions can kill many things when it lands, same with devastators in drop pods. But if your weapon is a bolter, then 10 or 20 of them are hardly clearing objectives, if you also don't have access to rules buffing your bolter shoting or something like doctrins.

We're talking 40 S5 AP1 shots for 200 points (in this theoretical buff experiment). Dakka Cents are 210 points with 36 S4 AP0 and 18 S5 AP2 turn 1, but then the SS can deepstrike and are psykers, and have better melee.

how do you get crow in to charge range, when almost all marines run 12" push backers, and he can't charge flyers?

At SoCal the first marine player to take Infiltrators was 20th or so. Infiltrators are great. Everyone has to deal with that issue should it arise, but it seems to me that most marine players would rather be on offensive footing and scorch anyone foolish enough to get close with assault centurions or other stuff.

yeah Infiltrators CAN shut down deep strike armies but I'm not seeing a lot of massive demand for them on Marine Tactica forums, they are, the most expensiuve troop choice. So unless you have the luxery of tailoring your list to shut down a deep striker army (I DO wonder if Karol is facing tailored lists when he plays given how toxic the polish community sounds it'd not suprise me) you're proably going to take intercessors

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

AngryAngel80 wrote:I actually think we agree more than we disagree. One area we may agree in a round about way is I don't believe GW is malicious, they are not our enemy nor are they our friends. They are a company who wants our money and all they care about is profits. That said they are as good or bad as we allow them to be with our money being the swaying device to push them one way or the other.

I've accused them of being lazy, and dishonest in the pursuit of their profits. I don't think they are evil, nor is everyone involved with them bad. Some may just be awful at what they do and fail a lot, or just be put into a situation they can't come out clean in. Without being everywhere inside the company there is no way to know but for knowing people who typically aren't bad just self serving as is everyones nature.

Oh, absolutely. They might have some genuinely nice guys working for them, but their main priority is business.

This thread however wasn't made to just be positive, it was made to tell people who don't like it, they should be positive and list off ways they can fix their not happy with GW, that I disagree with. If it was made simply as, I am happy with GW, and this is how I stay that way. Anyone do that too ? I wouldn't have even said anything to that. As really that's totally cool. Then it went into " Dakka is awful, because people on Reddit say its bad, people can be negative, so we should stop being negative so people will love us more " That is hyperbole for comedy sake but basically it was that.

Nah, I can see what you mean, but I do feel that the sheer amount of threads simply devolving into complaining was something that needed to be called out. I don't agree with "you need to be positive, you're wrong for complaining!", but I do think that things could be toned down a tad, simply out of avoiding repetition.

So if it was just a lets love GW thread, great, but it was a I love GW thread and heres why you should too and heres how you can correct your thoughts so you too can love GW. That was inevitably going to draw some hate. It was like blood in the water, and the sharks they be hungry.

Absolutely.

Karol wrote:

This thread however wasn't made to just be positive, it was made to tell people who don't like it, they should be positive and list off ways they can fix their not happy with GW, that I disagree with

besides being rich enough to just buy in to different armies or different games, I don't really see a way to be more positive to be honest. But be rich is hard to pull off well I think.

You don't need to be rich to be positive. I'm unemployed, burning through whatever I have left until I can find a job, but I'm still happy with my hobby. I don't chase the meta, I don't collect units to win, and I don't play particularly powerful lists. I just really like the models being put out, I enjoy the ruleset of the game, and I'm enjoying myself with the hobby.

I'm not saying that you should be more positive yourself, or that your own experiences are invalid, but just to counter the idea that 'you need to be rich to enjoy the hobby'.

A large quote for a simple response, I think we can agree even if I'm a touch more on the critical side than yourself. Thank you for the time in the talk, and I hope people can see disagreement can sometimes lead to a positive outcome. I'll attempt to be sure I call out when GW does the good stuff more often, to maybe add some levity to the situation, for folk like yourself. I'll further add that yes, we need to not rush to attacking each other as haters or knights when I feel like it's more in the middle ground for everyone.

Just try not to judge me if someone posts a baiting topic to draw some ire and I arise, I'll try and refrain but you know the net, people love the conflict and sometimes it drags me in too.