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.

 aphyon wrote:
3rd ed-AKA demon hunters-lore accurate, excels at fighting demons and chaos. hard counter for the 3.5 chaos codex.

CSM with marines and artillery rolled GK like expensive tactical marines. Daemon-heavy lists is where their rules come in for better and for worse.
IMO the best 'anti-chaos' parts of the daemonhunters books were the non-specific anti daemon rules. Str 6 ccws were a much better fit than str 4 power weapons without being dead weight against 95% of opponents for example, and wargear that defended against more generic threats like deepstrikes and psykers.

The rest of their options should have followed suit - defensive grenades instead of chaos-only sacred incense for example. Thematic and practical vs daemons but also a valid all-comers choice.
Instead their rules were so narrowly defined that half of them didn't work by 5th edition and the codex was ass-tier, even against daemons.

And I prefer progressive scoring, since it encourages the game to be more active throughout every turn instead of just the end.

I don't find that to be true at all, having played and still actively play multiple games a week with end of game scoring, you are always active through every turn, thinking ahead about priority targets that may become a problem later in the game. i do play other systems with progressive scoring, but the mechanics are different, such as they do not have a turn limit so scoring a certain number of points is set up to end the game.

CSM with marines and artillery rolled GK like expensive tactical marines.

LOL no...... i play against guard, and one of them is a DKOK player, so just no in my experience.

IMO the best 'anti-chaos' parts of the daemonhunters books were the non-specific anti daemon rules.

and 95% of the wargear, vehicle upgrades and psyker powers.

Instead their rules were so narrowly defined that half of them didn't work by 5th edition and the codex was ass-tier, even against daemons.

Your recollections might be a bit off, as somebody who still uses GKs from the demon hunters codex as allies or as part of a pure inquisitorial force in the 5th ed core rules.....they work just fine. i put them up against all sorts of codexes from various editions-

3.5 chaos is obvious as it is the one used by everybody here, but i have done battle against guard from 5th, eldar (4th and 5th), dark eldar(5th) tau (4th), marines (both 4th and 5th), black templar (4th) etc....

It is also priceless when my opponents fail their shrouding checks and can't even see the GKs to shoot at them. doesn't happen often but such fun when it does.

 aphyon wrote:
LOL no...... i play against guard, and one of them is a DKOK player, so just no in my experience.
/ as somebody who still uses GKs from the demon hunters codex as allies or as part of a pure inquisitorial force

Hybrid sure - because I have no idea what a pure Grey Knight player under 5e rules is supposed to do against a 5e mechanised guard list played competently. Shrouding doesn't even protect against direct artillery hits.

The books heavy/anti-tank support consists of dreadnoughts and landraiders, neither of which were shrouded and the latter of which shouldn't see the second turn against big gunlines. The compulsory troops choices - the only things that scored - came in at 150pts for 5 single wound models with no invulnerables, enhanced mobility, or transport options other than landraiders.


As allies they were better because you were taking less of them and more of something else - especially when daemonic infestation stopped being a thing as it didn't scale, one inquisitor in your army and you've got infinite daemons.
I don't mean to dismiss the good parts of the faction as Stormtroopers with 5e vehicle costs were decent, GKT were solid, mystics were in high demand.

But a list built around multiple scoring squads of PAGK rather than vets and inducted forces? Not even nuffle can roll enough triple 1s to save them.

 aphyon wrote:
and 95% of the wargear, vehicle upgrades and psyker powers.

Best as in the sense of well written from a game design perspective.

Too much of the daemonhunters stuff was dead weight due to overspecialisation - there really was no good reason why the sacred hull didn't just apply a -1 leadership to everyone for example. Particularly egregious as the chaos book (among others) gained not one but two Ld reduction vehicle upgrades with no such target restrictions.

(compare sacred hulls to the 3.5 blasphemous rune, 4e dirge caster, etc. Also consider that the difficult daemonic charge rules were already costing you daemonic infestation and then you had to pay extra on top).

I don't think you remember how shrouding works in the demon hunters codex. if you failt to see them you cannot shoot at them and you lose the option to shoot anybody else.

If your using the 5th ed GK codex it is even worse for the guard since your going to be in their face with any unit with a teleporter on turn 1 (once per game 30" move) including the baby carriage. you will be in assault on turn 2 minimum.

Best as in the sense of well written from a game design perspective.

See the previous post from insectum7

It all depends on what you're trying to accomplish with said design. If your goal is equally leveled armies targeting tournaments and pick-up games, then the 3rd ed GK book is not a good one. But if your goal is to faithfully represent the lore in codex form, then the Daemonhunters codex is fantastic.

I am in the second group as such the demon hunters codex is "the best" because it is narrowly tailored to fit the universe.

 aphyon wrote:
I don't think you remember how shrouding works in the demon hunters codex. if you failt to see them you cannot shoot at them and you lose the option to shoot anybody else.

Guess range and ordinance were explicitly excluded, if you were out of range they just scattered twice as far - and only if they scattered at all.
Local players were fond of their vindicators.

I am in the second group as such the demon hunters codex is "the best" because it is narrowly tailored to fit the universe.

I guess I don't feel the two need to be exclusive.

A.T. wrote:

I am in the second group as such the demon hunters codex is "the best" because it is narrowly tailored to fit the universe.

I guess I don't feel the two need to be exclusive.

They don't need to be exclusive. However I think it's better that they can be exclusive. Otherwise you have a paradigm where nothing in the lore can be represented unless it can be turned into a fully functioning, tournament balanced faction. That drains a lot of freedom of possibility, and makes the lore that much more difficult to explore and represent.

Guess range and ordinance were explicitly excluded, if you were out of range they just scattered twice as far - and only if they scattered at all.
Local players were fond of their vindicators.

True, but i never found it to be a problem.

That drains a lot of freedom of possibility, and makes the lore that much more difficult to explore and represent.

It is one of the reasons current 40K is so bland (many of the complaints i hear from people who play it), If you go by the GW guidelines it is chess style mirrored tables, trap cards- in the form of stratagems, and pre-made cookie cutter army builds thanks to detachments and wargear limitations.

It does make for a greater balance system for tournament style play of a game, but it is not a wargame set in the 40K setting. you end up with yellow marines, white marines and blue marines basically being the same with one bespoke special ability which is laughable compared to the richness they once had in lore based rules. I think it was 9th when i asked a player what made the white scars different in that edition....and all it was, is the ability to charge after advancing....compared to an entire page of special rules they used to have when it was based on the lore-born in the saddle, bike squads, mounted veterans, counter attack, hit and run, power lances and FOC alterations/unit restrictions and requirements.



Im not playing 40k to be frustrated or win tournaments, i playing to represent my faction in the universe for some fun games with friends. Using models i like not ones i am being forced to use.

There are around 1,000 White Scars in 40k.
There are millions of Guardsmen from a host of different planets.

Shouldn’t those regiments get more differentiation (being from different planets with different cultures, upbringing, training, equipment…) than one chapter of Marines?

 Insectum7 wrote:
Otherwise you have a paradigm where nothing in the lore can be represented unless it can be turned into a fully functioning, tournament balanced faction.

Ii'm not suggesting some kind of 4e Eldar wrecking, Matt Ward inspiring meme book here, just the basics. Don't make things specialised for the sake of it (i.e. sacred hull vs blasphemous runes) and make the remaining specialist gear widely available and outrageously cheap.

Because the trouble with making something so narrowly focussed is that it either crushes the thing it is focussed against or it is balanced down to make that fight 'fair', at which point it is only focussed relative to its mediocrity in all other circumstances.

 aphyon wrote:
True, but i never found it to be a problem.

What would your go-to grey knights list be at say, 1750pt? Assuming 5e rules and 3e daemonhunters.
I don't have much context beyond how they used to play in 3-5e rather than prohammer.

JNAProductions wrote:There are around 1,000 White Scars in 40k.
There are millions of Guardsmen from a host of different planets.

Shouldn’t those regiments get more differentiation (being from different planets with different cultures, upbringing, training, equipment…) than one chapter of Marines?

they actually had it at one time.

The 3.5 guard codex had the rules to build every guard regiment. you had the amy specialization rule set to choose from, the list of doctrines contained rules sets in different sections --infantry, light infantry, mechanized, jungle fighters, airborne, hardened, sharpshooters, xeno fighters

https://www.scribd.com/doc/87548122/Imperial-Guard-Codex-Original

FW also continued this, most notably with DKOK and elysians,

What would your go-to grey knights list be at say, 1750pt? Assuming 5e rules and 3e daemonhunters.
I don't have much context beyond how they used to play in 3-5e rather than prohammer.

We play 2k points. i usually use a GK grand master in terminator armor and a 9 terminator retinue squad as allies(that's a spendy unit clocking in at over 600 points), but i can throw them together with my guard storm troops (as inquisitorial STs) and some other units to make a full demon hunters army. i have lots of options.

 aphyon wrote:
We play 2k points. i usually use a GK grand master in terminator armor and a 9 terminator retinue squad as allies, but i can throw them together with my guard storm troops (as inquisitorial STs) and some other units to make a full demon hunters army

Ah. Much the same way I used to play them - one squad allied into a better army because the rest of the GK were ... generously substandard.

When referring to daemonhunter GK armies getting rolled earlier I meant the full experience. 2+ squads of power armour playing for 5 troop-scoring only objectives, no artillery, no melta, no plasma, no light transports or fast units, and no chance against a conscious opponent.


As a cherry-pick though the terminators were a solid mix of power weapons and psy-hood, albeit not in such a large squad IMO until the stormshield update. The infamous leafblower even featured a little allied DH,

So I am not a fan of overly specialised armies or rules that only counter one force, but IMO the daemon hunters codex from 3rd actually did a good job at balancing that.

They followed the self contained rules philosophy, where if you are going to add some unbalancing mechanic, you add its opposite balancing mechanic to the game when using it.

ie, when daemon hunters deployed the opponent could draw on daemons for their army.

I actually think this type of thing should have been done more, rather than less. Because it allows levels of asymmetry to the game without unbalancing it. Examples include, catachans having jungle terrain, wood elves with similar, the necrons in BFG having OP ships but different victory conditions etc.


It's an effective way for you to model a faction's uniqueness and potential speciality while balancing it at the same time.

It's probably not great for tournament balance which is why it didn't stay around, but in terms of representing flavour and balancing it at the same time, it was great.

A.T.

i have the option to bring various vehicles and dreadnoughts for a pure demon hunters force or if i need more bodies i can bring allies from other inquisitorial ordos, but what i really enjoy is being able to use 3 assassins.

It's probably not great for tournament balance which is why it didn't stay around,

Probably a mix of that as GW started putting more focus on tourneys and the original design team starting to leave the company. the 3rd and 4th ed codexes had the most narrowly tailored thematic rules for each faction(guard doctrines/craftworlds/orc clanz/space marine chapters/demon hunters/witch hunters/3.5 chaos codex etc...) By the time 5th ed was done, almost all the original crew in the game design department had left. i think Jervis and like one other guy was left IIRC. i've always held that when Andy left (halfway through 4th) as chief game designer the game really started to slide. designing some of 5th was his last blessing on the game.

Got in 3 games tonight,

The first was a 1400 point battle against dark eldar with my admech infantry force.

I was using ghar minitures i got a deal on along with some at 43 minis to represent my cataphron/skitarii admech force.

I was using the 7th ed codex. my first game was gainst the 5th ed dark eldar.

All his poison weapons really helped him out, i was doing ok until near the end of the game and then i just' could not roll above a 2 to make my saves.

A strong finish/victory for the dark eldar.





The second game got bumped up to 2k against a mostly infantry black templar (4th) force.

The first couple turns he managed to kill all but 2 of my breachers. but the destroyers rocking heavy grav cannons turned the situation around driving the templar off all the objectives giving me 2 of the 3 objectives.








The last game was a silly grudge match.

We dug out the old WD rules for the emperor and the primarchs for a horus heresy level smack down...


The emperor can cast 6 powers a turn from any codex in the game save tyranids......so the end of this epic battle was rather anti-climactic....the emperor used jaws of the world wolf. the shot took out an obliterator, 2 thousand sons terminators.....and Horus the warmaster. He could only fail his initiative test on a 6+......and he rolled exactly that, being removed from the table, not by damage but the ground opening up and swallowing him.

Went completely classic for this game. old school dark angels list from the 3.5 mini dex-
1,500 points-

.Interrogator chaplain in terminator armor.
.deathwing command squad
.land raider crusader
.X2 razorbacks with a 6 man tactical squad with all the plasma
and 2 plasma cannon dreads.



I was up against a force of dark eldar infantry, with a talos and some fire support, bikes, as well as an elite tank hunter squad.



We had 4 objectives. i ended up going first and smoking the talos with lucky assault cannon rending shots off the land raider. a big relief for me, i shot up his infantry that wasn't in a transport with plasma cannons.

i ended up taking down all his raider save the one with the tank hunting squad as it was in deep strike reserve.

One of his warrior squads broke and ran as did his bikes but they ran clear off the table.

When all was said and done i lost one dread, one tac squad and one razorback. he was down to one squad with attached character, an elite squad and their transport. we ended up tieing on objectives (2 each) so we had to use tie breakers. first blood on the talos got me the win.

Very fun game, as it always is against this opponent.

I remember 3.5 dark eldar being somewhat tricky for a glass cannon list when you really pushed hard on the cannon side.
The first 1000pts could net you 10-12 dark lances on troop units and a mix of nine more lances and dissies ravagers. Past that it was all shorter ranged stuff until you got to vect at 2k

But without the quantity (and some good LoS blocking terrain) it was easy to end up on the wrong side of a trade - night shields couldn't save you from lascannons.


edit: I guess not all of the DE are shown? 4 raiders, 4 reavers, a talos, ~40 warriors and weapons - seems like it would struggle to hit 1000pts.

Dark Lances were a waste on anything but vehicles. The key to Dark Eldar in 3rd was speed, and having most of your army standing still so they can get 2 shots per unit with a weapon that mattered was lunacy. It was better to run Blasters and get them up close to do the same job, and you had Haywire Grenades and Agonizers to help mop up. That, and why would anyone want to force jump troops to stand still?

 Just Tony wrote:
The key to Dark Eldar in 3rd was speed, and having most of your army standing still so they can get 2 shots per unit with a weapon that mattered was lunacy. It was better to run Blasters and get them up close to do the same job

I guess I was used to playing mostly objectives when I ran the 3e dex so a couple of static units holding them felt more compulsory than anything else.
But at 10pts throwing a dark lance in with the raiders was always tempting as a pair of blasters wasn't an option.

And yes Scourges were weird.

For clarification he is using the 5th ed codex with duke plisken, and he did have quite a few blasters as well as a Talos. he also has a couple of the heavy support teams with lances. it was 1,500 points

Ah, ok. 5e and 3.5 DE had quite different pricing in some areas.

To put some context on that - 1000pts in the 3e book would get you:
1 Dracon with a pointy stick
4 Raider squads (dark lances and blasters)
2 Warrior squads (dark lances)
3 Ravagers (dark lances)

And then 500 points to buy fast stabby units, tastier HQs, and vehicle upgrades like dissies (and of course, even more blasters as they lacked heat lances in 3e).

Not to everyones taste though. Wyches were good too but you had to pick either/or for your troops so depending on the edition scoring rules and local scenarios you might have found them more or less appealing.

Please pardon me if this isn't permitted (I hope it is, given that all I'm asking for is originally free documents provided digitally for now long out of print books), but are there any repositories at all for 4E FAQs and errata? Trying to find the FAQs for the 4th edition Space Marine and Tyranid books in particular; the latter I could only find locked behind a paywall on a rather shady looking website and the former I can't find at all.

 GreycapTheUnwise wrote:
Please pardon me if this isn't permitted (I hope it is, given that all I'm asking for is originally free documents provided digitally for now long out of print books), but are there any repositories at all for 4E FAQs and errata? Trying to find the FAQs for the 4th edition Space Marine and Tyranid books in particular; the latter I could only find locked behind a paywall on a rather shady looking website and the former I can't find at all.

I don't know of any separate PDF's with FAQ's and whatnot, but... if they were published in white dwarf magazine, there are ways to get them that way.

BanjoJohn wrote:
I don't know of any separate PDF's with FAQ's and whatnot, but... if they were published in white dwarf magazine, there are ways to get them that way.

Ah, good thinking! I will have to do some research.

 GreycapTheUnwise wrote:

BanjoJohn wrote:
I don't know of any separate PDF's with FAQ's and whatnot, but... if they were published in white dwarf magazine, there are ways to get them that way.

Ah, good thinking! I will have to do some research.

Probably the best resource for those will be the book: Chapter Approved 2004. I believe that was the final Chapter Approved book, and includes much of the material from the prior books, as well as FAQs that were published in White Dwarf.

 Insectum7 wrote:

 GreycapTheUnwise wrote:

BanjoJohn wrote:
I don't know of any separate PDF's with FAQ's and whatnot, but... if they were published in white dwarf magazine, there are ways to get them that way.

Ah, good thinking! I will have to do some research.

Probably the best resource for those will be the book: Chapter Approved 2004. I believe that was the final Chapter Approved book, and includes much of the material from the prior books, as well as FAQs that were published in White Dwarf.

Chapter approved 2004 is for 3rd edition, and GreyCap was asking about 4th edition FAQs/updates/chapter approved stuff

^Ahhh, my bad. I thought 2004 was early 4th.

 GreycapTheUnwise wrote:
Please pardon me if this isn't permitted (I hope it is, given that all I'm asking for is originally free documents provided digitally for now long out of print books), but are there any repositories at all for 4E FAQs and errata?

I maintain an old archive of the public FAQ files - it doesn't have any of the journal or WD stuff but it does include the 4e marine and tyranid FAQs.

I'll PM you the dropbox link.