Psilencers

[DarkLink]

Just thinking about Gk weapon options, and had a thought about how psilencers could have been good. As it stands, they're effectively useless, for several reasons. For one, Gks already have a ton of str 4 shooting. Secondly, it's a heavy weapon only, making it useless on power armor Gks. Lastly, it's useless against vehicles, and Gk anti-tank is almost exclusively vested in their infantry (meaning psycannons), with the exception of Dreadnoughts.

So to make the psilencer useful, you need to differentiate it from other weapons, but still let it fill a niche that Gks need. What is very rare in the codex is high ap fire. Aside from henchmen and rending psycannons, GKs have virtually no AP3, 2 or 1. Make the psilencer AP2 (and changing it from Heavy 6 to Assault 4), and you now have something that fills a useful niche within the GK codex.

Of course, this is still useless against tanks, which would mean that even after making this useful it still couldn't come close to competing with psycannons. So, let psilencers hurt vehicle. It doesn't have to be as good as psycannons (in fact, it shouldn't), but still do enough damage to matter. I'd say glancing on a 4-5 and penetrating on a 6 would be fair, after an appropriate points increase.

Fluff is easy to deal with, too. Just say that the psychic burst from the psilencer warps reality and scrambles circuitry, thus damaging vehicles and bypassing normal armor.


So with that, we're left with a weapon that brings something unique for the Gks, can hurt vehicles so it isn't automatically ignored in favor of the psycannon, and would probably be around 15pts (keeping in mind that GKs lose their force weapon and storm bolter when they upgrade).

On a side note, Psycannons should be 20pts and Incinerators 10. But whatever.

[MaltonNecromancer]

I disagree entirely. It's an anti-daemon weapon. It kills daemons. Like the Grey Knights are supposed to. Bloodthirsters fear it. So do Dark Eldar Mandrakes, Eldar Avatars, and a bunch of other stuff too.

It fills the "Anti-Daemon" niche. GK's don't need any AP 3 weapons. They have to get into assault to dish out that pain. It's clearly an army design thing - not every army needs to have every base covered. How many other armies do you know where every model gets a power weapon as standard? Daemons only (Bloodletters, yes?). So the Psilencer is designed for when a GK army can't rely on assault to chew through the enemy *quite* as reliably, because Bloodletters will ruin enough GK to actually cause problems (where other armies will have a hard time of it). That's the niche it fills.

And as for re-costing Psycannons and Incinerators, no way. I actually think the GK codex is very well costed. Yes, you can do a GK infantry spam list, but you won't get any of the shiny guns, because GK's aren't a horde army. You want the shiny guns, you have to pay the price for them. And anyway, every GK squad pays a different price for different equipment depending upon it's battlefield role (i.e. Purifiers get Falchions cheaper than Strike Squads because Purifiers are anti-infanty assault, but Strike squads can score, and thus Falchions are more useful for them as they won't be charging as much and thus need the extra attacks to dissuade would-be assaulters).

[DarkLink]

The only recosting I think would be in order is swapping psycannon and Incinerator prices on GKSS. Psycannons are way better than Incinerators, yet cheaper for some reason. Though that doesn't necessarily mean Psycannons have to go to 20pts. And now that you mention it, seeing as Psycannons are 20-25pts on Paladin/Terminators then the current 10 would be perfectly reasonable. So instead I'd just drop the cost of Incinerators from 20pts, since there's not much reason to take Incinerators over Psycannons normally, as good as Incinerators are.



That aside though, psilencers are useless. There is literally no reason to ever take them under any circumstances. That in and of itself inherently proves they have to be changed. You can't argue with that, at least not in a logical, sensible manner.

I can appreciate what you're saying about being fluffy and all that, but that's no reason why the weapon shouldn't be at least useable, which psilencers aren't. And it's not like ignoring armor is unfluffy by any means. I mean, GKs carry around Nemesis Force Weapons, despite the fact that all Daemons have Eternal Warrior and invulnerable saves.

Also, keep in mind that weapons should be balanced against all codices. Having a rock to daemon's scissors and everyone else's paper means that that weapon will be useless unless you're tailoring your list, which you shouldn't. Ergo, just slapping a "reroll wounds against Daemons" is stupid. That's just lazy game design. Luckily Ward didn't go too overboard on that junk with the new codex, with a handful of exceptions.




As an alternative, how about retaining the old 'ignore invulnerable saves' rule for psilencers, plus AP2. Without the high AP, ignoring invulnerable saves is basically useless, but combined you have a weapon worth taking. The high AP makes useful against Marines in general, at the expense of losing a bit of anti tank as you're not taking psycannons. It's extremely useful against Daemons, since they rely a lot on invulnerable saves. And the fact that it's also very useful against certain units like Terminators is just something that makes the weapon worth taking compared to a psycannon.

That would be a fluffy weapon (not that the other one wouldn't be. Funny thing about fluff is how flexible it is), and one that most people would seriously consider taking in a unit or two. As it currently stands, I'll be very surprised to ever see an actual modeled and painted psilencer in real life, ever.

[Xas]

just switching it over to assoult would be a great deal (or keep the current ROF as assoult and give them double that as heavy like the psycannon).

the niche would still be very small (stormbolters, anyone?!?) but at least the weapon would be usefull (and quite devastating on a relentless terminator!)


another idea would be to make them poison 2+ (instead of the anti-deamon rule). it would still be most powerfull against greater deamons but also ahve quite a punch against normal infantry (wounding on 2+, rerolling instead of 3+ or 4+ depending on T).

[MaltonNecromancer]

You're too used to thinking about fighting MEQ/mech. Take off your metagame goggles and look at Incinerators for what they are: quite simply the best anti-infantry assault-range weapon in the game bar none. Against every army except Marines they auto hit, wound on 2+ and allow no saves of any kind. When assaulting non-MEQ infantry there is literally No Better Weapon. Which is the point. The higher price is because they seriously improve GKSS in assault. It's cheap to just have Strike Squads as they come, and they're very good, point-for-point. But: the high point costs of the assault options is there to ensure that you never have too many seriously assaulty troops that can score objectives.

And yes, you would never take Psilencers except against Daemons. Oh well. Can't honestly say I care at all. Most of the other options are superb, and every army has fluffy-but-pointless things in them.

Bottom line: that Great Unclean One who is, to all intents and purposes, indestructible? Not so much against a Psilencer. You may bemoan it's uslessness, but it is what it is, and I actually don't think it needs changing. The GK's have their options, and the lack of an AP 2 or 3 weapon (which you see as a weakness) is, I rather fancy, quite a nice piece of game design that keeps the GKs from being just another Imperial copypasta. If you're used to regular Marines you'll have to use *gasp* tactics in order to compensate ! (A remarkable idea, I know!)

Stop trying to turn them from GK back into Marines! We already have BA and SW and generic Marines, and everyone already says those three armies are all the same (which is like saying Ryu is the same as Ken is the same as Dan is the same as Akuma is the same as Sagat is the same as Sakura is the same as Captain America is the same as Cyclops: obviously true to those on the outside (because they all have the same three key specials - hadoken, shoryuken, tatsumakishinpukyuaku), and obviously false to those in the know (who understand that the frame rate, hitbox size, lag time, and combo potential of each character is wildly different, even in two characters as seemingly similar as Ken and Ryu. Street Fighter II was a looooooong time ago...) Let the GKs have their weird, functionally pointless gun!

[GM Rex Nihilo]

Either heavy but 36 inch range or assault 24, but currently completely useless!

[Lockark]

And yes, you would never take Psilencers except against Daemons. Oh well. Can't honestly say I care at all. Most of the other options are superb, and every army has fluffy-but-pointless things in them.

Bottom line: that Great Unclean One who is, to all intents and purposes, indestructible? Not so much against a Psilencer. You may bemoan it's uslessness, but it is what it is, and I actually don't think it needs changing. The GK's have their options, and the lack of an AP 2 or 3 weapon (which you see as a weakness) is, I rather fancy, quite a nice piece of game design that keeps the GKs from being just another Imperial copypasta. If you're used to regular Marines you'll have to use *gasp* tactics in order to compensate ! (A remarkable idea, I know!)

Stop trying to turn them from GK back into Marines! We already have BA and SW and generic Marines, and everyone already says those three armies are all the same (which is like saying Ryu is the same as Ken is the same as Dan is the same as Akuma is the same as Sagat is the same as Sakura is the same as Captain America is the same as Cyclops: obviously true to those on the outside (because they all have the same three key specials - hadoken, shoryuken, tatsumakishinpukyuaku), and obviously false to those in the know (who understand that the frame rate, hitbox size, lag time, and combo potential of each character is wildly different, even in two characters as seemingly similar as Ken and Ryu. Street Fighter II was a looooooong time ago...) Let the GKs have their weird, functionally pointless gun!


Your argument makes no sense. I can sum up that wall of text in a single sentence.

"Grey Knight Silencer's should be useless, because if it did something useful it would suddenly turn greyknights into every other Space Marine army."

Oh. That and **** demons, Because if you play deamon that was your 1st mistake. so who cares if not their is yes ANOTHER army that can easily tailor ageist your army.



I can't disagree more. A Codex should have as many good options as possible, and not have a bunch of "no-brainier" options that just makes a army for you. A codex should be able to make a handful a different variation on the same army so you can change up your play style. It also helps the codex age better and avoid becoming mono-build.

[Slug]

Personally, of all the ideas here the only one that sounds decent to me is changing it to ignores invulnerable saves, however if you made it ap2 or maybe even ap3 than it turns from a demon hunting weapon into a terminator/space marine hunting weapon, which is not what its meant to be.
The trouble with GK is that all the anti demon stuff is great because it stays true to the fluff, but demons play so differently to other armies that tailoring your army to be devastating against demons will mean that most other armies will shred your's. But, to be honest that is somewhat out fault for using mech / the fault of the main rule book for making mech so powerful over foot lists.

[DarkLink]

You're too used to thinking about fighting MEQ/mech. Take off your metagame goggles and look at Incinerators for what they are:

How about we drop the condescending "oh, you're a silly narrow minded competitive player who doesn't know what he's talking about" attitude, which is pretty ironic since I've got a few years experience playing around with Grey Knights with Incinerators, and now with the new codex I've done plenty of playing around with GKs with psycannons. I can tell you, from extensive personal experience, which is better 90% of the time. Sure, Incinerators might be able to kill Gaunts better than Psycannons, but I've never been afraid of Gaunts in the first place so that's a weak argument.




quite simply the best anti-infantry assault-range weapon in the game bar none. Against every army except Marines they auto hit, wound on 2+ and allow no saves of any kind. When assaulting non-MEQ infantry there is literally No Better Weapon. Which is the point. The higher price is because they seriously improve GKSS in assault. It's cheap to just have Strike Squads as they come, and they're very good, point-for-point. But: the high point costs of the assault options is there to ensure that you never have too many seriously assaulty troops that can score objectives.

And yet, there's still no reason to take Incinerators over Psycannons, except maybe on Interceptors and even then I wouldn't ever actually do it. Maybe one unit per army, maybe.

See, you're probably going to get one shot with the Incinerators per game. I used Incinerators in Land Raiders, and it's one maybe two shots per game. Less of a big deal last edition because you spend more time hiding in Land Raiders, but now I only ever get in my Rhinos when I really really need to.

So, while you will get one shooting phase where you can do a bunch of Str 6 hits, maybe two if you're lucky, you could be getting just as many Str 7 shots over the course of the game. And since GKs are already really, really good at mowing down infantry, the flexibility the Psycannon's extra strength and range grants you makes Incinerators basically redundant.

So, like I said, Incinerators are good, sure. But Psycannons are simply better against virtually everything in the game.





And yes, you would never take Psilencers except against Daemons. Oh well. Can't honestly say I care at all. Most of the other options are superb, and every army has fluffy-but-pointless things in them.

Bottom line: that Great Unclean One who is, to all intents and purposes, indestructible? Not so much against a Psilencer. You may bemoan it's uslessness, but it is what it is, and I actually don't think it needs changing. The GK's have their options, and the lack of an AP 2 or 3 weapon (which you see as a weakness) is, I rather fancy, quite a nice piece of game design that keeps the GKs from being just another Imperial copypasta.

Really? Nothing here makes any sense. Like I said, you cannot coherently argue that the psilencer is perfectly fine as it currently is.



If you're used to regular Marines you'll have to use *gasp* tactics in order to compensate ! (A remarkable idea, I know!)

Dude, I've never played normal Marines. I just want to take an option that is completely and utter useless, and make it something worth taking. So chill out, and stop being a douche about it.



Stop trying to turn them from GK back into Marines! We already have BA and SW and generic Marines, and everyone already says those three armies are all the same

I don't see how you could possible think that changing a single weapon could make GKs anything like the other Marine armies. Other Marine armies themselves play very differently from each other as is, and Grey Knights literally share nothing in common with any of them beyond similar saves, to hit and to wound.

In fact, by your argument do DE play like an Imperial army, simply because they have a lot of high AP shooting? Because that argument makes about as much sense as the one you're trying to make.



Let the GKs have their weird, functionally pointless gun!

Why? There is absolutely no logical reason to come to this conclusion. It makes no sense.

[harveydent]

incinerator = anti-troop, short range, fire while moving, variable cost
psycannon = anti-troop, anti-tank, medium range, variable rof, fire while moving, variable cost
psilencer = anti-troop, medium range, high rof, stationary firing, bonus vs. large daemons, variable cost

the psilencer kind of falls short because 1) it doesn't do anything that the other weapons don't already do and 2) you can't fire it on the move.

if they wanted to make psilencers more or less equal, and help incinerators a little, then they should have made the psycannon move-or-fire, and psilencers able to fire while moving.

another option would be to make the two firing modes for psycannons like this:
heavy 4, s7 ap4 rending, 24"
assault 1, s7 ap4 rending, 24" blast

and then change the psilencer to this:
assault 6, s4 ap-, wounds daemons on 4+, 24"

this way you would actually be forced to choose between psilence'rs high rof and psycannon's low rof/lack of mobility PLUS you would have an incentive to use incinerators.

an added bonus would be changing the heavy versions of the psycannon/psilencer so that they didn't completely suck... like this:

heavy psycannon: heavy 4, s7 ap4 rending, blast, 24"
gatling psilencer: assault 18, s4 ap-, wounds daemons on 4+, 24"

[Demonus]

I think the problem is that Psycannons are too good. They should be Heavy 2 or 3 and that's it.

[DarkLink]

Partially, but psycannons are also what the GK codex really really needs to work. The fact that they're as good as they are means that you can get away with taking other weapons, but currently the other weapons just aren't worth it over more psycannons.

Keep psycannons the way they are, but make the other weapons worth taking. That way the GK codex still functions, but because you can meet your anti-tank needs with fewer units you have the opportunity to take other weapons to fill other needs.


And I don't think that Incinerators really need to be buffed, just a points adjustment on certain units like GKSS. All that's left are Psilencers, which need something to make them useful.

[Hive Mind]

You assume that everyone is a tournament-type competitive player and so GW should optimise every codex for you and those like you, Darklink. That is an erroneous assumption.

As someone who uses Grey Knights for their intended purpose (killing warp-spawn) I love the psilencer. It is perfect as it is. So it sucks for tournaments, who cares? Take your psycannons and get on with killing Space Wolves. Us fluffy types like psilencers just as they are,

[fuzzbuket]

psylincers better? why multiple firing modes:

setup: 24'' s4 ap- heavy 6 rending
rapid 12' s4 sp- assault 6 -1BS

the reasonnn is that as it is reprsents a quick burst of fire on the move or setting up and focusing the fire. (and rending reprsents the focusing on a enemy tank or squad and pouring fire mercilessly on it?

:)

-fuzz

[Lockark]

You assume that everyone is a tournament-type competitive player and so GW should optimise every codex for you and those like you, Darklink. That is an erroneous assumption.

As someone who uses Grey Knights for their intended purpose (killing warp-spawn) I love the psilencer. It is perfect as it is. So it sucks for tournaments, who cares? Take your psycannons and get on with killing Space Wolves. Us fluffy types like psilencers just as they are,

And it's a erroneous assumption that GW should write under powered options and codexs to appease players who get squeamish and thinks the word "competitive" is a dirty word.

Huh. Funny how that argument works both ways.


psylincers better? why multiple firing modes:

setup: 24'' s4 ap- heavy 6 rending
rapid 12' s4 sp- assault 6 -1BS

the reasonnn is that as it is reprsents a quick burst of fire on the move or setting up and focusing the fire. (and rending reprsents the focusing on a enemy tank or squad and pouring fire mercilessly on it?

:)

-fuzz

The idea of a firing mode causing -1BS is not a very elegant rules writing. It also falls into the same trap that Dark Link Described. Grey Knights are already equipped with storm bolters. A gun that gives them even more S4 shooting isn't realy something they need.

Personally if I was to rewrite the rules for it, it would look something like this.
24"/S2/Ap-/Assault 6/Rending/Ignore Inv saves

The idea is that the rending represents the fact it's a gautling cannon. S2 repersents to achieve it's Assault 6 it sacrifices Strength. Ignoring Inv saves represents the ability of it's shots to harm wrap creatures and break threw forcefeilds.

In the end I think that would balance out well. It relies mostly on rolling 6's to do any damage. But when you roll a six it will cut down anything from a Plague Marine to a Thunder-hammer storm shield Termy. It fills that sort of anti-heavy infantry roll that other armies would use plasma guns for. But at the same time is so different that it would hopefully distinguish it greatly from the plasma-gun.

[Hive Mind]

While we're speaking of erroneous assumptions, I didn't say that they should write 'underpowered' codexes.

[Lockark]

While we're speaking of erroneous assumptions, I didn't say that they should write 'underpowered' codexes.

Oh?


You assume that everyone is a tournament-type competitive player and so GW should optimise every codex for you and those like you, Darklink.

So codex's should not be written with Tournament play in mind, and that we should not be able to build balanced "optimized" lists for said tournament play.

Yet these codex's should not be underpowered.

Sounds like a contradiction to me. Or maby I'm just a *****.
=P

[Hive Mind]

I have not said that tournament play (as baffling and pathetic as I find the idea of competitive toy-soldiers) should be ignored, I have said that tournament play should not be the only concern when writing a codex. Still, feel free to leap, two-footed, to whatever conclusion you like about what I'm saying once more.

Moaning about psilencers not being an all-singing-all-dancing-killfest is akin to being handed the keys to a garage full of high-performance sports cars and moaning that there's a VW Beetle in there too. It comes across as more than a little... petulant? Is that the word I want? Reminiscent of a spoiled child, at any rate.

The psilencer is a single option in an extremely powerful codex. In no way is the ability to create numerous, balanced and competitive lists mitigated by its inclusion.

[eldargal]

Have to agree with Hive Mind regarding codices and tournaments. It is worth nothing GW itself is quite open about not designing things with competitive play in mind, thank god.

[plawolf]

I agree that the psilencer is utterly pointless as it is, and no one would ever take one unless they were seriously tailoring. Stating fluff as a reason is bonk since there is no fluff at all about the damn things.

GW do not design books for hardcore competitive play, but that is no reason to add things that are utterly pointless and looks like it was added purely as make-weight to try and hide the fact that GK only have two ranged weapons options.

To make the psilencer work, it needs to fill a niche not covered by the paycannon or storm bolter.

I see two options, either increased range, say 36", in which case it might be worth considering taking for a strike squad or combat squad left to hold a home deployment zone objective.

The other is to make the gun better at anti-armour. Firstly, make it an assault weapon, maybe the same as the psycannon where the assault value is half the heavy. Then you can either bump it to S5 and allow it to benefit from psybolts, or you keep the S4 but add in a roll two D6 for AP rule. Since it is still S4, it is still significantly worse than melta, and will only get an average AP of 10, but with the potential to pen AV14 and the high number of shots, it should still make a credile enough AT weapon to be worth considering over the psycannon.

[Hive Mind]

Grey Knights are Daemon-Hunters. Psilencers kill daemons with aplomb.

Res ipsa loquitur.

[lattd]

I can think of two uses for psilencers, Giving them to a grandmaster so he can lay down a shed load of shots or giving them to terminators or paladins who can have a slow advance with lots of shots while the strike squads and purifiers pyscannon everything and the interceptor squads burn anything else with incinerators.

[DarkLink]

You do realize that taking a psycannon is actually better anti-infantry than a psilencer against everything but Greater Daemons, and on top of that the psycannon can pop tanks? It makes it hard not to just spend the 10 extra points for the psycannon.



And it's a erroneous assumption that GW should write under powered options and codexs to appease players who get squeamish and thinks the word "competitive" is a dirty word.

Huh. Funny how that argument works both ways.

Particularly since Hive Mind's argument is based on "competitive players like DarkLink are jerks, so let's intentionally unbalance the game" (as completely nonsensical as that argument is), while my argument is "huh, this option is unbalanced, and that's no fun, so let's try and make it more balanced".

One is good game design, one is trolling. Reminds my why I put Hive Mind on my ignore list.


Have to agree with Hive Mind regarding codices and tournaments. It is worth nothing GW itself is quite open about not designing things with competitive play in mind, thank god.

Competitive or not, the more balanced a game is the more fun it is. I don't understand why a non-competitive gamer would specifically want an unbalanced game, particularly when the 'fluffy' (which is a loaded term, but I digress) options are underpowered.

Why must a fluffy list be underpowered? Don't non-competitive players always complain about how unfluffy competitive armies are, or about how there's only a few netlists everyone plays, or any one of a number of similar issues?

All those problems disappear if you create more balanced codices. Far from disagreeing with you, the whole point of this thread is to acknowledge that something is unbalanced, and see what we could do to make it more balanced.


We're starting from the same premise, that some aspect of the game is unbalanced. So why say, 'screw it, I like losing with my fluffy army'? Why not try to make the game more fun by making it more balanced. It's only a thought exercise anyways (which is why I find it ironic that Hive Mind is trolling while trying to criticize competitive players for, well, playing competitively. You take this way too seriously, dude. Chill out. This thread isn't here for a flame war or your vague insults, so quit being a douche).








And seriously, people, this is a thread about toy soldiers. I've had two people randomly yell at me for no reason already. I think they really do need to put up a forum rule saying 'don't be a douche'. Chill out. You don't think that psilencers need fixing, then say so. Civilly.

[lattd]

I keep seeing the psilencer as grey knights long range horde killer. Take a max paladin squad, 4 psilencers an apothecary and swords for the invulnerable save bonus and a warding stave, thats 36 strength 4 shots at anything in 24 inches and a tough nut to crack. Use the librarian to teleport them onto say your opponents objective and watch them try and shift that unit.

[Hive Mind]

A psilencer is not 'underpowered' if you use it to kill daemons, nor does one option make the codex, or the lists emanating from it, 'underpowered'. I get that it isn't great for killing Space Wolves and I get that it doesn't kill Razorbacks, I just do not care one little bit. It is meant for killing daemons and that's what it does. Superbly.

Quit simply assuming that everyone is like you and plays like you and quit using massively hyperbolic statements, they add nothing to your cause and just reinforce the spoiled brat impression.

[Hive Mind]

PS, I don't think you're a jerk by the way but your casual self-importance is definitely irksome.

[DarkLink]

I keep seeing the psilencer as grey knights long range horde killer. Take a max paladin squad, 4 psilencers an apothecary and swords for the invulnerable save bonus and a warding stave, thats 36 strength 4 shots at anything in 24 inches and a tough nut to crack. Use the librarian to teleport them onto say your opponents objective and watch them try and shift that unit.

I'm not denying that it's a lot of shots and a tough unit (though you can get more shots with 30 GKSS), but it just isn't as good as the equivalent unit equipped with psycannons.


Since everything else stays the same, we can ignore all that. Just looking at 4 psilencers vs 4 psycannons, we've got 24 str 4 shots vs 16 str 7 shots. Both hit on a 3+, leaving us with 16 str 4 and 10.67 str 7 shots. Rolling to wound against T4, we're left with 8 wounds from the psilencers vs 8.9 wounds from the psycannons. That's not counting rending or the fact that psycannons have a better AP than psilencers.

That right there kinda kills your argument. Yes, the purpose of psilencers is to kill infantry. I don't think anyone will disagree with that. The problem is, psycannons are better at killing infantry than psilencers, and on top of that psycannons have AP4, rending, and can hurt vehicles, all for only 10pts more.

And unless you happen to be shooting at Daemons, it only gets worse for the psilencer as toughness goes up.


So, again, we're left with the question of why take psilencers? The only reason is for fun, but why shouldn't psilencers be a viable choice in the first place? Psilencers are clearly there for a specific purpose (killing infantry and Daemons specifically), so it should be good enough at doing that that you would just take a psycannon instead.

[Lockark]

A psilencer is not 'underpowered' if you use it to kill daemons,

So your saying you should tailor your lists?
:rolleyes:

One weapon meant for the sole purposes of giving another army a big middle finger is not good game design, and not very balanced.



I have not said that tournament play (as baffling and pathetic as I find the idea of competitive toy-soldiers) should be ignored, I have said that tournament play should not be the only concern when writing a codex. Still, feel free to leap, two-footed, to whatever conclusion you like about what I'm saying once more.



A balanced codex means every option should be a viable option when building a all comers list. One of the main weapons in the book being effective ageist only one army limits the available options when building "all comers" lists. By haveing options that are that specialized means most "all comer's" grey knights lists I've seen are mostly pyscannon spam. (Then with MABY some incinerators here and their.)

I would bring up the Dark Eldar as a good example of a good codex. Their are almost no "no-brainier" options, and every unit (except mandrakes) are viable units to use when making a all comer's list. You don't have to handi-cap the competitiveness of your list just to play what you want to play.



Moaning about psilencers not being an all-singing-all-dancing-killfest is akin to being handed the keys to a garage full of high-performance sports cars and moaning that there's a VW Beetle in there too. It comes across as more than a little... petulant? Is that the word I want? Reminiscent of a spoiled child, at any rate.

The psilencer is a single option in an extremely powerful codex. In no way is the ability to create numerous, balanced and competitive lists mitigated by its inclusion.

This metaphore makes no scene.

Realy it's more like when you get the grey knight book, you have three cars to work with:
-High Performance Sports car (Pyscannon)
-A Honda Civic (Incenerator)
-A Trabant (Psilencers)


When you have thows 1st two, why the hell would you ever use the3rd option that doesn't have the reliability or performance? It's a Trabant! You have it I guess. But your never going to use it .

Realy the only reason I suspect you used cars the a metaphor for the grey knights, is a excuse for calling us childish and a excuse to use big words. A Condescending attitude I suspect is to inflate your own ego. In a single post you call all competitive players pathetic and childish. Personally I suspect you lost one to many times to some players who are better then you, and are now butt hurt. For one who is trying to act so mature, it's a pretty immature way to conduct ones self.

Don't bother replying to me if your only way to debate with people is petty name calling. You prove little trying to start fights on the internet.



Particularly since Hive Mind's argument is based on "competitive players like DarkLink are jerks, so let's intentionally unbalance the game" (as completely nonsensical as that argument is), while my argument is "huh, this option is unbalanced, and that's no fun, so let's try and make it more balanced".

One is good game design, one is trolling. Reminds my why I put Hive Mind on my ignore list.


True, True.

[eldargal]

Well there is a difference between having it balanced enough for fun play between friends (which I would argue GW games are) and having a watertight ruleset that will prevent rules disputes at a highly competitive level. GW want a ruleset that people can change and morph ot suit their own tastes and preferences, they talk about it quite a lot, encouraging house rules, fan armies and whatnot.

[Hive Mind]

I lose often, to all skill levels. You have to look beyond your narrow obsession with a simple win/loss. It's not a question of being "butt hurt" (though your amateur psychology, laughably simplistic as it is, is much appreciated), it's a question of being utterly flabbergasted (oop, big word) at the angst that a single weapon in easily the most powerful codex to date can cause by not being a BFG (if you've played Doom) and the utter self-importance displayed (here and elsewhere) by some players who seem to feel that their particular style of play is the only style that GW or anyone should even countenance (I'm sure you won't mind googling one more 'big word' will you?).

I used the car analogy because it is extremely apt and your (possibly intentional) misunderstanding of it doesn't change that. Grey Knights have the best codex out there, bar none, and yet here you are whining about one tiny aspect of it like... well like a spoiled child.

Once more, the psilencer is not 'underpowered', it doesn't hinder the ability to make competitive lists and it isn't unbalanced. It is meant for killing daemons, as the Grey Knights are daemon-hunters after all. If you take them to try and kill Long Fangs then yeah, they're going to suck because that's not what they're for. Does that mean it's only use is in a 'tailored' list? No, not really. It's only really useless against MEQ. If people in your local area have the audacity to play something other than MEQ (which lots do, despite internet naysayers) it can be pretty handy.

Remove thine head from thine arse and appreciate the fact that some of us use an army as they're intended to be used. Some of us play narrative campaigns. Some of us do not play every single game against MEQ netlists. That's really all I'm asking. I'm not asking you to stop playing tournaments and I'm not asking you to stop playing as you do. I'm just asking that you drop the arrogant assumptions that tournament play is or should be all that matters and acknowledge that some of us (most of us, I'd wager) do not give a flying **** about tournaments.

PS. I didn't call you or any tournament player childish and/or pathetic though given your propensity (oops) for misunderstanding simple written English I can certainly understand why you might have thought I did. I think that tournaments themselves are childish and pathetic but that doesn't necessarily extend to those participating in them.

PPS. I'm curious about your comments about the Dark Eldar. Psilencers are the only choice in C:GK that are not extremely killy to the point of being stupid and you harp on them, but Mandrakes apparently get a free pass. If I wished to play Mandrakes, would I not be 'weakening' my list by your, ahem, logic?

[lattd]

Dark link what about comparing it to T3 models such as guard or tyranid small bugs? I do think its the horde thinner of the codex and it really does not need to be stronger Grey Knights are pretty top tier and some of their points are really undercosted so a slightly weaker choice is not that bad.

I for one like mandrakes and would use them in a DE army if i had one.

I do think the focus on competitive play by a lot of people is actually harming the game. If you want a tight rule set look at LOTR rules while they were in books. There was a base profile and models points were based on how stat changes which where worth 1 point each or warriors and 5 points on heroes. Yes i know a lot of you hate the game but how many of you played it enough to learn it properly?

[DarkLink]

Against T3, psilencers get a decent advantage, causing 10.4 wounds to the psycannon's 8.9. But since everything already has storm bolters by default, GKs are already extremely good at killing t3 models from shooting. Plus, against Guard it's not how many dudes you shoot that will determine victory, it's how many vehicles you can blow up, meaning you need every single psycannon you can get. And with 'nidz, psycannons deny FNP from Tervigons, which gives them back the advantage against infantry in a lot of cases. And of course psycannons are better against Monstrous Creatures. Against Eldar, well, eldar foot units aren't numerous enough to stand up to storm bolter fire effectively. And like Guard you need every single psycannon to try and blow up those stupid skimmers.

So, yes, psilencers do have an advantage in that specific circumstance, but that advantage is pretty much negated by the fact that GKs already have a ton of storm bolters and that those armies tend to rely on vehicles, thus requiring more psycannons.




And what's with more bashing competitive players? Balanced games are more fun. I want a game where someone could randomly select units to take and still have a fair chance at winning no matter who his opponent was. I was just hoping to chat about how to balanced psilencers a bit, no big deal or anything. Instead I get repeatedly flamed for something vague about how competitive players are ruining the game, and how I'm a spoiled brat (wtf?).

I don't want to sound like I'm yelling at anyone in particular (the lovely thing about the internet is that I can just Ignore everyone not worth listening to, and so far there's only one person in this thread that qualifies). But at the moment, if feels like I just walked out of a movie and went to go chat with some people 'so, how'd you like the movie', only for them to randomly start criticizing me for giving money to corrupt big business or something weird like that.


Well there is a difference between having it balanced enough for fun play between friends (which I would argue GW games are) and having a watertight ruleset that will prevent rules disputes at a highly competitive level.

Yeah, 40k is definitely balanced 'enough' so long as you stick with the more recent codices. It's not like the GK codex is unbalanced as a whole, with one or two notable exceptions. Psilencers happen to be one of those, as there is no reason to take them. Brotherhood Champions also suck. Psyrifle Dreads and Rad/Psykotroke Grenades, on the flip side, are kinda ridiculously good.

So, yeah, it's not like these are huge, codex changing problems. They're just a few specific tweaks that GW should have caught early on. Heck, Ward should have realized the instant he wrote the psilencer and psycannon rules that 'oh, hey, psycannons are just so much better than psilencers, I'm gonna need to tweak that a bit'.

Just make a few changes like that, and you'd have a codex as balanced as DE, with almost no bad options and almost no auto includes.