If you think Grey Knights are broken

[DarkLink]

Then read this article (http://www.3plusplus.net/2012/02/3-con-statistics-deeper-look-at-dark.html) from 3++. Some of the language could have been improved, unless you're familiar with statistics you might get a bit lost, but Kirby makes a very good point about Grey Knights. And while he only uses the results of a single tournament, from what I've seen his results stand up pretty well in a lot of the other tournaments I've been too.


Basically, Grey Knights are the noob-stomping army. They are not actually overpowered in any discernible way, and in fact may be a bit weaker than the other top tier armies, but are really good at killing players who don't know what they're doing.


To summarize the article, they looked at GKs and DE, and how the winning and losing players fared against opponents who had been winning or losing. They found that DE's performance was based on player skill rather than opponent. A DE player who frequently won, won regardless of whom he was facing. If the DE player lost frequently, he lost to other losers as much as he lost to winners.

GKs didn't show this behavior. GKs won an abnormally large number of games against opponents who lost frequently, but did poorly against players who won frequently. The success of the GKs was based heavily on the competence of the opponent. Poor players lost to GKs, while skilled players had very good odds. While on paper GKs seem OP, there are subtle weaknesses that a competent player can take advantage of to win even with an army that seems outmatched by the GKs.






This isn't to say that GKs are a poor army. They still show up pretty frequently in the top ranks a tournaments. This does provide a compelling argument that GKs are not broken, cheesy, or unbeatable. So if you're in a position to complain about how you think GKs are broken, cheesy and unbeatable, it's almost certainly because you're a poor player and not the other way around.

Or the GK player you face happens to be the rock to your scissors. Some of the less competitive armies just can't stand up to, say, Driagowing effectively. Then again, playing handi-capped isn't the best way to win, so if you are playing a weaker army list you need to keep that in mind.




On another note, the exact opposite case is true with Orks. Everyone seems to think that orks suck, yet I've seen 2-4 ork players in the top 10 in literally every single major tournament I've looked up the results for. Orks may look weak on paper, but there's something about them that makes them a top tier army, no matter what the internet says.

[lattd]

Surely this just proves that certain armies require skill and some don't and the fact that Grey Knights are pretty top tier but can be used by a noob to get that result shows they are broken more than anything else.

[wittdooley]

Surely this just proves that certain armies require skill and some don't and the fact that Grey Knights are pretty top tier but can be used by a noob to get that result shows they are broken more than anything else.

I think it also comes down to the fact that if your army is lacking a ton of 1-2 AP weaponry, it can be hard to bring down a Paladin squad. Additionally, if you're a low I army, and you let the Paladins with hammer hand and might of titan get a charge on you, you're in dire straights.

[WYSIWYG]

This is data from a single tournament with less than 100 participants, so it needs to be looked at with some sense of scale. These numbers are not the end all be all, but do show certain facts to be true. The thing I really take away from these numbers is that new or less skilled players can simply pick up the GK codex and they are instantly better, simply by virtue of playing with GKs. The second thing this data tells me is that their were some bad players who brought down their factions overall numbers, GK being one of those. The third thing this tells me is that my suspicion about tournaments is turning out to be true. For awhile now I have been thinking that the reason that so called net lists and other killer army builds don't actually dominate every tourney is simply because they are too good. Killer builds start off strong in the first few rounds but as they go further up the bracket the really powerful armies and generals start to battle each other in the middle brackets (thus bringing each other down in points), while sub-par armies and generals coast along on mediocrity. This isn't always the case but it happens quite a lot I bet, and I have seen it happen at our Local Tourneys a good amount as well.

P.S. GK is OP and broken as hell.

[scrap square]

Why do people still try to claim 40k takes skill and generalship, it obviously doesnt.
Its a horribly designed un balanced game and this shows it.

[MaltonNecromancer]

Why do people still try to claim 40k takes skill and generalship, it obviously doesnt.

Citation needed.


Its a horribly designed un balanced game and this shows it.

Umm... One sentence comments full of vitriolic opinions are as useful as a garden swing is to a 600 pound shut in. Any chance you could perhaps elaborate on why you think this?

Because yeah, 40K isn't the most balanced game, but... you're on a 40K fan forum, so either you're

a.) a 40K fan.
b.) a troll.
c.) mildly confused about how this whole "internets" thing works.
d.) perhaps better off doing something more enjoyable with your time. (Unless, you know, you actually are a troll, in which case, keep doing what you're doing. Maybe try posting a few "first!" comments instead, and statements about how Matt Ward isn't such a terrible codex writer; you know, help ease yourself into the role? :))

Mild joking aside, seriously: what empirical evidence do you base your opinion on - I'm genuinely intrigued.

[DarkLink]

I think you all have missed the point.

Nothing here says that noobs can pick up GKs and start winning tournaments. What it says, is that the opponent's level of skill made a huge difference. The armylist matchups didn't matter as much you might think (strike one against the idea that GKs are overpowered), and against skilled opponents GKs fared no better than any other army (strike two).

If Grey Knights were an auto-win army, overpowered or broken, then they would have an abnormally high win ratio against everyone. This is not the case. Against noobs and crappy players (players who lost most of their games), they had a high win percentage. But, against other top tier armies and players, they didn't have an unusually high win percentage.


Against crappy players, GKs provide an easy win because the crappy players aren't skilled enough to counter the GK's hard advantages. Skilled players, however, are capable of exploting the soft weaknesses of the GKs to win.

What that means is that GKs are easy to use fairly well, but just as difficult as any other army to master. Broken implies a degree of unbeatability, yet this shows that competent players can reliably beat GKs. Doesn't sound very broken to me.


And yes, this is a small sample size. It might not be statistically significant, but it demonstrates something I've seen pretty regularly at tournaments. Go on Rankings HQ and browse around, and I'd bet if you added it up you'd see more orks in the top 10 at tournaments than GKs, and Space Wolves seem to win more tournaments than most anyone else. And all in all, the top tier of armies is much larger and more balanced than most people think, based purely on results.


Why do people still try to claim 40k takes skill and generalship, it obviously doesnt.
Its a horribly designed un balanced game and this shows it.

I'm trying to think of a nice way of saying that, on top of missing the point of the article, you don't really know what you're talking about here. I think this is about the best I can do, so I'll cut it short here. At least you didn't include something about how fantasy or some other system is so much better.

I will mention, though, that if you go online and look at what armies have won how many major events, the game seems surprisingly balanced in actuality. Excluding Tau, Eldar and Sisters (whom very few play anyways), pretty much every army has a decent number of wins under its belt. The fact that, for example, vanilla Marines have plenty of wins generally indicates that the game is more balanced and based on player skill than most of the internet seems to think.


Edit: Actually Matt Ward is a pretty good codex writer. So long as you only look at the rules. Compared to Ward, Phil Kelly doesn't know any restraint and Cruddance can't figure out how much anything is worth. All the codices have at least a few things wrong with them, but in general Ward's codices have fewer broken items and better internal balance.

[MaltonNecromancer]

The fact that, for example, vanilla Marines have plenty of wins generally indicates that the game is more balanced and based on player skill than most of the internet seems to think.

Agreed. There's no way you could say "You can't win with [insert army here]" for any of the 5th edition codexes. They're all perfectly viable. Some seem generally stronger (GK perhaps), but GK seem in no way unbeatable. Enough splinter rifle shots and they go down; enough Autocannon shots and they drop, etc...

The only armies that are really suffering at the moment are Eldar and Tau. SoB have been sorely mistreated, but it's not a huge issue because eventually there will be a shiny new codex with plastic minis, and if you really need to, you could run them as GK Inquisition forces anyway.

Actually, Repentia as Death Cult assassins is a bloody good idea. Why haven't I thought of it before...?

*wanders off to eBay to look for Sisters Repentia*

[WYSIWYG]

If Grey Knights were an auto-win army, overpowered or broken, then they would have an abnormally high win ratio against everyone.

This statement is simply untrue, as a number of things can affect an armies overall performance. For starters lets imagine that you are going to a local 3 round tournament. When you arrive you find out that you are the only Blood Angels player in a 20 man event. The other 19 players are comprised of 10 codex marines and 9 Tau. You beat your first Tau opponent into the dirt, then face off against a Space marine player who you best, then in the last round you fight a Tau player, but every thing goes horribly wrong for you, reserves don't come in when you need them and your saves are just garbage, you lose. Now if someone looks at the tournament results and knows nothing of the circumstances, they would see the results and say "Wow, BA is no where near as good as SM and Tau. Look how bad their numbers are compared to the other two armies."

Second, you are not taking into account the built in bias that TOs have toward "broken codexs". I have personally seen TOs decide pairings based on codex alone. "Well he is playing SW, so we need to pair him up against something really hard or he will run rough shot over everyone." I was standing their when this was said. The person this was said about was a brand new player at his first Tourney, running a sub-par list, it was not fair. TOs, whether you will admit it our not, have a built in bias. If you bring GK to a GT, be prepared for "pound you in the A#$ matches" all day long. I remember when I first started playing 40k, my first army was IG, their 5th ed codex had been out for a little while. People gave me dirty looks every where I went, called me WAAC. Every TO would try and find the hardest pairing for me every round, they would try and find the rock for my scissors so to speak. Even though I was brand new, the simple fact that I played IG caused TOs to throw me into lopsided and harsh match ups regardless of my skill level or points standing.

[Bean]

While I generally agree with WYSIWYG that a statement of the type,

"If Grey Knights were an auto-win army, overpowered or broken, then they would have an abnormally high win ratio against everyone."

is fundamentally flawed, and I would stress again that this is a very limited data sample and may not be properly indicative of the matter on the whole, I would acknowledge that the article seems to treat what data it has well, that (within the scope of that data) its conclusion seems warranted, and that it is a reasonable start on a compelling demonstration of the conclusion at large.

edit:
It's important, though, to keep a reasonable and fairly limited definition on "broken" or "overpowered." It can't be taken to mean that an army will always win, or is effectively unbeatable--no army will ever meet those criteria, and such a term would be meaningless.

Rather, we have to take it to mean that it shows a significant statistical advantage, across, the board, against a very wide range of other armies and players in a very wide range of settings. This example doesn't demonstrate broken-ness at all, but it is indicative of the type of analysis you'd have to do on that very large data set were you wanting to make that demonstration--and the results it produces can be taken as a sort of small-scale proof of concept for the endeavor.

[DarkLink]

Again, I know this individual tournament is too small a sample size for a reliable study. What I'm saying is that that proposal stands up to what I've seen at plenty of other tournaments. Like I said, go on Rankings HQ and just browse tournament results.

When I say that we don't see GKs getting an unusually high number of overall win percentages, I'm not talking about just at 3++ con. I'm talking about a significant chunk of the major events around the world. I haven't gone and tallied up how many wins and top 10 placings, no, but I know that for North America GKs are in the middle of the pack of top tier codices. Space Wolves and Orks actually seem to have the most people in the top 10, Space Wolves win the most, and the rest of the slots are split between the other Marine codices, GKs, IG and so on.

So, no, it's not a scientifically valid study. But it's a much better educated guess than someone saying "but GKs are totally broken because of those crazy grenade thingies".



Second, you are not taking into account the built in bias that TOs have toward "broken codexs". I have personally seen TOs decide pairings based on codex alone.

I'm not talking about little local tournaments, I'm talking about the big ones which almost always use a somewhat automated system for pairings based on score. When you've got 50-90 players, you simply don't have time between rounds to hand-pair people usually.

[SeattleDV8]

GK are not broken, what they are is easy to pick up both in models and learning the army.
They can be very strong against many armies and have many different looks it can give.
Personally in a tourny I LOVE having a GK opponent (and IG) as I play Deathwing.
My army is the ultimate spoiler, it's not always good enough to win but I will cause havok all the way though.
An elite army like GK does not have the answer to another elite army with better saves and instant death with every swing/shot.
The 3++ article pointed out something that I have seen in my local tournys and the coverage of the larger national tournys

[Bean]

So, no, it's not a scientifically valid study. But it's a much better educated guess than someone saying "but GKs are totally broken because of those crazy grenade thingies".


Well, I definitely agree with that.



I'm not talking about little local tournaments, I'm talking about the big ones which almost always use a somewhat automated system for pairings based on score. When you've got 50-90 players, you simply don't have time between rounds to hand-pair people usually.

Yeah, I thought this was a bad argument, too--I really don't think that a TO bias against certain armies (something that I can't imagine showing up at any tournament worth attending, and certainly not at any tournament on a large scale) is relevant to the discussion.

[DarkLink]

Yeah, I'm not trying to say that 3++ just proved something. I do think it would be pretty interesting to do a thourough study of 40k in the fashion that they did with 3++ con, but with all major tournaments. You do need to get pretty specific information, though. You need to know who played who, with what armies, what their individual records were, what missions were played, etc. It'd be a full time job for someone, but you'd learn a lot of interesting stuff.

[Bean]

Yeah, I'm not trying to say that 3++ just proved something. I do think it would be pretty interesting to do a thourough study of 40k in the fashion that they did with 3++ con, but with all major tournaments. You do need to get pretty specific information, though. You need to know who played who, with what armies, what their individual records were, what missions were played, etc. It'd be a full time job for someone, but you'd learn a lot of interesting stuff.

I actually kinda think that a better approach would be to create a 40k-playing genetic algorithm, get it up to speed, and let it run a few trillion games against itself. I think this would produce more data and paint a better picture of overall balance than any analysis of tournament results could. But, again, that's a very serious undertaking and not one I have the skill or knowledge to do.

[uatu13]

Not really sure why everyone bemoans GK's being broken. At our LGS they never win any tournaments, I've beaten them about every time I've faced them with a variety of armies, and even at the local 'ard boyz they performed pretty terribly (both draigowings and other builds). They do have some massive bonuses over some armies (tyranids especially), but I don't really think they're that broken.

[ragnarcissist]

i have gone 4-0 against GK since their release including 2-0 against draigo wing, so no, i dont believe they are broken, but then again some ppl (mainly some nids players i know) call the SW codex broken so whaddya gonna do?

[Denied]

In general most people can only speak to what they see in their local meta, as the vast majority of players do not travel about to the GT circuit. That being said when you look at sub populations the data gets skewed, what I am trying to say here is DON'T USE YOUR LOCAL SCENE EXPERIENCE TO MAKE GENERALIZED COMMENTS.

As far as the game on a whole Grey Knights are balanced for the current and hopefully soon to be released edition. On a whole the codex is very balanced, yes it has tricks but nothing that goes over the top. Most of the GK tricks are things to actually make up for other areas where they are lacking.

The people who complain about Grey Knights being broken are the people who are use to an out of date meta. Pure and simple. Sorry.

[Cuddy]

GK are broken because they basically sealed the coffin of playing Daemons in tournaments. Every army has opponents they're better/worse against, but Daemons was singled out pretty heavily. I know its fluffy, but they could have included something to help them, maybe something justifying buffing a daemon army along the lines of "When Grey Knights have been called in, it means that the most dangerous daemonic incursions are happening..."

Stats are good too, but from personal experience it tends to undervalue the most popular armies. For example, I think the W/L undervalue marines armies because every opponent they play is prepared for MEQ. So many people play SM, there's no way a tournament player doesn't have a list built for killing them. Meanwhile, unpopular armies might surprise players who don't have counters for something only one or two of their opponents are fielding.

[Chumbalaya]

GK are broken because they basically sealed the coffin of playing Daemons in tournaments. Every army has opponents they're better/worse against, but Daemons was singled out pretty heavily. I know its fluffy, but they could have included something to help them, maybe something justifying buffing a daemon army along the lines of "When Grey Knights have been called in, it means that the most dangerous daemonic incursions are happening..."

Honestly, old DH worried my Daemons more than GK. Old Sanctuary and FW simply removed units from play and adding in IG allies (or vice versa) with old Mystics was an auto-lose against a tailored army.

Current GK really only have Warp Quake, and to see it in sufficient numbers to cover the whole board requires significant tailoring or really poor positioning. Daemons don't care if GKs re-roll to hit, Daemons win combats anyway. Daemons don't care about Force Weapons. Daemons are nearly all Ld10 so failing test are unlikely.

What GK do to give Daemons problems is what every other army does. They can bring a good bit of armor and lots of medium S, high RoF weaponry.

For reference, my army uses highly mobile units almost exclusively. Fiends, Hounds and Daemonettes are my bread and butter and they can all deploy outside the Warp Quake bubble and still threaten a T2 charge. Their massed attacks will tear up armor and force enough saves to drag anything down. For kicks, Flesh Hounds have a 2++ against GKs in combat. My Tzeentch Heralds and Princes can pop armor at range with massed Bolts.

Daemons don't have a lot going for them, but armies that are getting killed by GKs are either being tailored against or were getting killed by similar SW, SM, BA and IG armies.

[Cuddy]

Old DH weren't exactly the most balanced either, in a really different way :P. Those are some good tactics for that though.

[wormark]

I've never heard anyone try to argue that Grey Knights are unbeatable. To even waste time arguing against that point is a straw man argument of the worst kind.

There is a valid argument to be made that Grey Knights are overpowered. I could see a tyranid player arguing that they were a bit broken. Tyranids had a rough go of it in tournament play anyways, Grey Knights only made it harder.

The top tier armies are IG, SW, and GK (some might add BA as well). You just get more value for the points.

The 3++ data tells us nothing. We don't get any information about the experience level of the GK players or the builds. Almost any Draigowing will mop up lower tiered competition, while a properly built list in the hands of a mediocre player will outperform almost any army outside the top tier armies and hardened vet players.

There are hard counters to a lot of common GK builds, which is why it can also perform poorly. I rarely ever see a list that takes advantage of what GKs do best, which is cheap scoring/melta units (henchmen with Coteaz) and brutally efficient Uber-Elite units (Purifiers, Psyflemen, etc).

[Grovel]

Personally, I think the 3++ article proves the opposite - to me it says Grey Knights ARE broken.

Overpowered? No.
Broken? Yes.

For results to skew to that extent based compared to other armies says that they're 'not quite right'. As above I don't think they're overpowered, just that their balance is not quite right.

[Tiberian]

I started playing GKs after I found that vanilla marines just weren't quite what I was looking for. I play a pure GK list and try to stay away from the obvious henchman shenanigans. I think the GKs are a bit overpowered but I show my buddies (oponents) how to better counter the GK strengths so we can keep the games exciting and down to the wire. Between good tactics and smart builds GKs can be taken down I assure you it just takes persistence.

[ComradePenguin]

The GKs are not broken, but they certainly are sitting pretty in competitive play. They are the easy button for 40k, if you are struggling in normal games you can pick up a GK army and expect to do reasonably well. They have things like purifiers to eradicate hordes, psych and rad grenades to neuter deathstars, and forceweapons galore for those monstrous creatures. They can stack strength buffs, increase their I, and still dish out buckets of storm bolter fire. Their only real weakness, low numbers, can be mitigated with henchmen or hiding in transports. They have the tools to counter what any other army can throw at them.

That being said, SW and IG can give them a run for their money. Unfortunately, if you are not using one of these books you will usually find yourself facing an uphill battle.

[DarkLink]

SW are the kings of 40k. They have won more tournaments worldwide than anything else. It's actually much closer than most people seem to think, though. I can't seem to find the site that had tallied up the results from a bunch of major events over the last year or so, though.



For results to skew to that extent based compared to other armies says that they're 'not quite right'. As above I don't think they're overpowered, just that their balance is not quite right.

No, and here's why.

Grey Knights, individually, are extremely powerful, thanks to all their wargear, psychic powers and special rules. An incompetent opponent who hasn't mastered target selection or any tactics beyond rolling dice and hoping it works will be pretty easily defeated, because the Grey Knights have a hard mathematical advantage.

To beat Grey Knights, you require a bit of subtlety. You don't beat Grey Knights by facing them head on and trying to out-assault or out-shoot them. One on one like that, you'll lose. You beat them by out-deploying and out-maneuvering them. Take apart small chunks of their army, and they will fall apart. For all the talk about how awesome Grey Knights are, they cannot deal with attrition very effectively. But doing that takes experience and skill, something that noobs and poor players don't have by definition.

Good players, however, are fully capable of weighing their options and understanding the subtle implications of different deployments and moves. Thus, it becomes a much more balanced matchup, because the game comes down to which player can deploy and maneuver better. So Grey Knights are only broken against incompetent opponents.

[PaperclipBadger]

DarkLink, you talk a lot about the 'subtle flaws' of the grey knights that advanced players can exploit to claim the victory. Would you care to divulge them?

[DarkLink]

It's kinda tricky to explain simply, that's why it's subtle;).

There are a couple different aspects.



The first thing to establish is that, generally, if you just line up a squad of GKs against a squad of just about anything else and march them straight towards each other, the Grey Knights will probably win. That's where the general idea that GKs are broken comes from, and why inexperienced players had trouble beating GKs.



When you get to more skilled players, however, you can still out-deploy and out-maneuver each other. This comes down purely to player skill rather than army list. This is something particularly important for Grey Knight players, and why GKs are actually difficult to master. GKs typically have a very limited number of units compared to other armies, and those units spend a lot of points on expensive upgrades like all those power weapons. A GK player needs to get his units into a good position to take advantage of his better wargear, or the game will end before he can kill his opponent.

At the BAO, I came up against a Driagowing player in my first game. He had Driago, 10 Paladins and 5x 3 Acotlyes in razorbacks with Coteaz and a couple Dreadnoughts. I didn't have anything that could face the Paladins in a straight fight, though my combined army could still threaten him. So I reserved a bunch of my stuff and deployed a squad or two on the far side of the board.

Because of my deployment, my opponent had a difficult choice. He could either sit his 1000pt unit on an objective for the whole game and do nothing but take potshots at anything that got in range and hope I didn't contest. Or, he could chase after my units that were scattered across the board. He might have been able to catch one, or at least shoot it to death, but he'd be so out of position he'd be lucky to even get back to an objective with that squad.

So by scattering my army, I almost completely negated 1000 out of 1750 of his points. It would then be easy for me avoid the Paladins and shoot the rest of his army to death, then contest some objectives and go for at least a tie if I had bad luck. By out-deploying my opponent, I had effectively dealt with his deathstar unit that nothing in my army could stand up against.

Of course, my dice failed me horribly that game, so it ended up being impossible to win after turn 3, but even then his Paladins didn't really contribute to the game much. I just had a series of freak accidents where half my army ran off the board for absurd reasons (his two Dreadnoughts, both psyrifle dreads with no close combat weapon, killed half my army in close combat, plus every single unit I held in reserves came in turn 2. In fact, that whole tournament I think I rolled a 6 for every single reserve roll).



Related to this is the matter of cohesiveness. As a general rule, I keep my entire GK army together at all times, only splitting off for objectives at the last minute. Because if I don't, then my opponent can create a local numerical superiority and slaughter me one squad at a time. It doesn't matter how OP a unit of 10 Terminators is if my opponent infiltrates his 40 genestealers, protects them from shooting with FNP and assaults my Terminators with them while the rest of my army is busy trying to deal with guant hordes coming from a different direct, a squad of Ymgarl genestealers that popped up out of nowhere, and three or four other threats coming from all directions.

If you can force a GK army to split up, either by deployment or by throwing them a lot of threats from different directions, you have a chance to focus fire on one portion of the army and take it apart. You have to be careful you're sacrificing less than you're killing, of course,

The one thing that GKs do not do effectively is take casualties, so if you can bypass that and start inflicting casualties the GK army will go downhill quickly.


And there are a few things in the game that GKs have trouble dealing with. This depends a lot on the specific GK list, but Ghazz with his 2+ invulnerable save is nasty for anyone in the game. Land Raiders and Battlewagons are tough to deal with when you get cover and the GK player only has psycannons to rely on. And some units, like Blood Crushers or Thunderwolves, can cut through smaller power armor GK squads in the right cases.


Like I said, there are a lot of little things that you can do to counter GKs, but most of them require a lot of experience to know how to effectively pull off. You have to know how both your and your opponent's armies work, you have to have an instinctive knowledge of a lot of advanced tactics and strategies, and you have to keep your mind on the objective. If noobs could do all that, then they wouldn't be noobs.





Now, there are a couple of bad matchups where the GKs have an easy victory. I've curbstomped DE so ruthlessly every time I've played them that I literally can't imagine how it's possible for DE to beat a good GK player/army. GKs do stormbolter spam better than Deathwing, and can shoot the Deathwing player off the board without too much of a contest, though a good player with a bit of luck can still pull off a win. But every army has good and bad matchups with someone, and there are a lot more extreme "auto-lose" matchups in the game, so that is little proof GKs are broken.

[bfmusashi]

A lot of this reminds me of the broken character debates from fighting games. While there are broken characters they aren't usually the ones people think are broken. For example, Capcom's Wolverine and Tekken 3's Eddy Gordo were widely considered over-the-top combo machines. They are easily taken apart by players as they have huge weaknesses apparent when you've played a while. I think Grey Knights fall into the same category. It varies depending on your army build vs. your opponent's.

[Chumbalaya]

Different armies have different learning curves and plateaus. I feel like GKs are similar to Orks in that they have a shallow learning curve (hence the noobslayer moniker) but reach their ceiling sooner.

[Kevlarshark]

When rookie players asked me "what is the most powerful army?".
I would reply "None, they all balance out with their own strengths and weaknesses".
Without a single doubt in my mind.

The basic principal was for me-
If two equal point forces fought the better player should win.

I now have the niggle of doubt...

My problem is... GK are all strength, there are no real weaknesses...They are an assault army that shoots brilliantly, an Elite army that is very reasonably point costed, a heavy armoured army that is very mobile, top this off with being super effective against deamons, psykers, hordes, monstrous creatures and armoured vehicles and we have a "bit of an issue".

I play a hard game. If I get beaten I will look back to the game and try and work out what tactical/strategic errors I made so I will not make them next time.

I do not like my conclusion to be "his army beat mine" not the player, not his list, not the scenario or a bad dice roll. Simply that my opponents actual force was the rock to my scissors.

GK are the rock to too many other codexes...

[DarkLink]

My problem is... GK are all strength, there are no real weaknesses...They are an assault army that shoots brilliantly, an Elite army that is very reasonably point costed, a heavy armoured army that is very mobile, top this off with being super effective against deamons, psykers, hordes, monstrous creatures and armoured vehicles and we have a "bit of an issue".

GKs do have weaknesses. It's all about board control and attrition.

GKs tend to have a limited number of units, and rely on force multipliers to attain their invincibility. This severely limits their ability to spread out to claim objectives and outflank the enemy. A good opponent can take advantage of this, and this is a game losing weakness at higher levels of competitive play. This is how you beat Driagowing.

GKs cannot take casualties. Believe it or not, there are bad matchups for Grey Knights. It depends on what type of GK list, but for each one there is an opposing list that can whittle down the GKs at a rate that they cannot recover from. For example, a good IG army facing Driagowing can hammer them with high AP shooting and lascannons until the Paladins are little threat, and then deal with the rest of the list which tends to be much weaker. They don't care if Driago can kill one Chimera a turn with psycannons, they've got like fifty more.




GKs also almost completely lack high AP shooting. No plasma, no melta, etc. Storm Bolters, Autocannons and Psycannons work well against a lot of things, but not everything. Just try shooting Battlewagons to death with psyrifle Dreads. A good battlewagon list is actually pretty good against a lot of Grey Knight armies.




GK are the rock to too many other codexes...


GKs are the rock to a lack of player skill. For the most part. Some other armies, like 'nidz, require a mastery of the codex and particular types of lists to compete. But if you're facing Grey Knights, it comes down to your mastery of certain aspects of the game rather than your list. Your list just needs to give you certain tactical options, if it can do that then a skilled player can win while an unskilled player will struggle.

There are a few bad match-ups, yes. But that's as much to do with GW's inability to update old codices.




And the plural of Codex is Codices. Codexes is not a real word.

[Osiris]

This is what I've been saying since day one: Grey Knights are fine, learn to play better or adjust your tactics. I hear all the time "Nooo! The whole army is I6! I can't charge and kill them with my Berserkers/gaunts/marines/etc., therefore they are over powered!" Or "Aw man they all have force weapons, broken."

The truth is, they die like normal marines. If you shoot them with what you normally shoot at a marine, you will inflict ~30% more damage than normal because they cost that much more. Sure, they can bring a ton of firepower to the field, but there is a certain amount of player skill involved in reducing the effectiveness of said firepower. Get behind cover, put your AV14 (if available) up front, or alpha strike their vehicles. This may not always work, but that's the same as everything else in this game...

Before you ask, I play vanilla marines and still maintain a very good record (winning 3 of the last 4 tournaments I've been to). I've used these tactics to great effectiveness against GK in the past year, and I have yet to lose to them in 1v1 tournament format.

[Bean]

When rookie players asked me "what is the most powerful army?".
I would reply "None, they all balance out with their own strengths and weaknesses".
Without a single doubt in my mind.

The basic principal was for me-
If two equal point forces fought the better player should win.



I've always wondered how people delude themselves into believing this...

I mean, it's fairly close to being true of deterministic games, but it's obviously not true of games like 40k--there are just too many significant variables that aren't controlled by player skill.

[Kevlarshark]

I don't think implying I am delusional for expecting a game between evenly pointed oponents to be fair (with the outcome being determined by skill) is entirely justified.

It may be a generalisation but that is the intended outcome of the entire 40k ruleset.

Yes, I have lost and won games by lucky dice rolls...but I suspect if my strategy/tactics were better it wouldn't have come to that.

Poker is regarded by many as a game of chance, yet the same players find their way into the top tables and winning slots a tournaments year after year. It is similar with 40k, if you are good enough, just a few bad rolls wont stop you from winning.

The very fact that some Codexes have a hard time against GK means that the balance needs looking into...I have not said they are "broken" but they are definately "unintentionally powerful".


And the plural of Codex is Codices. Codexes is not a real word Ironic that I should have my use of English commented on in the internet (home of good grammer:)) so I looked it up, the Oxford english dictionary agrees with half of what you say...The plural of codex is indeed Codices, but Codexes is an accepted alternative and is indeed a word.

[bfmusashi]

And the plural of Codex is Codices. Codexes is not a real word.

GW says codexes and a single die is dice. That should be its own thread.

[benzo12]

I think with a hobby like this, with the multitude of different players encompassing such a broad userbase, having any one army that can easily beat someone new to the hobby is flawed. Armies that break the balance of the casual players aren't very good for the hobby as a whole, especially one that is likely to sell as well as a space marine army does.

I'm a pretty casual player myself, I usually just play with my brothers, I enjoy the lore and make a trip to my lgs maybe once a month, If I was continually losing every game I played I would just move onto a different game, A friend of mine who decided to start I tau army quit from frustration not long after.

[Hive Mind]

I like what you're doing here DarkLink, I like that you can claim that Grey Knights aren't 'broken' because the Space Wolves, who until GK were released were the most 'broken' army in the game, have won more tournaments and simply ignore that C:SW came out a full two years before C:GK did and are, in general, more prolific than GK are. I also like that you keep saying that the 3++ stats aren't indicative of anything and then go on to use them to 'prove' your points.

Grey Knights aren't unbeatable; I've beaten them several times myself (with a Tyranid swarm, no less) but every one of those victories came about either because of a mistake by my opponent or some absurdly good luck on my part. The GK guy I play against also has a IG army and I have a Blood Angels army; games between he and I when he's not using GK tend to fall into 50/50 win/loss territory and yet with his GK he stomps me almost every time, no matter what kind of list I use. Why's that? Do I turn into a dumbass when I'm up against GK? Does his skill level suddenly go through the roof when he's using GK?

[Bean]

I don't think implying I am delusional for expecting a game between evenly pointed oponents to be fair (with the outcome being determined by skill) is entirely justified.


It's not just a matter of fairness, and it's not really a matter of expectation.

It might be reasonable, at some point, to expect a game between equally expensive (points wise) armies to be fair. However, any significant amount of contact with the rules of this game should have been enough to disabuse you of that notion.

Let's break it down. In order for this situation to obtain (that any matchup between any equally expensive armies is fair) all of the following would have to be true:

Each codex would require both perfect internal and external balance. That is, every army that every codex could possibly produce would have to be as good (in general) as every other army that could possibly be produced by any codex.

There could be no rock-paper-scissors relationships (sets of armies that are roughly as good as each other in a broad sense, but where one has a significant advantage against the other).

It would have to be impossible for any terrain arrangement to favor some armies over others.


In 40k, all three of these are false. Codices are not perfectly balanced against each other. They don't have perfect internal balance (each can produce armies that are worse than other armies it can produce). There are rock-paper-scissors relationships. It's not only possible but easy to imagine terrain set-ups that favor some armies over others.

All of these things are obvious from the rules alone, and any one is sufficient to put to rest the notion that every game of 40k will be fair, but, of course, there's more to it than even that.

Your belief was that in any match-up of equally expensive armies, the better player should win. Of course, this will often happen, but there are dice--and not just a few dice, but lots of dice. And not just huge volumes of essentially identical trials being run over and over again (like poker) so that the luck tends to even out--some of those huge amounts of dice are extremely important and essentially singular events (critical melta shots, leadership tests, and so on) which can swing entire games and are entirely random.

Sure, a good player can mitigate the effect of dice, but it remains the case that the dice are absolutely capable of deciding the outcome of a game.

So, yes. I think delusion is the right word. Not for expecting fairness in a game, but for believing there to be fairness in this one after having even just read the rules. That this game does not match your belief about it is almost painfully obvious.




It may be a generalisation but that is the intended outcome of the entire 40k ruleset.


I actually don't think it is. I did for a while, but it's become more and more clear to me that there isn't really any overriding intent towards fairness in GW's design process.



Yes, I have lost and won games by lucky dice rolls...but I suspect if my strategy/tactics were better it wouldn't have come to that.


Strategy can overcome some bad luck, but it can't always overcome the bad luck that you actually get--and it can't possibly overcome all of the bad luck you could possibly get. If you miss all of your rolls and I hit all of mine, no amount of strategy will save you.




Poker is regarded by many as a game of chance, yet the same players find their way into the top tables and winning slots a tournaments year after year. It is similar with 40k, if you are good enough, just a few bad rolls wont stop you from winning.


True, but that doesn't warrant the belief you espoused earlier.



The very fact that some Codexes have a hard time against GK means that the balance needs looking into...I have not said they are "broken" but they are definately "unintentionally powerful".




Ironic that I should have my use of English commented on in the internet (home of good grammer:)) so I looked it up, the Oxford english dictionary agrees with half of what you say...The plural of codex is indeed Codices, but Codexes is an accepted alternative and is indeed a word.

You are correct. I like codices, though. =)

My favorite is the pluralization of octopus.

[Chumbalaya]

Why should we care about balance at the casual level? They don't take the game seriously anyway and they're free to change or adjust rules/scenarios, add FW, homebrews and so on. Hell, casual players don't care about winning games anyway, right? That's what they all say at least.

If we're concerned about balance, the game should be balanced at a high level, where it actually matters. This is largely true of 40k, where at higher levels of play games are determined by player skill the vast majority of the time.

GKs and Orks are the ultimate noobslayer armies. Any GK or Ork list thrown together will crush a crappy army from, say, DE or Necrons. However, once player skill elevates, all the armies tend to average out.

[Kevlarshark]

I still like to believe that 40k is intended to be a fair, balanced, enjoyable game.


I actually don't think it is. I did for a while, but it's become more and more clear to me that there isn't really any overriding intent towards fairness in GW's design process.

Cynical... cynics are never disappointed, I guess.


Why should we care about balance at the casual level? They don't take the game seriously anyway and they're free to change or adjust rules/scenarios, add FW, homebrews and so on. Hell, casual players don't care about winning games anyway, right? That's what they all say at least.

If we're concerned about balance, the game should be balanced at a high level, where it actually matters. This is largely true of 40k, where at higher levels of play games are determined by player skill the vast majority of the time.

GKs and Orks are the ultimate noobslayer armies. Any GK or Ork list thrown together will crush a crappy army from, say, DE or Necrons. However, once player skill elevates, all the armies tend to average out

We should care about the balance of the game at all levels...
40k is a game, games should be enjoyable, regardless of your skill, otherwise there is no incentive to start playing or keep playing.

If finding GK a tricky prospect to play against makes me a "noob" then fine...I am happy to admit I am not a player of godlike skill....

I want to play against my opponent not his army.

[DarkLink]

Right, if you look at the top tournament results, they're remarkably evenly balanced. All the fifth ed, and a lot of fourth ed, armies show up regularly. Every army except maybe Tau and Sisters of Battle pretty frequently show up in the top spot, and virtually no one plays Sisters so that might be why they're not common.



GW tries to make a balanced game, for the most part. But it doesn't make them much money, all that extra time gets them diminishing returns.

I don't completely buy the argument that they buff/nerf certain models to boost sales. Look at the Pyrovore, Tervigon and Thunderwolf Cavalry. It just doesn't add up. I wouldn't be surprised if they did a little bit of this, but it's not central to their design process.






Saying Codexes is acceptable is basically saying "well, if all the stupid people are going to keep using it...". It's like Irregardless, it might be acceptable because it's commonly used, but it's still idiotic.

[Chumbalaya]

We should care about the balance of the game at all levels...
40k is a game, games should be enjoyable, regardless of your skill, otherwise there is no incentive to start playing or keep playing.

If finding GK a tricky prospect to play against makes me a "noob" then fine...I am happy to admit I am not a player of godlike skill....

I want to play against my opponent not his army.

Well, the thing is, the game is perfectly enjoyable at the casual level because of its mutability. If you're not playing seriously, then add in new scenarios, units, FW stuff and so on. The casual system only breaks down when 2 players come in under different expectations. Talk it over with your opponent beforehand. Balance is only necessary in a competitive environment since the rules are immutable in that case. And, for the most part, it works.

A noob is a bad player who refuses to acknowledge it. There's nothing wrong with needing improvement, that's what everyone should strive for. GKs tend to stomp at the lower levels, but as you improve you'll figure them out. DarkLink put up a good summary of GK weaknesses earlier in the thread.

If GK are giving you a really hard time, you have 3 options. 1) Go casual, talk to your opponents about toning it down, try different scenarios, use homebrews or FW, play narrative games or campaigns. 2) Go competitive and commit to learning the game, your army and how best to improve your play. 3) Ragequit, refuse to play GKs and whine on forums :P

[Bean]

I want to play against my opponent not his army.

Play chess. This just isn't the game for that.

[Kevlarshark]

Well we (almost) agree that the game is intended to be balanced...



Codexes is in the Oxford English dictionary which makes it as official as an English word ever gets. So it is recognised as a word by people much more intelligent than myself. But like most of English it is hybrid Latin so no more silly than the rest of the language.

[Bean]

Well we (almost) agree that the game is intended to be balanced...



Codexes is in the Oxford English dictionary which makes it as official as an English word ever gets. So it is recognised as a word by people much more intelligent than myself. But like most of English it is hybrid Latin so no more silly than the rest of the language.

"Most" is a bit of a stretch. Latin had a significant influence, but "most" of English, even now, still comes from English. ;)

[DarkLink]

Play chess. This just isn't the game for that.

I like Go, though I've only actually played it once.

[Bean]

I like Go, though I've only actually played it once.

I also prefer Go to chess. I've played it more than once, but I'm still not good at it. It's a tough game.

[jifel]

I like to think that Grey Knights aren't broken. They're good, but not broken... I can beat most of the GK lists out there, the one I have trouble with is this one with Purifers, psyflenauts and and a bunch of henchman squads full of assassins, with inquisitors with all the grenades attached. i play Nids... I actually enjoy playing DraigoWing, its not too bad usually, but purifiers kill hordes, halberds hit first, and Rad grenades are murder for MCs...

[Uncle Nutsy]

hmm..

read this thread off and on and i just find it silly people think a certain army is "broken". Broken how? easy to make a deathstar? plays itself and the player runs it blind? too cheap pointswise? point-and-click mentality?

to me, all these questions are moot. because every army has a weakness. all we really have to do, is find it.

[Bean]

hmm..

read this thread off and on and i just find it silly people think a certain army is "broken". Broken how? easy to make a deathstar? plays itself and the player runs it blind? too cheap pointswise? point-and-click mentality?

to me, all these questions are moot. because every army has a weakness. all we really have to do, is find it.

I think a lot of people object to the term "broken" because they either think it means, "unbeatable" or because, like you, they think it means nothing--or perhaps something either too vague or too specific to be meaningful.

To some extent, I think these positions are often honest mistakes (while, sometimes, I think they are intentional straw men) and there are no-doubt people who use the word in one of these ways. But while the word is often misused, misunderstood, or intentionally misrepresented, it isn't useless. It has a worthwhile, descriptive, functional meaning, in this context, which can be gleaned from a fairly literal reading of the term.

Broken. Broken is essentially the negation of whole or functional. So, what does it take for an army to be whole or functional? Obviously, it takes some minimum set of rules, but in a broader sense an army's function includes competing on a fairly even level with other armies and having good internal balance (close parity among several substantially distinct builds). An army is "broken" if it is not functional in this way--if it fails to compete on a fairly even level with other armies or fails to have good internal balance (obviously, these are not the only ways that an army can be broken, but this tends to be what people are talking about when they use the term.)

Obviously, broken doesn't mean unbeatable. While it's not impossible to imagine an unbeatable army, none of the current armies are so overly powerful that some combination of luck, skill, and terrain can't hand them a loss.

Broken doesn't even mean not having a "weakness." There's a term that gets bandied about more than it should. It's not necessarily about having weaknesses to balance strengths--that's just one way to craft an even playing field.

Broken just means that, when this army is involved, the playing field is routinely not even--and this can be a very difficult thing to evaluate, obviously. It'd be nearly impossible to prove that an army is broken (or, frankly, that it is not). It's basically a judgement call--one might witness the army in action a lot and note that it routinely seems to have an advantage that comes from its more-powerful rules. One might then legitimately come to the conclusion that the army is broken--that it fails in one of its primary functions.

[DarkLink]

Another thing pointed out here (http://www.captureandcontrol.com/2012/03/boo-hoo-grey-knights-boo-hoo-get-over.html#more) is that Grey Knights have more viable, competitive builds than probably any other army in the game. You can do driagowing, henchmen spam, purifier spam, mixed lists, foot lists, dual storm raven/land raider deathstars, etc, the list goes on and on.

None of those lists are broken. There are just so many of them while many older codices are limited to just one or two effective builds that it frustrates other players and creates an illusion of being overpowered. Really the other codices just need a better internal balance so they have as wide a range of competitive lists as GKs.

[Bean]

It's a fair point--it would probably just as fair to say that a bunch of other codices are broken in their inability to put out a wide range of lists that compete well with the good Grey Knights lists.

[Kevlarshark]

It's a fair point--it would probably just as fair to say that a bunch of other codices are broken in their inability to put out a wide range of lists that compete well with the good Grey Knights lists.

Hold on a minute, Its not the Grey Knights that are "unintentionally powerful" it all the other codexes that are too weak?!

I hope that has a certain amount of irony to it.

[Bean]

Hold on a minute, Its not the Grey Knights that are "unintentionally powerful" it all the other codexes that are too weak?!

I hope that has a certain amount of irony to it.

No, it's that "broken" means non-functional--not "overpowered." The Grey Knights codex is great, really--it has good internal balance, lots of good builds. Moreover, since its good lists aren't really particularly overpowered compared to the top lists of other codices the assertion that it is overly powerful on the whole is dubious.

Rather, it seems that other codices have too few armies that compete at that level. It's not that they have none--I'm not sure any of them actually have none--it's that their poor internal balance leaves them with too few, and with too many armies that are underpowered compared to Grey Knights, and that creates the appearance of an overall imbalance.

So, yeah. You've got a situation where one codex that's actually fairly well designed, with good internal balance and lots of powerful lists is criticized as being "broken" because most other codices have worse internal balance. It seems fair to me to turn that around and say that, really, it's a problem in the other codices more than it is a problem with the Grey Knights.

I mean, think about potential solutions. Would you prefer that Grey Knights get nerfed, so that they have only one top-tier army? No top-tier armies? Wouldn't it be better if other codices were buffed so that they all have a wide range of competitive armies?

I know I'd prefer the second solution, and that solution suggests quite clearly that the problem lies with the other codices--that they are, in fact, the ones which are "broken."

[phreakachu]

ive noticed that 'nid players call anything with a psyker frak-you broken. eldar really REALLY put a hurt on the 'nid: and every nid player ive gone against calls them broken.
imo, no codex is broke. some are out-dated yes, but nothing has an instant 'i win' button. just gotta play smart and know your enemy.

[DarkLink]

Hold on a minute, Its not the Grey Knights that are "unintentionally powerful" it all the other codexes that are too weak?!


Kind of, but not quite.

Several of the new codices, Space Wolves in particular, can build a wide range of competitive lists that can stand up just fine. Many of the old codices only have one or two truly competitive builds.

Those lists can compete with Grey Knights just fine, because Grey Knights are not broken.

However, it is frustrating for players of certain armies to be stuck within a limited range of competitive lists, while GKs can take almost whatever they want and compete.

The problem is not that GKs are broken, nor that most of the codices cannot compete. It's that many codices, the older ones in particular, lack good internal balance and are limited to one or two effective builds.

Those books can, generally, still compete, but only within certain limitations. Ergo, the problem is with the internal balance of these books, not with Grey Knights.




Grey Knights are actually one of the most balanced books in the game, because almost everything in the codex is a good, competitive choice. Aside from Rad/Psykotroke grenades, nothing in the codex is broken, and only Death Cult Assassins and Psybolt ammo is actually really underpriced. Almost everything else is a solid, competitive choice, but isn't actually overpowered.


Edit:
Think of it this way. Think of the codices as race cars. Grey Knights are one of the only ones in the game that doesn't have its wheels falling off. The problem isn't that Grey Knights are faster than everyone else, it's that the other cars are in danger of losing a wheel. The problem is with incompetent maintenance crews.

[Kevlarshark]

No, it's that "broken" means non-functional--not "overpowered." The Grey Knights codex is great, really--it has good internal balance, lots of good builds. Moreover, since its good lists aren't really particularly overpowered compared to the top lists of other codices the assertion that it is overly powerful on the whole is dubious.

If broken means non-functional (as in your definition) then GK are not broken they are fixed...super fixed.

I always took the term to mean "game-breaking" as in making the game less enjoyable or work less well as a whole.


Think of it this way. Think of the codices as race cars. Grey Knights are one of the only ones in the game that doesn't have its wheels falling off. The problem isn't that Grey Knights are faster than everyone else, it's that the other cars are in danger of losing a wheel. The problem is with incompetent maintenance crews.

I agree with this analogy entirely...but by my definition it also supports why GK are breaking the game, because they have an advantage that their opponents do not have and upset the balance of the whole 40K system.

To extend your race-car analogy- In F1 they banned the use of traction control on the cars, why? It did not make the cars significantly faster or mean that a sufficiently skilled driver without could not beat a TC car. But it made the cars 'easier' to drive and that was deemed as an advantage over competitors.

[Wildcard]

..But it made the cars 'easier' to drive and that was deemed as an advantage over competitors..
The issue with this is that the Traction Control is a two edged sword (just like any modern equipment - ABS for example)

While it is said that by allowing the use of traction control, ABS, up to a point - a seatbelt, a driver can drive more aggressively (meaning higher speeds, less braking, etc..)

(..A side note: would be fun to see those drivers face those g-forces without any form of restraints :) )

However, the thing that in todays world weight more than "pure advantage over competitors" is safety.
If a single drivers life can be saved by allowing use of the safety gadgets mentioned, its well worth any minor (or major) imbalances. On the other hand, Turbos, NoS etc that affect "aggressive performance" are the ones that are constantly calculated..

----------End of my rally car analogys :)

While it is true that there are to a point of useless units in various codices, i take it just as a growth pain for the tabletop game taking its stuff from the greatest scifi universe ever created..

More you play just to win, more all kinds of little imbalances start to matter.. Anyone ever seen three full squads of Ogryns on the table? :)

I do know that i am probably the least qualified to talk on the matter, since i hate waac-gamers (not anyone in particular, but as a concept). For me someone playing this game just for the sake of playing and not loving the setting should be ripped the rights to play.. :)

Probably a reason why i never went to any tournaments..

[Bean]

If broken means non-functional (as in your definition) then GK are not broken they are fixed...super fixed.

I always took the term to mean "game-breaking" as in making the game less enjoyable or work less well as a whole.



I agree with this analogy entirely...but by my definition it also supports why GK are breaking the game, because they have an advantage that their opponents do not have and upset the balance of the whole 40K system.

To extend your race-car analogy- In F1 they banned the use of traction control on the cars, why? It did not make the cars significantly faster or mean that a sufficiently skilled driver without could not beat a TC car. But it made the cars 'easier' to drive and that was deemed as an advantage over competitors.


This is basically all that I was saying. I understand that broken often means just overpowered--my point was that, perhaps, there's another legitimate way of using the term and looking at the situation which is more revealing--i.e. Darklink's racecar analogy (which is pretty much exactly what i was saying.)

The Grey Knight codex is very well done, I think. To call it broken and just mean that it is a bit overpowered might be true, but I think it's missing something fairly important about the nature of the codex--that it is not the codex that needs to be "fixed." Rather, the other codices need to be brought in line with the Grey Knight codex.

[DarkLink]

Yeah, you can't really take analogies too far. The point is, Grey Knights aren't broken, other codices can't compete, GW just needs to do a better job updating old codices so they're more like Grey Knights with a wide range of competitive options.

Also, when I say this about Grey Knights, it also applies to all the 5th ed codices except maybe 'nidz. All of them have a wide range of competitive options. People just happen to complain about Grey Knights in particular because, in addition to their wide range of competitive options, Grey Knights also happen to have a playstyle that makes them frustrating for noobs.

So, basically all the other 5th ed codices have traction control, as well.

[Uncle Nutsy]

I think a lot of people object to the term "broken" because they either think it means, "unbeatable" or because, like you, they think it means nothing--or perhaps something either too vague or too specific to be meaningful.


oh, I know what the term "broken" means. You guys talk about how "unbeatable" they are all the time. What it means to me is this: "that person can't figure out how to beat it so he'll call cheese"

if they were broken they'd have something like WS8, BS7, T8, W5, I9, A5 and LD GOD

but i'm pretty sure they don't :)


btw, if you're wondering why I didn't quote the rest of your post? it's just all blah blah blah.

[Bean]

oh, I know what the term "broken" means. You guys talk about how "unbeatable" they are all the time. What it means to me is this: "that person can't figure out how to beat it so he'll call cheese"

You guys? I've never talked about how "unbeatable" they are. Not once. What are you even talking about? Are you actually a crazy person, or have you confused me with someone else?

[Uncle Nutsy]

"you guys" is a general term for the active people on this board that discuss the subject of grey knights.

why did I have to explain such a simple term?

[Bean]

"you guys" is a general term for the active people on this board that discuss the subject of grey knights.

why did I have to explain such a simple term?


Because you used it wrong?

When you're addressing an audience and you say, "you guys," it means some group that includes the audience you're addressing.

In this case, I am the audience you were addressing.

I'm not in any group that thinks the Grey Knights are unbeatable.

I don't talk about how unbeatable they are.

The closest I've come is to say that they are not unbeatable.

Hence my confusion re: being ostensibly placed, by you, into a group to which I do not belong.

;)

[Uncle Nutsy]

except.. i didn't. and i never did specifically place you in any group.

so that brings up another question.. why did you feel like you were included, when you weren't? you don't really have to answer that if you don't want to. just something to think about (so please refrain from replying to that last bit, no matter how badly you want to). but in a nutshell, you and i are in agreement on a lot of things regarding GK.

[Bean]

except.. i didn't. and i never did specifically place you in any group.


It's true, we do seem to substantially agree regarding Grey Knights.

But, you did include me in a group. I am entirely willing to accept that you didn't mean to, which is why, in my last post, I pointed out that you misused the phrase, "you guys." Again, when the phrase "you guys" always refers to a group to which the addressee belongs. If you say, "you guys are x" you're saying that your addressee belongs to a group of people who are x.

I'm not bent out of shape about it--I just want to make sure that you know what the phrase "you guys" means. You know, for the future. ;)

[AnEnemy]

The book would be fine if Ward hadn't screwed up so badly with Psychotrope grenades.

[Wildcard]

Only things broken in GK dex are:
- Crowe: Not being IC & wacky attack mode (150pts HQ that can hardly do sh't to normal enemy units)
- Purifiers: Not being ws5.
- Apos only for paladins

[bfmusashi]

When I read "you guys" all I see is the truffle shuffle.

[Bean]

When I read "you guys" all I see is the truffle shuffle.

Lol, indeed.

[Kevlarshark]

oh, I know what the term "broken" means. You guys talk about how "unbeatable" they are all the time. What it means to me is this: "that person can't figure out how to beat it so he'll call cheese"


I read all the posts back a few pages to check, but I don't think anyone has draw the conclusion that the G' Knights are "unbeatable".

The closest we (generally) have come is that they may be more powerful against some other codexes (codici) than the designers (perhaps) intended. But that a well prepared player can beat them.

We were debating whether this situation unbalanced the game as a whole.

I have played against them both in tournament situations and casually (and found them tricky opponents). I have mainly suffered because I did not build my list specifically to take them on...I am yet to call "cheese".