I Just Don't Want to Play Against GKs Anymore and I Feel Bad About It.

[Chris Copeland]

I posit that the Codex: Grey Knights is a poorly written game supplement. The army is over-powered, under-costed, and just too damn good compared to all of the other armies out there. It is an overly forgiving army that is extremely hard to beat and overly easy to play. GKs are good at everything: killing at range and dominating an hand-to-hand combat. I suggest that Games Workshop did not properly think this army through, play-test it, or otherwise properly vet it.

So here is my conundrum: I just don’t want to play against Grey Knights AND YET I’ve never been one to turn down pick up games. I don’t want to be some kind of gaming jerk that only takes on games he is sure to win... anyone who knows me knows I’m not that kind of guy. And yet... who wants to spend two precious hours of their down time being destroyed in detail by a push button army?

I can see myself standing at my favorite game store. I’m chatting with another hobbyist. He says, “Hey, ya wanna play 40K?” I reply, “Sure, I play Bugs. What are you bringing?” He says, “Grey Knights Draigowing! How many points?”

What do I do? Do I surrender the next two hours of my life trying to make the best of it and putting a brave face on it? Do I politely explain that I just just don’t enjoy playing against GK armies and I’d just as soon not? Do I man-up and say, “Sorry, your army feels like a chore to play against and I’d just as soon not.”?

What should I do? What do YOU do? I’m a nice, gregarious gamer who loves playing games with new opponents. I just feel that GW screwed this codex up so much that it’s just not enjoyable to play against. Your comments and advice are welcome. Cheers.

[Father]

Just don't play. I don't feel that GK are any kind of OP, personnaly - your experience will of course differ since Nids have such a tough time with them (I would posit that the GK codex is not broken - the Nid one is. Bugs just weren't given the tools to be competitive in 5th. They have problems dealing with any kind of mechspam, not just knights). With that said, your gaming time is valuable - just explain to your would-be opponent that playing nids against knights is just plain not fun. I'm sure most will understand.

[Chuck777]

Your convo should be adjusted to this:

Guy: "Hey you want to play 40k?"

You: "Sure but, I don't want to play against Grey Knights. No offense to you, its just an army I don't have fun playing against."

To this, the guy will have 3 possible replies:

Response 1: "I play *INSERT AN ARMY HERE THAT IS NOT GREY KNINGHTS. How many points?"

Response 2: "Are you sure you don't want to play Grey Knights? It's all I brought with me..."

Response 3: "You're dumb and I'm done with you."


The reply to Response 1 is self explanatory. Response 2 is easy to navigate, just say you want to play different armies because, regardless of what he takes, you feel your army is at too steep a disadvantage and you'd love to play him if he brought a different army next time. For Response 3, just ignore that person. He isn't good people.

Additionally, if I were you, I would be more proactive and seek out opponents rather than have them seek you out. That way, you can pick people who do not play GK and avoid a great deal of the above conversation.

[Emerald Rose Widow]

Your convo should be adjusted to this:

Guy: "Hey you want to play 40k?"

You: "Sure but, I don't want to play against Grey Knights. No offense to you, its just an army I don't have fun playing against."

To this, the guy will have 3 possible replies:

Response 1: "I play *INSERT AN ARMY HERE THAT IS NOT GREY KNINGHTS. How many points?"

Response 2: "Are you sure you don't want to play Grey Knights? It's all I brought with me..."

Response 3: "You're dumb and I'm done with you."


The reply to Response 1 is self explanatory. Response 2 is easy to navigate, just say you want to play different armies because, regardless of what he takes, you feel your army is at too steep a disadvantage and you'd love to play him if he brought a different army next time. For Response 3, just ignore that person. He isn't good people.

Additionally, if I were you, I would be more proactive and seek out opponents rather than have them seek you out. That way, you can pick people who do not play GK and avoid a great deal of the above conversation.

Pretty much exactly what I would have said, it is pretty self explanatory. Most people who you want to play vs will understand totally if you are a nids players, and you can explain to the ones who don't. If they do not understand after explanations you probably don't want to play with them ever again.

[Bean]

You might run into problems with players who only have grey knights, or have only brought grey knights. You can always just go find someone else, but I'd hate to see an older player systematically rejecting some newer player who's built GK as his or her starter army. It would be especially poor form, I think, to treat that army choice as indicative of some sort of character flaw--which I don't imagine you would do, but the vitriol the codex attracts on the forums sometimes toes that line.

Or, you know, against people who like to play their grey knights more than they like playing their other armies. There should to be some give and take--if you're going to ask that other people play games that are less fun for them and more fun for you, you should be willing to return the favor and play against their grey knights occasionally.

I guess the point is that there's nothing wrong with asking your opponents to try to make things more fun for you, but just flat-out refusing to play against anyone's grey knights ever has the potential to be a dick move.

[Jenn]

I don't know if tournament play is your thing at all but if it is then you may want to try looking at pick up games as an opportunity to brush up on your skills. If you keep playing against gk with your Nids you will pick up tactics and learn tricks and get a feel for baiting and swamping their units. With these skills learned through pick up game, you will be at an advantage when playing against gk in tournies. You wouldn't believe the number of times I've gone into a game with an average skill level player who is bringing the flavour of the month 'op' codex and won because they underestimated me and how prepared I was for the matchup. Ive been playing necrons for 6 years and stuck with them for the vast majority of the great depression and although I was at a great disadvantage I was able to pull a respectable number of wins because of an opponent who underestimated me...


I think I went off on a tangent there...

Tldr/ the point I was trying to make:
View these games as a learning opportunity if that floats your boat, if not go with what was said above.

[Emerald Rose Widow]

I don't know if tournament play is your thing at all but if it is then you may want to try looking at pick up games as an opportunity to brush up on your skills. If you keep playing against gk with your Nids you will pick up tactics and learn tricks and get a feel for baiting and swamping their units. With these skills learned through pick up game, you will be at an advantage when playing against gk in tournies. You wouldn't believe the number of times I've gone into a game with an average skill level player who is bringing the flavour of the month 'op' codex and won because they underestimated me and how prepared I was for the matchup. Ive been playing necrons for 6 years and stuck with them for the vast majority of the great depression and although I was at a great disadvantage I was able to pull a respectable number of wins because of an opponent who underestimated me...


I think I went off on a tangent there...

Tldr/ the point I was trying to make:
View these games as a learning opportunity if that floats your boat, if not go with what was said above.

valid point

[Deadlift]

How about a Grey Knights list that isn't optimised as an " I win " list.
I play GK but not because of the game winning potential. I like the fluff ( I know but don't shoot me ) and I play with choices from the codex I like the look and feel of. Mordrak and ghost knights, I love NDK over the usual Dreadnoughts with autocannons because to me they look cooler. I don't run razorback spam as I hate building those boring little boxes.
Basically what I am saying is not all GK players are the competative player types but just like the army for what it is.
I have been beaten by Nid players, but a few beers and a laugh made it a win for me anyway. I suppose what I am saying is don't tar all us GK players with the same net build brush. Most of us aren't :) and when you get a win against one it may restore your faith in the game :)

[isotope99]

I've found GK to be significantly less overwhelming at 1,500 points as you don't have enough points to pull off the crazy stuff.

[Wildcard]

I've played GK lists from 1k to 3k points. I am casual player only ever looking to have a good time. It took its own time to learn myself the poor choices that make the game unfun, but now that i've gotten hang of it I can say with warm heart that:

- Atleast of the last 10 games, no critique has come from GK itself or the list i've built.
- Every game / player I've won have stated that "It was a good game, and the list wasn't unbeatable by any means.
- One player even said he would prefer me using 3x Psyrifleman instead of 2x NDK :)

- Note that the timeframe for the last 10 games is 3½-4 months, i sadly cannot play weekly :(
- I try to build my lists around a 'theme', that is fun to play and fun to play against.
- I do take psycannons, but i dont consider 'spamming' them.
- I roll far too many 1's for my terminators for them to become too big obstacle for my oppoenent ;)

[ElectricPaladin]

You shouldn't feel bad. Poor balance is the main foible of 40k, and codex bandwagoning is a major foible of the 40k community. I have a friend who plays IG all the time, and whenever we meet at the FLGS I usually get lunch with him, chat with him, and play against someone else. You're there to have fun, not stroke the ego of someone who beats you all the time. Also, getting beaten in the same way over and over again has a limited power to teach you to be a better player.

So, don't feel bad. You're permitted your feelings. Don't be afraid to speak up.

[Defenestratus]

Oh hey look - another GK whinefest.

If people wouldn't take netdeck lists then they'd find GK a lot easier to deal with. My eldar hardly have an issue with them and my BA only have problems with them when I bring the wrong list to the table.

I especially love the draigowing lists. They're about the easiest lists to beat. Once you beat the paladins its all downhill from there. (P.S. Apothecaries HAAAATE mind war)

(NOTE: That not wanting to play GK's because thats all that people are playing these days is just fine - I can relate to that complaint. After all the 40k lemmings using copy/pasted lists that they all find online are probably about the worst types of games you can play. But to complain that you wont play GK because their OP'd is simply silly.)

[Panxer]

I was that way with new Necrons for a while. I play tau and the bane of my existence is undying warriors who can shrug off my heaviest firepower and still get back up no matter what I throw at it.

IMO, you've got two options, either play GK as much as you can, learn their weaknesses and how to defeat them (this will probably take 100's of soul crushing defeats, but you'll know your army like an extension of your body by the end of it), or you can politely (or scoffingly) decline, tell them why, pat them on the head (while thinking they should grow up and get a real army that isn't like bumper bowling and which involves some inherent risk) and go on with your day. Have him play the nearest SW player if he wants. It's a game!

[Chumbalaya]

"Hey, looking for a game?"

"Sure, I've got GKs, what about you?"

"Oh, sorry, I don't like playing against armies that I might lose to. I'd just complain and whine the whole time and make you miserable. But, that's your fault for playing GKs and not mine for being selfish."

"Ok..."

"Oh, cheer up. If you get an army that I deem acceptable, we can play, but only if I win."

[Angelofblades]

I have a GK army, but only because I've always wanted a full terminator army. That being said, my 2k GK list has no special characters and no transports. Plus, all my razorbacks are spoken for in my BA army :P

It's simply a GKGM, GK libby, 30 terminators and 2 dreads. I don't think it's a netlist at all, and I have alot of fun with it and I know my opponents have just as much fun playing against it simpyl because, it's not the same boring over done net list we see over and over again.

I've actually been asked to be played against on many occasions, simply because people are amazed

"You can field something else than Purifier spam or Draigo wing with the GK codex?!"

It's how I always imagined a GK army to be since their inception. A hard as nails, infantry, foot slogging army, with some ranged support. Not the mechanized wall of sadness this edition codex has turned out to be.

But I do agree, that there are a whole lot of, just not fun GK lists to play against, than there are fun GK lists to play against.

[ElectricPaladin]

This is one of the worst things about GW - and it's players.

Look - I play this game to have fun. It's fun to win, and it's fun to lose. What's not fun is losing in such a way that I feel like I never had a chance. It's a failure of GW's that they keep on writing army books that produce this kind of experience. It's a failure of the player base that pointing this out is seen as "whining." It's not. It's a statement of fact and preference.

I am a professional teacher. During the school year I have - maybe - three hours every other week to devote to actual wargaming. I have another year or two of having that much time before my wife and I start trying for children, at which point I'll have even less time. I'll be damned if I'm going to spend a single moment of my time playing a game I don't stand a chance of winning, that won't be fun because I'm going to get swept, and that won't teach me anything because the problem isn't my playstyle, it's my codex - or yours.

Case in point: I have a friend whose Imperial Guard parking lot reliably wreck my Blood Angels DoA army, with me not even putting a scratch on him. Fortunately, I also own a Tau army. I haven't beaten him yet, but I can reliably kill a couple of tanks, and I can usually make him work for his wins. This is a lot more rewarding - thus, I don't play my BA against my friend's IG. I play my Tau. If I didn't have Tau, I just wouldn't play him. It wouldn't be rewarding.

If we were playing chess, a globally competitive grand-master would not play against you at the local cafe, unless he was a dick. Or, if he did, he'd accept a handicap, or approach the game as more of a teaching experience than a real competition. For some reason, in the GW wargaming community, we don't do it that way. We rant about how this is a "competitive game" and if you talk about wanting to have fun and not, you're a "whiner." All this, despite the fact that the fault is in the game, rather than in our selves.

Now, I don't really suggest that you should categorically stop playing against the Grey Knights as a faction. However, I do think you should decline playing against those individual players whose Grey Knights outclass you. You're not going to have any fun, and you're not going to learn anything. Play someone else.

GK players (or IG players, or whatever) - I'm sorry. In most cases, it isn't your fault, either. Maybe some day GW will get its head out of its collective butt and realize that if they want to stay competitive in a world that includes Warmachine, Hordes, Infinity, and other fun and exquisitely balanced game they're going to have to stop insisting that they are "primarily a minis company" and step up their crunch. But frankly, if I have limited time - and I do - I'm not going to waste it getting pasted.

[DarkLink]

It's kinda funny, competitively GKs are actually pretty fairly balanced.



I guess the point is that there's nothing wrong with asking your opponents to try to make things more fun for you, but just flat-out refusing to play against anyone's grey knights ever has the potential to be a dick move.

I've played GKs exclusively since 5th ed came out. If someone refused to play me, I'd be like "screw you too, you could at least just ask me to take a crappy list or something".

[Chumbalaya]

And, on the flipside, you have the social worker who only has a few hours a week to play between helping inner city youth and volunteering at the combination puppy shelter and old folks home. He's played GKs since the Daemonhunters book; it's the only army he can fit in his small apartment. He goes down to the FLGS for a game and he never gets one. That shows him for playing GKs, doesn't it?

You need to get out of the internet echo chamber and actually *gasp* play some games and talk to people. The GK hysteria is ridiculous, like the crying over SW, IG, Eldar, Chaos and all before it. If GKs are really hurting your butt that much, then you have 3 options: 1) get better, 2) take your ball and go home, or 3) talk to your opponent and see if you can work something out.

[oftenwrong]

I started to sell off my GK’s. Vs some armies and players it’s not fun and a large portion of the locals would much rather see the Daemons, nids or CSM.

Don’t feel bad it’s your game too.

[ElectricPaladin]

And, on the flipside, you have the social worker who only has a few hours a week to play between helping inner city youth and volunteering at the combination puppy shelter and old folks home. He's played GKs since the Daemonhunters book; it's the only army he can fit in his small apartment. He goes down to the FLGS for a game and he never gets one. That shows him for playing GKs, doesn't it?


That's part of why I wrote that it's best to decide who to play on a player-by-player basis, rather than actually blackballing an entire army. In any case, I have a lot of sympathy for someone like this, and I wish him luck finding opponents. Since there are lots of people better than me - including plenty of people who play Grey Knights or other top-tier builds of top-tier armies - I'm sure he'll find plenty. I have a lot of sympathy, but I'm under no obligation to be the one who plays this guy.


You need to get out of the internet echo chamber and actually *gasp* play some games and talk to people. The GK hysteria is ridiculous, like the crying over SW, IG, Eldar, Chaos and all before it. If GKs are really hurting your butt that much, then you have 3 options: 1) get better, 2) take your ball and go home, or 3) talk to your opponent and see if you can work something out.

This is the attitude that I'm talking about.

You've got a lot of good points here. Yes, the Internet makes a lot of things sound worse than they are. On some level, yes, if I don't like it those are my three choices.

However, I can tell you from experience that Descent of Angels vs. Melta/Plasma Vet Parking Lot is an extremely bad matchup for the former. This is not hysteria or Internet echo machine - this is personal experience. I can't speak to the Grey Knights, since I haven't played them yet (all our local witch hunters prefer Sisters of Battle), but I'm assuming that the OP and others are in a similar position: they've tried it and didn't like it.

Secondly, I really don't think that GW's games are balanced enough that "get better" is always an option. For some matchups, sure. For example, I'm fairly certain that my Tau can beat my friend's Parking Lot, and I have the gratifying experience of getting closer and closer every game (or at least learning a new lesson every time). The same is not true when I bring my Blood Angels - and for all I know, it isn't true when the OP plays his army against Grey Knights.

The thing is "get better" is hard when all you're doing is deploying, moving some tanks around, and losing. Improving skills requires substantive practice, which a quick and easy loss is not (neither is a quick and easy win, but I digress). So, if you want that substantive practice, you need to avoid situations where you're just going to get creamed without a fight.

Finally, when people say "shut up or go home," it just bugs me. We are playing a game here. A competitive game, sure, but a game nonetheless. My fun is my responsibility, but so is your fun. And your fun is mine. There's a fine line between "whining because you lost" and "being frustrated by a genuine flaw in the game," but they are separate categories. I think we'd do a lot better as a community if we cooperated around these problems, rather than heaping scorn on the "lousy" player and telling him to shut up and go home.

[Chris Copeland]

"Hey, looking for a game?"

"Sure, I've got GKs, what about you?"

"Oh, sorry, I don't like playing against armies that I might lose to. I'd just complain and whine the whole time and make you miserable. But, that's your fault for playing GKs and not mine for being selfish."

"Ok..."

"Oh, cheer up. If you get an army that I deem acceptable, we can play, but only if I win."

Chumbalaya, I don't think you properly read my original post. My post has nothing to do with only wanting to win. I'm an easy-going player and have a long history of playing all comers. GKs have changed the equation a bit. Sometimes I win and often I lose. Games against GK armies have started to feel more like chores than fun and I'm wrestling with how/whether to simply pass on games against GKs.

As for the whole, "I'd just complain and whine the whole time and make you miserable" I don't know what to say: anyone who knows me knows that I've not that kind of a player. I buy into what Jervis Johnson calls "the social contract." I believe that it's just as important for my opponent to be having fun as it is for me to be having fun...

That just leaves the selfish part. This I need to think about. Am I being selfish for avoiding GK pick up games? I might be... hence, my angst. Avoiding games simply based on my opponent's army would be a new behavior for me and I haven't entirely reconciled myself to it. Rather, I'm thinking it through in this public forum... listening to the free give and take of ideas. Cheers.

[thefremen]

Tyranids can deal with GK without much trouble. Take those dudes that pop out of scenery to tie up/kill the psyfleman, now they can't shoot beyond 24" which means gaunts only get get shot once before moving in and taking out entire squads with their immense amount of shots. Get those dudes who have long range stuff to take out rhinos. You're still going to have trouble with pretty much all space marines since you have so few tools to deal with mech lists.

IDK, personally I don't like playing against repetitive stuff. My personal GK is different every game. I could play crow purifier spam, draigowing, coteaz with just 2 henchmen squads and a buncha terminators...I dunno I can see feeling bored about playing the same army all the time. I got pretty bored of playing DE over and over, and also a few opponents who play the same double lash lists.

[Chumbalaya]

The most important thing people never do is talk. There has to be a give and take. Blacklisting all GK players is as ridiculous as only clubbing baby seals with a tourney list.

The more casual player isn't going to have the experience necessary to play up and compete with an army they aren't prepared for. Talking it over with their opponent beforehand, discussing mission, armies and the like can smooth out any issues beforehand so we don't end up with an unsatisfied victor and a bitter loser.

Have a little empathy. Think about how much hell people catch for playing GKs, the vast majority of it unwarranted. And GK players need to keep in mind that there's a lot of folks who just aren't that good and their army excels are noobslaying.

Act like a grown up and this little problem disappears quickly.

[ElectricPaladin]

The most important thing people never do is talk. There has to be a give and take. Blacklisting all GK players is as ridiculous as only clubbing baby seals with a tourney list.

The more casual player isn't going to have the experience necessary to play up and compete with an army they aren't prepared for. Talking it over with their opponent beforehand, discussing mission, armies and the like can smooth out any issues beforehand so we don't end up with an unsatisfied victor and a bitter loser.

Have a little empathy. Think about how much hell people catch for playing GKs, the vast majority of it unwarranted. And GK players need to keep in mind that there's a lot of folks who just aren't that good and their army excels are noobslaying.

Act like a grown up and this little problem disappears quickly.

I gotta say, it increasingly sounds like you and I don't really disagree at all.

[Bean]

I've played GKs exclusively since 5th ed came out. If someone refused to play me, I'd be like "screw you too, you could at least just ask me to take a crappy list or something".

Well, you know, there's no need to be impolite about it, but the request to play a different list doesn't obligate you to play a different list--it's just a request. You can grant it or not.

Ultimately, the exchange can be handled politely on both sides. There's nothing inherently offensive or impolite about someone asking you if you'd be willing to play a different army, and there's nothing inherently offensive impolite about saying, "no, I really just want to play this army, and if you don't want to play against it, that's fine--we can both find other games."

In fact, if player A really doesn't want to play against the army that player B really wants to play, that's exactly how it should go--they should both go find different games. That's the most desirable outcome to a perfectly legitimate exchange, and there doesn't have to be any hard feelings or brusqueness involved either way.


Where it breaks down is where either player comes to the table with a sense of entitlement. Player B isn't obligated to acquiesce to player A's request any more than player A is obligated to play against player B's army. There's no entitlement there.

What I fear (because it seems in line with many of the attitudes I see on the forums) is that people in the A position are entering the situation with the attitude that, because they think the GK codex is unfair, GK players have some obligation to build weaker lists or play different armies--and that's bull****. Similarly, there's a concern that GK players, if being asked by someone with no such sense of entitlement, may presume the worst and react badly (a concern which I feel you have, to some extent, validated here--there's really no reason why the request should necessarily be taken as a "screw you")

It is, in general, a reasonable request and it's one that can be reasonably refused, and as long as everyone keeps that in mind, I don't think there's likely to be any problem.

[jifel]

I hate GKs too, theyre good. We all know it. Not everyone brings the cheese, but theyre never really a poor army. However, I really enjoy playing them for the pure challenge of it. I play Nids, and yeah purifiers are rough. But I love getting some shadow in range and then just beating them into the dirt. Ive never had too much trouble with paladins, and only once against GK did I feel like it wasnt even a game. (and this guy had 40+ flamers somehow, so it wasnt exactly a balanced list, just rough on Nids). Im not going to call you a bad sport or be a jerk about it, but Id suggest maybe bringing two lists, a fun and a competitive one. If youre playing the silver boys, whip out your hard list to counter their codex creep.

[Chuck777]

Bringing two armies is not a bad call - Nids for normal games, something else for GK.

[Paul]

I would say that it's fine to refuse to play GKs.

People refuse to play against ForgeWorld lists and models all of the time, and they're usually less of a problem than the GK Codex.

I think motivation matters a lot here. If you don't want to play GKs because you don't want to lose, that's a little unfair to the GK players.

If, OTOH, you don't want to play GKs because it's an annoying game which is not fun (which is what it sounds like), then go for it. I, for one, would totally understand.

[Sure]

I wouldn't turn down a game 9when I am looking for one) because I don't like the army the opponent plays. What I totally will do is turn down a game because I don't like the opponent.

[Mr. Furious]

Don't worry. I'm sure CSM will break the game and give you something to complain about besides Grey Knights.

[Chaoschrist]

Whining about GK in if your opponent plays for them would be the same as when I want to play a fun game and someone who might be around is one of the better players who frequents tournaments and whipes me off the table in 3 turns because he's a better player.

I could either learn from what he does, how he exposes my armies weaknesses, stuff like that or refuse to play him to start with.

Granted I do have a lot of time on my hands, so time isn't my issue. However, let's put it this way; if my time was limited, why would I want to play someone with a horde army who spends more time in movement phases than I do when I do my shooting, moving, assault and probably make a run across the street for a soda.

Also; play the game for fun... fun is an awefully vague term. What if my idea of fun consists of trolling an army with a silly and powerful list? I'm sure people will say "you're a bad person for being a troll" but that's part of the community (and pretty much each gaming community) we're all part off.

Mind you, I've seen enough people bringing tournament worthy lists in other games (especially one of those well known cardgames)

I did however told my friend (and he's the only one I play against anyway; and no I'm not banned at my local store for having GK's ;) ), that despite me having GK and how "OP" they might be. I'm not gonna stick with a Draigowing list for all eternity. I do like to mix up my armies and get most out of one codex, so I might someday even bring an inquistor list to the table, which might not be good, but themed and fun to play (and might even not give me a fair chance against his marines).

I'll just wait over until the next flavor of the month is deemed "powerful" so the GK banter will die off already.

[bfmusashi]

Just don't play them. You are under no obligation to do so and blowing your small amount of freetime playing a crap game just turns you off on the hobby. I'm a little surprised you haven't had any fun GK opponents, but I don't play in your local scene and they might be jerks about the whole thing. I haven't been able to field my GK since the new codex hit specifically because I dislike my local scene. I want nothing to do with my fellow players here and I hope they're more fun in Knoxville Tennessee.
So, yeah, it's your weekend, don't waste it.

[krittoris]

heres an idea. quit nids and play grey knights :)

problem solved.

on a cheaper note, they are op at mid range, and CC i agree. but as much as they are op. they are also expensive.

if you say grey knights are not OP, your a noob, because they ARE. but there not unbeatable so stop QQing and smash some silver armored freaks.

[KrewL RaiN]

Just think of GK as space marines with some shiny gear that can make them OP. They are anoying, yet they are still beatable for they fail saves just like a marine does. If their dice are not hot and they start loosing models, they go downhill pretty fast.

I am a Tyranid player too, and I can get cranky facing GK, IG, SW and DE, but I dont give up and play it to the mission. One SW match up I was extremely doubtful I would win, but I WOULD take a chunk of his army while going down, and that I did haha. He wants a rematch just because I did give him quite the fight!

Tyranids learn and evolve from all the "food" they encounter, you just gotta have that mentality too.

(I can see how games are not fun if your opponent is a dick though, but I am keeping the ******* factor out of this post.)

[Deadlift]

Maybe a bit dated but still funny.

As the guy says, if you want a balanced game, go play chess

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BLhDf7XdgQc&feature=related

[Panxer]

This is 'merica man! Eef yoo don layke it, then geht the fugg aout!

I agree. There are few worse experiences one can have in the world of GW than to have a smug and overconfident rules lawyering vogon, grubbling and arguing vehemently at you from across the table because the shooting phase didn't go their way, or they just conveniently forget about or subjectively decided to enforce rules when it benefits them but attempt to deny the same rules when it doesn't suit their purposes of utterly denying you fair service and fair play.

For me? My opponent can field whatever they want! Oh, wait, you're a vogon who strangles every ounce of fun and frivolity from something I typically enjoy, and you want to take 3 hours of my life away and make them a miserable nightmare that only months of therapy and a frontal lobotomy can cure? Nah, I'll go home and play armored core instead. Have fun playing with yourself. I'm sure you can general from both sides of the table.

Nah, I'm not bitter. ...not bitter at all...

It's a learning curve unfortunately, so you have to play by braille. I typically give people the benefit of the doubt, but if by turn 3 I feel like trowing my dice cup at them, I typically let them finish their turn, politely concede, let them feel smug and superior (they may even quietly denigrate and insult me for 'quitting'), pack up my stuff, and remember their face, and vow internally to never play them again. Too easy. Sad when it happens, but what are you going to do?

[bfmusashi]

I like how playing against GK makes Armored Core fun by comparison.

[Panxer]

I'm a staunch Tau player, so I typically like games about giant robots by default

[DarkLink]

As the guy says, if you want a balanced game, go play chess


Actually, there's a pretty well established statistic that white wins about 6% more than black due to first move advantage amongst competitive players in chess.

[Bean]

Actually, there's a pretty well established statistic that white wins about 6% more than black due to first move advantage amongst competitive players in chess.

There's a contention that this is due to psychology, rather than an innate mechanical advantage--black players think they're at a disadvantage and that hinders their play.

Personally, I don't buy it, but it's fair to say that the alleged advantage has never been proven, in any sort of logical or mathematical sense.

Still, should be checkers--a game which we know, if played perfectly on both sides, will result in a draw every time.

[the jeske]

Ok . I think I missed something here . If a nid army has to play perfect [always] to win against a GK army and the GK doesnt have to do it against a nid army , then that is kind of an adventage in my eyes.

I understand playing a weaker/different build. I understand playing an army with a bad match up from a different codex. But playing an army that is bad against the mechanics of a whole edition[mecha. melta against the "new good thing" the warriors] having codex after codex of bad match ups piled on [SW, IG, GK] , doesnt make much sense . If your losing offten against many armies not because of your [that could be fixed, by learning more about the game ] or your opponents[losing against those is good , because again your learning] , but because the DT said that your army will suck this edition and/or till a new dex is made , then I think it doesnt make the army/codex interesting to play. on all levels be it casual or not.

[DarkLink]

Personally, I don't buy it, but it's fair to say that the alleged advantage has never been proven, in any sort of logical or mathematical sense.


Aside from the fact that white wins more often than black?

[Bean]

Aside from the fact that white wins more often than black?

The whole point of my post is that that doesn't constitute sufficient evidence for the claim--and, of course, I'm right. =P

I think white probably does have an advantage, but the fact that white wins a little more often doesn't prove that, since the disparity can be otherwise attributed. The statistics you presented would not be accepted by any self-respecting mathematician or logistician as proof.

Proving it would basically entail solving the game, which hasn't yet been done. Checkers, by comparison, has been solved from the starting position.

[pyroclasm]

I picked up a Draigowing army because I loved the idea of creating the most elite army I could, and I had played Daemonhunters a little back a couple years ago. I loved creating the select few, standing against the amazing horde of evil facing them down. Then I looked at my weaknesses with playing such an elite army. Long range anti-tank and hordes. So a squad of Purifiers and some Psyflemen covers my bases and makes my army able to face all possible threats. This army is fun for me, because it reflects how I think, and how I like to play in all games that I play.

I can sympathize with players who feel that my army is unfun, but choosing units and models that I don't want to use makes the game less fun for me too. Is my army unbeatable? Hardly. Can you still have fun playing against it? Of course. My friend, who plays nidz, loves playing against it, just because he likes the challenge. Personally, I hate playing against Tau. To me, it's just not very fun. I would still play them if they asked, because by destroying those Xenos scum, I get better. I try out new tactics, and methods of destruction. It helps my target priority, and get a feel for my army. Or it helps keep me from getting rusty.

By facing an army like Grey Knights, you are forced to adapt. And by adapting, you may find new units or combinations, or tactics, which effective against Grey Knights, might be brutal against other armies. Food for thought.

[DarkLink]

Yeah, correlation doesn't imply causation. But in a case like this where there are relatively few influencing factors, mainly just the players and who goes first, it's waggling its eyebrows suggestively while gesturing furtively and mouthing 'over there'.

I totally stole the second half of that statement from xkcd (http://xkcd.com/552/).

[eosgreen]

as a guy who plays all sorts of games (and chess) its frustrating of course when one wants skill to be the #1 governing factor but then you lose even with the best play you can possibly muster

WoW, Sc2 are 2 video games that have this problem of which i used to play and still play, and the cause is simply diversity. the more diverse the game is, the less balanced it is

Chess is the most balanced a game can get and it has imbalance. For warhammer games in general unless you field an army of identical stats and size, it cant get balanced ever.


On the other side of things, playing the most OP army at the time ALL the time is boring. I pref to play the one people are not used to playing and make it work. Furthermore I think you get this uncommon adv from playing the least played army,race because people are not used to it. I dont suggest playing a CLEARLY weak army but for example everyone hated on ELDAR yet look what happened?

[DarkLink]

Actually, Go might be a little more balanced. While it still has a small first turn advantage, it's an even smaller one that in chess, and chess's first turn advantage isn't very big at all. Plus, I like Go more than chess.

[Duncndisorderly]

My two pennorth
I have owned several armies over the last twenty years, in fact I'm only tau and nods away from a clean sweep, hell I even used squats way back when. I don't say this to be a braggart but simply to show my credentials for making my comments.
I currently run a GK army, in my local shop they run a league and I have to say I have been refused games by some opponents because of my army choice. Basically they forfeit the game, this sucks for us both , I don't get to play, they lose points, should I change my list or army to accommodate people who simply won't try ?
I guess I'm seeing this from the opposite side to the original post.
I remember when the blood angel codex came out and one of the guys in our league went all in for a spam listed death company, furioso and storm raven and for the first couple of games he was tabling everyone, normally whilst accusing anyone who saidhiscodex of being overpowered of being a noob.
Guess who refused me a game last weekend ?

[Bean]

Actually, Go might be a little more balanced. While it still has a small first turn advantage, it's an even smaller one that in chess, and chess's first turn advantage isn't very big at all. Plus, I like Go more than chess.

Agreed. And, in Go, the komi is about as good an equalizer as you can hope for.

[ksoh75]

At our last local tourny....out of all the GK players we had.......I think like 3 or 4....Choas was actually the top winner for us.

I'm a Tau player....I lose alot......that doesn't mean quit playing other opponents.

This game is about trying out things and tweaking....maybe you need to watch some history channel and or study up on some WWII stuff.....this game is about tactics.....simple as that.

[Pendragon38]

I see that GK is still a problem and rightly feared by most players.hell nids are damn fast,seen a game last Friday where they ate through a DE army in 3 turns. Never the less if you roll good than bring the pain to the sap who has the spam list. I'm old school I still use 3ed army list and roster cards. right now I'm using SM dex tailored to deal with BA,GK,IG mech list and DE. and its a 50/50 chance that I'll lose the game.:cool:

[ElectricPaladin]

I just heard from the Independent Characters that at the high-level tables at Adepticon, 22% of the players brought Grey Knights. 22%! Give me a freaking break. If that's not an indication of a broken game, then I don't know what is.

The more I think about Grey Knights and the flaws they represent in 40k, the more I look forward to the next time I get to play Infinity. No insult intended to Grey Knights players, individually - I'm sure you are all friendly and fun-loving guys who picked the army you play for a host of good reasons - but it's time to admit that the game is screwed up. If your response to this screw-up is to avoid situations that won't be fun to you, I have no problem with that.

[Chumbalaya]

Considering that there were roughly 20-30% GKs, if not more, entered in the actual event, it's not surprising.

Seriously, you people said the same things about SW, IG, BA and the like when they were flavor of the month. The exact same arguments, every effing time. It's exhausting.

Cry more, get better, etc.

[ElectricPaladin]

Considering that there were roughly 20-30% GKs, if not more, entered in the actual event, it's not surprising.

Seriously, you people said the same things about SW, IG, BA and the like when they were flavor of the month. The exact same arguments, every effing time. It's exhausting.


That's the point!

This is probably where we do disagree. Is it too much to say that I - and, I think, most of us - would strongly prefer a game where this is not the case? Where the game remains more or less balanced through the introduction of new factions/models/editions?

[Chumbalaya]

Then I have to ask what game y'all are playing, cuz I sure won't be quitting 40k to play it.

Every army has a different learning curve and at high levels of play it all pretty much evens out so that player skill is a bigger factor than the list or codex. GKs are easy to pick up, very forgiving, cheap and easy to collect and travel with and are easy to paint. They're also great for events like adepticon that have KPs as a primary objective for mearly every mission. Bunkering and KP denial, so much fun.

The only broken book in 5th is Tyranids, and even they can compete reasonably well. 4th Ed books aren't optimized for 5th so of course they have problems. If GW would quit screwing up fantasy and wasting time on the hobbit and deadfleet, they could update all the old books and we wouldn't even need a 6th edition.

Like I've said before, take all this whining with a pile of salt, especially when you can easily swap a few names and get a whinefest about SW, IG and so on nearly verbatim. Learn your army, learn the game and you'll improve enough to see how silly the crying is.

[Pendragon38]

Then I have to ask what game y'all are playing, cuz I sure won't be quitting 40k to play it.

Every army has a different learning curve and at high levels of play it all pretty much evens out so that player skill is a bigger factor than the list or codex. GKs are easy to pick up, very forgiving, cheap and easy to collect and travel with and are easy to paint. They're also great for events like adepticon that have KPs as a primary objective for mearly every mission. Bunkering and KP denial, so much fun.

The only broken book in 5th is Tyranids, and even they can compete reasonably well. 4th Ed books aren't optimized for 5th so of course they have problems. If GW would quit screwing up fantasy and wasting time on the hobbit and deadfleet, they could update all the old books and we wouldn't even need a 6th edition.

Like I've said before, take all this whining with a pile of salt, especially when you can easily swap a few names and get a whinefest about SW, IG and so on nearly verbatim. Learn your army, learn the game and you'll improve enough to see how silly the crying is.
I don't think you're getting the problem, that keeps popping up. Its the players who want to win at all cost and use a spam list for that win, its sad to think that those players have a limited mind set and not trying out a list that they came up with. And dont get bent, for some of us its a way to find the cracks in there list.

[Chumbalaya]

I agree, the problem is the players with poor attitudes. On the one hand you have the wannabes who tryhard in casual games since they're not good enough to play in tournaments. They make games miserable for everybody. On the other, you have the scrub, constantly complaining and trying to enforce their own made up rules on everybody. They're most concerned with winning, but they'll never admit it, and hide behind "I play for fun" or whatever. While the first guy is obvious in his dickishness, the latter guy tries to hide it, obscures it with passive aggressiveness, and generally just sucks the life out of any group.

Thankfully, the majority of players aren't like that. Whether they prefer competition or campaigns, they're always fun to play or talk to. It's just those few asshats that give everybody a bad name. It's worse on the internet, where the extremes become the norm, and then it just gets worse.

It all comes down to the players, the people you engage with every time you head to the club/FLGS/basement.

[Chris Copeland]

When I started this thread it was about openly acknowledging the angst I feel about not wanting to play pick up games anymore against GK players. Me... a friendly fellow who loves pick up games and has never refused them. I felt that this thread was meant to be introspective and searching... not b!tchy and whining. Too often, games against GK armies (win or lose) have felt more like doing chores than playing. I publicly ask, "How do you feel? What would you do?" Do I politely refuse all GK offers? Do I soldier on and give up precious gaming time? Do I ask the GK player to whip out his "fluffy" list? These are legitimate, introspective questions that are worth discussing, dissecting, and examining.

Some forum members have taken these questions on with thoughtful, insightful responses. Others haven't. To be clear: I am not suggesting I want to win all the time. Nor am I saying that I only play against players I know I can beat. I'm not calling GK players dicks. I haven't even stated that I absolutely WON'T play GK players. I merely took a look at the dissonance within my own mind between my natural desire to play just about anyone and my overall experience of finding Tyranid vs GK games un-fun.

In my opinion GW release a poorly written and poorly playtested codex. Fie on them. However, what is wrong with self examination and introspection? That last question is rhetorical: the answer is, "nothing." Cheers.

[bfmusashi]

I thought you made your point well, sadly it was hijacked into another 'what's wrong with Grey Knights' thread when a more interesting direction was ignored. Your experience isn't isolated which saddens me as I still have not gotten to try the new 'dex. Why would GW release a book that is only fun for one of the players when it's a two player game? I don't want to pull my old Daemonhunters out now if my opponent isn't going to have a good time too. It's a waste of a weekend.

[Chris Copeland]

By the way, the best answers I've seen in this thread suggest that I talk it over and politely ask the GK player if they have a fluffier/less hard-core list to play. If they say, "No, I only have my Draigowing/Paladin Spam Tourney list" then there shouldn't be any discomfort in my saying, "Oh. I see. Sorry, I'm just not your guy for a game today. Good luck, mate!"

[Chumbalaya]

I wasn't referring to anyone in particular, just the stereotypical tryhard/scrub people love to hate.

You're free to refuse to play against GKs. I think it's incredibly lame and unfair to the "innocent" GK players. Hell, look at bfmusashi. Just having this discussion is discouraging him from playing his old army. How uncool is that? Justify it to yourself however you like, but the fact that you're searching for approval to blacklist players for owning the wrong army speaks volumes.

If I'm looking to practice my tourney army, I'll pass up games with newer or less skilled players. I don't feel like dumbing down and I won't get anything out of a cheap win. There's nothing wrong with passing on a game, you just need to be honest about it.

[Chris Copeland]

Justify it to yourself however you like, but the fact that you're searching for approval to blacklist players for owning the wrong army speaks volumes.

Chum, you are missing my point either deliberately or by mistake. I can't be sure which. I shan't worry about it. I'm not trying to justify anything to myself. I'm engaging in a frank discussion about feelings and angst and how I feel about playing. You seem to be projecting.

The interwebz make such interactions all too common. This is why I post under my real name and my sig indicates where I can be found in the real world for a real game. I am openly thinking things through... I am a fan of doing that. Cheers.

[Chris Copeland]

There's nothing wrong with passing on a game, you just need to be honest about it.

PS That's what this thread is supposed to be about: being honest.

[Pendragon38]

PS That's what this thread is supposed to be about: being honest.
play them till you get dice blisters on your hands. and if you lose they should buy you a pint for the beat down you got or if you win you buy:cool:

[Drunkencorgimaster]

I thought you made your point well, sadly it was hijacked into another 'what's wrong with Grey Knights' thread when a more interesting direction was ignored.

Agreed.

Chris, by the time the thread you posted makes it to three pages in length, don't expect it to have much of anything to do with your original post.

[jmach]

It's kinda funny, competitively GKs are actually pretty fairly balanced.



I've played GKs exclusively since 5th ed came out. If someone refused to play me, I'd be like "screw you too, you could at least just ask me to take a crappy list or something".

Yea I've played grey knights since I've started playing 40k and played grey knights exclusively. Granted I've only played the game for two and a half years but still that was a year and a half of playing the old demonhunters codex and nothing else against all the other armies and I had fight tooth and nail with troop choices of 150pts base with no upgrades and only 5 guys, I know I could have taken inquisitorial stormtroopers but I only played grey knights. Most players in my area will play me and my grey knights since I played the old codex and they figure I paid the dues but there are those that won't since I have an updated dex and I don't take anything flashy, the closest I get is taking a vindicare assassin or a single autocannon dread so I have something with a range longer than 24 inches, but for the most part I won't take an autocannon dread with psybolt ammo in games less than 1250 points, and if I do it's against people that are known for taking parking lot guard or longfang/razorback spam wolves. It's kind of aggravating on occasion in my eyes that people that I played against with my old codex won't play me with the new codex because they have to try harder to beat me, they're mostly people I beat on regular occurrence with the old codex though so that might speak more about the player.