The new grey knights

What are your foughts on the new GK. I've been browsing GW and found the GK ! What are your thoughts on the new GK

So far im pretty impressed, both with the wide range of options and rules. I find that psycannons will soon rule the battle field. As for the new model kits im not impressed, the only thing i find interesting is the dreadknight. I find that a lot of the new models have a few problems with parts either being too big or out of proportion. No doubt, the new kits are good, but i just didn't get that wow factor i expected.

I like the overall look of the models (Termi's, Regular guys, etc), but there's something about all the wrting that really bugs me. I think it's just the font (sans serif). It just doesn't look right to me....maybe a little more scroll to it. And they have random letters on the hilts of the swords that just look odd. Other than that, I do like the general appearance. The Dreadknight looks like it should have been closed in or something. It's a little too Optimus Prime-esk, who's wearing a Baby-Bjorn

Death_by_Taxes wrote:..... but there's something about all the wrting that really bugs me. I think it's just the font (sans serif). It just doesn't look right to me....maybe a little more scroll to it.....

I thought the same thing, but i figured out it was because it was the font is so big and legible. It isnt like the old models where you can tell there is script, but arent buffeted by names and words, just the look of crafted wards/pryers/etc.

the codex has a lot of potential
i like the dreadknight, not the other model too much
Aubec

Yes, we got nerfed in a lot of parts but also have improved in a lot of areas as well. The biggest thing for me is the wealth of diversity in builds we have at our disposal now. In my recent new-dex army-building there's always one or two units that are distinct from what I've already taken that I wish I could work into the list but can't due to lack of points. With almost everybody DS capable and having access to transports we are actually highly mobile. This I think will be one of the biggest impacts the new dex will have on the improvement of our army.

I like the new models, specially the DK. Though I don't like the idea of transports, not beacuse it's a great idea but because I have to buy them...

Bah. we dont Have to buy them. we already own 3 land raiders, and are used to playing light on the armor anyways. And anything we cant squeeze into a land raider, we give scout to and outflank with. Or deepstrike in.

I spent over 2 hours previewing the new codex at my GW shop and my head was spinning with great potential and many possiblities. I was tempted to run for the door and freedom but GK's never turned to the temptations of the Warp.

I don't think GK's will be nearly as CC orientated as most people seem to think. They are actually very similar in output of damage on the charge as before the new codex, and generally do less damage in the ensueing combat rounds due to less attacks. Terminators particularly are disapointing.
Psychic defence will really mess up a GK army since skills like HH that are basically necessary to pull the combat figures from mediocre to reasonable will not always be working.

Its also worth noting you really need a combat advantage these days against CC forces, and initiative 4 is just bad. I think halberds will be a must for terminators personally.
The loss of WS5 is really just huge and personally I think it makes them just barely worth their points. Losing an attack and a point of WS.... plus str 6.... against some armies we will actually be alot worse in combat. Power weapons are good but when your not hitting or even wounding with them....

Jump Grey Knights is kind of cool and lame at the same time. I think they will be useful, but again you are looking at a base attack of 1 with no mods except charging, unless you pay ALOT for the falchions. If they do indeed give 2 extra attacks they might be worth the points, but its hard to say now (one attack for 2ccw, a second for their +1 attack rule). I think they are overcosted for what they are personally. You pay extra points for a larger move, but your not a purifier with two attacks. The stormbolters are actually amazing on them which is their saving grace.

On the bright side storm bolters are great overall, and psyammo I think will be a must. I mean we can get cheap razorbacks with a str6 heavy bolter for 60 points. Sure you can get a str 7 assault cannon but thats over 50% more. I get the feeling we might see alot of razorback spam.

Despite the huge amount of 'sky is falling' posts (not here) that state that GK are the most overpowered thing since SW I think we'll see a different perspective arrived upon soon.
Someone noted GK are one of the weakest 5th ed codexes and I would tend to agree.
Lots of cool 'stuff' that doesn't necessarily trade across into the game unless you are an amazing player.

All the really good things are quite balanced, either by price or really not actually being as uber as they seem when you do the math.
Even the DK being only t6 is quite the sad face, particularly when its so expensive to make him move 12".

I agree with brother Zealadin, like I said earlier, I spent a couple hours previewing the new codex and my head was spinning. Taking or lowering our ws, Ini, str, including invuln saves nulifiers... our cc is as impressive as a 70yrs old man in a whore house.

GMKDynamis wrote:I agree with brother Zealadin, like I said earlier, I spent a couple hours previewing the new codex and my head was spinning. Taking or lowering our ws, Ini, str, including invuln saves nulifiers... our cc is as impressive as a 70yrs old man in a whore house.

Haha we won't be scoring many penetrating hits in 'combat'

I was thinking along the same lines as you Zeal until I started looking at the codex as a whole. Our regular GK's have been the backbone of our armies for so long that it took me quite some time to get over all the areas they got nerfed on. With all the new units to choose from now the regular GK squads don't have to be the do-all boys we've had to rely on all these years. Let the Purifiers, Paladins and NDK's do all the objective-grabbing ass-kicking now while the GK hold the backline or secure an objective another unit has taken. If you look at regular GK in an equal or supporting role with other units then they're well worth their points. In fact, with what they bring to the table I think GK (and a lot of other unts) are very underpriced. With transports, Grand Strategy and other goodies, our forces are going to a have a flexibilty we've never had before and I think that, more than anything, is what's going to really boost our competitveness the most. Reassessing the role GK's need to play now and fielding them with the right units will be something I'll be working hard on in the coming year. Even if I place them more in a 'back-up' role, I still think they're one helluva of a back-up unit to have.

Well - i do not recognise the idea that GKSS are nerfed in CC compared to the old PAGK. Mathhammer-wise they are superior in almost any assault scenario (by a significant margin), and if you bump them up to the old 25 pts- mark, they are also über in almost any scenario where they are assaulted. The only scenario where the old PAGK would prevail is against VERY high toughness (7+) and extremly poor saves.... oh and Dreadnoughts.
But I totally agree with Nemesisforce, the army has shifted from a one-unit-army to a synergy-army, where the sum of the masses bring the destruction.

Feel free to provide the math to back up that statement, from what I have seen they are slightly better on an attack to attack basis, but they have lost an attack in any protracted combat. They also have lost an attack when assaulted. (Unless I am missing a special rule).

So if you mean extremely high toughness (starting at 4), poor saves, like a 4+, then yes the old PAGK are better unless you can get HH off, in which case there is a slight advantage to the new PAGK, except for the fact they have fewer attacks, which is actually huge.

With HH they are better on the attack to attack basis by a larger margin, but psychic defence is a mainstay of the game now. It also still doesn't make up for the fact that they will probably be given NON assault vehicles now, meaning you won't get the charge, since people will try to use them like space marines, in which scenario they are worse.
Flexibility was the old grey knights who didn't mind being assaulted or assaulting.

Your also paying 24 points for a purifier which is basically the superior version of the old PAGK (slightly). These guys I like, but they aren't troop.

On top of all this the GKT doesn't even have WS5 either.

I wouldn't argue about the synergy statement, since that is always true, and even was back in the old days, but I definately don't think units are underpriced. In a vaccume sure, but in game terms, considering the army and whats available as a whole? Alot of units really benefit from upgrades, that are generally expensive or a tradeoff.
A huge amount of thought has been put into making sure this army can't just destroy normal marines.

Zealadin wrote:Feel free to provide the math to back up that statement

Well I, think that your analysis is correct, I just disagre with the conclussion. But - let the mathammer begin - then we can always discuss how to interpret the results:

The following is a weighted average, assuming the GKSS tries to trigger HH at Ld 9 meaning it fails 7 out of 36 times. I've also included a comparison with GKSSs fitted with Falchions to bring them up to 25 pts. like the old PAGKs (i call them GKSF).

Vs. Terminators (WS: 4 T:4 Sv 2+/5++)
Attacking:

Unit	Avg. kill per model	% diff
PAGK	0.19	-
GKSS	0.43	126%
GKSSF	0.64	239%

Defending

Unit	Avg. kill per model	% diff
PAGK	0.19	-
GKSS	0.21	13%
GKSSF	0.43	126%

PAGK vs. GKSS: 0 - 2
PAGK vs. GKSF: 0 - 2

Vs. Space Marine (WS: 4 T:4 Sv 3+)
Attacking:

Unit	Avg. kill per model	% diff
PAGK	0.37	-
GKSS	0.64	74%
GKSSF	0.96	160%

Defending

Unit	Avg. kill per model	% diff
PAGK	0.37	-
GKSS	0.32	-13%
GKSSF	0.64	74%

PAGK vs. GKSS: 1 - 1
PAGK vs. GKSF: 0 - 2

Vs. Ork (WS: 4 T:4 Sv 6+)
Attacking:

Unit	Avg. kill per model	% diff
PAGK	0.92	-
GKSS	0.64	-31%
GKSSF	0.96	3%

Defending

Unit	Avg. kill per model	% diff
PAGK	0.92	-
GKSS	0.32	-66%
GKSSF	0.64	-31%

PAGK vs. GKSS: 2 - 0
PAGK vs. GKSF: 1 - 1

Vs. IG (WS: 3 T:3 Sv 5+)
Attacking:

Unit	Avg. kill per model	% diff
PAGK	0.75	-
GKSS	1.07	44%
GKSSF	1.61	115%

Defending

Unit	Avg. kill per model	% diff
PAGK	0.75	-
GKSS	0.54	-28%
GKSSF	1.07	44%

PAGK vs. GKSS: 1 - 1
PAGK vs. GKSF: 0 - 2

So lets sum it all up:
PAGK vs. GKSS: 4 - 4
PAGK vs. GKSF: 1 - 7

So out of the box, it appears we havn't gained anything. Upgrade the GKSS with falchions to reach the 25 pts. cost of the old models provides a significant boost compared to PAGK in almost any scenario.
But before I will call it a tie between PAGK and GKSS there is a number of issues that I think makes this a clear win for the GKSS.
1. The PAGKs are dominant against Orks, but that is a hollow advantage, because IF you end up in a situation where you need to go cc with a blob of orks, you are dead anyway whether you play PAGK or GKSS. Leave orks to the specialists (Purifiers) or dakka.
2. PAGK are slightly better at recieving assaults from IG... But seriously - who needs that, both PAGK and GKSS would AND should wade right through squad after squad of IGs - they are not the enemy.
3. GKSS can now match normal Space Marines point for point in CC - something the old PAGKs couldn't. 250 point worth of PAGKs would get beaten to a pulp by 250 point of smurfs - no more! This was the greates problem with the old PAGKs - they couldn't match SMs in a toe-to-toe fight.
4. GKSS have frag granades!
5. GKSS can be customized in a number of ways making it a far more versatile unit than PAGK. GKSS can actually slay Khorne Berserkers something even our old Terminators could not due to poor initiative.
6. GKSS has army support - this has nothing to do with the unit, but the power of the GKSS will be far more predominant simply because it is augmented by the rest of the army.

I actually think that with purifiers and Castellan Crowe you may not need to drastically alter your existing lists or play styles, meaning if your good with your current GKs tactics you'll be even better off now.

Here's why:

Castellan Crowe is used to replace the BC as HQ in most some people's list
Purifiers can now be taken as troops (which are essentially a better version of our PAGKs in codex DH)
Use your landraiders

With the points spare from existing lists that used GKTs or ISTs get a dreadknight, more purifiers or Paladins.

Problem?

EDIT:

Slind, would you be able to do some calculations for Codex DH terminators vs Codex GK terminators? As well as a comparison with say Halberds and Falchions.

Reason being is that I'm looking at the codex and the more I see the more I like GK terminators, particularly with the invul bonus/free halberds, honestly they look like a points viable alternative to strike squads.

I don't see how the old PAGKs are comparable with the actual GKs (not just the average GKSS). For one, we had only PAGKs to cope with everything so, against Orks we had no chance at all. Same goes against SM and tyranids. That's pretty much auto-loose against those armies, since our fabled-and-so-missed S6 2A, was useless in these situations.

I think what people fail to recognise is that, although we lost S6 A2 we gained so much more variety, which IMO is priceless. You need to cope with hordes? Purifiers here we go. Want to build a Termy army that actually will be able to kill Dreads or Mech? There you go. Want to have higher-than-average SM? Have some GKSS. What we've got in this new Codex is not a jack-of-all-trades unit that wasn't particualry good at anything (it was mediocre at best), like the PAGKs where. We now have specialized units that'll do their job, and they'll do it exceptionally well.

Also try to remember that while Mathhammer is useful up to a point, it is not the definitive answer to how good a unit is. Note that these numbers are subject to the right interpretation and should be understood in the right context.

So I'd take GKSS anytime instead of PAGKs, why? Because of the many options and opportunities they give me to build an army (or many different armies for that matter). Are the new units too expensive? Well our army has always been expensive so no reason to complain there.

@Primarch
I have done the number crunching on terminators (I'm working on a list too), but instead of spamming this thread with more boring tables, here is the main headlines:

Old termies vs. new termies (out of the box):
The story is pretty much the same as with GKSS vs. PAGK, the new models are better on the offensive, but slightly weaker in defense. However if you correct for point-cost the new models are superior in most scenarios.

Now this comparison is not that interesting. It is far more interesting to se how terminators stack up against GKSS, as they will replace them as troop-choice in a terminator-list... and this is where it gets interesting:

GKSS are actually a better choice than terminators - not much but here are the ups and downs when you correct for cost between standard terminators and GKSS:
- Termies and GK are equally strong against any weapon down to AP4
- Termies are 3 times as resilient to AP3 weapons than GKs
- GKs are more than 50% more resilient to AP2 or lower weapons than termies (surprise!)
- GKs dish out 100% percent more firepower than Termies (no special weapons considered)
- When initiating assault GKSS deal 33% more damage than terminators
- When being assualted terminators and GKSS are equal.
- If you upgrade to Falchions those same numbers are 12,5% advantage to GKSS when assaulting and tie when being assaulted.

While terminators will crush any GKSS model for model, they cannot match them point for point (Paladins are another story though).
I am not saying that terminators are a bad troop choice, far from it, but you need to consider their tactical application in order for these babies to shine.

Ok looking at old PAGK vs GKSS /w and /wo HH.

Against marine equiv:
PAGK: 0.182 chance to kill per attack.

GKSS: 0.25 chance to kill per attack.
GKSS /w HH: 0.33 chance to kill per attack.

GKSS get 2 attacks on the charge, PAGK always got 2 attacks.

You also totally ignored my point about psychic defence. Getting an ability off 5/6 times is good, but thats not taking into account hoods, shadow in the warp, and the eldar runes thing.

GKSS are definately better on the charge, in any other situation (excluding charging into cover) including extended combat that isn't the case.
I like the new GKSS, but am a bit disappointed we lost WS5.

On the bright side in squads of 10 I think that PsyAmmo is a must, 2 points per model for a S5 stormbolter? Thats awesome.
Grendades are also huge and lovely. That being said excluding people with higher initiative you used to be able to make the tactical choice not to charge as a PAGK because receiving the charge worked in your benefit.

Also considering you would be charging Orks after emptying two stormbolter clips into them it really shouldn't be an issue. Whether its a str4 or 5 SB.

On termies.
-GK's aren't more resilient unless you are counting cover, GKT have a 5++ which increases to a 4++ with a sword in CC. You can buy more GKSS for the points but that doesn't make them more resilient. GKT are also easier to hide in cover.
-GKSS do and always have had an advantage with stormbolter fire. That being said taking special weapons into account the ability to gain 2 more shots a round per Psycannon while moving as a GKT is a good tradeoff, especially when you aren't losing your force weapon in the mix. PsyAmmo however really takes the ball into the GKSS's court, one of my favourite parts of the codex honestly.
-GKSS do put out more damage on a point to point comparison, but that doesn't take into account getting to combat in one peice.
-A standard troop with a 2+ save is really good.
-When being assaulted by what? Against anything that doesn't have a power weapon or equiv termies are far more resilient. Damage output is similar though as you noted.

Like you said GKT are now a VERY tactical choice. IMO they should have got the WS5 since they can't get SS and their invulnerable booster is CC only, but thats spilt milk at this point.
I think a mix of GKT and other army elements will be really potent, particularly interceptors, who will be able to screen GKT, (allowing SB's to do their dirty work) and then jump behind them if a charge is needed or will be accomplished better by the GKT.
As troop they really shine. Alot of armies will struggle to kill 2+ saves if you have a fair amount!

Paladins are also defiantely worth their points. They'll need careful screening but I think they are amazing!

One point I think worth noting is that force weapons are future proof, I think we will see ALOT more FNP and they are unargueably better in these situations against anything. I hadn't thought of this before but looking at the trends I think this is what the aim was. I just hope we don't see everyone getting PW's!

Zealadin wrote:
-GK's aren't more resilient unless you are counting cover, GKT have a 5++ which increases to a 4++ with a sword in CC. You can buy more GKSS for the points but that doesn't make them more resilient. GKT are also easier to hide in cover.

I think that it was quite clear that the above comparisons was made without factoring in tactics (since you can't quantify the value of tactics) and on a cost-neutral basis. Which is the only wat to go if you want to assert how much bang you get for your buck.

I.e shooting with melta on units out of cover:
- For 40 points i get 1 GKT, who will take an average of 1.33 melta wounds before he dies.
- For 40 points i get 2 GKSS, who will take an average of 2 melta wounds before they die.
Thus you get 50% more resiliense towards meltagun if you put your 40 points in GKSS instead of GKTs

Now to offset this disadvantage we apply tactics to enhance the strength of our units and decrease their weaknesses. But before you can do that you need to be quite clear on what those are. And it seems like a squad of terminators will have a tough time if caught in the open with a melta-spamming list, compared to GKSS.

2 melta shots against normal normal PAGK is what 1.1 kills, against terminators its 0.73. Not in cover. Also worth noting is the shooting of the squad that accompanies the melta shots. Against a PAGK squad, 8 pistol shots will be almost another dead marine (0.87), against a terminator its half that.

Since you are trying to go for a nuetral comparison its rather silly to only compare the choices against ap1/2 weaponry wouldn't you say? Not many armies only weild melta weaponry.

Zealadin wrote:2 melta shots against normal normal PAGK is what 1.1 kills, against terminators its 0.73. Not in cover. Also worth noting is the shooting of the squad that accompanies the melta shots. Against a PAGK squad, 8 pistol shots will be almost another dead marine (0.87), against a terminator its half that.

Since you are trying to go for a nuetral comparison its rather silly to only compare the choices against ap1/2 weaponry wouldn't you say? Not many armies only weild melta weaponry.

Well - when I backtrack this thread the comparisons have always been cross-weapon. We started discussing low-ap because you stated that it was mathematical wrong to claim that GK was more cost effecient aganist low ap compared to GKT.
And... looking at your calculations (which looks correct) - they conclude the same as mine: GKs are more cost effecient against low ap!
1.1 gk at 20 pts a pop = 22 pts.
0.73 at 40 pts a pop = 29.2
i.e. terminators are more expensive than GKs when taking low AP fire.

How - since we agree on the math but obviously not on how to interpret the result - lets just leave it at that and let people make up their own conclussion.

Ok