Evil and Chaos wrote:
Quote:
I love these lists and I'd like to take them further, there's literally years of work in these lists. But playtesting has been pretty much nonexistent.
I've said for years I'd love to play a grey knights army, but the number and style of special rules in your army lists is not to my taste. We did play your Witch Hunters list a couple of times, but the experience was again not to the taste of our gaming group so Zombo was motivated to write his own Sisters list.
Frogbear's list of concerns that keep him from playing the Grey Knights is very similar to my own (Though I don't have quite the same fear of using an all-fearless army), except I'd also want to see you removing those support staff units' special rules.
Sisters were never playtested. Grey Knights were. A lot. Beyond VTOL (going) and Support Staff (staying unless someone comes up with a genius alternative I've not considered), how many special rules are left?
frogbear wrote:
Lord Inquisitor wrote:
I love these lists and I'd like to take them further
That's awesome news Lord I.
I really wish you were open to the removal of Fearless from the Grey Knights (I did suggest an auto rally and a 25 point drop - see link below) as well as some other changes. I have a few Grey Knights fully painted, yet like the old Chaos lists, opponents are scarce when the army is all Fearless.
Take a gander here and let me know what you think:
viewtopic.php?f=69&t=19140Thanks.
Try them. Again, to be blunt, I'm not interested in re-writing a well-playtested list based on theoryhammer, these topics have been hashed out literally years ago. Yes, they're Fearless. They should be ... but in reality it is only a small perk and they play very differently to other Fearless armies because they have ATSKNF. Consider a unit of 4 Grey Knight Terminators. They need to lose three stands to break due to ATSKNF. The final stand breaks... but what good does Fearless do? A single broken stand with ATSKNF actually can't be auto-popped by the automatic BM from being fired upon, so Fearless actually has zero effect on a Terminator formation unless the enemy uses disrupt weapons. Fearless really only works on large formations or (the big benefit) when in combat (which is reasonable as the GKs typically take on much bigger foes than themselves).
Your complaint is based on theoryhammer. If you really can't pursuade opponents to play because of a perceived problem with Fearless then that's an issue but if you can playtest then I'm confident you won't see a big problem.
Try them, try them, try them. Then we talk. I've playtested the Grey Knights extensively, even taken them to a couple of tournaments.
Angel_of_Caliban wrote:
Lord Inquisitor wrote:
but is there anyone actually playing these lists out there or is this entirely academic?
I'm trying/planning on building up my Sisters next. However its hard to plan out my models and basing when the Ordos H and Adeptus lists aren't the same units and/or formation sizes. I understand the need and your want for playtesting, but its hard to setup an army when there are two different units going on. I don't see myself making a GK list soon but others seemed interest, but I'm sure most people would agree to wait till the next codex. As for Xenos I might try them after my SM are put back together, but for now my focus would be Sisters, both lists.Sisters have never received the same attention due to lack of models on my part and a desire to try and get the other lists balanced first. Build your sisters, let me know what needs to happen to the list to make it playable. As I said, I'm happy to let Evil work through his list with minimal meddling from me and I'll restructure the Ordo H as necessary. The level of playtesting has been linked to models Ordo M (widely available models) < Ordo X (easily converted but fringe interest) < Ordo H (zero models, until recently).
