Kirb your enthusiasm!

WEBSITE HOSTED AT: www.3plusplus.net

"Pink isn't a color. It's a lifestyle." - Chumbalaya
"...generalship should be informing list building." - Sir Biscuit
"I buy models with my excess money" - Valkyrie whilst a waitress leans over him


Wednesday, May 11, 2011

Grey Knights - Marine survivability



A point we've been trying to hammer home lately is that Grey Knights are Marines with extra bling. This is part of their army balance as in a one on one fight, they are better than most of their Marine counterparts due to their extra equipment. This makes them more expensive but with the same statline which equates to them dying at the same mathematical rate as the other variants. This is a limitation of the army as you generally end up with less overall units than other Marine armies and often less bodies or army flexibility because of this. This is a key reason why Grey Knights aren't a combat army and has been discussed extensively, use combat as back-up to their much more impressive shooting.


All that being said however there is an assumption here. Grey Knights die the same as Marines according to mathhammer. If I have 20 attacks at Strengh and WS X, I'm going to inflict Z wounds on T4/3+ opponents. What this doesn't take into account is that Grey Knights are often doing more initial damage than their Marine counterparts. They are more expensive for a reason. Sethis explained this very well so I've copy-pasted his reply in a recent post here:



"A niggling point that bothered me when reading this article: You keep repeating that GKs die like Marines, which is true on a "stats" level i.e. something that hits marines on 3s and kills marines on 3s will do the same to GKs BUT you haven't mentioned at all is the fact that over several rounds of combat (or even during the first one if the GKs are higher I than their opponent) the GKs will take many less casualties than their equivalent points of Marines. 

A totally Vanilla Tactical squad fighting 20 Guardsmen, for example. Tacs strike first, and lets assume they have the charge. So 10 pistol shots which kills about 2 Guardsmen. 18 left. 20 CC attacks kill about 5 Guard, leaving 13 men to strike back. 

Compare vanilla GKs who do the same. 20 SB shots kills about 5 Guard, followed by 20 CC attacks that kill about 12 Guardsmen with Hammerhand. Even without Hammerhand they kill 8, leaving 7 to strike back. The difference isn't how much they win combat by, but how many fewer attacks they take in return, and therefore less casualties. A full Halberd squad exemplifies this even more, because they also get to strike before a lot of dedicated CC units such as FC Marines like Zerkers/BA/Eldar, instead of just before Guard/Tau etc. A pure Halberd squad will almost wipe out a Scorpion squad before they can strike, whereas normal marines have to eat 30 attacks before doing so. 

They even get an advantage when striking after their opponents, because the additional casualties caused by ignoring armour (a third more kills vs 5+, half again more kills vs 4+, and triple the kills vs 3+ etc) will affect the future rounds of combat. 

Less attackers striking = less wounds taken = living longer. You are correct in that any given opponent will need the same dice rolls to kill a GK as a Marine when he strikes, and in that respect they are equally fragile, but you have to take into account that there will be less models to attack the GKs than there would be to 
attack the Marines in the first place."



This is absolutely true and an assumption we have made assuming you would understand this but it is always good to point these things out. In terms of one on one fights, Grey Knights are often going to have the advantage against other generalist units. They are the ultimate generalists in a sense being able to shoot well, take damage well and do combat pretty decently and although they are expensive at what they do, will pulp most other generalist units into the ground. The problem is when you face specialist units one on one. Specifically, combat specialist units. They are now going to beat you to a pulp and don't really care that you're at a minimum 4 points more expensive than your regular Tactical Marine. They may take a bit more damage from Hammerhand/Force Weapons but they are still going to beat you. This loss of a unit is going to be felt more in a Grey Knight army because of the way they are set up and this is often what we are trying to highlight when it is said that Grey Knights die like Marines.


I hope that has cleared this up some and thanks to Sethis for pointing it out and writing an eloquent response on it.

Comments (78)

Loading... Logging you in...
  • Logged in as
After some of the arguments I've gotten into Kirby, I've given up.

I've just given up.
10 replies · active 728 weeks ago
Stop arguing on BoLS? lol
I don't read BoLS. 2 of them have been on here.

Stop posting on BoLS and bringing them back man. It's like the spectres slipping through the gaps in His Dark Materials.

>_>
Haha. You have the chance to educate them here and I've had a lot of positive e-mails from my articles indicating people now read 3++/YTTH for tactics and BoLS for rumors. More people are going WAAC DOUCHE but even if just 1% of those readers change their tune, sounds like a win to me.
Well, that's your opinion.

I don't like having to browbeat closed minded idiots on home turf. While I absolutely acknowledge they can make their opinion known etc, this place was always like a haven, mostly free of all that jazz.

Not any more man. You sold out.
A little harsh.
I'm just using his own sense of humour on him. He knows I'm being dry. (:
I'm dryer though.
Auretious Taak's avatar

Auretious Taak · 728 weeks ago

Man, they got rid of the negative thumbs. Else you'd get one from Old Mr. Taak for this comment Archy. It's the internet, it's not like there's a lock and key on blog viewing afterall. Man up and deal and don't ignore what Kirby has said. Afterall, have you had complete noob gamers turn around and go 'Hey, i read your article, I learnt a lot and now can't be beaten...what do I do next?', if not, you need to, very rewarding. :)
I was being funny....

But anyway, I'll be serious for a second. I absolutely love educating people. The problem is, lately, an awful lot of people have been showing up who aren't even willing to learn. I'm not going to name names, but I can certainly describe. They've been coming in with their views already and absolutely refusing to change them, regardless of the sensible, well thought out arguments you put forward. It's been getting me down lately.
Auretious Taak's avatar

Auretious Taak · 728 weeks ago

Archy, this is where you adopt a Taak-like mentality and accept that 40% of the internetz are noobs and fools or people who just because they read one article by you which they didn't understand or turned out to be bs, they then refuse to read anything else you ever write or to listen to anything you ever have to say. It's rather refreshing and enlightening. Quite freeing cause the dipshits miss out on when you do drop down some gems. Good example is that TWC Hybrid article I did a while back, lots of long time space wolf players took a lot away from it and added to the discussion with tweaks and agreed with many of the points raised. There was still a large percentage of people who refused in the chat to even read the thread short form that was up on the blogs main page of articles. Did it get me down? A little to be honest, but at the end of the day, do you really care?

We just get on with it and write as 3++ always has, we don't need to spell things out, if people can't be arsed reading and opening their minds to the multitude of views and perspectives that all the authors and frequent chat-bawksians have, then who cares? Let them not learn anything new.
In close combat, this point is true.

But if a Guard army is shooting at you with Battle Cannons and Multi-Lasers, your GKs will die at pretty much the same rate as any other Marines. That's the kicker, because you have fewer bodies to start with. And really, if I'm going to lose close combat anyhow, what do I care if you take one wound from me or zero? Shooting is what I care about, not assaults. I WANT you to kill me in assault as fast as possible so you're left in the open where I can pour more fire into you.
5 replies · active 728 weeks ago
Yes Sandy we know :P.
I know you know. But do they know? Ya know? ;)
I thought I knew, but who knows if what I know is what I knew?
More importantly, who knows if what they know is what you knew?
I know that you know you should all stfu. =D.
Uh.....there's a inherent dichotomy to what you say Kirby, and I feel like you missed a step in the transition between two sides of it Kirby. Keep in mind that I agreed with Sethis's post wholheartedly, but I think you mangled message a bit. Maybe I just read what I wanted to into his original post, I dunno.

So, the thing we agree on is that all GK units are hybrid units with some percentage of their points dedicated to shooting vs CC. This ratio varies by squad, and you can even tailor it by loadout, and we generally agree that GK are more focused on shooting than CC, but some squads such as purifiers tilt more the other way.

The bottom line is that to get the most out of any GK squad, you need to be utilizing both their shooting and CC capability, which can be challenging.

This where your post breaks down for me. It's not really useful to talk about specialist CC units beating down GK. First of all, it's often not true; There's all sorts of specialist CC units that will dies quite easily tot he right kind or loadout of GK (mostly purifiers), such as incubi, genestealers, Nobz, genetsealers, etc. Secondly. even the hardest CC units will die to if the GK is allowed to tip the balance with even a little shooting first.

The easiest comparison is GKT vs TH/SS termies (which I take i have something to do with this blogs name). TH termies will beat Sword GKT, but actually, only by a little bit. If the GKT, which have the full shooting capability of shooty vanilla termies, are allowed to shoot the TH/SS even just a bit, they'll win in the end. So really, the fact that GKT have the shooting of vanilla termies and can also come nearly even with TH/SS in CC is just broken in the end.

You'll find similar ratios with GKSS compared to MEQs, the caveat being that since they're more expensive per wound, the penalty to pay if you screw up is higher, and you need toboth shoot and assault to get you points back.

That's really the essence of it......not a comparison of GK vs various units at CC, or even various units at shooting, but that both are accounted for in their points. If GK can utilize both abilities, it's pretty guaranteed win.
10 replies · active 728 weeks ago
Not that i'm disagreeing with you on any particular point, but the way your takling makes i sound like GK will never loose if they're used correctly. Of course we all know this is untrue, if you're opponent out-plays you then you'll loose just like anyone else, even if your using GK.

Also the only army in the game that can't shoot and combat well is tau, and they're due a re-do. Just saying.
I am sorta saying that. If you can get something like 2 rounds of shooting and then wind up in assault (either being assaulted or of course assaulting) you will win. Or you know, just shoot the CCer and CC the shooters, that works too.

Now of course that's the hard part, you can definitely be denied that shoot, shoot, assault sequence.

Most armies, or at least units, are pushed much more strongly towards either shooting or CC than GK. Yes, Tac marines are not totally pathetic in CC, but they really want to shoot you. Yes, Orks have shootas, but they really want to assault you. If you deny either of those units that, or perhaps just engage them at the proper range you will win. I guess that's what "out-playing" your opponent means in this case.

'Course, this is about killing, not objectives.
In the end these are all non-points since the better player will win most of the time anyway. GK simply have more options than other armies since their units can fill several roles, instead of just 1. It means that they have less "bad" match ups but have to be played well.

Say, for example, a GK player and a SW player, both players and lists are at the same level, have several games against each other. I see no reason that the GK player will win more than 45-55% of the time.

Its been said before but the top 'dexes are balanced.
I think you missed my point, I wasn't trying to address the issue of balance between codexes, at all. I was just trying to delineate what you needed to do in oder to "out-play" your opponent.

I don't think laying out the tactics that will lead to winning is ever a "non-point".

Not that it was my point, but what are you trying to say? That the broken codexes ("top 'dexes") aren't broken against the other broken codexes? Something went seriously south in 40k, starting around when the IG codex came out. Power creep is bad. It's bad when people start saying "It doesn't have a 3 + invo, it's crap". It's bad when people look at you crazy for being out on foot. It's bad when the most powerful model in the game is 35pt cardboard box with a hole cut into exactly big enough to fit two gun barrels through. It's bad when one variety of marine vastly outclasses another simply by being bright enough to bring a knife to the battle. It's bad when the game has these complex rules around assaulting through cover, but every Human in the game has a frag grenade that negates that.

I mean, good things, too, have happened in that time, like more interesting deployment options and outflanking and reserves and cool board control options, but some really, really heavy and systemic balance issues have been introduced into the game.

Also, as an aside, many things in the Blood angels codex thematically made no sense, in addition to them being broken game-play wise.
OK fair enough, i may have missed (or misinterpreted) your point. Your correct in saying that shoot, shoot, combat is the "win" tactic for GK, my point was that this tactic is no better (or worse) than the "win" tactic or other units in other 'dexes.
thornyroses's avatar

thornyroses · 728 weeks ago

Excellent point brother, says exactly what i have been trying to explain at our local club..it's a hard sell when everyone plays BA,IG etc.
The weakness of GKT (sword or not) is their vulnerability to AP2 weapons compared to TH/SS Termies, not their matchup directly versus TH/SS Termies. Frankly, TH/SS as pure CC units are NOT the great wonder... what makes them great is their ability to win CC, then survive shooting to assault another unit, whereas a lot of other CC asskickers will win CC then get killed in the next shooting phase. Which is what will happen to sword-GKTs when they shoot and assault something... they'll kill it, and then they have a 5+ save vs all the melta and plasma that will come in at short range.

Overall, I don't think they're broken, for that reason. As shooty termies, they're only as good at SM ones, and as CC termies, they appear better in the assault, but suffer more from incoming fire.
Ok....but that seems largely mitigated by how easy it is to get a 4+ cover save. It's really mitigated by librarians with stealth. ANd, of course, those GKT can do something at range, reach out and touch, when the TH/SS cannot.

*Shrug*. To each his own. In any circumstance but for that doom charge out of a LR Crusader, I'd rather have GKT. Actually, since GKT are troops and the TH/SS aren't I'd really rather have them even for that doom charge onto an objective.
Auretious Taak's avatar

Auretious Taak · 728 weeks ago

A librarian with stealth is how many points more? What i see with your arguements is that you are bringing in other elements of the GK Codex to support the GK's but completely ignoring the equivalent values of points when applied to whom you are making the comparisons about. Thus your points become moot because they are unfairly weighted against the non-GK unit.
Dude, you already invalidated anything further you would have to say a while ago.

Rate them with a 4+ save, or a 3+ save, I don't care. They're still a hell of a lot more useful than a invulnerable dude with no wheels and no gun.
Uh.....there's an inherent dichotomy to what you say Kirby, and I feel like you missed a step in the transition between two sides of it. Keep in mind that I agreed with Sethis's post wholheartedly, but I think you mangled the message a bit. Maybe I just read what I wanted to into his original post, I dunno.

Bottom line is that both shooty and CC capability are built into GK pts cost. This means that to defeat most units, you need use both sides of that capability.

This is much more useful than saying GK lose to dedicated CC units....first of all that's often not true, Purifiers will beat down Incubi or Genestealers, for instance. More importantly, it just means the shooting side of the GK had to be applied first.

The easiest example of this is GKT vs TH/SS termies, where part of this blogs name comes from, I believe. Much (oh, so much) has been made of the fact that TH termies beat Sword GKT in CC,but the truth is that they beat them only slightly. Those GKT have the full shooting capacity of vanilla termies......really any shooting from them at all vs the TH termies = win. The fact that GKT have the full shooting of shooty terminators while almost equaling TH/SS termies in CC is borderline broken.

The same is true of GKSS vs Grey Hunters, for instance. The key is that if the GK can apply both shooting and CC, it's almost pure win.
2 replies · active 728 weeks ago
Raptors8th's avatar

Raptors8th · 729 weeks ago

Agreed on SW having problems, personally I'd like to see a post on them in line with the BA and Tyranid ones, as they seem like they're one of the most disadvantaged armies vs. the Knights.
Yeah, wasn't meant to be a X codex < Y codex thing. Also it will be a long time before you get me to feel sorry for SW.
The 3 up cover save for vehicles and infantry from a libby can help mitigate the "die like bitches" aspect of GK. While not reliable it can make the difference on a critical turn as much as higher iniative.

just sayin.
12 replies · active 728 weeks ago
Hey hey, this is catching on. Marvellous.

3+ cover save can't be relied on. Nice bonus when it happens, though. >: Personally I prefer to just stay in my transport.
You're playing them wrong :P.

Remember Vanilla Marines were the first ones to reliably get 3+ cover saves with combat tactics though no one ever seemed to use it appropriately.
combat tactics... how does that give you 3+ saves on vehicles? Do you mean mech training?
No for infantry only BroLo.
You make no sense...

"Vanilla Marines were the first ones to reliably get 3+ cover saves with combat tactics"

This makes no sense at all. How do you get a 3+ cover save with combat tactics? You can get a 3+ cover save from mech training, but combat tactics? Maybe I've been playing 40k all wrong.
Um....if a 3+ can't be relied on, what can be?

You're aware that this game has dice in it?
A 2+.

As far as reliability goes 2/3 could be better. And any game that includes dice includes unreliability, and, as you said, this game has dice in it.
Yes, I'm aware of how the system works.

Point I was making is that considering a 3+ save poor (and unreliable = bad) is an.....odd perspective.
Or it's the platform Sanctuary comes on that's not reliable. Psychic Hoods, Rune Weapons, RoW, SitW, PitW, limited range and vulnerability.

I should have elaborated.
*Shrouding.

Jesus, god damn.
Didn't say poor. Said you can't rely on it.
I have an article with my thoughts in it. Cool! :D
18 replies · active 728 weeks ago
Auretious Taak's avatar

Auretious Taak · 728 weeks ago

And your comparison is unfairly weighted against the tactical squad. Thus it isn't as clear as you seem to think. What I am saying is points values. You just went 10 Tacky's vs 10 GK SS's. On the charge. Wow, you're looking at a 30pt difference base for a start so ditch 1.5 GK's and maybe then the point would be more worthwhile. Additionally, your points didn't look at the fact that a lot of units aren't 20 strong and if they are 20 strong then good for them...because again you failed to account for the free flamer ina tactical squad which will also torch a shit tonne of guard because we're looking at still being in range to assault after mauling the GEQ's with 20 odd storm bolter shots that means at ;least 6 Inches within range, likely more as the Guard player will take casualties from the front so we have 2 inches of ranged end of template minimum more like 3 or even 4 inches of a flame template toasting those guardsmen at range.

So I'd just like to point out that your arguements are shit and biased towards the GK's without taking into consideration ALL the elements in the example you chose. Heck you even then harped on abbout full halber squads utterly raping a tact9ical marine squad, do you know how many tactical marines we get if you go full halberds on a GK SS? A fuck Tonne more then you chose to present.

So I say fuck you for not presenting a balanced arguement and then thinking it's all well and good because it's not, it's biased and unthought out. Next time actually use a fair and balanced example.
Oh, man, that -1 button was getting abused, but if ever there was a case for it.......

Yes, GK are more expensive, we're all aware. No one gets halberds on GKSS.

Instead of just swearing at us, and telling us how stupid we all are, why don't you tell us in what situation, exactly, would you like to compare tac squads vs GK? Name your situation, we'll tell you how that plays out.
Auretious Taak's avatar

Auretious Taak · 728 weeks ago

Maybe if you ignored the swearing and ACTUALLY READ THE CONTENT you'd see I already did just that. read what i said again. Read the original email article and response at the top. then maybe once you've read them again you'd see that I responded to the situations already presented us. But no, you can't read. Good for you.
Wow. Literally none of those things are true.

You're an idiot.
See how it feels? I mean, we're both big enough men to move past the debate we had. But seriously, schadenfreude (sp?).
I'm sorry I bothered you so much earlier, but...I don't know specifically what you are talking about. I know we've argued a few times, did I abuse you in some way?
You realy have no concept or hypothetical situations, do you?

Lets exchange 20 guard for 20 gaunts, or some plague marines, is his argument still unbalanced?

Sir_Promethius is right, you are an idiot.
Auretious Taak's avatar

Auretious Taak · 728 weeks ago

I'm not debating what we are comparing the attack on, I'm debating what we are comparing the attackers as.

ffs, if you can't read that then you're just as big an idiot as he.

Also, if you both went up to the article you will see about my point on Halberds being pertinent because it was brought up and brought up loosely at that.

I don't need someone explaining to me the hypotheticals, I've played enough I can see it myself.

They're Grey Knights, they are okay all rounders, better at shooting by themselves then combat, but really start toi unlcok their potential with the synergies allowed them across FOC selections.

FFS, show some independent intelligence mate.
When has halberds on GKSS ever been pertinent? No one but you was ever talking about that.
Aww bless.
Look, I was just replying to what Kirby had said in his previous post and giving an example that I literally thought of and wrote down in 80 seconds flat to help demonstrate my point.

It was never meant to be a "This is a 100% perfectly mathhammered example proving X over Y", it was just "You didn't mention the fact that X exists, as in this broad example Y that I give you".

I like coming to 3++ because it's mostly full of intelligent posters who can put across their views in a civil fashion. Responses saying "Fuck you" and "You're shit" are uncalled for, rude, and lower the quality of the site dramatically.

Just because you have some kind of beef with prometheus, and prometheus liked what I said, is no reason to rip into me - someone you don't even know. It would have been so easy to simply comment saying "I'm not sure your scenario is 100% balanced, for example GKs are more expensive than Marines" but instead you feel the need to fly off the handle and swear at me repeatedly. Good one.
Wait, what exactly did I do?
I think he meant to reply to Taak.
OK, cuz his original rambling rant was just against the whole article in general, I was just defending Kirby's and sethis's honor!

(So that I could tell Kirby he was wrong about something else, later.) :)

BTW, did Kirby delete the entire article on bubble-wrap?
No, blogger is down at the moment. All posts from the last 24+ hrs have been deleted on all blogger blogs.

He doesn't edit, rescind stuff he posts. I think you actually didn't 'get' the point of the bubble post, but I'll let somebody else explain because I can't be bothered.
Oh, well, that's good. He didn't seem like the type that would.

I don't think the thunder-bubble article was the most recent one though? Pretty sure the eldar article was more recent.

I think Kirby frankly just got too enamoured with his own coined term. If he wanted to write a tactics article for GKT, he should have just done that.
That wasn't the point of the argument. When it's back up... read it again.
Chill out Taak... there's no need to swear in such a post, it's very unbecoming.

The article or post is primarily about survivability. Yes, there is discussion of benefits of equipment in a bias manner. Does that necessitate profanities? You comment on Arch's post above about 'teaching' and then you start running your mouth. A little hypocritical really. If there is bias, try approaching it in a more sensible manner and people may listen more.
TheGayCommissar's avatar

TheGayCommissar · 728 weeks ago

I think that everyone needs to take a chill pill : )

It makes Commissar sad seeing arguments. C'mon, 40k is about having fun! (and ripping out your enemies' spleens in the process XD).
1 reply · active 728 weeks ago
Why don't you just *%@ off you &^$£! Bringing your sensible approach here!

;)
This discussion is a mess and always when it's a mess I know Taak is in it. And no, that's not a compliment neither is it coincidence and neither is it always somebody else his fault Taak.

Where you go wrong Taak:

-Kirby made this post, not Sethis. Sethis can't post himself.
-Kirby not only posted this, but he also said he fully agreed.
As a result, Kirby is fully responsible for this content.

So you say 'fuck this and shit that' to Sethis, while there is no reason to. Sethis can't be blaimed as he's not the one posting it. Instead, your anger should be towards Kirby, but you lack the balls to do that. What were you thinking? I can handle Sethis with my nerdrage so I just rant at him? Gtfo, really. And then in chat you added: 'he should get off our site'. Oh really? Sethis isn't even a poster on this blog, but you are and looking at your post record I don't even think you should be allowed to say who is and who isn't allowed to say stuff on this blog .
6 replies · active 728 weeks ago
Auretious Taak's avatar

Auretious Taak · 728 weeks ago

What I responded to was Sethis's points which are ALL IN ITALLICS in the above article. I also r4esponded directly to Sethis after his comment in these comments, but you seem to have conveniently overlooked that point. Kirby responded in a more generalist fashion without going into specifics. He agreed but he didn't give specific and exact examples. Sethis above admitted that his example was one he spent all of 80 seconds concocting so yes it wasn't balanced at all in relation to what I disagreed with initially which was that the Tactical Marine Comparison to the GK SS was biased in favour of the GK SS. Sethis posted above in response Zjoekov so scratch that he can't post himself because he did. There was no link to where Sethis posted originally either so I posted here which seemed quite pertinent all things considered. Additionally quoting what I said out of context of a contuinuing conversation and as your understanding of what i said aka 'he should get off our site' is utter bullshit mate. Lets quote me directly from chat bawks:

"Sat May 14, 12:54:56am
AuretiousTaak: i'm sorry but you don't counter an argument by a biased and then ogh look an admittal an 80 second thought up example. no, sorry fuck off our site."

Was in reference to the wonderful lack of thought put into the example and thus the entire point Sethis was trying to put across. I'm sorry if you read it wrong but it was the statement that such lack of thought arguements should have a place on the site. You and BroLo then go on in the chat to admit that hey, the article as a whole was poor, that the examples given were biased towards the Grey Knights and generally not well presented or thought out. EXACTLY MY POINT ABOVE.

I'm sorry you seem to think that whenever trouble or arguementative discussion arises on 3++ or anywhere for that matter that I am the root cause of it all, this simply isn't the case. Based on your response we can illicit that you have an unfair bias towards me and because you see me using profanity in a response which yes, could have been sugar coated more but wasn't, you decide to not read everything stated, not acknowledg that both kirby and sethis are commenting in this thrread and furthermore to selectively quote myself out of context and not word for word either to make your point look all good and righteous and mine wrong? FUCK YOU ZJOEKOV. Simple really.
More swearing... how cool of you. I said the article was incomplete, and poor because of it, not just poor.

When will you learn?
I wish you could quote people in these comments.

1. "Tactical Marine Comparison to the GK SS was biased in favour of the GK SS"

I think you're making mountains out of molehills here. You can balance the fact that the points were out slightly in favour of the GKs by simply adding a Powerfist and melta to the Tac marines, which is something 80% of marine players do anyway. Bang, points balanced, with no significant change to the numbers presented.

2. "i'm sorry but you don't counter an argument by a biased and then ogh look an admittal an 80 second thought up example. no, sorry fuck off our site"

I wasn't countering anything. I was mentioning a factor that I thought Kirby had either missed or decided was irrelevant in his review of Grey Knights combat potential. I wasn't proving anyone wrong, I was adding more detailed information. Not only that, but to dismiss someone's point because of an ill-chosen example of that point is poor debating at best and juvenile at worst. I could write a mathematically sound and unbiased example of exactly the same scenario **and still obtain results that indicate my point stands.**

3. "could have been sugar coated"

"Sugar-coated" is one (rather condescending) way of putting it. I would use the phrase "being civil" instead. The fact that you are making a conscious decision NOT to be civil, is, may I suggest, a better reason for you to stop posting than for me to stop posting because of one flawed example.

Fourth, and finally, it was Kirby's decision to post this in an article of it's own, not mine. If you think the article should have had a better example attached to it in order to prove its point, then you need to bitch at Kirby for either not making his own example or for not asking me to provide a better one before he posted it up. I am more than happy that Kirby decided that what I had to say was worthwhile, and I'm very pleased he felt it was worth posting up, but if in future you want me to provide better arguments then please consider asking me to write a dedicated article which I can actually spend time on, rather than something I hammered out while being late for work in the afternoon.
Auretious Taak's avatar

Auretious Taak · 728 weeks ago

P.S. Unlike you, I can actually see Kirby in rl, and will see him within the next 2 weeks or so, maybe it didn't occur to you but just mayhaps I was gonna have a talk with him about this article/thread? No need to now though with what you've stated all authoritatively because apparently I'm dictating who can actually post and who can't post now? WTF? Seriously. Learn to read.
Wow you're a tool. So because you know kirby in real life that gives you some sort moral superiority over us? Or you think it gives you some sort of editorial authority? I haven't been here that long, but Kirby seems a bit too reasonable for me to think that's the case.

You keep on claiming that people don't read your posts or don't understand them. Well, I've read them, painful as it is (really), and I've been called a smart man once or twice, I think I understand them........there's very little content there. You seem to rant, swear, and call everyone else a stupid $&@?/! Then you bring up some irrelevant stat that no one else was talking about as if that proves your point, which btw, no one else has any clue what your point is.

I have managed to divine that you are somehow pissed at sethis as if he owes you money, cuz he dared to write an off the cuff comment, which Kirby thought was cool enough to make an article out of.

Anyone besides Taak wanna disagree with my version of the story so far?

Taak, maybe you're brilliant, and the constant stream of filth coming from you makes it hard for
Us to understand you. Think on that a bit.

People are allowed to make posts that don't meet your exacting standards without being called names. People are allowed to be wrong (though I think sethis was mostly right).

You claim to be Kirby's buddy. OK, well do him a favor and stop taking dumps all over his site.
The Lieutenant's avatar

The Lieutenant · 728 weeks ago

Archy here: Kirby doesn't actually like Taak. :O

Just saying.
Deleted 2 of my comments, one of them was pretty mean and was getting too many plusses. I don't want to feel pitty for somebody on the internet and I almost did, so I'll simply ignore you from now on Taak.
2 replies · active 728 weeks ago
Aww. But now I feel like I missed out n
The Lieutenant's avatar

The Lieutenant · 728 weeks ago

He's being a prick. End of. Swearing at someone over a very quick example of numbers, which honestly, there's nothing wrong with, is not the act of a nice person.

No one else who has read this post has had the same kind of problem with it as Taak, for the very good reason that there isn't much to take umbrage at.
"Learn to read" is one of those wonderful phrases people use when someone has understood exactly what they meant in their post, and now they want to distance themselves from it because they've realised it's a bunch of Teclis.*

Taak's comments, at least on this topic, have been rude, needlessly offensive, and generally unrelated to the OP.

So in short, feel free to leave mean posts up. In this case, it's entirely justified.

*Due to Teclis being such a wanker, we've replaced the word "Wank" with the word "Teclis".
Because I have nothing better to do right now, here's a mathematically correct version of my example:

10 Vanilla Marines (No sergeant, no flamer, no specials, nothing)

10 Pistol shots - 2.22 Dead Guard assuming 4+ cover for the Guard
20 CC Attacks - 5.92 Dead Guard

Total Unsaved Wounds: 8.14

8 Grey Knights (Same points as 10 Vanilla Marines, no bonus equipment)

16 Storm Bolter Shots - 3.55 Dead Guard assuming 4+ cover
16 CC Attacks - 7.11 Dead Guard
16 CC Attacks with Hammerhand - 8.88 Dead Guard

Total Unsaved Wounds - 10.66 Unsaved Wounds without Hammerhand. 12.43 with. Rounding down to 8 and 12, that makes 4 less attacks received back by the Grey Knights and therefore almost one less wound taken.

That's only against people with a 5+ save. Against 4+/3+/2+ the GKs only get better. Halberds speak for themselves (and before you rant about imbalancing points again, I will point out that point-for-point, Halberd armed GKs kill more than Tactical Marines, flat. And they do it at I6, which is a massive step up from I4 just by itself).

Are you happy now?
2 replies · active 726 weeks ago
Halberd equipped GKSs?
I hate to be a stick in the mud - but your math is still off.

10 Tactical Marines have 21 attacks, or 22 if sergeant has pistol and chainsword (we will forget about free flamer).

End result: Grey Knights are still better. :D

Post a new comment

Comments by

Follow us on Facebook!

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...