Jump to content

GK at London GT


Danarc

Recommended Posts

Hello there, I saw the GK lists for next London GT. 

Only 8 people use at least a detachment with GK and it seems that the FAQ didn't really change the way to build lists. 

In fact everyone bring at least one GMDK and 3x5 PAGKs. Someone brings Pallys, a majority lists interceptors and a crazy hero brings 5 purifiers. 

You can find all the lists here https://docs.google.com/document/d/1QuVR2KdfKO08bBLYw9vobghM_xwhejofmtyXQ7LgQU8/mobilebasic

 

What do you think about this?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it shows the core units are 'good'.

 

I think it shows like a lot of codexes that are marine based, there's a select few items you cherry pick if you want to be truly, and utterly competitive.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There was a word that new FAQ will not be used on GT because not enough time to change lists for players. Anyway, maybe there will be some feedback from GK players this time?

this explains many things. 

 

Yes, I hope there will be some GK feedbacks, but also in past tournaments there were some GKs. 

We will see...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'll be honest I'm surprised to see 8/76 lists contain pure/detachment of Grey knights.

 

In Aus at the Western Australian Team Championship (3rd largest team event in the world I've been told) There was a single GK army, in all of the 120 players. No other GK detachments, just a single Battalion. (teams of 6, 1500 points per player, cant repeat same codex in team)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the main point to remain focused on here is if they are using the new beta rules. If not it really won't be a good representation of the current state of Grey Knights.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'll be honest I'm surprised to see 8/76 lists contain pure/detachment of Grey knights.

 

In Aus at the Western Australian Team Championship (3rd largest team event in the world I've been told) There was a single GK army, in all of the 120 players. No other GK detachments, just a single Battalion. (teams of 6, 1500 points per player, cant repeat same codex in team)

They are 8/400+ lists.

 

In any case, a friend of mine told me that at LGT there will be applicator the FAQ and the BETA rules.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

New beta rules are our main problem now, but we already had a ton of problems. But GW said "no, you're alright".

 

We still have usable lists. Grey Knights have never been Tier 1 in 8th anyway. We don't have enough variety of unit choices that might allow for accidental broken lists. Honestly I think Grey Knights either need to have a 4++ save all around or make them more killy with a d6 smite with the shorter range possibly. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I'll be honest I'm surprised to see 8/76 lists contain pure/detachment of Grey knights.

 

In Aus at the Western Australian Team Championship (3rd largest team event in the world I've been told) There was a single GK army, in all of the 120 players. No other GK detachments, just a single Battalion. (teams of 6, 1500 points per player, cant repeat same codex in team)

They are 8/400+ lists.

 

In any case, a friend of mine told me that at LGT there will be applicator the FAQ and the BETA rules.

 

 

Has anyone broken down the representation by faction / detachment?

 

I would be interested in seeing what people are actually bringing. I suspect GK is not the only army with very low representation.

 

Re: the idea of cherry picking - if the new FAQ does not affect GoI, I think we will be seeing this more often. Several friends at the FLGS were discussing a GMNDK + Land Raider Crusader + Purifiers as a drop-in detachment for their Ad Mech woes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Purifiers are garbage, unfortunately, even inside a "one turn of life" LR crusader with gate. I used them and they didn't work when we had DS and appropriate support from PI and QG. 

About other armies, it seems that there is an under representation of Orks, sisters, SW and other armies without codex. Every other armies but GK are listed, included BA.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, good news for Grey Knights fans. We are not as unpopular as we thought!

 

I broke down the London GT lists by faction and put together a spreadsheet explaining what players are bringing.

 

This is a record of the faction names used to describe each army. There can be multiple factions per army, so the tally for each faction will be higher than the total number of armies.

 

A few facts:

 

- There's an average of 1.27 detachments per army. This figure is skewed by Xenos lists.

 

- A little less than 20% of players are bringing Astra Militarum as part of their army.

 

- Grey Knights are about as popular as Imperial Knights, Dark Angels, Sisters of Battle, and Ynnari.

 

- Grey Knights are more popular than Ultramarines, Space Wolves, Orks, and Genestealer Cults.

 

- There's about 40% more people bringing DG / TS than straight Chaos Space Marines.

 

Observations from when I was putting the data together.

 

- The average number of detachments per army is much greater for Imperum and Chaos. If I only counted those armies, the number would be something like 2.5. Most of these armies draw from multiple Codexes.

 

- While a lot of players are bringing Aeldari, many lists have a smaller detachment of craftworld allied with a larger Drukari force. The total number of Eldar players can be better judged by the number of Drukari players, they are about even with Tau.

 

- Likewise, while there are a lot of Chaos Daemon detachments, they are often allied with a CSM force. I only had time to capture the basic details of each list, but would love to go back and get better numbers about overall faction breakdown and individual units.

 

Would love to know people's thoughts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

Solid information here! Something I do want to point out is that most Xenos don't have as many factions to blend in with like Imperium or Chaos.

 

Imperium: AM, SM, BA, DA, GK, AC, AS, Inquisition, IK, SW, etc...

Chaos: CSM, DG, TS, CD, Chaos Imperial Guard?

Tyranids: Tyranids, Genestealers, AM

T'au: T'au

Orks: Orks

Elder: Yaanari, Craftworlds, Dark Eldar

Necrons: Necrons

 

So seeing a mix between imperium detachments is important but not as important as comparing them with the Xenos Factions. Unless I'm wrong here.

 

But the data is very very important and awesome to look at. Thank you so much for doing all the leg work on this! 

 

Edit: I did not list all the factions here.. was just running stuff off the top of my head.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Have we heard any confirmation whether or not they are using the beta rules for this tournament?

Yes they do. I had a confirmation from a player in the italian community. He will play in the LGT and he told me that in the info pack itis specified that they will use the faq.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

The highest placing GK player finished at 67 (3-2), with the next best at 176 (3-2, but fewer pts earned).

 

However, if anyone was watching the Warhammer TV stream on Day 1, Robin Cruddace (lead rules writer for 40k) was commentating on one of the games and specifically asked about the GK codex.  He said that there will be a comprehensive review of the first few codexes with Chapter Approved this year and admitted GKs needed to be looked at.  So likely nothing in September FAQ, but perhaps serious pts adjustments or more in CA.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

However, if anyone was watching the Warhammer TV stream on Day 1, Robin Cruddace (lead rules writer for 40k) was commentating on one of the games and specifically asked about the GK codex.  He said that there will be a comprehensive review of the first few codexes with Chapter Approved this year and admitted GKs needed to be looked at.  So likely nothing in September FAQ, but perhaps serious pts adjustments or more in CA.

Well I guess this is good news? Sort of? An acknowledgement that there are issues with GK.

 

Kinda sad that this counts as progress, but progress it is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The highest placing GK player finished at 67 (3-2), with the next best at 176 (3-2, but fewer pts earned).

 

However, if anyone was watching the Warhammer TV stream on Day 1, Robin Cruddace (lead rules writer for 40k) was commentating on one of the games and specifically asked about the GK codex.  He said that there will be a comprehensive review of the first few codexes with Chapter Approved this year and admitted GKs needed to be looked at.  So likely nothing in September FAQ, but perhaps serious pts adjustments or more in CA.

 

Zero surprises about the results, but finally some news about the state of GK. Hell, it's about time.

 

Still, some major issues with this. Even with some changes, it won't excuse GW for their handling of it.

 

1. You still need to throw down $70 for CA - when the codex should have just not been rushed and the effort it deserved been put into it the first place. It was immediately clear on release that GK had a lacklustre codex. A fix shouldn't be paywalled. We will have had to have waited for over a year with a sub-par codex, and in the end we're expected to hand over more money to fix something that shouldn't have happened in the first place.

 

2. The amount of changes they can employ will be rather small, due to it being done via CA. Mainly limited to point reductions or a global special rule changes, it won't be able to fix the core issues with the codex. We need a re-release. Point adjustments will be insufficient to fix role overlap, one will always be the more efficient option. They need special rules to distinguish and differentiate them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Eventually someone woke up. 

 

I agree about the considerations here above, but, at least once, I don't want to blame GW. This is not fair but if they will give us a similar-fix to the codex I will be ok.

I agree that we need a new codex and not a try-t-fix one, but it is better than nothing, assuming that it will be an heavy adjustment. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Eventually someone woke up. 

 

I agree about the considerations here above, but, at least once, I don't want to blame GW. This is not fair but if they will give us a similar-fix to the codex I will be ok.

I agree that we need a new codex and not a try-t-fix one, but it is better than nothing, assuming that it will be an heavy adjustment. 

 

Who else is there to blame? The fault is their own. Put the effort in the first time and this entire thing could have been avoided. Don't throw a codex together in a week and push it out the door to meet a quota. Soon as I saw we were getting released first my hopes fell, time and time again we've seen the first cab off the rank of a new edition getting shafted. Combine that with the boys in blue getting shiny new toys, it was obvious they picked one of the smaller armies to get done with as little work as required.

 

I don't and never did expect GW to release the codex anew immediately, there are other armies that haven't received their codex yet. A temporary fix involving points and some rules changes (pretty please make the special weapons a decent choice) to tie us over till all the codexs are out would have been fine, but it should have come sooner than Dec 2018. I do take issue with the zero acknowledgement of rules issues and apparent disregard of the army that we've seen since the codex. To top it off, they want to charge me $70 to fix their mistakes? It should be free, and throw in a discount if you have the old codex.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.