Tuesday, June 14, 2011

Grey Knight Nerfing

Unless you live under a rock (I'm looking at a certain sponge's best friend) then you've taken a few moments and read the new FAQs that GW posted up. I found out about them on BOLS last night and was very disappointed about a few rules. 

Don't get me wrong, I can take my lumps. Into this life, a little nerfhammer must come.   My GKs are just a "fun" list I've been building, though even then the FAQ has some headscratchers.

In hindsight some of them make sense, though a lot of them seem like reactions to the the vocal minority of the blogs and forums of the Internet.

I'm just going to speak up about the Dreadknight.  I'm honestly not sure what GW was thinking, the thing was expensive but had a few unique tricks up it's sleeve. The FAQ boosted up some things in the list, but the DKs seem to have taken the brunt of the nerfing though. With three in my 1850 I am going to feel it, and obviously have to rework the list somewhat.

The first turn shunt, cheap S 10 hitting power, made the thing somewhat playable.   I was going to use three in the GK list I'm building. Most competitive players are running Psydreads, but I just like the look of the baby carriers.  Losing the S 10 makes senses, why else would the hammer upgrade be there? The shunt move ruling I think is plain wrong, as it's not consistent with the wording of what the shunt does.   At the end of the day I can't get too upset, it is just a game.  Though I wonder, does GW really want to sell Dreadknights?

1 comment:

  1. I think they'll probably sell DK's regardless as they're the 'token dreadnought' for GK. To compare, though, no monstrous creatures or dreadnoughts are really amazing IMO. I think it just takes them down to normality for their type.