"Have Grey Knights Made Space Wolves Obsolete?" Topic

Some say that the Grey Knights "do everything better" compared to Space Wolves, and that Space Wolves are disappearing from 40K game tables.

Do you agree?

Are there really people who swap armies just to have the one with the best in-game stats?

Yes, "bandwagoners"

Yes, tournament players.

Well, who wants to play the army that always loses?

@ The Editor: Me – I like running Imperial Guard, Tau and Space Marines. I've usually managed a draw, but many times I've been pummeled by my opponents. I gave up the "winning army" after a score of tournament championships back in the heyday of my tournament gaming. Now I run them so I don't care if I win, lose or draw. I play to have fun and design storyline campaigns for the gaming group – it makes the games more fun and keeps the players on their toes.

As far as the question goes – the Grey Knights were never supposed to be the "uber army" in the universe, but a forelorn hope to stop Chaos invasions. The new flavor of GK is nothing more than a re-tooling in codex creep to make them a super force. I've seen so many players leave Tyranids and Space Wolves to run Grey Knights, it isn't funny – but then again – they are one of the nastiest tournament armies out there.

It's often hard to tell if the new codex is really as tough as some claim or if it is a case of people still trying to figure out how to deal with new stuff. And what percentage of each is at work.

Having played Space Wolves since 2000, my experience is that in the first couple years, they were great. Then when the Space Marine codex came out that allowed customized chapters, they were kinda crappy in comparison (I had better in game performance making "fake" wolves than using the old codex). Then when the new Wolves codex came out, they were popular again. But I haven't played in a while and I hear the same thing you say Bill.

And over the years when I've cycled to playing and not playing, it's always been about how much I could put up with losing. In the early years even when it was fun, my Space Wolves were constantly raped by Chaos Undivided which was ridiculously popular.

In Fantasy I kinda notice the same thing with my Orcs and Goblins too.

Honestly, if you aren't tournamenting and your fellow gamers don't care, boost your stats a little bit. Ask the game host first, and he'll probably say no, but it's worth a try.

Care more about what my army looks like than stats. So, i would say no.

I never understood why people think in this manner. It's not like GW hasn't been up front in saying they don't 'ake the game with competitive play in mind and that the players need to be able to self regulate and balance so all involved can enjoy things.

The only players I've ever heard saying such things are the over competitive types who only concern themselves with how much WIN they can get out of an army. And to be honest these are the players that I flat out refuse to play against.

I don't think so.
Space Chihuahuas are just sitting on some players shelf waiting for a new WD article giving THEM the upper hand, and POOF! they will be back in full force.
Otherwise known as the Games Workshop Market Strategy.

Grey Knights are currently offer the best effect for their points. They do have units that other armies would use almost for competetiveness that they do not field because there are still better alternatives.

In other words: broken beyond fun.

Had this thread continued with the newer codizes, all older stuff would have been stuffed.

There are SOME other tournament builds that hold up good to GK and thus are viable, like DE venom spam, IG valkyries, and some that are still effective in BA/SW/CSM builds. But if you want to play the top-army, GKs are the way to go. They are the 40k equivalent of WFB demons.

Unless you play against a GK player that selects his army purely for background and fun reasons, games against them might yield far less fun then you expect.