Tuesday, April 26, 2011

[Collaboration] Codex: Grey Knights Review: Fast Attack



Another limited section, here are your Fast Attack options.



Storm Raven Gunship

Martin: For all intents and purposes, the Storm Ravens available to the Grey Knights are, indeed, the same as those of the Blood Angels. Fortitude and The Aegis are neat bonuses, little boosts to a - let's be frank - pretty fragile vehicle. I don't much enjoy the concept of bundling all my eggs into one AV12 basket, but with Fortitude there, it's not all bad. In fact, I intend to run Storm Ravens in a casual GK build for friendly games. More on that later, perhaps.

Once they deploy the Squad and/or Dreadnought, Storm Ravens make neat gunboats. They make neat tank-poppers, when kitted with a MM and LC; it would be unwise for the enemy to completely ignore them. Zoom around and target armour, maybe opting to go flat out, and utilise POTMS to get a MM shot off at something.

I reckon Storm Ravens work best in pairs. One is too fragile a prospect; it's not difficult to down when it's on its own. On the other hand, three... well, that's a pointsink and a half. Unless you're looking at loading them up with 10 Purifiers and a Dreadnought each, or something equally as
gimmicky - not the best of ideas, as it happens - then that's out of the question. It's much like the Land Raider; they work best in pairs.

Marcus:  I'm still mixed on the Storm Raven, and you're spot on with how vulnerable they are.  I think a lot of the reason people will take them is because they had fast attack slots open but no room for a Raider in the heavy support.  While you can get away with one Raider if you park it in with your Rhinos, this thing being on a flight stand means everyone's antitank will be on it from turn 1.  With all the juicy goodness in the rest of the codex though I think it is as likely that the fast attack slots end up left open.



Interceptor Squad

Martin: A Grey Knights Squad which can, once per game, teleport to any point on the table, up to 30" away from where they started. Not bad when combined with Grand Strategy; hide a basic Interceptor Squad somewhere - i.e. in reserve, behind a BLOS wall - until late in the game. At this point, they shunt 30" and contest/claim an objective. They're a neat tool in the toolbox
that is Codex: Grey Knights.

Otherwise, they're more or less identical to normal Grey Knights. 'Nuff said.

Marcus: Throwing some scoring on them with Grand Strategy would be good as a turn 5 shunt onto a control point has got to be one of the biggest reasons for choosing these guys over another strike squad. Even without scoring they'll still be good for contesting objectives. It makes them more likely to be assaulting units already parked on control points so the incinerator and either halberds or falchions would be a good boost to give them.  Another tactic could be a scout or turn 1 shunt into the middle of the enemy lines.  If you happen to have Karamazov, spreading these guys out and then using the one next to that Battle Wagon as the target for an orbital strike could bring some early game pain to.


Well that's it for fast attack.  Another section as small as the two bit troop choices.  Next though we will hit up the Elites and Heavys.  And in an elite army like the Grey Knights your elite choices are going to be important.

Martin and Marcus

4 comments:

  1. Nice report.

    Might I request you try and use some more descriptive words rather than goat-boy-isms like neat, for someone who doesn't have the codex words like useful/cheap/important are much more helpful!

    Thanks!

    ReplyDelete
  2. The biggest issue I see with the Gk version of the SR is the lack of Blood strike missiles. These (along with the ability to transport 2 units{one of which could be jump infantry) are what made the SR the bread and butter of the BA armylist. Without them it just seems, meh.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Gaot-boy-isms. That's harsh. :) Point taken though. I'll bear it in mind when I re-read the heavy and elite entries.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Point taken. I'll try to be a little more formal in future.

    Thanks for your feedback.

    ReplyDelete