So yeah, I see a lot of people who think Imperial Knights are a balanced units. I agree that they can be killed without owning one, and they aren't indestructible. They aren't necessarily overpowered, but asfar as I'm concerned they aren't balanced either, especially regarding their point cost and what they give you. I therefore ask you a question; If you were given ~380 points to buy anything from within another Codex, that could match what you get with a Knight for the same points cost, what would it be?

It needs to move 12" inches, and fire weaponry of similiar power towards multiple targets while moving. It also needs to be equally powerful melee, and equally durable ( something of similiar power to the shield, ignores destroyed/weapon destroyed/immobilized/difficult terrain and whatnot. ) Do remember, before posting herohammer options, that Stomp ignores invulnerable saves on a roll of 6, and a single Stomp can target multiple models. At worst a single Stomp can kill almost a squad of Assault Terminators/anything else with a decent invulnerable save.

( That's right; it's impossible. There is no other 380 point unit, or even combo of units, that can do all that simultaneously while being equally accessible to all players. The Knight is on the absolute upper spectrum of power-per-points ratio, and it is accessible to almost every player and army. Hence, it is not balanced points cost wise. ) They are a trademark in the majority of tournament armies these days, a strong part of the current meta. I recently followed a tournament inwhich there were 2 imperial lists without a Knight - the rest 18 all had them. That's saying something.

If the Imperial Knight is the most all-around powerful 380 points you can spend out of any Codex, then how could it not be unbalanced? It's better than anything else in the game for the same points when it comes to all-around effectiviness.

Let me get this straight. You want us to compare apples and oranges to help you prove a point?

Pretty much. I'm not interested in the comments of people like you, who obviously know the Knights aren't balanced ( or that's what I got from your comment with the apples + oranges. ) I'm looking for counterarguments that can somehow prove it isnt the best 380 points ( out of a Codex ) one can spend in the entire game.

 RunicFIN wrote:
Pretty much. I'm not interested in the comments of people like you, who obviously know the Knights aren't balanced ( or that's what I got from your comment with the apples + oranges. ) I'm looking for counterarguments that can somehow prove it isnt the best 380 points ( out of a Codex ) one can spend in the entire game.

See, if you want to prove your point this is not the right way. You simply cant compare balance of a unit without looking at what else is in your army. So comparing units with similar points cost is useless since their role/task/whatever might be totally different. An army is more than the pieces it consists of and is ideally build around synergy. Strong synergy is what makes units overpowered - look at eldar. Its why they are so powerful.

There are PLENTY of units for around 400 points that can deal with a knight. Does that mean they are overpowered too?

Oh, and this is a public forum. If you are not interested in my comments thats tough luck for you.

 Mywik wrote:
There are PLENTY of units for around 400 points that can deal with a knight. Does that mean they are overpowered too?

Sure, you create a unit that can kill the Knight for those points. Say, 2 pods of combimelta Sternguard for example. Do they have the Knights mobility? Firepower? Durability? Melee power? The knight does all of that, and on the highest levels possible from a normal Codex.

The whole point is making up something with 380 points that can do everything the knight can do equally well. The knight doesn't need synergy in the same way as a normal unit does - it does everything, and it does it well. Aside from anti-air.

A stock eldar wraithknight and 3 jetseer squads. The IK can't take objectives and D weapons got nerfed. They are good, they are top tier, they are not unbalanced or under costed.

I think it is quite hard to compare the points cost of a knight to another codex choice. A knight fulfills a different role to most other unit choices of the same points value. With that in mind in a purge the alien type scenario, with a Knight, yes you get alot of bang for your buck. But in an objective based game, you could get a lot of troop units for that 380. Spreading your points out.

In fairness, you could make your argument about a lot of things that are specific to each factions codex. If every codex had an equivalent to every other codex, it would be quite boring imo.

For what it's worth, a friend of mine fields a Knight quite often, and I have much less problems facing that than another friends dual Riptide list.

Also in 7th, anyone can field a Knight with the new allies. So in answer to your original question....another Knight

 RunicFIN wrote:


The whole point is making up something with 380 points that can do everything the knight can do equally well. The knight doesn't need synergy in the same way as a normal unit does - it does everything, and it does it well. Aside from anti-air.

Thanks for talking in bold but i understand what you are aiming at. I just questioned that it proves what you want. But i see that all you want here is people that agree with you .

If my army is able to deal with a knight with appropriate points why do i need something that does the same to achieve balance? Isnt balance that every army has the tools to deal with the tools of the other armies for roughly the same cost?

Additionally you didnt even understand my point. Yes the knight doesnt need synergy that much. But the other units you ask us to compare with it do.

But again you dont seem to look for discussion but for approval.

Want GW's advice?

Buy a Knight of your own.

I choose two Dreadknights from the new GK.

For 380

1 can have shunting and a 12 inch move, a Str 10 Ap2 force weapon, a 4++ 4 wounds and a heavy flamer for 205 points

1 can have shunting and a 12 inch move, a Str 10 Ap2 force weapon, a 4++ 4 wounds. For 185.

Would it take down a Knight? Maybe, but it does what the knigh does.

 Mywik wrote:

 RunicFIN wrote:


The whole point is making up something with 380 points that can do everything the knight can do equally well. The knight doesn't need synergy in the same way as a normal unit does - it does everything, and it does it well. Aside from anti-air.

Thanks for talking in bold but i understand what you are aiming at. I just questioned that it proves what you want. But i see that all you want here is people that agree with you .

If my army is able to deal with a knight with appropriate points why do i need something that does the same to achieve balance? Isnt balance that every army has the tools to deal with the tools of the other armies for roughly the same cost?

Additionally you didnt even understand my point. Yes the knight doesnt need synergy that much. But the other units you ask us to compare with it do.

But again you dont seem to look for discussion but for approval.

If you understood what I ment you wouldn't have suggested just creating something that can beat a Knight - as the question wasn't "Can you make something with 380 points that can kill a Knight?." And I don't want people to agree with me, quite the opposite. The way I see it, the Knight is the most all-around effective 380 points one can spend at any given time. Nothing can match its mobility, firepower, melee power and durability that I know of - and I'm interested to see if such an option exists.

 RunicFIN wrote:
Pretty much. I'm not interested in the comments of people like you, who obviously know the Knights aren't balanced ( or that's what I got from your comment with the apples + oranges. ) I'm looking for counterarguments that can somehow prove it isnt the best 380 points ( out of a Codex ) one can spend in the entire game.

Well you asked for something that does EXACTLY the same thing as the Knight for 380pts, nothing really does exactly the same thing, it's the cheapest superheavy in the game so there is no direct comparison. But then the Knight can't do things other units can do, different units fill different roles.

380pts will buy you 2 LRMBT's that pack 2 battlecannon shots, 6 heavy bolter shots. Same number of hull points, no inv save, but higher armour and 80pts cheaper.

The cost of 2 Knights will buy you 3 Wraithknights, that's a llllllot of T8 wounds.

Similar points will also buy you 5 Thunderwolf Cavalry with SS, some with TH and some with Frost weapons. Which dish out an awesome number of high Str low AP attacks that the Knight can't match.

Significantly less points will buy you enough gaunts to tie it up all game.

The main reason I think Knights are unbalanced is because if you didn't bring enough anti-tank you're going to struggle, if you did then it's no problem. Tyranids in particular struggle to bring enough anti-tank to deal with 1 or 2 knights let alone 5 or 6.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

 RunicFIN wrote:
Pretty much. I'm not interested in the comments of people like you, who obviously know the Knights aren't balanced ( or that's what I got from your comment with the apples + oranges. ) I'm looking for counterarguments that can somehow prove it isnt the best 380 points ( out of a Codex ) one can spend in the entire game.

Well you asked for something that does EXACTLY the same thing as the Knight for 380pts, nothing really does exactly the same thing. But then the Knight can't do things other units can do, different units fill different roles.

380pts will buy you 2 LRMBT's that pack 2 battlecannon shots, 6 heavy bolter shots. Same number of hull points, no inv save, but higher armour and 80pts cheaper.

Similar points will also buy you 5 Thunderwolf Cavalry with SS, some with TH and some with Frost weapons. Which dish out an awesome number of high Str low AP attacks that the Knight can't match.

Significantly less points will buy you enough gaunts to tie it up all game.

The main reason I think Knights are unbalanced is because if you didn't bring enough anti-tank you're going to struggle, if you did then it's no problem. Tyranids in particular struggle to bring enough anti-tank to deal with 1 or 2 knights let alone 5 or 6.

Yes the Knight cant do everything - but it does mobility, shooting, melee and durability on a top tier level. That's more than most other units worth the same cost do, unless I am mistaken.

While the options you posted are decent, one of them lacks Knight level shooting, the other lacks Knight level melee. That's exactly what I mean by the Knight being the most effective 380 points in the game. Nothing can simply match what it can do for the same cost.

"The way I see it, the Knight is the most all-around effective 380 points one can spend."....If you want to field a Knight, yes, yes it is.

 RunicFIN wrote:

 Mywik wrote:

 RunicFIN wrote:


The whole point is making up something with 380 points that can do everything the knight can do equally well. The knight doesn't need synergy in the same way as a normal unit does - it does everything, and it does it well. Aside from anti-air.

Thanks for talking in bold but i understand what you are aiming at. I just questioned that it proves what you want. But i see that all you want here is people that agree with you .

If my army is able to deal with a knight with appropriate points why do i need something that does the same to achieve balance? Isnt balance that every army has the tools to deal with the tools of the other armies for roughly the same cost?

Additionally you didnt even understand my point. Yes the knight doesnt need synergy that much. But the other units you ask us to compare with it do.

But again you dont seem to look for discussion but for approval.

If you understood what I ment you wouldn't have suggested just creating something that can beat a Knight - as the question wasn't "Can you make something with 380 points that can kill a Knight?." And I don't want people to agree with me, quite the opposite. The way I see it, the Knight is the most all-around effective 380 points one can spend.

So if i want to play a fast moving army that is capable of taking objectives last minute with objective secured while focusing on killing my opponents troops is the knight the best possible way to spent 380 points? I really dont think so. So no its not always the best possible way to spend these points. It entirely depends on your army.
Are knights strong? Yes, they definitely are.
Are knights so overpowered that armies without them cant be successful? No, they definitely arent.

I don't even want to think about 5-6 knights, or their cheesy formation. Just. Jesus.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Mywik wrote:

So if i want to play a fast moving army that is capable of taking objectives last minute with objective secured while focusing on killing my opponents troops is the knight the best possible way to spent 380 points? I really dont think so. So no its not always the best possible way to spend these points it entirely depends on your army.
Are knights strong? Yes, they definitely are.
Are knights so overpowered that armies without them cant be successful? No, they definitely arent.

That is true, for a specialed army like that the Knight wouldn't be optimal. That's given. I don't know how to explain this any way better to you; what I'm looking for is if there's something one can spend 380 points on to bring equal performance allaround ( to that of a Knight. Mobility. Firepower. Melee. Durability. All of them. )

The double DK is closest I've seen so far.

 RunicFIN wrote:
I don't even want to think about 5-6 knights, or their cheesy formation. Just. Jesus.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Mywik wrote:

So if i want to play a fast moving army that is capable of taking objectives last minute with objective secured while focusing on killing my opponents troops is the knight the best possible way to spent 380 points? I really dont think so. So no its not always the best possible way to spend these points it entirely depends on your army.
Are knights strong? Yes, they definitely are.
Are knights so overpowered that armies without them cant be successful? No, they definitely arent.

That is true, for a specialed army like that the Knight wouldn't be optimal. That's given. I don't know how to explain this any way better to you; what I'm looking for is if there's something one can spend 380 points on to bring equal performance allaround ( to that of a Knight. Mobility. Firepower. Melee. Durability. All of them. )

I understand what you want. I just think that this is not a good way to judge balance.
To answer your question. The knight is the only cheap superheavy in the game. This alone tells us that theres nothing comparable to it.
From that standpoint eldar warp spiders are also overpowered as heck - since theres not a single infantry unit in the game that matches their mobility in any way shape or form. Different units do different things. Comparing them in a vaccuum without looking at the whole picture doesnt tell us much about the game balance i think.


A point that is correct on knights is that they tend to heavily shift the meta. In a knight heavy meta people will have to have dedicated anti-armor that is capable of destroying 1 or 2 of them over the course of a game. But the same thing could be said about a flyer heavy meta or if people really like landraiders in your club.

Indeed, and I am not judging game balance. I am simply judging how good the Knights bang for buck ratio is - if nothing can match it's performance at its point cost, then it's the best all-around 380 points one can spend logically. The most effective 380 points to purchase mobility, durability, firepower and melee power.

Your Warp Spider -example would be the same as mine, except in smaller points cost category, if they also did melee, durability and shooting better than anything else in their points cost vicinity. The Knight doesn't just move fast. It does everything well ( except anti-air, again. )

Weight on the word all-around, meaning not specialized role, and not a single quality. I think if you describe a Knight as a fast moving, hard hitting and shooting, durable unit then it's not very specialized. Unless you define psychological distraction or area denial as specialized roles.

But we all know we take the Knight because it does everything well.

 RunicFIN wrote:
Indeed, and I am not judging game balance. I am simply judging how good the Knights bang for buck ratio is - if nothing can match it's performance at its point cost, then it's the best all around 380 points one can spend logically.

Weight on the word all-around, meaning not specialized role.

Wraithknights and Riptides really are in the same boat in my opinion. Really tough to takedown units that dish out a lot of damage they are also fast and "all-around".

Your method works if all we play is exactly the 380 points a knight costs. As soon as we get more points and therefor other armies can use their synergies that part of the argument falls apart.

So jeah. In a 380 point game a knight is probably the best option you can take. How often do you play these games and why the heck do you allow a knight in there? We dont even allow dreads in such an environment.

 RunicFIN wrote:
Pretty much. I'm not interested in the comments of people like you, who obviously know the Knights aren't balanced ( or that's what I got from your comment with the apples + oranges. ) I'm looking for counterarguments that can somehow prove it isnt the best 380 points ( out of a Codex ) one can spend in the entire game.

It's apples and oranges because you've set such limitations that you might as well say that you exclude everything that is not an Imperial Knight.

It needs to move 12" inches, and fire weaponry of similiar power towards multiple targets while moving. It also needs to be equally powerful melee, and equally durable ( something of similiar power to the shield, ignores destroyed/weapon destroyed/immobilized/difficult terrain and whatnot. )

It doesn't need that.
It needs to be 380 points that I would field more likely than an Imperial Knight and there are a lot of those.

Kangodo wrote:


It needs to be 380 points that I would field more likely than an Imperial Knight and there are a lot of those.

Exactly.

Kangodo wrote:

It's apples and oranges because you've set such limitations that you might as well say that you exclude everything that is not an Imperial Knight.

It's basically true, then, that nothing can match an Imperial Knights all-around performance that you can get for 380 points?

 RunicFIN wrote:

Kangodo wrote:

It's apples and oranges because you've set such limitations that you might as well say that you exclude everything that is not an Imperial Knight.

It's basically true, then, that nothing can match an Imperial Knights all-around performance that you can get for 380 points?

What is basically true is that within the limitations youve set for the comparison knights are the best. What is not true at all when looking at the whole picture is that a knight would always be a better choice for its points then anything else.

 Mywik wrote:

 RunicFIN wrote:
Indeed, and I am not judging game balance. I am simply judging how good the Knights bang for buck ratio is - if nothing can match it's performance at its point cost, then it's the best all around 380 points one can spend logically.

Weight on the word all-around, meaning not specialized role.

Wraithknights and Riptides really are in the same boat in my opinion. Really tough to takedown units that dish out a lot of damage they are also fast and "all-around".

Your method works if all we play is exactly the 380 points a knight costs. As soon as we get more points and therefor other armies can use their synergies that part of the argument falls apart.

So jeah. In a 380 point game a knight is probably the best option you can take. How often do you play these games?

God. I give up trying to explain this for you, as you keep bringing up synergy. I'm not debating what is the best synergized army you can make - I'm talking about the unit that is most likely the most all-around pointcost effective in the entire game, which automatically makes it a tier higher than any other similiar costed option.

 RunicFIN wrote:


God. I give up trying to explain this for you, as you keep bringing up synergy. I'm not debating what is the best synergized army you can make - I'm talking about the unit that is most likely the most all-around pointcost effective in the entire game, which automatically makes it a tier higher than any other similiar costed option.

See and i dont give up telling you that you are comparing apples and oranges .

 Mywik wrote:

 RunicFIN wrote:

Kangodo wrote:

It's apples and oranges because you've set such limitations that you might as well say that you exclude everything that is not an Imperial Knight.

It's basically true, then, that nothing can match an Imperial Knights all-around performance that you can get for 380 points?

What is basically true is that within the limitations youve set for the comparison knights are the best. What is not true at all when looking at the whole picture is that a knight would always be a better choice for its points then anything else.

So the Knight is the best 380 points of all-around performance one can buy. There is no other option of 380 points that brings equally destructive melee, durability, mobility and shooting to the table. And my only restriction was the level of power and that is has to be from a Codex. Why would I ask the following question:

"Is there anything you can do for 380 points that doesn't match a knights all-around qualities." - I don't know why anyone would ask that lol. Ofcourse, if we are comparing things, and the question is of equal bang for buck, the limitation has to be that of equality.

 RunicFIN wrote:

 Mywik wrote:

 RunicFIN wrote:

Kangodo wrote:

It's apples and oranges because you've set such limitations that you might as well say that you exclude everything that is not an Imperial Knight.

It's basically true, then, that nothing can match an Imperial Knights all-around performance that you can get for 380 points?

What is basically true is that within the limitations youve set for the comparison knights are the best. What is not true at all when looking at the whole picture is that a knight would always be a better choice for its points then anything else.

So the Knight is the best 380 points of all-around performance one can buy. There is no other option of 380 points that brings equally destructive melee, durability, mobility and shooting to the table. And my only restriction was the level of power and that is has to be from a Codex. Why would I ask the following question:

"Is there anything you can do for 380 points that doesn't match a knights all-around qualities." - I don't know why anyone would ask that lol. Ofcourse, if we are comparing things, and the question is of equal bang for buck, the limitation has to be that of equality.

Jeah, we've known that from the start. Nothing new. My point is: This tells us nothing. It doesnt say "knights are always betta" it doesnt say "not bringing knights will lose you a game". It also doesnt even remotely say anything about if they are the best unit you can buy for your army for around 380 points. Which was your question. So no. You are not correct in thinking that a knight is the best option for 380 points since thats simply not how the game works. So i question the practical use of that knowlege. But that went over your head the whole thread

 Mywik wrote:
See and i dont give up telling you that you are comparing apples and oranges .

If we are comparing any available units in the game, the only restriction being the all-around effectiveness for 380 points, then where's the apples and oranges?

You just compare different units, any in the entire game for that matter, and how much shooting, melee, mobility and durability they can bring for said points cost. And with these totally non-apples-and-oranges restrictions of melee+durability+mobility+shooting+points cost nothing matches the Knight.

It's basically the same if I asked about cars. Take all the cars you know, and let's say 100,000$ of cash. Some cars are more durable, some faster, some have better engineering, some have extra addons in them. If there is one car that brings more all-around qualities than any other car, then it's all-around the best car.

Can´t fathom how this is hard to understand.

Equality in 40k?

For the specific role a knight fills, you are indeed better off spending those points on a Knight. But as Mywik is trying to point out, it's not just a game of 380 points v 380 points. The rest of the army is important to create the synergy needed to make a nicely functioning army.
As Mywik said, in a vacuum you can't create an accurate comparison in another codex, because there isn't one.

 Mywik wrote:
[Jeah, we've known that from the start. Nothing new. My point is: This tells us nothing. It doesnt say "knights are always betta" it doesnt say "not bringing knights will lose you a game". It also doesnt even remotely say anything about if they are the best unit you can buy for your army for around 380 points. Which was your question. So no. You are not correct in thinking that a knight is the best option for 380 points since thats simply not how the game works. So i question the practical use of that knowlege. But that went over your head the whole thread

The question was "all-around performance" and I've underlined it in vaurious replies already. You are simply ignoring the "all-around performance per point cost" -factor, so basically you are making a different argument entirely, or answering to a question that was never asked. You are answering a question of the most effective all-around performance per points with "the most effective performance per points regarding the composition of your army, taking into account specialized roles."

I'm not asking what is the best 380 points one can spend regarding their army composition. I'm asking if something can bring equal shooting, melee, durability and mobility to the table for 380 points. It really is that simple.

 RunicFIN wrote:


It's basically the same if I asked about cars. Take all the cars you know, and let's say 100,000$ of cash. Some cars are more durable, some faster, some have better engineering, some have extra addons in them. If there is one car that brings more all-around qualities than any other car, then it's all-around the best car.

So now youve taken apart your argument yourself by using that comparison.

A car is used for a task it fulfills. Some cars are small so they can be parked in a crowded city. Others are really big to transport big things. If you compare a car that is meant for transport like a VW Caddy to a FIAT Punto you simply cant say which one is the best because ... jeah they are build for different tasks. And thats exactly the same for 40k units.

A knights task is to be an army of its own. Since its the only choice their codex gives them. In that way of being a one-man-army a knight is the best option. In any other more specific task it fails horribly and wouldnt be taken over another unit with equal points cost. SImple as that.

Let's try it this way then:

If I wanted to use my 380 points for maximum shooting, durability, melee power and durability, [b]all of them.[/b] what better options there are than a Knight? Answer this question for me in the form provided.

Which brings me to the conclusion - if there are none, the Knight is the best option one can purchase if he wants shooting, durability, melee and mobility in one. And if there is a unit that brings out the most shooting AND mobility AND melee AND durability in a single package for the point cost given - then it is by all logic and rationale the best there is when you want all of those qualities. Which makes it a top tier unit by default. That is all.

 RunicFIN wrote:
Let's try it this way then:

If I wanted to use my 380 points for maximum shooting, durability, melee power and durability, all of them. what better options there are than a Knight?

Which brings me to the conclusion - if there are none, the Knight is the best option one can purchase if he wants shooting, durability, melee and mobility in one. And if there is a unit that brings out the most shooting AND mobility AND melee AND durability in a single package for the point cost given - then it is by all logic and rationale the best there is when you want all of those qualities. Which makes it a top tier unit by default.

A top tier unit which can apparently die by a basic drop pod/sternguard melta combo for 3 times cheaper.

 RunicFIN wrote:
Let's try it this way then:

If I wanted to use my 380 points for maximum shooting, durability, melee power and durability, all of them. what better options there are than a Knight?

Simple. First we'd have to look at the army you are playing and what unit it consists of. Second we'd have to look at the meta you are playing in. After we've done that depending on your army and meta sometimes the knight might be the best choice. Sometimes it wont.

 Mywik wrote:

 RunicFIN wrote:
Let's try it this way then:

If I wanted to use my 380 points for maximum shooting, durability, melee power and durability, all of them. what better options there are than a Knight?

Simple. First we'd have to look at the army you are playing and what unit it consists of. Second we'd have to look at the meta you are playing in. After we've done that depending on your army sometimes the knight might be the best choice. Sometimes it wont.

Nah, either a unit brings the most all-around qualities to the table with a given points cost or it doesn't. In this you are factually wrong. It can mathematically proven and measured too. But I see now you already know what I mean, and you know it's true. You're basically just trolling.

 RunicFIN wrote:


Nah, either a unit brings the most all-around qualities to the table with a given points cost or it doesn't. In this you are factually wrong. It can mathematically proven and measured too. But I see now you already know what I mean, and you know it's true. You're basically just trolling.

See in a meta where everyone and his mum plays space marines with melta sternguard the knight definitely is NOT the best option you can take regarding durability. I assure that to you. Also no need to get aggressive because i disagree with you. So no if a unit is the best for its given points doesnt only depend on the unit itself. In that you are blatantly wrong.

This is a silly point to try and make IMO. I think a stock WraithKnight is as good for its points as an IK is for its points. Its also an all rounder like the IK but it won't count in your mind as it is not 380 points.

My experience with IKs is limited though. Last time I saw one my Swooping Hawks danced up to it and took it out in HtH.

EDIT: The issue here is really you picking a points value (380) and seeing what you can get for that. Can you not see that in this is obviously going to skew any analysis in favour of units that cost 380pts? What if we pick 250pts for our comparison? or 500pts? The IK is now terrible.

 Mywik wrote:
See in a meta where everyone and his mum plays space marines with melta sternguard the knight definitely is NOT the best option you can take regarding durability. I assure that to you.

And again you forgot mobility, firepower and melee power from the all-around power that the Knight brings for it points. You already made examples of speed, now durability. And I'm still talking about all of the qualities together.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Mywik wrote:

 RunicFIN wrote:


Nah, either a unit brings the most all-around qualities to the table with a given points cost or it doesn't. In this you are factually wrong. It can mathematically proven and measured too. But I see now you already know what I mean, and you know it's true. You're basically just trolling.

See in a meta where everyone and his mum plays space marines with melta sternguard the knight definitely is NOT the best option you can take regarding durability. I assure that to you. Also no need to get aggressive because i disagree with you. So no if a unit is the best for its given points doesnt only depend on the unit itself. In that you are blatantly wrong.

Just answer me this: If I wanted to use my 380 points for maximum shooting, durability, melee power and durability, all of them. what better options there are than a Knight?

Your original answer isn't answering this particular question, at all. You aren't disagreeing with me - you're talking about a completely different thing. Even after around 10 replies I've tried explaining to you. You keep saying you understand - yet you don't!

 RunicFIN wrote:

 Mywik wrote:
See in a meta where everyone and his mum plays space marines with melta sternguard the knight definitely is NOT the best option you can take regarding durability. I assure that to you.

And again you forgot mobility, firepower and melee power from the all-around power that the Knight brings for it points. You already made examples of speed, now durability. And I'm still talking about all of the qualities together.

Try being fast, all-around and use your melee and firepower if youre meltad away turn 1 by a sternguard pod. A squad of teleporting TH/SS terminators would most likely dish out a lot more damage and be a lot more survivable also they can reach any point on the table and the best thing is they'll more likely drop AFTER the sternguard pod hits.

Meta is the most important thing to consider when judging a units power and the attributes you are asking for.

Im not talking about a completely different thing. Youve asked us to compare in a vaccuum. I did that ... knight wins.

Now im trying to get some practical use out of this discussion by trying to put that into the context of how the game is actually played in reality. As soon as the game reality is to be considered for the comparison a totally different picture unfolds and the knight stops being the best choice according to your question. That is the point im trying to get over here.

I had two Knights nuked by round two last game I played. One went down when one unit of obliterators deep struck behind it while another fired from in from. Multimeltas cooked it completely.

The other was the warlord with a 3+ shield, yet it took one penetrating hit from an arriving Helldrake, then took 2 HP from a pair of marine squads firing melts at it. It was finished by Huron in CC using his armor bane claw, dealing 3 HP.

Knights offer great bang for their buck, but they also tie the players hands. They do a few things really well, but they gobble up points and reduce flexibility in other areas.

As far as better point expenditures, nob bikers will destroy a knight most of the time. Drop pod stern guard ofter offer better flexibility for 1/3rd the price.

Necron Overlord
Ccb, Warscythe, Mss, PS

Veiltek
4 stormteks

The veiltek and stormtek unit deepstrikes next to the knight turn1. Unleashes 16 haywire shots. Makes for a very dead knight even with shield.

Royal court and overlord on barge then go onto destroy an infinate amount more than the knight... because its dead.

Mobility - fast skimmer, deepstriking (every turn) unit. Two different units.
Shooting - tl gauss cannon and 16 haywire shots (which will be st5 when shooting at infantry) with an ap2 template that tests on leadership.
Combat - sweep attacks, mindshackle scarabs and an initiative st7 ignores armour armourbane scythe.
Durability - royal court easily hidden until used, av13 of ccb due to qs, shots can be allocated to overlord, 3++.

Editted for mobility, shooting, combat and durability outlooks.

 Mywik wrote:

 RunicFIN wrote:

 Mywik wrote:
See in a meta where everyone and his mum plays space marines with melta sternguard the knight definitely is NOT the best option you can take regarding durability. I assure that to you.

And again you forgot mobility, firepower and melee power from the all-around power that the Knight brings for it points. You already made examples of speed, now durability. And I'm still talking about all of the qualities together.

Try being fast, all-around and use your melee and firepower if youre meltad away turn 1 by a sternguard pod. A squad of teleporting TH/SS terminators would most likely dish out a lot more damage and be a lot more survivable also they can reach any point on the table.

Meta is the most important thing to consider when judging a units power and the attributes you are asking for.

It's now obvious to me that you are just unable ( more likely unwilling, probably out of spite too ) to grasp the concept of raw "all-around effectiveness." Let me tell you this though: In this world that we live in, some things are all-around better than others, whether you accept it or not. This is the case now, and will be until the end of time.

I am asking you if you can conjure up something with 380 points, that brings more shooting, melee, mobility and durability overall than a Knight does. If you can't answer this question, then don't answer - I'm not interested in answers to questions I haven't even asked. It is obviously pointless to try and explain this to you, as it's equally obvious you can't come to terms with the fact that overall effectiveness exists within units in the game of Warhammer 40.000, despite specialized roles having the most impact. It still exists though, like it or not.

You have 380 points, and you want the most all-around bang for your buck with them. All-around in this case consisting by the 4 most common important traits: durability, mobility, shooting and melee.

Until then I'm afraid I'm gonna have to skip the replies you make, because you deliberately ignore the all-around raw effectiveness aspect of the question. It would seem everyone else in the thread completely understood, some even answered. No point in continuing discussing 2 different things.

Edit: Okay, you've apparently realized what I mean and are now trying to get something practical out of the discussion. That's fine.

 RunicFIN wrote:
God. I give up trying to explain this for you, as you keep bringing up synergy. I'm not debating what is the best synergized army you can make - I'm talking about the unit that is most likely the most all-around pointcost effective in the entire game, which automatically makes it a tier higher than any other similiar costed option.

He's talking about context and synergy because the tone of your post seems to be as if you are waiting for someone to say 'Yes, you are right.' and then use that as proof that they are unbalanced or overpowered.

 RunicFIN wrote:
It's basically true, then, that nothing can match an Imperial Knights all-around performance that you can get for 380 points?

If you put it like that, yes.

But all-around performance hardly matters.
If I pick a unit, I intent for it to have a special role and I want it to be amazing in that role.
It's why I am having a tough time with my Blood Angels, because they are okay at everything but not amazing in one specific area.

For 380 points I could field Death Company with Thunderhammers and they'd be better in Assault.
For 380 points I could field almost three fast Vindicators and they are better at shooting.

a unit that brings out the most shooting AND mobility AND melee AND durability in a single package for the point cost given - then it is by all logic and rationale the best there is when you want all of those qualities

Limitations like that are useless, what do you want to discuss?
Here, to answer this thread so we can close it: "No, we do not have a non-Imperial Knight unit that has the same amount of durability, shooting, mobility ánd melee for the exact same points as an Imperial Knight."
Happy?

Kangodo wrote:

He's talking about context and synergy because the tone of your post seems to be as if you are waiting for someone to say 'Yes, you are right.' and then use that as proof that they are unbalanced or overpowered.

Then that's just being prejudice, and not my bad. I don't think Knights are overpowered.

If someone is deliberately trying to derail the discussion because they think in their head that I would use it as an excuse to call Knights OP, then by all means stop your prejudice scheme, as such a thing will not happen.

I only think they could cost a bit more for what they do, that's all. They can be dealt with ( quite easily with some army compositions too. )

We do... check above

 RunicFIN wrote:



Edit: Okay, you've apparently realized what I mean and are now trying to get something practical out of the discussion. That's fine.

It seems like you've finally decided to read my posts instead of raging against them. Thats also fine.

I can only quote kangodo here because it sums this thread up perfectly fine and be out from now.

Limitations are that are useless, what do you want to discuss?
Here, to answer this thread so we can close it: "No, we do not have a non-Imperial Knight unit that has the same amount of durability, shooting, mobility ánd melee for the exact same points as an Imperial Knight."
Happy?

But we do... check above...

 Mywik wrote:

 RunicFIN wrote:



Edit: Okay, you've apparently realized what I mean and are now trying to get something practical out of the discussion. That's fine.

It seems like you've finally decided to read my posts instead of raging against them. Thats also fine.

Get over yourself buddy... I haven't raged at any point. I wouldn't have expected for you to use the centuries old "the other guy is raging" -card.

I don't even know what to say to you. You just conjure things up from thin air continously. You didn't at any one point in this thread even try to answer question in the given context - instead you tried to derail the discussion into what you thought the question was, which was irrelevant to beginwith. Nice trolling I guess, since it's clear as day you did all this deliberately, probably with the agenda "I will do nothing that can help this guy say the Knights are OP" - which wouldn't have happened anyway.

Poly Ranger wrote:
Necron Overlord
Ccb, Warscythe, Mss, PS

Veiltek
4 stormteks

The veiltek and stormtek unit deepstrikes next to the knight turn1. Unleashes 16 haywire shots. Makes for a very dead knight even with shield.

Royal court and overlord on barge then go onto destroy an infinate amount more than the knight... because its dead.

Mobility - fast skimmer, deepstriking (every turn) unit. Two different units.
Shooting - tl gauss cannon and 16 haywire shots (which will be st5 when shooting at infantry) with an ap2 template that tests on leadership.
Combat - sweep attacks, mindshackle scarabs and an initiative st7 ignores armour armourbane scythe.
Durability - royal court easily hidden until used, av13 of ccb due to qs, shots can be allocated to overlord, 3++.

Editted for mobility, shooting, combat and durability outlooks.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
Helloooooo...

Poly Ranger wrote:

Poly Ranger wrote:
Necron Overlord
Ccb, Warscythe, Mss, PS

Veiltek
4 stormteks

The veiltek and stormtek unit deepstrikes next to the knight turn1. Unleashes 16 haywire shots. Makes for a very dead knight even with shield.

Royal court and overlord on barge then go onto destroy an infinate amount more than the knight... because its dead.

Mobility - fast skimmer, deepstriking (every turn) unit. Two different units.
Shooting - tl gauss cannon and 16 haywire shots (which will be st5 when shooting at infantry) with an ap2 template that tests on leadership.
Combat - sweep attacks, mindshackle scarabs and an initiative st7 ignores armour armourbane scythe.
Durability - royal court easily hidden until used, av13 of ccb due to qs, shots can be allocated to overlord, 3++.

Editted for mobility, shooting, combat and durability outlooks.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
Helloooooo...

That's another good one. Probably even better than the 2x DK.

How about showing exactly how a knight is unbalanced. Warhammer has never been about point for point equality. Different units are good at different things.

Knights are over priced as a shooting unit.

Knights are over priced as a CC unit.

They are balanced only int that they combine a good CC unit with a decent shooting phase and a high rate of speed. In all other ways they are over costed, and their performance in games and tournaments support that.

I had a knight grind for three combat phases to kill 3 obliterators. VERY unlucky, but with the changes to destroyer weapons and only having 3 attacks, they are not nearly the kill machines they used to be. Unless you roll those 6's on their stomps, they will be mired against any model with a 3+ or 2+ save.

You don't measure a unit's balance in all around ability. You measure it's balance in the context of what it can do in relation to the rest of the game.

Leman Russes may not be able to melee, but they shoot just as good for less points.

Thunderwolf Cavalry may not be able to shoot, but they can punch a bigger hole in the enemy forces in melee for the same points.

Knights are good all rounders, there isn't really a better all rounder that comes to mind for the same points.

But in game terms, it is often (I'm not going to say always, but I'd say more often than not) it's better to buy units that are better at a couple of roles for the same points.

There may be nothing that can move, shoot and melee as well as well as a Knight. But there are things that can move better. There are things that can shoot better. There are things that melee better. That's how balance works (and no I'm not suggesting 40k is a model of good balance, but I don't think Knights are the worst culprit by far).

Dark Angels Black Knights? Plasma, grenades, tough, rending hits, mobility. As to whether they could beat a knight, I'm not sure.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
You don't measure a unit's balance in all around ability. You measure it's balance in the context of what it can do in relation to the rest of the game.

Leman Russes may not be able to melee, but they shoot just as good for less points.

Thunderwolf Cavalry may not be able to shoot, but they can punch a bigger hole in the enemy forces in melee for the same points.

Knights are good all rounders, there isn't really a better all rounder that comes to mind for the same points.

But in game terms, it is often (I'm not going to say always, but I'd say more often than not) it's better to buy units that are better at a couple of roles for the same points.

There may be nothing that can move, shoot and melee as well as well as a Knight. But there are things that can move better. There are things that can shoot better. There are things that melee better. That's how balance works (and no I'm not suggesting 40k is a model of good balance, but I don't think Knights are the worst culprit by far).

You don't measure a units balance in overall ability indeed. I measure it by comparing the points cost of the knight with it's overall ability. In my personal opinion, I think the Knights do a bit too much for their points. Just a bit, but not much.

All of what you have said is true and I haven't - atleast intentionally - contradicted those points previously. All I have ever talked about is the overall-goodness of a Knight, and that I think they are a bit too overall-good for their cost, especially since nothing can match their overall-goodness aside from a few unit combos for the same cost ( if they can. )

Like you said, it's hard to think of a better all-around option for the same cost as the Knight. In general, something that is the best all-around unit can't be considered anything else than top-tier. ( No one has denied Knights not being a top tier unit in this thread - just saying that before someone thinks someone has. )

You understood what I ment perfectly. Can't fathom why it's so difficult for some.

Another all rounder:
3 MANz
Bosspole
Trukk

5 kannons
5 ammo runts, 5 extra krew

5 lobbas
5 ammo runts

Far more durable, lobbas will provide as much damage against infantry when shooting, kannons will provide as much damage against mech. Nobz provide the close combat. Not as good as the cron one though.

There is one further difference between superheavies and normal units of same cost, I think. The superheavy does not lose effectiveness until it is completely destroyed - the normal units lose effectiveness the instant they suffer losses, even partial. As in, HQ of unit example dies, some power is lost. Knight loses 2hp, it's still as powerful as ever.

 RunicFIN wrote:
You don't measure a units balance in overall ability indeed. I measure it by comparing the points cost of the knight with it's overall ability. In my personal opinion, I think the Knights do a bit too much for their points. Just a bit, but not much.

All of what you have said is true and I haven't - atleast intentionally contradicted those points previously. All I have ever talked about is the overall-goodness of a Knight, and that I think they are a bit too overall-good for their cost, especially since nothing can match their overall-goodness aside from a few unit combos for the same cost.

But Knights ARE all rounders. They need to better than other things at being all rounders because other things are better at specific tasks. If you nerfed their melee ability, they'd suck compared to Leman Russes who shoot better for less. If you nerfed their shooting, they'd suck compared to Thunderwolves who punch a bigger hole. If you nerfed their movement people would just avoid getting in to combat with them, so they'd be relegated to being an overpriced shooting unit.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
But Knights ARE all rounders. They need to better than other things at being all rounders because other things are better at specific tasks. If you nerfed their melee ability, they'd suck compared to Leman Russes who shoot better for less. If you nerfed their shooting, they'd suck compared to Thunderwolves who punch a bigger hole. If you nerfed their movement people would just avoid getting in to combat with them, so they'd be relegated to being an overpriced shooting unit.

Yeah. I don't think anyone has said otherwise. Only thing I would nerf ( or should I say, buff ) is their cost, and just by a little. Not their ability.

 RunicFIN wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
But Knights ARE all rounders. They need to better than other things at being all rounders because other things are better at specific tasks. If you nerfed their melee ability, they'd suck compared to Leman Russes who shoot better for less. If you nerfed their shooting, they'd suck compared to Thunderwolves who punch a bigger hole. If you nerfed their movement people would just avoid getting in to combat with them, so they'd be relegated to being an overpriced shooting unit.

Yeah. I don't think anyone has said otherwise. Only thing I would nerf ( or should I say, buff ) is their cost, and just by a little. Not their ability.

You'd have them be cheaper?

You have ignored (or at least not acknowledged) the answer of the Wraithknight. It is just as deadly in combat due too higher WS, I and A at the colossal strength of 10. Sure he missed out on strength D, but usually they both amount to the same thing due to invuls being able to be taken against strength D. He has two Strength 10 Ap 2 Distort Guns making him a *MUCH* better vehicle and Monster killer then the Knight will ever be. He is just as fast, more so in fact, because Iyanden can give him Battle Focus, and is more durable due to the ability to have him wounds restored via several different ways.

The kicker? You can almost get TWO Wraith Knights for the price of a single Knight. More importantly an Eldar army has a vastly better support army then Imperial Knights, with GJB being the best objective takers in the world as well as having amazing psyker support.

In essence, Imperial Knights suck. They are good all-round, but they pay to much to be so. Why would you pay almost 400pts for 2 Battle Cannon shots? Why would you pay that much for 4 strength D attacks at mediocre I, WS and A? It doesn't matter you get both, because usually depending on the army you are facing only 1 will be of use. To expensive and you get to few of them, any well made list will beat them in maelstrom missions.

They aren't balanced, but that is also balanced by how expensive one is in real money. Not a lot of people just wander into a games workshop and suddenly find out they have two hundred bucks in their pocket.

They are the best "all rounder" for their points using your definition...which is terrible. But there are units which for a combination of points can do at least one of those aspects better for less.

When discussing "all rounder" you forgot a few key points, AntiAir, Scoring, and ability to engage multiple units per turn. Using these Criteria the Knight is terrible, it can only score one objective, scoring reduces the effectiveness of its Melee, it can't fire AA, and it can only engage a single target per turn.

Firepower. It's easy to find units which put out more firepower against more units in a single turn for less.

Mobility. It's easy to find units which are more mobile and can assess equal or greater board control for less.

Close Combat. It's easy to find units that are more effective against a myriad of opponents for less with a much greater impact.

Durability. You can find combinations of units which can achieve the same relative level of durability or more for less. It's difficult for a direct comparison here.


As you defined it, the Knight is the best All Around Unit 370/375 Pts, but that definition was Shooting, Close Combat, Mobility, and Durability.

But, as I define it it isn't the best All Around Use of 370/375 Pts, that is defined as Shooting, Close Combat, Mobility, Durability, Scoring, Anti Air, and the Ability to effect multiple enemy units. Most importantly, it's the a Relative board impact for those points.


Knights are tough and pack a punch, but at best they kill 5-6 units per game at best and this assumes every attack is successful in wiping out a unit. That is most assuredly not the case and it is far more likely that they will destroy ~4 Units if they survive the entire game.


And never discount that a single Tactical Marine on an objective at the end of a battle is worth a hundred knights.



It boils down to your argument being utterly useless as your pentameter a don't lend themselves to a discussion about actual game balance.

It's totally true that the knight is the best "all around" model you can get for 380 points.

In the exact same way a grot is the best "all around" model you can get for 3 points

Speaking of knights and grots, there's a guy who posted on these forums who won a game vs knights using only grots and a couple wierdboyz lol.

Imperial Knights ARE balanced (as much as any other unit...)

Okay, wanting to discuss "balance" in 40k, require a "comparable" unit of capability of similar points value... I think I have a unicorn around here somewhere.

As pointed out: it is not the units by themselves that matter so much, it is what you field with them that determines effectiveness.

Combinations of units for the same points value would be worth comparing since that is the currency of fielding an army.

Some comparison with the reviled Riptides might be in order.

The point I am trying to make to the OP is balance in the case of this game is rather subjective, it may very well depend on if you are the one fielding the unit or the one facing it.

 Amiricle wrote:
Speaking of knights and grots, there's a guy who posted on these forums who won a game vs knights using only grots and a couple wierdboyz lol.

I saw that Batrep, awesome.

lliu wrote:
They aren't balanced, but that is also balanced by how expensive one is in real money. Not a lot of people just wander into a games workshop and suddenly find out they have two hundred bucks in their pocket.

Most people I know could go out and buy 3 Knights without even thinking about the financial aspect.

Well... I don't know one friend who just finds six hundred in their pocket for no reason and decides to go and buy three titans.

Give it up folks. This guy isn't really looking for an answer, he is irritated because a knight probably did great against him one game.

Knights are a headache to play at times because they are a drop in unit that can change you way you deal with certain armies that are otherwise fairly predictable. As a unit themselves though they are subpar shooting for their points and only about right in CC. They are fast though, and pretty durable for their cost, which makes them a nice choice but not essential.

The myth of the game breaking super heavy is restricted to one or two choices. The rest are just okay or straight terrible (all of the AM super tanks) for their point values.

 PhillyT wrote:
Give it up folks. This guy isn't really looking for an answer, he is irritated because a knight probably did great against him one game.

Knights are a headache to play at times because they are a drop in unit that can change you way you deal with certain armies that are otherwise fairly predictable. As a unit themselves though they are subpar shooting for their points and only about right in CC. They are fast though, and pretty durable for their cost, which makes them a nice choice but not essential.

The myth of the game breaking super heavy is restricted to one or two choices. The rest are just okay or straight terrible (all of the AM super tanks) for their point values.

I figured that out early on.

Though I did find lots of ways to beat them.

lliu wrote:
Well... I don't know one friend who just finds six hundred in their pocket for no reason and decides to go and buy three titans.

3 Imperial Knights is $420US. I'm not saying my friends walk around with that much cash in their pockets, but yeah, I'm pretty sure most my friends could impulse buy them if they wanted them.

I'm not saying everyone could go out and do it, I know a lot of people work pay cheque to pay cheque. It would have been a pipe dream when I started wargaming, because I was 10 and paying for models with money earned from chores. But it doesn't take a huge pay cheque to have $500 of random spending money lying around, my last service and inspection on my car cost more than that.

The reason I don't have 3 Knights is not because I couldn't afford them, it's because my desire to have them is not great enough for me to dedicate the time to assemble and paint them.

How many points are Corax and Curze? I'm sure one or both of them meets all the requirements, too. Don't have my HH books at work with me to check.

lliu wrote:
Well... I don't know one friend who just finds six hundred in their pocket for no reason and decides to go and buy three titans.

I bought 4 (and a Stormwing formation) in 1 day. Pleased to meet you.

It's actually about one of the cheapest ways to field 2000 points $-wise.

Also;

The immortal Chapter Master Smashface (250) and his biker flunkies (5x Bikes, 2x Grav or melta guns, 135/125)

380ish total, is super scoring since the bikes have Obj Sec, puts out more melta than an errant, moves 12" plus option for turbo boost to go faster, gets a 3++ all the time on the EW CM, all the bikes get a 4++ all the time from jink and the chapter master is quite the beatstick in CC as well. Can probably put out a reasonable amount of anti infantry fire as well.

Another option is a riptide (IA, EWO, 190) and an ironclad dreadnought in a drop pod (180 w/ heavy flamer). The riptide easily move fast enough and if you doubt the speed of the iron clad, we'll see if your knight can make it to my deployment zone before my Ironclad makes it into yours. Riptide can deliver S9 AP2 large blast ordinance if required (though why would you), has a melta weapon, can get a 3++ (on all facings), more than takes care of equaling the knights shooting. The dread has the same AV, is a walker, has a melta gun (that will be in range sooner than yours), has multiple Str 10 attacks (with a bonus to pen rolls), has a heavy flamer for AI work. Jobs a good'un Boss.

Alternately, the new GK libby in termie armour (185) rolling on sanctic for vortex and GoI with 4 rolls you've got decent odds to get both, along with some of his terminator mates (195 worth, so 5 with 30 points worth of toys) . Can easily be Str 10 in CC, can easily get instant death in melee and ranged, has reasonable shooting, can get a ranged D weapon, can deep strike in on the 1st turn, can possibly get GoI for 24 inch move, re-rolls 1's for casting, 2+ 5++, turns into a 4++ with sanctuary. Could do a lot worse. Could probably manage something similar with SW and a character on TW with TWC.

Vanguard vets in a stormraven should also meet your requirement, though the melee contingent might be a bit squishy at that points level. You could also argue vanguard vets and a vendetta as that extra 30 points buys either 3 SS's or another body and a melta bomb.

Wraithknight and 7 warpspiders should also meet your criteria, though I would also accept swapping the WS for some vaul's wrath support batteries.

Doom Scythe (175) or Doomsday Ark (175 also) and a Necron overlord with Command Barge, warscythe and Phase shifter (225) would also meet your requirements, but it is 20 points over. Close enough.

Probably other, but not stuff that immediately comes to mind.

Are Knights balanced? Not remotely. Are they too strong for their cost? Maybe a bit, but go play against Cron air or and then come back and tell me all about it. Then enjoy getting tarpitted by a squad of marines (since the stomp is only AP4).

Edit: Coz I R knot gud spelar.

 Zagman wrote:
They are the best "all rounder" for their points using your definition...which is terrible. But there are units which for a combination of points can do at least one of those aspects better for less.

When discussing "all rounder" you forgot a few key points, AntiAir, Scoring, and ability to engage multiple units per turn. Using these Criteria the Knight is terrible, it can only score one objective, scoring reduces the effectiveness of its Melee, it can't fire AA, and it can only engage a single target per turn.

Firepower. It's easy to find units which put out more firepower against more units in a single turn for less.

Mobility. It's easy to find units which are more mobile and can assess equal or greater board control for less.

Close Combat. It's easy to find units that are more effective against a myriad of opponents for less with a much greater impact.

Durability. You can find combinations of units which can achieve the same relative level of durability or more for less. It's difficult for a direct comparison here.


As you defined it, the Knight is the best All Around Unit 370/375 Pts, but that definition was Shooting, Close Combat, Mobility, and Durability.

But, as I define it it isn't the best All Around Use of 370/375 Pts, that is defined as Shooting, Close Combat, Mobility, Durability, Scoring, Anti Air, and the Ability to effect multiple enemy units. Most importantly, it's the a Relative board impact for those points.


Knights are tough and pack a punch, but at best they kill 5-6 units per game at best and this assumes every attack is successful in wiping out a unit. That is most assuredly not the case and it is far more likely that they will destroy ~4 Units if they survive the entire game.


And never discount that a single Tactical Marine on an objective at the end of a battle is worth a hundred knights.



It boils down to your argument being utterly useless as your pentameter a don't lend themselves to a discussion about actual game balance.

My definition is the all-around mobility, destructive power with shooting and melee, and durability all combined. Which can be mathematically calculated and compared against other combinations totaling to 380 points. Not terrible and useless at all, sorry.

I don't know why you offer alternative arguments to a topic that is different than the one discussed, by saying "But, as I define it it isn't the best All Around Use of 370/375 Pts, that is defined as Shooting, Close Combat, Mobility, Durability, Scoring, Anti Air, and the Ability to effect multiple enemy units."

It was already discussed before that you can get a unit that shoots more for 380 points than a Knight does - that isn't the point here and I atleast will be ignoring further posts going for that argument - it has been clear as day from the start you can build a unit that does something better than the knight for the points. The question is, can you create something that does everything better than it does for the same points cost. The only thing utterly useless is participant such as yourself who start discussing another thing entirely.

But I can let you and anyone else think that the Knight doesn't bring the best all-around qualities for 380 points out of any Codex units. To me it's very easy to observe this is the case.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 PhillyT wrote:
Give it up folks. This guy isn't really looking for an answer, he is irritated because a knight probably did great against him one game.

Yet another person with a prejudice and clueless attitude. Believe it or not, some people are capable of looking at things objectively and just stating things the way they are ( which, to the most easily offended/sensitive often can seem something else. ) I've destroyed a Knight with a 210 point Sternguard squad, and already stated I only find them just a little undercosted. Not overpowered. If this doesn't register to someone then all I can do is shrug I guess, not my bad. I'm also buying one myself in a few weeks, and my opinion will still be the same. I could go all prejudice on some folks too, claiming you're just defending/downtoning the effectiveness of the Knight because you constantly employ one and don't want to admit it's a top tier/unbalanced/meta shifting unit. But why be prejudice either way? Completely useless. Ask first.

Be'Lakor is 350, I would put him on Knight level. Dude is a freaking boss and would most likely beat up a knight in CC without too much issue. He also provides a huge amount of buffs to the army, which the knight does not.
While Be'lakor doesn't have a battle cannon, he does have some nice psychic powers. His durability is a +4 invul, EW, stats, invisibility and shrouded. So 9/10 times he will have a +2 cover ++4. Offensively he is armorbane and fleshbane and I think S7.

I don't have the knight stats, or time to try it out, but I am confident it would go well for Be'Lakor. Knight is hitting him on 5s, or 6s if he is invisible. Stomp will be the only hope the knight would have. He is cheaper, but can be wittled down with small arms fire, where the knight cannot. Though 1V1 be'lakor is one of the best out there. Worst case is a lucky stomp. Best case is lucky pen rolls and a dead knight. Most common case would be a 2-3 turn combat with something dead at the end.

 RunicFIN wrote:

 Zagman wrote:
They are the best "all rounder" for their points using your definition...which is terrible. But there are units which for a combination of points can do at least one of those aspects better for less.

When discussing "all rounder" you forgot a few key points, AntiAir, Scoring, and ability to engage multiple units per turn. Using these Criteria the Knight is terrible, it can only score one objective, scoring reduces the effectiveness of its Melee, it can't fire AA, and it can only engage a single target per turn.

Firepower. It's easy to find units which put out more firepower against more units in a single turn for less.

Mobility. It's easy to find units which are more mobile and can assess equal or greater board control for less.

Close Combat. It's easy to find units that are more effective against a myriad of opponents for less with a much greater impact.

Durability. You can find combinations of units which can achieve the same relative level of durability or more for less. It's difficult for a direct comparison here.


As you defined it, the Knight is the best All Around Unit 370/375 Pts, but that definition was Shooting, Close Combat, Mobility, and Durability.

But, as I define it it isn't the best All Around Use of 370/375 Pts, that is defined as Shooting, Close Combat, Mobility, Durability, Scoring, Anti Air, and the Ability to effect multiple enemy units. Most importantly, it's the a Relative board impact for those points.


Knights are tough and pack a punch, but at best they kill 5-6 units per game at best and this assumes every attack is successful in wiping out a unit. That is most assuredly not the case and it is far more likely that they will destroy ~4 Units if they survive the entire game.


And never discount that a single Tactical Marine on an objective at the end of a battle is worth a hundred knights.



It boils down to your argument being utterly useless as your pentameter a don't lend themselves to a discussion about actual game balance.

My definition is the all-around mobility, destructive power with shooting and melee, and durability all combined. Which can be mathematically calculated and compared against other combinations totaling to 380 points. Not terrible and useless at all, sorry. You obviously also missed the "all in a single package" -detail as discussed before in this thread, since you're offering the "you can make a unit that shoots more for 380 points" -argument.

So yeah. Please read again.

Nice Strawman.

Or you could read what i actually wrote. You just attempted and failed to hand wave my argument away.



Answer this questions honestly. How much does it matter how Killy or Durable a Knight is when I can put different units on the table for the same amount of points which have a larger NET impact on the game and increase my odds of winning vs taking a knight.

The Knight only ever really gets to target 5-7 units a game. That is it. Sure, you could target one unit with your primary weapon, target another with the Stubber, and charge the second, but that is highly situational.


You have demonstrated a clear lack of understanding of how games of 40k are won. You are using a limited and worthless definition and by default your argument using your definition is correct. We are arguing that you have no idea what you are actually talking about and need to use a better definition of effectiveness which I highlighted in detail for you.

So, please read my response again.



P.S. It is worth mentioning that the Knight, and especially the Adamantine Lance have a huge Mobility limitation in Difficult Terrain. They move as Walkers with Move through Cover meaning they only move 3d6" take the Highest through Difficult Terrain. Smart opponents can greatly reduce a Knights Mobility and consequently its Close Combat Ability. Meaning for most of the game you've got a durable overpirced Shooting Unit. So anything that can outshoot it and be just as durable is a very valid comparison making things like Riptides and Russes a very valid comparison.

I can put two Riptides down on the table for marginally more than a knight that are more durable against Melta and other non AP2 High strength shooting, just as mobile, and put out better firepower for longer, target multiple enemy units, and perform adequate AA. Only loss is CC, which with Knights mobility restrictions is only a factor Turns 4+.

 Zagman wrote:


Nice Strawman.

Or you could read what i actually wrote. You just attempted and failed to hand wave my argument away.



Answer this questions honestly. How much does it matter how Killy or Durable a Knight is when I can put different units on the table for the same amount of points which have a larger NET impact on the game and increase my odds of winning vs taking a knight.

The Knight only ever really gets to target 5-7 units a game. That is it. Sure, you could target one unit with your primary weapon, target another with the Stubber, and charge the second, but that is highly situational.


You have demonstrated a clear lack of understanding of how games of 40k are won. You are using a limited and worthless definition and by default your argument using your definition is correct. We are arguing that you have no idea what you are actually talking about and need to use a better definition of effectiveness which I highlighted in detail for you.

So, please read my response again.

When we are discussing the context of what can outgun, outmelee, outendure and outmaneuvre the knight for the same point cost, your argument is from a different topic, do you understand?You have demonstrated a clear lack of understanding to discuss a topic that is confined to a certain concept that is the very idea of a topic. I have played 40K for 13 years, so I'm quite aware of how games are won, and at any point I haven't discussed such a topic on a general level. I have discussed 380 points, the Knight, and if it's qualities can be matched for the same cost. Nothing else. If you can't grasp this concept, I don't know, you are discussing a different topic alone.

I want to know if you can make a unit/combo of units with 380 points that can match the Imperial Knights mobility, firepower, melee power, and durability all in one[/b]. [b]Nothing else. If this idea find itself into your mind and you can't grasp it then it's pointless to discuss this with you - you are simply unable to discuss the topic.

 RunicFIN wrote:


My definition is the all-around mobility, destructive power with shooting and melee, and durability all combined. Which can be mathematically calculated and compared against other combinations totaling to 380 points. Not terrible and useless at all, sorry.

I don't know why you offer alternative arguments to a topic that is different than the one discussed, by saying "But, as I define it it isn't the best All Around Use of 370/375 Pts, that is defined as Shooting, Close Combat, Mobility, Durability, Scoring, Anti Air, and the Ability to effect multiple enemy units."

It was already discussed before that you can get a unit that shoots more for 380 points than a Knight does - that isn't the point here and I atleast will be ignoring further posts going for that argument - it has been clear as day from the start you can build a unit that does something better than the knight for the points. The question is, can you create something that does everything better than it does for the same points cost. The only thing utterly useless is participant such as yourself who start discussing another thing entirely.

But I can let you and anyone else think that the Knight doesn't bring the best all-around qualities for 380 points out of any Codex units. To me it's very easy to observe this is the case.

A response to your edit.

Your definition has already been shown to be worthless. Of course the Knight is the best for all of those qualities listed. The real question is to what respect does that actually matter in a game of 40k. The answer, is far less than you think.

Knight do most things very well in a very tough package, but they are not the best solution for every problem nor always a cost effective solution. Doing everything better than the Knight is not required, doing something better than a knight to a high enough degree to be an effective and worthwhile alternative is all that matters.

Its all about effective use of points, this is what you fail to understand. And it is the reason that it was not a Full Knight army that Won NOVA. Sure the winner had one knight, but the rest of the Top 10 didn't.


For a relatively intelligent person, you are failing to grasp fairly simple concepts in regards effective points use.

I tell ya, 2 drakes at 340 dont even come close to the power of a knight. Stupid gw had to break its neck.

5 diminutive obliterators do not even compare to the destructiveness of a Powerful Imp Knight.

 RunicFIN wrote:

 Zagman wrote:


Nice Strawman.

Or you could read what i actually wrote. You just attempted and failed to hand wave my argument away.



Answer this questions honestly. How much does it matter how Killy or Durable a Knight is when I can put different units on the table for the same amount of points which have a larger NET impact on the game and increase my odds of winning vs taking a knight.

The Knight only ever really gets to target 5-7 units a game. That is it. Sure, you could target one unit with your primary weapon, target another with the Stubber, and charge the second, but that is highly situational.


You have demonstrated a clear lack of understanding of how games of 40k are won. You are using a limited and worthless definition and by default your argument using your definition is correct. We are arguing that you have no idea what you are actually talking about and need to use a better definition of effectiveness which I highlighted in detail for you.

So, please read my response again.

When we are discussing the context of what can outgun, outmelee, outendure and outmaneuvre the knight for the same point cost, your argument is from a different topic, do you understand? You have demonstrated a clear lack of understanding to discuss a topic that is confined to a certain concept that is the very idea of a topic. I have played 40K for 13 years, so I'm quite aware of how games are won, and at any point I haven't discussed such a topic on a general level. I have discussed 380 points, the Knight, and if it's qualities can be matched for the same cost. Nothing else. If you can't grasp this concept, I don't know, you are discussing a different topic alone.

I want to know if you can make a unit/combo of units with 380 points that can match the Imperial Knights mobility, firepower, melee power, and durability all in one. [u]Nothing else. If this idea find itself into your mind and you can't grasp it then it's pointless to discuss this with you - you are simply unable to discuss the topic.

From what ive read he has been suggesting things for the same or slightly less/more points that would do just about every job, but better. The riptides example was a very good one, theyre arguably more durable, just as mobile, have better/more firepower, and are no schmucks in melee either.

 RunicFIN wrote:

 Zagman wrote:


Nice Strawman.

Or you could read what i actually wrote. You just attempted and failed to hand wave my argument away.



Answer this questions honestly. How much does it matter how Killy or Durable a Knight is when I can put different units on the table for the same amount of points which have a larger NET impact on the game and increase my odds of winning vs taking a knight.

The Knight only ever really gets to target 5-7 units a game. That is it. Sure, you could target one unit with your primary weapon, target another with the Stubber, and charge the second, but that is highly situational.


You have demonstrated a clear lack of understanding of how games of 40k are won. You are using a limited and worthless definition and by default your argument using your definition is correct. We are arguing that you have no idea what you are actually talking about and need to use a better definition of effectiveness which I highlighted in detail for you.

So, please read my response again.

When we are discussing the context of what can outgun, outmelee, outendure and outmaneuvre the knight for the same point cost, your argument is from a different topic, do you understand? You have demonstrated a clear lack of understanding to discuss a topic that is confined to a certain concept that is the very idea of a topic. I have played 40K for 13 years, so I'm quite aware of how games are won, and at any point I haven't discussed such a topic on a general level. I have discussed 380 points, the Knight, and if it's qualities can be matched for the same cost. Nothing else. If you can't grasp this concept, I don't know, you are discussing a different topic alone.

I want to know if you can make a unit/combo of units with 380 points that can match the Imperial Knights mobility, firepower, melee power, and durability all in one. [u]Nothing else. If this idea find itself into your mind and you can't grasp it then it's pointless to discuss this with you - you are simply unable to discuss the topic.

What is better? A knife or a car?
You cant tell us the answer? Thats normal because context is important to answer questions like this.
Your question is like "What is better to cut meat. A knife or a car?"
The obvious answer is "a knife".
The obvious answer to your question given the context and measurements you gave us is "yes the knight is the best unit under the measurements you gave us". No one at a single point in this thread was questioning that. The opposite is true. Most people acknowledged that but told you that this isnt a good measure at all for performance on the field but that theres much more context that should be considered. You dont want to discuss balance but the threadtitle is directed at people that "think imperial knights are balanced".

People simply disagree with your definition of "overall performance" and at least in my book thats a perfectly fine standpoint to present in this thread. Like it or not but this is a public forum and people express their own standpoints rather than praising yours.

 Zagman wrote:

 RunicFIN wrote:


My definition is the all-around mobility, destructive power with shooting and melee, and durability all combined. Which can be mathematically calculated and compared against other combinations totaling to 380 points. Not terrible and useless at all, sorry.

I don't know why you offer alternative arguments to a topic that is different than the one discussed, by saying "But, as I define it it isn't the best All Around Use of 370/375 Pts, that is defined as Shooting, Close Combat, Mobility, Durability, Scoring, Anti Air, and the Ability to effect multiple enemy units."

It was already discussed before that you can get a unit that shoots more for 380 points than a Knight does - that isn't the point here and I atleast will be ignoring further posts going for that argument - it has been clear as day from the start you can build a unit that does something better than the knight for the points. The question is, can you create something that does everything better than it does for the same points cost. The only thing utterly useless is participant such as yourself who start discussing another thing entirely.

But I can let you and anyone else think that the Knight doesn't bring the best all-around qualities for 380 points out of any Codex units. To me it's very easy to observe this is the case.

A response to your edit.

Your definition has already been shown to be worthless. Of course the Knight is the best for all of those qualities listed. The real question is to what respect does that actually matter in a game of 40k. The answer, is far less than you think.

Knight do most things very well in a very tough package, but they are not the best solution for every problem nor always a cost effective solution. Doing everything better than the Knight is not required, doing something better than a knight to a high enough degree to be an effective and worthwhile alternative is all that matters.

Its all about effective use of points, this is what you fail to understand. And it is the reason that it was not a Full Knight army that Won NOVA. Sure the winner had one knight, but the rest of the Top 10 didn't.


For a relatively intelligent person, you are failing to grasp fairly simple concepts in regards effective points use.

Factual responses for what you wrote:

-I haven't in any post displayed how much I think the all-round power of a unit matters in a game of 40K. Therefore you cannot have any idea of what I think, as I haven't provided the information. You have simply concluded this by yourself. Factually, you conjured my opinion in your own head, out of thin air. If at some point I displayed how much I think the all-round power of a unit matters in a game of 40K, do copypaste this sentence for me. You might get this vibe from my messages, but is still something that is simply not true, and something you created in your own head.

This also affects the last thing you say, as you already have a wrong idea of what I think. Want to know what I think, instead of guessing/stating it without actually having information on the matter?

The all-round power of a unit doesn't win a game of 40K. There aren't enough "best overall" units in the game that you could possibly create a list that is best in everything - 40K is a super complicated game of paper, rock and scissors. There is no rockscissorpaper - you cannot create it, asfar as I know. There will always be an army composition that can crush, or for the very least, somehow defeat yours.

Well, the IK is a superheavy.
I think its balanced when compared with other ''large'' models like WK, Riptide or other superheavy walkers.

 wuestenfux wrote:
Well, the IK is a superheavy.
I think its balanced when compared with other ''large'' models like WK, Riptide or other superheavy walkers.

This and the Wraithknight points are something I have considered since you have said them - it's quite possible ( and probably is ) that for their points cost, Riptides and Wraithknights are indeed even more powerful all-round than the Knight is.

In a vacuum the Knight is an amazing unit for its cost. Most of what makes it so good is that its a Super Heavy, so its immune to being 1 shotted, can walk 12" and fire as opposed to if it was not a superheavy it would be going 6", making it pretty mobile, and with stomp+d weapon attacks can take on elites/hordes in assault.

Can someone take 380 pts and build a unit, or units, that could try and kill a knight? Yes, not that hard. But those same units would have a hard time bringing the same versatility a knight has for 380 pts.

Which I think is the OPs point, and I agree with. You can take 380pts of almost any other army and say "what is the answer to that with a knights army?" the answer is knights, not just by default, but the knight can handle anything pretty much as a contender.

The one exception of course being flyers, even so a heavy stubber will get some glances on av 10 flyers through out the game, so unless your flyers are av 11 all around, even knights can threaten them some.

The term "self-fulfilling prophecy" sums this thread up quite nicely.

blaktoof wrote:


Can someone take 380 pts and build a unit, or units, that could try and kill a knight? Yes, not that hard. But those same units would have a hard time bringing the same versatility a knight has for 380 pts.

.

Yes, that is correct. On the other hand the knight would never be able to reach the same level of specialisation these units have. Weighing Versatility vs Specialisation is a task that can only be done when you know the rest of the list and the meta the list is played in. So its not a good measurement for "all-around effectiveness".

blaktoof wrote:


The one exception of course being flyers, even so a heavy stubber will get some glances on av 10 flyers through out the game, so unless your flyers are av 11 all around, even knights can threaten them some.

Say the knight could shoot at the flyer each and every turn from turn 2 in a game that lasts 6 turns. Thats 15 shots where 2,5 would hit statistically. From these 2,5 hits there are 0,41 glances throughout the whole game. So you'd have to shoot the flyer with 3 knights each and every turn and you'd get around 1-2 glances statistically .... i wouldnt call that "threatening" even to an av10 flyer. And thats not even counting jinks or invulnerable saves.

blaktoof wrote:
Can someone take 380 pts and build a unit, or units, that could try and kill a knight? Yes, not that hard. But those same units would have a hard time bringing the same versatility a knight has for 380 pts.

Which I think is the OPs point, and I agree with.

Finally someone who understands. This a thousand times. And since this is indeed the case, asfar as I'm concerned the Knight is by default one of the best choices around. And as I stated before, I don't think they are overpowered. What I do think however is that they could cost just a little bit more - most of the time they can bring their points costs back and more, but only if played careful.

A Knight that isn't played with precision and thought can be a big waste of points, maybe even the biggest singular one after the Ork Stompa - one that is played well can destroy twice or more it's points cost with ease. And to Mywik, once again, all-round effectiveness can be measured while ignoring the meta easily, by simply comparing stat properties of a unit. A meta has nothing to do with a unit being all-round powerful by it's stats. A Knight will melee and move harder than a Tactical Marine no matter the meta. But I know what you mean by taking the meta into account.

 RunicFIN wrote:
So yeah, I see a lot of people who think Imperial Knights are a balanced units. I agree that they can be killed without owning one, and they aren't indestructible. They aren't necessarily overpowered, but asfar as I'm concerned they aren't balanced either, especially regarding their point cost and what they give you. I therefore ask you a question; If you were given ~380 points to buy anything from within another Codex, that could match what you get with a Knight for the same points cost, what would it be?

It needs to move 12" inches, and fire weaponry of similiar power towards multiple targets while moving. It also needs to be equally powerful melee, and equally durable ( something of similiar power to the shield, ignores destroyed/weapon destroyed/immobilized/difficult terrain and whatnot. ) Do remember, before posting herohammer options, that Stomp ignores invulnerable saves on a roll of 6, and a single Stomp can target multiple models. At worst a single Stomp can kill almost a squad of Assault Terminators/anything else with a decent invulnerable save.

( That's right; it's impossible. There is no other 380 point unit, or even combo of units, that can do all that simultaneously while being equally accessible to all players. The Knight is on the absolute upper spectrum of power-per-points ratio, and it is accessible to almost every player and army. Hence, it is not balanced points cost wise. ) They are a trademark in the majority of tournament armies these days, a strong part of the current meta. I recently followed a tournament inwhich there were 2 imperial lists without a Knight - the rest 18 all had them. That's saying something.

If the Imperial Knight is the most all-around powerful 380 points you can spend out of any Codex, then how could it not be unbalanced? It's better than anything else in the game for the same points when it comes to all-around effectiviness.

I'm just going to leave this here.... Love the 10 edits as well!

 Zagman wrote:

 RunicFIN wrote:
So yeah, I see a lot of people who think Imperial Knights are a balanced units. I agree that they can be killed without owning one, and they aren't indestructible. They aren't necessarily overpowered, but asfar as I'm concerned they aren't balanced either, especially regarding their point cost and what they give you. I therefore ask you a question; If you were given ~380 points to buy anything from within another Codex, that could match what you get with a Knight for the same points cost, what would it be?

It needs to move 12" inches, and fire weaponry of similiar power towards multiple targets while moving. It also needs to be equally powerful melee, and equally durable ( something of similiar power to the shield, ignores destroyed/weapon destroyed/immobilized/difficult terrain and whatnot. ) Do remember, before posting herohammer options, that Stomp ignores invulnerable saves on a roll of 6, and a single Stomp can target multiple models. At worst a single Stomp can kill almost a squad of Assault Terminators/anything else with a decent invulnerable save.

( That's right; it's impossible. There is no other 380 point unit, or even combo of units, that can do all that simultaneously while being equally accessible to all players. The Knight is on the absolute upper spectrum of power-per-points ratio, and it is accessible to almost every player and army. Hence, it is not balanced points cost wise. ) They are a trademark in the majority of tournament armies these days, a strong part of the current meta. I recently followed a tournament inwhich there were 2 imperial lists without a Knight - the rest 18 all had them. That's saying something.

If the Imperial Knight is the most all-around powerful 380 points you can spend out of any Codex, then how could it not be unbalanced? It's better than anything else in the game for the same points when it comes to all-around effectiviness.

I'm just going to leave this here.... Love the 10 edits as well!

Love your pompous tone too. Edited it to try and clarify what the topic is about - some people got it perfectly on the first try, like the blaktoof a few posts back. Others, not even after the 10 clarifications, like you. But we all know it's just deliberate derailing anyway - I don't believe anyone is actually so stupid they couldn't understand the concept of what I have said. English language isn't my native so I also fix typos I first don't notice. I still believe what I mean can't be articulated clearer, and I have done it numerous times through the thread.

Because it was ignored, again I will suggest Be'Lakor as a Knight level unit. Providing both the destructive power and force multiplying effectiveness. He is similar points to the Knight, has weaknesses the knight doesn't have (death to weight of small attacks like a mob of boys or nids) but also has strengths the knight doesnt have (more mobility through flying, and psychic powers)

So what is the real point of all of this?