Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Throwing "schrödinger's wave serpent" at me considering I play tau and I faced the same type of arguments all the time with my crisis suits and riptides (crisis have all weapon loadouts, riptide have all NOVA active 24/7) is insulting.

But the WS often DOES have its shields up COMPETITIVELY, it only shifts to fire mode when it has a good reason to do so. killing another bolter boy or two is no reason to give away your defenses, killing your anti-tank is (as it negates the consequences of the lack of shield to ever occur)

And they WILL jink when you aim any serious anti-tank against them, because why the hell not? the FD can come out and hammer something anyway, and every turn they don't die is another turn they can shot (even if worse) and you cant move on to other targets. its tactically smart to jink against anything that poses a serious threat.

TL;DR a single lascannon is NOT a threat to a wave serpent statistically.

Its far more than twice the threat it is to a Knight.

And its also much less optimal a weapon for shooting a Serpent than a Knight. For Serpents, you want s7, melee, or mobility to get rear armor.

Serpents are certainly cheese too, of course. But does the potential of cheese elsewhere negate the state of cheese for the unit under discussion?

These debates don't seem that productive in regards to comparative play. Their biggest use seems to be in deciding what to field for casual play.

(For melts efficiency, pod + combi sternies is probably even on price per shot with Fragons + Serpent, but gets into Melts range even easier, survives return fire better (but both are usually piece trades), and is better equipped for handling other targets, whereas fragons/serpents bring the stupidly-OP Serpent's dakka for the gun line. Melts efficiency I'd give to the Sternies, list effectiveness I'd give to the Fragons - once again, all about the Serpent, in this game, it seems.)

Bharring wrote:
Its far more than twice the threat it is to a Knight.

And its also much less optimal a weapon for shooting a Serpent than a Knight. For Serpents, you want s7, melee, or mobility to get rear armor.

Serpents are certainly cheese too, of course. But does the potential of cheese elsewhere negate the state of cheese for the unit under discussion?

These debates don't seem that productive in regards to comparative play. Their biggest use seems to be in deciding what to field for casual play.

(For melts efficiency, pod + combi sternies is probably even on price per shot with Fragons + Serpent, but gets into Melts range even easier, survives return fire better (but both are usually piece trades), and is better equipped for handling other targets, whereas fragons/serpents bring the stupidly-OP Serpent's dakka for the gun line. Melts efficiency I'd give to the Sternies, list effectiveness I'd give to the Fragons - once again, all about the Serpent, in this game, it seems.)

But don't the combi-melta sternguard only get one shot? So if they get unlucky they now have a max of two meltaguns, whereas the Fire Dragons could try again next turn or move to a different target if they do blow up the one they're aiming at, with much less of a loss in anti-tank firepower.

I suppose I was raiting them on the must-melt-that-one-thing-now metric. Fragons could, theoretically, melt something else next turn if they survive. But they shouldn't survive. Less likely than combi sternies. For must-melt, Sternies I think win, but for consistent melting provided they aren't shot, Fragons win.

10 meltaguns/combi-meltas do an average of 2.777 damage(roughly 2.5 pens and .222 glances) results against AV13 with the 4++ up.

But if you combat squad and hit the knight with half facing not the shield its a little better. We'll assume the shield goes to the AV12 side.

2.777 damage results on AV13 with no shield.

1.38 damage results on AV12 with the shield For a total of 4ish damage results. Thats 4 out of the 6 HPs down. On average, one of the 3 pens will cause an Explodes result, which is a 2/3 chance of knocking off the last 2 hull points.

S0 10 Melta sternguard have a very good chance of one shotting a Knight if you hit it from multiple angles. And you can come down in a pod to guarantee delivery.

THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A WAVE SERPENT THAT HAS ITS SHIELD ACTIVATED YET IS COMPETITIVE AT THE SAME TIME.

They are if a Eldar player goes second/ has the Iniiative seized against him?

Wave Serpenets are perhaps the cheesiest unit in the game................

 Grey Templar wrote:
10 meltaguns/combi-meltas do an average of 2.777 damage(roughly 2.5 pens and .222 glances) results against AV13 with the 4++ up.

But if you combat squad and hit the knight with half facing not the shield its a little better. We'll assume the shield goes to the AV12 side.

2.777 damage results on AV13 with no shield.

1.38 damage results on AV12 with the shield For a total of 4ish damage results. Thats 4 out of the 6 HPs down. On average, one of the 3 pens will cause an Explodes result, which is a 2/3 chance of knocking off the last 2 hull points.

S0 10 Melta sternguard have a very good chance of one shotting a Knight if you hit it from multiple angles. And you can come down in a pod to guarantee delivery.

Although you won't hear me saying I disagree with you, the price tag that unit of max loaded stern guard comes with is a bit on the steep side, especially when you compare it to the cost of what you are destroying.

The recent spat of posts have been about the Knight potentially being even cheesier than the super cheese Wave Serpents.

Knights have more survivability, per point, than a Serpant with its shield up, jinking. Knights have as much killing power, per point as non-jinking Serpents shooting everything.

Knights can always move 12 without losing killyness. They can't flat out, but don't take dangerous terrain, and can charge.

Knights have fewer models per point.

Knights can fight in Assault.

Both are cheesy, but I think the Knight wins most cheese.

Except knights are not more shooty per point, nor more durable per point.

The WS itself costs less than a third of the knight, meaning that in direct comparison you have more HP on the WS, and its even split among 3 targets meaning "overkills" is a problem, also you have much more guns scattered around. (and a knight's guns are nothing impressive for it's cost. you can get THREE battle cannons as lemons for the same price)
The ion shield as more limited facing, and is far more susceptible to flanking kills, and the insanly low model count makes them fall to the same problem most LoW do-you can safly use normally "overkilling" units on them without much of a waste.
And the WS can protect other units inside it as a transport.

Per point, the WS is far superior to the knight.

How have all IK armys been doing in the big tournaments?

 BoomWolf wrote:
(and a knight's guns are nothing impressive for it's cost. you can get THREE battle cannons as lemons for the same price)

A leman with a battle cannon is 150pts, so it's more like 2.5, not 3. Leman Russes get around 25% more battlecannons, at the cost of not being able to do CC, weak rear armour, not superheavy.

What? 150 for the battle cannon? damn you are overpaying on that variation. my ion cannon can be gotten for as low as 125. (though upgrade often knock him up to 140 with Dpod)

And while the rear is weaker, the front is practically stronger, the HP are more spread around (so less overkills) and the lemon is not even a very good unit to begin with. (especially not at 150, thought it was 130-135 or something)

Point is, knight shooting is not great. is decent for the price, but not great. he has some really great points like his D strikes (though these are less impressive these days) and his SH status, but his shooting is not the reason you get him.

Sometimes it appears on these threads that whenever I protect a unit as "not cheese" people take it as if I claim they are bad.
Not at any point I claimed or thought they are bad, they are a good, even very good unit-but not overpowered as some people make of them, and not that hard to take down as some think.

For the most part AV14 is worse than AV13 with a 4+, since the Knight 4+ is directional I consider them about equal. AV14 is slightly better against lower S attacks but AV13 with a 4+ save is better against anything high strength, lances and melta.

 Grey Templar wrote:
10 meltaguns/combi-meltas do an average of 2.777 damage(roughly 2.5 pens and .222 glances) results against AV13 with the 4++ up.

But if you combat squad and hit the knight with half facing not the shield its a little better. We'll assume the shield goes to the AV12 side.

2.777 damage results on AV13 with no shield.

1.38 damage results on AV12 with the shield For a total of 4ish damage results. Thats 4 out of the 6 HPs down. On average, one of the 3 pens will cause an Explodes result, which is a 2/3 chance of knocking off the last 2 hull points.

S0 10 Melta sternguard have a very good chance of one shotting a Knight if you hit it from multiple angles. And you can come down in a pod to guarantee delivery.

How are you not just striking the back, which can't be ion shielded with a drop pod?

I believe normal knights can put their shields in the rear. Its just the Lancer which can't IIRC.

 Grey Templar wrote:
I believe normal knights can put their shields in the rear. Its just the Lancer which can't IIRC.

Ah right, forgot.

Typically though the shield facing is rather small considering the base, the back is the biggest but if you've got it pinned (an IK army has at max, 4-5 IK in a 2000 list), and kill it you've reduced its army power by 25%, while still being able to score over it.

If the knight is so cheesy, why have all IK lists done poorly in the major tournaments? My guess is the fact that every good TAC list has multiple ways of dealing with them and can win the objective game easily. Instead of drop pod stern, I prefer drop pod GH with a WG combi melta. You get 3 melta shots per pod when they drop, then 30 attacks on the charge the next round. I can kill 3 knights by turn 2 with my list. Then I have 3 turns to camp objectives and the remaining knights have to choose whether to go after my pods holding objectives, my centurions or my GH squads.

 Yonan wrote:
Yeah it's a pretty common issue lately. The game has changed in a number of ways that a lot of people dislike. Knights basically invalidate half or more of your army, especially if that's all they field. You run into games where you risk not having fun and just lopsided gameplay.

That said, this is my expectation and what I've heard other people say they felt after playing them - I stopped playing due to things like that. I don't doubt that you can have good games with knights, but it should involve fights with armies that have been modified to deal with them.

This was also a big reason for my decision to stop playing.

As I said elsewhere, if your army, at any point ever, can even thoretically be met with an opponent that renders half your army useless (as tarpitting IS a use), than you did something wrong in army building.

That's part of the problem with overspecialized units, you are so involved in getting one thing done properly, that you are either pointless, of massively overcosted compared to what they actually do when you do not need that one thing done.

That is also why things like the oblits and even mutilators count in my eyes as great (ok mutis only good, they ARE a bit overcosted), because while they are never the most efficient at what they do, they will ALWAYS be doing something, no matter what you face. that is why marines cost so much to begin with, due to the plate of special rules, decent gun, decent CC and double grenades-they will get something done against everything but most edge cases.

Single-minded units are only useful if you take a handful to fix a hole in your ability to remove things, but at the bigger scheme, they will not work.

When I face knights? every model in my army contributes to some level. even the fire warriors. because that's how I set up my army, where everyone has multiple purposes, even if they are never perfect.

That is also why things like the oblits and even mutilators count in my eyes as great (ok mutis only good, they ARE a bit overcosted),

Massively, they won't be killing for better then their points costs due to their lack of attacks, needs something in general to buff them up a bit.

 BoomWolf wrote:
(as tarpitting IS a use)

I'm pretty sure people were excluding that use, especially when their ability to tarpit sucks (realistically the unit needs to be able to survive 2 rounds to tarpit, otherwise it just gets charged and killed before the Knight's next turn).

Though when half my units are incapable of doing anything more than dying and holding objectives, it does make a boring game to me, even if I might win. I feel like I might as well have used 2 counters that each represent 20 wounds instead of pulling out my 40 hormagaunts.

So building an army that leads to games I enjoy a lot more is 'doing it wrong', as I should be building armies that guarantee me a win even if I hate playing them?

Once again, win/loss isn't the only issue here.

Skink-if cannot get stuck in combat for at least 2 rounds, you cannot tarpit. tarpitting is not a job EVERY unit can do.

Bharring-yes. competetive and fun/fluff are not always the same, you CANNOT have a game system where every stratagy is viable by the default nature of it. some stratagies WILL be better, some WILL be worse. that rules applies to every game in existence that involves any level of skill. (as opposed to pure luck game)
When talking about things like "cheese" we are assuming we are fighting competitively and tuning up for maximum efficiency, regardless of amusement value, not throwing random things into a list because we happen to like them.
Stop trying to mix fun with competitiveness, the two are not aligned and can never be. high-level play in pretty much every game is more of a chore than something fun.
And when you play for fun, cheese is not your problem, as you assume that the other party is also playing for fun and is not tuning up for maximum efficiency (spamming is one kind of tunning that is obviously not amusing as the game is stale and repetitive, yet it IS efficient because you rely on doing a single thing very, VERY good.)

I actually find knowing what constitutes cheese as far more important for casual games. In competitive games, knowing davu + Wraith knights is cheese won't really have any effect on you, as you'll usually field/face them anyways. In casual, you can decide not to take cheese, and both players win.

But I agree that, in a competitive scenario, choosing a strategy because you like it doesn't help you win.

 BoomWolf wrote:
Skink-if cannot get stuck in combat for at least 2 rounds, you cannot tarpit. tarpitting is not a job EVERY unit can do.

Yes, but I believe what Yonan was referring to was that a Knight army could invalidate half your existing army. Sure I could stop playing Tyranids because playing Tyranids now constitutes doing "something wrong in army building".

When entire units in your codex or in some cases almost all your codex constitutes doing something wrong in army building, IMO something is wrong with the game. It's also a very valid reason to be unhappy with the game.

Gamer: "Well, I just spent hundreds of dollars and all my free time for the past 6 months assembling this army"

GW: "Oh hai guyz, we just added an army that invalidates half your army"

Gamer: "....feth you"

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

 BoomWolf wrote:
Skink-if cannot get stuck in combat for at least 2 rounds, you cannot tarpit. tarpitting is not a job EVERY unit can do.

Yes, but I believe what Yonan was referring to was that a Knight army could invalidate half your existing army. Sure I could stop playing Tyranids because playing Tyranids now constitutes doing "something wrong in army building".

When entire units in your codex or in some cases almost all your codex constitutes doing something wrong in army building, IMO something is wrong with the game. It's also a very valid reason to be unhappy with the game.

Gamer: "Well, I just spent hundreds of dollars and all my free time for the past 6 months assembling this army"

GW: "Oh hai guyz, we just added an army that invalidates half your army"

Gamer: "....feth you"

Chaos Daemons vs Warp Quake

Tyranids vs Everything mech in 5th.

Tyranids pretty much get the shaft no matter what edition.

Can the big T-C'Tan deal with a Knight or 2

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

 BoomWolf wrote:
Skink-if cannot get stuck in combat for at least 2 rounds, you cannot tarpit. tarpitting is not a job EVERY unit can do.

Yes, but I believe what Yonan was referring to was that a Knight army could invalidate half your existing army. Sure I could stop playing Tyranids because playing Tyranids now constitutes doing "something wrong in army building".

When entire units in your codex or in some cases almost all your codex constitutes doing something wrong in army building, IMO something is wrong with the game. It's also a very valid reason to be unhappy with the game.

Gamer: "Well, I just spent hundreds of dollars and all my free time for the past 6 months assembling this army"

GW: "Oh hai guyz, we just added an army that invalidates half your army"

Gamer: "....feth you"

Well, pretty much every nid "horde" unit can be a tarpit thanks to sheer numbers of cheap fearless drones, and all the big guys can either hurt the knights, provide support powers or in general do something.
There are very few nid units who are literally useless against knights. a unit that still brings something to the table is not invalidated.
Not VERY useful applies to many, but useless is rare.

"Near useless" is basically what I mean when I refer to something being invalidated.

Sure, a Trygon can maybe put a HP of damage on a Knight... but at 190pts to "maybe" put a HP on a Knight and maybe hold an objective (it's not objective secured). Yeah, that's mostly what I consider being invalidated.

You dont have to kill something to neuter it. Fearless tarpits are a pin for the non-OS knights.