My first thought is that the super-heavy detachment is a terrible idea. Similar to the riptide wing, this rewards players for spamming out a few powerful models, whether knights, wraithknights or stormsurges (or whatever is the strongest super heavy in eighth). This is possibly the single worst thing I've seen in eighth rumours so far. I sincerely hope the power levels of the super heavies are well balanced, as this could be very bad if not :( I don't want a return to the riptide-wing situation we had before!
Yeah, I am a bit disappointed that that detachment exists. I feel like they must be putting a lot of weight on the Command Points to balance the different detachments.
Yeah, Knights, as an army, was one of the biggest mistakes GW made, that really belongs in Apocalypse and tears the scale away from what the core of the game should really be, the common infantry.
Hopefully they'll be balanced enough that they wont be an issue. Wont hold my breath though.
The Knight profile does reinforce my initial impression that the Leman Russ however did not get treated terribly nicely in the resiliency department, at least relative to a Knight. Under 7E the Russ had half the HP and no shield, but at least had better armor (Toughness), now the former remains true but the latter does not.
I can definitely see where you are coming from, and hope for similar. I don't feel too worried about it however, with each knight coming in at power 23 a pop (Points as of yet unconfirmed if they have changed) the most I'd expect someone to be able to play alongside that would be the patrol detachment or a very barebones battalion detachment whilst you could chalk in with a brigade detachment. We can't know for sure until wider release. Also, I doubt we'll see Riptide-wing level hurt again as there are no special rules with formations, only the command points.
We knew a super heavy FoC was coming though, when they said that anyone could use any of the FoC, and that knights were going to be playable. Imperial Knights vs wraith knights will be sixes I imagine, because knights won't have a crap initiative and be subject to the interior vehicle rules. I'm a bit more curious how five baneblades will play, or how much silliness you can squeeze out of a 5 obelisk/tesseract vault list.
I agree - they will be hard to balance for the reasons they stated in the article - either you can answer that many super heavies or you can't.
Lasguns/bolters potentially hurting them doesn't really make too much of a difference to be honest. With 24 wounds it's like trying to kill TWO riptides with lasguns in 7th - never going to happen in any normal game.
Just for interest - it's now 24 BS4 lascannons to destroy a knight (with average rolling)
as for las cannons, it's actually a little better than you said, but that is probably due to rounding. 2/3 * 2/3 * 2/3 * 3.5 = 1.04 average damage per shot, so yeah 23 las cannon shots to down a knight.
Meltas are also kind of crap against them: 2/3 * 1/2 * 2/3 * 3.5 = 0.77 average damage per shot
Battle cannons on the other hand (the weapon that ruined the leman russ according to several people on the board) 3.5 * 2/3 * 1/2 * 2/3 * 2 = 1.6 damage per hit, so 15 shots
For the super heavy detachment, knights aren't really my main concern, as they'll have playtested armies of them. I'm a bit more worried by armies of wraithknights, stormsurges, baneblade varients - just insert whichever winds up being just a little bit undercosted. Could create some very binary games if they're not careul...
Power Level 23, eh? Interesting. Not quite triple the power of a Rubric Marine Squad. Color me interested in seeing the Power Levels of other units to get a frame of reference!
I'm not too concerned with a Super-Heavy Detachment. Now that anything can hurt anything, it won't be near as bad to face off against these big killers. Really, I am just hoping that I can field my Guard or Space Marine army with a Knight in it, and not have to field three Knights in an army just to unlock them in a Detachment.
I picked up on several things that piqued my interest:
- Once it starts getting damaged, it is going to be much less effective in battle. Makes me interested in the damage tables for other big scary models.
- OH! Lookie lookie! The Thermal Cannon "gets D6 shots vs units with 5 or more models" - will we get a rule like that for other formerly blast and large blast weapons? Maybe the Leman Russ would get something like that as well.
- Stomps are different. Good! They were, in my experience, either all or nothing, and never fun to use for either player. Making them just another melee attack makes so much more sense, and can be differentiated between different units now. Makes it feel more like the old Stop/Thunderstomp attacks from Warhammer Fantasy, where it was tied into the Strength of the attacker.
- Trygons get "multiple D6 damage melee attacks". That's nice and scary right there! Makes it sound like Trygons are here to hunt other big things over enemy hordes.
Overall, I'm excited. I really, REALLY hope that I can field just one or two Knights though. I'm not really concerned that Super-Heavies will be as dangerous as they were before, but I would like to field one as an Ally to my Marines or Guard.
OOH! What if Knights get Households to have their own "Chapter Tactics"? That would be neat!
The problem with Knights used to be skew. You brought a full Knights list and an all-comers list never had enough anti-armour to do something about them.
But given that pulse rifles are wounding Knights on a 5+ now? The skew problem is basically gone and you can actually fight them.
(So: the Knights army is kind of dumb, but less dumb than it is in 7th.)
Great, I'm so glad that armies that exist only to pose binary "did you bring *This* much anti-tank?" win/lose list-building questions stayed in the game. That was my favorite part of 7th edition.
I'm so happy that GW expects players to not realize that they'll need to fire 648 boltgun shots at one of these to take it down, and so their "everything can hurt everything!" spiel is nothing short of disingenuous. Your entire army's combined anti-infantry firepower for several games put together will not be enough to take down one IK, let alone its four buddies.
Allowing armies of nothing but Imperial Knights was probably the single biggest mistake Games Workshop has done in balancing 40k.
And yeah, I'm counting all those other mistakes they made. All of them.
Up until today I didn't see anything about 8th edition that made me think it would be unplayable in a tournament without houseruling. And now I got a taste of it.
Yeah, I think a lot of people aren't seeing the bigger picture here. Sure they are strong, but now that anything can potentially hurt them, and they get worse over time, and there are weapons that deal multiple wounds, and there are Mortal Wounds... well you get the picture. They're probably more tough now to things that could actually hurt them before, but they're WAY less tough to things that couldn't.
Plus they get worse as the fight goes on! Bringing a Knight down to 25% health means it only hits on 5's and moves 6 inches. That's pretty terrible, meaning that you don't have to go through the full 24 wounds to realistically deal with it.
So will they be scary? Sure. But now anyone can deal with them, rather than just hope to avoid them all game (which couldn't happen because they always moved 12 inches and never got worse). Heck, if they move now their guns hit on 4+! Unless they chose not to spoil that their guns don't suffer the move and shoot penalty.
GW isn't saying anything will kill anything. They are saying anything CAN kill anything. They even point out that yes a grot blaster can hurt a knight but they don't recommend trying.
Bit strange they are only LD9. Surely a guy piloting a giant mech is going to be slightly less susceptible to fear or morale or legging it than anyone else.
I would have thought they'd max them out at 10.
Vaktathi wrote: Yeah, Knights, as an army, was one of the biggest mistakes GW made, that really belongs in Apocalypse and tears the scale away from what the core of the game should really be, the common infantry.
Hopefully they'll be balanced enough that they wont be an issue. Wont hold my breath though.
The Knight profile does reinforce my initial impression that the Leman Russ however did not get treated terribly nicely in the resiliency department, at least relative to a Knight. Under 7E the Russ had half the HP and no shield, but at least had better armor (Toughness), now the former remains true but the latter does not.
Knights should never had had inferior armor to the Russ, imo. The AV 12 sides were a disaster in 7th. Russes had front armor similar to a some titans. Too much defense, not enough offense.
Ratius wrote: Bit strange they are only LD9. Surely a guy piloting a giant mech is going to be slightly less susceptible to fear or morale or legging it than anyone else.
I would have thought they'd max them out at 10.
With Space Marines being LD 7 now, it works for me. I would imagine that it is only there in the case of some psychic attack that Wounds against Leadership or something. What with the way you take Morale checks at the end of phases now, I don't see a Knight taking a Morale check after melee in normal cases.
LD needed to be lower across the board. I don't mind 10 (and
higher )being the major characters only.
And people don't underestimate the difference between wounds on a6+ and can't wound at all (let alone a 5+). Sure knights are tough, but in general their toughness against small to medium firepower has taken quite a beating.
Losing the gargantuan special rules is a big deal as well, they have vehicle damage chart now.
as for las cannons, it's actually a little better than you said, but that is probably due to rounding.
2/3 * 2/3 * 2/3 * 3.5 = 1.04 average damage per shot, so yeah 23 las cannon shots to down a knight.
Meltas are also kind of crap against them:
2/3 * 1/2 * 2/3 * 3.5 = 0.77 average damage per shot
Battle cannons on the other hand (the weapon that ruined the leman russ according to several people on the board)
3.5 * 2/3 * 1/2 * 2/3 * 2 = 1.6 damage per hit, so 15 shots
Strange I thought the battle cannon sucked...
So it would take 4 Leman Russ' (BC + LC) just over 2 turns to take down a knight? And that is without the vanquisher upgrade which is likely to have something like d6 damage (which would reduce it to 3 vanquishers in under two turns). So far better than now.
Definitely a lot of interesting tidbits that other factions can pick up from this.
D3 blasts are a thing, which by extension means that varying blast "sizes" are still a thing.
Blasts scaling against high-model units is also a thing, potentially good news for the LRBT if it turns out it can do the same thing and they just forgot to mention it.
Between this and the Tau preview, it looks like any sufficiently large unit will pretty much be able to withdraw from combat while shooting. Though we haven't gotten "sufficiently large" pinned down.
Since the superheavy detachment is universal, theoretically a Guard player could just toss three or four Baneblades or Baneblade variants on the table. Though that might not necessarily be a good idea.
mynamelegend wrote: ...Up until today I didn't see anything about 8th edition that made me think it would be unplayable in a tournament without houseruling...
What, "Yes, you may deploy plasma guns within rapid-fire range of whatever you want and get shots off before the other guy has a chance to do anything at all" wasn't enough of a hint?
I'm so looking forward to taking 3 WKs in 8th. Probably not in casual/narrative games, but for competitive/matched play, it is on. It's also interesting to see the Reaper chainsword (formally str D) just does a straight 6 damgage. I wonder if this will be similar for the WK's melee sword (also formally str D) and for Distort weapons.
DoomMouse wrote: I agree - they will be hard to balance for the reasons they stated in the article - either you can answer that many super heavies or you can't.
Lasguns/bolters potentially hurting them doesn't really make too much of a difference to be honest. With 24 wounds it's like trying to kill TWO riptides with lasguns in 7th - never going to happen in any normal game.
Just for interest - it's now 24 BS4 lascannons to destroy a knight (with average rolling)
but if you read between the lines on knight article you read Trygon makes multiple d6 attacks so i m sure IK will find their own nemesis, in 7th send a trygon against a D chain sword armed IK was a gamble a single 6 and bye bye trygon, now that wil be impossible, so i will wait see the costs.Then now you should consider a single marine with a power axe wounds it at 5 and -2 rend so is not so impossible hurt also with infantry in cac.
ross-128 wrote: What I think will be really interesting is how the Rending special rule will work in 8th, considering everything runs on S/T now.
Mortal wounds on a 6?
This is what Daemonettes get instead of rending:
which are resolved at AP-4 when you roll a 6+ to wound!
And the Rubric Soul Reaper had Rending, but is now AP -3 (instead of -2 like the other "AP3" weapons we've seen so far). in its case it just got an additional -1AP than would be normal So it appears that "Rending" will be resolved differently for different models/weapons.
If the original question was about the Gatling weapon the Knights have, I would say it will just be AP -3 as well. No additional rule is necessary (which is great)
mynamelegend wrote: ...Up until today I didn't see anything about 8th edition that made me think it would be unplayable in a tournament without houseruling...
What, "Yes, you may deploy plasma guns within rapid-fire range of whatever you want and get shots off before the other guy has a chance to do anything at all" wasn't enough of a hint?
Because that totally hasn't been a thing since the birth ofthe drop pod....
I expect knights to go down like chumps to dedicated CC units. Depending on how hard it turns out to be to take out vehicles at range, I suspect that dedicated anti-vehicle/MC units will find a place. A unit full of power/chainfists is going take out a knight in no time at all, never mind other vehicles. Especially if said units get to fire combi-meltas or so first.
Chewing through 24 wounds with invulnerable save is going to take a while at range I think.
mynamelegend wrote: ...Up until today I didn't see anything about 8th edition that made me think it would be unplayable in a tournament without houseruling...
What, "Yes, you may deploy plasma guns within rapid-fire range of whatever you want and get shots off before the other guy has a chance to do anything at all" wasn't enough of a hint?
Because that totally hasn't been a thing since the birth ofthe drop pod....
...Yeah, point. Mishaps and Reserves rolls existed before, but drop pods already pretty much ignored them; the only thing that's really changed is that there's no longer a chance that you won't be in rapid-fire range.
(Half-your-army-on-the-table sort of cancels out half-your-pods-on-turn-one, the turn-one alpha strike is about the same size.)
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Roknar wrote: I expect knights to go down like chumps to dedicated CC units. Depending on how hard it turns out to be to take out vehicles at range, I suspect that dedicated anti-vehicle/MC units will find a place. A unit full of power/chainfists is going take out a knight in no time at all, never mind other vehicles. Especially if said units get to fire combi-meltas or so first.
Chewing through 24 wounds with invulnerable save is going to take a while at range I think.
Godd***it. Now I have to actually build some of those melta-fists my Deathwatch Terminators never took in 7th.
I'm expecting that the wraithknight will be similar to the IK.
Probably, although it might have slightly less wounds (like 20ish) and be cheaper
And they can also use the Super-heavy Detahcment, so yeah, 3-5 WKs with no tax
And their guns will either do d6 Mortal wounds or just be Damage 6.
I'm expecting that the wraithknight will be similar to the IK.
Probably, although it might have slightly less wounds (like 20ish) and be cheaper
And they can also use the Super-heavy Detahcment, so yeah, 3-5 WKs with no tax
And their guns will either do d6 Mortal wounds or just be Damage 6.
-
Since you seem to be so excited about this:
I would love to hear from you why you think this is a good idea.
How is this balanced?
How the is an Imperial Knight as described equal to 4 1/2 five man tactical squads?
Traditio wrote: 8th edition is officially unbalanced and broken.
That IK has a power of 23.
Tactical squads have a power of 5.
That one imperial knight is only worth about 4 1/2 five man tactical squads.
We're looking at an IK in the 300 points range.
I guess I'll just have to add Imperial Knights to the "list of factions I won't be playing against," right along with Eldar and Tau.
I'm expecting that the wraithknight will be similar to the IK.
you, GW.
you.
Nice to see you're still capable of making rational decisions based on knowledge of the rules rather than snap decisions based on a small portion. Never change, man. Never change.
Since a Knight has 24 wounds, I wonder how many wounds a Stompa has?!?
A straight conversion of HP would give it 48 wounds, but that's clearly not how they're doing it, since the Morkanaught was 18 wounds. Still, it's got to be over 30.
I'm expecting that the wraithknight will be similar to the IK.
Probably, although it might have slightly less wounds (like 20ish) and be cheaper
And they can also use the Super-heavy Detahcment, so yeah, 3-5 WKs with no tax
And their guns will either do d6 Mortal wounds or just be Damage 6.
-
Since you seem to be so excited about this:
I would love to hear from you why you think this is a good idea.
How is this balanced?
How the is an Imperial Knight as described equal to 4 1/2 five man tactical squads?
Given that all your upgrades are free if you're using "power level" the Knight isn't 4.5 naked Tactical Squads, he's 4.5 Tactical Squads with lascannons and combi-melta/powerfist sergeants. So he could also be a 550-ish-pt Knight rather than a 300pt Knight.
Also it dies really hard to massed powerfists and you can charge out of Deep Strike now. Heck, if Force Weapon just means "d3-damage-to-anything" like the melee teaser suggested it won't take very many Grey Knights to punch a Knight to death. Hammerhand up and go thwacking.
EnTyme 726 wrote:Nice to see you're still capable of making rational decisions based on knowledge of the rules rather than snap decisions based on a small portion. Never change, man. Never change.
We already know enough to call it.
We know what the power of a tactical squad is.
We know what an individual tactical marine costs, points wise.
We know the weapons profiles of lascannons and krak grenades.
We know the cost of a multimelta.
We already have the damage chart.
We have plenty of information already to know that IKs and wraithknights are going to be game breaking.
Making it equal to 4 1/2 squads of marines is a joke.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
AnomanderRake wrote:Given that all your upgrades are free if you're using "power level" the Knight isn't 4.5 naked Tactical Squads, he's 4.5 Tactical Squads with lascannons and combi-melta/powerfist sergeants. So he could also be a 550-ish-pt Knight rather than a 300pt Knight.
Knowing GW, we can't make that assumption.
Also it dies really hard to massed powerfists
No, it doesn't.
That's just wrong.
Do you know how many power fist strikes it would take to take down an IK as described?
54.
54 power fist strikes to take down a single IK.
And how much do you think a power fist is going to cost?
Hypothetically question for Traditio: what is the tipping point for you if too many armies go on your "list"?
For example, if over half the armies in 8E have something you don't like and go on your "not gonna play" list, wouldn't it just make sense not to play 40K at all?
When winter hits and it snows around here again, I need to remember to open this thread and just dump all the salt in it on my driveway instead of buying it. Thanks for saving me aboit fifty bucks Traditio.
OT my best buddy is just pants off hog wild about this. He loves his knights but never gets to play them. Now that everything effectively has gauss and anti-tank weapons aren't fething around he's looking forward to playing with his house of freeblades and I'm looking forward to dismantlibg them with my boyz.
Should be fun all around, you know, for those of us who don't blow a gasket at th drop of a pin.
Hey Tradito. That knight has 4 attacks. That means it kills 4 marines a turn in close combat, plus maybe d6 from shooting. So that's, let's see... call it seven Marines a turn.
JNAProductions wrote: Hey Tradito. That knight has 4 attacks. That means it kills 4 marines a turn in close combat, plus maybe d6 from shooting. So that's, let's see... call it seven Marines a turn.
Except, we already have the stats for rubric marines and tactical squads.
Everything is not broken. Those things, so far as we can see, are more or less fine.
IKs are broken.
I mean, I would love to hear you try to explain to me why they're not.
But I don't think you can.
I'm still confused as to why you've taken "an Imperial Knight has the same 'power-level' cost as 22.5 Tactical Marines" and chosen to read it as "an Imperial Knight has the same points cost as 22.5 naked Tactical Marines" rather than "an Imperial Knight has the same points cost as 22.5 Tactical Marines with every upgrade they can lay their hands on."
Plus the whole "how many bolters does it take to kill the IK?" thing instead of "how many weapons that are actually effective against vehicles does it take to kill the IK?"
It's funny that they started with in current 40k you needed to be able to deal with that kind of super heavy or not and games were win/loose boring either way. Then they introduced a T8 121 wound list lol.
It's not so bad tho I think it's really there so crazy people can play 5 knights vs 5 riptides or 5 baneblade vs 5 monoliths/stomped whatever. I don't think they expect a full infantry list to try to compete lol
The idea of balancing an all lrbt division vs knights however is interesting. I don't think this is broken and we all knew knight armies would remain viable. Crucify me but I don't think lists of 5 super heavies belong in tournaments :/ then again I don't really care that much about that just Wether it dominates meta
AnomanderRake wrote:I'm still confused as to why you've taken "an Imperial Knight has the same 'power-level' cost as 22.5 Tactical Marines" and chosen to read it as "an Imperial Knight has the same points cost as 22.5 naked Tactical Marines" rather than "an Imperial Knight has the same points cost as 22.5 Tactical Marines with every upgrade they can lay their hands on."
I fully grant that this is a possibility. And I'm certainly hoping that this is what they did.
But I have my doubts.
Even so, this would mean that 1 IK = roughly a little more than 3 fully upgraded T-Sons squads.
Does that sound right to you?
I mean....maybe.
But here's the thing:
The power level for an IK could easily include all possible upgrades that it can get.
So we could easily end up with a "discount" IK when it comes to actual points costs.
Whatever the case, I'm not optimistic.
Yes, it's foreseeable that the IK could end up being more or less balanced in practice.
But I'm not expecting it at all.
All indications so far are reading as a complete balance catastrophe.
Plus the whole "how many bolters does it take to kill the IK?" thing instead of "how many weapons that are actually effective against vehicles does it take to kill the IK?"
How long would it take an imperial knight to chew thru 23 tac marines arranged in 4 groups of 5 and one group of three?
First shot into a group: 3.5 * 2/3 * 5/6 * 1 = 1.94
Second shot into the group (now that it has less than five) 2 * 2/3 * 5/6 * 1 = 1.1
So about three rounds, so we will give the tac squads las cannons, every three rounds you remove one of the five las cannons. Since we did the math on the other page by the time the knight kills his first las cannon, he is below half wounds.
So a knight errant can't beat that many tac marines in shooting competition, and would need to close into CC, but as soon as he starts moving he takes a penalty to his shooting. I'm sure someone will come up with faster ways for him to kill marines, such as adding a carapice mounted missile launcher and split firing, but there is no way he is doing it in less than 5, and i suspect ti will take closer to 7 or 8 and he is getting jacked up along the way.
The problem with traditito and other similar posters is that they haven't internalized the lessons we've seen from 8th ed reveals, first among them is that template weapons were a crutch and no longer are auto win against infantry. It's the same with the imperial guard sky is falling crowd, their crutch is gone, and they haven't quite grasped the concept that in 8th ed quantity has a quality all it's own. They have been working on this for a year and a half, it would be a fairly large act of hubris to assume you instantly spot a mistake they didn't think about in the prior year and a half.
20 lascannons is fragile compared to a stimtide and a stimtide costs a bit more than a fully geared tac squad. These iks are fine. They cost twice as much and have half the durability of stimtide. This math is a giant i told you so for all the tau players. Your big suits are 100% busted in 7th ed.
Yeah, this thing is basically riptide level vs small arms and notable weaker to heavy weapons. Oh, and gets weaker as it takes damage, which downs its firepower later.
The price looks to be in the right ballpark, at least from what we know so far. If anything, I'd say it may not have enough firepower to justify the price, but honestly that depends a lot on whether the new stomp still grants and extra hits and if it doesn't take snap shots for moving, plus the different variations may be better.
more to the point if you're shooting a IK with JUST your tac marines you're doing it wrong. let's look at some of the Marine anti tank in 8th edition shall we?
Centurions: I'm not talking grav centurions because we dunno what they have, we DO however have an anti-tank centurion build whose exact stats we more or less know the Lascanon/Missile launcher build. Each Centurion will put out 2 Lascannon shots and 1 Missile shot. w edunno the exact stats on a missile launcher but certainly have some guesses and are 99% sure a kark missile will deal D6 damage. so each centruion is putting shots onto the IK dealing up to 3d6 damage a turn. that's 9d6 points of damage from a squad of 3. this means a single centurion squad could take down a IK in one turn. yeah you're gonna have to get lucky, but thats STILL a lot of firepower. (someone whose good at math hammer capable of giving a avaerage damage number assuming damage equal to a kark grenade?)
"but I don't like centurions! they're new and units newer then 4th edition upset me!" you might cry? well ok, you have two choices, a devestator squad with lascannons, or a Laspredator. Las Preds are gonna now have 4 lascanon shots a turn. assuming the price didn't change 140 points for a las pred will be a good deal in 8th. Marines in 8th edition are NOT gonna be short of ways to handle armor. between dedicated anti-tank, that looks pretty good, and the fact that every tac squad can run around shooting their heavy weapon at something...
If the LOW detachment pans out that way, it would be nice to take a pure armour, multiple baneblade army for a change.
Maybe the Stormlord will be worth the investment now, since it'll probably be wounding everything in the game on 5's minimum.
To the topic at hand; the absence of knight stat boost formations will be a big deal; they'll just rock around killing stuff at -1 BS and probably get crippled by the first drop pod of meltas that shows up.
With defender picking casualties ill bet we'll see maxed dev squads as well, since the scrubs will always be eating the incoming fire.
4 Tac Marine squads, that's 8 Meltaguns, 4 Power fists, and that's assuming we can't take Heavy Weaps in 5 man squads too.
IKs seem underpowered.
He's an angry Marine player who thinks that any time people who aren't Tactical Marines get anything cool they're pooing on Tactical Marines.
(He hasn't noticed that GW's on a full-on size creep bender. Humans haven't been cool enough for a long time (see: WHFB and the "nope, nothing even remotely normal looking, only giant gold people, naked dwarves, and wacky tree things"-fest that is AoS), and we've gotten to the point where Space Marines just aren't special enough anymore in 40k and things have to become BIGGER!)
I have never had a problem fighting a Full Knight force even in 7th. With my Taus or my Dark Angels I just played the objetives and normally win.
That said, when one of my friends bring his full Knight Army, we normally are playing some kind of Apocalypse kind of Scenario. But we had played normal play some times to try it. It wasn't specially fun, but I have never encounter Imperial Knights specially OP. i assume that armies without the capacity to bring reliable heavy weapons to the table can have a problem (Orks and Tyranids maybe?)
Plus, in one of the Q&A GW already said that the "power levels" have been given to units assuming that they take all of the possible upgrades in relation to weapons, etc... so a 5 Power Level TAC-Squad should be with full heavy weapons into account. But, again... if you are using power levels... really you should be upsted for a Imperial Knight army? Is a totally different kind of game, you can't go there with matched play mindset.
as someone who plays Marines, I can't see why anyone would be upset with the changes, now obviously the devil will be in the details, and with points costing (if the wraith knight had cost 700 points no one would be calling it OP after all) but with the info we have now, Marines are gonna be in a better place then they've been in ages
This whole discussion also seems to sidestep the value that command points have. Sure you may get 3 knights, but you only end up with 3 command points. For a similar number of points y
a more balanced army can likely bring way more command points to the table.
Darkagl1 wrote: This whole discussion also seems to sidestep the value that command points have. Sure you may get 3 knights, but you only end up with 3 command points. For a similar number of points y
a more balanced army can likely bring way more command points to the table.
yeah, thats important to note too. and command points could be REALLY important. remember we've only seen the generic ones tht are almost certainly the weakest (because GW is gonna wanna enchourage running pureer armies instead of running a "well I take my marines, with a lemen russ with a..." approuch)
I'm still curious what all massive amount of upgrades he's worried about a 23 power level knight taking. A single carapace weapon option is that terrifying compared to the ridiculous amount of things a tactical squad can take now? Who knew...
Or maybe he's worried about the option to replace a chainsword with a gauntlet. Oh and all of the..wait..no..no that was it. That was all they've ever had unless you take a full detachment of knights. And then you get the oh so scary multitude of options known as a single artifact.
mmzero252 wrote: I'm still curious what all massive amount of upgrades he's worried about a 23 power level knight taking. A single carapace weapon option is that terrifying compared to the ridiculous amount of things a tactical squad can take now? Who knew...
Or maybe he's worried about the option to replace a chainsword with a gauntlet. Oh and all of the..wait..no..no that was it. That was all they've ever had unless you take a full detachment of knights. And then you get the oh so scary multitude of options known as a single artifact.
Maybe the IK will be a single profile with all the weapon options built in (Instead of having 5 different pages for what amounts to a weapon swap)
Either way that basic weapons can hurt it does change a lot. (Sure you're not likely to kill one with bolters alone, but it beats every soldier on the battlefield being nothing but ablative wounds for the weapons that can)
I think it might also be more informative to compare the IK to another vehicle.
An IK's statline basically makes it two LRBTs with a 5++, but better in melee.
I'd say around 400 points ish would probably cover it. 300 for the two LRBTs, around 100 for the invuln save and melee toys.
If we then proceed to apply that comparison to the detachment, 5 IKs would basically be 10LRBTs, something that a parking lot list can feasibly achieve.
With the range of vehicles we've seen so far, the IK doesn't seem to be too far off the curve of other vehicles. At least for a superheavy.
Jbz` wrote:Either way that basic weapons can hurt it does change a lot. (Sure you're not likely to kill one with bolters alone, but it beats every soldier on the battlefield being nothing but ablative wounds for the weapons that can)
No, it doesn't. Only someone who cannot grasp even basic math would sincerely believe this.
Yes, technically, a 1/27 chance of stripping a wound, or needing 648 boltgun shots, on average, to take down an IK is technically better than literal impossibility.
But that's doesn't "change a lot." The same practical result follows: shooting an IK with small arms remains utterly pointless.
Not entirely pointless, if a Knight happens to only have 1 or 2 wounds left, I would totally FRFSRF a few dozen lasguns at it just so that my AT weapons can focus on something that has more HP left for their d6 damage rolls.
And then I will have killed a Knight* with the Lasgun, King of Weapons.
*After thoroughly tenderizing it with actual AT weapons.
ross-128 wrote: I think it might also be more informative to compare the IK to another vehicle.
An IK's statline basically makes it two LRBTs with a 5++, but better in melee.
I'd say around 400 points ish would probably cover it. 300 for the two LRBTs, around 100 for the invuln save and melee toys.
If we then proceed to apply that comparison to the detachment, 5 IKs would basically be 10LRBTs, something that a parking lot list can feasibly achieve.
With the range of vehicles we've seen so far, the IK doesn't seem to be too far off the curve of other vehicles. At least for a superheavy.
If you just go by this sort of thinking, then a knight is suddenly way easier to deal with. Space marines have dreads. Why would you pit a squad of tac marines against it instead of the now extremely usable dreads? Marines also get to use a lot of different uh..tank transport things with guns. Both options much stronger than a tac squad and are things every army has some sort of access to.
Or let's just continue being silly and put 100 grots against that "300 point knight". Seriously, just use a few special weapon squads or vehicles meant to fight stronger things.
Jbz` wrote:Either way that basic weapons can hurt it does change a lot. (Sure you're not likely to kill one with bolters alone, but it beats every soldier on the battlefield being nothing but ablative wounds for the weapons that can)
No, it doesn't. Only someone who can't do fairly basic math would make this claim.
Yes, technically, a 1/27 chance of stripping a wound, or needing 648 boltgun shots, on average, to take down an IK is technically better than literal impossibility.
But that's doesn't "change a lot." The same practical result follows: shooting an IK with small arms remains utterly pointless.
People say the same thing about MC in current 40K.
I have lost loads of them (and killed loads of them) with small arms alone.
I've seen Riptides run over by tactical squads.
I've seen Daemon princes get butchered by Space marine sergeants.
I shot a Bloodthirster out of the sky with cultists.
Jbz` wrote:People say the same thing about MC in current 40K.
I have lost loads of them (and killed loads of them) with small arms alone.
I've seen Riptides run over by tactical squads.
I've seen Daemon princes get butchered by Space marine sergeants.
I shot a Bloodthirster out of the sky with cultists.
Those are statistical abnormalities. They aren't worth serious consideration because of how utterly unlikely they are to happen.
ross-128 wrote: I think it might also be more informative to compare the IK to another vehicle.
An IK's statline basically makes it two LRBTs with a 5++, but better in melee.
I'd say around 400 points ish would probably cover it. 300 for the two LRBTs, around 100 for the invuln save and melee toys.
If we then proceed to apply that comparison to the detachment, 5 IKs would basically be 10LRBTs, something that a parking lot list can feasibly achieve.
With the range of vehicles we've seen so far, the IK doesn't seem to be too far off the curve of other vehicles. At least for a superheavy.
If you just go by this sort of thinking, then a knight is suddenly way easier to deal with. Space marines have dreads. Why would you pit a squad of tac marines against it instead of the now extremely usable dreads? Marines also get to use a lot of different uh..tank transport things with guns. Both options much stronger than a tac squad and are things every army has some sort of access to.
Or let's just continue being silly and put 100 grots against that "300 point knight". Seriously, just use a few special weapon squads or vehicles meant to fight stronger things.
Yep, in terms of wounds a Knight is worth about 3-ish Dreadnaughts. But it does have a higher toughness and an invuln, so I'd round it up to about the durability of 4 Dreadnaughts.
4 Dreadnoughts isn't too hard for a well-balanced list to deal with.
Traditio wrote: No, it doesn't. Only someone who cannot grasp even basic math would sincerely believe this.
Yes, technically, a 1/27 chance of stripping a wound, or needing 648 boltgun shots, on average, to take down an IK is technically better than literal impossibility.
But that's doesn't "change a lot." The same practical result follows: shooting an IK with small arms remains utterly pointless.
If it's one wound away form dieing or hitting threshold, I rather imagine you will start directing boltgun fire at it. Or if it advance towards them, they will likely chip off a wound, given a 10 man squad rapid firing is statistically likely to peel a wound off.
ross-128 wrote: I think it might also be more informative to compare the IK to another vehicle.
An IK's statline basically makes it two LRBTs with a 5++, but better in melee.
I'd say around 400 points ish would probably cover it. 300 for the two LRBTs, around 100 for the invuln save and melee toys.
If we then proceed to apply that comparison to the detachment, 5 IKs would basically be 10LRBTs, something that a parking lot list can feasibly achieve.
With the range of vehicles we've seen so far, the IK doesn't seem to be too far off the curve of other vehicles. At least for a superheavy.
If you just go by this sort of thinking, then a knight is suddenly way easier to deal with. Space marines have dreads. Why would you pit a squad of tac marines against it instead of the now extremely usable dreads? Marines also get to use a lot of different uh..tank transport things with guns. Both options much stronger than a tac squad and are things every army has some sort of access to.
Or let's just continue being silly and put 100 grots against that "300 point knight". Seriously, just use a few special weapon squads or vehicles meant to fight stronger things.
Yep, in terms of wounds a Knight is worth about 3-ish Dreadnaughts. But it does have a higher toughness and an invuln, so I'd round it up to about the durability of 4 Dreadnaughts.
4 Dreadnoughts isn't too hard for a well-balanced list to deal with.
And quite honestly that's saying you ONLY brought four dreads. Having two or so sounds about normal. But then that paired with all the rest of your guys more than makes up for not having a finely tailored list to kill heavy armor.
But seriously, nobody should be worried about a knight or two. If your opponent brings five of them just refuse the game. I have knights and I've never actually thought it would make for a fun game to bring three let alone five. If your opponent just wants to win at all costs, tell them you'd rather skip the drama and say they've won that one, good job.
Jbz` wrote:Either way that basic weapons can hurt it does change a lot. (Sure you're not likely to kill one with bolters alone, but it beats every soldier on the battlefield being nothing but ablative wounds for the weapons that can)
No, it doesn't. Only someone who cannot grasp even basic math would sincerely believe this.
Yes, technically, a 1/27 chance of stripping a wound, or needing 648 boltgun shots, on average, to take down an IK is technically better than literal impossibility.
But that's doesn't "change a lot." The same practical result follows: shooting an IK with small arms remains utterly pointless.
Its almost like you people cant grasp the concept of an army having more than one gun at a time.
Its not that you need 648 boltgun shots to kill a knight, because that's not what you DO in game.
Its that your 50-odd boltgun shots, who were totally worhtless before, now actually contribute to the task done MOSTLY by your anti-tank guns/swords, by chipping away a few extra wounds.
Anyone who ever played more than two games of 40k with MCs around, should be well aware of cases when a big nasty thing is down to it's last wound or two, and is taken down by a hail-merry attempt with guns not intended to kill that monster, because you are NOT trying to kill a monster with said guns, you are trying to finish it off.
Same logic applies here, but on an even wider scale.
Your anti-tank guns your two squads that are facing the knight did 11 wounds this round-ok. now lets throw the bolters in.
Yea, I don't expect the 20 or so bolter shots thrown around to KILL the knight, but maybe I manage to shave a wound, and take it down to the next phase, making him kill less of my guys next turn.
Anyone failing to see that, has nothing to look for in wargaming in general.
If the fact that "small chance to do some damage" is indistinguishable to you from "can't do anything at all", you are hopeless.
Jbz` wrote:Either way that basic weapons can hurt it does change a lot. (Sure you're not likely to kill one with bolters alone, but it beats every soldier on the battlefield being nothing but ablative wounds for the weapons that can)
No, it doesn't. Only someone who cannot grasp even basic math would sincerely believe this.
Yes, technically, a 1/27 chance of stripping a wound, or needing 648 boltgun shots, on average, to take down an IK is technically better than literal impossibility.
But that's doesn't "change a lot." The same practical result follows: shooting an IK with small arms remains utterly pointless.
Its almost like you people cant grasp the concept of an army having more than one gun at a time.
Its not that you need 648 boltgun shots to kill a knight, because that's not what you DO in game.
Its that your 50-odd boltgun shots, who were totally worhtless before, now actually contribute to the task done MOSTLY by your anti-tank guns/swords, by chipping away a few extra wounds.
Anyone who ever played more than two games of 40k with MCs around, should be well aware of cases when a big nasty thing is down to it's last wound or two, and is taken down by a hail-merry attempt with guns not intended to kill that monster, because you are NOT trying to kill a monster with said guns, you are trying to finish it off.
Same logic applies here, but on an even wider scale.
Your anti-tank guns your two squads that are facing the knight did 11 wounds this round-ok. now lets throw the bolters in.
Yea, I don't expect the 20 or so bolter shots thrown around to KILL the knight, but maybe I manage to shave a wound, and take it down to the next phase, making him kill less of my guys next turn.
Anyone failing to see that, has nothing to look for in wargaming in general.
If the fact that "small chance to do some damage" is indistinguishable to you from "can't do anything at all", you are hopeless.
I can attest to this: had a cultist unit that took down a flying Hive Tyrant with 2 wounds left, needed 6s to hit and 6s to wound and I managed to take off 1 wound leading it to failing it's grounding test and dying from a sudden drop. That gave me a kill point and slay the warlord causing me to win the game. It's unlikely but small arms fire taking down big monsters does happen.
Jbz` wrote:Either way that basic weapons can hurt it does change a lot. (Sure you're not likely to kill one with bolters alone, but it beats every soldier on the battlefield being nothing but ablative wounds for the weapons that can)
No, it doesn't. Only someone who cannot grasp even basic math would sincerely believe this.
Yes, technically, a 1/27 chance of stripping a wound, or needing 648 boltgun shots, on average, to take down an IK is technically better than literal impossibility.
But that's doesn't "change a lot." The same practical result follows: shooting an IK with small arms remains utterly pointless.
Also it dies really hard to massed powerfists and you can charge out of Deep Strike now. Heck, if Force Weapon just means "d3-damage-to-anything" like the melee teaser suggested it won't take very many Grey Knights to punch a Knight to death. Hammerhand up and go thwacking.
BTW, this is not suggested, this is confiermed.
We got the rubric's dataslate already, the sorcerer has force weapons.
Force weapons are power weapons that do d3 damage. no more fiddling with casting force to ID.
Been there done that. I had a lone Berzerker after a tough fight on top of a building. He wasn't going to contribute anything to the game anymore as this was before objectives and it would have taken him too long to get down from there again. And so, bored as he was, he figured that avatar of khaine down there gave him a funny look. One shot in the dark and a Wilhelm scream later, a new champion of khorne was born.
Also seen a unit of gretchin take out a unit of space wolf terminators. We just called the game quits after that. Ain't no way that game was gonna get any better after that lol.
I've also lost a Khorne lord to single overwatch rokkit in an attempt to forge the narrative and lead from the front and as if that wasn't enough, that made me fail the charge.
Oh and I lost a full prince to shoota boyz overwatch.
So in summary, those IK's have nothing to fear from small arms fire...nothing at all...*cough*
Roknar wrote: Been there done that. I had a lone Berzerker after a tough fight on top of a building. He wasn't going to contribute anything to the game anymore as this was before objectives and it would have taken him too long to get down from there again. And so, bored as he was, he figured that avatar of khaine down there gave him a funny look. One shot in the dark and a Wilhelm scream later, a new champion of khorne was born.
Also seen a unit of gretchin take out a unit of space wolf terminators. We just called the game quits after that. Ain't no way that game was gonna get any better after that lol.
I've also lost a Khorne lord to single overwatch rokkit in an attempt to forge the narrative and lead from the front and as if that wasn't enough, that made me fail the charge.
Oh and I lost a full prince to shoota boyz overwatch.
So in summary, those IK's have nothing to fear from small arms fire...nothing at all...*cough*
Oh yea, glory to khorne.
Even the riptide is not spared from his glory.
As in, earning it. (one random sucsessful smash attack+3 failed necron LD checks, +3 successful sweeping advances=1 turn getting assaulted by 3 units means 450ish points of necron dies to a last-wound riptide. we couldn't keep the game going because every time we tried we burst out laughing.)
EnTyme 726 wrote:Nice to see you're still capable of making rational decisions based on knowledge of the rules rather than snap decisions based on a small portion. Never change, man. Never change.
We already know enough to call it.
We know what the power of a tactical squad is.
We know what an individual tactical marine costs, points wise.
We know the weapons profiles of lascannons and krak grenades.
We know the cost of a multimelta.
We already have the damage chart.
We have plenty of information already to know that IKs and wraithknights are going to be game breaking.
Making it equal to 4 1/2 squads of marines is a joke.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
AnomanderRake wrote:Given that all your upgrades are free if you're using "power level" the Knight isn't 4.5 naked Tactical Squads, he's 4.5 Tactical Squads with lascannons and combi-melta/powerfist sergeants. So he could also be a 550-ish-pt Knight rather than a 300pt Knight.
Knowing GW, we can't make that assumption.
Also it dies really hard to massed powerfists
No, it doesn't.
That's just wrong.
Do you know how many power fist strikes it would take to take down an IK as described?
54.
54 power fist strikes to take down a single IK.
And how much do you think a power fist is going to cost?
We know what a multimelta costs.
What you aren't paying attention to is that that tactical squad in regards to power level also has a meltagun or lascannon, and a power fist.
So yes, it is worth a little over 4 of those units if you max them out meaning that an imperial knight (with current point levels is significantly higher than what you think in point levels. (Probably 400+)
I will admit that I failed to take into account that the power levels probably take into account maximum upgrades.
I somewhat overreacted to the article.
And it's certainly still possible (though still, I think, unlikely) that we won't end up with something that isn't a heaping pile of imbalanced garbage.
Automatically Appended Next Post: If we take upgrades into account, that IK could easily end up costing anywhere from 500-600 points.
So, let's assume Lascannons are 25 points a pop, since I believe the article mentioned Mult-Meltas are the most expensive.
Two five man Dev teams with four Lascannons each should be able to take down a Knight in three turns, while costing just over 300 points themselves.
Turn 1-eight shots, two lascannons die.
Turn 2-six shots (fourteen total), two more lascannons die DESPITE the knight being down a peg.
Turn 3-four shots (eighteen total) and oop, Knight's dead.
We can't make that assumption. We have literally no clue what they are going to cost.
since I believe the article mentioned Mult-Meltas are the most expensive.
Citation?
Because I read that article, and I'm pretty sure it said nothing of the sort.
Two five man Dev teams with four Lascannons each should be able to take down a Knight in three turns, while costing just over 300 points themselves.
Turn 1-eight shots, two lascannons die.
Turn 2-six shots (fourteen total), two more lascannons die DESPITE the knight being down a peg.
Turn 3-four shots (eighteen total) and oop, Knight's dead.
Three problems:
1. I think that you are low-balling the probable losses to the devastator squads.
A. First, you're assuming that the lascannons are firing first. This cannot be assumed.
B. You're not taking charges into account.
C. You're ignoring the context of the entire army. If I have two lascannon devastator squads, and they're the biggest threat to your Imp Knight, you're not going to focus them down until they're not a threat? How many turns will it take you to do that, assuming an average 1850 game?
Virtually everything in your army will be able to hurt my devastators. But for all intents and purposes, only those devastators can hurt your Imp Knight.
D. You're not taking terrain into account.
2. You're high balling the impact of the lascannons.
I did the math.
It would take roughly 23 lascannon shots, on average, to take down an Imp Knight. Not 18.
See math below:
2/3 (to hit) X 2/3 (to wound) X 2/3 (bypassing the invuln) X 7/2 (average damage) X 1/24 (number of wounds) = 56/1296 = 28/648 = 14/324 = 7/162
Admittedly, the number does fall if we take the signum into account. But A. we can't assume that the signum will still work that way and B. even then, it would only affect 1 shot out of every 4 (prior to taking damage), and even then, not by that much.
And you know what? Even if ALL of the devastators were firing at BS 5, that Imp Knight still isn't going down in 18 shots. See math below:
5/6 X 2/3 X 2/3 X 7/2 X 1/24 = 140/2592 = 70/1296 = 35/648
That's about 18 1/2 shots, not 18.
3. So great. I have 2 devastator squads of nothing but lascannons. Worthless against fliers (if fliers still have the hard to hit rule). Almost worthless against horde armies.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Also:
4. You're not taking into account spam.
If I have a "generalist" list and you have 3 Imp Knights (as per the detachment), then sure, I might eventually be able to take down a knight.
"For example, a Tactical Marine Squad of five models is Power Level 5, but in a matched play game, each of those Tactical Marines would cost 13 points each, with upgrades ranging from a grav-pistol for the Sergeant at 7 pts, all the way up to multi-meltas at 27 pts."
That does imply that a grav-pistol is the cheapest and a multi-melta is the most expensive.
What we can infer from this is that no heavy weapon is more expensive than a multi-melta, not, at least, as an upgrade for a tactical marine squad.
could be, keep in mind if storm bolters are buffered to beon par with twin linked bolt guns, you could be looking at assault 4 24 inch range. which is pretty good.
it's also possiable that the stormbolter is simply a rename of the twin linked bolt gun now.
When I saw the Faction Focus about them, I was a little worried as a Guard player... until I looked at my army. 24 Missile Launchers, 14 Plasma Guns, 8 Plasma Pistols, 20 Rough Riders and 2 triple Plasma Leman Russ Executioners... I think I will be alright.
Well, let's speculate for example that Knights are around 400 points.
So in an 1850 point game, they can bring 4 knights at most and have 250 points left over. Presumably they'd spend it on other things like some kind of support, but that opens up so much complication that I'll set it aside for now.
For 1600 points they've only managed to get themselves a total of 96 wounds, all at T8 with a 3+/5++.
Let's say I bring a well-rounded Imperial Guard army with a squadron of Vendettas for air support. Three Vendettas cost 510 points, so I have 1340 points left to spend on the rest of my army.
Obviously I'll need a CCS for my HQ, that's 60 points.
I think I'll take a couple of platoons. 60 more points for two PCS squads.
100 Infantry in those two platoons for 500 points.
100 Conscripts between the two platoons for 300 more points.
I'll take 4 Commissars for 100 to manage Battleshock.
Toss in a Primaris psyker for 50, he should be fairly safe thanks to the new Independent Character rules.
Upgrade the infantry squads with 5 lascannons for 100 and 5 autocannons for 50.
I'll have 20 points left over that I'd probably find a use for, probably a regimental standard or something like that, but I think this will be good enough for now.
So, I've got 220 wounds on the ground, plus however many the Vendettas end up getting. Most of these guys are probably going to be getting cover saves of some sort, even if otherwise they're not exactly durable, and all of them are basically immune to Battleshock.
On the offensive side, I've got 170 lasguns (70 infantry and 100 conscripts, due to heavy weapons and sergeants) that can all FRFSRF and about 12 lasguns that can't (because all the orders are getting used up on the blobs). I also have 23 lascannons, 5 on the ground and 18 in the Vendettas, and 5 autocannons. I've also got a Psyker who can either put a Rending-style debuff on my target or give me re-rolls to hit. Rending will probably be useful since I'll need 6 to wound on a lot of stuff anyway.
I'm going to assume they're outside of rapid-fire range just because getting all 200+ dudes within 12" is a bit optimistic. A round of average shooting looks something like this.
152 BS3 S3 Rending: 76 hit, 13 wound, 4 save, 9 wounds.
200 BS2 S3 Rending: 67 hit, 11 wound, 4 save, 7 wounds
23 BS3 S9 AP-3: 12 hit, 8 wound, 3 save, 15 wounds (rending is left off because it won't matter on Ap-3)
10 BS3 S7 AP-1: 5 hit, 2 wound, 1 save, 1 wound (rending left off because the above shooting was enough to kill the original target)
Result: one dead Knight from a single round of shooting, and a second Knight missing 8 wounds. It's 3 wounds shy of degrading the second knight's profile, but hey, the quadra-knight player is now starting the game down one Knight. He's now effectively fighting an 1850 point list with 1200 points, and has to come to grips with the fact that I can drop a Knight (and some change) every turn.
Granted, things will get messier on turn 2 when he gets in range for assaults. But with one Knight down, and likely the Conscripts up in front, if he goes into CC he can only kill up to 14 Conscripts (damage doesn't transfer, remember, so 12 attacks and 2 from the Commissars) which will then fall back and let the Vendettas blast him. The Vendettas are the largest single source of damage to be sure, but the combined might of the blobs is not something he can just ignore, especially with that Psyker support. Since the Conscripts are planning to be meatshields anyway they might even actually try to open up in Rapid Fire range, in which case they'd fire 400 shots on their opening volley before sacrificing themselves for the Emperor.
Of course, I will also grant that this is just Mathhammer using 7th ed points.
I'm actually very interested about FW Knights and what rules will they have. Especially about Knight Castigator - if the sword gets to do 6 damage OR hit everything in base to base, it's going to be an auto include.
CragHack wrote: I'm actually very interested about FW Knights and what rules will they have. Especially about Knight Castigator - if the sword gets to do 6 damage OR hit everything in base to base, it's going to be an auto include.
I think they just made D weapons into the 6 damage weapons. A castigator was only strength 10 with his blade and it's supposed to be some crazy fire that strikes afterwards. Perhaps d6 per hit? or 2 damage a piece but afterwards the unit is hit for d3 per unsaved wound. It would make it a bit similar to how it is now vs how D strength changed.
Only Traditio would go on a rant about Knights being completely OP because they can't be killed by a unit aimed at killing infantry .
Looking at it Knights will probably be slightly worse in 8th than in 7th just by the fact that they degrade overtime, can be damaged more effectively by more things and are only slightly more (if at all) defensive against their current biggest non-D killers. And it's not like Knights were OP Gouda in 7th either.
They're also probably going to be less of a screw list, which is nice. Them being so scewy was the main reason (besides money) I hadn't already started/bought myself a Household.
JNAProductions wrote: Hey Tradito. That knight has 4 attacks. That means it kills 4 marines a turn in close combat, plus maybe d6 from shooting. So that's, let's see... call it seven Marines a turn.
You forgot gatling cannon, possibly 2 since it was allowed in 7ed, heavy stubber/breast-melta and humpback missile-launcher.
Please remember power levels are not points. They are so you can have a balanced-ish game while not taking hours writing lists, adding upgrades and all that. Remember an IK power level 23 is just chainsaw and fist. This means that power level 23 is for just that. POWER LEVELS ARE NOT POINTS. They are a representation of 'power' in a unit. Get angry all you want if points are broken for some things, while not for others. This is not competitive we are talking about here, it's what's been shown to us in these sneak peaks and using that to sum up the IK
fwlr wrote: Please remember power levels are not points. They are so you can have a balanced-ish game while not taking hours writing lists, adding upgrades and all that. Remember an IK power level 23 is just chainsaw and fist. This means that power level 23 is for just that. POWER LEVELS ARE NOT POINTS. They are a representation of 'power' in a unit. Get angry all you want if points are broken for some things, while not for others. This is not competitive we are talking about here, it's what's been shown to us in these sneak peaks and using that to sum up the IK
The problem is not their points.
I believe their point cost may be pretty accurate for their power. The thing that upset the people is that full super-heavy army is still exist in new edition.
While I'd still prefer super heavies banished to the larger scale of apocalypse I think the profile looks promising and suitably tough for such a large centerpiece model.
Do we have any stat on melta weapons yet? Maybe those will offer a suitable answer to high wound count models. They need to offer something to compete with lascannons and maintain their role as anti armor, maybe that's the ability to inflict a larger number of wounds per shot.
Sleep Spell wrote: While I'd still prefer super heavies banished to the larger scale of apocalypse I think the profile looks promising and suitably tough for such a large centerpiece model.
Do we have any stat on melta weapons yet? Maybe those will offer a suitable answer to high wound count models. They need to offer something to compete with lascannons and maintain their role as anti armor, maybe that's the ability to inflict a larger number of wounds per shot.
12" Assault 1 S8 Ap-4 d6 when in half range, roll 2 dice for damage and discared the lowest. (This is the combi-melta though, reg meltas may be different)(Also combi-meltas can fire twice now)
Matt.Kingsley wrote: Only Traditio would go on a rant about Knights being completely OP because they can't be killed by a unit aimed at killing infantry .
Looking at it Knights will probably be slightly worse in 8th than in 7th just by the fact that they degrade overtime, can be damaged more effectively by more things and are only slightly more (if at all) defensive against their current biggest non-D killers. And it's not like Knights were OP Gouda in 7th either.
They're also probably going to be less of a screw list, which is nice. Them being so scewy was the main reason (besides money) I hadn't already started/bought myself a Household.
I think the goal is to decrease the knights ceiling and raise their floor. I mean that kinda the vehicle theme. So knights are gonna get some hilarious bad luck that one shots them, but they'll wear down and degrade which is exactly what should happen. I mentioned it earlier but people seem to keep ignoring it. The 5 super heavy list will have 3 command points. The other lists will have way more. Even if we only use our command points to reroll low damage rolls, you can see a pretty significant speedup to knight killing.
fwlr wrote: Please remember power levels are not points. They are so you can have a balanced-ish game while not taking hours writing lists, adding upgrades and all that. Remember an IK power level 23 is just chainsaw and fist. This means that power level 23 is for just that. POWER LEVELS ARE NOT POINTS. They are a representation of 'power' in a unit. Get angry all you want if points are broken for some things, while not for others. This is not competitive we are talking about here, it's what's been shown to us in these sneak peaks and using that to sum up the IK
The problem is not their points.
I believe their point cost may be pretty accurate for their power. The thing that upset the people is that full super-heavy army is still exist in new edition.
It was never not going to exist. Knights are a faction and they said you front they aren't killing factions. The real thing is, are knights unlikable by a take all comers list? I think we have two things to consider here. First any weapon can hurt anything, while yes bolters and Lasguns will be pretty abysmal at stripping wounds they'll at least do some work if not much. Second the command point disadvantage the 3-5 super heavy list puts you at. For that cost a more traditional army will likely have significantly more command points with which to affect the game. Even discounting faction specific strategems the reroll can speed up knight killing tremendously, by refilling damage rolls.
One thing I wanna point out as a really good change is that the knight's toughness against small arms comes from lots wounds, rather than an absurdly low chance to wound, like our old friend simpack riptide or some FMC. Which means, while the generally effectiveness might be close to the same, the small arms will likely feel like they are doing more since you are getting a better wound to wiff ratio.
BunkhouseBuster wrote: Power Level 23, eh? Interesting. Not quite triple the power of a Rubric Marine Squad. Color me interested in seeing the Power Levels of other units to get a frame of reference!
It's actually almost four times a "base" squad of 5 rubrics. The sorcerer alon is 2 powerlevel.
Sleep Spell wrote: While I'd still prefer super heavies banished to the larger scale of apocalypse I think the profile looks promising and suitably tough for such a large centerpiece model.
Do we have any stat on melta weapons yet? Maybe those will offer a suitable answer to high wound count models. They need to offer something to compete with lascannons and maintain their role as anti armor, maybe that's the ability to inflict a larger number of wounds per shot.
12" Assault 1 S8 Ap-4 d6 when in half range, roll 2 dice for damage and discared the lowest. (This is the combi-melta though, reg meltas may be different)(Also combi-meltas can fire twice now)
Thanks, thats definitely an interesting stat line and might help convince people to spend some points on bubble wrapping those IK
mynamelegend wrote: Great, I'm so glad that armies that exist only to pose binary "did you bring *This* much anti-tank?" win/lose list-building questions stayed in the game. That was my favorite part of 7th edition.
I'm so happy that GW expects players to not realize that they'll need to fire 648 boltgun shots at one of these to take it down, and so their "everything can hurt everything!" spiel is nothing short of disingenuous. Your entire army's combined anti-infantry firepower for several games put together will not be enough to take down one IK, let alone its four buddies.
Allowing armies of nothing but Imperial Knights was probably the single biggest mistake Games Workshop has done in balancing 40k.
And yeah, I'm counting all those other mistakes they made. All of them.
Up until today I didn't see anything about 8th edition that made me think it would be unplayable in a tournament without houseruling. And now I got a taste of it.
Omg! The cost for meltaguns and lascannons and meltabombs and haywire grenades will be relatively cheap in 8th. Who in their right minds builds armies with no anti tank weaponry?
Are the above statistics accounting for removing d3 & d6 wounds?
IKs are not the biggest mistakes. Wraith Knights being undercosted was a mistake. Scat bike spam was a mistake.
Automatically Appended Next Post: If Giant Spawns are a LoW and cost 80pts and this detachment lets me take 3-5 with no taxes then I will do it!
Hopefully they write rules and cost for forgeworld Imperial Armor books.
Knights are definitely the worst designed army in the game, even fluff-wise (and that's in spite of the existence of Chaos Marines), but who here seriously expected them to be removed?
While you can take an all-knight army, I don't think that's going to be a good idea in 8th.
The their toughness, saves, and multi-wound weapons make them strong in vehicle vs vehicle fights, but the loss of templates and the fact that multi-wound hits don't transfer between models makes them weak against massed infantry from horde armies like IG, Orks, or 'Nids. Armies like that can wrap the AT weapons they need in hundreds of wounds, and it will be very difficult for four knights to crank out 200+ potential wounds, much less unsaved wounds, over the course of 5 turns. And when IG can potentially crank out over 600 lasgun shots per turn, even wounding on 6 their contribution will be non-trivial.
Additionally, we have to take objectives into account. Having only four models means you can only hold four objectives at the most, out of a typical six. And every model you lose is one less objective you can hold. Lose just two models, and an opponent with a standard army can easily win by playing the objectives.
Knights are definitely going to need support from other units that can chew up hordes for them, remove the horde army's anti-battleshock models,and protect them from getting hard-countered by concentrated fire. A well-supported knight or two can potentially be very strong, but running all-knights is likely to be an overly-specialized gimmick.
Knights will likely be strong against elite infantry like Space Marines though, because Space Marines are paying a minimum of 13pts/wound it's more difficult for them to go for a wound-saturation strategy, and a boltgun has no advantage over a lasgun when shooting at T8. Knights will likely be particularly strong against Necrons as well due to the Necrons' low model count, and how little difference there is between a Necron and a Guardsman from the Knight's perspective.
Matt.Kingsley wrote: Only Traditio would go on a rant about Knights being completely OP because they can't be killed by a unit aimed at killing infantry .
Well to be fair, Tradito's marines DO have a Missile Launcher
Melissia wrote: Knights are definitely the worst designed army in the game, even fluff-wise (and that's in spite of the existence of Chaos Marines)
Why, why and why? (Genuinnly interested)
Well, you take an army. You make it to be entirely composed of Super Heavies. You make sure that said Super Heavies are some of the best in the game.
Congratulations, you now have an army that is immune to 80% of its opponents models, has insane manoeuvrability, has more firepower than some gunline armies, can take and hold objectives like no tomorrow, is rapetastic in close combat, just about ignores the vehicle damage chart and basically requires your opponent to minmax everything towards AT to stand a chance against you.
Is it any wonder many people at complaining Knight players?
master of ordinance wrote: Well, you take an army. You make it to be entirely composed of Super Heavies. You make sure that said Super Heavies are some of the best in the game.
Congratulations, you now have an army that is immune to 80% of its opponents models, has insane manoeuvrability, has more firepower than some gunline armies, can take and hold objectives like no tomorrow, is rapetastic in close combat, just about ignores the vehicle damage chart and basically requires your opponent to minmax everything towards AT to stand a chance against you.
Is it any wonder many people at complaining Knight players?
Perhaps, yet I have known a couple of Knight players in my time: they don't win tournies, in competitive games (against good players) they don't do brilliantly and, although people will grown when they play them, people don't complain (not when on the table next to them someone is running a min-maxxed Tau-Dar list). I'll admit it's a very simple army that doesn't require a lot of thought to put together but I would say that there are worse designed armies that didn't take into account min-maxxing, with knights you are very durable, mobile and put out decent damage but you also have a low model count and are devistated by drop pod assault, Eldar, Tau, etc.
I'm not excusing the fact they are OP, just saying they aren't the worst offenders.
And what about their fluff (and more importantly CSM!)?
Additionally, we have to take objectives into account. Having only four models means you can only hold four objectives at the most, out of a typical six. And every model you lose is one less objective you can hold. Lose just two models, and an opponent with a standard army can easily win by playing the objectives.
Thats assuming though 8th uses objectives.
Im hoping they think outside the box and do some asymmetrical mission types ala 2nd edition mission cards.
I could get bunker assault whilst you might get witch hunter.
Made it much more dynamic and fun imo.
I definitely don't think knights should have ever been their own faction. I mean, introducing essentially junior-Titans into standard games was a fairly poor idea in general, but even going with that they would be better off as super-heavy options in existing Imperium armies who actually have a well-rounded unit roster to support them. Making them their own standalone faction and then bending the FOC over backwards to let them deploy by themselves can only result in either OP cheese (if the Knights are actually self-sufficient enough to take all comers by themselves) or a noob-trap (if Knights actually require non-Knight support to function).
ross-128 wrote: I definitely don't think knights should have ever been their own faction. I mean, introducing essentially junior-Titans into standard games was a fairly poor idea in general, but even going with that they would be better off as super-heavy options in existing Imperium armies who actually have a well-rounded unit roster to support them. Making them their own standalone faction and then bending the FOC over backwards to let them deploy by themselves can only result in either OP cheese (if the Knights are actually self-sufficient enough to take all comers by themselves) or a noob-trap (if Knights actually require non-Knight support to function).
Thats one of the worst things 7th has done. Making complete factions of just one type of unit when they should be something like the "Imperial Agents" or just elite troops in other factions: Imperial Knights, Tempestus Scions (They should be elites into a imperial guard army), Adeptus Custodes, Sisters of Silence ,etc, etc...
Melissia wrote: Knights are definitely the worst designed army in the game, even fluff-wise (and that's in spite of the existence of Chaos Marines)
Why, why and why? (Genuinnly interested)
Well, you take an army. You make it to be entirely composed of Super Heavies. You make sure that said Super Heavies are some of the best in the game.
Congratulations, you now have an army that is immune to 80% of its opponents models, has insane manoeuvrability, has more firepower than some gunline armies, can take and hold objectives like no tomorrow, is rapetastic in close combat, just about ignores the vehicle damage chart and basically requires your opponent to minmax everything towards AT to stand a chance against you.
Is it any wonder many people at complaining Knight players?
Being one of the best Super Heavy Vehicles doesn't mean much when they're pretty good at their best.
As far as I know, outside the people that refuse to grow up and say, "NO SUPER HEAVY IN MY 40K", you're one of the only people that has complained about their power level.
Congratulations, you now have an army that is immune to 80% of its opponents models, has insane manoeuvrability, has more firepower than some gunline armies, can take and hold objectives like no tomorrow, is rapetastic in close combat, just about ignores the vehicle damage chart and basically requires your opponent to minmax everything towards AT to stand a chance against you.
Having played with and against IKs I cant really disagree. I will say they definitely suffered in obj heavy games or "bad" draws during maelstrom and if you could down say 1 of 3 in a 1500 points game it reduced their threat but overall I agree they required horrible min-maxing which just isnt fun.
I can recall several games playing as different factions where it was literally a case of avoid the IK (either by hiding behind BLoS or staying out of charge range) - boy did Orks suffer from it It simply was not fun.
Melissia wrote: Knights are definitely the worst designed army in the game, even fluff-wise (and that's in spite of the existence of Chaos Marines), but who here seriously expected them to be removed?
is the thing make me laugh harder also in other forums, players think GW destroy an army give them profit just cause players cry, lol ridicolous. And many things will remain OP that for sure i can bet 1000$, you will see for example tau suits , someone really think 5-6 tides will disappear from play? dream on....
Melissia wrote: Knights are definitely the worst designed army in the game, even fluff-wise (and that's in spite of the existence of Chaos Marines)
Why, why and why? (Genuinnly interested)
I honestly thought the fluff was pretty good. I know sopme people complained about the whole "women cannot be knights" thing, but it's pretty clear thats been retconned, given GS1 mentions a House Tarenis Baroness.
I never understood the problem with knights. They were some of the most fairly costed models in the game. They have clear weaknesses, especially when fielded as their own faction and actually except for the knight crusader and the knight renegade have very limited damage potential.
They weren't broken or op which is why none of the top 5 armies ever bothered to use them. They were a decent crutch for things like SoB or IG though.
Knights were not a top tier army. Upper mid at best. Maybe hard in random/friendly pickup games where opponent doesn't know what you'll be taking. Easily countered if prepared to fight against.
And there was fluffy logic in taking multiple Knights, because each Knight is pretty much a character on its own. While I've never seen (at least haven't read) any fluff stating about Wraithknight or Riptide "covenants" (not sure what's the appropriate word) - they were/are just yet another constructs/yet another suits.
ERJAK wrote: I never understood the problem with knights. They were some of the most fairly costed models in the game. They have clear weaknesses, especially when fielded as their own faction and actually except for the knight crusader and the knight renegade have very limited damage potential.
They weren't broken or op which is why none of the top 5 armies ever bothered to use them. They were a decent crutch for things like SoB or IG though.
they where super heavies, which for some people was all it took .
ERJAK wrote: I never understood the problem with knights. They were some of the most fairly costed models in the game. They have clear weaknesses, especially when fielded as their own faction and actually except for the knight crusader and the knight renegade have very limited damage potential.
They weren't broken or op which is why none of the top 5 armies ever bothered to use them. They were a decent crutch for things like SoB or IG though.
Imperial Knights are practically immune to the vast majority of units in the game. And then combine that insane durability with their excellent shooting and virtually unstoppable melee capabilities. Unless you specifically tailor your list to defeat Imperial Knights, chances are, it's going to be a one-sided slaughter fest.
No, Imperial Knights aren't the most broken thing in the game.
However, that doesn't make them balanced or fairly costed.
Compare Imperial Knights to my poor tactical marines, devastators and assault marines.
Imperial Knights should have had a much higher points cost, and even then, they should not have been an option at all in lists below 2000 points.
And it appears as though none of this is changing in 8th edition. They are going to continue to be undercosted, spammable and overpowered.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Really, that's the two great problems with units like Imperial Knights, wraithknights, etc.
1. They take on way too many in-game roles. They are literally capable of doing EVERYTHING. They can shoot AND do close combat AND move really fast AND are extremely durable AND can deny board space to the opponents' models
and
2. They come at either a discount or, at best, "reasonable" points costs.
Meanwhile, if I'm playing against Imperial Knights, and I have a "general" list like a space marine battle company (without all of the free stuff), basically the only things in my army that pose a threat are my dedicated anti-tank units (the devastators).
Meanwhile, your IKs can wreck EVERYTHING on my side of the field.
That's unfair. That's unbalanced. And that's BAD GAME DESIGN.
You're right. IKs weren't fairly costed. They were overcosted. I lost once to iks with tac ba lists. IG has 3x the firepower of ba. You just don't know what you're doing.
Martel732 wrote: You're right. IKs weren't fairly costed. They were overcosted. I lost once to iks with tac ba lists. IG has 3x the firepower of ba. You just don't know what you're doing.
I tend to lean this way but to be fair I play space marines and SoB which are both armies that don't give 2 gaks about killing knights and tend to not care about a knight's return fire.
Knights biggest issue is that they're a bit binary, if you don't have the tools to kill at least one per turn you're gonna have a bad time. That said if your army can't kill 1 knight per turn then you have a bad army.
Personally I think the Knights in 7th were balanced the way the whole rest of the edition should have been, powerful but expensive.
ERJAK wrote:That said if your army can't kill 1 knight per turn then you have a bad army. Personally I think the Knights in 7th were balanced the way the whole rest of the edition should have been, powerful but expensive.
Using devastators, tactical marines and assault marines, but not drop pods or grav, please do tell me how you would kill one IK per turn, but not construct your army in such a way that you would suffer a severe disadvantage against horde armies.
Automatically Appended Next Post: The simple fact is that both wraithknights and Imperial Knights were both game changing at launch and game BREAKING in practice.
It is part of what killed the "generalist, TAC" list.
Martel732 wrote: I don't use those units traditio. That's why my ba can beat the mid tier lists.
Exactly.
This claim that the IK is overcosted, balanced, fair, etc. is just ridiculous. Because the simple fact is "I don't use those units," if you were to write up a list, would cover most of the units in the game.
What unit would not fall into that list? IKs.
The simple fact that IKs are even usable in a competitive meta actually proves my point that they are imbalanced, overpowered and undercosted.
If they weren't, then they would be an auto-lose in the competitive meta.
They aren't.
Are they bottom tier among the most broken stuff in the game?
Probably.
But against the stuff in the game that's actually underpowered or simply well balanced?
They're game-breakingly powerful. They are an overpowered "all powerful" unit that should never have existed in the first place.
And the simple fact is that they are going to be even MORE powerful in 8th edition.
Good luck killing 1 IK per turn now. It won't happen.
But don't worry. IKs won't be all that much more susceptible to small arms fire.
In fact, they'll be much stronger against scatter lasers now.
And you'll still need anti-tank weapons and melta to kill one.
But now you'll need way more of it.
23 lascannon shots to kill one of them (which should price them well beyond 4 and 3/5s of a tactical squad).
Just one of them.
And they are going to remain ridiculously undercosted.
Martel732 wrote: That's twice as vulnerable as stimtide. But please tell me how its hopeless.
So the what?
That's a stupid argument.
"A is less OP than B, which is riduclously OP," is NOT a argument that A is not OP.
Pick a unit that's not mid (which is just code word for "OP, but bottom barrel in comparison to the most broken stuff in the game") or top tier, and please explain to me how the IK is fair in comparison.
The parts of the ba codex i use are not op and do fine. Get a grip. You're just really bad at this. I can build the best possible ba lists and not be op in 7th. IKs are weak, not strong in 7th. Av 12 is a bad joke for something that expensive. And only six hps? Okay.
Keep in mind you don't have to kill them in one turn.
Of course, if someone runs quadra-knight you'll be able to just completely focus one at a time, in which case a well-rounded list probably *will* kill one per turn as I illustrated.
But as long as you've got some ablative wounds to protect your AT, you can take a couple turns to bring an IK down and still come away with a favorable trade.
ross-128 wrote: Of course, if someone runs quadra-knight you'll be able to just completely focus one at a time, in which case a well-rounded list probably *will* kill one per turn as I illustrated.
This is just false.
"A well-rounded list"?
If I have 3 devastator squads and 6 tactical squads all armed with lascannons, I STILL would not be able to kill 1 IK per turn.
That kind of durability (especially when combined with its offensive capabilities) for that power level (and probable points cost) is
"If it's anything I don't personally like, it's broken."
No. Anything which is obviously and conspicuously better than the vast majority of other selections in the game is broken.
Or is it the stuff that's too expensive/too weak that's broken?
And okay.
Grav Pistol-same range, same AP, wounds Marines worse, Termis the same.
Plasma Pistol-same range, same AP, wounds Marines better, Termis the same, and doubles out T3 things, at the cost of getting hot.
The Grav Pistol is better, sure-but not ridiculously slow. In fact, against Guardsmen, it's actually far worse.
JNAProductions wrote:Or is it the stuff that's too expensive/too weak that's broken?
That's ridiculous.
"No, this tiny minority of unit selections isn't OP. It's the vast majority of the game that's underpowered."
That's stupid.
And okay.
Grav Pistol-same range, same AP, wounds Marines worse, Termis the same.
Plasma Pistol-same range, same AP, wounds Marines better, Termis the same, and doubles out T3 things, at the cost of getting hot.
The Grav Pistol is better, sure-but not ridiculously slow. In fact, against Guardsmen, it's actually far worse.
Biased sample. Why don't you start talking about MCs and landraders?
I like how he's ignoring my points now. His lists are bad. That's the real issue. I have 3k lists with 15 tac marines and they're main use is a fast rhino for blocking movement.
ross-128 wrote: Of course, if someone runs quadra-knight you'll be able to just completely focus one at a time, in which case a well-rounded list probably *will* kill one per turn as I illustrated.
This is just false.
"A well-rounded list"?
If I have 3 devastator squads and 6 tactical squads all armed with lascannons, I STILL would not be able to kill 1 IK per turn.
That kind of durability (especially when combined with its offensive capabilities) for that power level (and probable points cost) is
Your opponent brought somewhere between 1600 and 2000 points of units, what are you doing with just 3 devs and 6 tacs?
keep in mind the IKs would likely only get a handfull of CPs whereas the oppisition could get considerably more. and if the IK is taking say a patol detachmenty along (maybe a tech marine to do repairs, and 2 squads of scout marines as objective grabbers) they'd only get Imperium and general stragetiums. and I GARENTEE the more faction specific a stragitum is, the better is is. GW's gonna wanna be dischouraging power gamers from superfriends lists.
ross-128 wrote: Of course, if someone runs quadra-knight you'll be able to just completely focus one at a time, in which case a well-rounded list probably *will* kill one per turn as I illustrated.
This is just false.
"A well-rounded list"?
If I have 3 devastator squads and 6 tactical squads all armed with lascannons, I STILL would not be able to kill 1 IK per turn.
That kind of durability (especially when combined with its offensive capabilities) for that power level (and probable points cost) is
As myself and others have gone over many times before, you lists aren't well-rounded. Missiles, Boltguns, Flamers and Lascannons do not make a well-rounded list, they make a kind of square list with curved sides from all the pressure being placed upon them with trying to deal with everything when - to put it lightly - they are just terrible.
Your problem is more that you were taking some of the universally most under-powered weapon upgrades the Marines codex has (and a decent-ish special weapon that can't deal with vehicles full stop).
I caution everyone about making "this is OP! that is UP" statements right now, we've not got the points costs yet, and these faction focus articles are almost like Codex fluff in that their entire point is "LOOKIT HOW AWESOME YOUR FACTION IS!" you think they're gonna tell us about any nerfs? there was proably a reason the wraith Knight was skipped in the eldar focus article
Matt.Kingsley wrote:As myself and others have gone over many times before, you lists aren't well-rounded. Missiles, Boltguns, Flamers and Lascannons do not make a well-rounded list, they make a kind of square list with curved sides from all the pressure being placed upon them with trying to deal with everything when - to put it lightly - they are just terrible.
Your problem is more that you were taking some of the universally most under-powered weapon upgrades the Marines codex has (and a decent-ish special weapon that can't deal with vehicles full stop).
My point has nothing to do with my lists.
My point has to do with lists that actually should be good against IKs.
Lascannons are obviously an AT weapon.
Even if I spam AT weapons, the IKs are still going to be ridiculously durable against them and are still going to be undervalued in terms of their actual durabilit, mobility and damage output.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
BrianDavion wrote: I caution everyone about making "this is OP! that is UP" statements right now, we've not got the points costs yet, and these faction focus articles are almost like Codex fluff in that their entire point is "LOOKIT HOW AWESOME YOUR FACTION IS!" you think they're gonna tell us about any nerfs? there was proably a reason the wraith Knight was skipped in the eldar focus article
We know that they evaluated an IK at 23 power relative to a tactical squad at 5.
That could mean a lot of different things.
But it does not bode well for IK's not being completely OP.
And again, that isn't because Knights were OP, it was because Lascannons didn't do their job at all - even against normal vehicles Lascannons were a terrible weapon to use.
Unless you're going to tell me Leman Russes, Land Raiders, Monoliths and Orkanauts are OP, too.
Lascannons suck at at in 7th. They are even worse at anti-mc. That fact is independent of iks. Lascannons are really only good at dropping void shields.
Matt.Kingsley wrote: And again, that isn't because Knights were OP, it was because Lascannons didn't do their job at all, even against normal vehicles Lascannons were a terrible weapon to use.
It's not just 7th edition!
It's 8th edition!
That "23" number that I'm giving you is the average number of lascannon shots that will be required, on average, to take down a single IK.
Even in 8th, even if I spam lascannons, those IKs, point for point, will have the advantage.
ross-128 wrote:Your opponent brought somewhere between 1600 and 2000 points of units, what are you doing with just 3 devs and 6 tacs?
What?
This is an utter non-response.
It doesn't in the slightest answer my point.
My point is that EVEN IF I SPAMMED LASCANNONS, the IKs would still be practically impossible to take down in a turn.
A forteriori, if I DON'T spam lascannons or melta, IKs will be practically invincible.
That's unacceptable.
Look, let's break this down. If you are only facing one, single knight, you have 5 whole turns to kill the thing. Dropping a knight in a 500 point game is a bit of a dick move, but a 500 point list can very likely kill a knight within 5 turns as long as you use cover or something to mitigate incoming damage. And if your opponent complains about a knight costing less than 500, well it's not your fault they didn't use up their whole point budget.
If someone drops all knights in an 1850 or 2000 point game, which most likely is about four knights, a competent 1850-2000 point list most certainly can drop a knight per turn with concentrated fire.
So if you're only bringing 500 points of units, you don't NEED to drop the knight in one turn. That knight is all he's got, you can take all day! As long as you have one model standing when that knight drops, you've won.
If you find yourself in a situation where you've got 5 turns to kill 4 knights, then you're also going to have more than enough points at your disposal to do it.
ross-128 wrote:Look, let's break this down. If you are only facing one, single knight, you have 5 whole turns to kill the thing. Dropping a knight in a 500 point game is a bit of a dick move, but a 500 point list can very likely kill a knight within 5 turns as long as you use cover or something to mitigate incoming damage. And if your opponent complains about a knight costing less than 500, well it's not your fault they didn't use up their whole point budget.
If someone drops all knights in an 1850 or 2000 point game, which most likely is about four knights, a competent 1850-2000 point list most certainly can drop a knight per turn with concentrated fire.
So if you're only bringing 500 points of units, you don't NEED to drop the knight in one turn. That knight is all he's got, you can take all day! As long as you have one model standing when that knight drops, you've won.
If you find yourself in a situation where you've got 5 turns to kill 4 knights, then you're also going to have more than enough points at your disposal to do it.
You are still not understanding me.
THE POINTS LEVEL DOES NOT MATTER.
LASCANNONS WILL NOT BE EFFECTIVE AGAINST IMPERIAL KNIGHTS.
That's the point that I'm trying to make to you.
Let's suppose that we play a 500 point game.
You have that 1 IK.
For that points, I'll likely be able to bring (let's say that I just go unbound):
Guess how many Lascannons you can field for the cost of 4 Knights in 8th (based solely on Power Level)?
At least 23. And the 4 Knights can maybe kill 4-5 of those turn 1 if you assign Wounds correctly and go second. Even then, you can cripple the knights more than they can and win the game based on Objectives.
You also have more Command Points so you can re-roll Damage rolls and auto-pass Morale if need be.
You can also arm your Sergeants with combi-meltas for when a Knight that isn't heavily damaged gets too close for comfort, and a Power Fist in case one gets a charge off.
And if you think the Lascannon is the be-all end-all of Anti Vehicle weapons then you're in for a shock... they're not. However, they can now actually do their job.
AND the point is that while Lascannons aren't better at killing one, everything else is AND they degrade. So in a way Lascannons are better as you don't need to One Shot a knight to decrease its output.
Martel732 wrote: Lascannons will quickly cripple an 8th ed knight if fielded in any kind of numbers.
No, they won't.
It will take, on average, 23 lascannon shots at BS 4 to take down a single IK. In order simply to reduce it to half-health and start affecting its stats, you'll need like 11 or 12 shots.
If literally every heavy weapon on your side of the board is not a lascannon or a multimelta, you are at a SEVERE disadvantage from the get go.
ross-128 wrote:Look, let's break this down. If you are only facing one, single knight, you have 5 whole turns to kill the thing. Dropping a knight in a 500 point game is a bit of a dick move, but a 500 point list can very likely kill a knight within 5 turns as long as you use cover or something to mitigate incoming damage. And if your opponent complains about a knight costing less than 500, well it's not your fault they didn't use up their whole point budget.
If someone drops all knights in an 1850 or 2000 point game, which most likely is about four knights, a competent 1850-2000 point list most certainly can drop a knight per turn with concentrated fire.
So if you're only bringing 500 points of units, you don't NEED to drop the knight in one turn. That knight is all he's got, you can take all day! As long as you have one model standing when that knight drops, you've won.
If you find yourself in a situation where you've got 5 turns to kill 4 knights, then you're also going to have more than enough points at your disposal to do it.
You are still not understanding me.
THE POINTS LEVEL DOES NOT MATTER.
LASCANNONS WILL NOT BE EFFECTIVE AGAINST IMPERIAL KNIGHTS.
That's the point that I'm trying to make to you.
Let's suppose that we play a 500 point game.
You have that 1 IK.
For that points, I'll likely be able to bring (let's say that I just go unbound):
I would need, on average, 3 rounds of shooting with all of my lascannons to take down your IK.
How is that ineffective? That knight is literally his entire army. 3 rounds to kill it when your time limit is 5 is entirely adequate, it's just a matter of making sure to get your cover saves and allocate as many wounds as possible to bolter models to minimize damage loss.
your logic is somewhat flawed as you have yet to see how Objectives and games are won. A 4 knight army may have a hard time winning a game and a better balanced list may be able to win by just killing one knight.
The damage output does not look to be horrendous at this point so winning the game may be difficult for the knight player. Still too many variables for your assessment to hold water.
JNAProductions wrote: And yeah. You have 5 turns, at least, to do it. Even if you lose a lascannon or two, you can still make up for it after a few turns.
Here's the thing, though.
That knight is getting d6 shots against any of those squads, will be reducing marines in cover to a 6+ save (stripping cover entirely from marines out of cover), and will be wounding on 2s.
Furthermore, it has 12 inches of movement in the movement phase and is going to have very good close combat stats.
If the IK player isn't terrible at the game, those lascannons are going to drop like flies.
If we take turn-by-turn losses into account, the odds are stacked against the lascannons.
And here's the thing: the lascannons are supposed to be one of THE antitank weapons.
So even if I spam anti-tank weapons, there's a good chance that I lose handily to the IK.
What happens if I don't spam multimeltas and lascannons?
It's virtually auto-lose.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
bullyboy wrote: your logic is somewhat flawed as you have yet to see how Objectives and games are won. A 4 knight army may have a hard time winning a game and a better balanced list may be able to win by just killing one knight.
The damage output does not look to be horrendous at this point so winning the game may be difficult for the knight player. Still too many variables for your assessment to hold water.
I'm telling you. This happens virtually every time that GW releases broken, OP bull gak. It's always the exact same song.
First, they say: "We don't have the full stats."
Then, when we have the full stats, they say: "But wait, you haven't seen it on the table."
Traditio wrote: And even then, no, you can't compare a LR to an IK.
LR have virtually no damage output.
THAT is complete and utter bullocks. a Lemen Russ Battletank in 8th edition, can pack a LOT of firepower, you could configure it to pack 3 Heavy Bolters and the Battle cannon, which will be pretty damn good at clearing out swarms of infantry, with 3 heavy 3 S5 AP -1 shots) and 1 S8 AP -2 D6 dmgh shot. that's gonna be pretty scary at clearing out swarms.
Meanwhile the Imperial Knight is going to have two battle canon shots and... whatever the hell they make the heavy stubber. firepower wise the IK has an advantage but the LRs got pretty damn good firepower at least where infantry is concerned.
and if you meant LR as in Land Raider, the land raider has amazing firepower, having 4 lascanons, 2 heavy bolters and a pintal mounted stormbolter
So deploy near the rear. 24" of table to cross, plus 12" deployment zone. (Call it 10", since you can't be ALL THE WAY back.)
2d6 charge means it takes him two turns, minimum, to reach CC, and likely three.
He has d6 shots, hitting on 3s (to start), for 2.4 hits a turn, 2 wounds, and 2 dead marines. Guess what? Those were bolter bros-you choose who gets removed.
You then fire off your full round of lascannons.
Next turn, he crumps two lascannons this time. He tries to charge, but since he needs a 10, he fails, in all likelihood. Maybe he even takes some damage from Overwatch.
You fire off lascannons -2. He's down a peg-he's hitting on 4s now.
He fires, kills another 2 (somehow not being any worse) and makes the charge. Kills 2 in CC, there goes a squad.
You fire lascannons -4. He's down two pegs now.
He fires, kills 1 (bolter bro) and charges, kills 2 (Lascannons).
You retreat, fire off lascannons -8, but probably take him down anyway.
Congrats-you won the game.
Edit: Guys, can we take a moment and ask Tradito what he wants?
Because if he wants a balanced game, I think we can agree with him (his aspiration for the game, that is-not his method).
But if he just wants to win without putting in effort or changing what he does in any way... Well, I think we can all agree that's just BS.
My apologies. When I wrote "LR," I meant "Landraider," not "Leeman Russ."
I realzied you may have meant that, and in 8th edition the Land Raider has gotten a pretty impressive face lift. depending on how it's cost, it may regain it's place as "the Imperium's ultimate weapon" once more
JNAProductions wrote: So deploy near the rear. 24" of table to cross, plus 12" deployment zone. (Call it 10", since you can't be ALL THE WAY back.)
2d6 charge means it takes him two turns, minimum, to reach CC, and likely three.
He has d6 shots, hitting on 3s (to start), for 2.4 hits a turn, 2 wounds, and 2 dead marines. Guess what? Those were bolter bros-you choose who gets removed.
And let me stop you right there.
No. That's stupid.
If the IK player targets the tactical squad first, then he's just a bad player.
Turn 1, two bolters don't die. A sarge with a signum and a lascannon devastator die.
JNAProductions wrote: And yeah. You have 5 turns, at least, to do it. Even if you lose a lascannon or two, you can still make up for it after a few turns.
Here's the thing, though.
That knight is getting d6 shots against any of those squads, will be reducing marines in cover to a 6+ save (stripping cover entirely from marines out of cover), and will be wounding on 2s.
Furthermore, it has 12 inches of movement in the movement phase and is going to have very good close combat stats.
If the IK player isn't terrible at the game, those lascannons are going to drop like flies.
If we take turn-by-turn losses into account, the odds are stacked against the lascannons.
And here's the thing: the lascannons are supposed to be one of THE antitank weapons.
So even if I spam anti-tank weapons, there's a good chance that I lose handily to the IK.
What happens if I don't spam multimeltas and lascannons?
It's virtually auto-lose.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
bullyboy wrote: your logic is somewhat flawed as you have yet to see how Objectives and games are won. A 4 knight army may have a hard time winning a game and a better balanced list may be able to win by just killing one knight.
The damage output does not look to be horrendous at this point so winning the game may be difficult for the knight player. Still too many variables for your assessment to hold water.
I'm telling you. This happens virtually every time that GW releases broken, OP bull gak. It's always the exact same song.
First, they say: "We don't have the full stats."
Then, when we have the full stats, they say: "But wait, you haven't seen it on the table."
And then the refrain: "Adapt, scrub, adapt!"
I don't think those d6 shots are nearly as scary as you think.
On average it'll be what, 3 shots? Of those 2 will typically hit. Damage doesn't transfer between models, so at most he can only kill 2 models per turn if they both wound and you fail your saves.
You have 22 models on the table, just between the devs and tacs. He'd need 11 turns to table you. Granted, that's because the thermal cannon is an anti-tank weapon, but still. Allocate those wounds to bolter models and you'll have almost nothing to worry about.
If he decides to go into melee? He gets 4 attacks. About 3 of those will hit. Sure they do 6 damage, but damage doesn't transfer between models! Just shove the tac squad in front and allocate all the wounds to bolter models. Then withdraw from combat in your movement phase, so the devs can hit it with the lascannons. That knight will typically drop before you run out of tacs.
Fisrt off power level is not a refined system. Furthermore you can bring meltas and combi meltas in the squads as well. Game over for the ik. That's 12 weapons with d6 damage.
He's clearly just another "No super heavy anything in my 40k" people. I really don't get why anyone even replies to him anymore. If nothing is balanced unless a small tac squad with bolters can kill it, then you should really look into playing a new game.
mmzero252 wrote: He's clearly just another "No super heavy anything in my 40k" people. I really don't get why anyone even replies to him anymore. If nothing is balanced unless a small tac squad with bolters can kill it, then you should really look into playing a new game.
Maelstrom's Edge is pretty cool. But I'm pretty sure Tradito doesn't WANT a balanced system-he wants his specific brand of bad lists to be the best.
mmzero252 wrote: He's clearly just another "No super heavy anything in my 40k" people. I really don't get why anyone even replies to him anymore. If nothing is balanced unless a small tac squad with bolters can kill it, then you should really look into playing a new game.
This is a complete caricature of what I've been saying in this thread.
mmzero252 wrote: He's clearly just another "No super heavy anything in my 40k" people. I really don't get why anyone even replies to him anymore. If nothing is balanced unless a small tac squad with bolters can kill it, then you should really look into playing a new game.
Maelstrom's Edge is pretty cool. But I'm pretty sure Tradito doesn't WANT a balanced system-he wants his specific brand of bad lists to be the best.
Seriously. Knights aren't even that good. Scary, yes. Not a clue why.
I run sisters so if I start seeing my opponent placing anything scary I put down a knight. Know what it gets me? Maaaaaybe 1 dead enemy squad, 2 rounds of shooting not dedicated to killing my sisters, and maybe an assault phase distraction. It never does anything more than that. I move it forward to drive the enemy back but half the time they just charge it and wreck it before it can do anything.
Even if it took you two turns to kill a single knight of 4, you still eliminated 1/4 of their ENTIRE army in two turns.
Your devastators can pile bodies into their units that cost the exact same as tactical marines and give them ablative wounds.
Your ludicrous desire to ignore every option available that you didn't buy 15 years ago is in no way a symptom of bad game design. It may take 28 lascannon shots on average to kill a knight, but half of the time it will take less and half the time it will take more.
It's a damn dice game for crying out loud. The imperial knight went from completely immune to anything strength 5 or less to having a possible chance to be wounded by lasguns.
The devestator with a lascannon is not, nor was not ever, THE best antitank weapon in the game. There were always weapons that hit harder than that and for some reason you aren't fielding them either.
You want to stop a knight, charge it with a rhino. He can't move over it, nor has he been given the ability to charge after disengagement.
Ram the big nasty, when he steps back shoot him again. If he doesn't focus on the tank, ram him again. You have actual board control now.
As it stands, your complaints about the new addition are unfounded and nonsensical rubbish with not a single thread of legitimacy. If you feel you should be able to take a single long range heavy weapon and remove 1/4 of the enemy army with it a turn you haven't been paying attention to how this game plays. You have ALWAYS needed a diverse weapon portfolio to succeed in this game. Even grav spam and scrabble spam have counters currently, and with scatterlasers there is actually a niche for them as opposed to being the all around super gun they were before.
Get ahold of yourself traditio, you're falling apart because you refuse to use glue to fix what you believe is broken.
mmzero252 wrote: He's clearly just another "No super heavy anything in my 40k" people. I really don't get why anyone even replies to him anymore. If nothing is balanced unless a small tac squad with bolters can kill it, then you should really look into playing a new game.
This is a complete caricature of what I've been saying in this thread.
one thing worth noting is we dunno what suprises are gonna pop up in various armies that we dunno about. Take Primaris Marines. right now we know about intercessor squads. which can only take bolt rifles, (which are an improvement over standard bolt guns) for asll we know there is some sort of primaris anti tank squad with "super lasguns"
Lythrandire Biehrellianl wrote:Even if it took you two turns to kill a single knight of 4, you still eliminated 1/4 of their ENTIRE army in two turns.
And?
The fact remains that, in order to remove that single knight by the end of turn 2, I would:
1. Have to kit my ENTIRE ARMY out with lascannons (in other words, I would specifically have to tailor my army to play against IKs and not take a "general, TAC" list)
and
2. expend the firepower of my ENTIRE ARMY and focus fire that ONE Imperial Knight down.
And by the time that ONE imperial knight goes down, the remaining 3 are within range to wreck the remainder of my army.
And that's under ideal circumstances on my part. That assumes that I've SPECIFICALLY TAILORED my list to take on IKs. If I haven't done it, then it's essentially auto-lose for me.
That's
It may take 28 lascannon shots on average to kill a knight, but half of the time it will take less and half the time it will take more.
This is not a legitimate objection. That's just how averages work.
The imperial knight went from completely immune to anything strength 5 or less to having a possible chance to be wounded by lasguns.
This is a ridiculous point that's not even worthy of consideration.
It would take, on average, 27 boltgun shots at BS 4 or 36 lasgun shots at BS 3 to remove a single wound from an IK.
It would require 648 boltgun shots at BS 4 or 864 lasgun shots at BS 3 to defeat even a single IK.
Boltguns and lasguns are not a serious threat to IKs, and even if, yes, you potentially could strip the last wound from an IK with either lasgun or boltgun fire, this is offset by the fact that it has TWENTY FOUR of them.
The devestator with a lascannon is not, nor was not ever, THE best antitank weapon in the game.
Aside from melta or grav, what else would you use in the SM codex?
You want to stop a knight, charge it with a rhino. He can't move over it, nor has he been given the ability to charge after disengagement.
This suggestion is absolutely ridiculous. An IK has 4 attacks. What do you think the rend value of those attacks is going to be? What do you think the damage of those attacks is going to be?
Do you seriously think that a rhino is going to last more than a single fight phase against an IK?
If you feel you should be able to take a single long range heavy weapon
Do you mean "a single" in number or kind?
If you mean "in kind," then that's a perfectly reasonable expectation on my part. If I only have plasma guns and my opponent only has terminators, then I should win every single time. If my opponent only has Leman Russ battle tanks and I only have drop pod melta, then I should win every single time. If I only have flamers and my opponent only has grots, then I should win. Every. Single. Time.
If you mean "in number," then you clearly haven't understood a word that I've written in this thread.
You have ALWAYS needed a diverse weapon portfolio to succeed in this game.
No, you don't. That's simply not true. To win a game, you have always needed the APPROPRIATE weapons given what you are facing. If I have lascannons, flamers and plasma guns, then most of my weapons are going to be wasted against LRBT spam.
Thus my complaint in this thread: A lascannon should be an APPROPRIATE weapon to deal with a model like an IK. So if I spam lascannons and you spam IKs, then I should win easily.
But it takes 23 lascannon shots to take a single IK down, and yet their power is only 23 compared to a tactical squad's 5.
I don't know about boltguns (mostly because it's more difficult to field them in large numbers), but lasguns are certainly a threat to knights.
Earlier in this thread I even showed a demonstration of an 1850 point Guard army alpha-striking a Knight to death, and they weren't even in rapid-fire range. That poor knight took 32 wounds, and 16 of those were from lasguns. Lasguns boosted by a psyker and FRFSRF order, sure, but that's a legitimate tactic.
And the rest of the Knights on the opposing side were similarly boned simply because they had no reasonable way to chew through 200+ bodies even if all of their attacks were 100% successful.
The fact of the matter is if you have no other targets you might as well shoot with everything you have, because if you even manage to strip 1 extra wound, that still speeds up the kill. Wounding on 6 isn't that big of an obstacle when you're throwing so many dice that you need a bucket for them.
And YOU'RE looking forward to the fact that you're going to be able to crush your power-gaming, "no, I hate terrain; let's play on map bowling ball" meta with your IKs.
The reason I pointed out your fallacies of average is because you could fire strength 16 Ap-6 heavy 20 weapons at a knight and never kill it. Probability only matters over the course of thousands of games. You could cry all a morning about how you had to tailor a list to fight knights and kill 2 in the first round due to a couple lucky sixes.
I said devestators with lascannons. You can take a twin lascannon razorback for each squad. Your heavy bolters can hurt it (only needs a 5+ to wound now) and plasma guns will most likely be wounding on 5+ with a -3 ap and two damage base.
Yes, bolters aren't very viable. But considering you went from "they can never do anything" to "they can take off a wound or two" that is a definite step up in capability.
You are a librarian away from mortal wounds which don't care about a knight's toughness. You are a couple lascannon razorbacks away from dramatically increasing you lascannon count and your missile launchers, meltaguns, plasma weapons, and heavy bolters saw a drastic increase in viability with the new wound chart.
Every single space marine weapon can now be brought to bear against it and you're spending your time throwing around orks using fouls language instead of simply figuring out ways to succeed.
There is no such thing as superheavy vehicles anymore. It is just a big vehicle with no special survivability rules at all. Are you going to scream about how open landraiders are? They'll more than likely be t9 2+ save with 20 wounds. How's your lascannon going to deal with that? Or when a monolith comes down with a similar statline, will you decry their model as "op"?
Face it, your issue isn't going to be game balance or strategy. You want the base game of 40k to be a slightly upscaled version of shadow war where every basic infantryman is a pivotal piece of your army.
This is a war game, not a skirmish game. Your models will die and there are big ones on the table. Deal with it.
Automatically Appended Next Post: A knight isn't broken, nor is it op.
Your ignoring the huge penalties to accuracy and speed accumulating as damage is pile on by relying solely on averages.
and yet their power is only 23 compared to a tactical squad's 5.
you keep spamming this like it's relevant. power level is a very VERY rough balancing tool, one intended for people who are intreasted more in a general story then a complex game. also we have NO idea what other balancing tools may end up in the mix with narrative, just for example, a scenerio that allows for Imperial knights could read something like this.
"the defenders consist of 30 points of troops from the IoM, 10 points of heavy support, 5 of fast attack and 50 points of Lords of war" "the Attackers consist of 30 points of troops. and 65 points of heavy support"
a devestator squad could well end up being 5 or 6 points as well. so within that kinda scenerio, you're not trying to take down a Knight with tac squads, no, you're killing knights with 5 fully kitted out devestator squads each, meaning each turn each IK on average is gonna be hit with 20 lascanon shots.
in short, we don't have eneugh info about narraitive games to make any statement at to what power levels actually MEAN.
Power levels are not points. Power levels are for narrative games, with a very differant requirement. there is a reason why points cost is a completely differant animal. so take a chill pill.
Traditio wrote: But it takes 23 lascannon shots to take a single IK down, and yet their power is only 23 compared to a tactical squad's 5.
Lolwut? Why are you using tactical squads, a generalist troops unit with very limited options for heavy weapons, as your anti-tank benchmark? Compare the knight to devastators and their mass lascannons and I bet things look a lot more reasonable.
Also, you have a completely broken idea of what balance means. No, you aren't going to kill that knight on turn 1, but your lascannons are going to damage it and eventually destroy it. There would be a major problem if focusing equal-points fire on the knight could consistently kill it in a turn or two, since those anti-tank squads would then be killing way more than their point cost over the ~6 turns of a full game. And do you really want that same level of power, where a single knight can kill its points worth of marines every turn, just like the marines kill their points worth of knights every turn? I suspect you'd be pretty unhappy if a knight's shooting killed 2-3 tactical squads every turn and then every turn after the first it charged and killed 1-2 more.
Peregrine wrote:Lolwut? Why are you using tactical squads, a generalist troops unit with very limited options for heavy weapons, as your anti-tank benchmark? Compare the knight to devastators and their mass lascannons and I bet things look a lot more reasonable.
We'll have to wait and see what the power level of a devastator squad is.
But my suspicion is that even when you compare apples to apples, the numbers are going to be skewed in the IK's favor.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Also, for the lols, somebody ask me what I think the power level of an IK should be.
Traditio wrote: But my suspicion is that even when you compare apples to apples, the numbers are going to be skewed in the IK's favor.
IOW, you have no idea what the actual comparison is going to be, so you'll just assume that it favors your position.
Also, you have a completely broken idea of what balance means. No, you aren't going to kill that knight on turn 1, but your lascannons are going to damage it and eventually destroy it. There would be a major problem if focusing equal-points fire on the knight could consistently kill it in a turn or two, since those anti-tank squads would then be killing way more than their point cost over the ~6 turns of a full game. And do you really want that same level of power, where a single knight can kill its points worth of marines every turn, just like the marines kill their points worth of knights every turn? I suspect you'd be pretty unhappy if a knight's shooting killed 2-3 tactical squads every turn and then every turn after the first it charged and killed 1-2 more.
Peregrine wrote:Lolwut? Why are you using tactical squads, a generalist troops unit with very limited options for heavy weapons, as your anti-tank benchmark? Compare the knight to devastators and their mass lascannons and I bet things look a lot more reasonable.
We'll have to wait and see what the power level of a devastator squad is.
But my suspicion is that even when you compare apples to apples, the numbers are going to be skewed in the IK's favor.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Also, for the lols, somebody ask me what I think the power level of an IK should be.
Maybe, we can't be sure, it depends on how they figure it, I mean a NAKED devestrator squad is basicly just glorified taticals. so I suspect a devestator squad'll be 5-7 points. even on the more expensive end thats a lot of firepower, also you have to keep in mind power levels aren't points. they're a rough number for people more intreasted in telling a story. as I was explaining to my friend who plays Necrons, if we wanted to put out armies down, have an even match, and see who was the better general? we'd use matched play. but if we wanted to construct a story that would play out on the table top, of his custom necron dynesty waking up (I need to get him to post the info he put together for it here, it's good stuff) and slaughtering the local guard, only to have a space marine company deploy to hold the line while the settlement evacs? then that's something you proably would use narraitve rules for. thing about narraitve play is you're both trying to tell a story, so perfectly precise points aren't needed, because there is the assumption of "not being a dick"
Just to demonstrate my point, let's compare the two units we know the power points for:
The tactical marines need 23 lascannon shots to kill the knight (less to cripple it, but we'll go for a kill), and you can buy 4.5 tactical squads for the price of a knight. At one lascannon per squad that's about five turns of shooting to kill the knight.
The knight, assuming its double battlecannon continues to be twice the shots of a LRBT's gun, will average 3.5 hits per turn (since you are always moving with a knight, and suffer the -1 penalty) against the marines which it then has to convert into wounds. IOW, it will not be able to kill a tactical squad with shooting alone, but it can probably charge and finish them off. So probably a partial tactical squad on turn 1, since you can't charge, followed by four over the next four turns. IOW, the knight takes about 5 turns to kill the tactical marines.
So, same power points, each takes the same time to kill the other. Seems balanced to me, and we aren't even comparing the knight to a dedicated anti-tank unit. This is just more of your obsession with removing all LoW-size models from 40k, regardless of their power level.
Part of the issue is that it looks like the old mathammer ways of calculating things doesn't work with a great number of calculations anymore due to calculated averages meaning little in the wide spread of values. Back when things were much more granlar it would work better, but that's not the case. A lot of people are starting to move to distribution curves to calculate things.
Peregrine wrote: Just to demonstrate my point, let's compare the two units we know the power points for:
The tactical marines need 23 lascannon shots to kill the knight (less to cripple it, but we'll go for a kill), and you can buy 4.5 tactical squads for the price of a knight. At one lascannon per squad that's about five turns of shooting to kill the knight.
The knight, assuming its double battlecannon continues to be twice the shots of a LRBT's gun, will average 3.5 hits per turn (since you are always moving with a knight, and suffer the -1 penalty) against the marines which it then has to convert into wounds. IOW, it will not be able to kill a tactical squad with shooting alone, but it can probably charge and finish them off. So probably a partial tactical squad on turn 1, since you can't charge, followed by four over the next four turns. IOW, the knight takes about 5 turns to kill the tactical marines.
So, same power points, each takes the same time to kill the other. Seems balanced to me, and we aren't even comparing the knight to a dedicated anti-tank unit. This is just more of your obsession with removing all LoW-size models from 40k, regardless of their power level.
And it should be noted we've only seen the Power Level for the Knight with Thermal Cannon - it's entirely possible that the Paladin (the Knight used in Peregrine's example) has a slightly higher Power Level (currently it's the more expensive of the 2 iirc).
Peregrine wrote: Just to demonstrate my point, let's compare the two units we know the power points for:
The tactical marines need 23 lascannon shots to kill the knight (less to cripple it, but we'll go for a kill), and you can buy 4.5 tactical squads for the price of a knight. At one lascannon per squad that's about five turns of shooting to kill the knight.
The knight, assuming its double battlecannon continues to be twice the shots of a LRBT's gun, will average 3.5 hits per turn (since you are always moving with a knight, and suffer the -1 penalty) against the marines which it then has to convert into wounds. IOW, it will not be able to kill a tactical squad with shooting alone, but it can probably charge and finish them off. So probably a partial tactical squad on turn 1, since you can't charge, followed by four over the next four turns. IOW, the knight takes about 5 turns to kill the tactical marines.
So, same power points, each takes the same time to kill the other. Seems balanced to me, and we aren't even comparing the knight to a dedicated anti-tank unit. This is just more of your obsession with removing all LoW-size models from 40k, regardless of their power level.
The problem with your assessment is that we are talking about lascannons.
As you yourself have previously noted, if A is rock and B is scissors, then A shouldn't be "equal" to B. A should be more effective against B than B is against A.
The lascannons should be more able to kill the IK than the IK is able to kill the lascannon marines.
If I have a points equivalency in lascannons and I'm JUST breaking even with an IK, that's a problem.
Also, did you see the numbers I posted on melta within half range?
It's absolutely ridiculous.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Peregrine wrote:IOW, you have no idea what the actual comparison is going to be, so you'll just assume that it favors your position.
Also, you have a completely broken idea of what balance means. No, you aren't going to kill that knight on turn 1, but your lascannons are going to damage it and eventually destroy it. There would be a major problem if focusing equal-points fire on the knight could consistently kill it in a turn or two, since those anti-tank squads would then be killing way more than their point cost over the ~6 turns of a full game. And do you really want that same level of power, where a single knight can kill its points worth of marines every turn, just like the marines kill their points worth of knights every turn? I suspect you'd be pretty unhappy if a knight's shooting killed 2-3 tactical squads every turn and then every turn after the first it charged and killed 1-2 more.
I don't think that you guys are fully understanding my point.
Do you know how many lascannons it would take to fire 23 shots in one turn?
It would take almost 6 full devastator squads armed with lascannons.
3 full devastator squads armed with lascannons to kill it in 2, and that's assuming that these squads lose at most ONE lascannon marine as a casualty after having fired the first volley.
And that's lascannons. That's a weapon that should be the rock to the IK's scissors.
Does that sound right to you?
Automatically Appended Next Post: I will say this though!
We have no clue if there are any restrictions on these detachments in Matched Play.
It could well end up being the case that you can't use the LoW formation in matched play unless conditions x, y and z are met.
If IKs have 24 wounds, then it would take 4 lucky lascannon shots to down a knight. By lucky I mean rolling 6s on a d6 for damage.
If a marine already shoots on a 3+ then it is 66% to hit.
If the lascannon is str9 and the IKs is t8 then again its a 66% to wound.
The ap-3 will negate the IKs armor save and it will need the 5++ invul of 33% to save. That means a 66% to fail and let the wound go through.
Now its d6 for damage. There is a 16.5% to get a 6s.
So the equation is (.66)x(.66)x(.66)x(.165)=.0459
Each lascannon has a small 4.6% chance to donk 6wounds off a knight. It maybe a small chance but its still there. If you are real lucky to get 4 6s on the damage rolls unsaved during 1 shooting phase then you just achieved a .000447% chance statistic.
However you dont need luck if you are a cheater who knows how to roll 6s 100% of the time with dexterous hand manipulation. By that i mean you cheaters who spin the dice with so the top facing 6 is stablized by centrifugal force as it slides on the table not flipping over. Yes you cheaters who spin the dice like a top to get it land on a 6.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: There's not going to be any restrictions on Matched Play, seeing as they weren't restricted in 7th or 6th and weren't broken then.
If there are points restrictions, you understand that I'm going to quote this posting and mock you later, right?
Automatically Appended Next Post: Actually, the more I think of it, the more the sneak peaks scream "Restrictions in matched play."
There are no options to take a LoW in any of the three detachments they showed us before.
one thing to keep in mind is that We're proably not supposed to be killing an IK in a single turn over all, survivability seems to be a little better in 40k, I think the system is being designed specificly to avoid losing that b ig expensive 100+ dollar centerpeice unit on the first turn before it can do much of anything.
Like in 30k, there will most likely be a 1 LoW Detachment (or maybe a 1-2 LoW Detachment) that likely gives 0 extra Command Points.
Maybe.
Or maybe that's the only LoW detachment, and it's only accessible in games above 2k points!
I doubt that and hope not. the most common deployment of an IK tends to be a single centerpiece to an army. also keep in mind that IKs are NOT the only Lord of War out there. we'll need a single LoW option for a number of other legit LOW options out there.
even if some of the chapter masters (such as Calgar) that where raised up to LOW status are dropped back down to HQs, chances are Gulliman will remain a LOW. and I really don't wanna have to take a pair of knights even time I wanna take Gulliman
Also, this game has lost its rock-paper-scissors aspect. Your lascannon are NOT a hard counter to a knight, they're simply more efficient at taking one down than some other weapons.
An imperial knight is not the counter to marines either because their weapons systems are no longer invalidated by the durability of the knight and they'll have more command points to skew the odds in their favor on the tabletop.
Like when you take into account that every phase you could reroll a bad damage roll, or failed hit, or failed save to keep a lascannon alive.
Also, are you prepared to scream "op!!!" At land raiders for their damage output and durability? They'll be able to ram and will have melee units inside as well. 4 lascannon shots, 6 heavy bolters shots, 1 multimedia, and one stormbolter all at different targets to allow for prioritizing targets effectively while pushing downfield with AT LEAST the same durability as the knight.
Or is it simply because the knight USED to be a different classification of vehicle and you can't let go of past prejudices? Remember, it is highly likely you will see maxed out options for elites, fast attack, and heavy support with minimal command points requirements just like the one for lords of war. (Think blitz brigade, and the various piles of tanks the multiformation detachment allowed)
I think if the missions are balanced correctly, IK's might be ok. You might not have to kill any to win. Also, I think it is important to note that I am sure they play tested Ik versus TAC lists. To me, that seems like one of the most basic stress tests to evaluate.
Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:An imperial knight is not the counter to marines either because their weapons systems are no longer invalidated by the durability of the knight
Bull
Did you see those numbers that I came up with earlier?
If "27'" is not a number that essentially invalidates melta, then I have no idea what the such a number would be.
they'll have more command points to skew the odds in their favor on the tabletop.
We have no idea if that's even true. Currently, the all LoW detachment gets exactly the same number of command points as the batallion detachment.
Also, are you prepared to scream "op!!!" At land raiders for their damage output and durability?
Let me be clear:
I'm not screaming "op!!!" simply because of the stats. I'm screaming "op!!!" because of the power level comparisons between tactical marines (or even rubric marines) and the Imperial Knight.
According to GW, an Imperial Knight has the same power level as 23 tactical marines.
According to GW, an Imperial Knight is actually slightly WEAKER than 15 rubric marines.
That's bull
If the IK had those exact stats and capabilities, but had a much higher power level, you wouldn't be hearing me complaining. The problem is that GW has, at least apparently, gravely undervalued the power level of the Imperial Knight (which is apparently a problem in AoS: GW apparently undervalues MCs in AoS also; ask AoS players, they will tell you as much).
If the landraider can fire 4 lascannon shots and 6 heavy bolter shots per turn, has 24 wounds, a 2+ armor save, has amazing close combat stats, and can transport a detachment of IKs within its hull, and GW assigns it a power level of 23? You can bet your that I'll be screaming "OP!" about that too.
ok tradio, you're absoilutely right, 8th edition is going to suck, best leave the game now, can I have your stuff?
So I'm curious BTW, how often do you see full Imperial Knight armies right now? I don't mean "theoreticly" I mean, how often do you go down to the local gaming club, store etc and see people standing around asking if you wanna play a game and then fishing out 4+ knights?
BrianDavion wrote: ok tradio, you're absoilutely right, 8th edition is going to suck, best leave the game now, can I have your stuff?
So I'm curious BTW, how often do you see full Imperial Knight armies right now? I don't mean "theoreticly" I mean, how often do you go down to the local gaming club, store etc and see people standing around asking if you wanna play a game and then fishing out 4+ knights?
I don't play in tournaments on principle. So whereas I am fairly sure that they have been played, I haven't played against IK spam lists.
I've played two games that involved IKs. One was a 2 v 2. The IK player was on my team, and on the other side was...fire dragons.
The second time was also a 2 v 2 (500/500 vs. 500/500). The same IK player had the nerve to put an IK on the table.
The fact that you consider 4+ Knight something you'd normally see at a tournament level is telling .
You don't tend to see such lists at tournaments at all because they don't rate very high when it comes to killing power, survivability and playing the mission objectives.
Lets say we have 1500pts game: 3 IK got 3 cp, while the IG player with standart FOC got 6.
IG player has about dozen units for this 6 cp, while knight player only 3. IG player have to spend CP to mitigate battleshock test to not lose his platoon after gatling grinding, while IK player literally has immune to this game mechanic.
CP spend as reroll for the knight (reroll for a charge distance, for example) is a buff for 33% of your army. While IG player spending his CP to gain reroll just for one single squad. It is not the same level of effectiveness.
I don't think that knight army will be OP. It's just boring as hell to play aganst them. Either you have a good answer and turm the game to easy win, or just ignore and bait them all game and play objectives.
BrianDavion wrote: ok tradio, you're absoilutely right, 8th edition is going to suck, best leave the game now, can I have your stuff?
So I'm curious BTW, how often do you see full Imperial Knight armies right now? I don't mean "theoreticly" I mean, how often do you go down to the local gaming club, store etc and see people standing around asking if you wanna play a game and then fishing out 4+ knights?
I don't play in tournaments on principle. So whereas I am fairly sure that they have been played, I haven't played against IK spam lists.
I've played two games that involved IKs. One was a 2 v 2. The IK player was on my team, and on the other side was...fire dragons.
The second time was also a 2 v 2 (500/500 vs. 500/500). The same IK player had the nerve to put an IK on the table.
So in other words, you've never really encountered knights other then one guy?
Also I think it's being overlooked that they weaken as they take damage.
I think the warden would be the best at mitigating the loss in function due to damage however due to its rate of fire.
The other good thing about toughness and it having a leadership is it opens it up to being susceptible to things we have in 7th now that I'm sure we'd see similar versions of in 8th at the least.Stuff like psychic shriek or the vanguard's rad effect to reduce toughness.
lonestarr777 wrote: I find it highly amusing how many pages this has gone on for. I look forward to the next faction focus and Traditios next mental breakdown.
I've seen this many times before. Trust me, he can keep on going forever until everyone else gives up in exhaustion and he declares victory, or until the thread gets locked by mods who see the flames but aren't interested in who was running around with a can of gasoline.
BoomWolf wrote: Why are we even assuming all knights will have the same stat-lines and degrade the same though?
They might not. (probably will, but might not)
The differences will likely come in the FW knights.
lonestarr777 wrote: I find it highly amusing how many pages this has gone on for. I look forward to the next faction focus and Traditios next mental breakdown.
I've seen this many times before. Trust me, he can keep on going forever until everyone else gives up in exhaustion and he declares victory, or until the thread gets locked by mods who see the flames but aren't interested in who was running around with a can of gasoline.
The only way to win is to not play.
As sad as it is, you are correct. Nothing can win where Tradito is involved. A scorched earth policy, complete with salted fields is best.
lonestarr777 wrote: I find it highly amusing how many pages this has gone on for. I look forward to the next faction focus and Traditios next mental breakdown.
I've seen this many times before. Trust me, he can keep on going forever until everyone else gives up in exhaustion and he declares victory, or until the thread gets locked by mods who see the flames but aren't interested in who was running around with a can of gasoline.
The only way to win is to not play.
As sad as it is, you are correct. Nothing can win where Tradito is involved. A scorched earth policy, complete with salted fields is best.
BoomWolf wrote: Why are we even assuming all knights will have the same stat-lines and degrade the same though?
They might not. (probably will, but might not)
The differences will likely come in the FW knights.
We'll probably see different statlines amongst either the base IK's, or we'll see a difference when it comes to the different types of body.
BrianDavion wrote: keep in mind the IKs would likely only get a handfull of CPs whereas the oppisition could get considerably more. and if the IK is taking say a patol detachmenty along (maybe a tech marine to do repairs, and 2 squads of scout marines as objective grabbers) they'd only get Imperium and general stragetiums. and I GARENTEE the more faction specific a stragitum is, the better is is. GW's gonna wanna be dischouraging power gamers from superfriends lists.
hahaha hilarious. if they really wanted that they would do like in previous editions, no alliances... dream on guys
Btw 4+ knights lists in tournaments are very uncommon, few players play it and usually they didn't get past half classification.
Everybody keeps talking about lascannons.
A unit of 5 khorne terminators with chainfists can put down a knight a turn.
Right now, on the charge they have 20 attacks and if fricken rubrics hit on 3+ you can bet your ass these will too.
So 10 attacks will stick, now it's virtually guaranteed they will have some kind of furious charge buff so they'll wound on 3s netting a pessimistic 6 wounds with no save.
Chainfists were the melta equivalent in melee so we can realistically either expect d6 wounds per or d3 re-rollable, so easily 3 wounds a piece.
So even in the worst case scenario they're causing about 18 wounds, crippling the knight. And that's not taking into the account any combi meltas they might be able to fire first, or that this will likely be much cheaper than a knight.
So their transport , if any, could also pour in some wounds.
But on the topic of lascannons, a spartan could end up shooting 8 lascannon shots as well as a multimelta. That knight ain't looking so hot from where I'm sitting.
Traditio wrote: As you yourself have previously noted, if A is rock and B is scissors, then A shouldn't be "equal" to B. A should be more effective against B than B is against A.
The lascannons should be more able to kill the IK than the IK is able to kill the lascannon marines.
Here's where you're wrong. Lascannons are the rock to the scissors of tanks, but a knight with a battlecannon is the paper to the rock of MEQs. So the "should be more effective" factor cancels out, the lascannons are pretty good at killing the knight, but the knight is pretty good at removing the marines.
Also, your obsession with talking about lascannons in isolation is completely missing the point. The weapon is an anti-tank specialist, but the unit is a generalist tactical squad. You're applying the balance principles that would be more appropriate for a devastator squad with full lascannons, and expecting your tactical squad with a token lascannon to perform at that level just because both units have "lascannons". And that's just insane.
We know reserves in matched play are limited. It is reasonable to assume other extremes are as well.
There are objectives involved. You may not have to kill the knights to beat them.
Remember the blast are underwhelming thread where we realized shooting wasn't all that lethal?
Sure knights are hard to kill, that's the point of knights. They're also big points sinks that can be outplayed. This is why I dislike any sort of killpoint based system for matches.
Has he really been raging all night? Get some sleep man, it's good for your health!
And still obsessing over one-turn kills? I mean really, on average it takes 18 lasgun shots to kill a tactical marine, 180 to wipe a tac squad. Does this mean lasguns are utterly useless against Space Marines?
I'm sure we all know better, and we all know why. But hey, if Traditio is still utterly convinced that Knights are too durable, maybe he should tell us what it *should* take to kill one. I'm sure we'd find the answer... entertaining.
Based on the information we have, as long as knights cost somewhere between 400 and 500 points they should be fine. If you're facing a knight, you're going to have enough points to kill it.
"Power levels" are a good deal looser of course, because they're not meant for competitive play. They don't account for upgrades/wargear (or perhaps, more accurately they blend all the upgrade/wargear options into an average). If you're playing a PL game, well first of all you should be aware that you're sacrificing balance for speed, but second of all you ARE going to be kitting your guys out to the max. After all, not doing so would be leaving points on the table. Since infantry units tend to have a ton of upgrade options and Knights have few, obviously that's going to make PLs difficult to compare between them.
The question isn't "can this one unit kill one of this other unit in a single turn", that's basically irrelevant. You need to look at the big picture, how two whole lists fare against each other over an entire 5 turn game.
And you know what? When taking whole lists into account it looks like Knights aren't going to be broken. Still boring and gimmicky because they lack tactical flexibility, but not broken.
ross-128 wrote: Has he really been raging all night? Get some sleep man, it's good for your health!
And still obsessing over one-turn kills? I mean really, on average it takes 18 lasgun shots to kill a tactical marine, 180 to wipe a tac squad. Does this mean lasguns are utterly useless against Space Marines?
I'm sure we all know better, and we all know why. But hey, if Traditio is still utterly convinced that Knights are too durable, maybe he should tell us what it *should* take to kill one. I'm sure we'd find the answer... entertaining.
Based on the information we have, as long as knights cost somewhere between 400 and 500 points they should be fine. If you're facing a knight, you're going to have enough points to kill it.
"Power levels" are a good deal looser of course, because they're not meant for competitive play. They don't account for upgrades/wargear (or perhaps, more accurately they blend all the upgrade/wargear options into an average). If you're playing a PL game, well first of all you should be aware that you're sacrificing balance for speed, but second of all you ARE going to be kitting your guys out to the max. After all, not doing so would be leaving points on the table. Since infantry units tend to have a ton of upgrade options and Knights have few, obviously that's going to make PLs difficult to compare between them.
The question isn't "can this one unit kill one of this other unit in a single turn", that's basically irrelevant. You need to look at the big picture, how two whole lists fare against each other over an entire 5 turn game.
And you know what? When taking whole lists into account it looks like Knights aren't going to be broken. Still boring and gimmicky because they lack tactical flexibility, but not broken.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: There's not going to be any restrictions on Matched Play, seeing as they weren't restricted in 7th or 6th and weren't broken then.
If there are points restrictions, you understand that I'm going to quote this posting and mock you later, right?
Automatically Appended Next Post: Actually, the more I think of it, the more the sneak peaks scream "Restrictions in matched play."
There are no options to take a LoW in any of the three detachments they showed us before.
Why give us the option to take 3-5, but not one?
Curious.
Very curious.
Because you need a specific detachment to do Imperial Knight armies, you walnut.
Guys! Guys! Guys! The real culprit is the undercosted Eldar wraith knight. That guy is even tougher than an IK because of better invul saves and have better offensive capability.
How is thread still going? Ah, nevermind. I have had one of the main instigators of the argument on my ignore list... actually made it somewhat pleasant to read through it all.
Roknar wrote: Everybody keeps talking about lascannons.
A unit of 5 khorne terminators with chainfists can put down a knight a turn.
Right now, on the charge they have 20 attacks and if fricken rubrics hit on 3+ you can bet your ass these will too.
So 10 attacks will stick, now it's virtually guaranteed they will have some kind of furious charge buff so they'll wound on 3s netting a pessimistic 6 wounds with no save.
Chainfists were the melta equivalent in melee so we can realistically either expect d6 wounds per or d3 re-rollable, so easily 3 wounds a piece.
So even in the worst case scenario they're causing about 18 wounds, crippling the knight. And that's not taking into the account any combi meltas they might be able to fire first, or that this will likely be much cheaper than a knight.
So their transport , if any, could also pour in some wounds.
But on the topic of lascannons, a spartan could end up shooting 8 lascannon shots as well as a multimelta. That knight ain't looking so hot from where I'm sitting.
Ah see, that's where you went wrong. You used logic AND units traditio won't use for... reasons. Probably so he doesn't have to update his 5th ed rhino rush list.
I'm not sure we're using enough grots in these calculations. My full grot green tide army will never be able to take down an imperial knight in a single turn and it makes me crazy.
Actually I kind of wonder what the math is with that now. If a knight is 300 points..how many wounds would it take from 100 grots? Clearly that knight will NEVER get through that army. It wouldn't even be able to escape the literal flood of tiny bodies because it wouldn't be able to place it's base beyond them.
Also Knights confirmed not OP. No matter the math, a Knight can't beat grots.
Earth127 wrote: Remember there are force multipliers involved.
We know reserves in matched play are limited. It is reasonable to assume other extremes are as well.
There are objectives involved. You may not have to kill the knights to beat them.
Remember the blast are underwhelming thread where we realized shooting wasn't all that lethal?
Sure knights are hard to kill, that's the point of knights. They're also big points sinks that can be outplayed. This is why I dislike any sort of killpoint based system for matches.
this, over all, GW has designed 8th edition to be a little less lethal. and vehicles to certainly be tougher then the, frankly laughable status they where in 6th and 7th.
Roknar wrote: Hmm, true, I didn't take into account grots. Way more efficient. Just carpet bomb grots around them.
I guess by Traditio's reasoning that grots are just the most powerful unit in the game now. You can take far far more than his tac squads and they probably have a way better chance to incapacitate a knight than anything he would bring.
Roknar wrote: Everybody keeps talking about lascannons.
A unit of 5 khorne terminators with chainfists can put down a knight a turn.
Right now, on the charge they have 20 attacks and if fricken rubrics hit on 3+ you can bet your ass these will too.
So 10 attacks will stick, now it's virtually guaranteed they will have some kind of furious charge buff so they'll wound on 3s netting a pessimistic 6 wounds with no save.
Chainfists were the melta equivalent in melee so we can realistically either expect d6 wounds per or d3 re-rollable, so easily 3 wounds a piece.
So even in the worst case scenario they're causing about 18 wounds, crippling the knight. And that's not taking into the account any combi meltas they might be able to fire first, or that this will likely be much cheaper than a knight.
So their transport , if any, could also pour in some wounds.
But on the topic of lascannons, a spartan could end up shooting 8 lascannon shots as well as a multimelta. That knight ain't looking so hot from where I'm sitting.
Fists have -1 to hit. So, i'd expect that you might want more than 3 termies to cripple a knight. Also, we have no idea how marks and bonuses would work. And what would chainfists do. I'd expect d6 but it might be something else.
Yea, hence the 50% attacks hitting. 3+ WS going to 4+.
We know furious charge is still around with khorne daemons and icons are still there too, so I'm pretty confident we can still get that strength buff, which suddenly matter a great deal more than it did with powerfists and their ilk. In this case wounding the knight on 3s as opposed to 4 like "normal" fists.
Either way, I think it's pretty safe to say that you don't want to get into CC with them/fist units with multiwound units.
ERJAK wrote: I never understood the problem with knights. They were some of the most fairly costed models in the game. They have clear weaknesses, especially when fielded as their own faction and actually except for the knight crusader and the knight renegade have very limited damage potential.
They weren't broken or op which is why none of the top 5 armies ever bothered to use them. They were a decent crutch for things like SoB or IG though.
they where super heavies, which for some people was all it took .
The famous line of Boris the Bear before he mows down the Adolescent Radioactive Blackbelt Hampsters with an M-60, "They might not mutants, and they might not be ninjas, but they were fast and young, and that's good enough for me."
Earth127 wrote: Remember there are force multipliers involved.
We know reserves in matched play are limited. It is reasonable to assume other extremes are as well.
There are objectives involved. You may not have to kill the knights to beat them.
Remember the blast are underwhelming thread where we realized shooting wasn't all that lethal?
Sure knights are hard to kill, that's the point of knights. They're also big points sinks that can be outplayed. This is why I dislike any sort of killpoint based system for matches.
this, over all, GW has designed 8th edition to be a little less lethal. and vehicles to certainly be tougher then the, frankly laughable status they where in 6th and 7th.
I would argue that it's way more lethal, but that things are not disproportionately affected the way they were.
I mean the swarmlord is basically inflicting 'critical existance failure' on anything it gets in base contact with, it's just everything is about the same level of vulnerable to it.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Fun fact, if the knight has a gauntlet a unit of repentia with an sob priest on the charge (205ish points after upgrades) will kill something like 3-4 knights in a round, even at S6.
As a side note for traditio, I have figured out how best to explain why lascannon marines aren't efficient enough for your liking at taking down a knight, and it is actually rather simple.
You are paying for other things on the models your lascannons are equiped to.
If a lascannon at bs 3+ could be purchased for 25 points each, then they could do exactly what you want them to. They would (if every other stat was at a baseline of 1 or 6+) be able to completely dominated knight on a pure damage to target level.
But unfortunately this game requires you to buy the entire unit, and all the defense and morale rating in the world won't help you kill knights off any easier.
Your idea of balance is not without merit, equal points of antitank guns should (and would) drop a knight a turn. But because you are paying for melee ability, speed, morale, saves, special rules, and less viable weapons on those models they will never be as viable as you would like them to be.
The only answer, and I do mean only, is to lower your expectations of what a viable level of damage per turn per point (or power level) is. Your marines will survive, they will score points, they will be hard to break due to morale, and they will take on a large variety of units in the game. What they will not do is overcome an imperial knight, or my other large unit in the game without more efficient package for the weapons than the marines.
A couple twin lascannon dreadnaughts will do the job, for example. They could take shots at the knight while closing and deny the knight easy access to your weaker marines. I would bet their melee weapon is no slouch either (even if it matches the new powerfist, it would double strength to a 12 making it sound on 3+) so you would be able to get some work done there.
TLDR: I see where you're coming from, but what you're asking for in the game is impossible if you want to actually play the game.
Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:You are paying for other things on the models your lascannons are equiped to.
If a lascannon at bs 3+ could be purchased for 25 points each, then they could do exactly what you want them to. They would (if every other stat was at a baseline of 1 or 6+) be able to completely dominated knight on a pure damage to target level.
But unfortunately this game requires you to buy the entire unit, and all the defense and morale rating in the world won't help you kill knights off any easier.
What you are saying is basically accurate, and this is one of the reasons why IKs are just bad game design.
What you are trying to express is the notion of "opportunity cost." If I want to take a lascannon, I have to pay an "opportunity cost," namely, a pre-requisite points cost for a unit simply for the opportunity to take that lascannon as an additional upgrade.
In 7th edition, for space marines, that opportunity cost is about 70 points for either a tactical or a devastator squad.
Imperial Knights don't HAVE an opportunity cost.
That's unfair, and it's bad game design.
That's why IKs (and vehicles and MCs in general) should cost way more than they do now. It's not enough to price them based on their actual abilities. You also have to take into consideration the opportunity cost that a comparable unit would have had to have paid to get those same abilities as an upgrade.
Automatically Appended Next Post: I mean, really, based on wounds alone, IKs should have had a power level of about 50.
Tactical marines are T4 with a 3+ armor save, 1 wound each.
IKs are T8 (twice as good as marines) with a 4+ armor save and have 24 wounds.
You do realize that MCs and Imperial Knights have a couple options that require them to cost additional points, right? You have to pay for the base model and it's equipment and then pay for upgrades just like everything else. So by your definition, they are good game design. But something like Typhus is bad because he has no additional options to pay for.
Not all units are equal in terms of strength. Lots of things tend to be rock, paper, scissors. You shouldn't be able to kill a knight in one turn without tailoring your list to do so. And you should never be able to do so with a tac squad.
mmzero252 wrote: You do realize that MCs and Imperial Knights have a couple options that require them to cost additional points, right? You have to pay for the base model and it's equipment and then pay for upgrades just like everything else. So by your definition, they are good game design.
Your point is utter nonsense.
What are you even trying to say?
That you have to pay extra for upgrades for MCs, vehicles, etc.?
That's irrelevant to the point that I was making.
A specialist model/unit as such pays less, if any, of an opportunity cost than a comparable non-specialist unit.
mmzero252 wrote: You do realize that MCs and Imperial Knights have a couple options that require them to cost additional points, right? You have to pay for the base model and it's equipment and then pay for upgrades just like everything else. So by your definition, they are good game design.
Your point is utter nonsense.
What are you even trying to say?
That you have to pay extra for upgrades for MCs, vehicles, etc.?
That's irrelevant to the point that I was making.
A specialist model/unit as such pays less, if any, of an opportunity cost than a comparable non-specialist unit.
You literally mentioned point "opportunity costs" and described it as paying for a base unit just for an opportunity to take additional options. Then you said knights don't have that so they're bad. I was pointing out that you're wrong and that they do have that.
You've been trying to compare apples to grapefruit the entire thread. Buy a few new units for your army, seriously. You won't get anywhere by putting a million tac squads on the field. Actually you might if you actually field a million tac squads in every game. Take REAL anti-tank units. Take units designed to actually hurt knights on a comparable or reasonable level. Stop being an idiot and trying to one turn kill something that has no right being one turn killed by a tactical squad. That or bring 100 grots like I pointed out. You will invalidate the knight for probably the entire game.
mmzero252 wrote:You literally mentioned point "opportunity costs" and described it as paying for a base unit just for an opportunity to take additional options. Then you said knights don't have that so they're bad. I was pointing out that you're wrong and that they do have that.
You've either intentionally or unintentionally misunderstood the points that I was making.
Reread and try again.
That said, I would like to point out that I have no expectation that you'll come around to my point of view, given the fact that you apparently own 4 IKs.
And you apparently also play SWs and Skaven Daemons?
Seeing as how you're resorting to going off topic and picking out things in my signature to try and win your point across in an internet forum, you've already lost.
I basically never even use my imperial knights. I've never run more than a single one in a game and most of the time my opponent actually tells me to bring one along. But I also play SoB which at the moment heavily need a boost like that just to compete with certain armies.
But please, continue to go off topic and ruin your credibility further.
Roknar wrote: Yea, hence the 50% attacks hitting. 3+ WS going to 4+.
We know furious charge is still around with khorne daemons and icons are still there too, so I'm pretty confident we can still get that strength buff, which suddenly matter a great deal more than it did with powerfists and their ilk. In this case wounding the knight on 3s as opposed to 4 like "normal" fists.
Either way, I think it's pretty safe to say that you don't want to get into CC with them/fist units with multiwound units.
There are likely no bonus attacks on the charge. Well, MoK Might give one. But you should also take it into consideration. 3 combi-meltas are likely to deal a bunch of wounds to a knight at half range. It's statistically ~1.5 that lands a wound after to-hits and 5++. So, it would be some damage. Than the fists will be swinging and dealing some more damage. I'd expect you to have at least 10 termies with close to average rolls with all combi-meltas and a bunch of axes, fists and chainfists to one-shot a knight.
Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:You are paying for other things on the models your lascannons are equiped to.
If a lascannon at bs 3+ could be purchased for 25 points each, then they could do exactly what you want them to. They would (if every other stat was at a baseline of 1 or 6+) be able to completely dominated knight on a pure damage to target level.
But unfortunately this game requires you to buy the entire unit, and all the defense and morale rating in the world won't help you kill knights off any easier.
What you are saying is basically accurate, and this is one of the reasons why IKs are just bad game design.
What you are trying to express is the notion of "opportunity cost." If I want to take a lascannon, I have to pay an "opportunity cost," namely, a pre-requisite points cost for a unit simply for the opportunity to take that lascannon as an additional upgrade.
In 7th edition, for space marines, that opportunity cost is about 70 points for either a tactical or a devastator squad.
Imperial Knights don't HAVE an opportunity cost.
That's unfair, and it's bad game design.
That's why IKs (and vehicles and MCs in general) should cost way more than they do now. It's not enough to price them based on their actual abilities. You also have to take into consideration the opportunity cost that a comparable unit would have had to have paid to get those same abilities as an upgrade.
Automatically Appended Next Post: I mean, really, based on wounds alone, IKs should have had a power level of about 50.
Tactical marines are T4 with a 3+ armor save, 1 wound each.
IKs are T8 (twice as good as marines) with a 4+ armor save and have 24 wounds.
Why do you keep comparing two units with different roles? Tac marines are your objective holders, not your dedicated AT/AI units. They're basically there to grab an objective, and maybe take potshots, but never a complete game changer by themselves. It's like taking a LR Vanquisher and complaining that it sucks at killing infantry. Or that Genestealers suck at shooting.
CadianGateTroll wrote: Guys! Guys! Guys! The real culprit is the undercosted Eldar wraith knight. That guy is even tougher than an IK because of better invul saves and have better offensive capability.
There is some truth in this (and I admit this as an Iyanden player). One thing the WK lacked was the ability to combine decent firepower and CC potential on a single model, you had to choose between a shooty and a punchy variant. That lack of tactical flexibility was partially behind its lower cost IMHO. IKs could take a big gun and a Strength D CC weapon.
I am sure GW are aware that the Wraithknight was a bit too good for its points in 7th and it will be tweaked appropriately in 8th to bring it in line with other similar models. The fact that Iks now have wounds already weighs in its favour. Also it looks like Gargantuan is no longer a thing so you won't be stacking T8 3+/5++/FNP in the same way anymore.
My main hope is that it is still possible to include a single LoW in a mixed army. I don't want to spam them, but a single big hitter forming the centerpiece of an army looks really cool (and also fluffy, at least for Iyanden ).
Karhedron wrote: I am sure GW are aware that the Wraithknight was a bit too good for its points in 7th and it will be tweaked appropriately in 8th to bring it in line with other similar models. The fact that Iks now have wounds already weighs in its favour. Also it looks like Gargantuan is no longer a thing so you won't be stacking T8 3+/5++/FNP in the same way anymore.
My main hope is that it is still possible to include a single LoW in a mixed army. I don't want to spam them, but a single big hitter forming the centerpiece of an army looks really cool (and also fluffy, at least for Iyanden ).
Well knight will probably up it's wounds in 8th ed as well. And single LOW possible is pretty much quaranteed.
Karhedron wrote: I am sure GW are aware that the Wraithknight was a bit too good for its points in 7th and it will be tweaked appropriately in 8th to bring it in line with other similar models. The fact that Iks now have wounds already weighs in its favour. Also it looks like Gargantuan is no longer a thing so you won't be stacking T8 3+/5++/FNP in the same way anymore.
My main hope is that it is still possible to include a single LoW in a mixed army. I don't want to spam them, but a single big hitter forming the centerpiece of an army looks really cool (and also fluffy, at least for Iyanden ).
Well knight will probably up it's wounds in 8th ed as well. And single LOW possible is pretty much quaranteed.
you'd almost have to have a 1 LOW option. if they didn't it's a HUGE hole given that most armies are built around just 1 LOW, but it a single knight, wraith knight, or Robute Gulliman. I can't imagine GW telling Space Marine players that if they wanna take Gulliman they need to take a Baneblade and Marius Calgar. also it's a fair question what units will be LOWs in 8th edition as it is, will Calgar, Dante etc continue to be LOWs? will they be restored to HQs? what about Land Raiders? Land Raiders could make the transition to 8th as being nearly as good as some units that where super heavies, will they now be LOWs? etc
Knights paid an appropriate cost in 7th edition. Namely a 100 point base price to be a superheavy with 6hullpoints. Then it paid for it's armor (60 points), shield (20 points) etc.
Then it paid for a long range cannon of some kind while also buying a very powerful melee weapon forcing it to close the distance to ensure it was used to its full extent
So yes, it pays for what it does by diversifying targets and necessitating a close assault role while also sporting long range firepower. That is the opportunity cost.
It will pay that now while also feeling the pressure of a declining statline.
Here's what we know:
1. A Knight is Power Level 23
2. A 5 Man Tactical Squad is Power Level 5
3. A tooled up 5 Man Tactical Squad in 7th is around 100 points
If the Marine unit stays around 100 points in 8th, that will put the Knight in around 460 points. Is that enough for balance purposes?
Karhedron wrote: I am sure GW are aware that the Wraithknight was a bit too good for its points in 7th and it will be tweaked appropriately in 8th to bring it in line with other similar models. The fact that Iks now have wounds already weighs in its favour. Also it looks like Gargantuan is no longer a thing so you won't be stacking T8 3+/5++/FNP in the same way anymore.
My main hope is that it is still possible to include a single LoW in a mixed army. I don't want to spam them, but a single big hitter forming the centerpiece of an army looks really cool (and also fluffy, at least for Iyanden ).
Well knight will probably up it's wounds in 8th ed as well. And single LOW possible is pretty much quaranteed.
One good thing is that Wraith Knights and Riptides will now decline in power as they take wounds - something that was severely needed in 7th ed.
One good thing is that Wraith Knights and Riptides will now decline in power as they take wounds - something that was severely needed in 7th ed.
While this will surely be the case for the WK, what makes you so sure the Riptide will get the same? It is entirely possible that the Riptide will have less than 10 wounds, but still have 2+/5++ and an ability called 'Stim Injectors' that is basically FNP (like we know Dark Eldar are getting through 'Power from Pain' and Nurgle Daemons get with 'Disgustingly Resilant')
BoomWolf wrote: How on earth are people still lumping riptides with wraithknight?
Because they are both the most powerful/cheese unit in their respective Codices, they are both near unkillable creatures (not vehicles) and Marine players hate them with the fires of hades. They are also on the same size base, which premiered for Flyers, the DK, Riptide and WK.
One good thing is that Wraith Knights and Riptides will now decline in power as they take wounds - something that was severely needed in 7th ed.
While this will surely be the case for the WK, what makes you so sure the Riptide will get the same? It is entirely possible that the Riptide will have less than 10 wounds, but still have 2+/5++ and an ability called 'Stim Injectors' that is basically FNP (like we know Dark Eldar are getting through 'Power from Pain' and Nurgle Daemons get with 'Disgustingly Resilant')
While we don't know for sure, given The Swarmlord has 12 Wound it's highly likely that a Riptide will have at least that many.
Especially given that Dreadnoughts have 8.
I think you're right about the Riptide, but at the rate that stats decrease (half wounds, than quarter wounds), a 12 wound Riptide isn't likely to care about its declining stats unless they are dramatically different from 7E (i.e. no Stims or Nova reactor)
I don't mind it being tough if it costs appropriately. Also, there's no ignore cover and to-hit increases now. So, riptide's killiness is likely to go down a bit.
koooaei wrote: I don't mind it being tough if it costs appropriately. Also, there's no ignore cover and to-hit increases now. So, riptide's killiness is likely to go down a bit.
Ehhhh... I remember when Warhammer had the "oh, yeah Vampire Counts are strong, but the units are trash." What does it matter that half your points are tied up in one character when literally nothing in the enemy army can kill it.
Roknar wrote: Yea, hence the 50% attacks hitting. 3+ WS going to 4+.
We know furious charge is still around with khorne daemons and icons are still there too, so I'm pretty confident we can still get that strength buff, which suddenly matter a great deal more than it did with powerfists and their ilk. In this case wounding the knight on 3s as opposed to 4 like "normal" fists.
Either way, I think it's pretty safe to say that you don't want to get into CC with them/fist units with multiwound units.
There are likely no bonus attacks on the charge. Well, MoK Might give one. But you should also take it into consideration. 3 combi-meltas are likely to deal a bunch of wounds to a knight at half range. It's statistically ~1.5 that lands a wound after to-hits and 5++. So, it would be some damage. Than the fists will be swinging and dealing some more damage. I'd expect you to have at least 10 termies with close to average rolls with all combi-meltas and a bunch of axes, fists and chainfists to one-shot a knight.
I think it was blood letters that they said would get +1 strength and +1 attack on the charge. Mok has always either been +1 strength or attack, not so sure on furious charge anymore but given how the current icon gives khorne units furious charge, I would be surprised not to see some combination of both in 8th. Be it from the icon or whatever the mark equivalent is or more likely, a combination thereof.
I doubt they'll receive less base attacks either. That would give us a pretty safe assumption of a minimum of 3 attacks on the charge for khorne termies.
From what we've seen so far though, I'm not confident they reduced attacks across the board. It feels more like they intend to crank up melee as a whole, so personally I have no doubt they will get their fourth attack from somewhere.
I have no doubt whatsoever that 10 termies can oneshot a knight without breaking a sweat, but we might well be able to achieve the same with much less. Not accounting for loosing models of course so you still want more but yea.
OOH! What if Knights get Households to have their own "Chapter Tactics"? That would be neat! 
you, 
at complaining Knight players?
