Are Imperial knights, wraithknights and such other equivalent models too easy to kill? Or do weapons do too much damage?
I'm asking because I know I can take down a wraith knight in one turn of shooting, and I don't have the best list out there. With this new knight I'm worried it's not going to stay on the table long as I'm sure it'll be both a points and money sink.
I think that they will keep dying too easily as long as people are forced to bring enough anti-tank to handle even tougher targets like daemon primarchs. Those models become a lot harder to kill if people are bringing less anti-tank and more anti-horde to counter their local meta.
I think part of it is the effect of random damage weapons. Defensive abilities tend to be static and easy to cost. But when 4 lascannon s have the ability to kill one of those models, it really drops their value.
Purifying Tempest wrote: 8th edition empowered shooting by allowing anything to hurt anything, and AP always serves a purpose...
Than then put a premium tax on toughness and wounds instead of shooting.
Hence crappy shooting can rule the day and hard targets sir on shelves.
This, plus:
1) They cant get cover 99% the time
2) MW's ignore Invuls and its easy to get MW's out,
3) They dont do enough in melee and hordes can surround them
4) They cant hold objectives very well
Jidmah wrote: I think that they will keep dying too easily as long as people are forced to bring enough anti-tank to handle even tougher targets like daemon primarchs. Those models become a lot harder to kill if people are bringing less anti-tank and more anti-horde to counter their local meta.
Yeah, with vehicles and monsters having the same type of stat line now “anti-vehicle” weapons are a solution to both and worth taking more of since they are likely to have viable targets in every game.
They are too easy to kill. Because they're so tall, it is super easy to draw LOS to them from any part of the table, so all the enemy lascannons can focusfire them. And of course they hardly ever get cover. GW has been really stingy with toughness. I really think that Knight-scale things should have at least toughness nine; it would help against their most common bane, the lascannons and variety of other weapons. Toughness eight is really common, relatively small vehicles like Vindicators and some Dreadnoughts have it, while toughness nine is almost unheard of.
They need to die reasonably quickly against special anti tank weaponry.
Otherwise they would just insta-win against any army that is not completely loaded with those kind of weapons.
Crimson wrote: They are too easy to kill. Because they're so tall, it is super easy to draw LOS to them from any part of the table, so all the enemy lascannons can focusfire them. And of course they hardly ever get cover. GW has been really stingy with toughness. I really think that Knight-scale things should have at least toughness nine; it would help against their most common bane, the lascannons and variety of other weapons. Toughness eight is really common, relatively small vehicles like Vindicators and some Dreadnoughts have it, while toughness nine is almost unheard of.
T8 isn't common at all. The only "small" vehicles that have it are those which are know for being exceptionally tough, like the vindicator with his huge siege shield, ironclad dreadnoughts or wraithlords. Pretty much everything else is T7.
T8 isn't common at all. The only "small" vehicles that have it are those which are know for being exceptionally tough, like the vindicator with his huge siege shield, ironclad dreadnoughts or wraithlords. Pretty much everything else is T7.
All Leman Russ tanks have it. It just weird that toughness seems to progressively get better for larger stuff... until it reaches 8 and doesn't any more. For example compare the Eldar Wraith units: the Wraithguard are T6, (W3), their larger cousin the Wraithlord has T8 (W10), while the enormous Wraithknight is somehow still T8 (W24).
The really big stuff should be tougher. At the moment having one big, expensive vehicle instead of several, smaller, cheaper ones is usually just a liability.
T8 isn't common at all. The only "small" vehicles that have it are those which are know for being exceptionally tough, like the vindicator with his huge siege shield, ironclad dreadnoughts or wraithlords. Pretty much everything else is T7.
All Leman Russ tanks have it. It just weird that toughness seems to progressively get better for larger stuff... until it reaches 8 and doesn't any more. For example compare the Eldar Wraith units: the Wraithguard are T6, (W3), their larger cousin the Wraithlord has T8 (W10), while the enormous Wraithknight is somehow still T8 (W24).
The really big stuff should be tougher. At the moment having one big, expensive vehicle instead of several, smaller, cheaper ones is usually just a liability.
I've said this probably a dozen times. They've been very liberal with Strength for guns going above 10, but toughness 9 is nowhere to be seen outside of FW
If anything can wound anything, why not go above 8 or 10?
Just for reference from earlier editions, boltguns could only glance rhinos on 6s shooting it in it's rear spot. So should by that logic a rhino be T8?(If someone says previous editions are irrelevant for the current edition, then why are Marines T4?)
I've said this probably a dozen times. They've been very liberal with Strength for guns going above 10, but toughness 9 is nowhere to be seen outside of FW
If anything can wound anything, why not go above 8 or 10?
Just for reference from earlier editions, boltguns could only glance rhinos on 6s shooting it in it's rear spot. So should by that logic a rhino be T8?(If someone says previous editions are irrelevant for the current edition, then why are Marines T4?)
In that particular instance I think that boltguns being better against many vehicles than lasguns is actually a good thing. But yes, I agree with your overall point.
T8 isn't common at all. The only "small" vehicles that have it are those which are know for being exceptionally tough, like the vindicator with his huge siege shield, ironclad dreadnoughts or wraithlords. Pretty much everything else is T7.
All Leman Russ tanks have it. It just weird that toughness seems to progressively get better for larger stuff... until it reaches 8 and doesn't any more. For example compare the Eldar Wraith units: the Wraithguard are T6, (W3), their larger cousin the Wraithlord has T8 (W10), while the enormous Wraithknight is somehow still T8 (W24).
The really big stuff should be tougher. At the moment having one big, expensive vehicle instead of several, smaller, cheaper ones is usually just a liability.
I've said this probably a dozen times. They've been very liberal with Strength for guns going above 10, but toughness 9 is nowhere to be seen outside of FW
If anything can wound anything, why not go above 8 or 10?
Just for reference from earlier editions, boltguns could only glance rhinos on 6s shooting it in it's rear spot. So should by that logic a rhino be T8?(If someone says previous editions are irrelevant for the current edition, then why are Marines T4?)
Not every army can field lascannons, not every army can get bonuses to wound. What are you supposed to do if S8 is as high as you go?
And don't give me 'everything can wound everything' because that's the clarion call of being bad at math. A T9 24 wound model with a 5++ takes 47 melta gun shots to take down. A meq equivalent melta gun costs 17pts. MeQ bodies range from 9 to 'holy crap' points per model. That means it would take 1222 pts of units armed ONLY with anti-tank weapons minimum to kill it.
It would take 36 rapid firing, overchaging, reroll 1s Hellblasters (only 1188pts) to drop it.
The problem isn't toughness the problem is that large models tend to be overcosted and multi-damage weapons tend to do too much damage when they do hit and wound. Plus an uneven distribution of reroll auras.
I've said this probably a dozen times. They've been very liberal with Strength for guns going above 10, but toughness 9 is nowhere to be seen outside of FW
Huh?
Aside from Eldar there's like 5 or 6 S10 weapons. Tau and Eldar are the only ones with guns above S10 (and the Tau one is super limited). Everything else is on a titanic model.
I've said this probably a dozen times. They've been very liberal with Strength for guns going above 10, but toughness 9 is nowhere to be seen outside of FW
Huh?
Aside from Eldar there's like 5 or 6 S10 weapons. Tau and Eldar are the only ones with guns above S10 (and the Tau one is super limited). Everything else is on a titanic model.
SM have a bunch of over S10 stuff like Bobby G and dreads in CC.
I've said this probably a dozen times. They've been very liberal with Strength for guns going above 10, but toughness 9 is nowhere to be seen outside of FW
Huh?
Aside from Eldar there's like 5 or 6 S10 weapons. Tau and Eldar are the only ones with guns above S10 (and the Tau one is super limited). Everything else is on a titanic model.
SM have a bunch of over S10 stuff like Bobby G and dreads in CC.
Yea, but he was specifying guns. S10 melee is far less concerning except on fast moving primarchs.
I don't think they're too "easy" too kill, more the fact once you make something like that hi on 5s, it's essentially out of the game anyway. That paired they are a lot easier to bring down then they once were.
HMint wrote: They need to die reasonably quickly against special anti tank weaponry.
Otherwise they would just insta-win against any army that is not completely loaded with those kind of weapons.
To some extent this is true, I think the issue is how easily and how luck based it is. Especially with the degrading profile, random damage on heavy weapons makes them unreliable. Sometimes they will just eat heavy weapon shots, mortal combat wounds etc, other times if dice go cold/hot they’ll die to a single lascannon deveststor squad. Their durability just isn’t dry consistent unlike blobs of infantry where it takes at least as many shots to kill as there are wounds in the unit. When investing a large chunk of points in something you w ant it to be dependable.
As Erjak explained, T9 comes with real problems.
I think many Titanic models could benefit from damage reduction: the damage of weapons hitting them is lowered by 1, to a minimum of 1, or maybe divided by two (rounded up), with a slight decrease of their wound characteristics. AT weapons have to be very effective against big models, but not to the point that a couple lucky shot can outright cripple them.
Knights should have a 4+ invuln sv. They are ~450 pts. A knight is not a tank, they should more resilient to anti tank weapons. I also like the damage reduced by 1 idea.
p5freak wrote: Knights should have a 4+ invuln sv. They are ~450 pts. A knight is not a tank, they should more resilient to anti tank weapons. I also like the damage reduced by 1 idea.
No, they already got a 4++ with 1 CP Stratagem and if you buff it to baseline 4++ it would be highly OP to have a 3++ for such cost
Massed fire from non-anti tank weapons could possibly be mitigated to some extent by reworking how Knight Void Shields operate. Honestly I haven't spent all that long thinking about it, but maybe we could have a situation where you get BOTH the armour save, and invuln in the case of Void shields? Anti-tank weapons would be largely unaffected as you're likely to mostly negate the armour save anyway, but it'd stop a good portion of massed, basic infantry fire stripping wounds quite so casually (and without the 'I'm completely invulnerable to small arms fire' situation of 7th).
As far as the degrading profile, I think we have to hope the codex streamlines things with regard to stratagem access. This is still a big problem for anyone running Forge World Knights, Renegade lists, or even just Imperial, non Mechanicum varieties.
...That, or you bring lists made up of Acherons, as it's main gun could care less how far down the degraded profile you've gone (wouldn't exactly be an ideal force to field!)
I rarely play my renegade knight any more because it dies far too easily and gets targeted by everything turn one. If it can't last at least two or three turns with it's stat line it's not worth the points. An increase of Toughness to 9 or 10 would make sense but GW would increase the points for it to the level that it would not still be playable.
First of all, it's good to see this thread - one of my comments was how taking a single lonely Baneblade is generally just asking for it to get insta-killed. I agree that Knights are even worse than Baneblades, but either way, the large Lords of War are easy to kill, even the "good" ones like the Baneblade chassis.
Second of all, I think this has to do with people's perceptions of how units should work. A common claim I've heard is that a unit "should" be able to make its points back in a single turn. This especially came up in a thread earlier where I was talking Ork Tankbustas. People were lamenting how bad Ork Tankbustas were because it "cost 870 points to remove a Baneblade from the table in a single turn."
In my opinion, that's actually pretty amazing. If I was a game designer, I'd make "all purpose" guns (like a Leman Russ Battlecannon) needing a 4-1 ratio against most targets (e.g. you need 4x the points of a Leman Russ with Battlecannon to completely destroy a unit worth 1x points). Specialized guns (e.g. the Exterminator autocannon against multi-wound infantry) would need a 3-1 against their specialist targets (so only a 3x points advantage to totally wipe a unit in one round of shooting) and a 5-1 against suboptimal targets. Then, hyperspecialized units (e.g. Ork tankbustas) need a 2-1 to wipe a unit of their preferred target type, and a 6-1 to wipe a unit of another type.
The problem with the reasoning of "does it make its points back in a turn" is that, if it's taken to its logical extreme, it means a 2000 point army will be able to destroy an enemy 2000 point army in one turn. The ramifications of this philosophy can be seen now, with the skyrocketing lethality of weapons.
Unit1126PLL wrote: In my opinion, that's actually pretty amazing. If I was a game designer, I'd make "all purpose" guns (like a Leman Russ Battlecannon) needing a 4-1 ratio against most targets (e.g. you need 4x the points of a Leman Russ with Battlecannon to completely destroy a unit worth 1x points). Specialized guns (e.g. the Exterminator autocannon against multi-wound infantry) would need a 3-1 against their specialist targets (so only a 3x points advantage to totally wipe a unit in one round of shooting) and a 5-1 against suboptimal targets. Then, hyperspecialized units (e.g. Ork tankbustas) need a 2-1 to wipe a unit of their preferred target type, and a 6-1 to wipe a unit of another type.
The problem with this theory is that many specialized units may only get a single attack each game. If they can't trade at least 1:1 in a single turn there's no point in taking them, they'll never justify the points you spent on them.
Unit1126PLL wrote: In my opinion, that's actually pretty amazing. If I was a game designer, I'd make "all purpose" guns (like a Leman Russ Battlecannon) needing a 4-1 ratio against most targets (e.g. you need 4x the points of a Leman Russ with Battlecannon to completely destroy a unit worth 1x points). Specialized guns (e.g. the Exterminator autocannon against multi-wound infantry) would need a 3-1 against their specialist targets (so only a 3x points advantage to totally wipe a unit in one round of shooting) and a 5-1 against suboptimal targets. Then, hyperspecialized units (e.g. Ork tankbustas) need a 2-1 to wipe a unit of their preferred target type, and a 6-1 to wipe a unit of another type.
The problem with this theory is that many specialized units may only get a single attack each game. If they can't trade at least 1:1 in a single turn there's no point in taking them, they'll never justify the points you spent on them.
Why? Presumably, if you reduce lethality, then your units will be able to survive as well into another turn. Gone would be the days of "suicide melta" where if you don't kill a tank then you're fethed; instead, it would require a significant investment of points to wipe out a squad (e.g. an 80-point drop melta squad would take 160 points of firepower to wipe out from its dedicated hard counter, 240 points of firepower from its general unit type counter, and damn near 360 points to be wiped out by a generalist).
Unit1126PLL wrote: Why? Presumably, if you reduce lethality, then your units will be able to survive as well into another turn.
Because many of these units are glass cannons, melee units that require multiple turns of setting up, units with one-shot weapons, etc.
Gone would be the days of "suicide melta" where if you don't kill a tank then you're fethed; instead, it would require a significant investment of points to wipe out a squad (e.g. an 80-point drop melta squad would take 160 points of firepower to wipe out from its dedicated hard counter, 240 points of firepower from its general unit type counter, and damn near 360 points to be wiped out by a generalist).
That's just absurd. A unit of four T3/5+ models should not require that much firepower from its "hard counter", especially when it has zero ablative wounds and each dead guardsman costs it 25% of its firepower. To get to that point you have to utterly cripple offense and you end up with a game of weak units flailing ineffectively at each other for 5-7 turns and the game ending with 90% of the models still on the table.
Unit1126PLL wrote: Why? Presumably, if you reduce lethality, then your units will be able to survive as well into another turn.
Because many of these units are glass cannons, melee units that require multiple turns of setting up, units with one-shot weapons, etc.
Gone would be the days of "suicide melta" where if you don't kill a tank then you're fethed; instead, it would require a significant investment of points to wipe out a squad (e.g. an 80-point drop melta squad would take 160 points of firepower to wipe out from its dedicated hard counter, 240 points of firepower from its general unit type counter, and damn near 360 points to be wiped out by a generalist).
That's just absurd. A unit of four T3/5+ models should not require that much firepower from its "hard counter", especially when it has zero ablative wounds and each dead guardsman costs it 25% of its firepower. To get to that point you have to utterly cripple offense and you end up with a game of weak units flailing ineffectively at each other for 5-7 turns and the game ending with 90% of the models still on the table.
Okay, if you think that's absurd, then we can adjust it. Maybe 1.5 to 1 ratio for specialists. And "glass cannon" has no meaning anymore. Dark Eldar, the quintessential "glass cannon" army, has units that are as hard to hurt as Knights against lascannons (5+ save with -1 to hit on a ravager, vs 5+ save on a Knight).
But surely you see the problem with the idea that "a unit has to make its points back in one turn" being the gold standard, yes? That just means that a 2000 point army will delete a 2000 point army in one turn. That's arguably worse than having 90% of units left alive on Turn 7.
Elysian 4x melta/plasma CCS. Four T3/5+ bodies, four guns. Glass cannons exist.
But surely you see the problem with the idea that "a unit has to make its points back in one turn" being the gold standard, yes?
Fortunately that is your straw man, not what I actually said.
No, that's not my straw man, that's actually what I have a problem with. My suggestions are merely suggestions, and I put as much weight into them as suggesting where to eat or what to do. If it doesn't work, it doesn't work; I've not really thought about it more than "this might help." So, conceded that my weird scaling system doesn't work.
Do you think it is a problem to ask for a unit to be able to "make its points back in a turn" or do you think that's fine? And if you think its fine, then how would you prevent a 2000 point army from instantly destroying another 2000 point army, other than forcing players to bring units or models they may not otherwise want to bring?
Unit1126PLL wrote: No, that's not my straw man, that's actually what I have a problem with.
It absolutely is a straw man because I never said that making a unit's points back in a single turn, especially on the first turn, should be the default. Go back and read what I actually said and how it does not lead to the "kill a whole army on turn 1" scenario you claim that I am endorsing.
And if you think its fine, then how would you prevent a 2000 point army from instantly destroying another 2000 point army, other than forcing players to bring units or models they may not otherwise want to bring?
You force players to bring units or models they may not otherwise want to bring. Sorry if you don't like that, but GW's "take whatever you want" system is idiotic game design. In a properly designed game it isn't a problem for some specialists to kill at a 1:1 (or better) rate each turn because you can't build a successful army out of nothing but those specialists.
Unit1126PLL wrote: No, that's not my straw man, that's actually what I have a problem with.
It absolutely is a straw man because I never said that making a unit's points back in a single turn, especially on the first turn, should be the default. Go back and read what I actually said and how it does not lead to the "kill a whole army on turn 1" scenario you claim that I am endorsing.
And if you think its fine, then how would you prevent a 2000 point army from instantly destroying another 2000 point army, other than forcing players to bring units or models they may not otherwise want to bring?
You force players to bring units or models they may not otherwise want to bring. Sorry if you don't like that, but GW's "take whatever you want" system is idiotic game design. In a properly designed game it isn't a problem for some specialists to kill at a 1:1 (or better) rate each turn because you can't build a successful army out of nothing but those specialists.
It won't be the default, but it will be for competitive play. Deleting an entire army in a single turn is obviously powerful, so if there are units capable of doing so, then there will be armies capable of doing so, even if they're just fifteen of the same unit. And it doesn't have to be Turn 1 - beta strike could be a thing, or whatever. The logical conclusion of "units should be able to make their points back in one turn" is "armies (of those units) should be able to make their points back in one turn."
Unless
Peregrine wrote: You force players to bring units or models they may not otherwise want to bring.
but I think you and I have hashed out why I don't like this plan. I'm not sure it'd be popular with the players, either - even GW's rumored 0-3 restrictions on literally anything not troops is causing a ruckus in the relevant thread.
That tankbusta case was hyperspecialised unit which if you take baneblades price worth hurts you against any reasonable army and gets one chance. If target is alive you just spent more than baneblade and lost that unit. If you go second you basically fight with half the army left...with now immune baneblade against you
tneva82 wrote: That tankbusta case was hyperspecialised unit which if you take baneblades price worth hurts you against any reasonable army and gets one chance. If target is alive you just spent more than baneblade and lost that unit. If you go second you basically fight with half the army left...with now immune baneblade against you
.... which merely emphasizes the problem. If the tankbustas instantly die if they don't go first, isn't that a problem? Surely it would be better to reduce overall lethality so that "instantly deleting a unit" wouldn't be possible?
If the issue is that something or another is needed to eliminate the enemy first turn, and if it doesn't get first turn, it itself will be eliminated, then that's a problem, because it's essentially "whomever shoots first wins". If lethality were lower, that wouldn't be the case - units would have a chance to retaliate against their aggressors before being picked up off the table.
Since 8th hit, I've been feeling like Wraithkights (and Knights / Land Raiders / Baneblades in general) are too squishy.
My lists overemphasize lascannons. It's easy to gun down a Wraithknight when you are sporting 25 lascannons, along with every other big threat in your opponent's army.
At least in my local meta, I see other armies trending towards heavy weapons and cheap bodies over massive war machines. Other than Arbities, I don't see many armies with 20 or less models any more and think that's a shame. While I'm not a fan of super OP models in general, I like the idea big stuff has a fighting chance.
It makes me think GW has overemphasized the cost of defense and underemphasized the cost of offense in how they assign points values. It goes up and down the ladder, starting with power armored troops and moving up to super heavies. Would love to see this corrected at some point.
Unit1126PLL wrote: In my opinion, that's actually pretty amazing. If I was a game designer, I'd make "all purpose" guns (like a Leman Russ Battlecannon) needing a 4-1 ratio against most targets (e.g. you need 4x the points of a Leman Russ with Battlecannon to completely destroy a unit worth 1x points). Specialized guns (e.g. the Exterminator autocannon against multi-wound infantry) would need a 3-1 against their specialist targets (so only a 3x points advantage to totally wipe a unit in one round of shooting) and a 5-1 against suboptimal targets. Then, hyperspecialized units (e.g. Ork tankbustas) need a 2-1 to wipe a unit of their preferred target type, and a 6-1 to wipe a unit of another type.
The problem with this theory is that many specialized units may only get a single attack each game. If they can't trade at least 1:1 in a single turn there's no point in taking them, they'll never justify the points you spent on them.
But if all units in the game are based in that formula, then your opponent would have need to spend a ton of points to destroy that unit. In general, that would end in armies that are less deadlier. Yeah, if you go second, some of your units will die before they do anything. But theres a difference between losing 10-15% of your army if you go second that losing 50-60% of it.
Unit1126PLL wrote: In my opinion, that's actually pretty amazing. If I was a game designer, I'd make "all purpose" guns (like a Leman Russ Battlecannon) needing a 4-1 ratio against most targets (e.g. you need 4x the points of a Leman Russ with Battlecannon to completely destroy a unit worth 1x points). Specialized guns (e.g. the Exterminator autocannon against multi-wound infantry) would need a 3-1 against their specialist targets (so only a 3x points advantage to totally wipe a unit in one round of shooting) and a 5-1 against suboptimal targets. Then, hyperspecialized units (e.g. Ork tankbustas) need a 2-1 to wipe a unit of their preferred target type, and a 6-1 to wipe a unit of another type.
The problem with this theory is that many specialized units may only get a single attack each game. If they can't trade at least 1:1 in a single turn there's no point in taking them, they'll never justify the points you spent on them.
But if all units in the game are based in that formula, then your opponent would have need to spend a ton of points to destroy that unit. In general, that would end in armies that are less deadlier. Yeah, if you go second, some of your units will die before they do anything. But theres a difference between losing 10-15% of your army if you go second that losing 50-60% of it.
EDIT: Wops, I didn't saw all the replies, sorry.
It's okay Galas, haha. Peregrine and I have different values: he believes balance is the best thing for a game to strive for, while I prefer variety and storytelling come first. I think it's a subjective disagreement, which is an okay thing to disagree about.
Martel732 wrote: Balance and variety are not mutually exclusive.
Did you read the discussion that Peregrine and I had, or are you just drive-by threadsniping? Because it literally came down to "force players to take models and units they don't want to" which is a reduction in variety, because you're mandating a system of army-building of some kind rather than leaving it up to the players.
p5freak wrote: Knights should have a 4+ invuln sv. They are ~450 pts. A knight is not a tank, they should more resilient to anti tank weapons. I also like the damage reduced by 1 idea.
No, they already got a 4++ with 1 CP Stratagem and if you buff it to baseline 4++ it would be highly OP to have a 3++ for such cost
Not really you would be burning a CP each turn on your 450 point model with only 24 wounds that is crippled once it loses 12 and garbage at 18. Also it is not like they could have 2 or 3 knights like that as the Stratagem only works on one a turn.
Martel732 wrote: I don't really pay attention to his posts. I'm just tired of that fallacy in any form.
I wasn't saying it was categorically true. Peregrine suggested that the only way to fix the problem I have identified is by reducing variety. I was saying "I would rather not reduce variety for the sake of balance." That doesn't mean we shouldn't try to balance the game, but there's been no solution to the problem of ridiculously high lethality that I've seen that didn't involve "reducing variety", except for mine, which is simply: reduce lethality. I slapped some arbitrary numbers on there that looked neat, but may or may not work.
I do believe that variety can be preserved while the game is balanced. I don't have a fundamental disagreement with that idea.
Martel732 wrote: I don't really pay attention to his posts. I'm just tired of that fallacy in any form.
I wasn't saying it was categorically true. Peregrine suggested that the only way to fix the problem I have identified is by reducing variety. I was saying "I would rather not reduce variety for the sake of balance." That doesn't mean we shouldn't try to balance the game, but there's been no solution to the problem of ridiculously high lethality that I've seen that didn't involve "reducing variety", except for mine, which is simply: reduce lethality. I slapped some arbitrary numbers on there that looked neat, but may or may not work.
I do believe that variety can be preserved while the game is balanced. I don't have a fundamental disagreement with that idea.
Reducing lethality dose nothing to help variety. It would just be a meta shift to the new best units witch would likely be hordes because they have the most bodys and can sit on an objective the best.
Martel732 wrote: I don't really pay attention to his posts. I'm just tired of that fallacy in any form.
I wasn't saying it was categorically true. Peregrine suggested that the only way to fix the problem I have identified is by reducing variety. I was saying "I would rather not reduce variety for the sake of balance." That doesn't mean we shouldn't try to balance the game, but there's been no solution to the problem of ridiculously high lethality that I've seen that didn't involve "reducing variety", except for mine, which is simply: reduce lethality. I slapped some arbitrary numbers on there that looked neat, but may or may not work.
I do believe that variety can be preserved while the game is balanced. I don't have a fundamental disagreement with that idea.
Reducing lethality dose nothing to help variety. It would just be a meta shift to the new best units witch would likely be hordes because they have the most bodys and can sit on an objective the best.
No, it doesn't help it by itself. The original proposal was merely an effort to reduce the importance of having Turn 1 and to emphasize the problem with people's belief that "a unit should be able to make its points back in one turn."
It was not meant to help variety, merely to demonstrate a problem I see in the game. I just don't want the solution to the problem if it is a mandatory reduction in the options available; I'd much rather see a more elegant solution than "YOU MUST TAKE UNITS YOU DON'T WANT."
To be fair in the argument of balance vs variety, this is suppose to be a war game. If any real army brought just what the general thought was cool, they would lose every fight. And before people start lighting me up for proposing realism in 40k (which we all know is absurd and impossible on most levels), I think we should try to keep as close to this core idea as we can without breaking the game as you know, war is the central idea of this entire game.
I am also in full support of the 0-3 rule. It may restrict variety, but it is near impossible to balance a game in any way when it is unrestricted like that. If they didn't impose rules like that, they would have to nerf many units to the point of "Why does this unit exist again?". Tau Commanders would of definitely of been nerfed to the point of being equal to or less than a normal Battlesuit. Its the same reason why we can only use a certain Stratagem once per turn, as there are Stratagems that if could be used more than one time per turn, it would break the game. If the Necron Extermination Protocols Stratagem could be used more than once per turn, then either Destoryers would be nerfed into the ground or the Stratagem would never exist. With the imposed restriction, we can still have a good unit and an amazing Stratagem. In that sense, restrictions actually INCREASES variety ironically enough, as it allows us to have these powerful units that do amazing things without breaking the game to the point where they wouldn't be allowed to exist. I can't speak for you, but I would much rather have the ability to take a variety of units, some of which can do amazing things, than only have a handful of near identical units that I am allowed to spam the hell out of.
All in all, we need a good balance of variety and gameplay balance. We should have variety in that specific factions should have more than one unit in a codex to deal with a target type, but balance in that each of those units should have overall advantages and disadvantages to each other, as well as the fact that taking an entire army list of just spamming two or three units that you like should never be equal to or better than a diverse and strategically made list.
Knights are crap . Period. They need an invuln save that actually works in melee, and they need less random weapons. A 2d6 weapon should NOT cost 100 points, that's far too random.
vaklor4 wrote: Knights are crap . Period. They need an invuln save that actually works in melee, and they need less random weapons. A 2d6 weapon should NOT cost 100 points, that's far too random.
That's one of the reasons I'm wanting to test out the Styrix and Magaera Knights. They get invulns on everything. They also have decent weapons on paper. I originally got my knight to play at one of my LGS' that don't like FW stuff, because I actually wanted the Kytan. What sucks the most is, I didn't even get to use it in the big tournament I got it for. I didn't have enough time after receiving it to assemble and paint. So, now that I've got one...I'm trying to make lemonade with lemons. Once it's painted, I'll give it a go at both LGS. Since the meta is different at each one.
vaklor4 wrote: Knights are crap . Period. They need an invuln save that actually works in melee, and they need less random weapons. A 2d6 weapon should NOT cost 100 points, that's far too random.
That's one of the reasons I'm wanting to test out the Styrix and Magaera Knights. They get invulns on everything. They also have decent weapons on paper. I originally got my knight to play at one of my LGS' that don't like FW stuff, because I actually wanted the Kytan. What sucks the most is, I didn't even get to use it in the big tournament I got it for. I didn't have enough time after receiving it to assemble and paint. So, now that I've got one...I'm trying to make lemonade with lemons. Once it's painted, I'll give it a go at both LGS. Since the meta is different at each one.
Simple fix for that, counts as a Lord of Skulls for it. I doubt people will care about the smaller than normal footprint on the battlefield, and they have the exact same weapons so it still goes by WYSISWG.
I feel like knights should cost about 100 less points and the mini knight should cost around 60 points less. They are both just terrible for their cost.
I agree knights need a points reduction especially as it’s gaining more models to be a full fledged army. However I also think most knights should not only have a built in invul save but also a secondary FNP type save. This would extend the durability of knights without it taking away from anti tank or even worse anti titan weapons.
But also let’s see what the codex has and what the deepstrike nerf will accomplish. I foresee A LOT of deepstrike double tap plasma units getting burned by the deepstrike faq nerf and making it harder to drop in several double tapping plasmagun units to obliterate knight equivilant and heavy vehicle models. That alone should help much of these units survive as people move away from mass drop lists.
mew28 wrote: I feel like knights should cost about 100 less points and the mini knight should cost around 60 points less. They are both just terrible for their cost.
vaklor4 wrote: Knights are crap . Period. They need an invuln save that actually works in melee, and they need less random weapons. A 2d6 weapon should NOT cost 100 points, that's far too random.
Yea I don't quite understand why they pay 100 for a twin BC when a regular BC is 22.
vaklor4 wrote: Knights are crap . Period. They need an invuln save that actually works in melee, and they need less random weapons. A 2d6 weapon should NOT cost 100 points, that's far too random.
Yea I don't quite understand why they pay 100 for a twin BC when a regular BC is 22.
I mean the cost of their guns is all most meaningless they can push the points onto the knight chaises and vice versa. It is the total cost that matters here and 450 points a knight is just trash for shooting that is equal to about 1 leman russ.
vaklor4 wrote: Knights are crap . Period. They need an invuln save that actually works in melee, and they need less random weapons. A 2d6 weapon should NOT cost 100 points, that's far too random.
Yea I don't quite understand why they pay 100 for a twin BC when a regular BC is 22.
I mean the cost of their guns is all most meaningless they can push the points onto the knight chaises and vice versa. It is the total cost that matters here and 450 points a knight is just trash for shooting that is equal to about 1 leman russ.
Yeah the inconsistency with points costs is not quite frustrating, but close. The difference between a Leman Russ and a hulking Knight Paladin is 3+ BS as far as shooting goes. To be fair you can do "more" with a knight than a Russ. A rapid fire battle Cannon should be about 40 points if a battle cannon is 22. The avenger Gatling cannon is 95 points, a riptide can take a Heavy Burst cannon, it's the same but with 1 less ap. 35 points. For 18 points you can increase the ap of all of its weapons, arguably making the burst cannon 53 points. Then can be Nova charged to 18 shots, though i figure the cost of that is from the riptide itself.
Here another overlooked point muck up. A Vyper is 20 points cheaper than a Land speeder, the difference is the speeder has an extra attack(2) and 3+ WS. Other than weapons which they pay for separately they have the same profile and rules, I'd expect that the speeder to be more expensive for those little advantages, but not 20 points!
I don't expect Knights to get much of a points drop if any in the codex. The knight chassis is 320 even if it were rounded off to 300 I'd be surprised.
vaklor4 wrote: Knights are crap . Period. They need an invuln save that actually works in melee, and they need less random weapons. A 2d6 weapon should NOT cost 100 points, that's far too random.
Yea I don't quite understand why they pay 100 for a twin BC when a regular BC is 22.
I mean the cost of their guns is all most meaningless they can push the points onto the knight chaises and vice versa. It is the total cost that matters here and 450 points a knight is just trash for shooting that is equal to about 1 leman russ.
Yeah the inconsistency with points costs is not quite frustrating, but close. The difference between a Leman Russ and a hulking Knight Paladin is 3+ BS as far as shooting goes. To be fair you can do "more" with a knight than a Russ. A rapid fire battle Cannon should be about 40 points if a battle cannon is 22. The avenger Gatling cannon is 95 points, a riptide can take a Heavy Burst cannon, it's the same but with 1 less ap. 35 points. For 18 points you can increase the ap of all of its weapons, arguably making the burst cannon 53 points. Then can be Nova charged to 18 shots, though i figure the cost of that is from the riptide itself.
Here another overlooked point muck up. A Vyper is 20 points cheaper than a Land speeder, the difference is the speeder has an extra attack(2) and 3+ WS. Other than weapons which they pay for separately they have the same profile and rules, I'd expect that the speeder to be more expensive for those little advantages, but not 20 points!
I don't expect Knights to get much of a points drop if any in the codex. The knight chassis is 320 even if it were rounded off to 300 I'd be surprised.
Maybe I'm too OCD though
Again the cost of the model or weapon is pretty meaningless. The knight could be free but if the rapid fire battle cannon costed 200 points and the reaper chainsword costed 250 points they knight paladin would be in about the same boat. They can shuffle the points back and forth but all that matters is the total cost. With some stuff like the demolish canon at 0 points you could say it is op for it's cost but the cost of it is purely on the models that can take it. so comparing the cost of just weapons is all most useless.
vaklor4 wrote: Knights are crap . Period. They need an invuln save that actually works in melee, and they need less random weapons. A 2d6 weapon should NOT cost 100 points, that's far too random.
Yea I don't quite understand why they pay 100 for a twin BC when a regular BC is 22.
I mean the cost of their guns is all most meaningless they can push the points onto the knight chaises and vice versa. It is the total cost that matters here and 450 points a knight is just trash for shooting that is equal to about 1 leman russ.
Yeah the inconsistency with points costs is not quite frustrating, but close. The difference between a Leman Russ and a hulking Knight Paladin is 3+ BS as far as shooting goes. To be fair you can do "more" with a knight than a Russ. A rapid fire battle Cannon should be about 40 points if a battle cannon is 22. The avenger Gatling cannon is 95 points, a riptide can take a Heavy Burst cannon, it's the same but with 1 less ap. 35 points. For 18 points you can increase the ap of all of its weapons, arguably making the burst cannon 53 points. Then can be Nova charged to 18 shots, though i figure the cost of that is from the riptide itself.
Here another overlooked point muck up. A Vyper is 20 points cheaper than a Land speeder, the difference is the speeder has an extra attack(2) and 3+ WS. Other than weapons which they pay for separately they have the same profile and rules, I'd expect that the speeder to be more expensive for those little advantages, but not 20 points!
I don't expect Knights to get much of a points drop if any in the codex. The knight chassis is 320 even if it were rounded off to 300 I'd be surprised.
Maybe I'm too OCD though
Again the cost of the model or weapon is pretty meaningless. The knight could be free but if the rapid fire battle cannon costed 200 points and the reaper chainsword costed 250 points they knight paladin would be in about the same boat. They can shuffle the points back and forth but all that matters is the total cost. With some stuff like the demolish canon at 0 points you could say it is op for it's cost but the cost of it is purely on the models that can take it. so comparing the cost of just weapons is all most useless.
?
If the RFBC was properly costed the total cost would drop to 390 or so, which isn't terrible. It still suffers from needing to be in melee, too, but that's what you get with knights.
fraser1191 wrote: Are Imperial knights, wraithknights and such other equivalent models too easy to kill? Or do weapons do too much damage?
I'm asking because I know I can take down a wraith knight in one turn of shooting, and I don't have the best list out there. With this new knight I'm worried it's not going to stay on the table long as I'm sure it'll be both a points and money sink.
Maybe the eldar one is a bit lackluster but imperium knights are properly priced. Yes, there are some armies that can spam anti tank or sources of mortal wounds for dirt cheap, but many other don't unless they're tailoring. Imperial knights are ok, maybe an entire army of them is hard to play, but hey playing with just 4 dudes against a real 2000 points army should be something tricky.
For a TAC list that isn't among the top 3-4 tiers killing a knight (while also trying to play the game in the most efficient way) is not that easy. Knights are not ork nauts
Possible options for some of the knights if they insist on them costing over 450 points each:
1. 10 Toughness - Heavy Bolters shouldn't be wounding on 5's
2. 2+ Armour and 4+ Invulnerable - Leviathans have this so should Knights
3. Allow them to join a Chapter to receive buffs
4. Remove the Damage Table
As it stands now they are simply outclassed by so many other cheaper units
osmesis wrote: Possible options for some of the knights if they insist on them costing over 450 points each:
1. 10 Toughness - Heavy Bolters shouldn't be wounding on 5's
2. 2+ Armour and 4+ Invulnerable - Leviathans have this so should Knights
3. Allow them to join a Chapter to receive buffs
4. Remove the Damage Table
As it stands now they are simply outclassed by so many other cheaper units
You mean one of those or all of them? As all of them at 400 points would be seriously OP.
I suspect knights will drop in points a bit you'll also get strategums which will help. The tricky is balancing the CP cost, make thrm cheap enough to use in a solo knights list would mean very powerful strategums for 1CP. However if you add in a guard CP battery a knights list becomes overpowered filth as you can use lots of strong 1CP strategums and farm that CP back.
Ice_can wrote: I suspect knights will drop in points a bit you'll also get strategums which will help. The tricky is balancing the CP cost, make thrm cheap enough to use in a solo knights list would mean very powerful strategums for 1CP. However if you add in a guard CP battery a knights list becomes overpowered filth as you can use lots of strong 1CP strategums and farm that CP back.
The game really isn't made to handle T10 units right now. Most armies can't handle a T10 unit at all, since all weapons would be wounding on 5+ instead of 4+ and 3+.
All other suggestions do sound fine though.
osmesis wrote: Possible options for some of the knights if they insist on them costing over 450 points each:
1. 10 Toughness - Heavy Bolters shouldn't be wounding on 5's
2. 2+ Armour and 4+ Invulnerable - Leviathans have this so should Knights
3. Allow them to join a Chapter to receive buffs
4. Remove the Damage Table
As it stands now they are simply outclassed by so many other cheaper units
Yeah, but with those improvements they'd worth 800+ points each.
I suspect one of the main issues is with everything being able to hurt everything it became very linier with the D6 system. Untill GW adopt a d10/d12 system the ability to scale things with proper granularity just isn't there.
Everything can hurt anything is much less of a problem than most people make it out to be. A knight won't die to lasguns any time soon.
A much bigger problem for big models is the amount of damage dedicated anti-tank weapons and jack-of-all-trade weapons do.
A single volley from a predator annihilator and half of your knight is gone, the mortar of a PBC that struggles to kill a unit of primaris marines with its d3 damage rolls, but takes a big chunk out of a knight, and some DA hell blasters just casually gun it down with their plasma stratagem.
Knights and similar models simply need to pay less for their huge pile of wounds since they don't protect them nearly as well as it seems.
Xenomancers wrote:Removing degrading profiles would help a great deal. Super heavies suffer the most from them.
I would rather see degrading profiles tweaked rather than removed. We all remember how fun it was to fight MCs/GMCs in 7th.
Ice_can wrote:
I suspect knights will drop in points a bit you'll also get strategums which will help. The tricky is balancing the CP cost, make thrm cheap enough to use in a solo knights list would mean very powerful strategums for 1CP. However if you add in a guard CP battery a knights list becomes overpowered filth as you can use lots of strong 1CP strategums and farm that CP back.
Yet another reason CPs should only be useable by the detachment that generated them.
Ice_can wrote:I suspect one of the main issues is with everything being able to hurt everything it became very linier with the D6 system. Untill GW adopt a d10/d12 system the ability to scale things with proper granularity just isn't there.
I agree that this would improve the game, but it's also the least likely solution we will see.
1) d6 is just GW's thing
2) You can get d6's in bulk just about anywhere. d10's can often be bought in bulk, but I don't think I've ever seen a box of just d12's.
In general, superheavies have the same problem they've always had. You're playing Rock, Paper, Scissors. If your opponent has high-damage, high-AP weapons, you're gonna have a bad time. If he doesn't, [i]he's[i/] gonna have a bad time.
Something that hasn't been discussed is how the game itself plays and how that relates to the overall survivability of any individual Unit. Specifically the IGUO method of play. (This has already been discussed in a couple of threads already but is pertinent to the discussion)
Now don't misunderstand, I know there are issues that revolve around alternating play, but it does solve so pretty serious holes in how the game has been shifting (for years) to an alpha strike mentality.
The method I'm suggesting is Alternating play during the phase of a Turn.
Points of Interest:
1. There wouldn't be a Player Turn any longer and only the Turn.
2. The Phases would remain the same.
3. First "Turn" is determined as before.
4. After first turn is determined, players alternate play in each phase
a. Example: Movement phase: Player 1 moves a unit. Player 2 moves a unit. Place a token or marker or something to differentiate units that have activated vs those that have yet to. Once either player has moved all their units the other player moves their remaining units
b. Once end of phase triggers the players alternate once more should there be any abilities that trigger at this time.
c. If a player passes then the other player may continue to operate as per the phase. Note: Once both players pass consecutively then that part of the phase ends, even if there are eligible units still available in the phase.
5. This opens up a lot of tactical play in each of the phases as the weight of one list cannot be counted upon to "delete" a unit before it has had an opportunity to act.
a. Tactics such as moving out of range of a decidedly dangerous unit.
b. The introduction of new Stratagems, like being when a unit is selected to activate, play this stratagem to active in the end phase.
c. MSU armies would have the advantage in the movement phase whereas the Elite armies would have the advantage in the shooting phase.
d. Passing becomes a dangerous game of chicken if a player wants to hold out in a phase for an advantage.
6. More importantly, this mode of operation allows "Elite" units the chance to perform as befitting their name.
7. This method would force players into thinking of damage vs durability and would give a needed boost to the performance of large, expensive units, like Knight class units.
8. Additionally, this method would allow designers to better balance against the individual unit vs the whole army as many here constantly calling for.
Is this method perfect? In no way possible... it does however fix more holes (IMO) that create them. Especially for large Elite units like Knights.
But seriously. Tanks are tougher than they've ever been this edition. No more can you get 1 lucky penetrating hit and blow a land raider to gak.
Realistically, a Lascannon does 3.5 wounds every failed save. So...4.57 failed saves. A land raider has a 2+, so it will get at least a 5+ against those, potentially a 4+ with cover, so 6.08 hits, or 9 hits with cover. Assuming 3+ BS, it will take 13.5 lascannon shots to get that to work. That is 338 points of lascannons, and then 176 points of marines holding them, for a total of 514 points of lascannon marines to kill one, sans rerolls, assuming cover on an adequately covered board. If a quarter of your army is tied up in 13 power armored bodies, you are going to seriously struggle against more balanced lists, and your firepower will degrade rapidly from losses.
Honestly, half the problem is boards with massive, clear lines of sight. Too much area terrain, not enough line of sight blocking. Might help alleviate some of the issues.
Marines with lascannons are not a good metric. Xenos with more efficient options and mass mortal wound approaches are a big threat. Also, basilisks/manticores still keep the big stuff on the shelf.
When compairing them to other LoW, like bane variants, there is just no competition. A shadow sword can one shot a knight ewch shooting turn relatively easy, especially with tempestes scions. Knights even when fully loaded for bear to try and kill vehicles can't off a bane variants, statistically that is.
Backspacehacker wrote: Right, because fully kitted it's a 600 point model, but 800 points? No the falcion is around 800 points and it's twice the fire power and better BS
Just yo set the record straight the max points for a shadow sword is 514 thats not a 600 point model a normal loadout is 472.
A shadow sword does 3D3 s16 -5 2D6 damage
A legion falchion is 1061 maxed out, 1027 normal loadout 977 at its cheapest.
It does 2d6 s16 -5 2d6 damage and thats for two of the same weapon as a shadowsword is armed with.
That hopefully drives hope the insane power creep that went on in the IG codex. Yet I've seen IG players complaining on dakka that there super heavys should be BS3+ for the same points cost.
To set THIS record straight, no, a fully kitted shadow sword is 614 points
That's the shadow sword 100 points each for 2 sets of heavy flamer sponsors, a heavy stubber and a hunter killer.
I agree that the falcion is priced correctly and that the shadow sword is under costed. I useing old numbers for the falcion price.
The biggest crime that guard have this edition are as follows
-ease of access to T8 vehicles
- the cheap cost to those vehicle and under costed fort heir power, basalisk only costing just over 100 points for indirect S9 weapons
-the removal of min range making their artillery every more powerful remove the weakness that was, close the gap on them and you can kill them no longer a thing.
I don't much like good invulnerable saves on large models. 5++ is fine, as that basically just slows down high AP damage, but when you start getting into the 4++ range, you allow hot (or cold) rolling to really determine how a whole game swings.
to me, the easiest way to handle Knights would be to drop the cost (or increase their ability to work) while also either just giving them more wounds, or more elegantly, giving them some method of damage mitigation. The Serpent Shield is great example here. A -1 to all damange, mininmum of 1, will really slow down damage from d3 or D2 sources, which includes most blast weapons and plasma. However, big Anti-tank weapons will still hit, just not as hard.
I could see knights getting some sort of version of grinding advance, where they can shoot more if they don't move full speed.
Polonius wrote: I don't much like good invulnerable saves on large models. 5++ is fine, as that basically just slows down high AP damage, but when you start getting into the 4++ range, you allow hot (or cold) rolling to really determine how a whole game swings.
It's worth noting that there are already 4 Knights that have a natural 4++, and all others (with the exception of Renegade Knights) have access to a 4 up invuln via a strategy.
It's not really done anything for their viability.
Polonius wrote: I don't much like good invulnerable saves on large models. 5++ is fine, as that basically just slows down high AP damage, but when you start getting into the 4++ range, you allow hot (or cold) rolling to really determine how a whole game swings.
It's worth noting that there are already 4 Knights that have a natural 4++, and all others (with the exception of Renegade Knights) have access to a 4 up invuln via a strategy.
It's not really done anything for their viability.
Food for thought.
Can confirm a 4++ is not that impressive, Magnus has one and he is pretty poopy
Flyrents show it being handed out to everyone is a bad idea but that also wasn't helped by the ability to stack a 3+/4++/5+++ which was just down right silly.
Keeping knights at a 3+/5++ with the 4++ strategum feels right between survivable but not totally imune to tac lists.
I suspect the strategums and points drops will be the main changes.
I don't see how you balance knights. They are a skew in a game which doesn't cope with skew very well.
If you run into a heavy weapon list (say 50% points in weapons doing D6 damage) then they should blow your knights away. If they don't how on earth is a more balanced list meant to cope? Do you just say the Knight player should auto-win if the opponent only has say 500 points in such weapons?
Right now I suspect knight damage output is more of an issue than their toughness - but if their damage output goes up you just increase the all in-alpha nature of 40k, which I don't like.
osmesis wrote: Possible options for some of the knights if they insist on them costing over 450 points each:
1. 10 Toughness - Heavy Bolters shouldn't be wounding on 5's
2. 2+ Armour and 4+ Invulnerable - Leviathans have this so should Knights
3. Allow them to join a Chapter to receive buffs
4. Remove the Damage Table
As it stands now they are simply outclassed by so many other cheaper units
Yeah, but with those improvements they'd worth 800+ points each.
No they would not. They would still be rocking the same shooting as one leman russ with medicorer CC abilities,
osmesis wrote: Possible options for some of the knights if they insist on them costing over 450 points each:
1. 10 Toughness - Heavy Bolters shouldn't be wounding on 5's
2. 2+ Armour and 4+ Invulnerable - Leviathans have this so should Knights
3. Allow them to join a Chapter to receive buffs
4. Remove the Damage Table
As it stands now they are simply outclassed by so many other cheaper units
Yeah, but with those improvements they'd worth 800+ points each.
No they would not. They would still be rocking the same shooting as one leman russ with medicorer CC abilities,
Giving them chapter buffs.....cool so I'm gonna take ultramarines take guliman and reroll all my failed hits and wounds....oh an no point increase for that cool. I'm gonna make a knight death star of 3 knights and guli oh and their profile never degrades.....yeah no those are horrible suggestions if you think they don't get a point increase then.
osmesis wrote: Possible options for some of the knights if they insist on them costing over 450 points each:
1. 10 Toughness - Heavy Bolters shouldn't be wounding on 5's
2. 2+ Armour and 4+ Invulnerable - Leviathans have this so should Knights
3. Allow them to join a Chapter to receive buffs
4. Remove the Damage Table
As it stands now they are simply outclassed by so many other cheaper units
Yeah, but with those improvements they'd worth 800+ points each.
No they would not. They would still be rocking the same shooting as one leman russ with medicorer CC abilities,
Giving them chapter buffs.....cool so I'm gonna take ultramarines take guliman and reroll all my failed hits and wounds....oh an no point increase for that cool. I'm gonna make a knight death star of 3 knights and guli oh and their profile never degrades.....yeah no those are horrible suggestions if you think they don't get a point increase then.
I mean sure you could do that. But your getting out shot my an equal points of of russes even with bobby G buffing the knights.
Well no duh when you make a list designed to do something or counter another list it will. Stop looking though a prism, look at the bigger picture. Imagine a knight list getting chapter buffs and what that will do to armies like nids or orks. As they get laid into with rerolling and wounding hits, none of them can wound it on anything but a 5.
Those suggestions with out a point increase are horrible, the only good one is the 2+ armor save
Just kind of spitballing here. Would some form of mortal wound defense help at all? Are mortal wounds part of the reason IK aren't viable, or is it mostly a cost issue couple with an abundance of high-damage high-ap attack? I honestly haven't used my IKs since 8th dropped. Got rid of my only Imperium army, and I only have two knights, so don't really have a way to run them until I get my Armigers put together (and I'm waiting for the codex/stand alone kit to do that).
Well no duh when you make a list designed to do something or counter another list it will. Stop looking though a prism, look at the bigger picture. Imagine a knight list getting chapter buffs and what that will do to armies like nids or orks. As they get laid into with rerolling and wounding hits, none of them can wound it on anything but a 5.
Those suggestions with out a point increase are horrible, the only good one is the 2+ armor save
The knight could be literally unkillable at 800 points and you would never want it because it is doing the damage of an 150 points model.
EnTyme wrote: Just kind of spitballing here. Would some form of mortal wound defense help at all? Are mortal wounds part of the reason IK aren't viable, or is it mostly a cost issue couple with an abundance of high-damage high-ap attack? I honestly haven't used my IKs since 8th dropped. Got rid of my only Imperium army, and I only have two knights, so don't really have a way to run them until I get my Armigers put together (and I'm waiting for the codex/stand alone kit to do that).
From what I have seen it's honestly because they are only protected by a 5++ in shooting, which a 4++ on a stratagem. They are just paper thin. It's the same problem Magnus has, all this powers.....iiiiity bitty survival rate. What criminal as well is they only have a 3+ so even AP 2 your saveing on 5. Combo that with a degrading profile that takes away their BS and movement, it only takes one round of shooting to cripple or kill a knight even with medicore shooting.
Well no duh when you make a list designed to do something or counter another list it will. Stop looking though a prism, look at the bigger picture. Imagine a knight list getting chapter buffs and what that will do to armies like nids or orks. As they get laid into with rerolling and wounding hits, none of them can wound it on anything but a 5.
Those suggestions with out a point increase are horrible, the only good one is the 2+ armor save
The knight could be literally unkillable at 800 points and you would never want it because it is doing the damage of an 150 points model.
A knight with chapter tactics and benefiting from guliman will do a lot more then 150 points worth of damage. The suggestions are aweful. The only good one was a 2+ base everything else was getting broken.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Or oh I got it, it's now Raven guard, enjoy your tanks hitting on 5s. Lt and captain rerolling 1s for damage and wounds not like I'll need anything other then a 2
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Martel732 wrote: Just make them cheaper, to reflect their actual value in the game.
This is the true answer, they need to drop like 100 points.
SaganGree wrote: Something that hasn't been discussed is how the game itself plays and how that relates to the overall survivability of any individual Unit. Specifically the IGUO method of play. (This has already been discussed in a couple of threads already but is pertinent to the discussion)
Now don't misunderstand, I know there are issues that revolve around alternating play, but it does solve so pretty serious holes in how the game has been shifting (for years) to an alpha strike mentality.
The method I'm suggesting is Alternating play during the phase of a Turn.
Points of Interest:
1. There wouldn't be a Player Turn any longer and only the Turn.
2. The Phases would remain the same.
3. First "Turn" is determined as before.
4. After first turn is determined, players alternate play in each phase
a. Example: Movement phase: Player 1 moves a unit. Player 2 moves a unit. Place a token or marker or something to differentiate units that have activated vs those that have yet to. Once either player has moved all their units the other player moves their remaining units
b. Once end of phase triggers the players alternate once more should there be any abilities that trigger at this time.
c. If a player passes then the other player may continue to operate as per the phase. Note: Once both players pass consecutively then that part of the phase ends, even if there are eligible units still available in the phase.
5. This opens up a lot of tactical play in each of the phases as the weight of one list cannot be counted upon to "delete" a unit before it has had an opportunity to act.
a. Tactics such as moving out of range of a decidedly dangerous unit.
b. The introduction of new Stratagems, like being when a unit is selected to activate, play this stratagem to active in the end phase.
c. MSU armies would have the advantage in the movement phase whereas the Elite armies would have the advantage in the shooting phase.
d. Passing becomes a dangerous game of chicken if a player wants to hold out in a phase for an advantage.
6. More importantly, this mode of operation allows "Elite" units the chance to perform as befitting their name.
7. This method would force players into thinking of damage vs durability and would give a needed boost to the performance of large, expensive units, like Knight class units.
8. Additionally, this method would allow designers to better balance against the individual unit vs the whole army as many here constantly calling for.
Is this method perfect? In no way possible... it does however fix more holes (IMO) that create them. Especially for large Elite units like Knights.
I've been tossing that idea around in my head, as well. I imagine the shooting phase would happen similar to the fight phase with alternative shooting.
Personally I don't like the trend of every big unit needing a 4++ to function. Whats the point of anti-tank weapons with -3ap then? Heck, -4 or -5 AP are nearly useless already.
If you want something to last longer give it more wounds, not make AP irrelevant and give invulnerable saves like candy. If every big lord of war has a invulnerable save then mortal wounds will be the most efficient way to kill them instead of anti tank.
chimeara wrote: Maybe get rid of moral wounds lol? Or make them savable on invulns?
I dunno, just thinking out loud.....
I have wanted one of these two options for ever now. As a psyker heavy army player, tson, I would gladly give up my smite and wounds that can't be saved to be able to throw out savable lighting or flame attacks.
Martel732 wrote: GW has dug themselves a real hole with invuln/mortal wounds/anti-tank/big targets.
Not really. Marines and Mechanicus all have stratagems to 5+++ mortal wounds on vehicles. Only the really big stuff has invulns and even those are not the majority. AM lacks that strat as they should and none of their codex super heavies get invulns. Meltas remove the full armor save of standard tanks. AP5 might be most useless profile, but it's so incredibly rare that it doesn't matter.
Martel732 wrote: GW has dug themselves a real hole with invuln/mortal wounds/anti-tank/big targets.
Not really. Marines and Mechanicus all have stratagems to 5+++ mortal wounds on vehicles. Only the really big stuff has invulns and even those are not the majority. AM lacks that strat as they should and none of their codex super heavies get invulns. Meltas remove the full armor save of standard tanks. AP5 might be most useless profile, but it's so incredibly rare that it doesn't matter.
Wow for only 1CP you can get a 5+ save so now it can die like a guardsman.
I've been tossing that idea around in my head, as well. I imagine the shooting phase would happen similar to the fight phase with alternative shooting.
Every phase would alternate... including the charge phase and the fight phase. At least the way I want to see it.
I've been running my knights quite regularly. Against most TAC lists, they are almost right on durability. Yeah, Drew Carry kind of throws a kink in that with the 50000 blasters they can bring in a 1500 list, but against most armies I don't feel like they are super durable or made of chiffon.
So if we're aiming for the "stock" knights (paladin, warden, errant) to be ~400 each, I think if we took 2-4 of the following adjustments (some stolen from osmesis), they would be about on point.
1. All of the Questrious chassis are 4++ vs shooting, 5++ melee, exactly as the Magaera and Styrix are now.
2. 2+ armor save
3. An ability similar to All Is Dust. Against d1 attacks Knights get +1 to their saving throw and/or d1 attacks get -1 to wound against big Knights
4. Knights can measure from anywhere on the model to determine CC range, not just from the base, allowing them to attack enemies in ruins.
5a. Either an extreme point reduction on RFBC, or change its profile to be significantly better. As many have pointed out already, a battle cannon on a LRBT is 22 points and effectively has the same ROF as the knight variant. So long story short, 30 points for RFBC, or make it something significant like heavy 5d3.
5b. A new quirk for the thermal cannon; give it exploding damage on 6's. So in melta range one an errant will be a something truly scary to stare down.
5c. Heavy flamer on the gatling cannon gets 10" range? Otherwise this weapon system is fine.
5d. Perfect world, RFBC @ 50 points, heavy 5d3 str 8 ap-2 dam d3, Thermal Cannon @ 40 heavy d6str 9 ap-4 dam d6, half range roll 2d6 for damage, damage roll of 6 deals extra (d3/d6) damage. Avenger Gatling @ 75 points, heavy 12 s6 ap-2 dam2, Heavy Flamer on it is 10" range.
6. Reaper chainsword gets 2 for 1 on natural 6's to hit.
7. Thunderstrike gauntlet reduces "FNP" abilities by -1.
8. Blessed Autosimulacra on everyone (6+ get a wound back a beginning of turn), Maybe give this an overcharge ability, so you give up movement and/or shooting, but d6 for each wound lost, get it back on a 5+/6+.
9. Something on the Gallant to make it not awful. A "Blood for the Blood God" ability might be too powerful, but perhaps not if you had to declare at activation could only use your fist/sword for that fight phase.
10a. Ironstorm gets d6 extra shots for every 10 models after the first. So vs tac squad d6 shots, blob of 40 conscrips 4d6.
10b. Stormspear... is fine.
10c. Icarus 10 points less.
That's all I've got for now. As I said, 2-4 of these for a 400-450 point knight, with gallant and crusader being on the low and high end respectively.
I think an implamentation of an all is dust mechanic would work really nicely for a knight actually. +1 to saving throw of damage 1 weapons. If it's ap- you get a 2+ and a 4++ against all other highstr high AP eapons.
That with a point reduction would make them worth it
StarHunter25 wrote: I've been running my knights quite regularly. Against most TAC lists, they are almost right on durability. Yeah, Drew Carry kind of throws a kink in that with the 50000 blasters they can bring in a 1500 list, but against most armies I don't feel like they are super durable or made of chiffon.
So if we're aiming for the "stock" knights (paladin, warden, errant) to be ~400 each, I think if we took 2-4 of the following adjustments (some stolen from osmesis), they would be about on point.
1. All of the Questrious chassis are 4++ vs shooting, 5++ melee, exactly as the Magaera and Styrix are now. 2. 2+ armor save 3. An ability similar to All Is Dust. Against d1 attacks Knights get +1 to their saving throw and/or d1 attacks get -1 to wound against big Knights 4. Knights can measure from anywhere on the model to determine CC range, not just from the base, allowing them to attack enemies in ruins. 5a. Either an extreme point reduction on RFBC, or change its profile to be significantly better. As many have pointed out already, a battle cannon on a LRBT is 22 points and effectively has the same ROF as the knight variant. So long story short, 30 points for RFBC, or make it something significant like heavy 5d3. 5b. A new quirk for the thermal cannon; give it exploding damage on 6's. So in melta range one an errant will be a something truly scary to stare down. 5c. Heavy flamer on the gatling cannon gets 10" range? Otherwise this weapon system is fine. 5d. Perfect world, RFBC @ 50 points, heavy 5d3 str 8 ap-2 dam d3, Thermal Cannon @ 40 heavy d6str 9 ap-4 dam d6, half range roll 2d6 for damage, damage roll of 6 deals extra (d3/d6) damage. Avenger Gatling @ 75 points, heavy 12 s6 ap-2 dam2, Heavy Flamer on it is 10" range. 6. Reaper chainsword gets 2 for 1 on natural 6's to hit. 7. Thunderstrike gauntlet reduces "FNP" abilities by -1. 8. Blessed Autosimulacra on everyone (6+ get a wound back a beginning of turn), Maybe give this an overcharge ability, so you give up movement and/or shooting, but d6 for each wound lost, get it back on a 5+/6+. 9. Something on the Gallant to make it not awful. A "Blood for the Blood God" ability might be too powerful, but perhaps not if you had to declare at activation could only use your fist/sword for that fight phase. 10a. Ironstorm gets d6 extra shots for every 10 models after the first. So vs tac squad d6 shots, blob of 40 conscrips 4d6. 10b. Stormspear... is fine. 10c. Icarus 10 points less.
That's all I've got for now. As I said, 2-4 of these for a 400-450 point knight, with gallant and crusader being on the low and high end respectively.
I can see a lot of these being "Knight House" chapter rules. I think once they get their house rules we will be able to really gauge where they need to be, since most of their opponents have been operating on full power when it comes to special rules and stratagems and knighs have been SOL for the most part outside of the 4++ for a CP. Plus relics could be a real game changer as well. I love the idea for 10a, knights need something to thin out hordes beyond the stomp (which can still dish out quite well) but then again a lot of weapons need to go this route to balance horde vs elite armies. In fact, if a lot more weapons had this rule (i.e. Frag Grenade Launchers, Missile Launchers, etc) you would see a lot less plasma spam on the field and a wider variation on weapons in general knowing that there will be hordes, and which will in turn lower the amount of hordes out there and let things like Marines return to the table tops instead of just all their empty transports going to war =P
Martel732 wrote: GW has dug themselves a real hole with invuln/mortal wounds/anti-tank/big targets.
Not really. Marines and Mechanicus all have stratagems to 5+++ mortal wounds on vehicles. Only the really big stuff has invulns and even those are not the majority. AM lacks that strat as they should and none of their codex super heavies get invulns. Meltas remove the full armor save of standard tanks. AP5 might be most useless profile, but it's so incredibly rare that it doesn't matter.
Wow for only 1CP you can get a 5+ save so now it can die like a guardsman.
Codex rules could help, my renegade is tired of being unbuffable. I like some of the proposals, I would suggest 5+++ instead of 5++ which increases defense against anti-infantry by 33%, makes ap useful again, offers some protection vs MW, and normalizes damage received by multi-damage wounds. But people didn't like that concept when applied widely so i doubt it'll be popular now.
I don't see too much purpose behind 2+/5++ since that doesn't change much for anti-tank weapons.
I am not certain about T9/10. I'd rather see 9, but as mentioned some armies struggle to find S9+, S5 should not be even less advantageous over S4 than current, but the real thing is that Melta is hard to get in so it shouldn't be even less good at its job.
-1D min1 is interesting, makes the high wound count matter more and gives greater purpose to plinking away with infantry. It hits plasma hard, which is probably ok, but plasma needs a balance change anyways imo.
Any of the point decreases help, though I am concerned about knight heavy armies. 1 is doomed if the opponent is expecting it, 2 is harsh as it requires a skewed list, 3 is dooming as knights can do a good few things while requiring specialists to take down.
I think imperial knights are properly costed for what they do and how much they can soak firepower and melee hits. If they deserve a 100 points price decrease how much should ork nauts worth, considering that they're currently priced at 340-360 points and they're not even remotely as tough or as kill than knights? 200 points?
Imperial knights (and other big armored stuff) suffer too much from mortal wounds, and the only change I'd make it's something on that matter, maybe a 4+ that can't be bypassed by mortal wounds. Against mortal wounds inflicted by psykers at least.
StrayIight wrote: Massed fire from non-anti tank weapons could possibly be mitigated to some extent by reworking how Knight Void Shields operate. Honestly I haven't spent all that long thinking about it, but maybe we could have a situation where you get BOTH the armour save, and invuln in the case of Void shields? Anti-tank weapons would be largely unaffected as you're likely to mostly negate the armour save anyway, but it'd stop a good portion of massed, basic infantry fire stripping wounds quite so casually (and without the 'I'm completely invulnerable to small arms fire' situation of 7th).
As far as the degrading profile, I think we have to hope the codex streamlines things with regard to stratagem access. This is still a big problem for anyone running Forge World Knights, Renegade lists, or even just Imperial, non Mechanicum varieties.
...That, or you bring lists made up of Acherons, as it's main gun could care less how far down the degraded profile you've gone (wouldn't exactly be an ideal force to field!)
This is a very well though point.
They are "void shields". Against shooting attacks, only, why not give Knights (and Knight sized models with "shields") both the 5++ Void shield save, and then if that is penetrated their normal armor save too? It might slow things down a little bit but would make them much hardier against ranged attacks. And due to their point cost it's not like there will be more then 4 in a normal 2000pt game.
That was the whole point behind the All is Dust analogue. It makes the Knight stronger against small arms and anti-infantry weapons. Personally, I like the idea of incoming damage 1 fire getting a -1 to it's wound roll. Yeah, most things can wound anything. But the Ion shield has space magic technology which prevents it from dieing via 1000 papercuts.
As a person who plays a Knight House as their primary army, the other Ion shield (apologies for referring to them as 'Void' shields - someone was quite correct in pointing out they are not), change I'd see as having potential is, quite honestly, going back to the old facing system from 7th.
Give me a 3++, but only in a 90 degree arc which I nominate at the start of a shooting phase. Hell, make positioning *mean* something to me (because I'm not going to get a cover bonus ever really), and if two Knights are next to each other, give them the save in a 180 degree arc if they remain in that formation.
Make 'rotate ion shields' a 2 or 3 CP stratagem that does just that - rotates the facing once to re-position.
It's on the *player* then to determine how quickly that Knight melts. The opponent can out play me, and out maneuver that shield. 1/3 of AT shots will still go through, so AT fire isn't negated entirely, but 1 in 3 is a lot less subject to hot/cold rolling than 2 in 3. We'd still be vulnerable to assault, which would further play in to the positioning meta both sides of the table.
And it's not like we aren't already familiar with that exact system, because any of us that were around last edition have used it. It was hardly a bone of contention at any point either.
It's probably been done already but the math tend to prove that knights are tanky enough (24 Lascannons will kill 1 Knight or 3 Predators, the latter costing more points).
If anything, Knights are not killy enough (especially if you mix shooting and CC weapons).
Nym wrote: It's probably been done already but the math tend to prove that knights are tanky enough (24 Lascannons will kill 1 Knight or 3 Predators, the latter costing more points).
If anything, Knights are not killy enough (especially if you mix shooting and CC weapons).
The math is only for shooting though (and even though, 24 las for a 400-500 point model seems a bit light). Comparatively, you can take out a Knight much more easily and cheaply in melee.
Nym wrote: It's probably been done already but the math tend to prove that knights are tanky enough (24 Lascannons will kill 1 Knight or 3 Predators, the latter costing more points).
If anything, Knights are not killy enough (especially if you mix shooting and CC weapons).
I think it's correct to say Knights aren't killy enough - they do lack firepower for their points.
But the maths with regard to 'tankyness' are done in a vacuum it should be remembered. If you point a Shadowsword at my Knight, it's dead or irrelevant in one turn of shooting. That same Shadowsword (at least bare bones), is probably taking out a single Predator, so you have two thirds of the firepower from that block of points remaining.
Nym wrote: It's probably been done already but the math tend to prove that knights are tanky enough (24 Lascannons will kill 1 Knight or 3 Predators, the latter costing more points).
If anything, Knights are not killy enough (especially if you mix shooting and CC weapons).
I think it's correct to say Knight aren't killy enough - they do lack firepower for their points.
But the maths with regard to tankyness are done in a vacuum it should be remembered. If you point a Shadowsword at my Knight, it's dead or irrelevant in one turn of shooting. That same shadowsword (at least bare bones), is probably taking out a single Predator, so you have two thirds of the firepower from that block of points remaining.
This isn't a problem for just knights. It's a problem for Magnus, other Shadowswords, and anything above 300 points for a single model. It isn't usually useful to discuss the extremes.
Nym wrote: It's probably been done already but the math tend to prove that knights are tanky enough (24 Lascannons will kill 1 Knight or 3 Predators, the latter costing more points).
If anything, Knights are not killy enough (especially if you mix shooting and CC weapons).
I think it's correct to say Knight aren't killy enough - they do lack firepower for their points.
But the maths with regard to tankyness are done in a vacuum it should be remembered. If you point a Shadowsword at my Knight, it's dead or irrelevant in one turn of shooting. That same shadowsword (at least bare bones), is probably taking out a single Predator, so you have two thirds of the firepower from that block of points remaining.
This isn't a problem for just knights. It's a problem for Magnus, other Shadowswords, and anything above 300 points for a single model. It isn't usually useful to discuss the extremes.
Magnus can tank the shadow sword alot better then a knight with a 3+ inv and -1 to hit thought. Knights suck even compared to the other stuff with a cost around theirs.
Magnus can tank the shadow sword alot better then a knight with a 3+ inv and -1 to hit thought. Knights suck even compared to the other stuff with a cost around theirs.
Only if he gets first turn. And even then he'll weather the fire for a few turns, but spend most of his spells defensively. It's highly unlikely that he'd make his points back.
Nym wrote: It's probably been done already but the math tend to prove that knights are tanky enough (24 Lascannons will kill 1 Knight or 3 Predators, the latter costing more points).
If anything, Knights are not killy enough (especially if you mix shooting and CC weapons).
I think it's correct to say Knight aren't killy enough - they do lack firepower for their points.
But the maths with regard to tankyness are done in a vacuum it should be remembered. If you point a Shadowsword at my Knight, it's dead or irrelevant in one turn of shooting. That same shadowsword (at least bare bones), is probably taking out a single Predator, so you have two thirds of the firepower from that block of points remaining.
This isn't a problem for just knights. It's a problem for Magnus, other Shadowswords, and anything above 300 points for a single model. It isn't usually useful to discuss the extremes.
Magnus can tank the shadow sword alot better then a knight with a 3+ inv and -1 to hit thought. Knights suck even compared to the other stuff with a cost around theirs.
As. Mentioned no, only if he goes first, Magnus is only T7 with a 4++ and 18 wounds. If you don't have powera up on him like the 3++ from Weaver's and glamor he is gonna be toasted turn one.
Magnus is hands down one of the weakest LoW in the game right now, simply because he is so easy to counter and paper thin.
The problem, to me, stems from the other side of the coin. Knights just don't do enough damage. They have the wounds of 2 or so tanks but don't lay out enough damage to equal those 2 tanks. And when you compare it to IG tanks with regimental special rules it gets worse.
At this point a person would be better off buying a vanguard detachment of IG tanks then he would buying a Lord of War detachment with a knight.
Leo_the_Rat wrote: The problem, to me, stems from the other side of the coin. Knights just don't do enough damage. They have the wounds of 2 or so tanks but don't lay out enough damage to equal those 2 tanks. And when you compare it to IG tanks with regimental special rules it gets worse.
At this point a person would be better off buying a vanguard detachment of IG tanks then he would buying a Lord of War detachment with a knight.
That's why I think they either need to get more fire power, or drop by 100 points.
Leo_the_Rat wrote: The problem, to me, stems from the other side of the coin. Knights just don't do enough damage. They have the wounds of 2 or so tanks but don't lay out enough damage to equal those 2 tanks. And when you compare it to IG tanks with regimental special rules it gets worse.
At this point a person would be better off buying a vanguard detachment of IG tanks then he would buying a Lord of War detachment with a knight.
That's why I think they either need to get more fire power, or drop by 100 points.
Or they admit they over buffed IG tanks and stop the race to the bottom that has been going on with cheap models and insane firepower per point. By adding some points onto them.
Leo_the_Rat wrote: The problem, to me, stems from the other side of the coin. Knights just don't do enough damage. They have the wounds of 2 or so tanks but don't lay out enough damage to equal those 2 tanks. And when you compare it to IG tanks with regimental special rules it gets worse.
At this point a person would be better off buying a vanguard detachment of IG tanks then he would buying a Lord of War detachment with a knight.
Absolutely correct, you would be better off in almost all cases with the tanks.
I'm more inclined to look at not what each unit can do though, but what they can do for what we're paying in points.
Is there really any doubt at this stage, that there just isn't a system in place governing points costs? It seems that really units are just assigned a points value that seems reasonable to the Game Developer working on them at that time, and that they are then adjusted via knee-jerk reaction should they cause a ripple at a tournament. This isn't working!
Honestly, points values could do with being reworked from the ground up.
Leo_the_Rat wrote: The problem, to me, stems from the other side of the coin. Knights just don't do enough damage. They have the wounds of 2 or so tanks but don't lay out enough damage to equal those 2 tanks. And when you compare it to IG tanks with regimental special rules it gets worse.
At this point a person would be better off buying a vanguard detachment of IG tanks then he would buying a Lord of War detachment with a knight.
That's why I think they either need to get more fire power, or drop by 100 points.
Or they admit they over buffed IG tanks and stop the race to the bottom that has been going on with cheap models and insane firepower per point. By adding some points onto them.
Oh I agree that IG is undercosted for what they can do. I'm just talking with respects to knights.
I can see that knights are in a bad place right now, I want to be clear I'm not trying to down play that.
However untill IG and dukari start playing reasonable points for their damage output they distort what feels playable in every other army.
Untill we have a new baseline for that it's hard to agree to buffing knights as it's either not far enough against guard or imperial soup or they rofl stomp any mono faction army off the table.
I wish could find source so I'm not trying to peddle hearsay, but didn't someone say that all point costs were based on "feel" as opposed to a formula?
There is only speculations on how points for 8th come about. Honestly we also dont know if they even want knights to be good. GW could want them to be lower tier for all we know.
Amishprn86 wrote: There is only speculations on how points for 8th come about. Honestly we also dont know if they even want knights to be good. GW could want them to be lower tier for all we know.
Got to prove those GK players weren't thrown under the bus.
I worry as there is new models to drive sales etc it will either be OP or welcome to vanilla marine territory. With maybe 1-2 gimic builds viable untill CA adds on points untill unplayable.
fraser1191 wrote: I wish could find source so I'm not trying to peddle hearsay, but didn't someone say that all point costs were based on "feel" as opposed to a formula?
That's taken from an interview from one of the rules writers from a couple years back, maybe even further. It may or may not still be true, but ranks up there with "We're a modelling company" and "The real hobby is collecting GW kits" on the list of years-old quotes people like to point to when bashing GW. As far as Knights go, who knows what they'll get in the codex honestly? Necrons went from bottom of the barrel in the Index to solidly competitive with a codex.
Wolf_in_Human_Shape wrote: The Falchion is 1017 points, and has been since Chapter Approved. 840 base plus guns.
Edit: math
A Shadowsword used to be D6 shots, and the Falchion 2D6. With the Guard Codex they upped the Shadowsword to 3D3 shots, so logically with the next book containing the Falchion they should up it to 6D3 shots. At which point it is probably actually worth a thousand points, since just its main gun averages something like 50 unsaved sounds against a Baneblade sized target per turn, which is Titan-crippling territory.
Wolf_in_Human_Shape wrote: The Falchion is 1017 points, and has been since Chapter Approved. 840 base plus guns.
Edit: math
A Shadowsword used to be D6 shots, and the Falchion 2D6. With the Guard Codex they upped the Shadowsword to 3D6 shots, so logically with the next book containing the Falchion they should up it to 6D6 shots. At which point it is probably actually worth a thousand points, since just its main gun averages something like 50 unsaved sounds against a Baneblade sized target per turn, which is Titan-crippling territory.
The Shadowsword is only 3d3 shots, not d6. So the Falchion should go to 6d3 shots, or 12, compared to the Shadowsword's 3d3, or 6.
Wolf_in_Human_Shape wrote: The Falchion is 1017 points, and has been since Chapter Approved. 840 base plus guns.
Edit: math
A Shadowsword used to be D6 shots, and the Falchion 2D6. With the Guard Codex they upped the Shadowsword to 3D6 shots, so logically with the next book containing the Falchion they should up it to 6D6 shots. At which point it is probably actually worth a thousand points, since just its main gun averages something like 50 unsaved sounds against a Baneblade sized target per turn, which is Titan-crippling territory.
The Shadowsword is only 3d3 shots, not d6. So the Falchion should go to 6d3 shots, or 12, compared to the Shadowsword's 3d3, or 6.
Whoops, typos. The number of wounds was correct though.
The relic rule confuses me. Can I take a falchion without taking another superheavy or must I take another superheavy? I'm confused because I've seen lists with "relic" units and no normal units of the same type and the rule says that "relics" can not out number non relic units.
To me it seems quite simple. If you're opponent can afford to plow everything they have into one unit, you're probably taking that unit in too small a point sized game because you're not presenting enough target choice.
There will be some exceptions in both strategy and army make up. I took a Brass Scorpion for example (something I would consider a bit weaker than a Knight) in a 2k point 3-way game and it wrecked face because there wasn't just the BS to worry about for either opponent, yet i've taken it in a 1v1 game and all of a sudden it is the most obvious and threatening target.
You could even say that, due to scaleability, bigger point games just mean more lascannons to share around but then, all of a sudden, you have a nice balanced army and you've got some tought troops to throw their way that LCs aren't too hot against (let's say three units of Khorne Berserkers lead by Kharn, all in rhinos). That line up presents a very different threat. Focus on the Scorp, or the rhinos and then if you don't knock out the rhinos, deal with death itself.
Moral of the story, stop being a dick and trying to bring a huge f-off Lord of War to a skirmish and balance your army better.
(wouldn't exactly be an ideal force to field!)
