It just occurred to me that Imperial Knights (specifically the Gallant, Errant, Crusader, Paladin & the Warden) should actually be T7, not T8.

They were AV13 the last edition, and to my knowledge the only AV13 vehicle that got T8. All other T8 vehicles were AV14, the LRs and the Monolith
Predators, for example, were AV13 and only got T7.

This occurred to me while reading one of the many, many IK vs WK debate threads.
The WK seems to be in a much better place with its points reduction, but is still more expensive than any IK (which are all arguably better).

Given that Wraithlords were bumped back to T8, and are the Dreadnought version of a Wraith construct, but Dreads are T7, it seems fitting that the nerf needed to IKs to bring them in line not only compared to the WK, but for the sake of the meta itself, would be to make IKs T7.

The 2 newest varients can remain T8 because they are beefier, but the standard chasis should be T7 to match all the evidence above

-

 Galef wrote:
It just occurred to me that Imperial Knights (specifically the Gallant, Errant, Crusader, Paladin & the Warden) should actually be T7, not T8.

They were AV13 the last edition, and to my knowledge the only AV13 vehicle that got T8. All other T8 vehicles were AV14, the LRs and the Monolith
Predators, for example, were AV13 and only got T7.

This occurred to me while reading one of the many, many IK vs WK debate threads. The WK seems to be in a much better place with it's points reduction, but is still more expensive than any IK.
Given that Wraithlords were bumped back to T8, and are the Dreadnought version of a Wraith construct, but Dreads are T7, it seems fitting that the nerf needed to IKs to bring them in line not only compared to the WK, but for the sake of the meta itself, would be to make IKs T7.

The 2 newest varients can remain T8 because they are beefier, but the standard chasis should be T7 to match all the evidence above

-

Vindicators, Exorcists, some Leman Russes, Ironclad Dreadnoughts, and that's just Imperial examples off the top of my head that were AV13 and are now T8.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
To speak more substantially to your point in terms of balance:
Imperial Knights aren't over durable because of their Toughness, they're over durable because of an Invuln save that goes from good to great depending on how players buff it.

In 7th edition, with AV 13/13/12, they were generally tough units to crack no matter which side you came at them from, as compared to say a Leman Russ or Battlewagon which was tough in front but paper mache on the back. However, its invuln was a 4+ but only on one facing. This introduced an interesting flanking mechanic, where instead of having to get behind a tank to kill it, you had to get to multiple sides of the tank instead.

The problem is that while it's all-around good armor is well represented by T8, the invuln is not well represented by making it one point weaker and available at all times. Worse, it's very easy to get a bunch of knights with a 4+ invuln at all times, or even a 3+, and a 3+ invuln is just too good.

The +1 to Invulns warlord trait needs to be replaced with "Reroll 1s", and the +1 Invuln Strategem needs to cost 2 points for smaller knights. That'd bring their durability down to tolerable levels.

But a drop to T7 would allow more weapons to cause wounds to get that invul to fail. It's a slight change, but one that could make a noticeable different.
It would also give bolter spam a somewhat decent boost.

If IKs don't get T7, then WKs should be T9. That would affect even fewer weapons (only S8 and S9 would notice any difference).
The basic premise of this change is "Wraithlord is to Dreadnought as WK is to IK", backed up by most AV13 tanks being T7, and IK (being wlkers) having more "vulnerable" spots due to more moving parts being exposed compared to a box on wheels

-

 Galef wrote:
But a drop to T7 would allow more weapons to cause wounds to get that invul to fail. It's a slight change, but one that could make a noticeable different.
It would also give bolter spam a somewhat decent boost.

If IKs don't get T7, then WKs should be T9. That would affect even fewer weapons (only S8 and S9 would notice any difference).
The basic premise of this change is "Wraithlord is to Dreadnought as WK is to IK", backed up by most AV13 tanks being T7, and IK (being wlkers) having more "vulnerable" spots due to more moving parts being exposed compared to a box on wheels

-

they're giant heavily armored robots the size of buildings, infantry guns shouldn't be able to hurt them at all...

I want my Missiles and Lascannons and Brightlances to actually scare an IK. And Melta, Fusion, etc too. Currently, it feels like they're only marginally better than the same points worth of small arms.

Good-AP weapons should be better than bad-AP weapons at cracking Knights. With the Invulns they have, AP weapons don't do as much to a Knight as they should.

Bharring wrote:
I want my Missiles and Lascannons and Brightlances to actually scare an IK. And Melta, Fusion, etc too. Currently, it feels like they're only marginally better than the same points worth of small arms.

Good-AP weapons should be better than bad-AP weapons at cracking Knights. With the Invulns they have, AP weapons don't do as much to a Knight as they should.

It used to matter with facings and the shield only helping a side at a time.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Bharring wrote:
I want my Missiles and Lascannons and Brightlances to actually scare an IK. And Melta, Fusion, etc too. Currently, it feels like they're only marginally better than the same points worth of small arms.

Good-AP weapons should be better than bad-AP weapons at cracking Knights. With the Invulns they have, AP weapons don't do as much to a Knight as they should.

It used to matter with facings and the shield only helping a side at a time.

But that's my point. A drop to T7 would make all those things relevant again, which would make the current Knight lists a bit less nasty in the meta.
And as I've said, the newer ones that came out (don't remember their names) could stay T8 to differentiate them (well, more then their guns themselves)
It would also make WKs appropriately costed by compassion.

So Knights take *a few* more wounds (that will still likely get shrugged off like now) but everyone else gets better.
Personally, I think it's a rather elegant fix. It's a small change that affect lots of units

-

Yeah. I was pitching T7 knights to my gaming group the other day. To me, it's not so much about nerfing knights (although they do kind of need it) as it is about making them more interactive. At the moment, knights' ability to walk out of combat without penalty, easily smash most units that might want to try to lock them in combat, and shrug off small arms fire (i.e. the theoretical majority of your guns in a vanilla list) makes them feel really non-interactive. It's like they can basically ignore any part of your army that isn't at least strength 5.

Lowering them to Toughness 7 suddenly makes everything strength 4 in the game have a 1/3rd chance of forcing them to roll a save. Strength 8 weapons like melta and bright lances are wounding them most of the time instead of half the time. Strength 7 weapons like Tau missiles and autocannons (which are often pretty spammable) are suddenly wounding the knight often enough to chip away at them.

Regardless of how this would impact the overall power level of knights (it would nerf them), it would make it much easier for a vanilla army in a pickup game to meaningfully interact with them.

Bharring wrote:
I want my Missiles and Lascannons and Brightlances to actually scare an IK. And Melta, Fusion, etc too. Currently, it feels like they're only marginally better than the same points worth of small arms.

Good-AP weapons should be better than bad-AP weapons at cracking Knights. With the Invulns they have, AP weapons don't do as much to a Knight as they should.

Take a number. AP sucks vs tau and necrons and drukhari and demons. And chaos. AP is anti ig and anti loyalists only.

Wyldhunt wrote:
Yeah. I was pitching T7 knights to my gaming group the other day. To me, it's not so much about nerfing knights (although they do kind of need it) as it is about making them more interactive. At the moment, knights' ability to walk out of combat without penalty, easily smash most units that might want to try to lock them in combat, and shrug off small arms fire (i.e. the theoretical majority of your guns in a vanilla list) makes them feel really non-interactive. It's like they can basically ignore any part of your army that isn't at least strength 5.

Lowering them to Toughness 7 suddenly makes everything strength 4 in the game have a 1/3rd chance of forcing them to roll a save. Strength 8 weapons like melta and bright lances are wounding them most of the time instead of half the time. Strength 7 weapons like Tau missiles and autocannons (which are often pretty spammable) are suddenly wounding the knight often enough to chip away at them.

Regardless of how this would impact the overall power level of knights (it would nerf them), it would make it much easier for a vanilla army in a pickup game to meaningfully interact with them.

I'd rather Knights just be more expensive to be honest.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Wyldhunt wrote:
Yeah. I was pitching T7 knights to my gaming group the other day. To me, it's not so much about nerfing knights (although they do kind of need it) as it is about making them more interactive. At the moment, knights' ability to walk out of combat without penalty, easily smash most units that might want to try to lock them in combat, and shrug off small arms fire (i.e. the theoretical majority of your guns in a vanilla list) makes them feel really non-interactive. It's like they can basically ignore any part of your army that isn't at least strength 5.

Lowering them to Toughness 7 suddenly makes everything strength 4 in the game have a 1/3rd chance of forcing them to roll a save. Strength 8 weapons like melta and bright lances are wounding them most of the time instead of half the time. Strength 7 weapons like Tau missiles and autocannons (which are often pretty spammable) are suddenly wounding the knight often enough to chip away at them.

Regardless of how this would impact the overall power level of knights (it would nerf them), it would make it much easier for a vanilla army in a pickup game to meaningfully interact with them.

I'd rather Knights just be more expensive to be honest.

That's probably a better route to go for the sake of competitive performance. But if my bolters and shuriken catapults are supposed to exist in the same game as a knight-centric list, I'd kind of like to do more than fish for 6s.

Wyldhunt wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Wyldhunt wrote:
Yeah. I was pitching T7 knights to my gaming group the other day. To me, it's not so much about nerfing knights (although they do kind of need it) as it is about making them more interactive. At the moment, knights' ability to walk out of combat without penalty, easily smash most units that might want to try to lock them in combat, and shrug off small arms fire (i.e. the theoretical majority of your guns in a vanilla list) makes them feel really non-interactive. It's like they can basically ignore any part of your army that isn't at least strength 5.

Lowering them to Toughness 7 suddenly makes everything strength 4 in the game have a 1/3rd chance of forcing them to roll a save. Strength 8 weapons like melta and bright lances are wounding them most of the time instead of half the time. Strength 7 weapons like Tau missiles and autocannons (which are often pretty spammable) are suddenly wounding the knight often enough to chip away at them.

Regardless of how this would impact the overall power level of knights (it would nerf them), it would make it much easier for a vanilla army in a pickup game to meaningfully interact with them.

I'd rather Knights just be more expensive to be honest.

That's probably a better route to go for the sake of competitive performance. But if my bolters and shuriken catapults are supposed to exist in the same game as a knight-centric list, I'd kind of like to do more than fish for 6s.

Those kinds of weapons had ZERO effect last two editions. The fact they wound on a 6 is something to be grateful for.

The issue is those weapons do too little for the cost.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Wyldhunt wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Wyldhunt wrote:
Yeah. I was pitching T7 knights to my gaming group the other day. To me, it's not so much about nerfing knights (although they do kind of need it) as it is about making them more interactive. At the moment, knights' ability to walk out of combat without penalty, easily smash most units that might want to try to lock them in combat, and shrug off small arms fire (i.e. the theoretical majority of your guns in a vanilla list) makes them feel really non-interactive. It's like they can basically ignore any part of your army that isn't at least strength 5.

Lowering them to Toughness 7 suddenly makes everything strength 4 in the game have a 1/3rd chance of forcing them to roll a save. Strength 8 weapons like melta and bright lances are wounding them most of the time instead of half the time. Strength 7 weapons like Tau missiles and autocannons (which are often pretty spammable) are suddenly wounding the knight often enough to chip away at them.

Regardless of how this would impact the overall power level of knights (it would nerf them), it would make it much easier for a vanilla army in a pickup game to meaningfully interact with them.

I'd rather Knights just be more expensive to be honest.

That's probably a better route to go for the sake of competitive performance. But if my bolters and shuriken catapults are supposed to exist in the same game as a knight-centric list, I'd kind of like to do more than fish for 6s.

Those kinds of weapons had ZERO effect last two editions. The fact they wound on a 6 is something to be grateful for.

Being better than last edition isn't really the point though. It's a lot of rolling, usually for no effect, and that feels meh when it happens. But the chance that the handful of extra wounds I slip through by fishing for 6s might matter means that I'd be even more frustrated if I didn't at least try to fish for the sixes. Big chunks of my vanilla lists are strength 4 or less. It is less than ideal that large portions of my army are frustrating to use because my opponent's list revolves around powerful T8 units.

The issue is those weapons do too little for the cost.

Right. And making knights T7 would make Strength 4 do more for the cost.

But should a Bolter be effective vs a Knight? No.

The issue comes from a lot of weapons becoming ineffective vs Knights because of all the rules they have.

 Togusa wrote:

 Galef wrote:
But a drop to T7 would allow more weapons to cause wounds to get that invul to fail. It's a slight change, but one that could make a noticeable different.
It would also give bolter spam a somewhat decent boost.

If IKs don't get T7, then WKs should be T9. That would affect even fewer weapons (only S8 and S9 would notice any difference).
The basic premise of this change is "Wraithlord is to Dreadnought as WK is to IK", backed up by most AV13 tanks being T7, and IK (being wlkers) having more "vulnerable" spots due to more moving parts being exposed compared to a box on wheels

-

they're giant heavily armored robots the size of buildings, infantry guns shouldn't be able to hurt them at all...

Aye. Moving to Toughness for everything was a mistake. It makes no sense that lasguns can kill anything.

 Grey Templar wrote:

 Togusa wrote:

 Galef wrote:
But a drop to T7 would allow more weapons to cause wounds to get that invul to fail. It's a slight change, but one that could make a noticeable different.
It would also give bolter spam a somewhat decent boost.

If IKs don't get T7, then WKs should be T9. That would affect even fewer weapons (only S8 and S9 would notice any difference).
The basic premise of this change is "Wraithlord is to Dreadnought as WK is to IK", backed up by most AV13 tanks being T7, and IK (being wlkers) having more "vulnerable" spots due to more moving parts being exposed compared to a box on wheels

-

they're giant heavily armored robots the size of buildings, infantry guns shouldn't be able to hurt them at all...

Aye. Moving to Toughness for everything was a mistake. It makes no sense that lasguns can kill anything.

Toughness for everything is great, they just need to stop holding on the the stats from previous editions.
They need to use the ranges they have, they don't have to be limited.

 Grey Templar wrote:

 Togusa wrote:

 Galef wrote:
But a drop to T7 would allow more weapons to cause wounds to get that invul to fail. It's a slight change, but one that could make a noticeable different.
It would also give bolter spam a somewhat decent boost.

If IKs don't get T7, then WKs should be T9. That would affect even fewer weapons (only S8 and S9 would notice any difference).
The basic premise of this change is "Wraithlord is to Dreadnought as WK is to IK", backed up by most AV13 tanks being T7, and IK (being wlkers) having more "vulnerable" spots due to more moving parts being exposed compared to a box on wheels

-

they're giant heavily armored robots the size of buildings, infantry guns shouldn't be able to hurt them at all...

Aye. Moving to Toughness for everything was a mistake. It makes no sense that lasguns can kill anything.

Actually I like that we moved to one stat.

 Blndmage wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:

 Togusa wrote:

 Galef wrote:
But a drop to T7 would allow more weapons to cause wounds to get that invul to fail. It's a slight change, but one that could make a noticeable different.
It would also give bolter spam a somewhat decent boost.

If IKs don't get T7, then WKs should be T9. That would affect even fewer weapons (only S8 and S9 would notice any difference).
The basic premise of this change is "Wraithlord is to Dreadnought as WK is to IK", backed up by most AV13 tanks being T7, and IK (being wlkers) having more "vulnerable" spots due to more moving parts being exposed compared to a box on wheels

-

they're giant heavily armored robots the size of buildings, infantry guns shouldn't be able to hurt them at all...

Aye. Moving to Toughness for everything was a mistake. It makes no sense that lasguns can kill anything.

Toughness for everything is great, they just need to stop holding on the the stats from previous editions.
They need to use the ranges they have, they don't have to be limited.

That's how I feel, as long as they hold onto D6. Personally I want the game to move to D8 for better granularity.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Blndmage wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:

 Togusa wrote:

 Galef wrote:
But a drop to T7 would allow more weapons to cause wounds to get that invul to fail. It's a slight change, but one that could make a noticeable different.
It would also give bolter spam a somewhat decent boost.

If IKs don't get T7, then WKs should be T9. That would affect even fewer weapons (only S8 and S9 would notice any difference).
The basic premise of this change is "Wraithlord is to Dreadnought as WK is to IK", backed up by most AV13 tanks being T7, and IK (being wlkers) having more "vulnerable" spots due to more moving parts being exposed compared to a box on wheels

-

they're giant heavily armored robots the size of buildings, infantry guns shouldn't be able to hurt them at all...

Aye. Moving to Toughness for everything was a mistake. It makes no sense that lasguns can kill anything.

Toughness for everything is great, they just need to stop holding on the the stats from previous editions.
They need to use the ranges they have, they don't have to be limited.

That's how I feel, as long as they hold onto D6. Personally I want the game to move to D8 for better granularity.

From an accessibility and usage perspective d6's should stay, which means they need to break from the old stat limits. Run S, T, etc up there!
The nature of 8ths core rules means that it'll work fine if they boost the ranges, it also gives far more design space.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Wyldhunt wrote:
Yeah. I was pitching T7 knights to my gaming group the other day. To me, it's not so much about nerfing knights (although they do kind of need it) as it is about making them more interactive. At the moment, knights' ability to walk out of combat without penalty, easily smash most units that might want to try to lock them in combat, and shrug off small arms fire (i.e. the theoretical majority of your guns in a vanilla list) makes them feel really non-interactive. It's like they can basically ignore any part of your army that isn't at least strength 5.

Lowering them to Toughness 7 suddenly makes everything strength 4 in the game have a 1/3rd chance of forcing them to roll a save. Strength 8 weapons like melta and bright lances are wounding them most of the time instead of half the time. Strength 7 weapons like Tau missiles and autocannons (which are often pretty spammable) are suddenly wounding the knight often enough to chip away at them.

Regardless of how this would impact the overall power level of knights (it would nerf them), it would make it much easier for a vanilla army in a pickup game to meaningfully interact with them.

I'd rather Knights just be more expensive to be honest.

Pretty much this. Make them 250 points more expensive, they don't need different stats.

The useless stompa is 920 points, the weakest imperial knight is more effective and how much does it cost? Almost half the price?

 Blackie wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Wyldhunt wrote:
Yeah. I was pitching T7 knights to my gaming group the other day. To me, it's not so much about nerfing knights (although they do kind of need it) as it is about making them more interactive. At the moment, knights' ability to walk out of combat without penalty, easily smash most units that might want to try to lock them in combat, and shrug off small arms fire (i.e. the theoretical majority of your guns in a vanilla list) makes them feel really non-interactive. It's like they can basically ignore any part of your army that isn't at least strength 5.

Lowering them to Toughness 7 suddenly makes everything strength 4 in the game have a 1/3rd chance of forcing them to roll a save. Strength 8 weapons like melta and bright lances are wounding them most of the time instead of half the time. Strength 7 weapons like Tau missiles and autocannons (which are often pretty spammable) are suddenly wounding the knight often enough to chip away at them.

Regardless of how this would impact the overall power level of knights (it would nerf them), it would make it much easier for a vanilla army in a pickup game to meaningfully interact with them.

I'd rather Knights just be more expensive to be honest.

Pretty much this. Make them 250 points more expensive, they don't need different stats.

The useless stompa is 920 points, the weakest imperial knight is more effective and how much does it cost? Almost half the price?

Wow you all just hate allowing people to play with their models don't you, thats unplayable overcosted.

You know what you don't see in 8th edition T7 vehicals competatively.

Your targeting questorus class knights, yet what is it people always take in competitive lists, oh yeah dominus class knight castellens.

Your basically asking for non competitive lists to be removed from play because they don't suit your own narative.

Really the issue is GW wanted this flat wound chart, because apparently being unable to wound thing's is no fun.
But apparently not being able to hit units is totally OK in 8th.

Knights don't score objectives, have no invulnerable saves in CC and need to table an opponent to win most match ups.
Stop trying to beat them at their own play style and play the counter play style.

Yeah, I'd be all for a point increase to make IKs *just* slightly more that the current WK. But anything more than say +50ppm is overkill. I don't want IKs to be nerfed into the ground, I just want them to feel appropriate relative to units like WKs, LRs, etc

I like the earlier point about making them feel more interactive. T7 would certainly do this.
And lets stop pretending that Bolters wounding them on 5+ would be a serious threat to them. Sure it might strip off that extra wound to put them in a lower damage bracket, but that's a GOOD thing for the game.

If your opponent is having to resort to Bolter equivalents to strip wound off an IK, then only one of 2 significant things can be happening:

1) Your opponent has already rid the table of pesky chaff, which is a far better use of Bolters (or should be at least). In this case, you, as the IK player, may already be in a bad position, so a few extra wounds on your IK aren't going to make it any harder for you to win. You're likely already on the backfoot. OR
2) You, as the IK player haven't taken any chaff in your list and the only reason that Bolters are hitting your IK is out of desperation. In this case, your opponent is on the backfoot, and you should feel bad if you think taking an army that invalidates half (or more) of your opponents army should be "the way it should be"

-

Sorry, but at the price point Knights are at, it would be silly to have Bolters wound them on a 5+ without giving them more wounds.

A simple price hike would be better. They're at the correct durability feel, but need to definitely be more expensive. 50-100 is fine, but anything else might be overboard.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Sorry, but at the price point Knights are at, it would be silly to have Bolters wound them on a 5+ without giving them more wounds.

A simple price hike would be better. They're at the correct durability feel, but need to definitely be more expensive. 50-100 is fine, but anything else might be overboard.

I agree that a price increase to about 315ppm base is the best right answer.

But I also think T7 is an alternative right answer. Bolters have always been S4 to represent their superior damage capability over standard human weapons
Their rounds freaking explode. Why should they wound a Rhino any better than an IK? Sure the actual armour plates may be thicker, but the IK has about as much un armoured surfaces area as a Rhino's enter surface area. Plenty of "weak" spots to target other then the heavy plates on the shines and thighs.

I mean, even wounding on 5+ doesn't even increase the damage by 5-6%. Yes the Bolter itself may get twice the wounds, but there's still the 3+ save to get through

-

There are many kinds of explosives.

There is High Explosive Anti Tank rounds (H.E.A.T) made specifically to penetrate heavy armor.

There is frag grenade explosives for anti personel which wont really damage heavy armor.

The bolter round is depicted to be a round tip mini rocket propelled grenade. It lacks the armor piercing tip. Bolter rounds are designed to work in a vacuum of space because of rocket propulsion. The explosive payload is enough to fragment and destroy cover.

Bolter rounds should not be wounding IKs 33% of the time.

 CadianGateTroll wrote:
There are many kinds of explosives.

There is High Explosive Anti Tank rounds (H.E.A.T) made specifically to penetrate heavy armor.

There is frag grenade explosives for anti personel which wont really damage heavy armor.

The bolter round is depicted to be a round tip mini rocket propelled grenade. It lacks the armor piercing tip. Bolter rounds are designed to work in a vacuum of space because of rocket propulsion. The explosive payload is enough to fragment and destroy cover.

That applies to AP, which a Bolter has AP-0, so isn't penetrating anything. But the 1/3 time a Knight fails that 3+ save because a bolter round hits the joint of a giant, easy to hit target that isn't 100% covered in "heavy armour" it would, theoretically, have the capability to cause damage.

Bolter rounds should not be wounding IKs 33% of the time.

Agreed, but they wouldn't be. It would cause a would less than 10% of the time, even if wounding on 5+. Because as above, a Bolter doesn't impede an IKs armour save.
So about 1 in 12 Bolter shots do one, ONE wound to an IK if they would on 5+. Currently that's about 1 in 24 Bolter shots to do 1 wound.

1 in 24 is basically a worthless waste of time rolling dice. 1 in 12 actually has *some* merit if there is no other choice (like chaff).
If less than half my army cannot hurt 75% of yours, it doesn't matter who wins, it isn't a fun or fair game.
Players who do not understand this (or don't care) are not the kind of opponents I want in a friendly game (and even tourneys SHOULD be friendly games)

Standard weaponry should have a much greater impact on the game. 8E has done a better job doing this that other editions, but whole armies filled with T8 or armies with -1 to be hit, or chaff hugging cover for 4+ or better saves is pretty much made all that effort for naught.

-

"You know what you don't see in 8th edition T7 vehicals competatively."

Wave Serpents aren't seen?
Razorbacks weren't seen (before the nerf)?

People just forget about non-Knight vehicles.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I like the +50pt concept.

But the top list is Knight + Loyal32 + Beatsticks. That list has clearly been the list to beat, so needs adjustment. But it does get beat often enough that it's not just trashing the meta.

Add to that that mono-Knight lists aren't competitive.

This suggests a moderate points hike, and not a massive one, is appropriate.

Bharring wrote:

I like the +50pt concept.

But the top list is Knight + Loyal32 + Beatsticks. That list has clearly been the list to beat, so needs adjustment. But it does get beat often enough that it's not just trashing the meta.

Add to that that mono-Knight lists aren't competitive.

This suggests a moderate points hike, and not a massive one, is appropriate.

100% agree...while maybe only 90% since I am the one suggesting the T7 Knight.
Mono-Knights aren't winning tourneys (but aren't fun to play against even still, so I'd really like them NOT to be a valid army option)
And Soup is the issue, but I've argued that Soup itself wouldn't be so bad if CPs were generated some other way. Less dependent on detachments and more dependant on Battle Forged and/or Warlord based.

-

Why don't they just introduce degrading void shield rules for Imperial Knights instead of letting them always have a 3++, like they did for Titans? That way the idea would be to hit it first with high strength lower AP weapons to degrade the void shields, then when it's taken a few wounds and the void shields are weakened you unload with the serious anti-tank stuff like Lascannons or Krak Missiles to finish it. Having a permanent 3++ is too much, but if it just degraded as the Knight took damage I think it'd be workable.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Sorry, but at the price point Knights are at, it would be silly to have Bolters wound them on a 5+ without giving them more wounds.

A simple price hike would be better. They're at the correct durability feel, but need to definitely be more expensive. 50-100 is fine, but anything else might be overboard.

I'm not necessarily opposed to upping the wounds on a knight if they went down to T7. I'm approaching this issue less from a "knights need to be nerfed," angle and more from a, "knights are non-interactive and invalidate half the units in the game," angle. There is definitely a reasonable argument to be made for knights needing to be powered down a bit, but that's not really my goal here. You could slap extra wounds onto knights so that their overall durability balanced out to be about the same as it is now. At T7, at least all the strength 4 stuff in my army would feel like it was able to participate in the game, and my strength 7 and 8 guns would feel like they were consistently whittling the knight down rather than being ignored 1/2 or 2/3rds of the time.

It's also worth mentioning that this is mostly a problem with lists that are built around knights doing most of the work. If the only knight presence in my opponent's list is a single paladin, then my strength 4 elements probably have plenty to do. They can go fight the other stuff in your army while my big guns focus on the knight. The problem is when a buffed up castellan is the offensive lynchpin of your army or when I'm facing nothing but T8. At that point, the strength 4 stuff in my army feels like it's not really even worth the time it takes to move models and roll dice.

And the issue is mostly unique to knights because of their ability to walk out of combat with infantry without any real downside. If I were facing a wall of russes, at least my strength 4 stuff could tie them up in melee.

Wyldhunt wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Sorry, but at the price point Knights are at, it would be silly to have Bolters wound them on a 5+ without giving them more wounds.

A simple price hike would be better. They're at the correct durability feel, but need to definitely be more expensive. 50-100 is fine, but anything else might be overboard.

I'm not necessarily opposed to upping the wounds on a knight if they went down to T7. I'm approaching this issue less from a "knights need to be nerfed," angle and more from a, "knights are non-interactive and invalidate half the units in the game," angle. There is definitely a reasonable argument to be made for knights needing to be powered down a bit, but that's not really my goal here. You could slap extra wounds onto knights so that their overall durability balanced out to be about the same as it is now. At T7, at least all the strength 4 stuff in my army would feel like it was able to participate in the game, and my strength 7 and 8 guns would feel like they were consistently whittling the knight down rather than being ignored 1/2 or 2/3rds of the time.

It's also worth mentioning that this is mostly a problem with lists that are built around knights doing most of the work. If the only knight presence in my opponent's list is a single paladin, then my strength 4 elements probably have plenty to do. They can go fight the other stuff in your army while my big guns focus on the knight. The problem is when a buffed up castellan is the offensive lynchpin of your army or when I'm facing nothing but T8. At that point, the strength 4 stuff in my army feels like it's not really even worth the time it takes to move models and roll dice.

And the issue is mostly unique to knights because of their ability to walk out of combat with infantry without any real downside. If I were facing a wall of russes, at least my strength 4 stuff could tie them up in melee.

The best advice I can give you if your playing against knights lists, is stop doing the dumbest move that everyone keeps trying to of out killing the knights.
Play to your strengths and their weaknesses of objectives and primary and secondary missions.

90% of the people complaining about knights being OP are loosing because they haven't done anything but try and out kill them.

 Togusa wrote:

 Galef wrote:
But a drop to T7 would allow more weapons to cause wounds to get that invul to fail. It's a slight change, but one that could make a noticeable different.
It would also give bolter spam a somewhat decent boost.

If IKs don't get T7, then WKs should be T9. That would affect even fewer weapons (only S8 and S9 would notice any difference).
The basic premise of this change is "Wraithlord is to Dreadnought as WK is to IK", backed up by most AV13 tanks being T7, and IK (being wlkers) having more "vulnerable" spots due to more moving parts being exposed compared to a box on wheels

-

they're giant heavily armored robots the size of buildings, infantry guns shouldn't be able to hurt them at all...

I'll do you one better, they're giant HUMANOID robot. They shouldn't be staying upright, let alone walk without collapsing under they're own weight

Ice_can wrote:

Wyldhunt wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Sorry, but at the price point Knights are at, it would be silly to have Bolters wound them on a 5+ without giving them more wounds.

A simple price hike would be better. They're at the correct durability feel, but need to definitely be more expensive. 50-100 is fine, but anything else might be overboard.

I'm not necessarily opposed to upping the wounds on a knight if they went down to T7. I'm approaching this issue less from a "knights need to be nerfed," angle and more from a, "knights are non-interactive and invalidate half the units in the game," angle. There is definitely a reasonable argument to be made for knights needing to be powered down a bit, but that's not really my goal here. You could slap extra wounds onto knights so that their overall durability balanced out to be about the same as it is now. At T7, at least all the strength 4 stuff in my army would feel like it was able to participate in the game, and my strength 7 and 8 guns would feel like they were consistently whittling the knight down rather than being ignored 1/2 or 2/3rds of the time.

It's also worth mentioning that this is mostly a problem with lists that are built around knights doing most of the work. If the only knight presence in my opponent's list is a single paladin, then my strength 4 elements probably have plenty to do. They can go fight the other stuff in your army while my big guns focus on the knight. The problem is when a buffed up castellan is the offensive lynchpin of your army or when I'm facing nothing but T8. At that point, the strength 4 stuff in my army feels like it's not really even worth the time it takes to move models and roll dice.

And the issue is mostly unique to knights because of their ability to walk out of combat with infantry without any real downside. If I were facing a wall of russes, at least my strength 4 stuff could tie them up in melee.

The best advice I can give you if your playing against knights lists, is stop doing the dumbest move that everyone keeps trying to of out killing the knights.
Play to your strengths and their weaknesses of objectives and primary and secondary missions.

90% of the people complaining about knights being OP are loosing because they haven't done anything but try and out kill them.

Only certain armies have the bodies and/or wounds to hold objectives for that long against Knight shooting and melee.

Wyldhunt wrote:
Yeah. I was pitching T7 knights to my gaming group the other day. To me, it's not so much about nerfing knights (although they do kind of need it) as it is about making them more interactive. At the moment, knights' ability to walk out of combat without penalty, easily smash most units that might want to try to lock them in combat, and shrug off small arms fire (i.e. the theoretical majority of your guns in a vanilla list) makes them feel really non-interactive. It's like they can basically ignore any part of your army that isn't at least strength 5.

Lowering them to Toughness 7 suddenly makes everything strength 4 in the game have a 1/3rd chance of forcing them to roll a save. Strength 8 weapons like melta and bright lances are wounding them most of the time instead of half the time. Strength 7 weapons like Tau missiles and autocannons (which are often pretty spammable) are suddenly wounding the knight often enough to chip away at them.

Regardless of how this would impact the overall power level of knights (it would nerf them), it would make it much easier for a vanilla army in a pickup game to meaningfully interact with them.

QFE
At 8T, IKs just ignore half of your army. The entire 2018 CA revolved around the cost of IKs. I still think they are stupidly OP. There are some good strategies for dealing with 1 knight. But when they bring 2 or 3, it's a dick move. If your army has any 4s on their statline, you're fethed.

BCB actually had an interesting suggestion in another thread:
T7 Knights with 2+ armour.

Make weapons that are S7 & S8 much better at wounding, but you end up still needing weapons that have AP-3 or better. Bolters would on 5+, but with a 2+ armour, it comes out about statistically that same as being T8/3+.

But at the end of the day, a points bump to about 315ppm base and a cap on their invul to 4++ would be more than satisfactory.

-

T7 with 2+sv would fix so much it's not even funny.

The real problem ofc is the 3++, I think Rotate Ion Shields should cap at 4++ so it's no longer a problem combo with the Warlord Trait.

 BaconCatBug wrote:
T7 with 2+sv would fix so much it's not even funny.

The real problem ofc is the 3++, I think Rotate Ion Shields should cap at 4++ so it's no longer a problem combo with the Warlord Trait.

Or just make it so Rotate Ion Shields grants an invulnerable save in Close Combat equal to the invulnerable save you have vs ranged attacks. It doesn't sit right with me that the counter to Knights is melee, but some armies just don't have access to that counter. Guard and Tau don't really have an option except shooting it, so Guard have to compensate by allying in marines, but tau doesn't have that luxury. This would make Knights a more well-rounded unit, in that they can stand up to heavy melee units better (because they just get smashed right now without an invuln) but aren't immune to shooting.

Or just remove the warlord trait that gives +1 to invuln saves. That is a completely stupid trait, and brokenly powerful on a knight.

w1zard wrote:
Or just remove the warlord trait that gives +1 to invuln saves. That is a completely stupid trait, and brokenly powerful on a knight.

If we're just getting rid of broken OP things on knights, might as well get rid of the "re-roll all one's" stratagem and the "always fight at full strength" stratagem. Knights just have a massive collection of all the most broken possible rules.

 Horst wrote:

w1zard wrote:
Or just remove the warlord trait that gives +1 to invuln saves. That is a completely stupid trait, and brokenly powerful on a knight.

If we're just getting rid of broken OP things on knights, might as well get rid of the "re-roll all one's" stratagem and the "always fight at full strength" stratagem. Knights just have a massive collection of all the most broken possible rules.

But to be fair to Kniights, they don't have HQs with auras that provide these bonuses. Other armies do (specifically the reroll 1s).
So Knights having to spend CPs to do something that other armies just have by taking their mandatory HQ seems fair.

What's broken isn't the Strats/WL traits/ Relics themselves, but the ability to stack them that's OP.
Capping the Ion shield at 4++ regardless of bonuses fixes this.

-

 Galef wrote:

 Horst wrote:

w1zard wrote:
Or just remove the warlord trait that gives +1 to invuln saves. That is a completely stupid trait, and brokenly powerful on a knight.

If we're just getting rid of broken OP things on knights, might as well get rid of the "re-roll all one's" stratagem and the "always fight at full strength" stratagem. Knights just have a massive collection of all the most broken possible rules.

But to be fair to Kniights, they don't have HQs with auras that provide these bonuses. Other armies do (specifically the reroll 1s).
So Knights having to spend CPs to do something that other armies just have by taking their mandatory HQ seems fair.

What's broken isn't the Strats/WL traits/ Relics themselves, but the ability to stack them that's OP.
Capping the Ion shield at 4++ regardless of bonuses fixes this.

-

Re-rolling 1's to hit and 1's to wound would be fine. ALSO re-rolling 1's for number of shots and 1's for damage is kind of what puts it over the line into OP territory for me. We've all been there where you roll a 1 for the number of shots you get on your main gun... 'cept with a knight, he gets a free re-roll on it!

The issue is that Knight stratagems are priced and powered as if you're only taking a Knight Lance. In reality everyone has two Battalions to grant 10 CP + 6 regenerated CP.

 Horst wrote:

 Galef wrote:

 Horst wrote:

w1zard wrote:
Or just remove the warlord trait that gives +1 to invuln saves. That is a completely stupid trait, and brokenly powerful on a knight.

If we're just getting rid of broken OP things on knights, might as well get rid of the "re-roll all one's" stratagem and the "always fight at full strength" stratagem. Knights just have a massive collection of all the most broken possible rules.

But to be fair to Kniights, they don't have HQs with auras that provide these bonuses. Other armies do (specifically the reroll 1s).
So Knights having to spend CPs to do something that other armies just have by taking their mandatory HQ seems fair.

What's broken isn't the Strats/WL traits/ Relics themselves, but the ability to stack them that's OP.
Capping the Ion shield at 4++ regardless of bonuses fixes this.

-

Re-rolling 1's to hit and 1's to wound would be fine. ALSO re-rolling 1's for number of shots and 1's for damage is kind of what puts it over the line into OP territory for me. We've all been there where you roll a 1 for the number of shots you get on your main gun... 'cept with a knight, he gets a free re-roll on it!

Once again are you talking about a knights list or an imperial soup list?

A knights list pays 1/3 of its CP that's the equivelent of 7CP for Guard.

That the scale of the CP difference.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
The issue is that Knight stratagems are priced and powered as if you're only taking a Knight Lance. In reality everyone has two Battalions to grant 10 CP + 6 regenerated CP.

Nope not all of us, and that's not a knights being OP that's GW designers just not thinking through their shiny new idea of CP in the context of allies.

What if either RIS and/or any of the other ++ buffs (Beyond the basic 5++) were just +1 Sv instead of +1 ++?

Bharring wrote:
What if either RIS and/or any of the other ++ buffs (Beyond the basic 5++) were just +1 Sv instead of +1 ++?

you's be fighting 3+ save on a d6+2 or D6+3 knightinstead of just a flat 3++.

But once again is it a dominus being 3++ for a turn in return for 1/3 of a 2k lists CP really the issue or is it the unlimited CP aliies imperial soup lists your complaining about?

Even the 5++ is kinda a "Screw You" to anyone to takes Knight-killing weapons to kill a Knight.

Why do Knights need an Invuln? Now, if you just dropped their invuln entirely, their points likely would need to come down (maybe to that of the Knight with no Invuln - the WK? ). But from a thematic viewpoint, yes, Knights should have worse (or no) Invuln.

From a balance viewpoint, it'd be better to nerf the 3++/4++ saves but not nerfing the 5++.

IMO T8 is too common in general. It should be reserved for the truly notoriously durable vehicles and nothing else. Land Raiders, Monoliths etc. I also agree that thematically Knights should only get the 5++ at best but hey, they gotta sell them big robots right?

Ice_can wrote:

But once again is it a dominus being 3++ for a turn in return for 1/3 of a 2k lists CP really the issue or is it the unlimited CP aliies imperial soup lists your complaining about?

Honestly... it doesn't matter how much CP the 3++ costs. You really only need 2 turns of it, at most. After that, everything that could hurt it will be dead and it won't matter anymore.

Bharring wrote:
Even the 5++ is kinda a "Screw You" to anyone to takes Knight-killing weapons to kill a Knight.

Why do Knights need an Invuln? Now, if you just dropped their invuln entirely, their points likely would need to come down (maybe to that of the Knight with no Invuln - the WK? ). But from a thematic viewpoint, yes, Knights should have worse (or no) Invuln.

From a balance viewpoint, it'd be better to nerf the 3++/4++ saves but not nerfing the 5++.

I think the 5++ against shooting is fine. Is the improved invuln that may be problematic.

And the cost of some knights is simply too low, even if the player goes pure kngihts. The castellan is 200ish points undercosted as the stompa is 920 and not even remotely as effective. According to some polls many ork players will settle with 600ish points stompa but even if it gets the same cost of a castellan it would be inferior to that knight, hence the castellan needs to jump to 800-900 points no matter what.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Cynista wrote:
IMO T8 is too common in general. It should be reserved for the truly notoriously durable vehicles and nothing else. Land Raiders, Monoliths etc. I also agree that thematically Knights should only get the 5++ at best but hey, they gotta sell them big robots right?

Too common? Tipycally the armies with T8 models have just 2-3 units available with that value of T, some of them usually not competitive. Drukhari don't have a single T8 model.

Look at the back-and-forth when the WK gets discussed: that's what you see when something is reasonably balanced. Some people will still call it OP. Others will call it garbage. Still others will shout about how it's not as good as <favorite OPness>. Or that it's better than <favorite dumpsterfire>.

Compare the WK to Knights. That helps show where the IKs should be. And the Stompa.

As for a 5++ against shooting, it's fine for the points, more or less. But thematically, it ensures AP-3 and AP-4 mean nothing to it. Why? Why should we incentivise Plasma and Dissie Cannons over Melta and Lascannons for taking down The Big Guys.

It's very frustrating to see The Big Threat that you're scared about, realize that you pay -1 to-wound and -12" range for +1 AP, and that the +1 AP means 0. You could say, bring the right tool for the job. Why the hell is a Brightlance (or Lascannon) *NOT* the right tool for killing *Knights*?

Martel732 wrote:

Take a number. AP sucks vs tau and necrons and drukhari and demons. And chaos. AP is anti ig and anti loyalists only.

Lol wut?

AP wrecks most Necron vehicles.

 Maelstrom808 wrote:

Martel732 wrote:

Take a number. AP sucks vs tau and necrons and drukhari and demons. And chaos. AP is anti ig and anti loyalists only.

Lol wut?

AP wrecks most Necron vehicles.

Most good AP weapons are also multiple damage, which Quantum Shielding laughs at.

Someone can extrapolate.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Bharring wrote:
Look at the back-and-forth when the WK gets discussed: that's what you see when something is reasonably balanced. Some people will still call it OP. Others will call it garbage. Still others will shout about how it's not as good as <favorite OPness>. Or that it's better than <favorite dumpsterfire>.

Compare the WK to Knights. That helps show where the IKs should be. And the Stompa.

As for a 5++ against shooting, it's fine for the points, more or less. But thematically, it ensures AP-3 and AP-4 mean nothing to it. Why? Why should we incentivise Plasma and Dissie Cannons over Melta and Lascannons for taking down The Big Guys.

It's very frustrating to see The Big Threat that you're scared about, realize that you pay -1 to-wound and -12" range for +1 AP, and that the +1 AP means 0. You could say, bring the right tool for the job. Why the hell is a Brightlance (or Lascannon) *NOT* the right tool for killing *Knights*?

Because invulns. You can blow up every marine vehicle real good, though. Oh wait, no one cares.

IKs don't bother that me THAT much because I'm already building around -1 and -2 AP. The Drukhari alone make AP not worth taking because those jerks are everywhere, must die asap, and laugh at AP. Then add on clowns, IKs, necrons, flyrants, Tau, and some others, and you realize AP is not worth it at all.

Martel732 wrote:
Someone can extrapolate.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Bharring wrote:
Look at the back-and-forth when the WK gets discussed: that's what you see when something is reasonably balanced. Some people will still call it OP. Others will call it garbage. Still others will shout about how it's not as good as <favorite OPness>. Or that it's better than <favorite dumpsterfire>.

Compare the WK to Knights. That helps show where the IKs should be. And the Stompa.

As for a 5++ against shooting, it's fine for the points, more or less. But thematically, it ensures AP-3 and AP-4 mean nothing to it. Why? Why should we incentivise Plasma and Dissie Cannons over Melta and Lascannons for taking down The Big Guys.

It's very frustrating to see The Big Threat that you're scared about, realize that you pay -1 to-wound and -12" range for +1 AP, and that the +1 AP means 0. You could say, bring the right tool for the job. Why the hell is a Brightlance (or Lascannon) *NOT* the right tool for killing *Knights*?

Because invulns. You can blow up every marine vehicle real good, though. Oh wait, no one cares.

IKs don't bother that me THAT much because I'm already building around -1 and -2 AP. The Drukhari alone make AP not worth taking because those jerks are everywhere, must die asap, and laugh at AP. Then add on clowns, IKs, necrons, flyrants, Tau, and some others, and you realize AP is not worth it at all.

AP is good against Crons. Wraiths, some Lychguard, some Tomb Blades, and C'Tan have invulns. That's about it.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Maelstrom808 wrote:

Martel732 wrote:

Take a number. AP sucks vs tau and necrons and drukhari and demons. And chaos. AP is anti ig and anti loyalists only.

Lol wut?

AP wrecks most Necron vehicles.

Most good AP weapons are also multiple damage, which Quantum Shielding laughs at.

It's another silly example of how the best anti-tank weapons in this game are plasma-based, since they can fire off way more shots, and only do 2 damage per shot. So the Knight is more likely to fail some saves if you force 10 of them instead of 2-3 lascannon saves, it's guaranteed damage instead of random D6 damage, and Quantum Shielding isn't gonna shrug off multiple 2 damage shots.

Bharring wrote:
Even the 5++ is kinda a "Screw You" to anyone to takes Knight-killing weapons to kill a Knight.

Why do Knights need an Invuln? Now, if you just dropped their invuln entirely, their points likely would need to come down (maybe to that of the Knight with no Invuln - the WK? ). But from a thematic viewpoint, yes, Knights should have worse (or no) Invuln.

From a balance viewpoint, it'd be better to nerf the 3++/4++ saves but not nerfing the 5++.

They were more balanced back when vehicles had Armor facings, because you could only have the shield on 1 facing at a time. Still very good, but they could get flanked to deny that invuln.

Agreed. But I'd rather make Big Scary Knights That Are Hard To Penetrate be more countered by Super Death Laser Of Knight Killing Badassery with it's super-good AP than by High RoF Infantry Mulchers

Bharring wrote:
Look at the back-and-forth when the WK gets discussed: that's what you see when something is reasonably balanced. Some people will still call it OP. Others will call it garbage. Still others will shout about how it's not as good as <favorite OPness>. Or that it's better than <favorite dumpsterfire>.

Compare the WK to Knights. That helps show where the IKs should be. And the Stompa.

As for a 5++ against shooting, it's fine for the points, more or less. But thematically, it ensures AP-3 and AP-4 mean nothing to it. Why? Why should we incentivise Plasma and Dissie Cannons over Melta and Lascannons for taking down The Big Guys.

It's very frustrating to see The Big Threat that you're scared about, realize that you pay -1 to-wound and -12" range for +1 AP, and that the +1 AP means 0. You could say, bring the right tool for the job. Why the hell is a Brightlance (or Lascannon) *NOT* the right tool for killing *Knights*?

Just to actually do this

Taranis Knight warden with ironstorm and thunderstrike
Alitoc wraithknight with suncannon scatershield, 2 starcannons
Ok knights a few points less but as close as I can make it.

They arn't exactlly armed for fighting each other so vrs the usual suspects
Warden vrs
Geq 8.852
Meq 4.667
Veq 4.556

Wraithknight vrs
Geq 6.11
Meq 4.074
Veq 6.667

Warden does better vrs infantry but worse vrs vehicals

Knight warden with ironstorm shooting at alitoc wraithknight does
3.333 damage.

The same wraith knight with no outaide buffs does 3.259 wounds to the knight that drops to 2.716 after the FNP

CC
Knight does 6.667 damage

Wraithknight does 4.44


Know lets try and buff the knights shooting, nope relics or warlord traits only and most of those arn't taken as durability is preferred.

The wraithknights against the knight with

doom 4.527 wounds after fnp (132 30% points for 1.6 times the damage)
Jinx 3.385 wounds after fnp (67 15% points for 1.25 times the damage)
Doom and jinx make that 5.659 after fnp
Thats 199 46% points for 2.1 times the damage.

How do you point things in a codex with access to that level of buffing?

Numbers corrected

Bharring wrote:
Agreed. But I'd rather make Big Scary Knights That Are Hard To Penetrate be more countered by Super Death Laser Of Knight Killing Badassery with it's super-good AP than by High RoF Infantry Mulchers

Well thats why if we are going to stick with everything only having toughness, we needed to keep "certain strength attacks cannot wound certain toughnesses" from last edition. Because otherwise we have the stupidity of "100 lasguns is better at killing a Knight than a couple Meltaguns" we have right now.

And if we were going to add Fantasy style save modifiers, we also should have increased saves of a lot of things too. Terminator armor should give 1+ armor now for example.

Wait, let me get this straight:
Warden Knight, unbuffed does 10 damage/round to a WK
WK, unbuffed does 7.7 damage/round to a WK

Add reroll wounds and Jinx, and we're at WK suddenly does 34 damage/round, by your numbers? For an increase of 4.4x?

First, lets look at doom. You have it *more than double* the damage. Is that realistic? Lets look at numbers:
To-Wound : Increase
2+ : 16%
3+ : 33%
4+ : 50%
5+ : 66%
6+ : 100%

So, the highest possible effect of Doom, outside special rules, is a +100% increase in damage. And that requires 6s to wound. There is no way you're seeing 172% increased damage from Doom in this scenario - you're just overinflating what Doom does. Which is very common here.

How about Jinx's impact?
Original Sv : Change
2+ : 100%
3+ : 50%
4+ : 33%
5+ : 20%
6+ : 16%
7+ : 0%

Jinx only does +100% damage against an otherwise-unmodified (read: AP0) save.

So, best case for Doom + Jinx, is when hitting a 2+ Sv target with a weapon S that's half the target's T. Which is not what's happening here.

LOL at the notion one can overinflate what Doom does.

Bharring wrote:
Wait, let me get this straight:
Warden Knight, unbuffed does 10 damage/round to a WK
WK, unbuffed does 7.7 damage/round to a WK

Add reroll wounds and Jinx, and we're at WK suddenly does 34 damage/round, by your numbers? For an increase of 4.4x?

First, lets look at doom. You have it *more than double* the damage. Is that realistic? Lets look at numbers:
To-Wound : Increase
2+ : 16%
3+ : 33%
4+ : 50%
5+ : 66%
6+ : 100%

So, the highest possible effect of Doom, outside special rules, is a +100% increase in damage. And that requires 6s to wound. There is no way you're seeing 172% increased damage from Doom in this scenario - you're just overinflating what Doom does. Which is very common here.

How about Jinx's impact?
Original Sv : Change
2+ : 100%
3+ : 50%
4+ : 33%
5+ : 20%
6+ : 16%
7+ : 0%

Jinx only does +100% damage against an otherwise-unmodified (read: AP0) save.

So, best case for Doom + Jinx, is when hitting a 2+ Sv target with a weapon S that's half the target's T. Which is not what's happening here.

That's what I get for using online tools instead of doing it myself longhand

However the issue I was trying to show still shows even with the correct maths.

How on earth do you correctly cost a model that can see it's damage more than doubled for 46% of it's point's cost?
I don't know , but it highlights that you especially can't compare it's point's to a unit with no access to comparable buffs?

Conversely, how on earth do you correctly cost a model that can see it's damage taken halved for 0 points?

More specifically on the WK, I forget what AP the Suncannon and it's fists are, but lets pretend 0. We're then seeing a 33% increase in damage from Doom, and a 50% increase from Jinx. At *best*, you're looking for less than double damage, assuming they both go off.

Then you're assuming Doom and Jinx. Yes, each one is more likely than not. They're both 80% likely, assuming reroll (CP for Jinx). So a 64% chance for both. More specifically, weighted improvements: Doom gives a 33% 80% of the time, for a 26% increase. Jinx gives a 50% increase 80% of the time, for a 40% increase. Net improvement is only 75%.

So your complaint is that it's unfair that paying 46% more points can increase the WK's damage to the IK, assuming we forget any AP the WK has, by 75%. Because IK can, at best, increase it's durability by only *double* for CP. How does that make sense?

(What are the WK's AP values again?)

I believe they are all Ap-3

Doom alone on a farseers own rerolls is over 85% probability of success.
Jinx with CP is 80% success.
Combined probability is 50% without CP and 68% with.

But you can't just multiply percentages upon percentages when it effects saves etc with multiple damage weapons.
It's the right percentage of failed saves on but doesn't account for the multiple damage.

Maths is on the previous page but just to make it clear I also used the more expensive jetbike farseer and warlock, and am giving the knight a FNP trait.

Regardless of what you might think i'm trying to be as open as possible to explain why GW might actually have a reason for the points costs.

But to answer your question about halving damage, I'm going to assume your talking about a 3++ which doesn't actually scale across all weapons only if your already on your invulnerable save.

So its a 50% reduction for CP sounds OP but lets compair it to some other CP shenanigans

How about fire and fade for 100% less damage unless you ignore LOS.
Or -2 to hit for 50% reduction against BS3+ and a 66% reduction against BS 4+?
Or the really cheese tastic -3 to hit for 75% reduction against BS 3+ and a 100% reduction against BS 4+

You actually *can* straight up multiply them. A 10% chance to do 50 more damage is a flat 5 damage average. The math is rather simple.

FnP is a flat % modifier, because it impacts every wound individually. They each have the same independent chance of not being felt.

Thus an X% increase in failed saves, if not biased to different types, is a flat X% increase in damage taken.

But let's get back to the numbers.

AP-3 means you're taking a 5+ vs shooting and 6+ for melee. So Jinx is only a 20% buff to shooting and a 16% to CC.

The -2 to hit, you're getting that from Alaitoc and... cheating? No inherent -1 to hit. No LQR. No Conceal. So if you're at BS -2, they are cheating.

It was only the shooting I was responding to as being AP-3.
The chances of reaching CC knight on knight I don't really see as being realistic.
It was more i wanted to see what the fists did, they appear wierdly pointless when feet exsist.

Sorry I didn't explain that in a way that was remotely conveyed what I ment. Simple maths is simple, accurate ratio maths at the level that some mathhammer represents isn't as simple, it's very susceptible to rounding.
Adding multiple damage tends to amplify rounding, becuase rounding errors get worse when you add additional calculations steps.

-1 to save rolls isn't a constant percentage due to the interactions of Ap and invulnerable saves, which is dependent upon the weapon stats.
It can turn a 3+ into a 4+ and a 5++ into a 6++, depending on Ap.

Same with a 3+ and a 5++ vrs a 3+ and a 3++ doesn't half all damage it depends on thr Ap of the weapon. It's not halfing the damage of Ap0 & Ap-1 and MW.

I'm not talking about a-2 to hit knight, it's more that is the only thing that does have a flat damage reduction against almost all weapons.

The only weapon dependent thing that can effect - to hit percentage is automatically hitting weapons. Which are

 Blackie wrote:

Cynista wrote:
IMO T8 is too common in general. It should be reserved for the truly notoriously durable vehicles and nothing else. Land Raiders, Monoliths etc. I also agree that thematically Knights should only get the 5++ at best but hey, they gotta sell them big robots right?

Too common? Tipycally the armies with T8 models have just 2-3 units available with that value of T, some of them usually not competitive. Drukhari don't have a single T8 model.

Yes too common. Rather than 2-3 units per army, I'd rather see only around 6-7 units in the whole game be T8 and not every army should have one. Some factions, like Dark Eldar, are supposed to be delicate and lightly armoured. I think that Toughness and armour saves should reflect the durability of the model's armour, or sturdyness of the body. The size of the model should be reflected in the wounds and for the most part this is consistent but there are some outliers. When I see a standard Knight I don't think T8 like I would with a Baneblade. When I see a Wraithlord I definitely don't think T8

Drukhari don't have T8 models. Just a two T6 dudes (talos and cronos) than can be T7 under the buff of the haemys, both aren't supposed to be delicate and lightly armoured.

Armoured drukhari stuff is actually T5 or T6 with a 4+ save.

Cynista wrote:

 Blackie wrote:

Cynista wrote:
IMO T8 is too common in general. It should be reserved for the truly notoriously durable vehicles and nothing else. Land Raiders, Monoliths etc. I also agree that thematically Knights should only get the 5++ at best but hey, they gotta sell them big robots right?

Too common? Tipycally the armies with T8 models have just 2-3 units available with that value of T, some of them usually not competitive. Drukhari don't have a single T8 model.

Yes too common. Rather than 2-3 units per army, I'd rather see only around 6-7 units in the whole game be T8 and not every army should have one. Some factions, like Dark Eldar, are supposed to be delicate and lightly armoured. I think that Toughness and armour saves should reflect the durability of the model's armour, or sturdyness of the body. The size of the model should be reflected in the wounds and for the most part this is consistent but there are some outliers. When I see a standard Knight I don't think T8 like I would with a Baneblade. When I see a Wraithlord I definitely don't think T8

With the changes to the rules, there no need to be limited to a cap of 10 for stats.
We already have a decent number of things breaking the S10 barrier, but very very few that have broken T10.

Imagine if the game actually scaled toughness to the models.

The problem there is a the D6 nature of the game.

I think D6 design is fine (or at least can be done well) and honestly D6s are far more convenient to obtain and read.
You can also make them smaller thus get more of them.
That just the nature of them being a cube.

The problem with the D6 method for 8E is that they are holding too closely to "legacy" S & T values.
Imagine what the game would look like with the same D6 system and To-wound chart, but:
-GEQs stayed at the "baseline" S3/T3
-MEQs were S5/T5 with Bolter equivalents S5
-Bikes would therefore be T6
-Rhino equivalents became T8
-Aeldari tanks remained T7 with the lighter vehicles having a mix of T5/T6
-Knights and LRs were T9, etc
-Meltas & Lascannons were S10

And so on. Just a slight up-scale on a handful of very common weapons/units and you get more granularity with the D6 system.
Currently, many issues are because too many units are in the T3/T4 range only, with the vast majority of vehicles being T7.
I like it better than prior editions, but is we just "stretch" the scale a bit more, it creates opportunities for units to be tougher than they are now, while allowing weapons that are supposed to be good against them be good against them.

-

 Galef wrote:
I think D6 design is fine (or at least can be done well) and honestly D6s are far more convenient to obtain and read.
You can also make them smaller thus get more of them.
That just the nature of them being a cube.

The problem with the D6 method for 8E is that they are holding too closely to "legacy" S & T values.
Imagine what the game would look like with the same D6 system and To-wound chart, but:
-GEQs stayed at the "baseline" S3/T3
-MEQs were S5/T5 with Bolter equivalents S5
-Bikes would therefore be T6
-Rhino equivalents became T8
-Aeldari tanks remained T7 with the lighter vehicles having a mix of T5/T6
-Knights and LRs were T9, etc
-Meltas & Lascannons were S10

And so on. Just a slight up-scale on a handful of very common weapons/units and you get more granularity with the D6 system.
Currently, many issues are because too many units are in the T3/T4 range only, with the vast majority of vehicles being T7.
I like it better than prior editions, but is we just "stretch" the scale a bit more, it creates opportunities for units to be tougher than they are now, while allowing weapons that are supposed to be good against them be good against them.

-

I... hmm.. I actually like this idea a lot. It really would add more nuance to the system whilst keeping it simple and in practice, more or less the same.

Thematically I could get behind a Knight being T8, if Baneblades and Monolith's were T9.

The Wave Serpent having lower toughness than the Rhino is silly. But the Predator could have a higher toughness than the Wave Serpent.

Rhinos are "cheap METAL BAWKSES", who by their cheapness make Marines more tactical.

Yes, I realise that Rhinos and Preds are just as tough right now. That's a problem.

Melta and Lascannons need to be bigger threats. But their Strength isn't a huge drawback currently. Bumping them to S10 will give them what, 33% more firepower vs the really-big stuff? Spreading out the toughness/strength table could be interesting, but it's the invulns and spiraling killiness that's drowning them out.

It makes less sense that T is more or less 'capped' at 8 in the current scheme of things of 8th ed.

It would be interesting to see T bumped up to 9 or 10, and bump up S of certain weapons accordingly, so that it creates more niche for a true anti-armor weapons.

In line with the above, the W scaling needs to be adjusted as well. Two or three lucky shots from meltas should be able to cripple/blow up vehicles, not the current EXTREMELY lucky shots (multiple 6D shots) required.

The problem is that, the further T goes up, the more Lasguns outperform medium anti-tank weapons at killing the big stuff, though.

Bharring wrote:
The problem is that, the further T goes up, the more Lasguns outperform medium anti-tank weapons at killing the big stuff, though.

Sigh... Guards are always the problem, eh?

Pretend I said Lasblasters or Poison or Kroot Rifles or somesuch?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
"6s always wound" means that expanding at the high end past the point where the low end wounds on 6s makes the unit more resilient to the middle and upper end, but does not make it any more resilient to the low end.

Bharring wrote:
The Wave Serpent having lower toughness than the Rhino is silly. But the Predator could have a higher toughness than the Wave Serpent.

Rhinos are "cheap METAL BAWKSES", who by their cheapness make Marines more tactical.

Yes, I realise that Rhinos and Preds are just as tough right now. That's a problem.

Melta and Lascannons need to be bigger threats. But their Strength isn't a huge drawback currently. Bumping them to S10 will give them what, 33% more firepower vs the really-big stuff? Spreading out the toughness/strength table could be interesting, but it's the invulns and spiraling killiness that's drowning them out.

You're right, of course. I was just throwing out examples of how increased S and T across the board could introduce much more nuance to the current system, while retaining the use of D6s, which are far more convenient to obtain and use in large amounts.
D8s, D12s, etc are really only practical for single or very few rolls at a time. This is why they make ideal wound counters, but not great for rolling in a system like 40K that could require handfuls of dice.

The current system is trying to pack too many differing durabilities into too few characteristics. And as a consequence, we have Knights take can be too hard to take out with anti-vehicle weaponry and Marines that seemingly die as fast as Guardsmen

-

What really needs expanded is the number of wounds or damage eqch model can take, if infantry had 1 to 10 wounds light tanks 10 to 20 mediums 20 to 30 heavys 30 to 40 and super heavys 50 to 100 wounds you could actually scale a lasgun at 1d as weak against vehicals while a lascannon etc anti tank could do 10-20 damage over killing all infantry but makes bringing the right weapons more worthwhile, especially if it's stacked with expanded T values.

Ice_can wrote:
What really needs expanded is the number of wounds or damage eqch model can take, if infantry had 1 to 10 wounds light tanks 10 to 20 mediums 20 to 30 heavys 30 to 40 and super heavys 50 to 100 wounds you could actually scale a lasgun at 1d as weak against vehicals while a lascannon etc anti tank could do 10-20 damage over killing all infantry but makes bringing the right weapons more worthwhile, especially if it's stacked with expanded T values.

Yeah, I also agree with this.
Id rather see T stay mostly as-is, but heavier infantry and Tanks get more wounds.
Marines get 2W base, Primaris, Temies & Bikes can have 3 etc. Vehicles can get 25% or so more wounds too.
But with this I'd also like to see more set Damage values on weapon like Lascannons, Missiles, Meltas to better represent that these are SUPPOSED to take out big targets. None of this d6 Damage nonsense. Lascannons could be flat damage 4 or even 5, for example, with Meltas being Damage 3/6, with the higher being the damage at half range.

So everything has more wounds vs small arms fire, but high damage weapons are guaranteed to be higher damage, thus making them do what they are supposed to be for

-

The fact Lascannons don't have set damage is super silly to me.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
The fact Lascannons don't have set damage is super silly to me.

I think 3+1d3 would be reasonable.

4-6 damage seems okay to me. Of course, that does lead to EVEN MORE shooting dominance...

All D6 damage weapons should be D4+2 or 2D3 but that's not gonna happen with GW rules.

I'd rather the Lascannon and Melta classes (Bright/Dark lances and similar included) went to 2d6. These are supposed to be very expensive, one-shot-a-round weapons that, if it connects, does massive damage. Currently, they average less damage than a Plasma Gun.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
But, in a vaccum, this is offtopic: LasCannons and Melta Guns are often less anti-Knight weapons than small arms (Boltguns, Lasguns).

*Thats* a problem.

Bharring wrote:
I'd rather the Lascannon and Melta classes (Bright/Dark lances and similar included) went to 2d6. These are supposed to be very expensive, one-shot-a-round weapons that, if it connects, does massive damage. Currently, they average less damage than a Plasma Gun.

Plasma guns are massively undercosted though. 11 ppm could be ok if they didn't have the overcharged profile and natural 1 ALWAYS inflicts a mortal wound on the bearer, regardless of the re-roll.

I may like 2D6 lascannons but of course they should cost twice their price, so 50pts each. At the moment the lascannon doesn't seem to be overpriced or underperforming at all at 25 points.

The Imperial Knight stratagem that lets them assault after running is also stupidly OP especially on an Atropos.

 Riddick40k wrote:
The Imperial Knight stratagem that lets them assault after running is also stupidly OP especially on an Atropos.

I just bought a Knight Gallant that I'm gonna use as house Terryn... they roll 2D6 discard lowest for running, 3D6 discard lowest for assaulting... Hello average 25" charge range!

Yep, Full Tilt is the worst strat in that book. That and the "explode on a 4+" one... combined they're nothing shy of fekkin stupid

and, now I know what Terryn does, I am actually terrified of the first time I run into one of those armies. They make it to my lines, I'm screwed.

And the Tradition is going to make it even easier to get there...

I think It'd help my enjoyment of the game with Knights if they had a 4" move, d6" charge, and no movement stratagems.

Because Knights are apparently super fast and agile...

Make some weapons do more damage vs titantic units. If the hammerhead railgun did flat 6 +2 mortal vs titantic, for example, this would help the issue a lot. And reduce invulns by 2.

Martel732 wrote:
Make some weapons do more damage vs titantic units. If the hammerhead railgun did flat 6 +2 mortal vs titantic, for example, this would help the issue a lot. And reduce invulns by 2.

I don't know, wouldn't that just push it more towards "you need titanics to kill titanics" then we're already made? Just capping the invuln of IK at 5++ seems like a good idea IMO. Personally I had hoped that the Gallant jumped up to 400 and the Castellan to 675 on top of that. Then again, the Eldar superheavy dropped significantly in points (not that it's as good) but I'm not loving the idea that superheavies can be had for less than 400 points.

Furthermore I think "house stratagems" should not be made available in SHAD. Obviously the capping of the invuln would mean changing rotate ion shields & ion bulwark. One of them could just be flinging a mortal wound back on an unmodified roll of a 6 when using the invuln save

Hammerhead is not a titanic.

Two suggestions of the same coin:

1.a. Non-TITANIC units have +X to hit against TITANIC units.
1.b. TITANIC units have -X to hit against non-TITANIC units.

Martel732 wrote:
Hammerhead is not a titanic.

My brain is not operating properly, for some reason I read that as Doomhammer. Still though, I'd imagine most of the anti-titanic weapons would still be on titanics. Just lowering the invuln on IK would make them a lot more fun to play against.

Although it might just be that I find invulns to be pretty frustrating to play against in general when they're better than 5+. Like why did storm shields drop?

PiñaColada wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Hammerhead is not a titanic.

My brain is not operating properly, for some reason I read that as Doomhammer. Still though, I'd imagine most of the anti-titanic weapons would still be on titanics. Just lowering the invuln on IK would make them a lot more fun to play against.

Although it might just be that I find invulns to be pretty frustrating to play against in general when they're better than 5+. Like why did storm shields drop?

It's incredibly frustrating when you hit a tank with your ultra-doom weapon that does 2D6 damage or something, but their invulnerable save just shrugs it off. There should be a limit on the amount of damage invulnerable saves are allowed to make before the shield generator is overloaded.Like, 10 for infantry, 20 for characters and vehicles. Do more than that, and the invulnerable save is lost. It recharges next turn.

There is nothing more annoying that hitting a Castellan or other monstrous gribbly with 6 lascannons or something, and then it passes all 6 3++ saves, and you're sitting there like... well gak now I am dead.

I'm not sure I entirely agree. A superweapon that does 2d6 damage that hits a target that outright ignores the laws of physics a third of the time should fail to kill.

That said, a superweapon that does 2d6 damage with AP-4 shouldn't be facing a 3++ when shooting at an Imperial Knight.

It gets really frustrating when small arms are a better answer than Bright/Darklances or Melta/Fusion for taking down things Bright/Darklances or Melta/Fusion are designed for.

Welcome to the reality of warfare, it's a constant evolution of better armour, better weapons, better defensive systems, better attacks.

Still get the feeling the underlying issue that peoole believe they should be able to always play their gunline as a gunline to blast anything off the table and don't like when things like knight mono lists force alternative playstyles upon them.

Allies in 8th edition are a problem like seriously 32 bodies with 5cp for less than a helverin why wouldn't you.

"Welcome to the reality of warfare, it's a constant evolution of better armour, better weapons, better defensive systems, better attacks. "
Which makes the "old" weapons pointless. But they still pay the points they used to.

Melta(/Fusion) guns/pistols have 12" or 6" range. That's not gunline. They're designed to get up close and pop The Big Bad, the super large, durable vehicles.

Now, they introduce Super Large vehicles. And give them good CC rules that can waste most of your CC units in CC. -
-That's fine, bring on the Melta, right? Nope. All that AP means nothing when it's rocking a decent Invuln
-Bring on the gunline - Lascannons/Brightlances? Nope. Lasguns do better.
-Bring on your CC units? Get destroyed in CC.

It's one thing to suggest "use alternative playstyles". It's another thing to suggest "Don't use any playstyle but the few designed specifically to counter this. Your faction may have one - two if you're lucky."

When so many threats return 25%+ of their points in one turn, it's silly to get upset when anything south of 500 dies in a turn of 2k points trying to kill it. Maybe if it were super durable, but slow and not terribly killy - but those last two don't describe Knights.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
"and don't like when things like knight mono lists force alternative playstyles upon them."

One other comment on this: I played WMH before I played 40k. They introduced Gargants. My favored faction/units actually beat them easily - I didn't need to change my list, and won most games against them (I wasn't particularly good, they were just an easy-for-me matchup). It still factored into me finding an alternative playstyle: 40k. The game was more fun playing with/against minis with more counterplay/nuance than playing toy robots.

Melta sucks because it's rules are out of balance with it's points cost. Thats bad weapons rules or costing on GW.

No it's called playing the mission something every army bar the barely fieldable ones will always do better, everyone is still suck in a must out kill the other player to win mentality.

Again they have 1 relic which can make 1 knight ObSec, which no-one ever takes.
So you know that rule everyone claims is pointless that every other army gets for free, obsec means 1 guardsmen outscores any number of knights on objectives.

Everyone since 8th dropped has been on the table the opposition mentality. It was inevitable that at some point a codex that was supposed to be very difficult to table would be introduced, knights is that codex.

The problem is the designer's didn't account for allies properly.

"Avoid" can work. But it's not as simple as it sounds - IKs move much faster than many units, and have good dakka for their points. Slowing them down and playing the mission is the "right" way to handle them. But, often, it's the *only* way to handle them, as most factions simply don't have the tools to do anything else.

That 1 Guardsman outscoures any number of Knights for one round. Then gets stomped into paste. It's certainly useable, and is part of playing the objective vs the Knight. But it's not autowin.

My compaint about knights is twofold:
(1) They're currently a bit OP. Not as much as many historical OP atrocities, though.
(2) 90% of the decisions I can make in a match just don't matter when facing an IK.

Those are two very different concerns, caused by very different problems.

Lets put it this way a knight has the invun all variants are effective and stuff base cost about 315 pts
baneblade has 2 wounds more and that's where the ads end and base is between 390-420 depending variant

IKs have terrible dakka for their points. You have to use that to your advantage. The Castellan is the only one I have trouble dealing with. The others fall victim to needing to close to really do damage, and that opens them up to smites and beatsticks. Even crusaders are megalame compared to equivalent points of command russes or manticores.

The RFBC is a fething joke. It's just about the worst weapon in the entire imperium. It's just a Russ gun that clocks in at 100 pts. Really?

Martel732 wrote:
IKs have terrible dakka for their points. You have to use that to your advantage. The Castellan is the only one I have trouble dealing with. The others fall victim to needing to close to really do damage, and that opens them up to smites and beatsticks. Even crusaders are megalame compared to equivalent points of command russes or manticores.

The RFBC is a fething joke. It's just about the worst weapon in the entire imperium. It's just a Russ gun that clocks in at 100 pts. Really?

Yes, but that's the balance they should have. I'd argue that the Gallants are just as bad as the Castellan but that depends on your army. If you're fielding something that has an endless horde of durable cheap bodies like nurgle then gallants will be bogged down and do very little but against a somewhat more elite army those things are an incredible bargain. You get 3 of them for 1056 points, that feels a bit ridiculous and if you face that on a board that doesn't have too many ruins (not a barren board, but mostly consisting of craters, forests, hills etc) you get borked.

That's the thing I feel like people need to consider, if you just price hike the castellan to like 750 then I really think Gallantspam might become a new meta (or a bigger part of the current one)

Martel732 wrote:
The RFBC is a fething joke. It's just about the worst weapon in the entire imperium. It's just a Russ gun that clocks in at 100 pts. Really?

I'm just curious why you would say this...

I'm not trying to prove you wrong, genuinely interested, because I've been swearing by my Paladin for two and a half editions now...


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Like, I get that the standard russ Battle Cannon has the same stats, but throwng 2d6 shots at that statline at something is pretty good last I checked

 IHateNids wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
The RFBC is a fething joke. It's just about the worst weapon in the entire imperium. It's just a Russ gun that clocks in at 100 pts. Really?

I'm just curious why you would say this...

I'm not trying to prove you wrong, genuinely interested, because I've been swearing by my Paladin for two and a half editions now...


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Like, I get that the standard russ Battle Cannon has the same stats, but throwng 2d6 shots at that statline at something is pretty good last I checked

The RFBC costs 100 points for a double shooting Battlecannon
Than means a commander russ hull is 64 points for 12 T8 3+ wounds including orders? That or a RFBC isn't 100 point weapon.

Ice_can wrote:

The RFBC costs 100 points for a double shooting Battlecannon
Than means a commander russ hull is 64 points for 12 T8 3+ wounds including orders? That or a RFBC isn't 100 point weapon.

Probably both. 100 points is certainly too much for that weapon but commander russes are definitely underpriced.

may it be another issue with the "platform tax"?

Like, for example Jump Packs are differently costed for Characters than troopers

I'll admit the weapon is only 2 Battle Cannons stuck together, but I dont have an issue at all with thinking it's costed higher thanks to the fact this one can fire over buildings, for example

I will agree though, I think it should be about 60 points as opposed to 100

 IHateNids wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
The RFBC is a fething joke. It's just about the worst weapon in the entire imperium. It's just a Russ gun that clocks in at 100 pts. Really?

I'm just curious why you would say this...

I'm not trying to prove you wrong, genuinely interested, because I've been swearing by my Paladin for two and a half editions now...


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Like, I get that the standard russ Battle Cannon has the same stats, but throwng 2d6 shots at that statline at something is pretty good last I checked

Because I can ignore ik shooting from a non-castellan all game. Compare to drukhari and ig units and despair ik players.

Bharring wrote:
I think It'd help my enjoyment of the game with Knights if they had a 4" move, d6" charge, and no movement stratagems.

Because Knights are apparently super fast and agile...

Have you seen the DoWIII trailer? They move about as agile as you expect


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Blackie wrote:

Ice_can wrote:

The RFBC costs 100 points for a double shooting Battlecannon
Than means a commander russ hull is 64 points for 12 T8 3+ wounds including orders? That or a RFBC isn't 100 point weapon.

Probably both. 100 points is certainly too much for that weapon but commander russes are definitely underpriced.

I think something the entire playerbase might agree on is that the price cut on Tank Commanders came out of nowhere and was unnecessary.

Yeah the 25point drop on tank commanders is insane. Leman russes were already good, now you pay 20 points more and get 1 better BS and orders (and they're HQ slots, which I'd argue is better but that's a debate)

Like what the hell?

"Have you seen the DoWIII trailer? They move about as agile as you expect "
DOW3 was a travesty. Every encounter should consider Knights. Marines should give every member the same gun. Cover/positioning shouldn't matter, as it promotes passivity. Dire Avengers should have Shields.

The people involved in the design don't understand nuance or strategy. Just `moarMoarMORE!!1!`.

That ugly, stupid, hamfisted version of 40k was terrible. Worst of the series by a *wide* margin. It had none of the good in 40k, and brought to the table so much bad.

Unfortunately, 40k has been growing in DOW3's direction ever since. Like they didn't notice that these ideas were *bad*.

Bharring wrote:
"Have you seen the DoWIII trailer? They move about as agile as you expect "
DOW3 was a travesty. Every encounter should consider Knights. Marines should give every member the same gun. Cover/positioning shouldn't matter, as it promotes passivity. Dire Avengers should have Shields.

The people involved in the design don't understand nuance or strategy. Just `moarMoarMORE!!1!`.

That ugly, stupid, hamfisted version of 40k was terrible. Worst of the series by a *wide* margin. It had none of the good in 40k, and brought to the table so much bad.

Unfortunately, 40k has been growing in DOW3's direction ever since. Like they didn't notice that these ideas were *bad*.

Well my question is why shouldn't the smaller titans be able to move as fast as that? I'll grant you the really big ones, but the technology behind everything is fake anyway.

I will day they probably should've caused more a stir and knocked people down running from their sheer weight but there ya go.

Lumbering, poorly designed, badly understood, and bodgingly maintained bipedal walking castles?

In a setting with super-elite super-trained super-fast super-humans, super ninja/samurai Space Elfs, Xenomorphs, and literal speed demons, why would those towering heaps of scrapmetal be relatively fast?

Why would relics of an age of insanely advanced technology NOT be incredibly agile and fast?

Bharring wrote:
Lumbering, poorly designed, badly understood, and bodgingly maintained bipedal walking castles?

In a setting with super-elite super-trained super-fast super-humans, super ninja/samurai Space Elfs, Xenomorphs, and literal speed demons, why would those towering heaps of scrapmetal be relatively fast?

Relatively in scale terms they are actually quite slow if you compair the scale of the model to the scale of the movement distance.

Mechs are dumb in general. Check all logic at the door.

Martel732 wrote:
Mechs are dumb in general. Check all logic at the door.

Not necessarily. They're only nonsensical because we have yet to develop any type of inertial stability system that could keep such a machine from falling over.

If and when we can mimic the balance functions of the Inner Ear, bipedal mechs like that would be very possible.

Martel732 wrote:
Mechs are dumb in general. Check all logic at the door.

They do look cool, but I agree. It only takes 1 farmboy in a speeder with a tow cable to bring one down.

-

 Galef wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Mechs are dumb in general. Check all logic at the door.

They do look cool, but I agree. It only takes 1 farmboy in a speeder with a tow cable to bring one down.

-

Perhaps a lumbering AT-AT is vulnerable to that, but Imperial Knights are much more agile and crucially have arms. They could simply snap the tow cable or even use it against the Speeder. And even if the Knight does get toppled, they seem agile enough to be able to stand themselves back up. Which is probably one of the most crucial features a "walker" type vehicle could have. They need to be able to stand themselves back up.

Edit: Also for accuracy, the Farmboy wasn't the one who used the towcable

By "relics of an age of insanely advanced technology" do you mean DAoT or Crusade-era? I thought they were Crusade era, which is either a bit above or below T'au depending on who you talk to, but still nowhere near DAoT, much less Eldar or Necrons.

So they're "insanely advanced" only by Imperium standards, and maybe to fish people too?

(And Kroot, Vespids, etc as well.)

Isn't there supposed to be a sort of "Iron Triangle" for balance, though? [ Damage | Durability | Speed | Points ]? (Ok, more a quadrahedron)

Damage: Reasonable to good, depending on who you ask, but not great
Durability: Absurd.
Speed: Super fast, even comparitively
Points: A bit up there, but not that high by LoW standards

So it's like picking all three in the iron triangle: something's got to give.

Bharring wrote:
By "relics of an age of insanely advanced technology" do you mean DAoT or Crusade-era? I thought they were Crusade era, which is either a bit above or below T'au depending on who you talk to, but still nowhere near DAoT, much less Eldar or Necrons.

So they're "insanely advanced" only by Imperium standards, and maybe to fish people too?

(And Kroot, Vespids, etc as well.)

Isn't there supposed to be a sort of "Iron Triangle" for balance, though? [ Damage | Durability | Speed | Points ]? (Ok, more a quadrahedron)

Damage: Reasonable to good, depending on who you ask, but not great
Durability: Absurd.
Speed: Super fast, even comparitively
Points: A bit up there, but not that high by LoW standards

So it's like picking all three in the iron triangle: something's got to give.

Knights are kind of like a mid-point between DAoT and Crusade tech... they're originally DAoT, but they had fallen to disrepair and weren't working well, so the Mechanicus fixed em up so they could join the crusade.

They're also dumb because of costs and additional weak points.

Knights are DAoT relics.

I read a lot of this thread and some of the suggestions could be workable. But as it stands the presence of IK, although has changed the meta, many armies are capable of beating them.

The Castellan could do with a price increase of say 60pts and a Questoris could do with a bump of 30pts. Anything more significant and you could invalidate their effectiveness.

Ideally this would have happened in CA2018.

From a balance perspective, I agree. From a thematics perspective, not so much, but this is a balance discussion.

 Smirrors wrote:
I read a lot of this thread and some of the suggestions could be workable. But as it stands the presence of IK, although has changed the meta, many armies are capable of beating them.

The Castellan could do with a price increase of say 60pts and a Questoris could do with a bump of 30pts. Anything more significant and you could invalidate their effectiveness.

Ideally this would have happened in CA2018.

I don't think 60 points is enough for a castellen it should be a 675-685 point model.
I'm not sure a questorus can take a 30 point hike however.
It is already heavily overpaying on it's weapons, it could probably move some of it's point's cost from it's weapons to the chassis though.

The points of knights are not the problem. The problem is the 3++ and never degrading.

 BaconCatBug wrote:
The points of knights are not the problem. The problem is the 3++ and never degrading.

Which isn't a knight problem thats a have 5 CP and 30 guardsmen screen for 180 points problem.

The 3++ problem is part of the general "Don't take heavy anti-tank weapons to kill knights" problem that should be fixed. But that's a thematic problem, not inherently a balance problem.

Bharring wrote:
The 3++ problem is part of the general "Don't take heavy anti-tank weapons to kill knights" problem that should be fixed. But that's a thematic problem, not inherently a balance problem.

Except in a full knights list it isn't you just shoot another knight.

Ice_can wrote:

Bharring wrote:
The 3++ problem is part of the general "Don't take heavy anti-tank weapons to kill knights" problem that should be fixed. But that's a thematic problem, not inherently a balance problem.

Except in a full knights list it isn't you just shoot another knight.

Right, which makes it just silly to use. Full Knight lists are easy to kill because you just shoot the ones with the 5++ save while the 3++ one looks on.

Hell, if they changed "Rotate Ion Shields" from a 1 CP / 3 CP strat to a 3 CP strat, and just made it a flat +1 invulnerable save to all Questoris and Dominus class knights in the army, with a max of 4++, it would probably be a hell of a lot more balanced. You couldn't stack up to a 3++, and pure Knights armies would be a lot more durable if all of them had a 4++ instead of one guy sitting there watching as his lancemates are destroyed.

 Horst wrote:

Ice_can wrote:

Bharring wrote:
The 3++ problem is part of the general "Don't take heavy anti-tank weapons to kill knights" problem that should be fixed. But that's a thematic problem, not inherently a balance problem.

Except in a full knights list it isn't you just shoot another knight.

Right, which makes it just silly to use. Full Knight lists are easy to kill because you just shoot the ones with the 5++ save while the 3++ one looks on.

Hell, if they changed "Rotate Ion Shields" from a 1 CP / 3 CP strat to a 3 CP strat, and just made it a flat +1 invulnerable save to all Questoris and Dominus class knights in the army, with a max of 4++, it would probably be a hell of a lot more balanced. You couldn't stack up to a 3++, and pure Knights armies would be a lot more durable if all of them had a 4++ instead of one guy sitting there watching as his lancemates are destroyed.

That would make it almost an auto-use in every enemy shooting phase then. Not exactly leaving room for tactical choice or thought.

Because I get within 6" of *two* Knights, so when he RIBs, after I declared the target I want to shoot at with my unit, I can then shoot the other Knight.

Which I can't do, because he won't RIB until my Melta-heavy unit has selected targets, anyways.

And even if I could, how do you get your Melta unit fully within 6" of multiple knights, especially if two or more are not within 12" inches of eachother?

And, if Doom is the OP counter, how do I cast Doom on the one he didn't RIB, before he chooses who he RIBs?

Changing your target helps, but RIB is still really powerful. LQR has the same restriction, but targets much smaller units, and is still very powerful. Protect and Fortune need to be allocated much earlier, and have many restrictions on placement.

 Kcalehc wrote:

 Horst wrote:

Ice_can wrote:

Bharring wrote:
The 3++ problem is part of the general "Don't take heavy anti-tank weapons to kill knights" problem that should be fixed. But that's a thematic problem, not inherently a balance problem.

Except in a full knights list it isn't you just shoot another knight.

Right, which makes it just silly to use. Full Knight lists are easy to kill because you just shoot the ones with the 5++ save while the 3++ one looks on.

Hell, if they changed "Rotate Ion Shields" from a 1 CP / 3 CP strat to a 3 CP strat, and just made it a flat +1 invulnerable save to all Questoris and Dominus class knights in the army, with a max of 4++, it would probably be a hell of a lot more balanced. You couldn't stack up to a 3++, and pure Knights armies would be a lot more durable if all of them had a 4++ instead of one guy sitting there watching as his lancemates are destroyed.

That would make it almost an auto-use in every enemy shooting phase then. Not exactly leaving room for tactical choice or thought.

It's already auto-use in every enemy shooting phase though... it just only benefits soup armies now, and shafts pure Knights armies, since with them you can just shoot the 5++ knights and ignore the 3++ one until it's the only thing on the table.

Rotate Ion Shields should be capped to 4++ at the very least.

That suggestion should synergize more with multiple-knight lists than the solo-knight-soup lists that are currently popular.

Bharring wrote:
The 3++ problem is part of the general "Don't take heavy anti-tank weapons to kill knights" problem that should be fixed. But that's a thematic problem, not inherently a balance problem.

I think this extends to a lot of stuff invuln saves.
IMO invuls should be ablative per round/turn or something. You get X many successful invuln saves and then it runs out and you're on the armor save. Big Knights get more shield uses than a small Crisis Suit. Make the choice to use it more important than it is now.

rbstr wrote:

Bharring wrote:
The 3++ problem is part of the general "Don't take heavy anti-tank weapons to kill knights" problem that should be fixed. But that's a thematic problem, not inherently a balance problem.

I think this extends to a lot of stuff invuln saves.
IMO invuls should be ablative per round/turn or something. You get X many successful invuln saves and then it runs out and you're on the armor save. Big Knights get more shield uses than a small Crisis Suit. Make the choice to use it more important than it is now.

If it is going to be a minimum # of uses per round, then when you do get to use it it should be automatically successful. More like how Void Shields used to operate.

Bharring wrote:
Because I get within 6" of *two* Knights, so when he RIBs, after I declared the target I want to shoot at with my unit, I can then shoot the other Knight.

Which I can't do, because he won't RIB until my Melta-heavy unit has selected targets, anyways.

And even if I could, how do you get your Melta unit fully within 6" of multiple knights, especially if two or more are not within 12" inches of eachother?

And, if Doom is the OP counter, how do I cast Doom on the one he didn't RIB, before he chooses who he RIBs?

Changing your target helps, but RIB is still really powerful. LQR has the same restriction, but targets much smaller units, and is still very powerful. Protect and Fortune need to be allocated much earlier, and have many restrictions on placement.

You loose 1 unit worth of shooting, if you genuinely only have 1 unit of meta as your only anti tank, god help you against guard.
You and this might be a little out their could also split fire the unit so that half your melta isn't hitting the RIS knight.

Also if your out of anti tank in 1 turn or 2 well tough, you got outplayed if you then loose on objectives.
Just because you can't automatically table a list in 3 turns doesn't mean that codex is OP.

P.S. not entirely sure what relevance DOOM is to your point.

Regardless of how many anti-tank short ranges threats I bring, unless the opponent is foolish enough to cluster his IKs, my anti-tank threats need to commit to their target in the movement phase, so cannot fire at the non-RIS Knight - as there will only be one within range of them.

Lascannons and Brightlances can typically pick another target. Melts, Fusion, Spears, Wraithcannons, and Linked Prisms cannot.

None of my lists can table equal points of Knights in 3 turns, no matter how hard I tailor. Thats a good thing. But the weapons in my book designed to hunt big vehicles and monsters wounding on 4s and bouncing off a 3++ is silly.

rbstr wrote:

Bharring wrote:
The 3++ problem is part of the general "Don't take heavy anti-tank weapons to kill knights" problem that should be fixed. But that's a thematic problem, not inherently a balance problem.

I think this extends to a lot of stuff invuln saves.
IMO invuls should be ablative per round/turn or something. You get X many successful invuln saves and then it runs out and you're on the armor save. Big Knights get more shield uses than a small Crisis Suit. Make the choice to use it more important than it is now.

Ablative invulnerable saves would require an ungodly level of bookkeeping.

I could maybe get behind it on knights (since you'd be doing it in lieu of controlling ~500pts of other models), but it would be ludicrous on anything smaller.


Instead, I think what we really need is for invulnerable saves to be scaled back. 3+ and 4+ invulnerable saves simply should not be handed out like candy.

 vipoid wrote:

rbstr wrote:

Bharring wrote:
The 3++ problem is part of the general "Don't take heavy anti-tank weapons to kill knights" problem that should be fixed. But that's a thematic problem, not inherently a balance problem.

I think this extends to a lot of stuff invuln saves.
IMO invuls should be ablative per round/turn or something. You get X many successful invuln saves and then it runs out and you're on the armor save. Big Knights get more shield uses than a small Crisis Suit. Make the choice to use it more important than it is now.

Ablative invulnerable saves would require an ungodly level of bookkeeping.

I could maybe get behind it on knights (since you'd be doing it in lieu of controlling ~500pts of other models), but it would be ludicrous on anything smaller.


Instead, I think what we really need is for invulnerable saves to be scaled back. 3+ and 4+ invulnerable saves simply should not be handed out like candy.

Just give Knights "Ion Shields", which instead of granting an Invulnerable save grant 25 extra wounds, and for each wound lost at the start of your next turn you can roll a D6 for each wound you're missing and on a 4+ you get it back... would simulate trying to bring the Ion Shields back online. Ion Bulwark gives you +10 to your shields. Rotate Ion Shields is used at the start of your Movement Phase, you bring a shield back up on a 2+ instead of a 4+.

Would still require a lot of concentrated firepower to bring down a Knight, and if you don't take it down it could just bring back a lot of shields on the next turn. A 1-2 wound left Knight would be a lot more threatening if you could just Rotate Ion Shields back on it to bring it back up to full Ion Shields. It would also make it a lot less "random", and would make anti-tank weapons a hell of a lot more useful against it. 7 Lascannons hits on average would bring down the shield, and 7 more hits would kill it.

Against non-knights... yea you can't really do that.

 vipoid wrote:

rbstr wrote:

Bharring wrote:
The 3++ problem is part of the general "Don't take heavy anti-tank weapons to kill knights" problem that should be fixed. But that's a thematic problem, not inherently a balance problem.

I think this extends to a lot of stuff invuln saves.
IMO invuls should be ablative per round/turn or something. You get X many successful invuln saves and then it runs out and you're on the armor save. Big Knights get more shield uses than a small Crisis Suit. Make the choice to use it more important than it is now.

Ablative invulnerable saves would require an ungodly level of bookkeeping.

I could maybe get behind it on knights (since you'd be doing it in lieu of controlling ~500pts of other models), but it would be ludicrous on anything smaller.


Instead, I think what we really need is for invulnerable saves to be scaled back. 3+ and 4+ invulnerable saves simply should not be handed out like candy.

Well, they're probably being handed out because of all the stupid armor save modifiers that exist now. Previously, these units were fine. They were immune to bolter fire, so you needed lascannons and the like to take them down. They had an invuln, but only on one facing.

But now in this edition they have Toughness and only a 3+ armor save. But modifiers mean that armor save will usually be 5+, or at best a 4+, most of the time. Thats not enough for an absurdly expensive model like a knight. So giving them a 4+ invuln, that can be improved to 3+, is the only solution they have. The unfortunate result is that it has only pushed the meta more towards "Bolter fire solves everything!" instead of anti-tank weapons being anti-tank.

Save modifiers are an ok idea. The problem is the game was not properly adjusted for them. They worked in fantasy because it was a linear save modifier based on strength of the attack. Plus you got to take your Ward/Regen save in addition to the armor save, so having a sucky 5+ armor wasn't as bad. Armor could also be better than 2+. Imperial Knights had 1+ armor saves, so they could suffer a -1 modifier and still be rolling on 2+. It also helped that in most armies the VAST majority of attacks would be str3(no modifier) unless buffs were involved.

Space marines have not had their points properly adjusted for a game where their 3+ armor is no longer 3+ armor. Guardsmen and Orks don't care because most of the time before they weren't getting their save anyway, but now Space Marines and Terminators are getting scythed down by stuff like heavy bolters in addition to just massed lasgun/bolter fire. But at the same time they are weirdly more durable vs Lascannons because they still get an armor save?

The whole balance is out of whack because infantry small arms like Bolters and Lasguns have become much much stronger vs high durability targets, while being generally no worse vs infantry(though bolters are weirdly worse because now guardsmen/orks get their t-shirt saves). So why spend points on a melta-gun when your bolters are more effective at doing wounds?

Bharring wrote:
Regardless of how many anti-tank short ranges threats I bring, unless the opponent is foolish enough to cluster his IKs, my anti-tank threats need to commit to their target in the movement phase, so cannot fire at the non-RIS Knight - as there will only be one within range of them.

Lascannons and Brightlances can typically pick another target. Melts, Fusion, Spears, Wraithcannons, and Linked Prisms cannot.

None of my lists can table equal points of Knights in 3 turns, no matter how hard I tailor. Thats a good thing. But the weapons in my book designed to hunt big vehicles and monsters wounding on 4s and bouncing off a 3++ is silly.

It's not just you. I fired lascannons before ca.

Models have individual data cards

stick a birds eye view silhouette on the card its now very easy to indicate toughness and/or save variable by where the shot is coming from.

can also throw in fire arcs for weapons the same way

the old issue with arcs about how you draw them for individual models vanishes now you have the data cards

leopard wrote:
Models have individual data cards

stick a birds eye view silhouette on the card its now very easy to indicate toughness and/or save variable by where the shot is coming from.

can also throw in fire arcs for weapons the same way

the old issue with arcs about how you draw them for individual models vanishes now you have the data cards

Define arcs as 90 degrees measured from the center rather than the corners-of-the-bounding-box mess and you might not even need to go that far.

 AnomanderRake wrote:

leopard wrote:
Models have individual data cards

stick a birds eye view silhouette on the card its now very easy to indicate toughness and/or save variable by where the shot is coming from.

can also throw in fire arcs for weapons the same way

the old issue with arcs about how you draw them for individual models vanishes now you have the data cards

Define arcs as 90 degrees measured from the center rather than the corners-of-the-bounding-box mess and you might not even need to go that far.

Measured from the centre of what? Where/who defines the line where the arcs are drawn from?

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:

leopard wrote:
Models have individual data cards

stick a birds eye view silhouette on the card its now very easy to indicate toughness and/or save variable by where the shot is coming from.

can also throw in fire arcs for weapons the same way

the old issue with arcs about how you draw them for individual models vanishes now you have the data cards

Define arcs as 90 degrees measured from the center rather than the corners-of-the-bounding-box mess and you might not even need to go that far.

Measured from the centre of what? Where/who defines the line where the arcs are drawn from?

Most models have an obvious "front facing" (the front of the hull is pointing in a specific direction), that is the 'center of the front arc'. The front arc is 90 degrees wide so you'd measure 45 degrees to either side of that to get the bounds of the front arc, then project those lines to the back of the base to get the bounds of the back/side arcs. To get the "center" around which all the arcs are measured project the front point to the opposite rear point (where the exhausts are) and get the midpoint of that line, you've got a tape measure on hand, it should be straightforward.

Though the real answer is that if someone's pulling out a protractor at the gaming table to quibble over arcs you've gotten wildly derailed and it's time to roll off to get a quick answer and move on. I find in the play environment I existed in during 7e and still exist in for 30k arcs were considered obvious enough that they didn't really produce any arguments, at least compared to the "who's the closest model now" arguments 7e wound allocation produced.