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

I feel like I absolutely must be missing something but I can't figure out what it is. The Knight Paladin default load-out is directly comparable but significantly better than the Wraithknight Suncannon loadout, but it costs 80 points less.

Comparison:
-They have identical stat lines, invuln saves, and special rules (except the Wraithknight loses 1-2" less movement speed when injured)

-Suncannon has one better AP than Rapid-Fire Battlecannon (-3 vs. -2), but 2 less strength (6 vs. 8) and 24" less range (48" vs. 72"). AP is good but in a direct match-up I would take the RFBC. GW apparently values the AP more because the Suncannon is 18 points more expensive.

-Paladin has a sick nasty close combat weapon for big targets, their "Titanic Feet" attack against smaller targets is the same. Wraithknight has to completely drop ranged weapons to get it's equivalent melee weapon.

-Paladin also has a couple of heavy stubbers on top because why not. Both Knights can take more small weapons, but I'm going to assume that part is roughly balanced.

So at the end of the day, the differences I listed above are minimal but favor the Paladin. Considering the new detachments allow you to field units from any faction, is there a reason for anyone to ever field a Suncannon or Melee Wraithknight in 8th edition? I'm really hoping someone will come in here and tell me "You idiot, you missed [random rule], and the Wraithknight is clearly worth 80 more points..."

The Wraith Knight can get rerolls to Hit from a nearby Spiritseer, the Wraith Knight loses less movement than the Paladin as it takes wounds, and it's shield is functional in all phases rather than just the shooting phase. Also the Wraithknight comes with Titanic Feet as well, and also has Titanic Wraithbone Fists that, as far as I can see, is never removed even if you take the giant ghost glaive.

Finally the biggest one everyone misses is that the Imperial Knights only ever share one Faction Keyword with units other than themselves, while Wraithknight share a minimum of 2, and can share up to three if you use a wraith-based army.

I'll take a wraithknight with suncannon because I play Iyanden and I will never soil myself with a filthy Imperial Knight.

Also the Wraithknight has the Fly keyword. I'm not entirely sure what it does, but it sounds fancy.

The points for the spiritseer buff should come from the spiritseer, right? Same as any units that can buff the Paladin. Not to mention, the spritiseer staying within 6" of an enemy target is easier said than done... I'm really surprised they lowered the radius of an already-difficult bubble.

I mentioned the lost movement but considering the vast majority of the time they're on the board they'll have the same movement, and considering it's only 1" below half hp and 2" below 1/4 hp, it's hardly an 80 point difference.

I did not realize the Paladin shield was shooting only. That is definitely a significant difference. I wouldn't think 80 points, especially with all the offensive weapons advantage the Paladin has, but at least it's something that could begin to account for the discrepancy.

Both knights have the exact same feet attack. The Paladin's sword is a million times better than the wraithbone fists... and you would never use the fists if you took a ghostglaive anyway so I'm not sure I see the relevance there. The Paladin gets the super-strong melee weapon AND the super-strong ranged weapon at the same time, the Wraithknight has to choose between them and costs more points either way it chooses... doesn't make sense to me!

I don't understand the significance of the faction keyword when it comes to a Lord of War, which doesn't come in a normal detachment and therefor has no need to share a keyword with anything else, as far as I know. Could you elaborate?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Errr... the Wraithknight does not have the fly keyword.

In matched play all the units in your force must share a keyword, but that still should have little bearing on the points costs.

It's the price to pay for It's Opness in previous editions.

That's why the Wraithknight it's now overcosted compared with similar units , lost 2 points of strength from it's previous incarnation and considering the suncannon had 3 Blast shoots in 7th wich it's often translated in 1d6 per template just got Heavy 2d6 instead Heavy 3d6 just for balance reasons i'm sure.

 Elbows wrote:
Also the Wraithknight has the Fly keyword. I'm not entirely sure what it does, but it sounds fancy.

If it had the Fly keyword it would be able to charge and fight flyers. However, it does not have Fly. Also it is not very good now.

Stop comparing units in a vacuum.

Is like calling that Khorne Berserkers are much better point by point that Kroot Carnivores.Yeah, they are. They are the meele unit of a 100% army. Kroot Carnivores can't be as efficient as them or Tau would become a army that can do everything.

Wrait Knights cost now what they should have costed. They have sinergies and a complete army to support them. The Imperial Knights don't, and even if you take them with a Imperium Force they are gonna have 0 sinergies.

The points costs for the synergies should be factored into the points costs of the units supplying the buffs not the units that receive the buffs.

 Deathypoo wrote:

-Suncannon has one better AP than Rapid-Fire Battlecannon (-3 vs. -2), but 2 less strength (6 vs. 8) and 24" less range (48" vs. 72"). AP is good but in a direct match-up I would take the RFBC. GW apparently values the AP more because the Suncannon is 18 points more expensive.

You've forgotten that the RFBC is D3 damage and the Suncannon is 3 damage flat.

I think that the cost is appropriate given eldar resources and the relative rarity due to wraithknight origins. I like that the increased points relative knights puts the shoe on the proverbial other foot for the eldar WK addict. Imagine what it is to be an ork player. I am happy that there seem to be few bid red win buttons in this edition .

the greater speed even while damaged is definatly worth noting. the Tarantos Terminator is EXACTLY the same as standard terminators, but it has another inch of movement, which makes it 6 points more expensive per unit

 Mud Turkey 13 wrote:
The points costs for the synergies should be factored into the points costs of the units supplying the buffs not the units that receive the buffs.

I disagree. I think the point costs of all models in the faction should be appropriately costed based on the synergies they might benefit from. Otherwise you end up with broken combos that "normal" armies can't beat.

 niv-mizzet wrote:

 Mud Turkey 13 wrote:
The points costs for the synergies should be factored into the points costs of the units supplying the buffs not the units that receive the buffs.

I disagree. I think the point costs of all models in the faction should be appropriately costed based on the synergies they might benefit from. Otherwise you end up with broken combos that "normal" armies can't beat.

Yeah. Thats how you balance a faction and make it have a good internal balance. You balance it as a single entity, having into account all the tools it has and all the units and synergies, even more in 8th edition with how you can mix and max factions with Chaos, Eldar and the Imperium.

 Galas wrote:

 niv-mizzet wrote:

 Mud Turkey 13 wrote:
The points costs for the synergies should be factored into the points costs of the units supplying the buffs not the units that receive the buffs.

I disagree. I think the point costs of all models in the faction should be appropriately costed based on the synergies they might benefit from. Otherwise you end up with broken combos that "normal" armies can't beat.

Yeah. Thats how you balance a faction and make it have a good internal balance. You balance it as a single entity, having into account all the tools it has and all the units and synergies, even more in 8th edition with how you can mix and max factions with Chaos, Eldar and the Imperium.

In matched play you do not mix and match factions, so that should have no bearing on points cost since points cost is only used in matched play. If someone fielded only Wraithknights in a Super-Heavy Detachment they are paying for these Eldar synergies that they are clearly not using at all. If they want to take advantage of the synergies they would need to add units to their force that give the synergies. That is why the units giving out the buffs should have the points cost tied to them specifically because without them there is no benefit gained.

I can see your point about the synergies being given to the buffer not the buffed.

And when I talk about factions I talk about how the Imperium mega-faction can basically min and max like 60% of the regular factions of the game.

But my point about different armies having different weakness and strong points still remains. Eldar aren't a army of tought vehicles and units. They are a fast, hard hitting, movile force of elite units. A Wraithknight basically goes agains't the principles of Eldar, like a Meele Tau unit.

Thats why a Wraithknight souldn't be as point efficient as a Imperial Knight.

 Galas wrote:
I can see your point about the synergies being given to the buffer not the buffed.

And when I talk about factions I talk about how the Imperium mega-faction can basically min and max like 60% of the regular factions of the game.

But my point about different armies having different weakness and strong points still remains. Eldar aren't a army of tought vehicles and units. They are a fast, hard hitting, movile force of elite units. A Wraithknight basically goes agains't the principles of Eldar, like a Meele Tau unit.

Thats why a Wraithknight souldn't be as point efficient as a Imperial Knight.

So are you saying T'au's shooting units should be more point efficient than every other army in the game?

 chalkobob wrote:

 Galas wrote:
I can see your point about the synergies being given to the buffer not the buffed.

And when I talk about factions I talk about how the Imperium mega-faction can basically min and max like 60% of the regular factions of the game.

But my point about different armies having different weakness and strong points still remains. Eldar aren't a army of tought vehicles and units. They are a fast, hard hitting, movile force of elite units. A Wraithknight basically goes agains't the principles of Eldar, like a Meele Tau unit.

Thats why a Wraithknight souldn't be as point efficient as a Imperial Knight.

So are you saying T'au's shooting units should be more point efficient than every other army in the game?

Hmm, yes. But not so much point efficient that they become OP. And as Tau gameplay is based in synergies, they shoudln't be powerhouses by themselves, they should support one another to reach their full potential, to have tactical dept to the army more than just point at the enemy and say "I shoot at that", and then the enemy just removes models. Something that in 7th happened with Riptides and Stormsurges. That way the Tau could be a army based in using your units in conjunction, something that offers counterplay to your opponent, just like the Tyranids where you need to focus the Synapse creatures first.

And auxiliaries. Tau need more Auxiliaries.

To me, the shooting armies should be:
Tau: They should have the best range and good punch, and be pretty movile.
Imperial Guard: They should have too good range and the best numbers. Probably the most power, but basically immovable.
Eldar: They should be a elite small but very movile force, with a good mix of good shooting at medium-close range and good meele. (Dark Eldar and Harlequin basically are the same, the Dark Eldar more focused in meele)

Daedalus81 wrote:

 Deathypoo wrote:

-Suncannon has one better AP than Rapid-Fire Battlecannon (-3 vs. -2), but 2 less strength (6 vs. 8) and 24" less range (48" vs. 72"). AP is good but in a direct match-up I would take the RFBC. GW apparently values the AP more because the Suncannon is 18 points more expensive.

You've forgotten that the RFBC is D3 damage and the Suncannon is 3 damage flat.

This is incorrect. The Suncannon is also D3.


As for all the talk of "synergies", unless I'm missing something, matched play does not require faction keywords to match. The detachments require matching faction keywords but only within the detachments. What I hadn't noticed until now, however, is that my "Guide" Farseer power can only be cast on keyword Asuryani units. So I guess I'm paying 80+ points for the option to have guide cast on me? Sounds kinda BS to me. Are all of my units getting a 20% cost increase just in case I take a Farseer? What am I paying points for the Farseer for, if not for Guide?

What about Iyandan armies? If the wraith cost more because they run counter to the racial weaknesses of Eldar, then are Iyandan armies supposed to be completely not viable to play?

Also, this talk is revolving around the 80 point difference, but don't forget that the Paladin is flat out better. The melee weapon he's got is almost as good as the 65 point one Wraith can get, and the ability to be super effective at both ranged combat and melee combat is normally something that increases point cost even further. Not to mention the heavy stubbers. It's not that they should cost the same, it's that the Paladin should cost more than the Wraithknight... by probably about 80 points.

I understand not looking at units in a vacuum, but this isn't a little tweak to acknowledge potential synergies or running counter to racial weaknesses... this is a massive, baffling discrepancy in points costing.

Actually, Matched play requires at least one common faction keyword across all the army.

So you can't mix Imperium and Chaos. Or Tau and Eldar, etc...

I do keep reading it in Dakka, I just haven't seen that in the Rulebook.

 Deathypoo wrote:
I do keep reading it in Dakka, I just haven't seen that in the Rulebook.

Second page of matched play; there's a "Choose Army" page (black) and a "Choose Mission" (white) page.

On the left side of the "Choose Army" page, there's a section titled "Army Faction" - it states there that all units in a matched play army must share a common faction (with the exception of unaligned units).

Watching the live stream from frontline gaming, Reece said different armies are pointed differently. An Eldar wraithknight or it's upgrades would cost more or less than an equivalent in another army. So if Dark Eldar got a wraithknight it would probably cost differently for the same stuff as well. They said the live stream would be on youtube, but be warned it was like 5 hours long.

I wonder how long it takes for people to realize the Factions aren't balanced based on comparing similiar models point for point, such as WK against IK, or Rhino against Trukk.

They have been (attempted to be) balanced as a whole. Guess some can't grasp this.

For instance, the eradicator nova cannon for my ig leman russ costs 25 points. The genestealer cult version for it's leman russ costs 46 points. For exactly the same weapon. It's all for balance. We'll see coming up in battle reports whats what.

 portugus wrote:
For instance, the eradicator nova cannon for my ig leman russ costs 25 points. The genestealer cult version for it's leman russ costs 46 points. For exactly the same weapon. It's all for balance. We'll see coming up in battle reports whats what.

Actually this is a perfect example of how the points costing makes no sense at all, seeing as the default battlecannon is 22 points for both of them. So if you're a guard, you can spend 3 points to make your Battle Cannon have half the range and less strength, but ignore cover... and if you're genestealer cult, you need to spend 24 points to do the same. What about ignoring cover makes the Eradicator so much more valuable to the cult?

I'm not disagreeing with everyone in this thread who says that the context of the army list plays into points costing, but you can't wave the magic wand of "Synergies! Different armies are different!" To explain how a unit that should arguably cost 80 points less than a directly comparable counterpart, instead costs 80 more. This isn't a rounding error or a little nudge, this is a massive swing for no apparent reason.

I don't know Genestealer Cults at all, so if you tell me that for them, for some specific reason, a weapon that ignores cover is super extra valuable, then ok the extra points make sense. I'm still waiting for a specific reason why the synergies with the rest of the Eldar army are worth 80+ points. Right now, these points just do not look like they've been reviewed for consistency at all, and I'm less upset about specific situations than I am at the idea that they didn't bother spending the time to balance the game in a meaningful fashion. I really, really want someone to find me a reason the Paladin is so cheap, or a reason why the Wraithknight is so expensive.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

fe40k wrote:

 Deathypoo wrote:
I do keep reading it in Dakka, I just haven't seen that in the Rulebook.

Second page of matched play; there's a "Choose Army" page (black) and a "Choose Mission" (white) page.

On the left side of the "Choose Army" page, there's a section titled "Army Faction" - it states there that all units in a matched play army must share a common faction (with the exception of unaligned units).

Thanks, the first leak I looked at was missing pages and I definitely skipped over that one when I got the full book.

The heavy wraithcannon variant can reliably out shoot a Paladin, and titanic feet do respectable damage in melee. The suncannon variant is only slightly better against infantry. The thing that stands out to me is the titanic wraithbone fists. They are worse than the feet against every target I can think of.

Wraithknight vs Knight battles are quite finely balanced and would come down to how well they were played, but the cost difference is hard to justify.

 Deathypoo wrote:

Daedalus81 wrote:

 Deathypoo wrote:

-Suncannon has one better AP than Rapid-Fire Battlecannon (-3 vs. -2), but 2 less strength (6 vs. 8) and 24" less range (48" vs. 72"). AP is good but in a direct match-up I would take the RFBC. GW apparently values the AP more because the Suncannon is 18 points more expensive.

You've forgotten that the RFBC is D3 damage and the Suncannon is 3 damage flat.

This is incorrect. The Suncannon is also D3.


As for all the talk of "synergies", unless I'm missing something, matched play does not require faction keywords to match. The detachments require matching faction keywords but only within the detachments. What I hadn't noticed until now, however, is that my "Guide" Farseer power can only be cast on keyword Asuryani units. So I guess I'm paying 80+ points for the option to have guide cast on me? Sounds kinda BS to me. Are all of my units getting a 20% cost increase just in case I take a Farseer? What am I paying points for the Farseer for, if not for Guide?

What about Iyandan armies? If the wraith cost more because they run counter to the racial weaknesses of Eldar, then are Iyandan armies supposed to be completely not viable to play?

Also, this talk is revolving around the 80 point difference, but don't forget that the Paladin is flat out better. The melee weapon he's got is almost as good as the 65 point one Wraith can get, and the ability to be super effective at both ranged combat and melee combat is normally something that increases point cost even further. Not to mention the heavy stubbers. It's not that they should cost the same, it's that the Paladin should cost more than the Wraithknight... by probably about 80 points.

I understand not looking at units in a vacuum, but this isn't a little tweak to acknowledge potential synergies or running counter to racial weaknesses... this is a massive, baffling discrepancy in points costing.

well, If you have a (insert craftworld) Autarch within 6" of your wraithknight with the same craftworld, you are rerolling 1s to hit which is pretty good for the wraithknight. Not sure if imperial have similar abilities with their knights. Also, going back to the suncannon, it used to be 3 small blasts, not large so that would translate to 3D3 in 8th, but instead we get 2D6...which should be close to the same net result and sometimes better, and rarely worse.

Is there nothing whatsoever that can provide buffs to the Paladin, whether in the form of psycher powers or support units or characters of some kind?

Every time someone has mentioned Eldar synergies I've been thinking it's silly that I'd pay for the potential for other models to buff me when I have to pay for those models themselves, but if Paladins literally have nothing that can buff them above their basic stats, I could see that being worth a discount in points for the Paladin. I'm not sure it's worth those 80+ points, but it'd be close enough that I wouldn't have started a thread over it...