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.

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.