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.

 Madcat87 wrote:

WayneTheGame wrote:
Easily solution - play lower points values where things are more balanced = less of a chance of things like fielding several Knights causing problems.

Of course you always get TFG who always wants to play 2,000 points or higher to use all their toys (and they tend to be the WAAC type as well), but most people seem to prefer playing lower points games anyways. In fact I think it's a shame that more leagues and campaigns and the like don't focus on the lower end of things, like 1250 or 1000 points.

Except when it doesn't. All it takes is one MC, one Landraider, one flyer. Something that requires a dedicated amount of resources to bring down but can't be fielded in a small points game without making a very unbalanced list unbalanced.

Small point games in my view have an even greater risk of turning into a rock/paper/scissors matchup because people don't have enough points to bring all the tools they need to deal with every threat. Yet those big things I mentioned often have all the tools to win by themself against a list that isn't specifically designed to kill it.

And what kind of logic leads you to saying that TFGs and WAAC players only want to play at big points so they can use as many models as they can. I would expect every player to want to play as large a game every so often just so they can use all their stuff at once

Apparently im TFG that wants to play large point games. If you bring no superheavies to a large point game things become incredibly balanced. I am only missing a few special characters out of my codex and shining spears becasue they have sucked since the start of time and will continue to suck. But basically taking every unit in my codex allowsme to deal with any threat. brought a tank spammy army? too bad you dont have an answer for all my troops coming to take you down. 30 wraithguard, 30 swooping hawks and 30 fire dragons will make short work of tanks. my 80 guardians will keep moving forward and shooting with their heavy weapons as they go until they get in range of their basic weapons. You get the general idea. Large point games allow me to take every tool in my codex and at that point it becomes a game of tactics rather than "I borught anti tank but you have no tanks so now i have a wasted unit on the board and will be struggling with your troops all day."

Or, alternatively, when you can bring all your toys, you can abdicate responsibility for making choices and just throw everything on the table?

All that does is exacerbate imbalances that exist cross codex, but then, as you appear to be playing the strongest book right now, I doubt that concerns you overmuch.

 azreal13 wrote:
Or, alternatively, when you can bring all your toys, you can abdicate responsibility for making choices and just throw everything on the table?

All that does is exacerbate imbalances that exist cross codex, but then, as you appear to be playing the strongest book right now, I doubt that concerns you overmuch.

Lol my first models were a wraithlord and 4 howling banshees back in 2007 which i still own today. I didnt have alot of money then so I didnt ever pick up anything more than the codex with the intent on playing it one day. Fast forward 3 years and I finally pick it back up. I get some pretty cheap wraithguard from e-bay and then a battleforce (back when they had a warwalker and a wave serpent), an avatar, an extra wave serpent, Rangers for christmas from my wife. I started playing as soon as I got my hands on a farseer for my HQ which was days after I returned back home from my christmas trip. Since then I have collect nothing but Eldar models so i don't play a flavor of the week army like many people do. I am true to my codex and always will be.

basically I picked Eldar back nearly 7 years ago without knowing anything about the game.

 Vaktathi wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

And Lootas are prime targets for battle cannons. 45 Lootas are 675pts and I'm guessing the Knight could take out, what, 10 per turn, maybe more? 150+ points of dead lootas per turn.

If they're not in cover and bunched up maybe. In cover, with half-decent spread, you can mitigate that hugely. With some spread and cover, 3-5 a turn may be more realistic. As an IG player who has lots of experience with battlecannons, they're very easily mitigated. If it's the melta Knight, you're even better off.

Meanwhile, dump a 30 man Boyz mob into it with a Klaw Nob, and that big scary D weapon's killing off a couple worthless Boyz a turn while the Nob puts a glancing hit or two on it each round and your ~230pt unit will single-handedly destroy that nearly 400pt Knight.

Doesn't it also get a stomp? That or what exactly does stomp do?

 StarTrotter wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

And Lootas are prime targets for battle cannons. 45 Lootas are 675pts and I'm guessing the Knight could take out, what, 10 per turn, maybe more? 150+ points of dead lootas per turn.

If they're not in cover and bunched up maybe. In cover, with half-decent spread, you can mitigate that hugely. With some spread and cover, 3-5 a turn may be more realistic. As an IG player who has lots of experience with battlecannons, they're very easily mitigated. If it's the melta Knight, you're even better off.

Meanwhile, dump a 30 man Boyz mob into it with a Klaw Nob, and that big scary D weapon's killing off a couple worthless Boyz a turn while the Nob puts a glancing hit or two on it each round and your ~230pt unit will single-handedly destroy that nearly 400pt Knight.

Doesn't it also get a stomp? That or what exactly does stomp do?

Yeah, the Knight stomps. Make D3 stomps, each one is a blast marker, roll a D6 for each blast marker, on a 2-5 the models under the blast marker take a S6 AP4 hit, on a 6 any model under the blast marker is "removed from play".

So you could just place the stomp markers directly over the Nob with a Klaw.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

 StarTrotter wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

And Lootas are prime targets for battle cannons. 45 Lootas are 675pts and I'm guessing the Knight could take out, what, 10 per turn, maybe more? 150+ points of dead lootas per turn.

If they're not in cover and bunched up maybe. In cover, with half-decent spread, you can mitigate that hugely. With some spread and cover, 3-5 a turn may be more realistic. As an IG player who has lots of experience with battlecannons, they're very easily mitigated. If it's the melta Knight, you're even better off.

Meanwhile, dump a 30 man Boyz mob into it with a Klaw Nob, and that big scary D weapon's killing off a couple worthless Boyz a turn while the Nob puts a glancing hit or two on it each round and your ~230pt unit will single-handedly destroy that nearly 400pt Knight.

Doesn't it also get a stomp? That or what exactly does stomp do?

Yeah, the Knight stomps. Make D3 stomps, each one is a blast marker, roll a D6 for each blast marker, on a 2-5 the models under the blast marker take a S6 AP4 hit, on a 6 any model under the blast marker is "removed from play".

So you could just place the stomp markers directly over the Nob with a Klaw.

You can put the blast anywhere, however you still remove the closest models

You sure? It says:

Kerr-runch: Each model from the unit being stomped that is even partially under the blast marker suffers a Strength 6 AP4 hit.

Overrun: Each model from the target unit that is even partially under the blast marker is removed from play.

To me that says that the MODEL under the blast marker is the one that takes the hit, vs regular blast weapons where the UNIT takes a number of hits = to the number of models under the marker.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
You sure? It says:

Kerr-runch: Each model from the unit being stomped that is even partially under the blast marker suffers a Strength 6 AP4 hit.

Overrun: Each model from the target unit that is even partially under the blast marker is removed from play.

To me that says that the MODEL under the blast marker is the one that takes the hit, vs regular blast weapons where the UNIT takes a number of hits = to the number of models under the marker.

That's what I thought, but in GW when we were going through the combat with my knight, I flagged up this question and they said that it just removes the models in base contact to the amount under the blasts, regardless of if they were under it or not :/

 randomtoaster wrote:


That's what I thought, but in GW when we were going through the combat with my knight, I flagged up this question and they said that it just removes the models in base contact to the amount under the blasts, regardless of if they were under it or not :/

Which would qualify as a houserule since thats not what the rule actually says.

The rules authority of a shop manager ends at his shops doorstep. He can houserule how he wants but that doesnt change anything about the RAW.

Going back to the original point, the Knights seem pretty popular and I am sure they will get used so I shouldn't worry about it being just an ornament.

That said, it's clear that everyone doesn't like playing large games with Apocalypse units, D weapons and so on. Therefore your Knight will probably come out more on special occasions rather than be a standard part of your army for everyday games.

I have no problems with large 40k models being mostly shelf-ornaments.

I bought a necron monolith purely so I could light it up and have it sit on a shelf (I have never had a necron army) and the 40k armies I still have occupy shelf space in my shed. Since I took a dislike to the direction of the game last edition.

A new model shouldn't have to be an auto-include in your list in order to inspire you to buy one. It needs to look cool. That is all.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Going back to the original point, the Knights seem pretty popular and I am sure they will get used so I shouldn't worry about it being just an ornament.

That said, it's clear that everyone doesn't like playing large games with Apocalypse units, D weapons and so on. Therefore your Knight will probably come out more on special occasions rather than be a standard part of your army for everyday games.

To be fair not everyone likes playing against Wave Serpents, Seer Council or Riptides...................can't see any difference myself if you are rationing what your opponent s allowed to field?

IMO the difference is that Apocalypse units with D weapons etc. don't "fit" in the size of games I want to play. (Standard table size, 1,000 to 1,500 points, mostly.)

No-one can be forced to play a game of anything, though.

Daemonhammer wrote:
Unfortunately i cannot play 40k as there is nobody who does in my area, however i wouldnt really care if someone fielded one of those Imperial Knights.
2 Predator tanks with 3 lascannons each and problem solved.

I do think people are going to get a shock as they're generally understimating how much firepower it takes to bring down an AV13 4++ 6HP Super Heavy. Those two Preds will on average eventually blow it up on turn 5, after firing at it constantly all game.

Good luck when someone fields multiple Knights as a primary

 Kilkrazy wrote:
IMO the difference is that Apocalypse units with D weapons etc. don't "fit" in the size of games I want to play. (Standard table size, 1,000 to 1,500 points, mostly.)

No-one can be forced to play a game of anything, though.

no but outlawing one Codex "problem" unit whilst saying other problem units are good to to (especially when spammed) is neither fun nor fair?

60" range S7, D6+1 shot (usually TL) ignore cover guns are not exactly good for games..............

Yes, I agree, and that is why it is for me a big problem that GW have made an official codex to put D weapons into the standard game.

I don't want to play Apocalypse. That was fine when Apocalypse was a separate, optional extra and I could just play only core rules and codexes. (You can't really claim to play 40K if you don't play the core rules and codexes.)

My principle, that if the army is a standard codex I will play it, can't be maintained in the face of the new Knight Titan rules. But I still don't want to play Apocalypse, so this leaves me out on a limb.

 Mr Morden wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
IMO the difference is that Apocalypse units with D weapons etc. don't "fit" in the size of games I want to play. (Standard table size, 1,000 to 1,500 points, mostly.)

No-one can be forced to play a game of anything, though.

no but outlawing one Codex "problem" unit whilst saying other problem units are good to to (especially when spammed) is neither fun nor fair?

60" range S7, D6+1 shot (usually TL) ignore cover guns are not exactly good for games..............

Maybe it's because I've not yet played against an Eldar player who spams Wave Serpents, but Serpent spam doesn't really seem like a game changer to me. It does have a decent damage output, but at the end of the day it's mostly just going to kill a few infantry models each turn. Ignore cover saves with AP- doesn't blow my mind when most things have a 5+ or better save anyway and it's mounted on a tank that's not all that hard to kill and costs 120pts. Maybe a bit under priced for what it can do, but not a game changer against most armies. The Colossus is 140pts, has a large blast AP3 barrage gun, I know it's not the same league, but the Colossus is actually going to be killing things I care about with AP3.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

 Mr Morden wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
IMO the difference is that Apocalypse units with D weapons etc. don't "fit" in the size of games I want to play. (Standard table size, 1,000 to 1,500 points, mostly.)

No-one can be forced to play a game of anything, though.

no but outlawing one Codex "problem" unit whilst saying other problem units are good to to (especially when spammed) is neither fun nor fair?

60" range S7, D6+1 shot (usually TL) ignore cover guns are not exactly good for games..............

Maybe it's because I've not yet played against an Eldar player who spams Wave Serpents, but Serpent spam doesn't really seem like a game changer to me. It does have a decent damage output, but at the end of the day it's mostly just going to kill a few infantry models each turn. Ignore cover saves with AP- doesn't blow my mind when most things have a 5+ or better save anyway and it's mounted on a tank that's not all that hard to kill and costs 120pts. Maybe a bit under priced for what it can do, but not a game changer against most armies. The Colossus is 140pts, has a large blast AP3 barrage gun, I know it's not the same league, but the Colossus is actually going to be killing things I care about with AP3.

Seeing a glimpse of one of your vehicles and being able to kill it reliably with side shots that ignore their cover is what makes the serpent shield so good.

 Mr Morden wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
IMO the difference is that Apocalypse units with D weapons etc. don't "fit" in the size of games I want to play. (Standard table size, 1,000 to 1,500 points, mostly.)

No-one can be forced to play a game of anything, though.

no but outlawing one Codex "problem" unit whilst saying other problem units are good to to (especially when spammed) is neither fun nor fair?

60" range S7, D6+1 shot (usually TL) ignore cover guns are not exactly good for games..............

I really have an Issue with "Codex" imperial Knights being treated as a codex. Sure it says codex, but come on it is one unit. It is not the same as the other codices (except maybe inquisition) I really hate that GW has cheapened what a codex is.

I suspected it might be like that, though I haven't seen the codex. However there is precedent for this kind of book. The Assassins Codex from 3rd edition was very thin.

This is GW fething up the game, TBH.

They should have released the Knights book as a dataslate.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

 Mr Morden wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
IMO the difference is that Apocalypse units with D weapons etc. don't "fit" in the size of games I want to play. (Standard table size, 1,000 to 1,500 points, mostly.)

No-one can be forced to play a game of anything, though.

no but outlawing one Codex "problem" unit whilst saying other problem units are good to to (especially when spammed) is neither fun nor fair?

60" range S7, D6+1 shot (usually TL) ignore cover guns are not exactly good for games..............

Maybe it's because I've not yet played against an Eldar player who spams Wave Serpents, but Serpent spam doesn't really seem like a game changer to me. It does have a decent damage output, but at the end of the day it's mostly just going to kill a few infantry models each turn. Ignore cover saves with AP- doesn't blow my mind when most things have a 5+ or better save anyway and it's mounted on a tank that's not all that hard to kill and costs 120pts. Maybe a bit under priced for what it can do, but not a game changer against most armies. The Colossus is 140pts, has a large blast AP3 barrage gun, I know it's not the same league, but the Colossus is actually going to be killing things I care about with AP3.

Its main gun is extremely effective against vehicles plus it has all the other weapons some of which are equally deadly against infantry.
It ignores most of the disadvantages of dedicated transports as it pretty much is immune to stunning etc which means its passengers always get to shoot.

Its this type of unit which makes it impossible to say that some of the units like Knights are unfair to play against..

Yes, I agree, and that is why it is for me a big problem that GW have made an official codex to put D weapons into the standard game.

For me its a bigger problem that the OP Codex units have not been looked at.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
I suspected it might be like that, though I haven't seen the codex. However there is precedent for this kind of book. The Assassins Codex from 3rd edition was very thin.

This is GW fething up the game, TBH.

They should have released the Knights book as a dataslate.

The book itself has fluff and such but a codex for one unit is really an issue.

I'm floored

6th ed it the edition of low AP, high damage weapons. Vehicles die hard and fast... and every codex is at least good and most likely very very good at busting anything under AV 14.

I don't even run LoW... my TAC lists meet them all the time... and pop them. Its not me, its the meta. Who here has ACTUALLY PLAYED A GAME against the IK and struggled to pop them with a moderately optimized list?! Please step forward and tell me about it after it happened. Because, looking at the raw data, they don't look that tough.... and having played a game against them, they're not that bad on the table top. All the tourney guys (Gilstrap, Reecius, Kirby, etc) don't see a problem either... how are the rest of you?

Cause honestly, right now it reads like ignorant knee-jerk whining

 Xerics wrote:

 azreal13 wrote:
Or, alternatively, when you can bring all your toys, you can abdicate responsibility for making choices and just throw everything on the table?

All that does is exacerbate imbalances that exist cross codex, but then, as you appear to be playing the strongest book right now, I doubt that concerns you overmuch.

Lol my first models were a wraithlord and 4 howling banshees back in 2007 which i still own today. I didnt have alot of money then so I didnt ever pick up anything more than the codex with the intent on playing it one day. Fast forward 3 years and I finally pick it back up. I get some pretty cheap wraithguard from e-bay and then a battleforce (back when they had a warwalker and a wave serpent), an avatar, an extra wave serpent, Rangers for christmas from my wife. I started playing as soon as I got my hands on a farseer for my HQ which was days after I returned back home from my christmas trip. Since then I have collect nothing but Eldar models so i don't play a flavor of the week army like many people do. I am true to my codex and always will be.

basically I picked Eldar back nearly 7 years ago without knowing anything about the game.

I wasn't really making any accusations of power gaming, more that it is difficult to be overly bothered by something when you are actually in quite a decent situation, that's just human nature.

I run daemons myself, but, Screamerstar aside (which I refuse to run,) there's as many bad units, or just units that suffer badly with other competing options in the force org, as good. I'd love Bloodcrushers, Fiends etc to be just as strong a choice as Fleshhounds or Seekers, I'd like all of the lesser daemons to be equally viable in different ways, I'd like mono lists to be able to function reliably.

But sadly, for different reasons to the Knight, many of the units in my collection are now shelf ornaments most of the time, I generally have two choices, as my club, while not being a hardcore, WAAC environment, is probably more crunch than fluff focused, run a list to win with, or run a list with the models I like. I generally veer between the two, as I'm not really looking to get my manhood validated by wargaming, but my ego can only stand so many beatings!

I, like you, tend to collect with less concern for in game ability (but better units tend to get bought in bigger numbers and painted first!) but I'd dearly love for all of my choices to model and paint would be equally viable for use in the game.

 Lobukia wrote:
I'm floored

6th ed it the edition of low AP, high damage weapons. Vehicles die hard and fast... and every codex is at least good and most likely very very good at busting anything under AV 14.

I don't even run LoW... my TAC lists meet them all the time... and pop them. Its not me, its the meta. Who here has ACTUALLY PLAYED A GAME against the IK and struggled to pop them with a moderately optimized list?! Please step forward and tell me about it after it happened. Because, looking at the raw data, they don't look that tough.... and having played a game against them, they're not that bad on the table top. All the tourney guys (Gilstrap, Reecius, Kirby, etc) don't see a problem either... how are the rest of you?

Cause honestly, right now it reads like ignorant knee-jerk whining

What army did you actually play against it with? If you did it with 'nids and didn't tailor specifically to kill the Knight, I might be interested. I don't think Marines will have a terribly hard time of it, especially if you included a unit of melta bomb Assault Marines.

 Lobukia wrote:
I'm floored

6th ed it the edition of low AP, high damage weapons. Vehicles die hard and fast... and every codex is at least good and most likely very very good at busting anything under AV 14.

I don't even run LoW... my TAC lists meet them all the time... and pop them. Its not me, its the meta. Who here has ACTUALLY PLAYED A GAME against the IK and struggled to pop them with a moderately optimized list?! Please step forward and tell me about it after it happened. Because, looking at the raw data, they don't look that tough.... and having played a game against them, they're not that bad on the table top. All the tourney guys (Gilstrap, Reecius, Kirby, etc) don't see a problem either... how are the rest of you?

Cause honestly, right now it reads like ignorant knee-jerk whining

Actually 6th Ed IMO is the edition of moderately high powered high ap shooting, with high rate of fire. If you look at most to lists at tournaments they lack low ap shooting enmasse, gone are the days where everybody wielded melta guns. Now people lob s 6-7 shots at stuff with frequency., but most of those shots are ap4 or worse.

The only popular low ap shooting in top armies are ion accelerators, grav guns, and heavy d cannons. At least in armies I see frequently on top of the meta. Everything thing else is tesla tau missiles, and serpents, all of which lack ap, or daemons who have little ap shooting to speak of.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Yes, I agree, and that is why it is for me a big problem that GW have made an official codex to put D weapons into the standard game.

I don't want to play Apocalypse. That was fine when Apocalypse was a separate, optional extra and I could just play only core rules and codexes. (You can't really claim to play 40K if you don't play the core rules and codexes.)

My principle, that if the army is a standard codex I will play it, can't be maintained in the face of the new Knight Titan rules. But I still don't want to play Apocalypse, so this leaves me out on a limb.

Have you considered replacing the new D-weapon rules with the old ones as a house rule?

The older D-weapon rules were much better and I would actually consider to be fair for normal games. Simpler too.

Instant Death, automatically wounds, automatically penetrates, and ignores cover. Simple and powerful, but not an "I win" button.

 Grey Templar wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Yes, I agree, and that is why it is for me a big problem that GW have made an official codex to put D weapons into the standard game.

I don't want to play Apocalypse. That was fine when Apocalypse was a separate, optional extra and I could just play only core rules and codexes. (You can't really claim to play 40K if you don't play the core rules and codexes.)

My principle, that if the army is a standard codex I will play it, can't be maintained in the face of the new Knight Titan rules. But I still don't want to play Apocalypse, so this leaves me out on a limb.

Have you considered replacing the new D-weapon rules with the old ones as a house rule?

The older D-weapon rules were much better and I would actually consider to be fair for normal games. Simpler too.

Instant Death, automatically wounds, automatically penetrates, and ignores cover. Simple and powerful, but not an "I win" button.

I litterally just have my friend tell me he wouldn't play a knight until the main rule book had D weapons in it, since D weapons are "reserved for apocolypse". I feel like since it's only CC it isn't that big of a deal but I'm partial since I just got a knight

shauni55 wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Yes, I agree, and that is why it is for me a big problem that GW have made an official codex to put D weapons into the standard game.

I don't want to play Apocalypse. That was fine when Apocalypse was a separate, optional extra and I could just play only core rules and codexes. (You can't really claim to play 40K if you don't play the core rules and codexes.)

My principle, that if the army is a standard codex I will play it, can't be maintained in the face of the new Knight Titan rules. But I still don't want to play Apocalypse, so this leaves me out on a limb.

Have you considered replacing the new D-weapon rules with the old ones as a house rule?

The older D-weapon rules were much better and I would actually consider to be fair for normal games. Simpler too.

Instant Death, automatically wounds, automatically penetrates, and ignores cover. Simple and powerful, but not an "I win" button.

I litterally just have my friend tell me he wouldn't play a knight until the main rule book had D weapons in it, since D weapons are "reserved for apocolypse". I feel like since it's only CC it isn't that big of a deal but I'm partial since I just got a knight

what army does he play? ind a rule that's not in the codex and tell him he can't use units with that rule until it's in the core rule book.

ALL the special rules for knights not found in the core book, are in the codex

 Grey Templar wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Yes, I agree, and that is why it is for me a big problem that GW have made an official codex to put D weapons into the standard game.

I don't want to play Apocalypse. That was fine when Apocalypse was a separate, optional extra and I could just play only core rules and codexes. (You can't really claim to play 40K if you don't play the core rules and codexes.)

My principle, that if the army is a standard codex I will play it, can't be maintained in the face of the new Knight Titan rules. But I still don't want to play Apocalypse, so this leaves me out on a limb.

Have you considered replacing the new D-weapon rules with the old ones as a house rule?

The older D-weapon rules were much better and I would actually consider to be fair for normal games. Simpler too.

Instant Death, automatically wounds, automatically penetrates, and ignores cover. Simple and powerful, but not an "I win" button.

That's odd, I find the current D strength rules be nerfed compared to the old D strength rules. Use to just remove models, noe models have a chance to survive. Not sure why you think the older version was better.

SJ