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.

 RunicFIN wrote:


It's basically the same if I asked about cars. Take all the cars you know, and let's say 100,000$ of cash. Some cars are more durable, some faster, some have better engineering, some have extra addons in them. If there is one car that brings more all-around qualities than any other car, then it's all-around the best car.

So now youve taken apart your argument yourself by using that comparison.

A car is used for a task it fulfills. Some cars are small so they can be parked in a crowded city. Others are really big to transport big things. If you compare a car that is meant for transport like a VW Caddy to a FIAT Punto you simply cant say which one is the best because ... jeah they are build for different tasks. And thats exactly the same for 40k units.

A knights task is to be an army of its own. Since its the only choice their codex gives them. In that way of being a one-man-army a knight is the best option. In any other more specific task it fails horribly and wouldnt be taken over another unit with equal points cost. SImple as that.

Let's try it this way then:

If I wanted to use my 380 points for maximum shooting, durability, melee power and durability, [b]all of them.[/b] what better options there are than a Knight? Answer this question for me in the form provided.

Which brings me to the conclusion - if there are none, the Knight is the best option one can purchase if he wants shooting, durability, melee and mobility in one. And if there is a unit that brings out the most shooting AND mobility AND melee AND durability in a single package for the point cost given - then it is by all logic and rationale the best there is when you want all of those qualities. Which makes it a top tier unit by default. That is all.

 RunicFIN wrote:
Let's try it this way then:

If I wanted to use my 380 points for maximum shooting, durability, melee power and durability, all of them. what better options there are than a Knight?

Which brings me to the conclusion - if there are none, the Knight is the best option one can purchase if he wants shooting, durability, melee and mobility in one. And if there is a unit that brings out the most shooting AND mobility AND melee AND durability in a single package for the point cost given - then it is by all logic and rationale the best there is when you want all of those qualities. Which makes it a top tier unit by default.

A top tier unit which can apparently die by a basic drop pod/sternguard melta combo for 3 times cheaper.

 RunicFIN wrote:
Let's try it this way then:

If I wanted to use my 380 points for maximum shooting, durability, melee power and durability, all of them. what better options there are than a Knight?

Simple. First we'd have to look at the army you are playing and what unit it consists of. Second we'd have to look at the meta you are playing in. After we've done that depending on your army and meta sometimes the knight might be the best choice. Sometimes it wont.

 Mywik wrote:

 RunicFIN wrote:
Let's try it this way then:

If I wanted to use my 380 points for maximum shooting, durability, melee power and durability, all of them. what better options there are than a Knight?

Simple. First we'd have to look at the army you are playing and what unit it consists of. Second we'd have to look at the meta you are playing in. After we've done that depending on your army sometimes the knight might be the best choice. Sometimes it wont.

Nah, either a unit brings the most all-around qualities to the table with a given points cost or it doesn't. In this you are factually wrong. It can mathematically proven and measured too. But I see now you already know what I mean, and you know it's true. You're basically just trolling.

 RunicFIN wrote:


Nah, either a unit brings the most all-around qualities to the table with a given points cost or it doesn't. In this you are factually wrong. It can mathematically proven and measured too. But I see now you already know what I mean, and you know it's true. You're basically just trolling.

See in a meta where everyone and his mum plays space marines with melta sternguard the knight definitely is NOT the best option you can take regarding durability. I assure that to you. Also no need to get aggressive because i disagree with you. So no if a unit is the best for its given points doesnt only depend on the unit itself. In that you are blatantly wrong.

This is a silly point to try and make IMO. I think a stock WraithKnight is as good for its points as an IK is for its points. Its also an all rounder like the IK but it won't count in your mind as it is not 380 points.

My experience with IKs is limited though. Last time I saw one my Swooping Hawks danced up to it and took it out in HtH.

EDIT: The issue here is really you picking a points value (380) and seeing what you can get for that. Can you not see that in this is obviously going to skew any analysis in favour of units that cost 380pts? What if we pick 250pts for our comparison? or 500pts? The IK is now terrible.

 Mywik wrote:
See in a meta where everyone and his mum plays space marines with melta sternguard the knight definitely is NOT the best option you can take regarding durability. I assure that to you.

And again you forgot mobility, firepower and melee power from the all-around power that the Knight brings for it points. You already made examples of speed, now durability. And I'm still talking about all of the qualities together.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Mywik wrote:

 RunicFIN wrote:


Nah, either a unit brings the most all-around qualities to the table with a given points cost or it doesn't. In this you are factually wrong. It can mathematically proven and measured too. But I see now you already know what I mean, and you know it's true. You're basically just trolling.

See in a meta where everyone and his mum plays space marines with melta sternguard the knight definitely is NOT the best option you can take regarding durability. I assure that to you. Also no need to get aggressive because i disagree with you. So no if a unit is the best for its given points doesnt only depend on the unit itself. In that you are blatantly wrong.

Just answer me this: If I wanted to use my 380 points for maximum shooting, durability, melee power and durability, all of them. what better options there are than a Knight?

Your original answer isn't answering this particular question, at all. You aren't disagreeing with me - you're talking about a completely different thing. Even after around 10 replies I've tried explaining to you. You keep saying you understand - yet you don't!

 RunicFIN wrote:

 Mywik wrote:
See in a meta where everyone and his mum plays space marines with melta sternguard the knight definitely is NOT the best option you can take regarding durability. I assure that to you.

And again you forgot mobility, firepower and melee power from the all-around power that the Knight brings for it points. You already made examples of speed, now durability. And I'm still talking about all of the qualities together.

Try being fast, all-around and use your melee and firepower if youre meltad away turn 1 by a sternguard pod. A squad of teleporting TH/SS terminators would most likely dish out a lot more damage and be a lot more survivable also they can reach any point on the table and the best thing is they'll more likely drop AFTER the sternguard pod hits.

Meta is the most important thing to consider when judging a units power and the attributes you are asking for.

Im not talking about a completely different thing. Youve asked us to compare in a vaccuum. I did that ... knight wins.

Now im trying to get some practical use out of this discussion by trying to put that into the context of how the game is actually played in reality. As soon as the game reality is to be considered for the comparison a totally different picture unfolds and the knight stops being the best choice according to your question. That is the point im trying to get over here.

I had two Knights nuked by round two last game I played. One went down when one unit of obliterators deep struck behind it while another fired from in from. Multimeltas cooked it completely.

The other was the warlord with a 3+ shield, yet it took one penetrating hit from an arriving Helldrake, then took 2 HP from a pair of marine squads firing melts at it. It was finished by Huron in CC using his armor bane claw, dealing 3 HP.

Knights offer great bang for their buck, but they also tie the players hands. They do a few things really well, but they gobble up points and reduce flexibility in other areas.

As far as better point expenditures, nob bikers will destroy a knight most of the time. Drop pod stern guard ofter offer better flexibility for 1/3rd the price.

Necron Overlord
Ccb, Warscythe, Mss, PS

Veiltek
4 stormteks

The veiltek and stormtek unit deepstrikes next to the knight turn1. Unleashes 16 haywire shots. Makes for a very dead knight even with shield.

Royal court and overlord on barge then go onto destroy an infinate amount more than the knight... because its dead.

Mobility - fast skimmer, deepstriking (every turn) unit. Two different units.
Shooting - tl gauss cannon and 16 haywire shots (which will be st5 when shooting at infantry) with an ap2 template that tests on leadership.
Combat - sweep attacks, mindshackle scarabs and an initiative st7 ignores armour armourbane scythe.
Durability - royal court easily hidden until used, av13 of ccb due to qs, shots can be allocated to overlord, 3++.

Editted for mobility, shooting, combat and durability outlooks.

 Mywik wrote:

 RunicFIN wrote:

 Mywik wrote:
See in a meta where everyone and his mum plays space marines with melta sternguard the knight definitely is NOT the best option you can take regarding durability. I assure that to you.

And again you forgot mobility, firepower and melee power from the all-around power that the Knight brings for it points. You already made examples of speed, now durability. And I'm still talking about all of the qualities together.

Try being fast, all-around and use your melee and firepower if youre meltad away turn 1 by a sternguard pod. A squad of teleporting TH/SS terminators would most likely dish out a lot more damage and be a lot more survivable also they can reach any point on the table.

Meta is the most important thing to consider when judging a units power and the attributes you are asking for.

It's now obvious to me that you are just unable ( more likely unwilling, probably out of spite too ) to grasp the concept of raw "all-around effectiveness." Let me tell you this though: In this world that we live in, some things are all-around better than others, whether you accept it or not. This is the case now, and will be until the end of time.

I am asking you if you can conjure up something with 380 points, that brings more shooting, melee, mobility and durability overall than a Knight does. If you can't answer this question, then don't answer - I'm not interested in answers to questions I haven't even asked. It is obviously pointless to try and explain this to you, as it's equally obvious you can't come to terms with the fact that overall effectiveness exists within units in the game of Warhammer 40.000, despite specialized roles having the most impact. It still exists though, like it or not.

You have 380 points, and you want the most all-around bang for your buck with them. All-around in this case consisting by the 4 most common important traits: durability, mobility, shooting and melee.

Until then I'm afraid I'm gonna have to skip the replies you make, because you deliberately ignore the all-around raw effectiveness aspect of the question. It would seem everyone else in the thread completely understood, some even answered. No point in continuing discussing 2 different things.

Edit: Okay, you've apparently realized what I mean and are now trying to get something practical out of the discussion. That's fine.

 RunicFIN wrote:
God. I give up trying to explain this for you, as you keep bringing up synergy. I'm not debating what is the best synergized army you can make - I'm talking about the unit that is most likely the most all-around pointcost effective in the entire game, which automatically makes it a tier higher than any other similiar costed option.

He's talking about context and synergy because the tone of your post seems to be as if you are waiting for someone to say 'Yes, you are right.' and then use that as proof that they are unbalanced or overpowered.

 RunicFIN wrote:
It's basically true, then, that nothing can match an Imperial Knights all-around performance that you can get for 380 points?

If you put it like that, yes.

But all-around performance hardly matters.
If I pick a unit, I intent for it to have a special role and I want it to be amazing in that role.
It's why I am having a tough time with my Blood Angels, because they are okay at everything but not amazing in one specific area.

For 380 points I could field Death Company with Thunderhammers and they'd be better in Assault.
For 380 points I could field almost three fast Vindicators and they are better at shooting.

a unit that brings out the most shooting AND mobility AND melee AND durability in a single package for the point cost given - then it is by all logic and rationale the best there is when you want all of those qualities

Limitations like that are useless, what do you want to discuss?
Here, to answer this thread so we can close it: "No, we do not have a non-Imperial Knight unit that has the same amount of durability, shooting, mobility ánd melee for the exact same points as an Imperial Knight."
Happy?

Kangodo wrote:

He's talking about context and synergy because the tone of your post seems to be as if you are waiting for someone to say 'Yes, you are right.' and then use that as proof that they are unbalanced or overpowered.

Then that's just being prejudice, and not my bad. I don't think Knights are overpowered.

If someone is deliberately trying to derail the discussion because they think in their head that I would use it as an excuse to call Knights OP, then by all means stop your prejudice scheme, as such a thing will not happen.

I only think they could cost a bit more for what they do, that's all. They can be dealt with ( quite easily with some army compositions too. )

We do... check above

 RunicFIN wrote:



Edit: Okay, you've apparently realized what I mean and are now trying to get something practical out of the discussion. That's fine.

It seems like you've finally decided to read my posts instead of raging against them. Thats also fine.

I can only quote kangodo here because it sums this thread up perfectly fine and be out from now.

Limitations are that are useless, what do you want to discuss?
Here, to answer this thread so we can close it: "No, we do not have a non-Imperial Knight unit that has the same amount of durability, shooting, mobility ánd melee for the exact same points as an Imperial Knight."
Happy?

But we do... check above...

 Mywik wrote:

 RunicFIN wrote:



Edit: Okay, you've apparently realized what I mean and are now trying to get something practical out of the discussion. That's fine.

It seems like you've finally decided to read my posts instead of raging against them. Thats also fine.

Get over yourself buddy... I haven't raged at any point. I wouldn't have expected for you to use the centuries old "the other guy is raging" -card.

I don't even know what to say to you. You just conjure things up from thin air continously. You didn't at any one point in this thread even try to answer question in the given context - instead you tried to derail the discussion into what you thought the question was, which was irrelevant to beginwith. Nice trolling I guess, since it's clear as day you did all this deliberately, probably with the agenda "I will do nothing that can help this guy say the Knights are OP" - which wouldn't have happened anyway.

Poly Ranger wrote:
Necron Overlord
Ccb, Warscythe, Mss, PS

Veiltek
4 stormteks

The veiltek and stormtek unit deepstrikes next to the knight turn1. Unleashes 16 haywire shots. Makes for a very dead knight even with shield.

Royal court and overlord on barge then go onto destroy an infinate amount more than the knight... because its dead.

Mobility - fast skimmer, deepstriking (every turn) unit. Two different units.
Shooting - tl gauss cannon and 16 haywire shots (which will be st5 when shooting at infantry) with an ap2 template that tests on leadership.
Combat - sweep attacks, mindshackle scarabs and an initiative st7 ignores armour armourbane scythe.
Durability - royal court easily hidden until used, av13 of ccb due to qs, shots can be allocated to overlord, 3++.

Editted for mobility, shooting, combat and durability outlooks.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
Helloooooo...

Poly Ranger wrote:

Poly Ranger wrote:
Necron Overlord
Ccb, Warscythe, Mss, PS

Veiltek
4 stormteks

The veiltek and stormtek unit deepstrikes next to the knight turn1. Unleashes 16 haywire shots. Makes for a very dead knight even with shield.

Royal court and overlord on barge then go onto destroy an infinate amount more than the knight... because its dead.

Mobility - fast skimmer, deepstriking (every turn) unit. Two different units.
Shooting - tl gauss cannon and 16 haywire shots (which will be st5 when shooting at infantry) with an ap2 template that tests on leadership.
Combat - sweep attacks, mindshackle scarabs and an initiative st7 ignores armour armourbane scythe.
Durability - royal court easily hidden until used, av13 of ccb due to qs, shots can be allocated to overlord, 3++.

Editted for mobility, shooting, combat and durability outlooks.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
Helloooooo...

That's another good one. Probably even better than the 2x DK.

How about showing exactly how a knight is unbalanced. Warhammer has never been about point for point equality. Different units are good at different things.

Knights are over priced as a shooting unit.

Knights are over priced as a CC unit.

They are balanced only int that they combine a good CC unit with a decent shooting phase and a high rate of speed. In all other ways they are over costed, and their performance in games and tournaments support that.

I had a knight grind for three combat phases to kill 3 obliterators. VERY unlucky, but with the changes to destroyer weapons and only having 3 attacks, they are not nearly the kill machines they used to be. Unless you roll those 6's on their stomps, they will be mired against any model with a 3+ or 2+ save.

You don't measure a unit's balance in all around ability. You measure it's balance in the context of what it can do in relation to the rest of the game.

Leman Russes may not be able to melee, but they shoot just as good for less points.

Thunderwolf Cavalry may not be able to shoot, but they can punch a bigger hole in the enemy forces in melee for the same points.

Knights are good all rounders, there isn't really a better all rounder that comes to mind for the same points.

But in game terms, it is often (I'm not going to say always, but I'd say more often than not) it's better to buy units that are better at a couple of roles for the same points.

There may be nothing that can move, shoot and melee as well as well as a Knight. But there are things that can move better. There are things that can shoot better. There are things that melee better. That's how balance works (and no I'm not suggesting 40k is a model of good balance, but I don't think Knights are the worst culprit by far).

Dark Angels Black Knights? Plasma, grenades, tough, rending hits, mobility. As to whether they could beat a knight, I'm not sure.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
You don't measure a unit's balance in all around ability. You measure it's balance in the context of what it can do in relation to the rest of the game.

Leman Russes may not be able to melee, but they shoot just as good for less points.

Thunderwolf Cavalry may not be able to shoot, but they can punch a bigger hole in the enemy forces in melee for the same points.

Knights are good all rounders, there isn't really a better all rounder that comes to mind for the same points.

But in game terms, it is often (I'm not going to say always, but I'd say more often than not) it's better to buy units that are better at a couple of roles for the same points.

There may be nothing that can move, shoot and melee as well as well as a Knight. But there are things that can move better. There are things that can shoot better. There are things that melee better. That's how balance works (and no I'm not suggesting 40k is a model of good balance, but I don't think Knights are the worst culprit by far).

You don't measure a units balance in overall ability indeed. I measure it by comparing the points cost of the knight with it's overall ability. In my personal opinion, I think the Knights do a bit too much for their points. Just a bit, but not much.

All of what you have said is true and I haven't - atleast intentionally - contradicted those points previously. All I have ever talked about is the overall-goodness of a Knight, and that I think they are a bit too overall-good for their cost, especially since nothing can match their overall-goodness aside from a few unit combos for the same cost ( if they can. )

Like you said, it's hard to think of a better all-around option for the same cost as the Knight. In general, something that is the best all-around unit can't be considered anything else than top-tier. ( No one has denied Knights not being a top tier unit in this thread - just saying that before someone thinks someone has. )

You understood what I ment perfectly. Can't fathom why it's so difficult for some.

Another all rounder:
3 MANz
Bosspole
Trukk

5 kannons
5 ammo runts, 5 extra krew

5 lobbas
5 ammo runts

Far more durable, lobbas will provide as much damage against infantry when shooting, kannons will provide as much damage against mech. Nobz provide the close combat. Not as good as the cron one though.

There is one further difference between superheavies and normal units of same cost, I think. The superheavy does not lose effectiveness until it is completely destroyed - the normal units lose effectiveness the instant they suffer losses, even partial. As in, HQ of unit example dies, some power is lost. Knight loses 2hp, it's still as powerful as ever.

 RunicFIN wrote:
You don't measure a units balance in overall ability indeed. I measure it by comparing the points cost of the knight with it's overall ability. In my personal opinion, I think the Knights do a bit too much for their points. Just a bit, but not much.

All of what you have said is true and I haven't - atleast intentionally contradicted those points previously. All I have ever talked about is the overall-goodness of a Knight, and that I think they are a bit too overall-good for their cost, especially since nothing can match their overall-goodness aside from a few unit combos for the same cost.

But Knights ARE all rounders. They need to better than other things at being all rounders because other things are better at specific tasks. If you nerfed their melee ability, they'd suck compared to Leman Russes who shoot better for less. If you nerfed their shooting, they'd suck compared to Thunderwolves who punch a bigger hole. If you nerfed their movement people would just avoid getting in to combat with them, so they'd be relegated to being an overpriced shooting unit.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
But Knights ARE all rounders. They need to better than other things at being all rounders because other things are better at specific tasks. If you nerfed their melee ability, they'd suck compared to Leman Russes who shoot better for less. If you nerfed their shooting, they'd suck compared to Thunderwolves who punch a bigger hole. If you nerfed their movement people would just avoid getting in to combat with them, so they'd be relegated to being an overpriced shooting unit.

Yeah. I don't think anyone has said otherwise. Only thing I would nerf ( or should I say, buff ) is their cost, and just by a little. Not their ability.

 RunicFIN wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
But Knights ARE all rounders. They need to better than other things at being all rounders because other things are better at specific tasks. If you nerfed their melee ability, they'd suck compared to Leman Russes who shoot better for less. If you nerfed their shooting, they'd suck compared to Thunderwolves who punch a bigger hole. If you nerfed their movement people would just avoid getting in to combat with them, so they'd be relegated to being an overpriced shooting unit.

Yeah. I don't think anyone has said otherwise. Only thing I would nerf ( or should I say, buff ) is their cost, and just by a little. Not their ability.

You'd have them be cheaper?

You have ignored (or at least not acknowledged) the answer of the Wraithknight. It is just as deadly in combat due too higher WS, I and A at the colossal strength of 10. Sure he missed out on strength D, but usually they both amount to the same thing due to invuls being able to be taken against strength D. He has two Strength 10 Ap 2 Distort Guns making him a *MUCH* better vehicle and Monster killer then the Knight will ever be. He is just as fast, more so in fact, because Iyanden can give him Battle Focus, and is more durable due to the ability to have him wounds restored via several different ways.

The kicker? You can almost get TWO Wraith Knights for the price of a single Knight. More importantly an Eldar army has a vastly better support army then Imperial Knights, with GJB being the best objective takers in the world as well as having amazing psyker support.

In essence, Imperial Knights suck. They are good all-round, but they pay to much to be so. Why would you pay almost 400pts for 2 Battle Cannon shots? Why would you pay that much for 4 strength D attacks at mediocre I, WS and A? It doesn't matter you get both, because usually depending on the army you are facing only 1 will be of use. To expensive and you get to few of them, any well made list will beat them in maelstrom missions.