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.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

4. Knights were 6HP on basically Predator armor. If you couldn't deal with that, your list couldn't deal with even 5 Predators could it?

Predator's with 4++ and 5 of them so question isn't can you deal with 5 predators but can you deal with 10 uber-predators with 4++.

Oh and you are downplaying survivability boost knight gets from simply being SHV. 6PH superheavy=more survivable than 6HP non-vehicle.

I don’t remember predators ever being that good in melee.

The biggest issue is they where an abomination to balance in 7th edition, yes most comp lists were packong mental anti tank power to deal with monsters etc but that doesn't mean that knights should be a good stand alone army. 8th edition is still very kind to horde armies and penalises smaller elite armies. Knights are the very extreme of a small elite force.
Hopefully the balance will get there but an all night army should always be at a disadvantage to a conventional force, but not a walk over.

Ran my Knight once at the start of 8th - went down in the first round against a Cadian list that used Pask and Overlapping Fields of Fire to kill it with bullets to spare. Put him back on the shelf and haven't used him since.

With the overwhelming level of first turn fire power lists are putting out at the moment, the big models are just too risky. I mean compare a 500pt+ Imperial Knights survivability to a 140pt Plagueburst Crawler. Give me the 4x Crawlers for the same pts cost any day of the week.

Are we talking about the "standard" knight or the others, such as: Styrix, Magaera, etc...

Well, they are not bad in cc, but their shooting sucks.
Compare an IK with a normal Baneblade: 2 cannons, 4 sponsons with lascannons and twin heavy bolters giving 4 lascannon shots and 30 S5 AP-1 shots. Ouch!

Honestly take 4 baneblades instead, like 3 blades and a shadowsword and just vaporize knights

Knights are in a weird place. The design is heading in the right direction, but they're just not quite there. I'm actually fairly okay with the ranged damage output but the price needs to come down for it. Likewise, I like that they're not worth it as a gun platform but need to get into melee, but without an Invul or anything they tend to fall apart in combat.

Drop their cost a bit and give them a 5++ with Ion Shields giving +1 vs ranged and they're in a really fun, solid place. Might have to remove the stratagem, but I doubt it. It currently has a lot of counter play and a fairly high cost associated with it in terms of the detachment slot it takes up.

I wouldn't go crazy upping their guns though. Maybe buff the RFBC a bit. The Thermal Cannon might be more interesting if the half range bonus was 2D6 drop the lowest shots instead of damage on the shots. I like the encouragement to get into melee though, so I like "how" they play; just not their efficiency.

tneva82 wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

4. Knights were 6HP on basically Predator armor. If you couldn't deal with that, your list couldn't deal with even 5 Predators could it?

Predator's with 4++ and 5 of them so question isn't can you deal with 5 predators but can you deal with 10 uber-predators with 4++.

Oh and you are downplaying survivability boost knight gets from simply being SHV. 6PH superheavy=more survivable than 6HP non-vehicle.

A 4++ on one side a time.

That was an actual tactical element was baiting the player to switch sides. Please do not pretend that it had a consistent 4++.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Primark G wrote:
I don’t remember predators ever being that good in melee.

Like any of the armies were using that much AT in melee that couldn't strike the poor 400 point model at least once.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ice_can wrote:
The biggest issue is they where an abomination to balance in 7th edition, yes most comp lists were packong mental anti tank power to deal with monsters etc but that doesn't mean that knights should be a good stand alone army. 8th edition is still very kind to horde armies and penalises smaller elite armies. Knights are the very extreme of a small elite force.
Hopefully the balance will get there but an all night army should always be at a disadvantage to a conventional force, but not a walk over.

Why shouldn't they be a good stand alone army? People like you are why Grey Knights aren't going to be fixed in a timely manner.

What does not wanting another edition of must field as many monsters/superheavies, have to do with grey knights, they got shafted by GW and need a new dex to fix the mess they are in.

Because 4 ot 5 model army gives you guarantee of finishing deployment first, more likely to get first turn.
Any anti infantry weapons are inefficient against your army, you only have to wipe out somones anti armour weappns and you will be taking very minimal damage. Its better than it used to be but if you up their damage output your functionaly generating a targeted alpha strike army by design. If you get ob sec knights well hell whats the point, just murder my troops and I can't even beat you on objectives.
I'm not saying that they shouldn't be viable just not a must have soup component

Ice_can wrote:

Because 4 ot 5 model army gives you guarantee of finishing deployment first, more likely to get first turn.

It's actually kind of problematic to be that low on deployments. You can't really deploy in a way that lets you focus fire since all you'll have to deploy against is their filler stuff. The big targets that would be worth alphaing off are easy to hide when the opponent's entire army is on the board.

Ice_can wrote:
What does not wanting another edition of must field as many monsters/superheavies, have to do with grey knights, they got shafted by GW and need a new dex to fix the mess they are in.

Because 4 ot 5 model army gives you guarantee of finishing deployment first, more likely to get first turn.
Any anti infantry weapons are inefficient against your army, you only have to wipe out somones anti armour weappns and you will be taking very minimal damage. Its better than it used to be but if you up their damage output your functionaly generating a targeted alpha strike army by design. If you get ob sec knights well hell whats the point, just murder my troops and I can't even beat you on objectives.
I'm not saying that they shouldn't be viable just not a must have soup component

And they weren't must-haves either. It's raging from people that either don't have half a brain to fight them or struggle with accepting there is big stuff in the game and they have to justify how broken it is. When in fact the stuff wasn't broke in the first place.

So where would you point cost a knight then?
What is a fair amount of points for a T8 24W model 300 points? 200 points?
Would you rather they had some more wounds if so how many?
So ion shields should work in melee but void shields don't?
What are you proposing here?

What do you compair them against?
2 predators T7 w22 at 380 points with 8 lascannons
2 LRBT T8 W24 at 360 points with 2 battle cannons 2 lascannons 4 heavy bolters?

Ice_can wrote:
So where would you point cost a knight then?
What is a fair amount of points for a T8 24W model 300 points? 200 points?
Would you rather they had some more wounds if so how many?
So ion shields should work in melee but void shields don't?
What are you proposing here?

What do you compair them against?
2 predators T7 w22 at 380 points with 8 lascannons
2 LRBT T8 W24 at 360 points with 2 battle cannons 2 lascannons 4 heavy bolters?

Assuming you're talking to me.

All I'm saying is that I don't think its bad design to force them into melee to have enough offensive output to make up their point cost but to do so they need something to hold them up longer in melee. I don't really care the specifics of getting there, just stating the overall design space they seem to occupy and why that doesn't end up working out. I'd rather not improve them by upping their ranged firepower so that tanks can remain the dedicated gun platform.

Yeah you atleast are making a reasonable case I can accept, they are probably too easy to mug in melee, I hate to think how you fair against large ork mobs.
I just worry that in trying to stop dice hammer ie just 1000 spam attacks killing big things we end up hurting the things that should be good against them. Like thunderhammers, power fists, melta while leaving the odds still in favour of just sheer weight of dice.

I would be fine with them being stronger if there was a rule where you can only bring 1. The same rule should exist for any super heavy but that's just me. That way super heavies can be what they were meant to be - totally badass, but also restricted in use so that all the lists aren't just "as many super heavy as i can fit."

Yup. Everyone agrees that Knights simply underperform for what they cost.

In the eventuality the Knights get a codex/update, will GW put the Imperial's and Renegades in the same book or will they be separate?

 chimeara wrote:
In the eventuality the Knights get a codex/update, will GW put the Imperial's and Renegades in the same book or will they be separate?

I hope they combine the two and just make it so you can replace the keywords.

GW being GW expect 2 books.

I hope they just get costed down a bit rather than buffed back up to annoying and meta warping levels like 7th. I’m glad they’re not on every dang table anymore to be frank.

Fun fact: a couple days ago I tabled with 1 Megaera and 2 Gallant (plus a small battalion of DA scout) a Khorne Berserker list (3X berserker on rhino with full character support, sorcerer on jump pack, a couple backfield units).

I was probably more surprised than my opponent: however, it wasn't bad roll...more the fact that Knight resist surprisingly well in close combat without anything that doesn't wield a storm hammer....

 Cybtroll wrote:
Fun fact: a couple days ago I tabled with 1 Megaera and 2 Gallant (plus a small battalion of DA scout) a Khorne Berserker list (3X berserker on rhino with full character support, sorcerer on jump pack, a couple backfield units).

I was probably more surprised than my opponent: however, it wasn't bad roll...more the fact that Knight resist surprisingly well in close combat without anything that doesn't wield a storm hammer....

So the Magaera worked good for you then?

Given that we know the Knight Codex is inbound now, do we think IKs are in line for a price drop? GW have not been afraid to slash the prices of units that are underperforming (or even doing fine in the case of Dark Reapers).

The price for the new baby Knight Armigers in the Forgebane set looks rather steep and about as overcosted/underpowered as the regular Knights but maybe the Codex will fix the whole lot in one go.

What is the proof that knights are overcosted? Math hammer or just a gut feeling?

I suspect knights biggest issue right now is they are already hard countered in most meta's by people taking massive amounta of anti tank weapons over anti infantry as killing hords efficently is difficult without anothrr hord.

How about this- Rowboat vs a Titan= Rowboat does almost 5.2 wounds to a Titan without rerolls. The Titan does almost 4.4 wounds to Rowboat.

Titan using reaper chainsword since it does more damage on average. If using the stomp it does 3.55 wounds.

Rowboat = 385 points
Titan w Reaper = 350 points

Ice_can wrote:
What is the proof that knights are overcosted? Math hammer or just a gut feeling?

I suspect knights biggest issue right now is they are already hard countered in most meta's by people taking massive amounta of anti tank weapons over anti infantry as killing hords efficently is difficult without anothrr hord.

Which is exactly why they are overcosted.

SJ

Ok now try shooting at each other aswell.

Also your compairing a named primark agains a generic titain.
Named charictors are almost always better than the generic profile otherwise how would GW get you to buy them.

A more realistic comparison is a couple of predator or leman Russ's
How many predators does it take to kill a knight and how many leman russes does it take to kill a knight?

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 jeffersonian000 wrote:

Ice_can wrote:
What is the proof that knights are overcosted? Math hammer or just a gut feeling?

I suspect knights biggest issue right now is they are already hard countered in most meta's by people taking massive amounta of anti tank weapons over anti infantry as killing hords efficently is difficult without anothrr hord.

Which is exactly why they are overcosted.

SJ

By that logic every tank is overcosted, as they are also hard countered by lascannon spam and they don't have invulnerable saves.

Fire Raptor vs Titan

Fire Raptor does almost 9.5 wounds

Titan w Thermal cannon + melta + heavy stubber + avenger gatling cannon = 8.12 wounds. If you are within 8" (hvy flamer) add .56 wounds. If within 6" then add 1 wound for the melta. Total at less than 6" = 9.68 wounds.

Fire Raptor = 418
Titan = 539

A fireraptor isnt a standard tank, its a £120 forgeworld flyer. How many of them are you meeting regularly?

Against normal list items like leman russ and predators how, and wounds delt is not the full equation. It has to be done in number to kill it. Durability has a points cost, it's not all about your damage output.