Switch Theme:

Are knight tier models too easy to kill?  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


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.




Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut






Springfield, VA

 Peregrine wrote:
 Unit1126PLL wrote:
In my opinion, that's actually pretty amazing. If I was a game designer, I'd make "all purpose" guns (like a Leman Russ Battlecannon) needing a 4-1 ratio against most targets (e.g. you need 4x the points of a Leman Russ with Battlecannon to completely destroy a unit worth 1x points). Specialized guns (e.g. the Exterminator autocannon against multi-wound infantry) would need a 3-1 against their specialist targets (so only a 3x points advantage to totally wipe a unit in one round of shooting) and a 5-1 against suboptimal targets. Then, hyperspecialized units (e.g. Ork tankbustas) need a 2-1 to wipe a unit of their preferred target type, and a 6-1 to wipe a unit of another type.


The problem with this theory is that many specialized units may only get a single attack each game. If they can't trade at least 1:1 in a single turn there's no point in taking them, they'll never justify the points you spent on them.


Why? Presumably, if you reduce lethality, then your units will be able to survive as well into another turn. Gone would be the days of "suicide melta" where if you don't kill a tank then you're fethed; instead, it would require a significant investment of points to wipe out a squad (e.g. an 80-point drop melta squad would take 160 points of firepower to wipe out from its dedicated hard counter, 240 points of firepower from its general unit type counter, and damn near 360 points to be wiped out by a generalist).

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/04/16 13:08:33


 
   
Made in us
Douglas Bader






 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Why? Presumably, if you reduce lethality, then your units will be able to survive as well into another turn.


Because many of these units are glass cannons, melee units that require multiple turns of setting up, units with one-shot weapons, etc.

Gone would be the days of "suicide melta" where if you don't kill a tank then you're fethed; instead, it would require a significant investment of points to wipe out a squad (e.g. an 80-point drop melta squad would take 160 points of firepower to wipe out from its dedicated hard counter, 240 points of firepower from its general unit type counter, and damn near 360 points to be wiped out by a generalist).


That's just absurd. A unit of four T3/5+ models should not require that much firepower from its "hard counter", especially when it has zero ablative wounds and each dead guardsman costs it 25% of its firepower. To get to that point you have to utterly cripple offense and you end up with a game of weak units flailing ineffectively at each other for 5-7 turns and the game ending with 90% of the models still on the table.

There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices. 
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut






Springfield, VA

 Peregrine wrote:
 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Why? Presumably, if you reduce lethality, then your units will be able to survive as well into another turn.


Because many of these units are glass cannons, melee units that require multiple turns of setting up, units with one-shot weapons, etc.

Gone would be the days of "suicide melta" where if you don't kill a tank then you're fethed; instead, it would require a significant investment of points to wipe out a squad (e.g. an 80-point drop melta squad would take 160 points of firepower to wipe out from its dedicated hard counter, 240 points of firepower from its general unit type counter, and damn near 360 points to be wiped out by a generalist).


That's just absurd. A unit of four T3/5+ models should not require that much firepower from its "hard counter", especially when it has zero ablative wounds and each dead guardsman costs it 25% of its firepower. To get to that point you have to utterly cripple offense and you end up with a game of weak units flailing ineffectively at each other for 5-7 turns and the game ending with 90% of the models still on the table.


Okay, if you think that's absurd, then we can adjust it. Maybe 1.5 to 1 ratio for specialists. And "glass cannon" has no meaning anymore. Dark Eldar, the quintessential "glass cannon" army, has units that are as hard to hurt as Knights against lascannons (5+ save with -1 to hit on a ravager, vs 5+ save on a Knight).

But surely you see the problem with the idea that "a unit has to make its points back in one turn" being the gold standard, yes? That just means that a 2000 point army will delete a 2000 point army in one turn. That's arguably worse than having 90% of units left alive on Turn 7.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/04/16 13:23:48


 
   
Made in us
Douglas Bader






 Unit1126PLL wrote:
And "glass cannon" has no meaning anymore.


Elysian 4x melta/plasma CCS. Four T3/5+ bodies, four guns. Glass cannons exist.

But surely you see the problem with the idea that "a unit has to make its points back in one turn" being the gold standard, yes?


Fortunately that is your straw man, not what I actually said.

There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices. 
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut






Springfield, VA

 Peregrine wrote:
 Unit1126PLL wrote:
And "glass cannon" has no meaning anymore.


Elysian 4x melta/plasma CCS. Four T3/5+ bodies, four guns. Glass cannons exist.

But surely you see the problem with the idea that "a unit has to make its points back in one turn" being the gold standard, yes?


Fortunately that is your straw man, not what I actually said.


No, that's not my straw man, that's actually what I have a problem with. My suggestions are merely suggestions, and I put as much weight into them as suggesting where to eat or what to do. If it doesn't work, it doesn't work; I've not really thought about it more than "this might help." So, conceded that my weird scaling system doesn't work.

Do you think it is a problem to ask for a unit to be able to "make its points back in a turn" or do you think that's fine? And if you think its fine, then how would you prevent a 2000 point army from instantly destroying another 2000 point army, other than forcing players to bring units or models they may not otherwise want to bring?

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2018/04/16 13:37:00


 
   
Made in us
Douglas Bader






 Unit1126PLL wrote:
No, that's not my straw man, that's actually what I have a problem with.


It absolutely is a straw man because I never said that making a unit's points back in a single turn, especially on the first turn, should be the default. Go back and read what I actually said and how it does not lead to the "kill a whole army on turn 1" scenario you claim that I am endorsing.

And if you think its fine, then how would you prevent a 2000 point army from instantly destroying another 2000 point army, other than forcing players to bring units or models they may not otherwise want to bring?


You force players to bring units or models they may not otherwise want to bring. Sorry if you don't like that, but GW's "take whatever you want" system is idiotic game design. In a properly designed game it isn't a problem for some specialists to kill at a 1:1 (or better) rate each turn because you can't build a successful army out of nothing but those specialists.

There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices. 
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut






Springfield, VA

 Peregrine wrote:
 Unit1126PLL wrote:
No, that's not my straw man, that's actually what I have a problem with.


It absolutely is a straw man because I never said that making a unit's points back in a single turn, especially on the first turn, should be the default. Go back and read what I actually said and how it does not lead to the "kill a whole army on turn 1" scenario you claim that I am endorsing.

And if you think its fine, then how would you prevent a 2000 point army from instantly destroying another 2000 point army, other than forcing players to bring units or models they may not otherwise want to bring?


You force players to bring units or models they may not otherwise want to bring. Sorry if you don't like that, but GW's "take whatever you want" system is idiotic game design. In a properly designed game it isn't a problem for some specialists to kill at a 1:1 (or better) rate each turn because you can't build a successful army out of nothing but those specialists.


It won't be the default, but it will be for competitive play. Deleting an entire army in a single turn is obviously powerful, so if there are units capable of doing so, then there will be armies capable of doing so, even if they're just fifteen of the same unit. And it doesn't have to be Turn 1 - beta strike could be a thing, or whatever. The logical conclusion of "units should be able to make their points back in one turn" is "armies (of those units) should be able to make their points back in one turn."

Unless
 Peregrine wrote:
You force players to bring units or models they may not otherwise want to bring.
but I think you and I have hashed out why I don't like this plan. I'm not sure it'd be popular with the players, either - even GW's rumored 0-3 restrictions on literally anything not troops is causing a ruckus in the relevant thread.
   
Made in fi
Locked in the Tower of Amareo





That tankbusta case was hyperspecialised unit which if you take baneblades price worth hurts you against any reasonable army and gets one chance. If target is alive you just spent more than baneblade and lost that unit. If you go second you basically fight with half the army left...with now immune baneblade against you

2024 painted/bought: 109/109 
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut






Springfield, VA

tneva82 wrote:
That tankbusta case was hyperspecialised unit which if you take baneblades price worth hurts you against any reasonable army and gets one chance. If target is alive you just spent more than baneblade and lost that unit. If you go second you basically fight with half the army left...with now immune baneblade against you


.... which merely emphasizes the problem. If the tankbustas instantly die if they don't go first, isn't that a problem? Surely it would be better to reduce overall lethality so that "instantly deleting a unit" wouldn't be possible?

If the issue is that something or another is needed to eliminate the enemy first turn, and if it doesn't get first turn, it itself will be eliminated, then that's a problem, because it's essentially "whomever shoots first wins". If lethality were lower, that wouldn't be the case - units would have a chance to retaliate against their aggressors before being picked up off the table.
   
Made in us
Daemonic Dreadnought





Eye of Terror

Since 8th hit, I've been feeling like Wraithkights (and Knights / Land Raiders / Baneblades in general) are too squishy.

My lists overemphasize lascannons. It's easy to gun down a Wraithknight when you are sporting 25 lascannons, along with every other big threat in your opponent's army.

At least in my local meta, I see other armies trending towards heavy weapons and cheap bodies over massive war machines. Other than Arbities, I don't see many armies with 20 or less models any more and think that's a shame. While I'm not a fan of super OP models in general, I like the idea big stuff has a fighting chance.

It makes me think GW has overemphasized the cost of defense and underemphasized the cost of offense in how they assign points values. It goes up and down the ladder, starting with power armored troops and moving up to super heavies. Would love to see this corrected at some point.

   
Made in es
Grim Dark Angels Interrogator-Chaplain




Vigo. Spain.

 Peregrine wrote:
 Unit1126PLL wrote:
In my opinion, that's actually pretty amazing. If I was a game designer, I'd make "all purpose" guns (like a Leman Russ Battlecannon) needing a 4-1 ratio against most targets (e.g. you need 4x the points of a Leman Russ with Battlecannon to completely destroy a unit worth 1x points). Specialized guns (e.g. the Exterminator autocannon against multi-wound infantry) would need a 3-1 against their specialist targets (so only a 3x points advantage to totally wipe a unit in one round of shooting) and a 5-1 against suboptimal targets. Then, hyperspecialized units (e.g. Ork tankbustas) need a 2-1 to wipe a unit of their preferred target type, and a 6-1 to wipe a unit of another type.


The problem with this theory is that many specialized units may only get a single attack each game. If they can't trade at least 1:1 in a single turn there's no point in taking them, they'll never justify the points you spent on them.


But if all units in the game are based in that formula, then your opponent would have need to spend a ton of points to destroy that unit. In general, that would end in armies that are less deadlier. Yeah, if you go second, some of your units will die before they do anything. But theres a difference between losing 10-15% of your army if you go second that losing 50-60% of it.


EDIT: Wops, I didn't saw all the replies, sorry.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/04/16 14:59:06


 Crimson Devil wrote:

Dakka does have White Knights and is also rather infamous for it's Black Knights. A new edition brings out the passionate and not all of them are good at expressing themselves in written form. There have been plenty of hysterical responses from both sides so far. So we descend into pointless bickering with neither side listening to each other. So posting here becomes more masturbation than conversation.

ERJAK wrote:
Forcing a 40k player to keep playing 7th is basically a hate crime.

 
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut






Springfield, VA

 Galas wrote:
 Peregrine wrote:
 Unit1126PLL wrote:
In my opinion, that's actually pretty amazing. If I was a game designer, I'd make "all purpose" guns (like a Leman Russ Battlecannon) needing a 4-1 ratio against most targets (e.g. you need 4x the points of a Leman Russ with Battlecannon to completely destroy a unit worth 1x points). Specialized guns (e.g. the Exterminator autocannon against multi-wound infantry) would need a 3-1 against their specialist targets (so only a 3x points advantage to totally wipe a unit in one round of shooting) and a 5-1 against suboptimal targets. Then, hyperspecialized units (e.g. Ork tankbustas) need a 2-1 to wipe a unit of their preferred target type, and a 6-1 to wipe a unit of another type.


The problem with this theory is that many specialized units may only get a single attack each game. If they can't trade at least 1:1 in a single turn there's no point in taking them, they'll never justify the points you spent on them.


But if all units in the game are based in that formula, then your opponent would have need to spend a ton of points to destroy that unit. In general, that would end in armies that are less deadlier. Yeah, if you go second, some of your units will die before they do anything. But theres a difference between losing 10-15% of your army if you go second that losing 50-60% of it.


EDIT: Wops, I didn't saw all the replies, sorry.


It's okay Galas, haha. Peregrine and I have different values: he believes balance is the best thing for a game to strive for, while I prefer variety and storytelling come first. I think it's a subjective disagreement, which is an okay thing to disagree about.
   
Made in us
Locked in the Tower of Amareo




Balance and variety are not mutually exclusive.
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut






Springfield, VA

Martel732 wrote:
Balance and variety are not mutually exclusive.


Did you read the discussion that Peregrine and I had, or are you just drive-by threadsniping? Because it literally came down to "force players to take models and units they don't want to" which is a reduction in variety, because you're mandating a system of army-building of some kind rather than leaving it up to the players.
   
Made in us
Locked in the Tower of Amareo




I don't really pay attention to his posts. I'm just tired of that fallacy in any form.
   
Made in ca
Bounding Ultramarine Assault Trooper





KurtAngle2 wrote:
 p5freak wrote:
Knights should have a 4+ invuln sv. They are ~450 pts. A knight is not a tank, they should more resilient to anti tank weapons. I also like the damage reduced by 1 idea.


No, they already got a 4++ with 1 CP Stratagem and if you buff it to baseline 4++ it would be highly OP to have a 3++ for such cost

Not really you would be burning a CP each turn on your 450 point model with only 24 wounds that is crippled once it loses 12 and garbage at 18. Also it is not like they could have 2 or 3 knights like that as the Stratagem only works on one a turn.

Ultramarine 6000 : Imperial Knights 1700 : Grey Knights 1000 : Ad mech 500 :Nids 4000 : Necrons 500 : Death watch 500 
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut






Springfield, VA

Martel732 wrote:
I don't really pay attention to his posts. I'm just tired of that fallacy in any form.


I wasn't saying it was categorically true. Peregrine suggested that the only way to fix the problem I have identified is by reducing variety. I was saying "I would rather not reduce variety for the sake of balance." That doesn't mean we shouldn't try to balance the game, but there's been no solution to the problem of ridiculously high lethality that I've seen that didn't involve "reducing variety", except for mine, which is simply: reduce lethality. I slapped some arbitrary numbers on there that looked neat, but may or may not work.

I do believe that variety can be preserved while the game is balanced. I don't have a fundamental disagreement with that idea.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/04/16 15:11:07


 
   
Made in ca
Bounding Ultramarine Assault Trooper





 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Martel732 wrote:
I don't really pay attention to his posts. I'm just tired of that fallacy in any form.


I wasn't saying it was categorically true. Peregrine suggested that the only way to fix the problem I have identified is by reducing variety. I was saying "I would rather not reduce variety for the sake of balance." That doesn't mean we shouldn't try to balance the game, but there's been no solution to the problem of ridiculously high lethality that I've seen that didn't involve "reducing variety", except for mine, which is simply: reduce lethality. I slapped some arbitrary numbers on there that looked neat, but may or may not work.

I do believe that variety can be preserved while the game is balanced. I don't have a fundamental disagreement with that idea.

Reducing lethality dose nothing to help variety. It would just be a meta shift to the new best units witch would likely be hordes because they have the most bodys and can sit on an objective the best.

Ultramarine 6000 : Imperial Knights 1700 : Grey Knights 1000 : Ad mech 500 :Nids 4000 : Necrons 500 : Death watch 500 
   
Made in us
Locked in the Tower of Amareo




I can agree with that. Power armor is dead post-drukhari.
   
Made in ca
Bounding Ultramarine Assault Trooper





Martel732 wrote:
I can agree with that. Power armor is dead post-drukhari.

That implies power armor was good at any point.

Ultramarine 6000 : Imperial Knights 1700 : Grey Knights 1000 : Ad mech 500 :Nids 4000 : Necrons 500 : Death watch 500 
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut






Springfield, VA

 mew28 wrote:
 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Martel732 wrote:
I don't really pay attention to his posts. I'm just tired of that fallacy in any form.


I wasn't saying it was categorically true. Peregrine suggested that the only way to fix the problem I have identified is by reducing variety. I was saying "I would rather not reduce variety for the sake of balance." That doesn't mean we shouldn't try to balance the game, but there's been no solution to the problem of ridiculously high lethality that I've seen that didn't involve "reducing variety", except for mine, which is simply: reduce lethality. I slapped some arbitrary numbers on there that looked neat, but may or may not work.

I do believe that variety can be preserved while the game is balanced. I don't have a fundamental disagreement with that idea.

Reducing lethality dose nothing to help variety. It would just be a meta shift to the new best units witch would likely be hordes because they have the most bodys and can sit on an objective the best.


No, it doesn't help it by itself. The original proposal was merely an effort to reduce the importance of having Turn 1 and to emphasize the problem with people's belief that "a unit should be able to make its points back in one turn."

It was not meant to help variety, merely to demonstrate a problem I see in the game. I just don't want the solution to the problem if it is a mandatory reduction in the options available; I'd much rather see a more elegant solution than "YOU MUST TAKE UNITS YOU DON'T WANT."
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut





Martel732 wrote:
I can agree with that. Power armor is dead post-drukhari.


Could you elaborate? I'm not well versed in DE.
   
Made in be
Courageous Beastmaster





Not sure Drukhari made MEQ worse. It wasn't all that good before but it didn't become actively worse.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/04/16 15:42:09





 
   
Made in us
One Canoptek Scarab in a Swarm



Maryland

To be fair in the argument of balance vs variety, this is suppose to be a war game. If any real army brought just what the general thought was cool, they would lose every fight. And before people start lighting me up for proposing realism in 40k (which we all know is absurd and impossible on most levels), I think we should try to keep as close to this core idea as we can without breaking the game as you know, war is the central idea of this entire game.

I am also in full support of the 0-3 rule. It may restrict variety, but it is near impossible to balance a game in any way when it is unrestricted like that. If they didn't impose rules like that, they would have to nerf many units to the point of "Why does this unit exist again?". Tau Commanders would of definitely of been nerfed to the point of being equal to or less than a normal Battlesuit. Its the same reason why we can only use a certain Stratagem once per turn, as there are Stratagems that if could be used more than one time per turn, it would break the game. If the Necron Extermination Protocols Stratagem could be used more than once per turn, then either Destoryers would be nerfed into the ground or the Stratagem would never exist. With the imposed restriction, we can still have a good unit and an amazing Stratagem. In that sense, restrictions actually INCREASES variety ironically enough, as it allows us to have these powerful units that do amazing things without breaking the game to the point where they wouldn't be allowed to exist. I can't speak for you, but I would much rather have the ability to take a variety of units, some of which can do amazing things, than only have a handful of near identical units that I am allowed to spam the hell out of.

All in all, we need a good balance of variety and gameplay balance. We should have variety in that specific factions should have more than one unit in a codex to deal with a target type, but balance in that each of those units should have overall advantages and disadvantages to each other, as well as the fact that taking an entire army list of just spamming two or three units that you like should never be equal to or better than a diverse and strategically made list.
   
Made in ca
Monstrously Massive Big Mutant






Knights are crap . Period. They need an invuln save that actually works in melee, and they need less random weapons. A 2d6 weapon should NOT cost 100 points, that's far too random.
   
Made in us
Khorne Chosen Marine Riding a Juggernaut





Ohio

 vaklor4 wrote:
Knights are crap . Period. They need an invuln save that actually works in melee, and they need less random weapons. A 2d6 weapon should NOT cost 100 points, that's far too random.

That's one of the reasons I'm wanting to test out the Styrix and Magaera Knights. They get invulns on everything. They also have decent weapons on paper. I originally got my knight to play at one of my LGS' that don't like FW stuff, because I actually wanted the Kytan. What sucks the most is, I didn't even get to use it in the big tournament I got it for. I didn't have enough time after receiving it to assemble and paint. So, now that I've got one...I'm trying to make lemonade with lemons. Once it's painted, I'll give it a go at both LGS. Since the meta is different at each one.
   
Made in us
Omnipotent Necron Overlord






Removing degrading profiles would help a great deal. Super heavies suffer the most from them.

If we fail to anticipate the unforeseen or expect the unexpected in a universe of infinite possibilities, we may find ourselves at the mercy of anyone or anything that cannot be programmed, categorized or easily referenced.
- Fox Mulder 
   
Made in us
Locked in the Tower of Amareo




 Daedalus81 wrote:
Martel732 wrote:
I can agree with that. Power armor is dead post-drukhari.


Could you elaborate? I'm not well versed in DE.


Disintegrators going down in price was the final insult. I've now played against lists with 24 disintegrator shots a turn.
   
Made in ca
Monstrously Massive Big Mutant






 chimeara wrote:
 vaklor4 wrote:
Knights are crap . Period. They need an invuln save that actually works in melee, and they need less random weapons. A 2d6 weapon should NOT cost 100 points, that's far too random.

That's one of the reasons I'm wanting to test out the Styrix and Magaera Knights. They get invulns on everything. They also have decent weapons on paper. I originally got my knight to play at one of my LGS' that don't like FW stuff, because I actually wanted the Kytan. What sucks the most is, I didn't even get to use it in the big tournament I got it for. I didn't have enough time after receiving it to assemble and paint. So, now that I've got one...I'm trying to make lemonade with lemons. Once it's painted, I'll give it a go at both LGS. Since the meta is different at each one.


Simple fix for that, counts as a Lord of Skulls for it. I doubt people will care about the smaller than normal footprint on the battlefield, and they have the exact same weapons so it still goes by WYSISWG.
   
Made in ca
Bounding Ultramarine Assault Trooper





I feel like knights should cost about 100 less points and the mini knight should cost around 60 points less. They are both just terrible for their cost.

Ultramarine 6000 : Imperial Knights 1700 : Grey Knights 1000 : Ad mech 500 :Nids 4000 : Necrons 500 : Death watch 500 
   
 
Forum Index » 40K General Discussion
Go to: