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.

 Strg Alt wrote:
Not everybody has a huge collection of models to finetune his/her list against every possible opponent especially not against armour. If this opponent happens to bring along three imperial knights you can skip the game right away.

Again, why are you assuming that only one player gets consideration here? Why is the knight player expected to buy a whole alternate army they can swap to while the "fluff" player has no obligation to buy an alternate army that can deal with knights?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Overread wrote:
You can build fluffy lists that are still competitive; and indeed the concept that fluffy is always weak just depends on the natur of how one interprets "fluffy". Often as not its just that people who build weak fluffy lists are just putting down models they like and lack the ability to see how to read the stats on how models perform.

This is also a good point. A knight list is a fluffy list in the sense that it matches the background fiction very well, but certain players have the assumption that "fluff" is defined by being bad at winning games. Therefore a list that is good at winning games can not be "fluffy" even when it matches the background fiction, while a random pile of models with no coherent theme or ties to the background fiction is considered "fluffy" by default because it is bad at winning games. We should be honest in describing these lists: the weak list is not "fluff", it's just a weak list, often created by someone who doesn't really understand the game and doesn't want to learn.

This is very true, if your skill levels arr vastly different you can probably swap armies and still have the same player winning.
Codex power and list building do factor into the power balance of that individual game, but when you understand or don't understand the subtleties of 8th edition mechanics you unlock a totally different level of power from a given list.

Precisely.

A lot of weaker lists are weak because the person basically hasn't learned how to build an army list. Sure they can add up point values, but they've no understanding how to read the stats on the units and to say "this is better than that" or even understand roles on the tabletop.

You can often see it in how they play as well and how they make choices. Often as not their deployment and strategy is very basic and they can be easily undone if you take out one or two key units in their army.



It basically shows a lack of understanding the fundamentals - however I don't blame them. Most groups focus on how to play as being a case of the mechanical side of the rules. How to move, shoot, how to resolve a special ability, what happens when two abilities clash etc..
Actually taking it a step further and learning how to read the stats, how to understand what they mean in terms of unit power and what effect is has on the table; how to build an army that has a focus and plan to it and how to adapt etc.... This is often less covered and I put it down to the fact that its an area where the market as a whole is ignorant of.


You just have to look at the books - there are loads on how to paint; loads of tutorials on how to model and paint. But very very few on how to think tactically; how to read unit stats et c..... It's a huge grey area which tells me a lot of players get there via trial and error and those who do know better lack experience in how to express their thoughts.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Strg Alt wrote:
Not everybody has a huge collection of models to finetune his/her list against every possible opponent especially not against armour. If this opponent happens to bring along three imperial knights you can skip the game right away.

Again, why are you assuming that only one player gets consideration here? Why is the knight player expected to buy a whole alternate army they can swap to while the "fluff" player has no obligation to buy an alternate army that can deal with knights?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Overread wrote:
You can build fluffy lists that are still competitive; and indeed the concept that fluffy is always weak just depends on the natur of how one interprets "fluffy". Often as not its just that people who build weak fluffy lists are just putting down models they like and lack the ability to see how to read the stats on how models perform.

This is also a good point. A knight list is a fluffy list in the sense that it matches the background fiction very well, but certain players have the assumption that "fluff" is defined by being bad at winning games. Therefore a list that is good at winning games can not be "fluffy" even when it matches the background fiction, while a random pile of models with no coherent theme or ties to the background fiction is considered "fluffy" by default because it is bad at winning games. We should be honest in describing these lists: the weak list is not "fluff", it's just a weak list, often created by someone who doesn't really understand the game and doesn't want to learn.

Why should the knight player feel obligated to buy another army? He/she will just have to play against veteran players in the club who are able to put up a challenging fight because of their vast collection. Little Timmy on the other hand with his cherished twenty Ultramarines will simply have to fight against another Timmy.

It's more likely that little timmy will be pushed out of the store/club.
Nobody has time to waste on little timmy these days.
Damn scrubs like timmy thinking they can just play.

ValentineGames wrote:
It's more likely that little timmy will be pushed out of the store/club.
Nobody has time to waste on little timmy these days.
Damn scrubs like timmy thinking they can just play.

That just made my day.

 Peregrine wrote:
Then perhaps those players should get better at the game and bring stronger lists. Why is the burden of changing list strength always on the "competitive" player? Why isn't the fluffbunny expected to bring a competitive list to make the game more fun?

Honestly? Lots and lots of reasons:

a) The competitive player already changes their list up. All the time. That's part of being competitive - reacting to and second guessing the meta, and finetuning lists to suit. The weaker player either doesn't have the models, the money, the inclination or the knowhow to do similar.

b) The competitive list always leverages the most overpowered elements in a given faction - a faction that is itself quite often chosen because it contains a large number of favoured overpowered elements. To say that all games, at all times, should be played according to this metric is to damn 75% of units to irrelevance. Maybe someone loves playing their painstakingly modded and painted Grey Knights. They, accordingly, are probably quite happy with being up against it in most games! But not to the extent of an autolose. Hence why I mentioned the dispiriting nature of coming up against all-knights when running a non-optimised list.

c) As the stronger player, the onus is on you to tailor your own power to suit the opponent. If you don't then you can only really play against other power players - anything else is a waste of yours and your weaker opponent's time. (Here, I mean clear disparities in power - eg a new player with Dark Imperium Primaris vs an all-knights list. In which case, don't complain when you come up against one - in such a situation you can stomp them or tune down. Your choice.

d) It's a demonstration of good character to be willing to show moderation and self-control. If you cannot help but slam down your most powerful list in every encounter, then that's a bit of a problem. There's nothing wrong with being competitive, but if it interferes with your good character, your moderation, your concern for your fellow player, then it's gone too far.

e) The fluff-bunny is constrained by the means they have at their disposal. While you can easily tweak a list to make it a bit more even, they may not have the models to hand to raise their power game. Are you suggesting that the appropriate response to any player who is not as capable as you is 'gitgud scrub, go paint up 2k of Alaiotic and then we can talk'? Seems unrealistic.

f) The competitive player probably understands the game much better than their weaker opponent; they may not understand what makes a good list, about balance of AT elements, obvous counters, latest changes, likely opponents, etc, etc, etc. Asking them to act according to something they don't understand is pointless.

g) Good players who temper lists, explain interactions, share their excitement for new models or rules, and encourage their FLGS opponents will actively grow their local scene, and thereby encourage more competitive play. Stomping bunnies may feel good in the short term but it is counter-productive in the longterm.

 Smotejob wrote:
At my local flgs we usually play 2k points. They other night I debuted my knights (crusader + 2 Armiger) alongside my usual Astra militarum, and I had a taker and we had a good game. It was well played, and even though I won it was a close match and we had fun.
However, people seemed a little put off that I brought a Knight to flgs night. So I have two questions since I know knights are good but not impossible to deal with.

Are Knights not FLGS friendly?
What is the primary concern people have when facing a knight?

Knights under 8th edition are really no different than any other army. In fact your opponents are going to have a better time taking you down because they have so many more models and so much more firepower. Knights are easily dealt with by massed firepower. You don't really need anti-tank, although it does obviously help.

I have yet to play against a full Knight list yet, even though two of my local club members have them already, but my concern ahead of time is simply can I still achieve victory playing to the mission or do I have to focus fire and win by destroying them all?

If your opponent plays imperial knights and your army hasn't has enough anti armour... play objetive games. With a good amount of LOS blocking terrain.

That way any army has a chance agaisnt imperial knights, even if they don't have any kind of anti tank.

 grouchoben wrote:


Honestly? Lots and lots of reasons:

a) The competitive player already changes their list up. All the time. That's part of being competitive - reacting to and second guessing the meta, and finetuning lists to suit. The weaker player either doesn't have the models, the money, the inclination or the knowhow to do similar.

b) The competitive list always leverages the most overpowered elements in a given faction - a faction that is itself quite often chosen because it contains a large number of favoured overpowered elements. To say that all games, at all times, should be played according to this metric is to damn 75% of units to irrelevance. Maybe someone loves playing their painstakingly modded and painted Grey Knights. They, accordingly, are probably quite happy with being up against it in most games! But not to the extent of an autolose. Hence why I mentioned the dispiriting nature of coming up against all-knights when running a non-optimised list.

c) As the stronger player, the onus is on you to tailor your own power to suit the opponent. If you don't then you can only really play against other power players - anything else is a waste of yours and your weaker opponent's time. (Here, I mean clear disparities in power - eg a new player with Dark Imperium Primaris vs an all-knights list. In which case, don't complain when you come up against one - in such a situation you can stomp them or tune down. Your choice.

d) It's a demonstration of good character to be willing to show moderation and self-control. If you cannot help but slam down your most powerful list in every encounter, then that's a bit of a problem. There's nothing wrong with being competitive, but if it interferes with your good character, your moderation, your concern for your fellow player, then it's gone too far.

e) The fluff-bunny is constrained by the means they have at their disposal. While you can easily tweak a list to make it a bit more even, they may not have the models to hand to raise their power game. Are you suggesting that the appropriate response to any player who is not as capable as you is 'gitgud scrub, go paint up 2k of Alaiotic and then we can talk'? Seems unrealistic.

f) The competitive player probably understands the game much better than their weaker opponent; they may not understand what makes a good list, about balance of AT elements, obvous counters, latest changes, likely opponents, etc, etc, etc. Asking them to act according to something they don't understand is pointless.

g) Good players who temper lists, explain interactions, share their excitement for new models or rules, and encourage their FLGS opponents will actively grow their local scene, and thereby encourage more competitive play. Stomping bunnies may feel good in the short term but it is counter-productive in the longterm.

(emphasis added by me)

To A & B. How are you defining a competitive player? I think that I'm a competitive player and I play GK. I don't play 3 GMDKs or flights of Storm Ravens. I play to win and enjoy playing against other players best efforts.

C is just Hipocrisy. Why is the onus on the stronger player to play down rather than the weaker player getting better? If the weaker player doesn't get better or up his game then he can only play against other weak opponents.

D cuts both ways. The fluff bunny can moderate his behavior and play lists that are more crunchy just as easily as the competitive player can tone down his list. Again, why is the onus on one side but the other side is immune from criticism?

E is totally bunkees. I have a very very small army and limited means to expand it at will. As said above I'm a competitive player. I know many fluff bunnies that have entire Chapters fully painted and in some cases I would think that they have a full Legion (or the equivalance thereof). The fluff bunny is just as likely to have a large amount of models/disposable income as the competitive player.

F - The better player probably understands the game rules/synergies better than the weaker player. Fluff/competitive doesn't enter into this statement.

G- Good players are good in the way you describe regardless of fluff/competitive level.

In a one off match I would say its a LOT EASIER for a better player to take a handicap or a weaker list than it is for the weaker player to suddenly "git gud".

So arguments that it should be on the weaker player to improve are only viable in the long term, assuming they stick around.

And I would say at any club the onus is on BOTH players to adapt their playing to suit the situation as best as they can to ensure a fun game for both paries.



In an ideal world the weaker would play with each other and the stronger with each other. In reality many clubs don't have a huge membership so the spread of skills might have gaps in it. Some clubs might be all newbies; others might be all top end pro players. Each has its problems and issues; but I'd still say there is a heavier pressure on better players who want opponents and want to support their local group, in training and helping weaker players learn the game.

Okay I'm coming at this from the perspective of a SOLID player. I know what is good. I know why it's good, and I know how to make stuff come together on the table. But I make a lot of choices for personal reasons to build the army i want to play. Let's look at my EC, I know I could make it more competitive by running more cultists and triple obliterators, but I don't do this because I enjoy the way other units look on the table and want to bring a varied list that is fun for me to play and fun for others to play against. It also means my list doesn't need to change that much from edition to edition. Sometimes there is a draw to playing a "pure list" and thematically you may enjoy playing something you know is weaker.

Okay. Why is the impetus on the competitive player you ask? Because it's a game, and we are here to have fun. Players who do a pick up game against an all Primaris list from Dark Imperium and curb stomp it while telling this wet behind the ears player to git good are a cancer. They make us look bad as war gamers, and they make the game not fun.

That newbie with Dark Imperium may get good. But he needs time, to build his miniatures, learn about internal synergy, and expand his collections. Many of these lessons are not able to be learned from games where he gets cleaned off the table in a turn from Avenger Gatling Cannons or Dark Reapers. The good player can in turn take time time to run a list of comparable power and explain the choices and synergy of both his own army and what the opponent can do to counter it. Helping their newbie opponent learn and get better. A competitive player has no obligation to do this, or even play that new opponent, but for the good of the community they should not go for a curb stomp.

If you want to practice with your GT list that is fine. But recognize you aren't going to get any meaningful practice against a newbie with the starter set. If you are actually a good player and want to prep for a major tournament, you will seek out a game against other hyper competitive lists and make sure both players are going all out. That is the only way you will get better and learn to compete.

In fact, I find that most people in local clubs that people have a problem with are "noob hunters". They are mediocre players themselves, that hate losing. As a result they find a net list that is good or won a major tournament and build it. Then seek out and play pick up games with newer opponents so they can get the rush of winning. Alternately these are the same players who casually ask what there enemy is playing and take as many hard counters as they can. These players give our community a bad name, and actively make it harder to get new players into the game. If you are one of these players look yourself in the mirror and stop.

 akaean wrote:
Players who do a pick up game against an all Primaris list from Dark Imperium and curb stomp it while telling this wet behind the ears player to git good are a cancer.

And all too common unfortunately

I think it's generally in the better players interest to time down their list to match their opponents list, because why play a game for three hours when you knew you were going to win from the get go?

The reason I think this has to do with knights armies is that if you are bringing 3-5 knights plus pretty much anything, you have already achieved a certain level of competitiveness with your army. It's literally not possible to build a terrible knights list in the same way it is to build a terrible dark angels or Tau list.

I recently used my Slaanesh Daemons army to crush a Knight army.

My little Str 3 Daemonettes wound on 6's in combat, the Forbidden Gem can shut down any Character (and since with a certain stratagem tons of knights become characters...) including preventing them from falling back if used in the movement phase. And when Daemonettes get that 6+ to wound, it ignores Knight armor (-4 rend) and only one knight can have an invuln in close combat, and it's only a 5+. I used terrain to funnel multiple knights and an armiger into the middle of the board, then charged and surrounded the Warlord knight, using the Gem to keep it from falling back, and also surrounded the armiger. The other player could either have abandoned his Warlord (a 600-odd point Dominus class) and a Helverin Armiger (174 points) to being utterly annihilated, while also letting me get the charge next turn because they couldn't fall back, or charge in and try to rescue their Warlord.

Needless to say, they charged in to try to clean up, but 60 Daemonettes plus a Daemon Prince with the Soulstealer relic plus Zarakynel plus two Defilers (though only one by the time i got stuck in) was just too much.

I brought damn near 0 anti-tank that game.

"I brought damn near 0 anti-tank that game."?

Dude the army you brought is practically a direct counter to knights.
Cheap hordes with invuls take even knights time to clean up.
Daemonettes are great at wearing down big stuff and can be defined as anti-tank themselves.

Slannesh is not a weak army by any stretch to begin with, especially with Zara. there is a reason why she is priced like the dominus class knights herself-because she can mulch one in CC.

 BoomWolf wrote:
"I brought damn near 0 anti-tank that game."?

Dude the army you brought is practically a direct counter to knights.
Cheap hordes with invuls take even knights time to clean up.
Daemonettes are great at wearing down big stuff and can be defined as anti-tank themselves.

Slannesh is not a weak army by any stretch to begin with, especially with Zara. there is a reason why she is priced like the dominus class knights herself-because she can mulch one in CC.

Actually Zarakynel is fairly bad against Dominus class knights - doing an average of about 9 wounds to one, which doesn't even cripple it, and taking ~3 back, while having 0 guns and mediocre psychic powers. Zarakynel is overpriced by a good bit, actually.

And I would not call Daemonettes anti-tank units; in fact, they're generally considered inferior CC Daemons to Bloodletters.

Let me put it this way: if I was looking for anti-tank in my Chaos army, I wouldn't go "ah yes, daemonettes. Plenty of anti-tank there." The real source of my anti-knight abilities are my defilers.

People are gonna whine about that. Most of the time, it's the same attitude about Forge World- people are just buttmad because they don't have one.

Now, a knight is like a Baneblade. For a friendly game, let the dude know.

I find that a Knight is seldom a problem, while an Knight army is frequently a problem. The issue is rooted in skew; if you put 25 T8 wounds behind a 3+/5++ down in front of my Deathwatch army I will grumble but I can deal with it, but if you put 100+ T8 wounds behind a 3+/5++ down there isn't enough anti-tank in my Codex to even pretend to give you a fair fight.

A single Knight (or even two, or a Knight and some Armigers) in an army with other stuff against an arbitrary 2,000pt list is fair and can usually be dealt with, but putting down an army consisting entirely of T8 models takes the whole concept of pick-up games and tosses it out the window by taking 1/2 to 2/3rds of an average all-comers list and rendering it irrelevant.

 AnomanderRake wrote:
I find that a Knight is seldom a problem, while an Knight army is frequently a problem. The issue is rooted in skew; if you put 25 T8 wounds behind a 3+/5++ down in front of my Deathwatch army I will grumble but I can deal with it, but if you put 100+ T8 wounds behind a 3+/5++ down there isn't enough anti-tank in my Codex to even pretend to give you a fair fight.

A single Knight (or even two, or a Knight and some Armigers) in an army with other stuff against an arbitrary 2,000pt list is fair and can usually be dealt with, but putting down an army consisting entirely of T8 models takes the whole concept of pick-up games and tosses it out the window by taking 1/2 to 2/3rds of an average all-comers list and rendering it irrelevant.

This is just a consequence of the Lanchester square law.
If you double the tanks, you need four-fold firepower to take them down.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 BoomWolf wrote:
"I brought damn near 0 anti-tank that game."?

Dude the army you brought is practically a direct counter to knights.
Cheap hordes with invuls take even knights time to clean up.
Daemonettes are great at wearing down big stuff and can be defined as anti-tank themselves.

Slannesh is not a weak army by any stretch to begin with, especially with Zara. there is a reason why she is priced like the dominus class knights herself-because she can mulch one in CC.

Actually Zarakynel is fairly bad against Dominus class knights - doing an average of about 9 wounds to one, which doesn't even cripple it, and taking ~3 back, while having 0 guns and mediocre psychic powers. Zarakynel is overpriced by a good bit, actually.

And I would not call Daemonettes anti-tank units; in fact, they're generally considered inferior CC Daemons to Bloodletters.

Let me put it this way: if I was looking for anti-tank in my Chaos army, I wouldn't go "ah yes, daemonettes. Plenty of anti-tank there." The real source of my anti-knight abilities are my defilers.

Zara is the best target in the game for Hysterical Frenzy (that she also casts), for dishing 9 extra wounds, so staying in CC with her is suicide. it makes any CC oriented knight charging her being a non-option.
Agonies can make her even harder to take down. or symphony to make one of the knights a far lesser threat
And even without psy powers- she takes out 9 of 28 wounds, he takes out 3 of 20. guess who is winning the fight?
Sure, she wont degrate him in one round, but he hardly harms her.

Zara is not top of the shelf, but she is NOT bad, she was just best used at dealing with things that are not the meta, high CC value big threats-guess what knights are?
I have no idea how you manage to think zara is bad against knights despite you literally JUST using her to utterly crush a knights player, who are some of the meanest things out there at the moment.
Dominus classes would not be an easy kill for her, but she CAN take a dominos class down on her own with decent rolls or good use of terrain. and a regular knight? easy food. to think she once costed like a regular knight...


And yes, the daemonettes are not the go-to anti tank, but they are better at it than most troop choice in the game. especially when it comes to dealing with superheavies.
When fighting a knight a, a lone daemonette would average 0.222 wounds on the knight, so every 9 would get about 2 wounds done.
Its not much damage-but its CHEAP, its TROOPs and it can (as you have) lock them in combat against a chaff unit they can't clear in anything resembling efficiency themselves

 AnomanderRake wrote:
I find that a Knight is seldom a problem, while an Knight army is frequently a problem. The issue is rooted in skew; if you put 25 T8 wounds behind a 3+/5++ down in front of my Deathwatch army I will grumble but I can deal with it, but if you put 100+ T8 wounds behind a 3+/5++ down there isn't enough anti-tank in my Codex to even pretend to give you a fair fight.

A single Knight (or even two, or a Knight and some Armigers) in an army with other stuff against an arbitrary 2,000pt list is fair and can usually be dealt with, but putting down an army consisting entirely of T8 models takes the whole concept of pick-up games and tosses it out the window by taking 1/2 to 2/3rds of an average all-comers list and rendering it irrelevant.

Until the poor knight player runs into that one maniac that runs a 200 horro/poxwalker spam list XD.
I may not hurt you much, but good luck chewing all this chaff XD

 AnomanderRake wrote:
I find that a Knight is seldom a problem, while an Knight army is frequently a problem. The issue is rooted in skew; if you put 25 T8 wounds behind a 3+/5++ down in front of my Deathwatch army I will grumble but I can deal with it, but if you put 100+ T8 wounds behind a 3+/5++ down there isn't enough anti-tank in my Codex to even pretend to give you a fair fight.

A single Knight (or even two, or a Knight and some Armigers) in an army with other stuff against an arbitrary 2,000pt list is fair and can usually be dealt with, but putting down an army consisting entirely of T8 models takes the whole concept of pick-up games and tosses it out the window by taking 1/2 to 2/3rds of an average all-comers list and rendering it irrelevant.

Yeah, as an ork player I dont know how I would deal with that. Even if I brought all tank bustas I would probably lose.

 Billagio wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:
I find that a Knight is seldom a problem, while an Knight army is frequently a problem. The issue is rooted in skew; if you put 25 T8 wounds behind a 3+/5++ down in front of my Deathwatch army I will grumble but I can deal with it, but if you put 100+ T8 wounds behind a 3+/5++ down there isn't enough anti-tank in my Codex to even pretend to give you a fair fight.

A single Knight (or even two, or a Knight and some Armigers) in an army with other stuff against an arbitrary 2,000pt list is fair and can usually be dealt with, but putting down an army consisting entirely of T8 models takes the whole concept of pick-up games and tosses it out the window by taking 1/2 to 2/3rds of an average all-comers list and rendering it irrelevant.

Yeah, as an ork player I dont know how I would deal with that. Even if I brought all tank bustas I would probably lose.

To be honest a pure index list vrs codex needs need a handicap system at this point untill the final codex ar out. One we have at the flgs is no strategums against index armies, it hurts some lists more than others but it does atleast shorten the distance between index and codex armies.

 Billagio wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:
I find that a Knight is seldom a problem, while an Knight army is frequently a problem. The issue is rooted in skew; if you put 25 T8 wounds behind a 3+/5++ down in front of my Deathwatch army I will grumble but I can deal with it, but if you put 100+ T8 wounds behind a 3+/5++ down there isn't enough anti-tank in my Codex to even pretend to give you a fair fight.

A single Knight (or even two, or a Knight and some Armigers) in an army with other stuff against an arbitrary 2,000pt list is fair and can usually be dealt with, but putting down an army consisting entirely of T8 models takes the whole concept of pick-up games and tosses it out the window by taking 1/2 to 2/3rds of an average all-comers list and rendering it irrelevant.

Yeah, as an ork player I dont know how I would deal with that. Even if I brought all tank bustas I would probably lose.

You might not kill all knights but neither he will kill you. And they wil' hate grots. Dirt cheap walls he can't get throuih so has to spend 400pts knight to kill 90pts squad. Which they migght not even do and which can ignore moral

So 2 army who wont wipe each other. One has like 5 models though. Guess who has easier time getting objectives?

tneva82 wrote:

 Billagio wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:
I find that a Knight is seldom a problem, while an Knight army is frequently a problem. The issue is rooted in skew; if you put 25 T8 wounds behind a 3+/5++ down in front of my Deathwatch army I will grumble but I can deal with it, but if you put 100+ T8 wounds behind a 3+/5++ down there isn't enough anti-tank in my Codex to even pretend to give you a fair fight.

A single Knight (or even two, or a Knight and some Armigers) in an army with other stuff against an arbitrary 2,000pt list is fair and can usually be dealt with, but putting down an army consisting entirely of T8 models takes the whole concept of pick-up games and tosses it out the window by taking 1/2 to 2/3rds of an average all-comers list and rendering it irrelevant.

Yeah, as an ork player I dont know how I would deal with that. Even if I brought all tank bustas I would probably lose.

You might not kill all knights but neither he will kill you. And they wil' hate grots. Dirt cheap walls he can't get throuih so has to spend 400pts knight to kill 90pts squad. Which they migght not even do and which can ignore moral

Cant he just...shoot over them and kill the tank bustas? Theyre tall enough to see past the smallest model in the game. Besides, im not gonna bring a wall of grots in a standard list anyway

 Billagio wrote:
Cant he just...shoot over them and kill the tank bustas? Theyre tall enough to see past the smallest model in the game. Besides, im not gonna bring a wall of grots in a standard list anyway

What tank bustas?-) Point isn't to "buy time for tank bustas to kill knights". Point is to keep knights away from objectives. If he spends all his game in his deployment zone then you have already won the game by default! Da jump wall of grots(and besides if you don't have grots get them. They are damn awesome) and knight player finds himself front of a rather annoying roadblock(which incidentally is something like 60" wide so even knights 12" speed won't make it easy to go through and that's assuming table is stupid open billiar board). Sure killing them ain't trouble. But he has to invest ridiculous amount of points to clear one stinking unit of grots and has advanced very little. Then to add insult to injury orks could da jump yet another. And all the while there's that 200 boyz he will struggle to clear in time. Especially if ork player uses up bit of Mork's Kunning. You have trouble killing knight with boyz? Well don't charge. You just give them free overwatch and some stomps. If knight charge you do fall back. Don't give him 12-15 stomp attacks for bunch of attacks that wound on 6 and he has 3+ save. You don't NEED to kill knights as there's this thing called "scenario" which tends to have these things called "objectives". And orks have it lot easier than ~5 model knight army. Well maybe 7 if he has lots of armigers but even at most pure knight has 11 models and that's all armigers. And THOSE orks can actually kill by sheer numbers as wounding is 5+ vs them.

Whether you have tank bustas is fairly irrelevant for winning as your primary goal shouldn't even be killing those and fixating on killing them is exactly what can lose the game for you.

 Billagio wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:
I find that a Knight is seldom a problem, while an Knight army is frequently a problem. The issue is rooted in skew; if you put 25 T8 wounds behind a 3+/5++ down in front of my Deathwatch army I will grumble but I can deal with it, but if you put 100+ T8 wounds behind a 3+/5++ down there isn't enough anti-tank in my Codex to even pretend to give you a fair fight.

A single Knight (or even two, or a Knight and some Armigers) in an army with other stuff against an arbitrary 2,000pt list is fair and can usually be dealt with, but putting down an army consisting entirely of T8 models takes the whole concept of pick-up games and tosses it out the window by taking 1/2 to 2/3rds of an average all-comers list and rendering it irrelevant.

Yeah, as an ork player I dont know how I would deal with that. Even if I brought all tank bustas I would probably lose.

As long as you’re playing a game with objective scoring, all you have to do is park hordes of Boyz on the objectives. Knights will slaughter your Boyz without taking much in return but they will probably struggle to clear 180 Boyz off the board.

 mrhappyface wrote:
Nah, it shouldn't be a problem. If someone brings nothing but Tactical Squads to a game against you then it'll teach them to buy some anti-tank weapons.

Me. All the time

meleti wrote:

 Billagio wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:
I find that a Knight is seldom a problem, while an Knight army is frequently a problem. The issue is rooted in skew; if you put 25 T8 wounds behind a 3+/5++ down in front of my Deathwatch army I will grumble but I can deal with it, but if you put 100+ T8 wounds behind a 3+/5++ down there isn't enough anti-tank in my Codex to even pretend to give you a fair fight.

A single Knight (or even two, or a Knight and some Armigers) in an army with other stuff against an arbitrary 2,000pt list is fair and can usually be dealt with, but putting down an army consisting entirely of T8 models takes the whole concept of pick-up games and tosses it out the window by taking 1/2 to 2/3rds of an average all-comers list and rendering it irrelevant.

Yeah, as an ork player I dont know how I would deal with that. Even if I brought all tank bustas I would probably lose.

As long as you’re playing a game with objective scoring, all you have to do is park hordes of Boyz on the objectives. Knights will slaughter your Boyz without taking much in return but they will probably struggle to clear 180 Boyz off the board.

Is this a common thing in 40K to field nearly 200 models? I have never witnessed such a thing in 25 years.

 Strg Alt wrote:

meleti wrote:

 Billagio wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:
I find that a Knight is seldom a problem, while an Knight army is frequently a problem. The issue is rooted in skew; if you put 25 T8 wounds behind a 3+/5++ down in front of my Deathwatch army I will grumble but I can deal with it, but if you put 100+ T8 wounds behind a 3+/5++ down there isn't enough anti-tank in my Codex to even pretend to give you a fair fight.

A single Knight (or even two, or a Knight and some Armigers) in an army with other stuff against an arbitrary 2,000pt list is fair and can usually be dealt with, but putting down an army consisting entirely of T8 models takes the whole concept of pick-up games and tosses it out the window by taking 1/2 to 2/3rds of an average all-comers list and rendering it irrelevant.

Yeah, as an ork player I dont know how I would deal with that. Even if I brought all tank bustas I would probably lose.

As long as you’re playing a game with objective scoring, all you have to do is park hordes of Boyz on the objectives. Knights will slaughter your Boyz without taking much in return but they will probably struggle to clear 180 Boyz off the board.

Is this a common thing in 40K to field nearly 200 models? I have never witnessed such a thing in 25 years.

Competitive Ork lists in this pre-Codex meta are typically at least 4 max squads of 30 Boyz. Generally 180 Boyz, some Weirdboyz, some Kustom Mega Kannons, etc. You substitute some of the Boyz for Stormboyz if you really wanted.