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.

Darsath wrote:The offensive and defensive power of the Wraithknight is still much less than that of an Imperial Knight (even the ones that no one currently plays). I very much doubt they'll be seeing much play.

what? which knight costs 300 pts and has the offensive power of a Wraithknight?

The wraithknights biggest weakness is that it's in the Aeldari codex, hence the availability of doom and fortune and guide and etc all psychic buffs have to be considered for the weapons.

Which results is the weird GW points costs, it's they work out these buffs out as a percentage then tac it on across everything. So expensive models are way over and cheap units seam Ok as being 10% over on a 100 point unit is 10 points annoying but not game breaking being over by 10 % on a 400 point unit starts to show and hurt.

Question as I don't have the eldar codex can a wraitknight currently benifit from the -1 to hit Trait and -1 to hit strategum aswell?

 SHUPPET wrote:

Darsath wrote:The offensive and defensive power of the Wraithknight is still much less than that of an Imperial Knight (even the ones that no one currently plays). I very much doubt they'll be seeing much play.

what? which knight costs 300 pts and has the offensive power of a Wraithknight?

Well given 300pts is the base with 0 guns and just Titanic Feet, taking a Suncannon/Shield for 440pts (new poits)

A Base knight is 285pts (15pts cheaper) and comes with a someone invul for free, can have a sword/gun for (Knight Warden) for 411pts, with better shooting (12 shots vs 2D6, S7 vs S6, same damage, WK has 1 more better ap is all but always less shots), with a melee weapon for 39pts less. AND it comes with 2 more guns (HS, HF) thats also included int he above points

So tell me again how the WK without traits/strats/powers isnt weaker in every way? The Knight is better at shooting and melee


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ice_can wrote:
The wraithknights biggest weakness is that it's in the Aeldari codex, hence the availability of doom and fortune and guide and etc all psychic buffs have to be considered for the weapons.

Which results is the weird GW points costs, it's they work out these buffs out as a percentage then tac it on across everything. So expensive models are way over and cheap units seam Ok as being 10% over on a 100 point unit is 10 points annoying but not game breaking being over by 10 % on a 400 point unit starts to show and hurt.

Question as I don't have the eldar codex can a wraitknight currently benifit from the -1 to hit Trait and -1 to hit strategum aswell?

Not he WK cant get the -1 to hit strat, the trait yes, but that trait is being rumor to be +1 to cover, either way you most likely would take them with Iyanden, it will over all be better IMO (your chart degrades at 1/2 the speed and stratagem to heal with +1 to hit rolls)

 Amishprn86 wrote:

 SHUPPET wrote:

Darsath wrote:The offensive and defensive power of the Wraithknight is still much less than that of an Imperial Knight (even the ones that no one currently plays). I very much doubt they'll be seeing much play.

what? which knight costs 300 pts and has the offensive power of a Wraithknight?

Well given 300pts is the base with 0 guns and just Titanic Feet, taking a Suncannon/Shield for 440pts (new poits)

A Base knight is 285pts (15pts cheaper) and comes with a someone invul for free, can have a sword/gun for (Knight Warden) for 411pts, with better shooting (12 shots vs 2D6, S7 vs S6, same damage, WK has 1 more better ap is all but always less shots), with a melee weapon for 39pts less. AND it comes with 2 more guns (HS, HF) thats also included int he above points

So tell me again how the WK without traits/strats/powers isnt weaker in every way? The Knight is better at shooting and melee

Because, in your eternal quest to put words in other people's mouths, today you've decided to say that GW said 300 pts was the cost before upgrade, when they never did - they put that quantifier on the comparative half of the sentence, which could go either way, but in the English language it suggests that it wasn't being used for the preceding half of the sentence. What you say is a given, is not that at all.

It's more likely than not that GW intended to say Wraithknights cost 300 before weapons, given the size of the points change otherwise. Regardless, there's no need to be an ass over vague language.

 SHUPPET wrote:

 Amishprn86 wrote:

 SHUPPET wrote:

Darsath wrote:The offensive and defensive power of the Wraithknight is still much less than that of an Imperial Knight (even the ones that no one currently plays). I very much doubt they'll be seeing much play.

what? which knight costs 300 pts and has the offensive power of a Wraithknight?

Well given 300pts is the base with 0 guns and just Titanic Feet, taking a Suncannon/Shield for 440pts (new poits)

A Base knight is 285pts (15pts cheaper) and comes with a someone invul for free, can have a sword/gun for (Knight Warden) for 411pts, with better shooting (12 shots vs 2D6, S7 vs S6, same damage, WK has 1 more better ap is all but always less shots), with a melee weapon for 39pts less. AND it comes with 2 more guns (HS, HF) thats also included int he above points

So tell me again how the WK without traits/strats/powers isnt weaker in every way? The Knight is better at shooting and melee

Because, in your eternal quest to put words in other people's mouths, today you've decided to say that GW said 300 pts was the cost before upgrade, when they never did - they put that quantifier on the comparative half of the sentence, which could go either way, but in the English language it suggests that it wasn't being used for the preceding half of the sentence. What you say is a given, is not that at all.

Calling out my english? You never said it was 300pts WITH GEAR, where did you say that? You assumed i knew what you are thinking then, accusing me of assuming and yet here you are doing it.

Im under the assumption that GW wont make the knight nearly 200pts cheaper (I even made it clear in a different post that i think its 300pts before wargear, so you knew my stance if you read it), if you think a 2HWC knight is going to cost around 310-330pts, then yeah i'll agree that its an augment to make in your favor, but i dont see that happening.

I would love to be wrong and the knight did get 175pts cheaper with gear, i just cant see that happening.

 Amishprn86 wrote:

 SHUPPET wrote:

 Amishprn86 wrote:

 SHUPPET wrote:

Darsath wrote:The offensive and defensive power of the Wraithknight is still much less than that of an Imperial Knight (even the ones that no one currently plays). I very much doubt they'll be seeing much play.

what? which knight costs 300 pts and has the offensive power of a Wraithknight?

Well given 300pts is the base with 0 guns and just Titanic Feet, taking a Suncannon/Shield for 440pts (new poits)

A Base knight is 285pts (15pts cheaper) and comes with a someone invul for free, can have a sword/gun for (Knight Warden) for 411pts, with better shooting (12 shots vs 2D6, S7 vs S6, same damage, WK has 1 more better ap is all but always less shots), with a melee weapon for 39pts less. AND it comes with 2 more guns (HS, HF) thats also included int he above points

So tell me again how the WK without traits/strats/powers isnt weaker in every way? The Knight is better at shooting and melee

Because, in your eternal quest to put words in other people's mouths, today you've decided to say that GW said 300 pts was the cost before upgrade, when they never did - they put that quantifier on the comparative half of the sentence, which could go either way, but in the English language it suggests that it wasn't being used for the preceding half of the sentence. What you say is a given, is not that at all.

Calling out my english? You never said it was 300pts WITH GEAR, where did you say that? You assumed i knew what you are thinking then, accusing me of assuming and yet here you are doing it.

Im under the assumption that GW wont make the knight nearly 200pts cheaper (I even made it clear in a different post that i think its 300pts before wargear, so you knew my stance if you read it), if you think a 2HWC knight is going to cost around 310-330pts, then yeah i'll agree that its an augment to make in your favor, but i dont see that happening.

I would love to be wrong and the knight did get 175pts cheaper with gear, i just cant see that happening.

I'm not calling out your English, I'm saying that you've misunderstood, and are once again are putting words in someone else's mouth without properly reading or understanding what was said.

"You never said it was 300pts WITH GEAR, where did you say that? You assumed i knew what you are thinking then, accusing me of assuming and yet here you are doing it."

Generally when someone refers to the cost of a model, they are almost exclusively referring to including their base load out. There's a reason we don't say that that Hive guard are 18 pts each, or Hive Tyrants are 140 pts. This is the silliest response I've heard. You've been on this forum long enough buddy.

 Amishprn86 wrote:
I even made it clear in a different post that i think its 300pts before wargear, so you knew my stance if you read it

And I do know your stance, as I did read it, and it's exactly what I responded to? Don't get confused in thinking I misunderstood you - I simply just disagreed with you. This stance here is exactly what I responded to. Your other post says the exact same thing, and refers to it as a concrete thing, with the logic of the sentence that you've misread. What you say is a given an definitive, is not a that at all, in fact the way the English language works, the opposite is true. When a qualifier is given to one of two comparative terms but not both, it's implicit that it is only in effect for one of them. Whether or not they used it correctly is the only point of contention you can really have.

Lets just put it behind, i hate rail-roading posts. And we can go on for more pages, its pointless as we dont know what GW meant, with or without gear costs.

Ice_can wrote:
The wraithknights biggest weakness is that it's in the Aeldari codex, hence the availability of doom and fortune and guide and etc all psychic buffs have to be considered for the weapons.

Which results is the weird GW points costs, it's they work out these buffs out as a percentage then tac it on across everything. So expensive models are way over and cheap units seam Ok as being 10% over on a 100 point unit is 10 points annoying but not game breaking being over by 10 % on a 400 point unit starts to show and hurt.

Question as I don't have the eldar codex can a wraitknight currently benifit from the -1 to hit Trait and -1 to hit strategum aswell?

They really don't have to be figured in. Eldar players after all are paying for the psycher to cast those powers. It's not like farseers are free after all.

 Amishprn86 wrote:
its pointless as we dont know what GW meant, with or without gear costs.

If you feel that way then stop claiming you know something definitively and using it to argue against people taking it the way that the wording suggests it was intended. My post was just fine before you showed up. Thanks.

meleti wrote:
It's more likely than not that GW intended to say Wraithknights cost 300 before weapons, given the size of the points change otherwise. Regardless, there's no need to be an ass over vague language.

Well to be fair, in the same article they called the 20% points increase to Cultists a 'slight' increase. Regarding the Wraithknight they said it would be getting an enormous points decrease. If the 300-something price didn't include weapons, it would be looking at a roughly 20% points decrease. How is that enormous if with the Cultists it was just a slight increase? Either the writers are dorks or you're wrong.

 SHUPPET wrote:

 Amishprn86 wrote:
its pointless as we dont know what GW meant, with or without gear costs.

If you feel that way then stop claiming you know something definitively and using it to argue against people taking it the way that the wording suggests it was intended. My post was just fine before you showed up. Thanks.

You were arguing a Knight is worst than a WK when clearly it isnt unless the WK does go down 200pts instead of 100pts.

So no it wasnt fine. you were acting like you knew, so stop being a hypocrite.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Therion wrote:

meleti wrote:
It's more likely than not that GW intended to say Wraithknights cost 300 before weapons, given the size of the points change otherwise. Regardless, there's no need to be an ass over vague language.

Well to be fair, in the same article they called the 20% points increase to Cultists a 'slight' increase. Regarding the Wraithknight they said it would be getting an enormous points decrease. If the 300-something price didn't include weapons, it would be looking at a roughly 20% points decrease. How is that enormous if with the Cultists it was just a slight increase? Either the writers are dorks or you're wrong.

We dont know tho, thats why we should just stop arguing about it and move on. Its getting a drop, and thats good, as is its not being played now, lets all hope its at least cheap enough to feel fun on the table

 Amishprn86 wrote:

 SHUPPET wrote:

 Amishprn86 wrote:
its pointless as we dont know what GW meant, with or without gear costs.

If you feel that way then stop claiming you know something definitively and using it to argue against people taking it the way that the wording suggests it was intended. My post was just fine before you showed up. Thanks.

You were arguing a Knight is worst than a WK when clearly it isnt unless the WK does go down 200pts instead of 100pts.

So no it wasnt fine. you were acting like you knew, so stop being a hypocrite.

Do you ever even read what you are responding to, or is it just easier to invent statements to argue against?

I didn't say anything about Knight's being worse than anything, I responded to a guy saying WK's wont see much play at all because Knights hit harder, and I pointed out that they are in a different points tier, of course the Knights will hit harder? It would absurd to claim that this is now stronger or weaker than any Knights when we don't even know the proper points costs yet, let alone seeing it on the table.

My post was absolutely fine. I think it's time for you to take a breather and slow down and read what you are responding to. I've never seen someone who misunderstands as much and as as consistently as you do, and I no longer believe it's all accidental, it feels very much like you are just building a new strawman in every post.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Amishprn86 wrote:


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Therion wrote:

meleti wrote:
It's more likely than not that GW intended to say Wraithknights cost 300 before weapons, given the size of the points change otherwise. Regardless, there's no need to be an ass over vague language.

Well to be fair, in the same article they called the 20% points increase to Cultists a 'slight' increase. Regarding the Wraithknight they said it would be getting an enormous points decrease. If the 300-something price didn't include weapons, it would be looking at a roughly 20% points decrease. How is that enormous if with the Cultists it was just a slight increase? Either the writers are dorks or you're wrong.

We dont know tho, thats why we should just stop arguing about it and move on. Its getting a drop, and thats good, as is its not being played now, lets all hope its at least cheap enough to feel fun on the table

What are you even doing in a thread about the Wraithknight getting a points decrease if we aren't allowed to talk about exactly what GW has said concerning Wraithknight getting a points decrease? lol, just stop dude.

 Therion wrote:

meleti wrote:
It's more likely than not that GW intended to say Wraithknights cost 300 before weapons, given the size of the points change otherwise. Regardless, there's no need to be an ass over vague language.

Well to be fair, in the same article they called the 20% points increase to Cultists a 'slight' increase. Regarding the Wraithknight they said it would be getting an enormous points decrease. If the 300-something price didn't include weapons, it would be looking at a roughly 20% points decrease. How is that enormous if with the Cultists it was just a slight increase? Either the writers are dorks or you're wrong.

Third option: you don’t understand the English language very well.: “Slight” could mean small in scale to the cost of the unit (such as a small percent of a very expensive unit, with high actual number of points shifted) or small in the scale of number of points being adjusted for that unit (such as here with cultists, though the percent change makes it sound higher).

Just ignoring for now. Onto the actual topic.

It could be 300pts before or after wargear.


How do you feel about each cost? Is alittle over 300 (lets say 330pts) with HWC to OP? Or just right?

That would either mean the base knight went down over 100pts, or its a mix of base and wargear, i hope the base and gear went down, but if the base went down more so the Skathach Wraithknight would be highly viable!

Why is it all your posts in this thread read like you're trying to start a fight?

The arguments here are that Wraithknights are supposed to be better than Imperial Knights, but aren't even close to being as good. The answer is not to drop them to 300pts, regardless of whether thats with or without the cost of weapons of which the War Com article was annoyingly vague on, but make them worth those 500+pts like it should be. As it stands, with the reduced cost and no other changes the Wraithknight is directly competing with Fire Prism's, Crimson Hunters and Hemlock Wraithfightes and will be the worst of the 4 because any 2 of the others will cost roughly the same but bring the same or considerably more firepower for similar or more durability.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Amishprn86 wrote:
Just ignoring for now. Onto the actual topic.

It could be 300pts before or after wargear.


How do you feel about each cost? Is alittle over 300 (lets say 330pts) with HWC to OP? Or just right?

That would either mean the base knight went down over 100pts, or its a mix of base and wargear, i hope the base and gear went down, but if the base went down more so the Skathach Wraithknight would be highly viable!

At 300 to 350pts I think a Wraithknight will be OK, if not spectacular. As I mentioned in the above post, it's biggest problem is that it's competing with Fire Prisms, Crimson Hunters and Hemlocks for the general anti tank role instead of being specialised at taking out really big things like it should be, and all 3 of those other options would still be just flat out better.

 Imateria wrote:

Spoiler:

 SHUPPET wrote:

 Amishprn86 wrote:

 SHUPPET wrote:

 Amishprn86 wrote:
its pointless as we dont know what GW meant, with or without gear costs.

If you feel that way then stop claiming you know something definitively and using it to argue against people taking it the way that the wording suggests it was intended. My post was just fine before you showed up. Thanks.

You were arguing a Knight is worst than a WK when clearly it isnt unless the WK does go down 200pts instead of 100pts.

So no it wasnt fine. you were acting like you knew, so stop being a hypocrite.

Do you ever even read what you are responding to, or is it just easier to invent statements to argue against?

I didn't say anything about Knight's being worse than anything, I responded to a guy saying WK's wont see much play at all because Knights hit harder, and I pointed out that they are in a different points tier, of course the Knights will hit harder? It would absurd to claim that this is now stronger or weaker than any Knights when we don't even know the proper points costs yet, let alone seeing it on the table.

My post was absolutely fine. I think it's time for you to take a breather and slow down and read what you are responding to. I've never seen someone who misunderstands as much and as as consistently as you do, and I no longer believe it's all accidental, it feels very much like you are just building a new strawman in every post.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Amishprn86 wrote:


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Therion wrote:

meleti wrote:
It's more likely than not that GW intended to say Wraithknights cost 300 before weapons, given the size of the points change otherwise. Regardless, there's no need to be an ass over vague language.

Well to be fair, in the same article they called the 20% points increase to Cultists a 'slight' increase. Regarding the Wraithknight they said it would be getting an enormous points decrease. If the 300-something price didn't include weapons, it would be looking at a roughly 20% points decrease. How is that enormous if with the Cultists it was just a slight increase? Either the writers are dorks or you're wrong.

We dont know tho, thats why we should just stop arguing about it and move on. Its getting a drop, and thats good, as is its not being played now, lets all hope its at least cheap enough to feel fun on the table

What are you even doing in a thread about the Wraithknight getting a points decrease if we aren't allowed to talk about exactly what GW has said concerning Wraithknight getting a points decrease? lol, just stop dude.

Why is it all your posts in this thread read like you're trying to start a fight?

Probably because you're ignoring the combative response that kicked it off, which was dictating made up facts as though they were concrete evidence just to be unnecessarily contrary to me, and unnecessarily accusing me of a holding (and arguing in support of) beliefs that I never stated or even weighed in on. These posts coincidentally seem to get directed to me every single time I post in a thread that the poster in question happens to be watching, and it's starting to get kinda tiresome.

 Imateria wrote:
The arguments here are that Wraithknights are supposed to be better than Imperial Knights, but aren't even close to being as good.

Ah, well here's your mistake, as that's not an argument I weighed in on, or even saw. Seems you agree with him on some matter that I care not for and are letting it color your perspective here a little. I just wanted to point out that obviously a 300 pt model isn't going to match a 500 pt model for offensive and defensive capability, that doesn't mean the model is going to be bad. But some people seem to really be taking issue with that point and warping it into something else entirely.

I'll be fielding mine for sure. Hoping the suncannon either gets Heavy 12 or a reduction in points. 2 starcannon shoulder weapons, a 5++, plus I tend to throw Fortune on it for another 5+++

I'm also looking to see what the wraith host will do (historically, they've been crap and not worth taking), and I'm assuming it will be all on foot. Not to mention let me have some effective wraithlords.

 Galef wrote:
But if it does mean you can get a standard WK (including 2 HWCs) at just over 300pts, than you will absolutely see them popping up in the Meta. I'll personally be taking 3 if that happens, but I really don't think it will, nor do I want a repeat of 7E cry-babying about the OP WK.

To be fair, while the WK is in a bad place now, the ‘cry-babying’ about it being OP previously was entirely reasonable and justified.

It was comfortably the most overpowered unit in 7th Edition. It was so powerful as to be an auto-include amongst a list of auto-includes. There have been more overpowered units in previous editions, but generally those were due to wonky rules writing or interactions. The WK was just straight up take a powerful, game-dominating unit and give it a wholly unfair points cost. What’s worse is that it’s the only time (ex-)GW staff have admitted to testing a unit, finding it woefully undercosted, and then being ordered to keep it that way by their financial overlords to push sales.

List diversity is a good thing so I hope the WK comes back down to earth with Chapter Approved, but you won’t find a whole lot of sympathy for the plight of the WK from people who had to put up with it last edition.

kombatwombat wrote:

 Galef wrote:
But if it does mean you can get a standard WK (including 2 HWCs) at just over 300pts, than you will absolutely see them popping up in the Meta. I'll personally be taking 3 if that happens, but I really don't think it will, nor do I want a repeat of 7E cry-babying about the OP WK.

To be fair, while the WK is in a bad place now, the ‘cry-babying’ about it being OP previously was entirely reasonable and justified.

It was comfortably the most overpowered unit in 7th Edition. It was so powerful as to be an auto-include amongst a list of auto-includes. There have been more overpowered units in previous editions, but generally those were due to wonky rules writing or interactions. The WK was just straight up take a powerful, game-dominating unit and give it a wholly unfair points cost. What’s worse is that it’s the only time (ex-)GW staff have admitted to testing a unit, finding it woefully undercosted, and then being ordered to keep it that way by their financial overlords to push sales.

List diversity is a good thing so I hope the WK comes back down to earth with Chapter Approved, but you won’t find a whole lot of sympathy for the plight of the WK from people who had to put up with it last edition.

I agree with you although I think Riptide was in competing for that top spot as most broken as well.

Sure, the Riptide was another big issue, but it wasn’t quite to the scale of a sub-300pt double-D shooting T8 Jump Gargantuan Creature with Formation bonuses and ready access to psychic buffs up to and including Invisibility. The thing took every broken rule in the game and crammed them into a package the cost of a kitted out Land Raider.

Ice_can wrote:
The wraithknights biggest weakness is that it's in the Aeldari codex, hence the availability of doom and fortune and guide and etc all psychic buffs have to be considered for the weapons.

Which results is the weird GW points costs, it's they work out these buffs out as a percentage then tac it on across everything. So expensive models are way over and cheap units seam Ok as being 10% over on a 100 point unit is 10 points annoying but not game breaking being over by 10 % on a 400 point unit starts to show and hurt.

Question as I don't have the eldar codex can a wraitknight currently benifit from the -1 to hit Trait and -1 to hit strategum aswell?

This is kind of an odd thing to say, given that Imperial Knights have an entire book of warlord traits, stratagems, etc. designed specifically for them while the wraithknight and other big walkers are just specific facets of a much more diverse army.

Sword and Board at roughly 350pts gives Eldar an option they didn't previously have, especially if you're running it Iyanden. It can outdamage a Gallant with the right support (Doom+Psytronome+Disdain Strat+Wraithsight = expected 48 damage vs a knight), fire and fade gives it an 18" movement, and it has a 5++ in shooting and CC.

I'm not saying it's as good as a Gallant, but in the right list it could be pretty close. And that's a very interesting turn for CW...

 Arachnofiend wrote:

Ice_can wrote:
The wraithknights biggest weakness is that it's in the Aeldari codex, hence the availability of doom and fortune and guide and etc all psychic buffs have to be considered for the weapons.

Which results is the weird GW points costs, it's they work out these buffs out as a percentage then tac it on across everything. So expensive models are way over and cheap units seam Ok as being 10% over on a 100 point unit is 10 points annoying but not game breaking being over by 10 % on a 400 point unit starts to show and hurt.

Question as I don't have the eldar codex can a wraitknight currently benifit from the -1 to hit Trait and -1 to hit strategum aswell?

This is kind of an odd thing to say, given that Imperial Knights have an entire book of warlord traits, stratagems, etc. designed specifically for them while the wraithknight and other big walkers are just specific facets of a much more diverse army.

Nothing in the knight codex is remotely comparable to doom guide and all the other buffs Aeldari can stack.

I'm not arguing if it right or not it's more an observation, of how it appears GW might price things as Craftworld units with doom etc don't feel too broken.
They seem to split the cost of the buff between the unit giving the buff and the units that could receive the buff.
Doom alone is worth way more than what a farsear costs, just look at Drukari and Harlequin stuff with those Craftworld buff, they are bonkers.

I really think GW meant 300pts before wargear. Why would they compare the point costs of a kitted WK with a naked one? And if they did, you can bet they would clarify it and add a "it's the best change ever for all WK owners" or some other superlative.
About 100pts cheaper (probably around ~90pts) is decent. It's not going to make WKs competitive, but they'll be okay in casual games, whereas at the moment they're really dead weight.
I also don't think the weapons changed (cost or stats), because they would have hinted it otherwise.

fresus wrote:
I really think GW meant 300pts before wargear. Why would they compare the point costs of a kitted WK with a naked one? And if they did, you can bet they would clarify it and add a "it's the best change ever for all WK owners" or some other superlative.
About 100pts cheaper (probably around ~90pts) is decent. It's not going to make WKs competitive, but they'll be okay in casual games, whereas at the moment they're really dead weight.
I also don't think the weapons changed (cost or stats), because they would have hinted it otherwise.

To show how much of a drop it was. Just over 300 kitted out, when a naked one was over 100 points illustrates how significant of a change there was, which is what they were trying to point out.

at 300 points before weapons it s a welcome change and whiel not the best back to seeing play sometimes... at 300 with weapons its now back to one of the best models in the game. at 350-375ish with weapons its probably a decent balanced place ...

that said again how the actual F&$% can they do that drop , justify the imperial knights costs being as low as they are, and STILL have charged current points for a God D*#% Stompa.

Also keep in mind just how vague the wording is in that article. "Just over 300pts" can mean anyway between 301-330ish

If the WK is ~305pts before weapons and those weapons still bring it around ~400pts, it's better, but not game changing. WK will still be worse in all regards to IKs, while at the same time not offer anything to an Eldar list that can't be filled with other, cheaper, options.

If, however, the WK is ~305pts after adding weapons, well, we are in business and the WK is clearly a good choice. The downside is that it will invite OP complaining (which was justified in 7E), but I really don't think it should be the same as 8E has far more weapons capable of dropping a WK or IK in 1 round than existing in 7E. Especially when the HWC variant has no invul.

-

 Imateria wrote:

Spoiler:

 SHUPPET wrote:

 Amishprn86 wrote:

 SHUPPET wrote:

 Amishprn86 wrote:
its pointless as we dont know what GW meant, with or without gear costs.

If you feel that way then stop claiming you know something definitively and using it to argue against people taking it the way that the wording suggests it was intended. My post was just fine before you showed up. Thanks.

You were arguing a Knight is worst than a WK when clearly it isnt unless the WK does go down 200pts instead of 100pts.

So no it wasnt fine. you were acting like you knew, so stop being a hypocrite.

Do you ever even read what you are responding to, or is it just easier to invent statements to argue against?

I didn't say anything about Knight's being worse than anything, I responded to a guy saying WK's wont see much play at all because Knights hit harder, and I pointed out that they are in a different points tier, of course the Knights will hit harder? It would absurd to claim that this is now stronger or weaker than any Knights when we don't even know the proper points costs yet, let alone seeing it on the table.

My post was absolutely fine. I think it's time for you to take a breather and slow down and read what you are responding to. I've never seen someone who misunderstands as much and as as consistently as you do, and I no longer believe it's all accidental, it feels very much like you are just building a new strawman in every post.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Amishprn86 wrote:


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Therion wrote:

meleti wrote:
It's more likely than not that GW intended to say Wraithknights cost 300 before weapons, given the size of the points change otherwise. Regardless, there's no need to be an ass over vague language.

Well to be fair, in the same article they called the 20% points increase to Cultists a 'slight' increase. Regarding the Wraithknight they said it would be getting an enormous points decrease. If the 300-something price didn't include weapons, it would be looking at a roughly 20% points decrease. How is that enormous if with the Cultists it was just a slight increase? Either the writers are dorks or you're wrong.

We dont know tho, thats why we should just stop arguing about it and move on. Its getting a drop, and thats good, as is its not being played now, lets all hope its at least cheap enough to feel fun on the table

What are you even doing in a thread about the Wraithknight getting a points decrease if we aren't allowed to talk about exactly what GW has said concerning Wraithknight getting a points decrease? lol, just stop dude.

Why is it all your posts in this thread read like you're trying to start a fight?

The arguments here are that Wraithknights are supposed to be better than Imperial Knights, but aren't even close to being as good. The answer is not to drop them to 300pts, regardless of whether thats with or without the cost of weapons of which the War Com article was annoyingly vague on, but make them worth those 500+pts like it should be. As it stands, with the reduced cost and no other changes the Wraithknight is directly competing with Fire Prism's, Crimson Hunters and Hemlock Wraithfightes and will be the worst of the 4 because any 2 of the others will cost roughly the same but bring the same or considerably more firepower for similar or more durability.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Amishprn86 wrote:
Just ignoring for now. Onto the actual topic.

It could be 300pts before or after wargear.


How do you feel about each cost? Is alittle over 300 (lets say 330pts) with HWC to OP? Or just right?

That would either mean the base knight went down over 100pts, or its a mix of base and wargear, i hope the base and gear went down, but if the base went down more so the Skathach Wraithknight would be highly viable!

At 300 to 350pts I think a Wraithknight will be OK, if not spectacular. As I mentioned in the above post, it's biggest problem is that it's competing with Fire Prisms, Crimson Hunters and Hemlocks for the general anti tank role instead of being specialised at taking out really big things like it should be, and all 3 of those other options would still be just flat out better.

\

Has anyone brought any of those but the hemlock this entire edition? I forgot fire prisms were even a thing.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Mmmpi wrote:

Ice_can wrote:
The wraithknights biggest weakness is that it's in the Aeldari codex, hence the availability of doom and fortune and guide and etc all psychic buffs have to be considered for the weapons.

Which results is the weird GW points costs, it's they work out these buffs out as a percentage then tac it on across everything. So expensive models are way over and cheap units seam Ok as being 10% over on a 100 point unit is 10 points annoying but not game breaking being over by 10 % on a 400 point unit starts to show and hurt.

Question as I don't have the eldar codex can a wraitknight currently benifit from the -1 to hit Trait and -1 to hit strategum aswell?

They really don't have to be figured in. Eldar players after all are paying for the psycher to cast those powers. It's not like farseers are free after all.

might as well be.

Fire Prisms are incredibly effective when three are taken as they have some nice synergy thanks to a stratagem.

As for your comment on Farseers, you are showing what the larger community misunderstands about the Craftworld Faction. Synergy makes them good. With the exception of Reapers, nothing else is really overpowered on its own.