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.

 mokoshkana wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 mokoshkana wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 mokoshkana wrote:
So your entire premise relies on the WK being Iyanden and having a Spiritseer, who only allow rerolls of 1's when an enemy unit is within 6" of the them, so 2's still miss, keep up with it? That doesn't make them remotely close to good...

12" with Wraithsight

It doesn't need to be OP to be good. If you think the WK isn't even "remotely close to good" then there isn't much else we can discuss.

On its own, the WK is not even remotely close to being good compared to the IK. If you take a specific craftworld and spend tons of points on other models and CP to buff the WK, it starts to look better, while the IK needs a few CP and its off and running.

Make no mistake, I don't want the WK to be OP like it was in 7th edition, but I would love to see if be better, especially the sword variant. The sword should grant 2 attacks per base attack or something of that nature as it gives up shooting capabilities, and the stomp is generally better in every scenario due to weight of dice. The Suncannon should NOT have variable shots, or at the very least be 6 + D6. Also, the model really should come with a 6+++ stock from spirit stones, or the ability to at least purchase that buff.

And what does it take to get all that CP for the knight?

Good ol' Loyal 32! You can get an extra 5CP for roughly 200 points (I'm not sure of the exact number) and everything just works unless you happen to be playing someone with Agents of Vect. For the WK to be pumped up, you need a Farseer (who doesn't fail a test or get powers denied), a Spiritseer (which has to keep up with a WK that is nigh double its speed), a relic, the Iyanden trait, and the CP on top of it all. The WK takes an entire team to make it viable, while the IK only takes the CP from whatever army you brought.

Except your know using multiple codex's to justify why your mono codex knight, who can benifit from psychic powers, auras, etc should be able to 1v1 a unit who has no such thing's, also has no obsec, no in codex screening and a weakness in CC.

It's ignoring the downsides your not seeing while over emphasising the ones you do see, classic observational bias.

8th edition has a problem in cross codex synergies never being considered by the game designer's. How do you fix that outside of re-educating the design team?
I have no idea but it's where this edition is.

HuskyWarhammer wrote:


I mean, we can make pretty much any unit good if we add enough support to it. That seems to be what the people who think WK is fine don't seem to understand - in order to get it to something that's middle-of-the-road good, you have to invest a massive amount of resources.

Except you just added 200 points of units to make the Knight good, but somehow that's different. Somehow a dude staying within 12" is hard. Again, aceing a super heavy in one round of combat when the WK is on 7 wounds is not middle of the road good.

Getting a 5++/5+++ is damn near as good as a 3++, which is THREE CP on the Castellan and requires a WL trait, but getting a spell off is a massive investment?

Having an always on invuln is better than one that exists for shooting only. Knights might also be a little undercosted. Does dropping the WK 30 points suddenly making it as good as knights? I doubt it makes that much of a difference when taking one of them.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

HuskyWarhammer wrote:


I mean, we can make pretty much any unit good if we add enough support to it. That seems to be what the people who think WK is fine don't seem to understand - in order to get it to something that's middle-of-the-road good, you have to invest a massive amount of resources.

Except you just added 200 points of units to make the Knight good, but somehow that's different.

No, I didn't. That was another poster. I hope you pay more attention to your analysis of 40k units than you do to detail of whom you're responding to.

HuskyWarhammer wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

HuskyWarhammer wrote:


I mean, we can make pretty much any unit good if we add enough support to it. That seems to be what the people who think WK is fine don't seem to understand - in order to get it to something that's middle-of-the-road good, you have to invest a massive amount of resources.

Except you just added 200 points of units to make the Knight good, but somehow that's different.

No, I didn't. That was another poster. I hope you pay more attention to your analysis of 40k units than you do to detail of whom you're responding to.

And how exactly are you making the IK with damn near the same stats much better than the WK? Hopes and dreams?

 Daedalus81 wrote:

HuskyWarhammer wrote:


I mean, we can make pretty much any unit good if we add enough support to it. That seems to be what the people who think WK is fine don't seem to understand - in order to get it to something that's middle-of-the-road good, you have to invest a massive amount of resources.

Except you just added 200 points of units to make the Knight good, but somehow that's different. Somehow a dude staying within 12" is hard. Again, aceing a super heavy in one round of combat when the WK is on 7 wounds is not middle of the road good.

Getting a 5++/5+++ is damn near as good as a 3++, which is THREE CP on the Castellan and requires a WL trait, but getting a spell off is a massive investment?

Having an always on invuln is better than one that exists for shooting only. Knights might also be a little undercosted. Does dropping the WK 30 points suddenly making it as good as knights? I doubt it makes that much of a difference when taking one of them.

What are you comparing here? You're talking about giving a Castellan a 3++ but comparing it to a WK with an invuln. So, either a choppy WK (which, let's compare that to a Gallant or Lancer and see how that goes), or a WK with the Suncannon (and let's compare that to the Avenger Gatling Cannon). I'm not sure how these are comparable, and if they are, how could the WK possibly come out as competitive?

Also, again, the Spiritseer is not staying within 12'' of the WK. It's staying within 12'' of the TARGET. If you're in melee that's probably the same thing, but again, why compare to a Castellan in that case? Let me tell you though, it's pretty easy to kill a Spiritseer within 12'' and that's a significant weakness an IK never has to worry with. And as I said, taking a Spiritseer means you've either got 2 Iyanden detachments (bleh), or you've got a Supreme Command Detachment (so 2 HQs that you may not want to pay for otherwise.)

I'm not saying that the Wraithknight is bad at this stage. But direct comparisons to the comparable Imperial Knights result in viewing GW with at best incompetence and at worst favoritism to sell more expensive new kits.

I'm sorry, I'm a bit confused here - are some people saying the tapdance of doom combo is hard to get off? Why? It requires a) one HQ model being within 6" b) you having built your army to enable it and c) to get the full 33 dead GEQs, 4cps and the relic on the same HQ. Zero casts required.

It's just that; getting a fast large-based unit into combat with something(s) you want dead, alongside a fast little dude jumping out and buffing it in standard 6" bubble range. Why act like this is god-tier play? If you want to make it less CP intensive, you don't even need the wraith host & +1 attack strat. You still get a monster round of CC, but then your WK can't crutch on its Spirit Seer's 4++. It's your choice.

Why act like this kind of play is impossible to realise? It's the kind of thing we do all the time when listbuilding & deploying our armies. I've only played with the combo in 3 games, but it went off in both games where the WK wasn't nuked off the board T1, and I'm a distinctly average player

If you think the WK/IK comparison is bad you need to take a deep breath then look at the Stompa.

There's a limit at what you can do with points before it becomes a bit absurd. Fix rules (abilities, weapons), not points.

 Gene St. Ealer wrote:


What are you comparing here? You're talking about giving a Castellan a 3++ but comparing it to a WK with an invuln. So, either a choppy WK (which, let's compare that to a Gallant or Lancer and see how that goes), or a WK with the Suncannon (and let's compare that to the Avenger Gatling Cannon). I'm not sure how these are comparable, and if they are, how could the WK possibly come out as competitive?

Also, again, the Spiritseer is not staying within 12'' of the WK. It's staying within 12'' of the TARGET. If you're in melee that's probably the same thing, but again, why compare to a Castellan in that case? Let me tell you though, it's pretty easy to kill a Spiritseer within 12'' and that's a significant weakness an IK never has to worry with. And as I said, taking a Spiritseer means you've either got 2 Iyanden detachments (bleh), or you've got a Supreme Command Detachment (so 2 HQs that you may not want to pay for otherwise.)

I'm not saying that the Wraithknight is bad at this stage. But direct comparisons to the comparable Imperial Knights result in viewing GW with at best incompetence and at worst favoritism to sell more expensive new kits.

Guided Wraightsight is a reroll to hit bubble with 12".

Psytronome is a 6" bubble that gives all wraiths double attacks. A close range wraith army (one just did very well at a tournament) will NOT allow a Spiritseer to be vulnerable.

Here's the problem as I see it --

IKs supported by hundreds of points of units, stratagems, relics, and WL traits? AWESOME! WKs supported by hundreds of points of units, stratagems, relics, and WL traits? SO UNREALISTIC! SO BAD!

I think the fundamental problem is people comparing any LOW to a Knight.

I play a Baneblade company, and more than once I've had people from GW managers to regular players ask me "have you considered replacing those with Knights? You'd do much better."

Yeah, I probably would. Knights are considerably better than Baneblades if you put the effort into supporting them.

THAT SAID, IG superheavies are fairly well costed, so I'm not shocked they're merely adequate compared to the goodness of an Imperial Knight army. How does the Wraithknight compare with an IG Superheavy, say, the Hellhammer?

I honestly feel the best way to fix Stompa's Baneblades, Wraith Knights, and to some extent even normal tanks and dreadnoughts is to move Machine Spirit Resurgent (Play at first of turn, allows a vehicle to operate as if it had lost no wounds, 1 CP) to the generic all have access to it list.

Ohh and rename it.

Reemule wrote:
I honestly feel the best way to fix Stompa's Baneblades, Wraith Knights, and to some extent even normal tanks and dreadnoughts is to move Machine Spirit Resurgent (Play at first of turn, allows a vehicle to operate as if it had lost no wounds, 1 CP) to the generic all have access to it list.

Ohh and rename it.

I'd also say maximize the knights invuln at a 4++, and only with Rotate Ion Shields. Remove Ion Bulwark, replace with "Bulwark" and it gives +1 to armor saves or always counts as in cover or something. It's kind if irritating to see lists that can table two or three Baneblades a turn, because they think they have to one-round a 3++ Castellan. No wonder elites are struggling; people are bringing 10e17 antitank guns in every list.

 grouchoben wrote:
Iyanden Wraith host strat: +1 attack characteristic, psytronome to double attack characteristics, spiritseer strat to reroll all misses, supreme disdain makes all attacks explode on a 6+, each giving 3 more stomps (confirmed by rules writers apparently, can't source I'm afraid)

=33 stomped guardsmen.

Cost is 1 cp for host, then 1 for +1 strat, 1 for disdain, one for seer strat, plus a one-use relic. It's a very hefty bill and you have to build around it, but the combo is feasible and curbstomps most things if it goes off.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

HuskyWarhammer wrote:
Wraithknights are so close to being a reasonable unit. Give them a 5+ FNP and call it a day, or maybe free shoulder weapons. Buff the suncannon a little - make it a solid 12 shots.

Agreed, it's their weapons that stink. Suncannon @ 12 would make such a big difference, bringing it into line with the avenger. Would make my day!

You are to optimistic, the star have to be aligned very good for this to happen.
First you are counting you will play first and get in good position, the opponent can just screen his units and make you enable to engage 40 models.
Second 3+ and 5++ model can be removed before you get the change to engage, you can cast quicken but the spiritseer can`t follow.
Third spiritseer is still slow 7` + 1d6(or +1cp for 6`), that is only 13` and its possible that you are not to go in melee with all the extra attacks.
Forth couple of smash captains countercharge can destroy or do critical damage to the WK before he even use the attacks.
Fifth 33 guards are 132 pts, the opponent counter engage will destroy your WR and spiritseer and you lose 400 pts, 1/5 from your army. Not the most efficient exchange.
Next do math on stompa and tell orc players it`s good....

There is no real game related reason that WK to be worst and more expensive than IK. WK success from previous edition is good enough for them and they are not in hurry to sell more models.
The eldar sets also sell alot of non top units and GW are content with the sales, since the best units are sold for enough cash.
For instance you don`t get any discount from the bikes farseer and warlock box. There is no cheap or easy way to create bikers army.
DR box is cost effective in the moment and that is on of the reason of the DR spam.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

HuskyWarhammer wrote:


I mean, we can make pretty much any unit good if we add enough support to it. That seems to be what the people who think WK is fine don't seem to understand - in order to get it to something that's middle-of-the-road good, you have to invest a massive amount of resources.

Except you just added 200 points of units to make the Knight good, but somehow that's different. Somehow a dude staying within 12" is hard. Again, aceing a super heavy in one round of combat when the WK is on 7 wounds is not middle of the road good.

How do you figure that automatically "acing a super heavy" is happening?

 grouchoben wrote:
I'm sorry, I'm a bit confused here - are some people saying the tapdance of doom combo is hard to get off? Why? It requires a) one HQ model being within 6" b) you having built your army to enable it and c) to get the full 33 dead GEQs, 4cps and the relic on the same HQ. Zero casts required.

It's just that; getting a fast large-based unit into combat with something(s) you want dead, alongside a fast little dude jumping out and buffing it in standard 6" bubble range. Why act like this is god-tier play? If you want to make it less CP intensive, you don't even need the wraith host & +1 attack strat. You still get a monster round of CC, but then your WK can't crutch on its Spirit Seer's 4++. It's your choice.

Why act like this kind of play is impossible to realise? It's the kind of thing we do all the time when listbuilding & deploying our armies. I've only played with the combo in 3 games, but it went off in both games where the WK wasn't nuked off the board T1, and I'm a distinctly average player

The spirit seer has to be within 7" of the ENEMY unit in order to grant any rerolls to the WK. Since you have to take the Psytronome on your Spiritseer, that means his move is locked at 7" + d6 every turn, which on average means 10.5" which is going to fall behind the base movement of the WK. On the turn the WK charges, he is going to move away from the Spiritseer, unless somehow your opponent was baited into moving the preferred target unit into the threat range of the Spiritseer and the WK. It's really not the hardest combo to pull off, but don't act like its a guarantee either. It is also a massive points and CP sink in order to get off. At the end of it, you're killing 33 GEQ? Wow, that's impressive....

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Gene St. Ealer wrote:


What are you comparing here? You're talking about giving a Castellan a 3++ but comparing it to a WK with an invuln. So, either a choppy WK (which, let's compare that to a Gallant or Lancer and see how that goes), or a WK with the Suncannon (and let's compare that to the Avenger Gatling Cannon). I'm not sure how these are comparable, and if they are, how could the WK possibly come out as competitive?

Also, again, the Spiritseer is not staying within 12'' of the WK. It's staying within 12'' of the TARGET. If you're in melee that's probably the same thing, but again, why compare to a Castellan in that case? Let me tell you though, it's pretty easy to kill a Spiritseer within 12'' and that's a significant weakness an IK never has to worry with. And as I said, taking a Spiritseer means you've either got 2 Iyanden detachments (bleh), or you've got a Supreme Command Detachment (so 2 HQs that you may not want to pay for otherwise.)

I'm not saying that the Wraithknight is bad at this stage. But direct comparisons to the comparable Imperial Knights result in viewing GW with at best incompetence and at worst favoritism to sell more expensive new kits.

Guided Wraightsight is a reroll to hit bubble with 12".

Psytronome is a 6" bubble that gives all wraiths double attacks. A close range wraith army (one just did very well at a tournament) will NOT allow a Spiritseer to be vulnerable.

Here's the problem as I see it --

IKs supported by hundreds of points of units, stratagems, relics, and WL traits? AWESOME! WKs supported by hundreds of points of units, stratagems, relics, and WL traits? SO UNREALISTIC! SO BAD!

Tell me more about that "close range Wraith army". Are you referring to the one in the tournament (I forget the name, sorry), where you essentially could hide infantry in buildings where they couldn't be shot at, making it almost impossible to overcome the high toughness of the Wraiths? Yes, that would tend to make a Wraith army work. If you can find literally 1 other example of a list like that being successful, I will be gobsmacked.

And here's the problem as I see it: based on model size and performance in previous editions, Eldar players want a plastic superheavy that's comparable with an Imperial Knight (maybe that's wrong, but GW didn't touch the Knights at all in Chapter Approved and in fact slightly buffed them, so I don't think that's an absurd wish for Eldar players)

So I'll give you:

IKs supported by hundreds of points of units, stratagems, relics, and WL traits? AWESOME! WKs supported by hundreds of points of units, stratagems, relics, and WL traits? SO UNREALISTIC! SO BAD!

If you give me:

Base IK without strats, WL traits, or relics? STILL PRETTY AWESOME! WKs without strats, WL traits, or relics? PRETTY FREAKING MEH!

Can't the wraithknight use lightning fast reactions to get -1 to hit as well to improve survivability?

Bringing knights into the game as a standalone army was a huge mistake for balance. Cool models....massive balance upset. You cannot beat them if you didn't plan to fight knights.

Can't the wraithknight use lightning fast reactions to get -1 to hit as well to improve survivability?

No.

How does the Wraithknight compare with an IG Superheavy

IG Superheavies focus on doing one thing good (shooting) and deleting a target per turn, and are quite effective at it. So pretty poorly. I'd be pretty happy with something as neat as Vostroyan Shadowsword.

IK are way too good, so we shouldn't try to balance against them.

I think the WK at its current cost isn't too bad. It needs some tuning, but overall it's getting there. I'm not of the opinion that each variant should have an invul. I really don't like the current trend of "if it doesn't have a good invul or cheap wounds it's trash". I actually think the way it's done on the WK is clever: if you want to give an invul to your big monster, you loose a weapon arm.
But the profiles should reflect that: two cannons no shield should give the best damage output, sword and shield should be the cheap CC build, and cannon/shield the compromise between damage output and durability.

I mostly play with the sword variant, and sadly never use its profile because the feet are just superior. It should definitely increase the CC output of the knight. Maybe a rule similar to that of the chainsword, where you get bonus attacks that must be done with the profile.

Maybe a rule similar to that of the chainsword, where you get bonus attacks that must be done with the profile.

If renegade knight has 2 CCW they get +1A and WS2+.

 Shadenuat wrote:

Maybe a rule similar to that of the chainsword, where you get bonus attacks that must be done with the profile.

If renegade knight has 2 CCW they get +1A and WS2+.

I'm still not sure that would be enough for the Sword variant, even if that only applied to the sword. I'd rather see the sword double the number of attacks, making it very useful against other Super Heavies.

 iGuy91 wrote:


Bringing knights into the game as a standalone army was a huge mistake for balance. Cool models....massive balance upset. You cannot beat them if you didn't plan to fight knights.

Well, I feel you are wrong. Stand Alone knights is Mono Knights. Knight issues are in general related to Soup issues.

Reemule wrote:

 iGuy91 wrote:


Bringing knights into the game as a standalone army was a huge mistake for balance. Cool models....massive balance upset. You cannot beat them if you didn't plan to fight knights.

Well, I feel you are wrong. Stand Alone knights is Mono Knights. Knight issues are in general related to Soup issues.

Standalone Knights are a skew list that invalidate anything not built around being able to kill a hundred T8 wounds with an Invulnerable save. Knight issues on tournament tables are absolutely related to soup, but allowing Knights as a Codex screws all-comers armies on a casual level to the degree that you might as well refuse the game unless you're playing a tournament list with only the most efficient 5% of the game or have built a "this is my anti-Knights" tailored list ahead of time.

 AnomanderRake wrote:

Reemule wrote:

 iGuy91 wrote:


Bringing knights into the game as a standalone army was a huge mistake for balance. Cool models....massive balance upset. You cannot beat them if you didn't plan to fight knights.

Well, I feel you are wrong. Stand Alone knights is Mono Knights. Knight issues are in general related to Soup issues.

Standalone Knights are a skew list that invalidate anything not built around being able to kill a hundred T8 wounds with an Invulnerable save. Knight issues on tournament tables are absolutely related to soup, but allowing Knights as a Codex screws all-comers armies on a casual level to the degree that you might as well refuse the game unless you're playing a tournament list with only the most efficient 5% of the game or have built a "this is my anti-Knights" tailored list ahead of time.

I am a Knight aficionado, but I agree. They should have been a part of Ad Mech codex. Then again, nothing is stopping one from playing an army of nothing but IG superheavy tanks either.

fresus wrote:
IK are way too good, so we shouldn't try to balance against them.

The problem with this viewpoint is that GW has proven they don't agree. With CA and the discussions surrounding this book, they stated the goal of not nerfing the strong stuff, and instead bringing the weak stuff up to the same level. So based on their party line, the Imperial Knights codex (and Dark Eldar codex, and others) are the ideal. GW thinks they can do this with points (and I guess they could, if we go reductio ad absurdum on lotsa stuff), but I don't think it's possible.

 iGuy91 wrote:
Can't the wraithknight use lightning fast reactions to get -1 to hit as well to improve survivability?

No it cannot, because LFRs requires its target be Infantry or have FLY, which the WK has neither. The same goes for every Runes of Battle power for Warlocks/Spiritseers. Those only target friendly Infantry/Bike units.
Eldar may have tons of ways to buff units, but less than half of those work on the WK, and all that do require further points investment/CPs.
IKs, otoh, get buffs without having to spend on non-combat Characters and get access to super cheap Guard Battalions to generate the CPs they want to use.

So there really is no reason the WK should be MORE expensive than an equivalent IK. If anything, IKs should be more expensive (but only just a little)
But I would settle for their base cost being the same, either by bringing WKs down to 285, or IKs up to 315 (preferably the later)

I've also recently suggested that the main IK chasis be bumped to T7 with no other change. That would justify the points difference, while also making a bunch of weapons just slightly more effective against IKs.
That way you'd have the baby-Knights at T7/12Ws, the 5 variants at T7/24Ws and the more recent entries remain T8/28Ws (I think it's 28)

-

 Gene St. Ealer wrote:

fresus wrote:
IK are way too good, so we shouldn't try to balance against them.

The problem with this viewpoint is that GW has proven they don't agree. With CA and the discussions surrounding this book, they stated the goal of not nerfing the strong stuff, and instead bringing the weak stuff up to the same level. So based on their party line, the Imperial Knights codex (and Dark Eldar codex, and others) are the ideal. GW thinks they can do this with points (and I guess they could, if we go reductio ad absurdum on lotsa stuff), but I don't think it's possible.

We know the party line is "push the power creep so people have to buy the new stuff to keep up", it's been that way at least since 5e came along and started pushing size creep out of control.

This isn't an argument about what GW is likely to do; we know what GW is likely to do (make the things that weren't good in the last book good in the next book until everyone who has that army has bought everything, then nerf the book into the ground so they buy another army and start the cycle over again). The argument is about what would be better for the game.

If your only interested in slamming shut barn doors after all livestock have excaped, go for it.

But reality is Knights are here. They are the other side of the coin of the 200 chaff boys army. They balance the meta.

As a Knight player, the durability issue is a red herring. You don't win off having stuff on the table at the end of the game. You only avoid losing from being tabled.

You win from having points. And Knight have significant disadvantages in scoring points.

Reemule wrote:
If your only interested in slamming shut barn doors after all livestock have excaped, go for it.

But reality is Knights are here. They are the other side of the coin of the 200 chaff boys army. They balance the meta.

As a Knight player, the durability issue is a red herring. You don't win off having stuff on the table at the end of the game. You only avoid losing from being tabled.

You win from having points. And Knight have significant disadvantages in scoring points.

Which is certainly true.
But winning just on points, but still having an uphill battle taking out units isn't much fun.

The "bad" Knight lists actually aren't all Knights. They are Knights with Guard chaff for scoring. So not only can you lose, but lose while not having a fun game (which is the absolute worst thing possible in this game)
A bump to a 315ppm base cost and 5ppm Guard Infantry would mitigate this dramatically.

-

Thats not going to happen. GW has been fairly smart in that they have shown they are not going to go after the Dakka Dakka Straw man.

Witness the Castellan that so many thought would go up in points.. till it didn't.

As you said, the problem is soup, so your basically feeling soup should be nerfed. Thats fine, but why do you put that in a knight thread, people will think Knights need to be nerfed.

Soup is certainly the issue, yes. But GW has made it quite clear they will not address that.
So all we can do is hope they address the worst ingredient of Soup, which ATM are Knights and Guard.
The issue with Knights is that they effectively ignore over half the weapons out there by having T8 and have strats that then make the other half of weapons virtually useless as well (albeit just on 1 Knight).
Guard, of course, are just too cheap.

But then you add in that the WK just got a much needed decrease, but is still more expensive than the objectively better IK and is adds salt to a situation that should be easily resolved, but isn't.

-