Imperial Knights should be T7?

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.

**Ice_can**

Wyldhunt wrote:
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Sorry, but at the price point Knights are at, it would be silly to have Bolters wound them on a 5+ without giving them more wounds.

A simple price hike would be better. They're at the correct durability feel, but need to definitely be more expensive. 50-100 is fine, but anything else might be overboard.

I'm not necessarily opposed to upping the wounds on a knight if they went down to T7. I'm approaching this issue less from a "knights need to be nerfed," angle and more from a, "knights are non-interactive and invalidate half the units in the game," angle. There is definitely a reasonable argument to be made for knights needing to be powered down a bit, but that's not really my goal here. You could slap extra wounds onto knights so that their overall durability balanced out to be about the same as it is now. At T7, at least all the strength 4 stuff in my army would feel like it was able to participate in the game, and my strength 7 and 8 guns would feel like they were consistently whittling the knight down rather than being ignored 1/2 or 2/3rds of the time.

It's also worth mentioning that this is mostly a problem with lists that are built around knights doing most of the work. If the only knight presence in my opponent's list is a single paladin, then my strength 4 elements probably have plenty to do. They can go fight the other stuff in your army while my big guns focus on the knight. The problem is when a buffed up castellan is the offensive lynchpin of your army or when I'm facing nothing but T8. At that point, the strength 4 stuff in my army feels like it's not really even worth the time it takes to move models and roll dice.

And the issue is mostly unique to knights because of their ability to walk out of combat with infantry without any real downside. If I were facing a wall of russes, at least my strength 4 stuff could tie them up in melee.

The best advice I can give you if your playing against knights lists, is stop doing the dumbest move that everyone keeps trying to of out killing the knights.
Play to your strengths and their weaknesses of objectives and primary and secondary missions.

90% of the people complaining about knights being OP are loosing because they haven't done anything but try and out kill them.

**VoidSempai**

Togusa wrote:
Galef wrote:
But a drop to T7 would allow more weapons to cause wounds to get that invul to fail. It's a slight change, but one that could make a noticeable different.
It would also give bolter spam a somewhat decent boost.

If IKs don't get T7, then WKs should be T9. That would affect even fewer weapons (only S8 and S9 would notice any difference).
The basic premise of this change is "Wraithlord is to Dreadnought as WK is to IK", backed up by most AV13 tanks being T7, and IK (being wlkers) having more "vulnerable" spots due to more moving parts being exposed compared to a box on wheels

-

they're giant heavily armored robots the size of buildings, infantry guns shouldn't be able to hurt them at all...

I'll do you one better, they're giant HUMANOID robot. They shouldn't be staying upright, let alone walk without collapsing under they're own weight

**Slayer-Fan123**

Ice_can wrote:
Wyldhunt wrote:
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Sorry, but at the price point Knights are at, it would be silly to have Bolters wound them on a 5+ without giving them more wounds.

A simple price hike would be better. They're at the correct durability feel, but need to definitely be more expensive. 50-100 is fine, but anything else might be overboard.

I'm not necessarily opposed to upping the wounds on a knight if they went down to T7. I'm approaching this issue less from a "knights need to be nerfed," angle and more from a, "knights are non-interactive and invalidate half the units in the game," angle. There is definitely a reasonable argument to be made for knights needing to be powered down a bit, but that's not really my goal here. You could slap extra wounds onto knights so that their overall durability balanced out to be about the same as it is now. At T7, at least all the strength 4 stuff in my army would feel like it was able to participate in the game, and my strength 7 and 8 guns would feel like they were consistently whittling the knight down rather than being ignored 1/2 or 2/3rds of the time.

It's also worth mentioning that this is mostly a problem with lists that are built around knights doing most of the work. If the only knight presence in my opponent's list is a single paladin, then my strength 4 elements probably have plenty to do. They can go fight the other stuff in your army while my big guns focus on the knight. The problem is when a buffed up castellan is the offensive lynchpin of your army or when I'm facing nothing but T8. At that point, the strength 4 stuff in my army feels like it's not really even worth the time it takes to move models and roll dice.

And the issue is mostly unique to knights because of their ability to walk out of combat with infantry without any real downside. If I were facing a wall of russes, at least my strength 4 stuff could tie them up in melee.

The best advice I can give you if your playing against knights lists, is stop doing the dumbest move that everyone keeps trying to of out killing the knights.
Play to your strengths and their weaknesses of objectives and primary and secondary missions.

90% of the people complaining about knights being OP are loosing because they haven't done anything but try and out kill them.

Only certain armies have the bodies and/or wounds to hold objectives for that long against Knight shooting and melee.

**_SeeD_**

Wyldhunt wrote:
Yeah. I was pitching T7 knights to my gaming group the other day. To me, it's not so much about nerfing knights (although they do kind of need it) as it is about making them more interactive. At the moment, knights' ability to walk out of combat without penalty, easily smash most units that might want to try to lock them in combat, and shrug off small arms fire (i.e. the theoretical majority of your guns in a vanilla list) makes them feel really non-interactive. It's like they can basically ignore any part of your army that isn't at least strength 5.

Lowering them to Toughness 7 suddenly makes everything strength 4 in the game have a 1/3rd chance of forcing them to roll a save. Strength 8 weapons like melta and bright lances are wounding them most of the time instead of half the time. Strength 7 weapons like Tau missiles and autocannons (which are often pretty spammable) are suddenly wounding the knight often enough to chip away at them.

Regardless of how this would impact the overall power level of knights (it would nerf them), it would make it much easier for a vanilla army in a pickup game to meaningfully interact with them.

QFE
At 8T, IKs just ignore half of your army. The entire 2018 CA revolved around the cost of IKs. I still think they are stupidly OP. There are some good strategies for dealing with 1 knight. But when they bring 2 or 3, it's a dick move. If your army has any 4s on their statline, you're fethed.

**Galef**

BCB actually had an interesting suggestion in another thread:
T7 Knights with 2+ armour.

Make weapons that are S7 & S8 much better at wounding, but you end up still needing weapons that have AP-3 or better. Bolters would on 5+, but with a 2+ armour, it comes out about statistically that same as being T8/3+.

But at the end of the day, a points bump to about 315ppm base and a cap on their invul to 4++ would be more than satisfactory.

-

**BaconCatBug**

T7 with 2+sv would fix so much it's not even funny.

The real problem ofc is the 3++, I think Rotate Ion Shields should cap at 4++ so it's no longer a problem combo with the Warlord Trait.

**Horst**

BaconCatBug wrote:
T7 with 2+sv would fix so much it's not even funny.

The real problem ofc is the 3++, I think Rotate Ion Shields should cap at 4++ so it's no longer a problem combo with the Warlord Trait.

Or just make it so Rotate Ion Shields grants an invulnerable save in Close Combat equal to the invulnerable save you have vs ranged attacks. It doesn't sit right with me that the counter to Knights is melee, but some armies just don't have access to that counter. Guard and Tau don't really have an option except shooting it, so Guard have to compensate by allying in marines, but tau doesn't have that luxury. This would make Knights a more well-rounded unit, in that they can stand up to heavy melee units better (because they just get smashed right now without an invuln) but aren't immune to shooting.

**w1zard**

Or just remove the warlord trait that gives +1 to invuln saves. That is a completely stupid trait, and brokenly powerful on a knight.

**Horst**

w1zard wrote:
Or just remove the warlord trait that gives +1 to invuln saves. That is a completely stupid trait, and brokenly powerful on a knight.

If we're just getting rid of broken OP things on knights, might as well get rid of the "re-roll all one's" stratagem and the "always fight at full strength" stratagem. Knights just have a massive collection of all the most broken possible rules.

**Galef**

Horst wrote:
w1zard wrote:
Or just remove the warlord trait that gives +1 to invuln saves. That is a completely stupid trait, and brokenly powerful on a knight.

If we're just getting rid of broken OP things on knights, might as well get rid of the "re-roll all one's" stratagem and the "always fight at full strength" stratagem. Knights just have a massive collection of all the most broken possible rules.

But to be fair to Kniights, they don't have HQs with auras that provide these bonuses. Other armies do (specifically the reroll 1s).
So Knights having to spend CPs to do something that other armies just have by taking their mandatory HQ seems fair.

What's broken isn't the Strats/WL traits/ Relics themselves, but the ability to stack them that's OP.
Capping the Ion shield at 4++ regardless of bonuses fixes this.

-

**Horst**

Galef wrote:
Horst wrote:
w1zard wrote:
Or just remove the warlord trait that gives +1 to invuln saves. That is a completely stupid trait, and brokenly powerful on a knight.

If we're just getting rid of broken OP things on knights, might as well get rid of the "re-roll all one's" stratagem and the "always fight at full strength" stratagem. Knights just have a massive collection of all the most broken possible rules.
But to be fair to Kniights, they don't have HQs with auras that provide these bonuses. Other armies do (specifically the reroll 1s).
So Knights having to spend CPs to do something that other armies just have by taking their mandatory HQ seems fair.

What's broken isn't the Strats/WL traits/ Relics themselves, but the ability to stack them that's OP.
Capping the Ion shield at 4++ regardless of bonuses fixes this.

-

Re-rolling 1's to hit and 1's to wound would be fine. ALSO re-rolling 1's for number of shots and 1's for damage is kind of what puts it over the line into OP territory for me. We've all been there where you roll a 1 for the number of shots you get on your main gun... 'cept with a knight, he gets a free re-roll on it!

**BaconCatBug**

The issue is that Knight stratagems are priced and powered as if you're only taking a Knight Lance. In reality everyone has two Battalions to grant 10 CP + 6 regenerated CP.

**Ice_can**

Horst wrote:
Galef wrote:
Horst wrote:
w1zard wrote:
Or just remove the warlord trait that gives +1 to invuln saves. That is a completely stupid trait, and brokenly powerful on a knight.

If we're just getting rid of broken OP things on knights, might as well get rid of the "re-roll all one's" stratagem and the "always fight at full strength" stratagem. Knights just have a massive collection of all the most broken possible rules.
But to be fair to Kniights, they don't have HQs with auras that provide these bonuses. Other armies do (specifically the reroll 1s).
So Knights having to spend CPs to do something that other armies just have by taking their mandatory HQ seems fair.

What's broken isn't the Strats/WL traits/ Relics themselves, but the ability to stack them that's OP.
Capping the Ion shield at 4++ regardless of bonuses fixes this.

-

Re-rolling 1's to hit and 1's to wound would be fine. ALSO re-rolling 1's for number of shots and 1's for damage is kind of what puts it over the line into OP territory for me. We've all been there where you roll a 1 for the number of shots you get on your main gun... 'cept with a knight, he gets a free re-roll on it!

Once again are you talking about a knights list or an imperial soup list?

A knights list pays 1/3 of its CP that's the equivelent of 7CP for Guard.

That the scale of the CP difference.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

BaconCatBug wrote:
The issue is that Knight stratagems are priced and powered as if you're only taking a Knight Lance. In reality everyone has two Battalions to grant 10 CP + 6 regenerated CP.

Nope not all of us, and that's not a knights being OP that's GW designers just not thinking through their shiny new idea of CP in the context of allies.

**Bharring**

What if either RIS and/or any of the other ++ buffs (Beyond the basic 5++) were just +1 Sv instead of +1 ++?

**Ice_can**

Bharring wrote:
What if either RIS and/or any of the other ++ buffs (Beyond the basic 5++) were just +1 Sv instead of +1 ++?

you's be fighting 3+ save on a d6+2 or D6+3 knightinstead of just a flat 3++.

But once again is it a dominus being 3++ for a turn in return for 1/3 of a 2k lists CP really the issue or is it the unlimited CP aliies imperial soup lists your complaining about?

**Bharring**

Even the 5++ is kinda a "Screw You" to anyone to takes Knight-killing weapons to kill a Knight.

Why do Knights need an Invuln? Now, if you just dropped their invuln entirely, their points likely would need to come down (maybe to that of the Knight with no Invuln - the WK?

). But from a thematic viewpoint, yes, Knights should have worse (or no) Invuln.

From a balance viewpoint, it'd be better to nerf the 3++/4++ saves but not nerfing the 5++.

**Cynista**

IMO T8 is too common in general. It should be reserved for the truly notoriously durable vehicles and nothing else. Land Raiders, Monoliths etc. I also agree that thematically Knights should only get the 5++ at best but hey, they gotta sell them big robots right?

**Horst**

Ice_can wrote:

But once again is it a dominus being 3++ for a turn in return for 1/3 of a 2k lists CP really the issue or is it the unlimited CP aliies imperial soup lists your complaining about?

Honestly... it doesn't matter how much CP the 3++ costs. You really only need 2 turns of it, at most. After that, everything that could hurt it will be dead and it won't matter anymore.

**Blackie**

Bharring wrote:
Even the 5++ is kinda a "Screw You" to anyone to takes Knight-killing weapons to kill a Knight.

Why do Knights need an Invuln? Now, if you just dropped their invuln entirely, their points likely would need to come down (maybe to that of the Knight with no Invuln - the WK? ). But from a thematic viewpoint, yes, Knights should have worse (or no) Invuln.

From a balance viewpoint, it'd be better to nerf the 3++/4++ saves but not nerfing the 5++.

I think the 5++ against shooting is fine. Is the improved invuln that may be problematic.

And the cost of some knights is simply too low, even if the player goes pure kngihts. The castellan is 200ish points undercosted as the stompa is 920 and not even remotely as effective. According to some polls many ork players will settle with 600ish points stompa but even if it gets the same cost of a castellan it would be inferior to that knight, hence the castellan needs to jump to 800-900 points no matter what.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Cynista wrote:
IMO T8 is too common in general. It should be reserved for the truly notoriously durable vehicles and nothing else. Land Raiders, Monoliths etc. I also agree that thematically Knights should only get the 5++ at best but hey, they gotta sell them big robots right?

Too common? Tipycally the armies with T8 models have just 2-3 units available with that value of T, some of them usually not competitive. Drukhari don't have a single T8 model.

**Bharring**

Look at the back-and-forth when the WK gets discussed: that's what you see when something is reasonably balanced. Some people will still call it OP. Others will call it garbage. Still others will shout about how it's not as good as <favorite OPness>. Or that it's better than <favorite dumpsterfire>.

Compare the WK to Knights. That helps show where the IKs should be. And the Stompa.

As for a 5++ against shooting, it's fine for the points, more or less. But thematically, it ensures AP-3 and AP-4 mean nothing to it. Why? Why should we incentivise Plasma and Dissie Cannons over Melta and Lascannons for taking down The Big Guys.

It's very frustrating to see The Big Threat that you're scared about, realize that you pay -1 to-wound and -12" range for +1 AP, and that the +1 AP means 0. You could say, bring the right tool for the job. Why the hell is a Brightlance (or Lascannon) *NOT* the right tool for killing *Knights*?

**Maelstrom808**

Martel732 wrote:

Take a number. AP sucks vs tau and necrons and drukhari and demons. And chaos. AP is anti ig and anti loyalists only.

Lol wut?

AP wrecks most Necron vehicles.

**BaconCatBug**

Maelstrom808 wrote:
Martel732 wrote:

Take a number. AP sucks vs tau and necrons and drukhari and demons. And chaos. AP is anti ig and anti loyalists only.

Lol wut?

AP wrecks most Necron vehicles.

Most good AP weapons are also multiple damage, which Quantum Shielding laughs at.

**Martel732**

Someone can extrapolate.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Bharring wrote:
Look at the back-and-forth when the WK gets discussed: that's what you see when something is reasonably balanced. Some people will still call it OP. Others will call it garbage. Still others will shout about how it's not as good as <favorite OPness>. Or that it's better than <favorite dumpsterfire>.

Compare the WK to Knights. That helps show where the IKs should be. And the Stompa.

As for a 5++ against shooting, it's fine for the points, more or less. But thematically, it ensures AP-3 and AP-4 mean nothing to it. Why? Why should we incentivise Plasma and Dissie Cannons over Melta and Lascannons for taking down The Big Guys.

It's very frustrating to see The Big Threat that you're scared about, realize that you pay -1 to-wound and -12" range for +1 AP, and that the +1 AP means 0. You could say, bring the right tool for the job. Why the hell is a Brightlance (or Lascannon) *NOT* the right tool for killing *Knights*?

Because invulns. You can blow up every marine vehicle real good, though. Oh wait, no one cares.

IKs don't bother that me THAT much because I'm already building around -1 and -2 AP. The Drukhari alone make AP not worth taking because those jerks are everywhere, must die asap, and laugh at AP. Then add on clowns, IKs, necrons, flyrants, Tau, and some others, and you realize AP is not worth it at all.

**JNAProductions**

Martel732 wrote:
Someone can extrapolate.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Bharring wrote:
Look at the back-and-forth when the WK gets discussed: that's what you see when something is reasonably balanced. Some people will still call it OP. Others will call it garbage. Still others will shout about how it's not as good as <favorite OPness>. Or that it's better than <favorite dumpsterfire>.

Compare the WK to Knights. That helps show where the IKs should be. And the Stompa.

As for a 5++ against shooting, it's fine for the points, more or less. But thematically, it ensures AP-3 and AP-4 mean nothing to it. Why? Why should we incentivise Plasma and Dissie Cannons over Melta and Lascannons for taking down The Big Guys.

It's very frustrating to see The Big Threat that you're scared about, realize that you pay -1 to-wound and -12" range for +1 AP, and that the +1 AP means 0. You could say, bring the right tool for the job. Why the hell is a Brightlance (or Lascannon) *NOT* the right tool for killing *Knights*?

Because invulns. You can blow up every marine vehicle real good, though. Oh wait, no one cares.

IKs don't bother that me THAT much because I'm already building around -1 and -2 AP. The Drukhari alone make AP not worth taking because those jerks are everywhere, must die asap, and laugh at AP. Then add on clowns, IKs, necrons, flyrants, Tau, and some others, and you realize AP is not worth it at all.

AP is good against Crons. Wraiths, some Lychguard, some Tomb Blades, and C'Tan have invulns. That's about it.

**Horst**

BaconCatBug wrote:
Maelstrom808 wrote:
Martel732 wrote:

Take a number. AP sucks vs tau and necrons and drukhari and demons. And chaos. AP is anti ig and anti loyalists only.

Lol wut?

AP wrecks most Necron vehicles.
Most good AP weapons are also multiple damage, which Quantum Shielding laughs at.

It's another silly example of how the best anti-tank weapons in this game are plasma-based, since they can fire off way more shots, and only do 2 damage per shot. So the Knight is more likely to fail some saves if you force 10 of them instead of 2-3 lascannon saves, it's guaranteed damage instead of random D6 damage, and Quantum Shielding isn't gonna shrug off multiple 2 damage shots.

**Grey Templar**

Bharring wrote:
Even the 5++ is kinda a "Screw You" to anyone to takes Knight-killing weapons to kill a Knight.

Why do Knights need an Invuln? Now, if you just dropped their invuln entirely, their points likely would need to come down (maybe to that of the Knight with no Invuln - the WK? ). But from a thematic viewpoint, yes, Knights should have worse (or no) Invuln.

From a balance viewpoint, it'd be better to nerf the 3++/4++ saves but not nerfing the 5++.

They were more balanced back when vehicles had Armor facings, because you could only have the shield on 1 facing at a time. Still very good, but they could get flanked to deny that invuln.

**Bharring**

Agreed. But I'd rather make Big Scary Knights That Are Hard To Penetrate be more countered by Super Death Laser Of Knight Killing Badassery with it's super-good AP than by High RoF Infantry Mulchers

**Ice_can**

Bharring wrote:
Look at the back-and-forth when the WK gets discussed: that's what you see when something is reasonably balanced. Some people will still call it OP. Others will call it garbage. Still others will shout about how it's not as good as <favorite OPness>. Or that it's better than <favorite dumpsterfire>.

Compare the WK to Knights. That helps show where the IKs should be. And the Stompa.

As for a 5++ against shooting, it's fine for the points, more or less. But thematically, it ensures AP-3 and AP-4 mean nothing to it. Why? Why should we incentivise Plasma and Dissie Cannons over Melta and Lascannons for taking down The Big Guys.

It's very frustrating to see The Big Threat that you're scared about, realize that you pay -1 to-wound and -12" range for +1 AP, and that the +1 AP means 0. You could say, bring the right tool for the job. Why the hell is a Brightlance (or Lascannon) *NOT* the right tool for killing *Knights*?

Just to actually do this

Taranis Knight warden with ironstorm and thunderstrike
Alitoc wraithknight with suncannon scatershield, 2 starcannons
Ok knights a few points less but as close as I can make it.

They arn't exactlly armed for fighting each other so vrs the usual suspects
Warden vrs
Geq 8.852
Meq 4.667
Veq 4.556

Wraithknight vrs
Geq 6.11
Meq 4.074
Veq 6.667

Warden does better vrs infantry but worse vrs vehicals

Knight warden with ironstorm shooting at alitoc wraithknight does
3.333 damage.

The same wraith knight with no outaide buffs does 3.259 wounds to the knight that drops to 2.716 after the FNP

CC
Knight does 6.667 damage

Wraithknight does 4.44

Know lets try and buff the knights shooting, nope relics or warlord traits only and most of those arn't taken as durability is preferred.

The wraithknights against the knight with

doom 4.527 wounds after fnp (132 30% points for 1.6 times the damage)
Jinx 3.385 wounds after fnp (67 15% points for 1.25 times the damage)
Doom and jinx make that 5.659 after fnp
Thats 199 46% points for 2.1 times the damage.

How do you point things in a codex with access to that level of buffing?

Numbers corrected

**Grey Templar**

Bharring wrote:
Agreed. But I'd rather make Big Scary Knights That Are Hard To Penetrate be more countered by Super Death Laser Of Knight Killing Badassery with it's super-good AP than by High RoF Infantry Mulchers

Well thats why if we are going to stick with everything only having toughness, we needed to keep "certain strength attacks cannot wound certain toughnesses" from last edition. Because otherwise we have the stupidity of "100 lasguns is better at killing a Knight than a couple Meltaguns" we have right now.

And if we were going to add Fantasy style save modifiers, we also should have increased saves of a lot of things too. Terminator armor should give 1+ armor now for example.

**Bharring**

Wait, let me get this straight:
Warden Knight, unbuffed does 10 damage/round to a WK
WK, unbuffed does 7.7 damage/round to a WK

Add reroll wounds and Jinx, and we're at WK suddenly does 34 damage/round, by your numbers? For an increase of 4.4x?

First, lets look at doom. You have it *more than double* the damage. Is that realistic? Lets look at numbers:
To-Wound : Increase
2+ : 16%
3+ : 33%
4+ : 50%
5+ : 66%
6+ : 100%

So, the highest possible effect of Doom, outside special rules, is a +100% increase in damage. And that requires 6s to wound. There is no way you're seeing 172% increased damage from Doom in this scenario - you're just overinflating what Doom does. Which is very common here.

How about Jinx's impact?
Original Sv : Change
2+ : 100%
3+ : 50%
4+ : 33%
5+ : 20%
6+ : 16%
7+ : 0%

Jinx only does +100% damage against an otherwise-unmodified (read: AP0) save.

So, best case for Doom + Jinx, is when hitting a 2+ Sv target with a weapon S that's half the target's T. Which is not what's happening here.