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.

Knights are bull-gak, in my opinion. My list shouldn't have to do eleventy gazillion damage in a turn to kill one model.

And if you miscalculate, or just roll sub-par, you might not even knock it out. And then, nearly every army I've seen with Big Nasties has a stratagem that lets them operate at top bracket for their turn/a phase, making that damage you dealt even more wasted.

 RaptorusRex wrote:
Knights are bull-gak, in my opinion. My list shouldn't have to do eleventy gazillion damage in a turn to kill one model.

you need a "gazillion" damage to kill those fleets of skimmers and hordes of big monsters anyway, so what is the difference. Aside for pouring the fire power in to 4-12 targets instead of 10-16.

^It's easier to see a consequential return on your shooting, mostly.

tneva82 wrote:
Vehicle and LOW are wee bit different. DUCY?

No, they are not. The only meaningful distinction is what force org slot they use.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 RaptorusRex wrote:
Knights are bull-gak, in my opinion. My list shouldn't have to do eleventy gazillion damage in a turn to kill one model.

Fully buffed, most hard hitting melee units kill a knight in one swing. A unit of 8 Repentia or 10 Zephyrim can pick up a knight per turn. Before they changed the order of operations on characteristic increases and Tear them Down, Repentia used to be able to kill TWO.

Used to hate playing against them, but now, I don't know.

With their new Codexes they seem to be a lot less boring to fight. GW really doubled down on the smaller knights (war dogs and armiger). Also, instead of randomly overbuffing some weapons and stuff, GW has shown a surprising amount of restraint and instead. I dare to say that the new Codexes gave them a level of finesse which I absolutely did not expect to be possible considering their whole concept (big killy robots) : synergies, dread auras, etc.

I haven't play against the new Codexes yet, but for once, GW managed to make me curious.

ERJAK wrote:

tneva82 wrote:
Vehicle and LOW are wee bit different. DUCY?

No, they are not. The only meaningful distinction is what force org slot they use.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 RaptorusRex wrote:
Knights are bull-gak, in my opinion. My list shouldn't have to do eleventy gazillion damage in a turn to kill one model.

Fully buffed, most hard hitting melee units kill a knight in one swing. A unit of 8 Repentia or 10 Zephyrim can pick up a knight per turn. Before they changed the order of operations on characteristic increases and Tear them Down, Repentia used to be able to kill TWO.

I'm sure the only place that's ever occurred was in a math-hammer thread.

I assume this is via stacked stratagem/buff magic... but how do 8 Repentia or 10 Zephyrim pick up a knight?

ccs 805104 11365493 wrote:

I'm sure the only place that's ever occurred was in a math-hammer thread.

finding someone who would want to play with knights in 9th ed, was a bit tricky considering how core rules disadventaged them.

Personally I am happy to play against anyone and anything regardless, Knights included. Under the 8th/9th edition rules Knights can be brought down no different than any other vehicle and if you play play right, you beat them on primary objectives.

Karol wrote:

ccs 805104 11365493 wrote:

I'm sure the only place that's ever occurred was in a math-hammer thread.

finding someone who would want to play with knights in 9th ed, was a bit tricky considering how core rules disadventaged them.

Not locally.
Locally those who owned knights from 7th/8th ed, or as part of Ad-Mech forces? They acknowledged their drawbacks & continued to play with their toys (sorta like you, they'd already spent the $$$ so why not?). When Knights got the update concerning counting as x models to hold objectives they rejoiced & one guy started taking his into tourneys.
They all seem excited by the new Codex & now there's 2 new Chaos Knight players as well.

For the same reason aircraft don't really fit into 40k tabletop games, knights don't really belong there either.

They are certainly more sporting to play against in 8th and 9th than previous editions, but they represent a different scale of conflict.

All knight armies are similar to all aircraft armies, honestly if they didn't have their own codexes I would bet we would have seen GW limit them in number you can take per points of game similar to aircraft, but they have their own codex and GW is unlikely to go back to the days of invalidating an entire model line

Occasionally? Yes.

Regularly, no. Not because I have an issue with LoW or something, it's just that the games are extremely likely to become one-sided and thus unfun.

Knights and other Lord of War models are cool for scenario games but look a bit silly showing up in every battle in my view. But I'm not in favour of taking them out of the game, because it'd be unfair to people running armies based around them.

It is one of the things that pushed me away from 40K though.

It's really hard to make a fun game out of smashing ants with a brick.

Table next to me today had 4 x Knights against Eldar. Knights were tables by Turn 2, with the Avatar taking two down himself.

I'm not a fan of LoW in general, and really dislike playing against Knights. They're a skew list by design, which is not a great starting point. When you combine that with the fact it's possible to have a whole turn that amounts to doing nothing against Knights. The games seem to boil down to "can you deal with this profile" and beyond that there's not really any nuance to the game at all.

If Knights have to exist in the game, they work better as a single unit addition to Ad Mech or Chaos armies, IMO.

TangoTwoBravo wrote:
Table next to me today had 4 x Knights against Eldar. Knights were tables by Turn 2, with the Avatar taking two down himself.

Perfect example of what people are saying here. Totally one sided games, one way or another.

 Blackie wrote:

TangoTwoBravo wrote:
Table next to me today had 4 x Knights against Eldar. Knights were tables by Turn 2, with the Avatar taking two down himself.

Perfect example of what people are saying here. Totally one sided games, one way or another.

Yeah, had one of those games today against a Knights list.
One of those whom I mentioned were excited by their new Codex? Ran into my Panzer-Grot force. Thought "I'm playing Knights - vs a bunch of Goblins vehicles (tanks/lot of gunz/Kanz/3 trucks full of grots).... I got this."
No, he didn't. Not even close.
I went 1st. Turn #1 he discovered that each of these little T5 vehicles can hit like a proverbial truck. I bracketed or double bracketed 2 Armigers & 2 Questoris class (I'm never sure of the exact version - Paladin/warden/etc)
It was all downhill for the Knights after that.

In the end? I lost two entire tank squadrons, the Kans squadron, a Wazbomb, a warboss, the Red Gobbo, and 1 truck + 8/10 of the grots it held.
The rest of the Grots? They set about happily looting 3 Armigars & 3 Questoris (and scoring even more VP on turn 5 unoppossed).