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.

They aren't balanced, but that is also balanced by how expensive one is in real money. Not a lot of people just wander into a games workshop and suddenly find out they have two hundred bucks in their pocket.

They are the best "all rounder" for their points using your definition...which is terrible. But there are units which for a combination of points can do at least one of those aspects better for less.

When discussing "all rounder" you forgot a few key points, AntiAir, Scoring, and ability to engage multiple units per turn. Using these Criteria the Knight is terrible, it can only score one objective, scoring reduces the effectiveness of its Melee, it can't fire AA, and it can only engage a single target per turn.

Firepower. It's easy to find units which put out more firepower against more units in a single turn for less.

Mobility. It's easy to find units which are more mobile and can assess equal or greater board control for less.

Close Combat. It's easy to find units that are more effective against a myriad of opponents for less with a much greater impact.

Durability. You can find combinations of units which can achieve the same relative level of durability or more for less. It's difficult for a direct comparison here.


As you defined it, the Knight is the best All Around Unit 370/375 Pts, but that definition was Shooting, Close Combat, Mobility, and Durability.

But, as I define it it isn't the best All Around Use of 370/375 Pts, that is defined as Shooting, Close Combat, Mobility, Durability, Scoring, Anti Air, and the Ability to effect multiple enemy units. Most importantly, it's the a Relative board impact for those points.


Knights are tough and pack a punch, but at best they kill 5-6 units per game at best and this assumes every attack is successful in wiping out a unit. That is most assuredly not the case and it is far more likely that they will destroy ~4 Units if they survive the entire game.


And never discount that a single Tactical Marine on an objective at the end of a battle is worth a hundred knights.



It boils down to your argument being utterly useless as your pentameter a don't lend themselves to a discussion about actual game balance.

It's totally true that the knight is the best "all around" model you can get for 380 points.

In the exact same way a grot is the best "all around" model you can get for 3 points

Speaking of knights and grots, there's a guy who posted on these forums who won a game vs knights using only grots and a couple wierdboyz lol.

Imperial Knights ARE balanced (as much as any other unit...)

Okay, wanting to discuss "balance" in 40k, require a "comparable" unit of capability of similar points value... I think I have a unicorn around here somewhere.

As pointed out: it is not the units by themselves that matter so much, it is what you field with them that determines effectiveness.

Combinations of units for the same points value would be worth comparing since that is the currency of fielding an army.

Some comparison with the reviled Riptides might be in order.

The point I am trying to make to the OP is balance in the case of this game is rather subjective, it may very well depend on if you are the one fielding the unit or the one facing it.

 Amiricle wrote:
Speaking of knights and grots, there's a guy who posted on these forums who won a game vs knights using only grots and a couple wierdboyz lol.

I saw that Batrep, awesome.

lliu wrote:
They aren't balanced, but that is also balanced by how expensive one is in real money. Not a lot of people just wander into a games workshop and suddenly find out they have two hundred bucks in their pocket.

Most people I know could go out and buy 3 Knights without even thinking about the financial aspect.

Well... I don't know one friend who just finds six hundred in their pocket for no reason and decides to go and buy three titans.

Give it up folks. This guy isn't really looking for an answer, he is irritated because a knight probably did great against him one game.

Knights are a headache to play at times because they are a drop in unit that can change you way you deal with certain armies that are otherwise fairly predictable. As a unit themselves though they are subpar shooting for their points and only about right in CC. They are fast though, and pretty durable for their cost, which makes them a nice choice but not essential.

The myth of the game breaking super heavy is restricted to one or two choices. The rest are just okay or straight terrible (all of the AM super tanks) for their point values.

 PhillyT wrote:
Give it up folks. This guy isn't really looking for an answer, he is irritated because a knight probably did great against him one game.

Knights are a headache to play at times because they are a drop in unit that can change you way you deal with certain armies that are otherwise fairly predictable. As a unit themselves though they are subpar shooting for their points and only about right in CC. They are fast though, and pretty durable for their cost, which makes them a nice choice but not essential.

The myth of the game breaking super heavy is restricted to one or two choices. The rest are just okay or straight terrible (all of the AM super tanks) for their point values.

I figured that out early on.

Though I did find lots of ways to beat them.

lliu wrote:
Well... I don't know one friend who just finds six hundred in their pocket for no reason and decides to go and buy three titans.

3 Imperial Knights is $420US. I'm not saying my friends walk around with that much cash in their pockets, but yeah, I'm pretty sure most my friends could impulse buy them if they wanted them.

I'm not saying everyone could go out and do it, I know a lot of people work pay cheque to pay cheque. It would have been a pipe dream when I started wargaming, because I was 10 and paying for models with money earned from chores. But it doesn't take a huge pay cheque to have $500 of random spending money lying around, my last service and inspection on my car cost more than that.

The reason I don't have 3 Knights is not because I couldn't afford them, it's because my desire to have them is not great enough for me to dedicate the time to assemble and paint them.

How many points are Corax and Curze? I'm sure one or both of them meets all the requirements, too. Don't have my HH books at work with me to check.

lliu wrote:
Well... I don't know one friend who just finds six hundred in their pocket for no reason and decides to go and buy three titans.

I bought 4 (and a Stormwing formation) in 1 day. Pleased to meet you.

It's actually about one of the cheapest ways to field 2000 points $-wise.

Also;

The immortal Chapter Master Smashface (250) and his biker flunkies (5x Bikes, 2x Grav or melta guns, 135/125)

380ish total, is super scoring since the bikes have Obj Sec, puts out more melta than an errant, moves 12" plus option for turbo boost to go faster, gets a 3++ all the time on the EW CM, all the bikes get a 4++ all the time from jink and the chapter master is quite the beatstick in CC as well. Can probably put out a reasonable amount of anti infantry fire as well.

Another option is a riptide (IA, EWO, 190) and an ironclad dreadnought in a drop pod (180 w/ heavy flamer). The riptide easily move fast enough and if you doubt the speed of the iron clad, we'll see if your knight can make it to my deployment zone before my Ironclad makes it into yours. Riptide can deliver S9 AP2 large blast ordinance if required (though why would you), has a melta weapon, can get a 3++ (on all facings), more than takes care of equaling the knights shooting. The dread has the same AV, is a walker, has a melta gun (that will be in range sooner than yours), has multiple Str 10 attacks (with a bonus to pen rolls), has a heavy flamer for AI work. Jobs a good'un Boss.

Alternately, the new GK libby in termie armour (185) rolling on sanctic for vortex and GoI with 4 rolls you've got decent odds to get both, along with some of his terminator mates (195 worth, so 5 with 30 points worth of toys) . Can easily be Str 10 in CC, can easily get instant death in melee and ranged, has reasonable shooting, can get a ranged D weapon, can deep strike in on the 1st turn, can possibly get GoI for 24 inch move, re-rolls 1's for casting, 2+ 5++, turns into a 4++ with sanctuary. Could do a lot worse. Could probably manage something similar with SW and a character on TW with TWC.

Vanguard vets in a stormraven should also meet your requirement, though the melee contingent might be a bit squishy at that points level. You could also argue vanguard vets and a vendetta as that extra 30 points buys either 3 SS's or another body and a melta bomb.

Wraithknight and 7 warpspiders should also meet your criteria, though I would also accept swapping the WS for some vaul's wrath support batteries.

Doom Scythe (175) or Doomsday Ark (175 also) and a Necron overlord with Command Barge, warscythe and Phase shifter (225) would also meet your requirements, but it is 20 points over. Close enough.

Probably other, but not stuff that immediately comes to mind.

Are Knights balanced? Not remotely. Are they too strong for their cost? Maybe a bit, but go play against Cron air or and then come back and tell me all about it. Then enjoy getting tarpitted by a squad of marines (since the stomp is only AP4).

Edit: Coz I R knot gud spelar.

 Zagman wrote:
They are the best "all rounder" for their points using your definition...which is terrible. But there are units which for a combination of points can do at least one of those aspects better for less.

When discussing "all rounder" you forgot a few key points, AntiAir, Scoring, and ability to engage multiple units per turn. Using these Criteria the Knight is terrible, it can only score one objective, scoring reduces the effectiveness of its Melee, it can't fire AA, and it can only engage a single target per turn.

Firepower. It's easy to find units which put out more firepower against more units in a single turn for less.

Mobility. It's easy to find units which are more mobile and can assess equal or greater board control for less.

Close Combat. It's easy to find units that are more effective against a myriad of opponents for less with a much greater impact.

Durability. You can find combinations of units which can achieve the same relative level of durability or more for less. It's difficult for a direct comparison here.


As you defined it, the Knight is the best All Around Unit 370/375 Pts, but that definition was Shooting, Close Combat, Mobility, and Durability.

But, as I define it it isn't the best All Around Use of 370/375 Pts, that is defined as Shooting, Close Combat, Mobility, Durability, Scoring, Anti Air, and the Ability to effect multiple enemy units. Most importantly, it's the a Relative board impact for those points.


Knights are tough and pack a punch, but at best they kill 5-6 units per game at best and this assumes every attack is successful in wiping out a unit. That is most assuredly not the case and it is far more likely that they will destroy ~4 Units if they survive the entire game.


And never discount that a single Tactical Marine on an objective at the end of a battle is worth a hundred knights.



It boils down to your argument being utterly useless as your pentameter a don't lend themselves to a discussion about actual game balance.

My definition is the all-around mobility, destructive power with shooting and melee, and durability all combined. Which can be mathematically calculated and compared against other combinations totaling to 380 points. Not terrible and useless at all, sorry.

I don't know why you offer alternative arguments to a topic that is different than the one discussed, by saying "But, as I define it it isn't the best All Around Use of 370/375 Pts, that is defined as Shooting, Close Combat, Mobility, Durability, Scoring, Anti Air, and the Ability to effect multiple enemy units."

It was already discussed before that you can get a unit that shoots more for 380 points than a Knight does - that isn't the point here and I atleast will be ignoring further posts going for that argument - it has been clear as day from the start you can build a unit that does something better than the knight for the points. The question is, can you create something that does everything better than it does for the same points cost. The only thing utterly useless is participant such as yourself who start discussing another thing entirely.

But I can let you and anyone else think that the Knight doesn't bring the best all-around qualities for 380 points out of any Codex units. To me it's very easy to observe this is the case.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 PhillyT wrote:
Give it up folks. This guy isn't really looking for an answer, he is irritated because a knight probably did great against him one game.

Yet another person with a prejudice and clueless attitude. Believe it or not, some people are capable of looking at things objectively and just stating things the way they are ( which, to the most easily offended/sensitive often can seem something else. ) I've destroyed a Knight with a 210 point Sternguard squad, and already stated I only find them just a little undercosted. Not overpowered. If this doesn't register to someone then all I can do is shrug I guess, not my bad. I'm also buying one myself in a few weeks, and my opinion will still be the same. I could go all prejudice on some folks too, claiming you're just defending/downtoning the effectiveness of the Knight because you constantly employ one and don't want to admit it's a top tier/unbalanced/meta shifting unit. But why be prejudice either way? Completely useless. Ask first.

Be'Lakor is 350, I would put him on Knight level. Dude is a freaking boss and would most likely beat up a knight in CC without too much issue. He also provides a huge amount of buffs to the army, which the knight does not.
While Be'lakor doesn't have a battle cannon, he does have some nice psychic powers. His durability is a +4 invul, EW, stats, invisibility and shrouded. So 9/10 times he will have a +2 cover ++4. Offensively he is armorbane and fleshbane and I think S7.

I don't have the knight stats, or time to try it out, but I am confident it would go well for Be'Lakor. Knight is hitting him on 5s, or 6s if he is invisible. Stomp will be the only hope the knight would have. He is cheaper, but can be wittled down with small arms fire, where the knight cannot. Though 1V1 be'lakor is one of the best out there. Worst case is a lucky stomp. Best case is lucky pen rolls and a dead knight. Most common case would be a 2-3 turn combat with something dead at the end.

 RunicFIN wrote:

 Zagman wrote:
They are the best "all rounder" for their points using your definition...which is terrible. But there are units which for a combination of points can do at least one of those aspects better for less.

When discussing "all rounder" you forgot a few key points, AntiAir, Scoring, and ability to engage multiple units per turn. Using these Criteria the Knight is terrible, it can only score one objective, scoring reduces the effectiveness of its Melee, it can't fire AA, and it can only engage a single target per turn.

Firepower. It's easy to find units which put out more firepower against more units in a single turn for less.

Mobility. It's easy to find units which are more mobile and can assess equal or greater board control for less.

Close Combat. It's easy to find units that are more effective against a myriad of opponents for less with a much greater impact.

Durability. You can find combinations of units which can achieve the same relative level of durability or more for less. It's difficult for a direct comparison here.


As you defined it, the Knight is the best All Around Unit 370/375 Pts, but that definition was Shooting, Close Combat, Mobility, and Durability.

But, as I define it it isn't the best All Around Use of 370/375 Pts, that is defined as Shooting, Close Combat, Mobility, Durability, Scoring, Anti Air, and the Ability to effect multiple enemy units. Most importantly, it's the a Relative board impact for those points.


Knights are tough and pack a punch, but at best they kill 5-6 units per game at best and this assumes every attack is successful in wiping out a unit. That is most assuredly not the case and it is far more likely that they will destroy ~4 Units if they survive the entire game.


And never discount that a single Tactical Marine on an objective at the end of a battle is worth a hundred knights.



It boils down to your argument being utterly useless as your pentameter a don't lend themselves to a discussion about actual game balance.

My definition is the all-around mobility, destructive power with shooting and melee, and durability all combined. Which can be mathematically calculated and compared against other combinations totaling to 380 points. Not terrible and useless at all, sorry. You obviously also missed the "all in a single package" -detail as discussed before in this thread, since you're offering the "you can make a unit that shoots more for 380 points" -argument.

So yeah. Please read again.

Nice Strawman.

Or you could read what i actually wrote. You just attempted and failed to hand wave my argument away.



Answer this questions honestly. How much does it matter how Killy or Durable a Knight is when I can put different units on the table for the same amount of points which have a larger NET impact on the game and increase my odds of winning vs taking a knight.

The Knight only ever really gets to target 5-7 units a game. That is it. Sure, you could target one unit with your primary weapon, target another with the Stubber, and charge the second, but that is highly situational.


You have demonstrated a clear lack of understanding of how games of 40k are won. You are using a limited and worthless definition and by default your argument using your definition is correct. We are arguing that you have no idea what you are actually talking about and need to use a better definition of effectiveness which I highlighted in detail for you.

So, please read my response again.



P.S. It is worth mentioning that the Knight, and especially the Adamantine Lance have a huge Mobility limitation in Difficult Terrain. They move as Walkers with Move through Cover meaning they only move 3d6" take the Highest through Difficult Terrain. Smart opponents can greatly reduce a Knights Mobility and consequently its Close Combat Ability. Meaning for most of the game you've got a durable overpirced Shooting Unit. So anything that can outshoot it and be just as durable is a very valid comparison making things like Riptides and Russes a very valid comparison.

I can put two Riptides down on the table for marginally more than a knight that are more durable against Melta and other non AP2 High strength shooting, just as mobile, and put out better firepower for longer, target multiple enemy units, and perform adequate AA. Only loss is CC, which with Knights mobility restrictions is only a factor Turns 4+.

 Zagman wrote:


Nice Strawman.

Or you could read what i actually wrote. You just attempted and failed to hand wave my argument away.



Answer this questions honestly. How much does it matter how Killy or Durable a Knight is when I can put different units on the table for the same amount of points which have a larger NET impact on the game and increase my odds of winning vs taking a knight.

The Knight only ever really gets to target 5-7 units a game. That is it. Sure, you could target one unit with your primary weapon, target another with the Stubber, and charge the second, but that is highly situational.


You have demonstrated a clear lack of understanding of how games of 40k are won. You are using a limited and worthless definition and by default your argument using your definition is correct. We are arguing that you have no idea what you are actually talking about and need to use a better definition of effectiveness which I highlighted in detail for you.

So, please read my response again.

When we are discussing the context of what can outgun, outmelee, outendure and outmaneuvre the knight for the same point cost, your argument is from a different topic, do you understand?You have demonstrated a clear lack of understanding to discuss a topic that is confined to a certain concept that is the very idea of a topic. I have played 40K for 13 years, so I'm quite aware of how games are won, and at any point I haven't discussed such a topic on a general level. I have discussed 380 points, the Knight, and if it's qualities can be matched for the same cost. Nothing else. If you can't grasp this concept, I don't know, you are discussing a different topic alone.

I want to know if you can make a unit/combo of units with 380 points that can match the Imperial Knights mobility, firepower, melee power, and durability all in one[/b]. [b]Nothing else. If this idea find itself into your mind and you can't grasp it then it's pointless to discuss this with you - you are simply unable to discuss the topic.

 RunicFIN wrote:


My definition is the all-around mobility, destructive power with shooting and melee, and durability all combined. Which can be mathematically calculated and compared against other combinations totaling to 380 points. Not terrible and useless at all, sorry.

I don't know why you offer alternative arguments to a topic that is different than the one discussed, by saying "But, as I define it it isn't the best All Around Use of 370/375 Pts, that is defined as Shooting, Close Combat, Mobility, Durability, Scoring, Anti Air, and the Ability to effect multiple enemy units."

It was already discussed before that you can get a unit that shoots more for 380 points than a Knight does - that isn't the point here and I atleast will be ignoring further posts going for that argument - it has been clear as day from the start you can build a unit that does something better than the knight for the points. The question is, can you create something that does everything better than it does for the same points cost. The only thing utterly useless is participant such as yourself who start discussing another thing entirely.

But I can let you and anyone else think that the Knight doesn't bring the best all-around qualities for 380 points out of any Codex units. To me it's very easy to observe this is the case.

A response to your edit.

Your definition has already been shown to be worthless. Of course the Knight is the best for all of those qualities listed. The real question is to what respect does that actually matter in a game of 40k. The answer, is far less than you think.

Knight do most things very well in a very tough package, but they are not the best solution for every problem nor always a cost effective solution. Doing everything better than the Knight is not required, doing something better than a knight to a high enough degree to be an effective and worthwhile alternative is all that matters.

Its all about effective use of points, this is what you fail to understand. And it is the reason that it was not a Full Knight army that Won NOVA. Sure the winner had one knight, but the rest of the Top 10 didn't.


For a relatively intelligent person, you are failing to grasp fairly simple concepts in regards effective points use.

I tell ya, 2 drakes at 340 dont even come close to the power of a knight. Stupid gw had to break its neck.

5 diminutive obliterators do not even compare to the destructiveness of a Powerful Imp Knight.

 RunicFIN wrote:

 Zagman wrote:


Nice Strawman.

Or you could read what i actually wrote. You just attempted and failed to hand wave my argument away.



Answer this questions honestly. How much does it matter how Killy or Durable a Knight is when I can put different units on the table for the same amount of points which have a larger NET impact on the game and increase my odds of winning vs taking a knight.

The Knight only ever really gets to target 5-7 units a game. That is it. Sure, you could target one unit with your primary weapon, target another with the Stubber, and charge the second, but that is highly situational.


You have demonstrated a clear lack of understanding of how games of 40k are won. You are using a limited and worthless definition and by default your argument using your definition is correct. We are arguing that you have no idea what you are actually talking about and need to use a better definition of effectiveness which I highlighted in detail for you.

So, please read my response again.

When we are discussing the context of what can outgun, outmelee, outendure and outmaneuvre the knight for the same point cost, your argument is from a different topic, do you understand? You have demonstrated a clear lack of understanding to discuss a topic that is confined to a certain concept that is the very idea of a topic. I have played 40K for 13 years, so I'm quite aware of how games are won, and at any point I haven't discussed such a topic on a general level. I have discussed 380 points, the Knight, and if it's qualities can be matched for the same cost. Nothing else. If you can't grasp this concept, I don't know, you are discussing a different topic alone.

I want to know if you can make a unit/combo of units with 380 points that can match the Imperial Knights mobility, firepower, melee power, and durability all in one. [u]Nothing else. If this idea find itself into your mind and you can't grasp it then it's pointless to discuss this with you - you are simply unable to discuss the topic.

From what ive read he has been suggesting things for the same or slightly less/more points that would do just about every job, but better. The riptides example was a very good one, theyre arguably more durable, just as mobile, have better/more firepower, and are no schmucks in melee either.

 RunicFIN wrote:

 Zagman wrote:


Nice Strawman.

Or you could read what i actually wrote. You just attempted and failed to hand wave my argument away.



Answer this questions honestly. How much does it matter how Killy or Durable a Knight is when I can put different units on the table for the same amount of points which have a larger NET impact on the game and increase my odds of winning vs taking a knight.

The Knight only ever really gets to target 5-7 units a game. That is it. Sure, you could target one unit with your primary weapon, target another with the Stubber, and charge the second, but that is highly situational.


You have demonstrated a clear lack of understanding of how games of 40k are won. You are using a limited and worthless definition and by default your argument using your definition is correct. We are arguing that you have no idea what you are actually talking about and need to use a better definition of effectiveness which I highlighted in detail for you.

So, please read my response again.

When we are discussing the context of what can outgun, outmelee, outendure and outmaneuvre the knight for the same point cost, your argument is from a different topic, do you understand? You have demonstrated a clear lack of understanding to discuss a topic that is confined to a certain concept that is the very idea of a topic. I have played 40K for 13 years, so I'm quite aware of how games are won, and at any point I haven't discussed such a topic on a general level. I have discussed 380 points, the Knight, and if it's qualities can be matched for the same cost. Nothing else. If you can't grasp this concept, I don't know, you are discussing a different topic alone.

I want to know if you can make a unit/combo of units with 380 points that can match the Imperial Knights mobility, firepower, melee power, and durability all in one. [u]Nothing else. If this idea find itself into your mind and you can't grasp it then it's pointless to discuss this with you - you are simply unable to discuss the topic.

What is better? A knife or a car?
You cant tell us the answer? Thats normal because context is important to answer questions like this.
Your question is like "What is better to cut meat. A knife or a car?"
The obvious answer is "a knife".
The obvious answer to your question given the context and measurements you gave us is "yes the knight is the best unit under the measurements you gave us". No one at a single point in this thread was questioning that. The opposite is true. Most people acknowledged that but told you that this isnt a good measure at all for performance on the field but that theres much more context that should be considered. You dont want to discuss balance but the threadtitle is directed at people that "think imperial knights are balanced".

People simply disagree with your definition of "overall performance" and at least in my book thats a perfectly fine standpoint to present in this thread. Like it or not but this is a public forum and people express their own standpoints rather than praising yours.

 Zagman wrote:

 RunicFIN wrote:


My definition is the all-around mobility, destructive power with shooting and melee, and durability all combined. Which can be mathematically calculated and compared against other combinations totaling to 380 points. Not terrible and useless at all, sorry.

I don't know why you offer alternative arguments to a topic that is different than the one discussed, by saying "But, as I define it it isn't the best All Around Use of 370/375 Pts, that is defined as Shooting, Close Combat, Mobility, Durability, Scoring, Anti Air, and the Ability to effect multiple enemy units."

It was already discussed before that you can get a unit that shoots more for 380 points than a Knight does - that isn't the point here and I atleast will be ignoring further posts going for that argument - it has been clear as day from the start you can build a unit that does something better than the knight for the points. The question is, can you create something that does everything better than it does for the same points cost. The only thing utterly useless is participant such as yourself who start discussing another thing entirely.

But I can let you and anyone else think that the Knight doesn't bring the best all-around qualities for 380 points out of any Codex units. To me it's very easy to observe this is the case.

A response to your edit.

Your definition has already been shown to be worthless. Of course the Knight is the best for all of those qualities listed. The real question is to what respect does that actually matter in a game of 40k. The answer, is far less than you think.

Knight do most things very well in a very tough package, but they are not the best solution for every problem nor always a cost effective solution. Doing everything better than the Knight is not required, doing something better than a knight to a high enough degree to be an effective and worthwhile alternative is all that matters.

Its all about effective use of points, this is what you fail to understand. And it is the reason that it was not a Full Knight army that Won NOVA. Sure the winner had one knight, but the rest of the Top 10 didn't.


For a relatively intelligent person, you are failing to grasp fairly simple concepts in regards effective points use.

Factual responses for what you wrote:

-I haven't in any post displayed how much I think the all-round power of a unit matters in a game of 40K. Therefore you cannot have any idea of what I think, as I haven't provided the information. You have simply concluded this by yourself. Factually, you conjured my opinion in your own head, out of thin air. If at some point I displayed how much I think the all-round power of a unit matters in a game of 40K, do copypaste this sentence for me. You might get this vibe from my messages, but is still something that is simply not true, and something you created in your own head.

This also affects the last thing you say, as you already have a wrong idea of what I think. Want to know what I think, instead of guessing/stating it without actually having information on the matter?

The all-round power of a unit doesn't win a game of 40K. There aren't enough "best overall" units in the game that you could possibly create a list that is best in everything - 40K is a super complicated game of paper, rock and scissors. There is no rockscissorpaper - you cannot create it, asfar as I know. There will always be an army composition that can crush, or for the very least, somehow defeat yours.

Well, the IK is a superheavy.
I think its balanced when compared with other ''large'' models like WK, Riptide or other superheavy walkers.

 wuestenfux wrote:
Well, the IK is a superheavy.
I think its balanced when compared with other ''large'' models like WK, Riptide or other superheavy walkers.

This and the Wraithknight points are something I have considered since you have said them - it's quite possible ( and probably is ) that for their points cost, Riptides and Wraithknights are indeed even more powerful all-round than the Knight is.

In a vacuum the Knight is an amazing unit for its cost. Most of what makes it so good is that its a Super Heavy, so its immune to being 1 shotted, can walk 12" and fire as opposed to if it was not a superheavy it would be going 6", making it pretty mobile, and with stomp+d weapon attacks can take on elites/hordes in assault.

Can someone take 380 pts and build a unit, or units, that could try and kill a knight? Yes, not that hard. But those same units would have a hard time bringing the same versatility a knight has for 380 pts.

Which I think is the OPs point, and I agree with. You can take 380pts of almost any other army and say "what is the answer to that with a knights army?" the answer is knights, not just by default, but the knight can handle anything pretty much as a contender.

The one exception of course being flyers, even so a heavy stubber will get some glances on av 10 flyers through out the game, so unless your flyers are av 11 all around, even knights can threaten them some.

The term "self-fulfilling prophecy" sums this thread up quite nicely.

blaktoof wrote:


Can someone take 380 pts and build a unit, or units, that could try and kill a knight? Yes, not that hard. But those same units would have a hard time bringing the same versatility a knight has for 380 pts.

.

Yes, that is correct. On the other hand the knight would never be able to reach the same level of specialisation these units have. Weighing Versatility vs Specialisation is a task that can only be done when you know the rest of the list and the meta the list is played in. So its not a good measurement for "all-around effectiveness".

blaktoof wrote:


The one exception of course being flyers, even so a heavy stubber will get some glances on av 10 flyers through out the game, so unless your flyers are av 11 all around, even knights can threaten them some.

Say the knight could shoot at the flyer each and every turn from turn 2 in a game that lasts 6 turns. Thats 15 shots where 2,5 would hit statistically. From these 2,5 hits there are 0,41 glances throughout the whole game. So you'd have to shoot the flyer with 3 knights each and every turn and you'd get around 1-2 glances statistically .... i wouldnt call that "threatening" even to an av10 flyer. And thats not even counting jinks or invulnerable saves.

blaktoof wrote:
Can someone take 380 pts and build a unit, or units, that could try and kill a knight? Yes, not that hard. But those same units would have a hard time bringing the same versatility a knight has for 380 pts.

Which I think is the OPs point, and I agree with.

Finally someone who understands. This a thousand times. And since this is indeed the case, asfar as I'm concerned the Knight is by default one of the best choices around. And as I stated before, I don't think they are overpowered. What I do think however is that they could cost just a little bit more - most of the time they can bring their points costs back and more, but only if played careful.

A Knight that isn't played with precision and thought can be a big waste of points, maybe even the biggest singular one after the Ork Stompa - one that is played well can destroy twice or more it's points cost with ease. And to Mywik, once again, all-round effectiveness can be measured while ignoring the meta easily, by simply comparing stat properties of a unit. A meta has nothing to do with a unit being all-round powerful by it's stats. A Knight will melee and move harder than a Tactical Marine no matter the meta. But I know what you mean by taking the meta into account.

 RunicFIN wrote:
So yeah, I see a lot of people who think Imperial Knights are a balanced units. I agree that they can be killed without owning one, and they aren't indestructible. They aren't necessarily overpowered, but asfar as I'm concerned they aren't balanced either, especially regarding their point cost and what they give you. I therefore ask you a question; If you were given ~380 points to buy anything from within another Codex, that could match what you get with a Knight for the same points cost, what would it be?

It needs to move 12" inches, and fire weaponry of similiar power towards multiple targets while moving. It also needs to be equally powerful melee, and equally durable ( something of similiar power to the shield, ignores destroyed/weapon destroyed/immobilized/difficult terrain and whatnot. ) Do remember, before posting herohammer options, that Stomp ignores invulnerable saves on a roll of 6, and a single Stomp can target multiple models. At worst a single Stomp can kill almost a squad of Assault Terminators/anything else with a decent invulnerable save.

( That's right; it's impossible. There is no other 380 point unit, or even combo of units, that can do all that simultaneously while being equally accessible to all players. The Knight is on the absolute upper spectrum of power-per-points ratio, and it is accessible to almost every player and army. Hence, it is not balanced points cost wise. ) They are a trademark in the majority of tournament armies these days, a strong part of the current meta. I recently followed a tournament inwhich there were 2 imperial lists without a Knight - the rest 18 all had them. That's saying something.

If the Imperial Knight is the most all-around powerful 380 points you can spend out of any Codex, then how could it not be unbalanced? It's better than anything else in the game for the same points when it comes to all-around effectiviness.

I'm just going to leave this here.... Love the 10 edits as well!

 Zagman wrote:

 RunicFIN wrote:
So yeah, I see a lot of people who think Imperial Knights are a balanced units. I agree that they can be killed without owning one, and they aren't indestructible. They aren't necessarily overpowered, but asfar as I'm concerned they aren't balanced either, especially regarding their point cost and what they give you. I therefore ask you a question; If you were given ~380 points to buy anything from within another Codex, that could match what you get with a Knight for the same points cost, what would it be?

It needs to move 12" inches, and fire weaponry of similiar power towards multiple targets while moving. It also needs to be equally powerful melee, and equally durable ( something of similiar power to the shield, ignores destroyed/weapon destroyed/immobilized/difficult terrain and whatnot. ) Do remember, before posting herohammer options, that Stomp ignores invulnerable saves on a roll of 6, and a single Stomp can target multiple models. At worst a single Stomp can kill almost a squad of Assault Terminators/anything else with a decent invulnerable save.

( That's right; it's impossible. There is no other 380 point unit, or even combo of units, that can do all that simultaneously while being equally accessible to all players. The Knight is on the absolute upper spectrum of power-per-points ratio, and it is accessible to almost every player and army. Hence, it is not balanced points cost wise. ) They are a trademark in the majority of tournament armies these days, a strong part of the current meta. I recently followed a tournament inwhich there were 2 imperial lists without a Knight - the rest 18 all had them. That's saying something.

If the Imperial Knight is the most all-around powerful 380 points you can spend out of any Codex, then how could it not be unbalanced? It's better than anything else in the game for the same points when it comes to all-around effectiviness.

I'm just going to leave this here.... Love the 10 edits as well!

Love your pompous tone too. Edited it to try and clarify what the topic is about - some people got it perfectly on the first try, like the blaktoof a few posts back. Others, not even after the 10 clarifications, like you. But we all know it's just deliberate derailing anyway - I don't believe anyone is actually so stupid they couldn't understand the concept of what I have said. English language isn't my native so I also fix typos I first don't notice. I still believe what I mean can't be articulated clearer, and I have done it numerous times through the thread.