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.

I actually see more fire raptors than russes on the battlefield in my meta. At our last event there were 4 Raptors vs 0 Leman Russ tanks and 0 Predators.

Ouch thats a pretty nasty meta, but good for tournament practice. I hate to say it but I would guess your probably going to be disappointed then as knights balanced against fireraptors would be broken in a more casual meta. Not ti mention that GW doesn't blalance against or for FW units.
Their is already people complaining about fireraptors being op on dakka already.

Ice_can wrote:
Ok now try shooting at each other aswell.

Also your compairing a named primark agains a generic titain.
Named charictors are almost always better than the generic profile otherwise how would GW get you to buy them.

A more realistic comparison is a couple of predator or leman Russ's
How many predators does it take to kill a knight and how many leman russes does it take to kill a knight?

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 jeffersonian000 wrote:

Ice_can wrote:
What is the proof that knights are overcosted? Math hammer or just a gut feeling?

I suspect knights biggest issue right now is they are already hard countered in most meta's by people taking massive amounta of anti tank weapons over anti infantry as killing hords efficently is difficult without anothrr hord.

Which is exactly why they are overcosted.

SJ

By that logic every tank is overcosted, as they are also hard countered by lascannon spam and they don't have invulnerable saves.

Not really. The only tanks that cost as much as Knight are Baneblade chassis, and those seem to point costed about right.

Knights need about 100 points knocked off their base price, and the new Warglaives are probably 60 points overcosted.

SJ

If you want the real bad news- I play mono-GKs and 1 of the lists that I fought had 2 Raptors flanking BobbyG. It wasn't pretty.

Knights are overcosted because of two reasons. One, they're squishy. Real squishy. With no real way to stop themselves from getting can openned by big melees like Flyrants or Helbrutes, they suffer in close combat. But on top of that, they suffer from range just as badly. They deal A VERY low amount of damage for their points. The average knight is around 500 points, and nearly every single one does less damage than just taking 500 points of straight up tanks.

In a meta where number of shots usually means more than power of shots, a Knight just doesn't put out enough 'hits'. It can slap wounds on, but it can't hit a lot of targets, or hit a target many times.

Ice_can wrote:
Ouch thats a pretty nasty meta, but good for tournament practice. I hate to say it but I would guess your probably going to be disappointed then as knights balanced against fireraptors would be broken in a more casual meta. Not ti mention that GW doesn't blalance against or for FW units.
Their is already people complaining about fireraptors being op on dakka already.

My meta also uses 0 tanks and anywhere from 1-3 Fire Raptors per list.

GW does balance for and with FW. That's why it's in CA.

Jury is still out on whether they balance with competitive more in mind than casual, but the speed and harshness of some actions (like conscripts) makes it lean towards competitive.

Audustum wrote:

Ice_can wrote:
Ouch thats a pretty nasty meta, but good for tournament practice. I hate to say it but I would guess your probably going to be disappointed then as knights balanced against fireraptors would be broken in a more casual meta. Not ti mention that GW doesn't blalance against or for FW units.
Their is already people complaining about fireraptors being op on dakka already.

My meta also uses 0 tanks and anywhere from 1-3 Fire Raptors per list.

GW does balance for and with FW. That's why it's in CA.

Jury is still out on whether they balance with competitive more in mind than casual, but the speed and harshness of some actions (like conscripts) makes it lean towards competitive.

I'd say they do a little of both. THere was some nice quality changes to underused units like the Defiler, to a point where it's NOT seeing competitive in any aspect, but in casual games it's a pretty decent option now.

 vaklor4 wrote:

Audustum wrote:

Ice_can wrote:
Ouch thats a pretty nasty meta, but good for tournament practice. I hate to say it but I would guess your probably going to be disappointed then as knights balanced against fireraptors would be broken in a more casual meta. Not ti mention that GW doesn't blalance against or for FW units.
Their is already people complaining about fireraptors being op on dakka already.

My meta also uses 0 tanks and anywhere from 1-3 Fire Raptors per list.

GW does balance for and with FW. That's why it's in CA.

Jury is still out on whether they balance with competitive more in mind than casual, but the speed and harshness of some actions (like conscripts) makes it lean towards competitive.

I'd say they do a little of both. THere was some nice quality changes to underused units like the Defiler, to a point where it's NOT seeing competitive in any aspect, but in casual games it's a pretty decent option now.

Yeah, that's a fair point.