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 agree knights need a points reduction especially as it’s gaining more models to be a full fledged army. However I also think most knights should not only have a built in invul save but also a secondary FNP type save. This would extend the durability of knights without it taking away from anti tank or even worse anti titan weapons.

But also let’s see what the codex has and what the deepstrike nerf will accomplish. I foresee A LOT of deepstrike double tap plasma units getting burned by the deepstrike faq nerf and making it harder to drop in several double tapping plasmagun units to obliterate knight equivilant and heavy vehicle models. That alone should help much of these units survive as people move away from mass drop lists.

 mew28 wrote:
I feel like knights should cost about 100 less points and the mini knight should cost around 60 points less. They are both just terrible for their cost.

That could easily be in the codex.

 vaklor4 wrote:
Knights are crap . Period. They need an invuln save that actually works in melee, and they need less random weapons. A 2d6 weapon should NOT cost 100 points, that's far too random.

Yea I don't quite understand why they pay 100 for a twin BC when a regular BC is 22.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 vaklor4 wrote:
Knights are crap . Period. They need an invuln save that actually works in melee, and they need less random weapons. A 2d6 weapon should NOT cost 100 points, that's far too random.

Yea I don't quite understand why they pay 100 for a twin BC when a regular BC is 22.

I mean the cost of their guns is all most meaningless they can push the points onto the knight chaises and vice versa. It is the total cost that matters here and 450 points a knight is just trash for shooting that is equal to about 1 leman russ.

 mew28 wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 vaklor4 wrote:
Knights are crap . Period. They need an invuln save that actually works in melee, and they need less random weapons. A 2d6 weapon should NOT cost 100 points, that's far too random.

Yea I don't quite understand why they pay 100 for a twin BC when a regular BC is 22.

I mean the cost of their guns is all most meaningless they can push the points onto the knight chaises and vice versa. It is the total cost that matters here and 450 points a knight is just trash for shooting that is equal to about 1 leman russ.

Yeah the inconsistency with points costs is not quite frustrating, but close. The difference between a Leman Russ and a hulking Knight Paladin is 3+ BS as far as shooting goes. To be fair you can do "more" with a knight than a Russ. A rapid fire battle Cannon should be about 40 points if a battle cannon is 22. The avenger Gatling cannon is 95 points, a riptide can take a Heavy Burst cannon, it's the same but with 1 less ap. 35 points. For 18 points you can increase the ap of all of its weapons, arguably making the burst cannon 53 points. Then can be Nova charged to 18 shots, though i figure the cost of that is from the riptide itself.

Here another overlooked point muck up. A Vyper is 20 points cheaper than a Land speeder, the difference is the speeder has an extra attack(2) and 3+ WS. Other than weapons which they pay for separately they have the same profile and rules, I'd expect that the speeder to be more expensive for those little advantages, but not 20 points!

I don't expect Knights to get much of a points drop if any in the codex. The knight chassis is 320 even if it were rounded off to 300 I'd be surprised.

Maybe I'm too OCD though

 fraser1191 wrote:

Spoiler:

 mew28 wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 vaklor4 wrote:
Knights are crap . Period. They need an invuln save that actually works in melee, and they need less random weapons. A 2d6 weapon should NOT cost 100 points, that's far too random.

Yea I don't quite understand why they pay 100 for a twin BC when a regular BC is 22.

I mean the cost of their guns is all most meaningless they can push the points onto the knight chaises and vice versa. It is the total cost that matters here and 450 points a knight is just trash for shooting that is equal to about 1 leman russ.

Yeah the inconsistency with points costs is not quite frustrating, but close. The difference between a Leman Russ and a hulking Knight Paladin is 3+ BS as far as shooting goes. To be fair you can do "more" with a knight than a Russ. A rapid fire battle Cannon should be about 40 points if a battle cannon is 22. The avenger Gatling cannon is 95 points, a riptide can take a Heavy Burst cannon, it's the same but with 1 less ap. 35 points. For 18 points you can increase the ap of all of its weapons, arguably making the burst cannon 53 points. Then can be Nova charged to 18 shots, though i figure the cost of that is from the riptide itself.

Here another overlooked point muck up. A Vyper is 20 points cheaper than a Land speeder, the difference is the speeder has an extra attack(2) and 3+ WS. Other than weapons which they pay for separately they have the same profile and rules, I'd expect that the speeder to be more expensive for those little advantages, but not 20 points!

I don't expect Knights to get much of a points drop if any in the codex. The knight chassis is 320 even if it were rounded off to 300 I'd be surprised.

Maybe I'm too OCD though

Again the cost of the model or weapon is pretty meaningless. The knight could be free but if the rapid fire battle cannon costed 200 points and the reaper chainsword costed 250 points they knight paladin would be in about the same boat. They can shuffle the points back and forth but all that matters is the total cost. With some stuff like the demolish canon at 0 points you could say it is op for it's cost but the cost of it is purely on the models that can take it. so comparing the cost of just weapons is all most useless.

 mew28 wrote:

 fraser1191 wrote:

Spoiler:

 mew28 wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 vaklor4 wrote:
Knights are crap . Period. They need an invuln save that actually works in melee, and they need less random weapons. A 2d6 weapon should NOT cost 100 points, that's far too random.

Yea I don't quite understand why they pay 100 for a twin BC when a regular BC is 22.

I mean the cost of their guns is all most meaningless they can push the points onto the knight chaises and vice versa. It is the total cost that matters here and 450 points a knight is just trash for shooting that is equal to about 1 leman russ.

Yeah the inconsistency with points costs is not quite frustrating, but close. The difference between a Leman Russ and a hulking Knight Paladin is 3+ BS as far as shooting goes. To be fair you can do "more" with a knight than a Russ. A rapid fire battle Cannon should be about 40 points if a battle cannon is 22. The avenger Gatling cannon is 95 points, a riptide can take a Heavy Burst cannon, it's the same but with 1 less ap. 35 points. For 18 points you can increase the ap of all of its weapons, arguably making the burst cannon 53 points. Then can be Nova charged to 18 shots, though i figure the cost of that is from the riptide itself.

Here another overlooked point muck up. A Vyper is 20 points cheaper than a Land speeder, the difference is the speeder has an extra attack(2) and 3+ WS. Other than weapons which they pay for separately they have the same profile and rules, I'd expect that the speeder to be more expensive for those little advantages, but not 20 points!

I don't expect Knights to get much of a points drop if any in the codex. The knight chassis is 320 even if it were rounded off to 300 I'd be surprised.

Maybe I'm too OCD though

Again the cost of the model or weapon is pretty meaningless. The knight could be free but if the rapid fire battle cannon costed 200 points and the reaper chainsword costed 250 points they knight paladin would be in about the same boat. They can shuffle the points back and forth but all that matters is the total cost. With some stuff like the demolish canon at 0 points you could say it is op for it's cost but the cost of it is purely on the models that can take it. so comparing the cost of just weapons is all most useless.

?

If the RFBC was properly costed the total cost would drop to 390 or so, which isn't terrible. It still suffers from needing to be in melee, too, but that's what you get with knights.

 fraser1191 wrote:
Are Imperial knights, wraithknights and such other equivalent models too easy to kill? Or do weapons do too much damage?

I'm asking because I know I can take down a wraith knight in one turn of shooting, and I don't have the best list out there. With this new knight I'm worried it's not going to stay on the table long as I'm sure it'll be both a points and money sink.

Maybe the eldar one is a bit lackluster but imperium knights are properly priced. Yes, there are some armies that can spam anti tank or sources of mortal wounds for dirt cheap, but many other don't unless they're tailoring. Imperial knights are ok, maybe an entire army of them is hard to play, but hey playing with just 4 dudes against a real 2000 points army should be something tricky.

For a TAC list that isn't among the top 3-4 tiers killing a knight (while also trying to play the game in the most efficient way) is not that easy. Knights are not ork nauts

Possible options for some of the knights if they insist on them costing over 450 points each:

1. 10 Toughness - Heavy Bolters shouldn't be wounding on 5's
2. 2+ Armour and 4+ Invulnerable - Leviathans have this so should Knights
3. Allow them to join a Chapter to receive buffs
4. Remove the Damage Table

As it stands now they are simply outclassed by so many other cheaper units

 osmesis wrote:
Possible options for some of the knights if they insist on them costing over 450 points each:

1. 10 Toughness - Heavy Bolters shouldn't be wounding on 5's
2. 2+ Armour and 4+ Invulnerable - Leviathans have this so should Knights
3. Allow them to join a Chapter to receive buffs
4. Remove the Damage Table

As it stands now they are simply outclassed by so many other cheaper units

You mean one of those or all of them? As all of them at 400 points would be seriously OP.

I suspect knights will drop in points a bit you'll also get strategums which will help. The tricky is balancing the CP cost, make thrm cheap enough to use in a solo knights list would mean very powerful strategums for 1CP. However if you add in a guard CP battery a knights list becomes overpowered filth as you can use lots of strong 1CP strategums and farm that CP back.

Ice_can wrote:
I suspect knights will drop in points a bit you'll also get strategums which will help. The tricky is balancing the CP cost, make thrm cheap enough to use in a solo knights list would mean very powerful strategums for 1CP. However if you add in a guard CP battery a knights list becomes overpowered filth as you can use lots of strong 1CP strategums and farm that CP back.

Didn't say all, possible options

I think T8 with 2+/4++ would be fine. Lower weapons cost and allow legion/chapter traits would be awesome as well. Maybe an option to buy FNP.

Make the weapons far more powerful.

The game really isn't made to handle T10 units right now. Most armies can't handle a T10 unit at all, since all weapons would be wounding on 5+ instead of 4+ and 3+.
All other suggestions do sound fine though.

 osmesis wrote:
Possible options for some of the knights if they insist on them costing over 450 points each:

1. 10 Toughness - Heavy Bolters shouldn't be wounding on 5's
2. 2+ Armour and 4+ Invulnerable - Leviathans have this so should Knights
3. Allow them to join a Chapter to receive buffs
4. Remove the Damage Table

As it stands now they are simply outclassed by so many other cheaper units

Yeah, but with those improvements they'd worth 800+ points each.

I suspect one of the main issues is with everything being able to hurt everything it became very linier with the D6 system. Untill GW adopt a d10/d12 system the ability to scale things with proper granularity just isn't there.

Everything can hurt anything is much less of a problem than most people make it out to be. A knight won't die to lasguns any time soon.

A much bigger problem for big models is the amount of damage dedicated anti-tank weapons and jack-of-all-trade weapons do.
A single volley from a predator annihilator and half of your knight is gone, the mortar of a PBC that struggles to kill a unit of primaris marines with its d3 damage rolls, but takes a big chunk out of a knight, and some DA hell blasters just casually gun it down with their plasma stratagem.

Knights and similar models simply need to pay less for their huge pile of wounds since they don't protect them nearly as well as it seems.

Xenomancers wrote:Removing degrading profiles would help a great deal. Super heavies suffer the most from them.

I would rather see degrading profiles tweaked rather than removed. We all remember how fun it was to fight MCs/GMCs in 7th.

Ice_can wrote:

I suspect knights will drop in points a bit you'll also get strategums which will help. The tricky is balancing the CP cost, make thrm cheap enough to use in a solo knights list would mean very powerful strategums for 1CP. However if you add in a guard CP battery a knights list becomes overpowered filth as you can use lots of strong 1CP strategums and farm that CP back.

Yet another reason CPs should only be useable by the detachment that generated them.

Ice_can wrote:I suspect one of the main issues is with everything being able to hurt everything it became very linier with the D6 system. Untill GW adopt a d10/d12 system the ability to scale things with proper granularity just isn't there.

I agree that this would improve the game, but it's also the least likely solution we will see.

1) d6 is just GW's thing
2) You can get d6's in bulk just about anywhere. d10's can often be bought in bulk, but I don't think I've ever seen a box of just d12's.

In general, superheavies have the same problem they've always had. You're playing Rock, Paper, Scissors. If your opponent has high-damage, high-AP weapons, you're gonna have a bad time. If he doesn't, [i]he's[i/] gonna have a bad time.

You can buy all the d12s you want at a non-GW game store.

Something that hasn't been discussed is how the game itself plays and how that relates to the overall survivability of any individual Unit. Specifically the IGUO method of play. (This has already been discussed in a couple of threads already but is pertinent to the discussion)

Now don't misunderstand, I know there are issues that revolve around alternating play, but it does solve so pretty serious holes in how the game has been shifting (for years) to an alpha strike mentality.

The method I'm suggesting is Alternating play during the phase of a Turn.

Points of Interest:
1. There wouldn't be a Player Turn any longer and only the Turn.

2. The Phases would remain the same.

3. First "Turn" is determined as before.

4. After first turn is determined, players alternate play in each phase
a. Example: Movement phase: Player 1 moves a unit. Player 2 moves a unit. Place a token or marker or something to differentiate units that have activated vs those that have yet to. Once either player has moved all their units the other player moves their remaining units
b. Once end of phase triggers the players alternate once more should there be any abilities that trigger at this time.
c. If a player passes then the other player may continue to operate as per the phase. Note: Once both players pass consecutively then that part of the phase ends, even if there are eligible units still available in the phase.

5. This opens up a lot of tactical play in each of the phases as the weight of one list cannot be counted upon to "delete" a unit before it has had an opportunity to act.
a. Tactics such as moving out of range of a decidedly dangerous unit.
b. The introduction of new Stratagems, like being when a unit is selected to activate, play this stratagem to active in the end phase.
c. MSU armies would have the advantage in the movement phase whereas the Elite armies would have the advantage in the shooting phase.
d. Passing becomes a dangerous game of chicken if a player wants to hold out in a phase for an advantage.

6. More importantly, this mode of operation allows "Elite" units the chance to perform as befitting their name.

7. This method would force players into thinking of damage vs durability and would give a needed boost to the performance of large, expensive units, like Knight class units.

8. Additionally, this method would allow designers to better balance against the individual unit vs the whole army as many here constantly calling for.

Is this method perfect? In no way possible... it does however fix more holes (IMO) that create them. Especially for large Elite units like Knights.

*Laughs in quantum shielding*

But seriously. Tanks are tougher than they've ever been this edition. No more can you get 1 lucky penetrating hit and blow a land raider to gak.

Realistically, a Lascannon does 3.5 wounds every failed save. So...4.57 failed saves. A land raider has a 2+, so it will get at least a 5+ against those, potentially a 4+ with cover, so 6.08 hits, or 9 hits with cover. Assuming 3+ BS, it will take 13.5 lascannon shots to get that to work. That is 338 points of lascannons, and then 176 points of marines holding them, for a total of 514 points of lascannon marines to kill one, sans rerolls, assuming cover on an adequately covered board. If a quarter of your army is tied up in 13 power armored bodies, you are going to seriously struggle against more balanced lists, and your firepower will degrade rapidly from losses.

Honestly, half the problem is boards with massive, clear lines of sight. Too much area terrain, not enough line of sight blocking. Might help alleviate some of the issues.

Marines with lascannons are not a good metric. Xenos with more efficient options and mass mortal wound approaches are a big threat. Also, basilisks/manticores still keep the big stuff on the shelf.

When compairing them to other LoW, like bane variants, there is just no competition. A shadow sword can one shot a knight ewch shooting turn relatively easy, especially with tempestes scions. Knights even when fully loaded for bear to try and kill vehicles can't off a bane variants, statistically that is.

Shadow sword is an 800 pt model, though. Not 600.

Martel732 wrote:
Shadow sword is an 800 pt model, though. Not 600.

Shadowsword is under 500 points my dude.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
A basic bitch shadow sword is 400 points

No, it SHOULD be an 800 pt model fully kitted.

Right, because fully kitted it's a 600 point model, but 800 points? No the falcion is around 800 points and it's twice the fire power and better BS

Then the falchion should probably be more than 1K. Baneblades are criminally undercosted, especially post-FAQ.

Martel732 wrote:
Then the falchion should probably be more than 1K. Baneblades are criminally undercosted, especially post-FAQ.

Again, you are not wrong on that. Personally other LoW need to either be buffed to it's fire power potential, or it needs a point increase

The Falchion is 1017 points, and has been since Chapter Approved. 840 base plus guns.


Edit: math