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 disagree on GW not going after soup.

I'm pretty sure GW doesn't want to kill soup. They do want to have it in line with Mono faction though.

With that in mind, you have already seen the change on CP builders getting nerfed (A big reason to bring Soup)

I'm pretty sure your going to see something else. I expect either the CP only usable by the detachment that generated it, or the Warlord's Strats the only ones usable. Or maybe not those, but its somewhat clear the CP changes are not done.

But all that is irrespective of Knights. a mono Knight faction force shouldn't be nerfed.

I missed how the WK was going to reroll wounds against the Guardsmen? I get he could do it vs 10 of them (Doom), somewhat reliably. But how is he rerrolling wounds against the others?

As far as a 5++/5+++ being about as good as a 3++, I think your numbers are off a bit. It's 4/9ths chance of unsaved wound vs 3 9ths chance of an unsaved wound - in other words, the WK takes 33% more unsaved wounds than the IK. It's much closer to a 4++. It can be used in CC, but costs half the shooting, and a Farseer to cast Fortune (so no Guide for your army).

Bharring wrote:
I missed how the WK was going to reroll wounds against the Guardsmen? I get he could do it vs 10 of them (Doom), somewhat reliably. But how is he rerrolling wounds against the others?

As far as a 5++/5+++ being about as good as a 3++, I think your numbers are off a bit. It's 4/9ths chance of unsaved wound vs 3 9ths chance of an unsaved wound - in other words, the WK takes 33% more unsaved wounds than the IK. It's much closer to a 4++. It can be used in CC, but costs half the shooting, and a Farseer to cast Fortune (so no Guide for your army).

I don't know if he meant it that way. I thought he was saying a rolling 2d6 and getting 1 to be a 5+ is about 50% probable. I think 49.98% if my math is recalled correctly. Effectively very comparable to rolling rolling a single dice and getting a 4+.

The math is actually quite simple, if you're willing to see the problem backwards:

"What are the odds of succeeding at least one of 2 5+ rolls in a row" isn't the hardest thing to calculate, but "What are the odds of failing 2 5+ rolls in a row" is even easier: (2/3)*(2/3), or 4/9. So you have a 5/9 chance of making it. You're actually 55.6% likely to pass a 5++/5+++. It's actually *better* than a 4++. But much closer to a 4++ than a 3++.

Bharring wrote:
The math is actually quite simple, if you're willing to see the problem backwards:

"What are the odds of succeeding at least one of 2 5+ rolls in a row" isn't the hardest thing to calculate, but "What are the odds of failing 2 5+ rolls in a row" is even easier: (2/3)*(2/3), or 4/9. So you have a 5/9 chance of making it. You're actually 55.6% likely to pass a 5++/5+++. It's actually *better* than a 4++. But much closer to a 4++ than a 3++.

And then add in the fact that it often isn't just 2 5+ rolls, but a single 5++ roll, that if failed, could end up being SEVERAL 5+++ rolls due to multiple damage.

We're talking about a Fortuned WK with shield vs an IK with 3++, correct? Yeah the IK wins that comparison hands down, especially if the attack in question does more damage, thus requiring more Fortune 5+ rolls

-

WK will need stat changed to be competitive, the point drops from CA were needed and welcomed, but it`s sadly not enough.

 AnomanderRake wrote:

Reemule wrote:

 iGuy91 wrote:


Bringing knights into the game as a standalone army was a huge mistake for balance. Cool models....massive balance upset. You cannot beat them if you didn't plan to fight knights.

Well, I feel you are wrong. Stand Alone knights is Mono Knights. Knight issues are in general related to Soup issues.

Standalone Knights are a skew list that invalidate anything not built around being able to kill a hundred T8 wounds with an Invulnerable save. Knight issues on tournament tables are absolutely related to soup, but allowing Knights as a Codex screws all-comers armies on a casual level to the degree that you might as well refuse the game unless you're playing a tournament list with only the most efficient 5% of the game or have built a "this is my anti-Knights" tailored list ahead of time.

Stand alone knights lose on objectives though. Kill the armigers(much softier) and the ~3 models won't be able to chase down every unit out of LOS blocking to wipe out so lose on objectives they can't really control(especially when you obviously put the 3 you put into as many tall places as you can where they can't even go and need CP to even attack you in h2h)


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Galef wrote:

Reemule wrote:
If your only interested in slamming shut barn doors after all livestock have excaped, go for it.

But reality is Knights are here. They are the other side of the coin of the 200 chaff boys army. They balance the meta.

As a Knight player, the durability issue is a red herring. You don't win off having stuff on the table at the end of the game. You only avoid losing from being tabled.

You win from having points. And Knight have significant disadvantages in scoring points.

Which is certainly true.
But winning just on points, but still having an uphill battle taking out units isn't much fun.

The "bad" Knight lists actually aren't all Knights. They are Knights with Guard chaff for scoring. So not only can you lose, but lose while not having a fun game (which is the absolute worst thing possible in this game)
A bump to a 315ppm base cost and 5ppm Guard Infantry would mitigate this dramatically.

-

But then we are not talking about stand alone knights which supposedly are so bad. And once more we see it's the soup that's problem. Fix the soup, fix the problem. But GW as usual is firing shotgun shells at anything BUT problem. No surprise though. Moa ££££££££££


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Reemule wrote:
I disagree on GW not going after soup.

I'm pretty sure GW doesn't want to kill soup. They do want to have it in line with Mono faction though.

Problem is you would need to buff mono armies a lot to counter the inherint advantage soup has. Ability to bring any unit that is best for the role is HUGE(also makes soup faction more resilient for GW's balance factions. Imperium is much less likely to go to suck than necron because GW changes rules. Individual imperium part gets nerfed? Just take the one GW buffed instead).

Remove CP's and doesn't really matter. Soup still beats. Ability to take best shooters from factions that bring shootyness to best deep strikers from other faction etc beats mono factions. Same point cost, superior unit due to faction bonuses? OF course you take the superior unit

IS aren't a problem, soup is.

Castallan isn't a problem, soup is.

Ravagers aren't a problem, soup is.

the unit I use isn't a problem, soup is.