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.

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.

Let me get this straight. You want us to compare apples and oranges to help you prove a point?

Pretty much. I'm not interested in the comments of people like you, who obviously know the Knights aren't balanced ( or that's what I got from your comment with the apples + oranges. ) I'm looking for counterarguments that can somehow prove it isnt the best 380 points ( out of a Codex ) one can spend in the entire game.

 RunicFIN wrote:
Pretty much. I'm not interested in the comments of people like you, who obviously know the Knights aren't balanced ( or that's what I got from your comment with the apples + oranges. ) I'm looking for counterarguments that can somehow prove it isnt the best 380 points ( out of a Codex ) one can spend in the entire game.

See, if you want to prove your point this is not the right way. You simply cant compare balance of a unit without looking at what else is in your army. So comparing units with similar points cost is useless since their role/task/whatever might be totally different. An army is more than the pieces it consists of and is ideally build around synergy. Strong synergy is what makes units overpowered - look at eldar. Its why they are so powerful.

There are PLENTY of units for around 400 points that can deal with a knight. Does that mean they are overpowered too?

Oh, and this is a public forum. If you are not interested in my comments thats tough luck for you.

 Mywik wrote:
There are PLENTY of units for around 400 points that can deal with a knight. Does that mean they are overpowered too?

Sure, you create a unit that can kill the Knight for those points. Say, 2 pods of combimelta Sternguard for example. Do they have the Knights mobility? Firepower? Durability? Melee power? The knight does all of that, and on the highest levels possible from a normal Codex.

The whole point is making up something with 380 points that can do everything the knight can do equally well. The knight doesn't need synergy in the same way as a normal unit does - it does everything, and it does it well. Aside from anti-air.

A stock eldar wraithknight and 3 jetseer squads. The IK can't take objectives and D weapons got nerfed. They are good, they are top tier, they are not unbalanced or under costed.

I think it is quite hard to compare the points cost of a knight to another codex choice. A knight fulfills a different role to most other unit choices of the same points value. With that in mind in a purge the alien type scenario, with a Knight, yes you get alot of bang for your buck. But in an objective based game, you could get a lot of troop units for that 380. Spreading your points out.

In fairness, you could make your argument about a lot of things that are specific to each factions codex. If every codex had an equivalent to every other codex, it would be quite boring imo.

For what it's worth, a friend of mine fields a Knight quite often, and I have much less problems facing that than another friends dual Riptide list.

Also in 7th, anyone can field a Knight with the new allies. So in answer to your original question....another Knight

 RunicFIN wrote:


The whole point is making up something with 380 points that can do everything the knight can do equally well. The knight doesn't need synergy in the same way as a normal unit does - it does everything, and it does it well. Aside from anti-air.

Thanks for talking in bold but i understand what you are aiming at. I just questioned that it proves what you want. But i see that all you want here is people that agree with you .

If my army is able to deal with a knight with appropriate points why do i need something that does the same to achieve balance? Isnt balance that every army has the tools to deal with the tools of the other armies for roughly the same cost?

Additionally you didnt even understand my point. Yes the knight doesnt need synergy that much. But the other units you ask us to compare with it do.

But again you dont seem to look for discussion but for approval.

Want GW's advice?

Buy a Knight of your own.

I choose two Dreadknights from the new GK.

For 380

1 can have shunting and a 12 inch move, a Str 10 Ap2 force weapon, a 4++ 4 wounds and a heavy flamer for 205 points

1 can have shunting and a 12 inch move, a Str 10 Ap2 force weapon, a 4++ 4 wounds. For 185.

Would it take down a Knight? Maybe, but it does what the knigh does.

 Mywik wrote:

 RunicFIN wrote:


The whole point is making up something with 380 points that can do everything the knight can do equally well. The knight doesn't need synergy in the same way as a normal unit does - it does everything, and it does it well. Aside from anti-air.

Thanks for talking in bold but i understand what you are aiming at. I just questioned that it proves what you want. But i see that all you want here is people that agree with you .

If my army is able to deal with a knight with appropriate points why do i need something that does the same to achieve balance? Isnt balance that every army has the tools to deal with the tools of the other armies for roughly the same cost?

Additionally you didnt even understand my point. Yes the knight doesnt need synergy that much. But the other units you ask us to compare with it do.

But again you dont seem to look for discussion but for approval.

If you understood what I ment you wouldn't have suggested just creating something that can beat a Knight - as the question wasn't "Can you make something with 380 points that can kill a Knight?." And I don't want people to agree with me, quite the opposite. The way I see it, the Knight is the most all-around effective 380 points one can spend at any given time. Nothing can match its mobility, firepower, melee power and durability that I know of - and I'm interested to see if such an option exists.

 RunicFIN wrote:
Pretty much. I'm not interested in the comments of people like you, who obviously know the Knights aren't balanced ( or that's what I got from your comment with the apples + oranges. ) I'm looking for counterarguments that can somehow prove it isnt the best 380 points ( out of a Codex ) one can spend in the entire game.

Well you asked for something that does EXACTLY the same thing as the Knight for 380pts, nothing really does exactly the same thing, it's the cheapest superheavy in the game so there is no direct comparison. But then the Knight can't do things other units can do, different units fill different roles.

380pts will buy you 2 LRMBT's that pack 2 battlecannon shots, 6 heavy bolter shots. Same number of hull points, no inv save, but higher armour and 80pts cheaper.

The cost of 2 Knights will buy you 3 Wraithknights, that's a llllllot of T8 wounds.

Similar points will also buy you 5 Thunderwolf Cavalry with SS, some with TH and some with Frost weapons. Which dish out an awesome number of high Str low AP attacks that the Knight can't match.

Significantly less points will buy you enough gaunts to tie it up all game.

The main reason I think Knights are unbalanced is because if you didn't bring enough anti-tank you're going to struggle, if you did then it's no problem. Tyranids in particular struggle to bring enough anti-tank to deal with 1 or 2 knights let alone 5 or 6.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

 RunicFIN wrote:
Pretty much. I'm not interested in the comments of people like you, who obviously know the Knights aren't balanced ( or that's what I got from your comment with the apples + oranges. ) I'm looking for counterarguments that can somehow prove it isnt the best 380 points ( out of a Codex ) one can spend in the entire game.

Well you asked for something that does EXACTLY the same thing as the Knight for 380pts, nothing really does exactly the same thing. But then the Knight can't do things other units can do, different units fill different roles.

380pts will buy you 2 LRMBT's that pack 2 battlecannon shots, 6 heavy bolter shots. Same number of hull points, no inv save, but higher armour and 80pts cheaper.

Similar points will also buy you 5 Thunderwolf Cavalry with SS, some with TH and some with Frost weapons. Which dish out an awesome number of high Str low AP attacks that the Knight can't match.

Significantly less points will buy you enough gaunts to tie it up all game.

The main reason I think Knights are unbalanced is because if you didn't bring enough anti-tank you're going to struggle, if you did then it's no problem. Tyranids in particular struggle to bring enough anti-tank to deal with 1 or 2 knights let alone 5 or 6.

Yes the Knight cant do everything - but it does mobility, shooting, melee and durability on a top tier level. That's more than most other units worth the same cost do, unless I am mistaken.

While the options you posted are decent, one of them lacks Knight level shooting, the other lacks Knight level melee. That's exactly what I mean by the Knight being the most effective 380 points in the game. Nothing can simply match what it can do for the same cost.

"The way I see it, the Knight is the most all-around effective 380 points one can spend."....If you want to field a Knight, yes, yes it is.

 RunicFIN wrote:

 Mywik wrote:

 RunicFIN wrote:


The whole point is making up something with 380 points that can do everything the knight can do equally well. The knight doesn't need synergy in the same way as a normal unit does - it does everything, and it does it well. Aside from anti-air.

Thanks for talking in bold but i understand what you are aiming at. I just questioned that it proves what you want. But i see that all you want here is people that agree with you .

If my army is able to deal with a knight with appropriate points why do i need something that does the same to achieve balance? Isnt balance that every army has the tools to deal with the tools of the other armies for roughly the same cost?

Additionally you didnt even understand my point. Yes the knight doesnt need synergy that much. But the other units you ask us to compare with it do.

But again you dont seem to look for discussion but for approval.

If you understood what I ment you wouldn't have suggested just creating something that can beat a Knight - as the question wasn't "Can you make something with 380 points that can kill a Knight?." And I don't want people to agree with me, quite the opposite. The way I see it, the Knight is the most all-around effective 380 points one can spend.

So if i want to play a fast moving army that is capable of taking objectives last minute with objective secured while focusing on killing my opponents troops is the knight the best possible way to spent 380 points? I really dont think so. So no its not always the best possible way to spend these points. It entirely depends on your army.
Are knights strong? Yes, they definitely are.
Are knights so overpowered that armies without them cant be successful? No, they definitely arent.

I don't even want to think about 5-6 knights, or their cheesy formation. Just. Jesus.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Mywik wrote:

So if i want to play a fast moving army that is capable of taking objectives last minute with objective secured while focusing on killing my opponents troops is the knight the best possible way to spent 380 points? I really dont think so. So no its not always the best possible way to spend these points it entirely depends on your army.
Are knights strong? Yes, they definitely are.
Are knights so overpowered that armies without them cant be successful? No, they definitely arent.

That is true, for a specialed army like that the Knight wouldn't be optimal. That's given. I don't know how to explain this any way better to you; what I'm looking for is if there's something one can spend 380 points on to bring equal performance allaround ( to that of a Knight. Mobility. Firepower. Melee. Durability. All of them. )

The double DK is closest I've seen so far.

 RunicFIN wrote:
I don't even want to think about 5-6 knights, or their cheesy formation. Just. Jesus.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Mywik wrote:

So if i want to play a fast moving army that is capable of taking objectives last minute with objective secured while focusing on killing my opponents troops is the knight the best possible way to spent 380 points? I really dont think so. So no its not always the best possible way to spend these points it entirely depends on your army.
Are knights strong? Yes, they definitely are.
Are knights so overpowered that armies without them cant be successful? No, they definitely arent.

That is true, for a specialed army like that the Knight wouldn't be optimal. That's given. I don't know how to explain this any way better to you; what I'm looking for is if there's something one can spend 380 points on to bring equal performance allaround ( to that of a Knight. Mobility. Firepower. Melee. Durability. All of them. )

I understand what you want. I just think that this is not a good way to judge balance.
To answer your question. The knight is the only cheap superheavy in the game. This alone tells us that theres nothing comparable to it.
From that standpoint eldar warp spiders are also overpowered as heck - since theres not a single infantry unit in the game that matches their mobility in any way shape or form. Different units do different things. Comparing them in a vaccuum without looking at the whole picture doesnt tell us much about the game balance i think.


A point that is correct on knights is that they tend to heavily shift the meta. In a knight heavy meta people will have to have dedicated anti-armor that is capable of destroying 1 or 2 of them over the course of a game. But the same thing could be said about a flyer heavy meta or if people really like landraiders in your club.

Indeed, and I am not judging game balance. I am simply judging how good the Knights bang for buck ratio is - if nothing can match it's performance at its point cost, then it's the best all-around 380 points one can spend logically. The most effective 380 points to purchase mobility, durability, firepower and melee power.

Your Warp Spider -example would be the same as mine, except in smaller points cost category, if they also did melee, durability and shooting better than anything else in their points cost vicinity. The Knight doesn't just move fast. It does everything well ( except anti-air, again. )

Weight on the word all-around, meaning not specialized role, and not a single quality. I think if you describe a Knight as a fast moving, hard hitting and shooting, durable unit then it's not very specialized. Unless you define psychological distraction or area denial as specialized roles.

But we all know we take the Knight because it does everything well.

 RunicFIN wrote:
Indeed, and I am not judging game balance. I am simply judging how good the Knights bang for buck ratio is - if nothing can match it's performance at its point cost, then it's the best all around 380 points one can spend logically.

Weight on the word all-around, meaning not specialized role.

Wraithknights and Riptides really are in the same boat in my opinion. Really tough to takedown units that dish out a lot of damage they are also fast and "all-around".

Your method works if all we play is exactly the 380 points a knight costs. As soon as we get more points and therefor other armies can use their synergies that part of the argument falls apart.

So jeah. In a 380 point game a knight is probably the best option you can take. How often do you play these games and why the heck do you allow a knight in there? We dont even allow dreads in such an environment.

 RunicFIN wrote:
Pretty much. I'm not interested in the comments of people like you, who obviously know the Knights aren't balanced ( or that's what I got from your comment with the apples + oranges. ) I'm looking for counterarguments that can somehow prove it isnt the best 380 points ( out of a Codex ) one can spend in the entire game.

It's apples and oranges because you've set such limitations that you might as well say that you exclude everything that is not an Imperial Knight.

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. )

It doesn't need that.
It needs to be 380 points that I would field more likely than an Imperial Knight and there are a lot of those.

Kangodo wrote:


It needs to be 380 points that I would field more likely than an Imperial Knight and there are a lot of those.

Exactly.

Kangodo wrote:

It's apples and oranges because you've set such limitations that you might as well say that you exclude everything that is not an Imperial Knight.

It's basically true, then, that nothing can match an Imperial Knights all-around performance that you can get for 380 points?

 RunicFIN wrote:

Kangodo wrote:

It's apples and oranges because you've set such limitations that you might as well say that you exclude everything that is not an Imperial Knight.

It's basically true, then, that nothing can match an Imperial Knights all-around performance that you can get for 380 points?

What is basically true is that within the limitations youve set for the comparison knights are the best. What is not true at all when looking at the whole picture is that a knight would always be a better choice for its points then anything else.

 Mywik wrote:

 RunicFIN wrote:
Indeed, and I am not judging game balance. I am simply judging how good the Knights bang for buck ratio is - if nothing can match it's performance at its point cost, then it's the best all around 380 points one can spend logically.

Weight on the word all-around, meaning not specialized role.

Wraithknights and Riptides really are in the same boat in my opinion. Really tough to takedown units that dish out a lot of damage they are also fast and "all-around".

Your method works if all we play is exactly the 380 points a knight costs. As soon as we get more points and therefor other armies can use their synergies that part of the argument falls apart.

So jeah. In a 380 point game a knight is probably the best option you can take. How often do you play these games?

God. I give up trying to explain this for you, as you keep bringing up synergy. I'm not debating what is the best synergized army you can make - I'm talking about the unit that is most likely the most all-around pointcost effective in the entire game, which automatically makes it a tier higher than any other similiar costed option.

 RunicFIN wrote:


God. I give up trying to explain this for you, as you keep bringing up synergy. I'm not debating what is the best synergized army you can make - I'm talking about the unit that is most likely the most all-around pointcost effective in the entire game, which automatically makes it a tier higher than any other similiar costed option.

See and i dont give up telling you that you are comparing apples and oranges .

 Mywik wrote:

 RunicFIN wrote:

Kangodo wrote:

It's apples and oranges because you've set such limitations that you might as well say that you exclude everything that is not an Imperial Knight.

It's basically true, then, that nothing can match an Imperial Knights all-around performance that you can get for 380 points?

What is basically true is that within the limitations youve set for the comparison knights are the best. What is not true at all when looking at the whole picture is that a knight would always be a better choice for its points then anything else.

So the Knight is the best 380 points of all-around performance one can buy. There is no other option of 380 points that brings equally destructive melee, durability, mobility and shooting to the table. And my only restriction was the level of power and that is has to be from a Codex. Why would I ask the following question:

"Is there anything you can do for 380 points that doesn't match a knights all-around qualities." - I don't know why anyone would ask that lol. Ofcourse, if we are comparing things, and the question is of equal bang for buck, the limitation has to be that of equality.

 RunicFIN wrote:

 Mywik wrote:

 RunicFIN wrote:

Kangodo wrote:

It's apples and oranges because you've set such limitations that you might as well say that you exclude everything that is not an Imperial Knight.

It's basically true, then, that nothing can match an Imperial Knights all-around performance that you can get for 380 points?

What is basically true is that within the limitations youve set for the comparison knights are the best. What is not true at all when looking at the whole picture is that a knight would always be a better choice for its points then anything else.

So the Knight is the best 380 points of all-around performance one can buy. There is no other option of 380 points that brings equally destructive melee, durability, mobility and shooting to the table. And my only restriction was the level of power and that is has to be from a Codex. Why would I ask the following question:

"Is there anything you can do for 380 points that doesn't match a knights all-around qualities." - I don't know why anyone would ask that lol. Ofcourse, if we are comparing things, and the question is of equal bang for buck, the limitation has to be that of equality.

Jeah, we've known that from the start. Nothing new. My point is: This tells us nothing. It doesnt say "knights are always betta" it doesnt say "not bringing knights will lose you a game". It also doesnt even remotely say anything about if they are the best unit you can buy for your army for around 380 points. Which was your question. So no. You are not correct in thinking that a knight is the best option for 380 points since thats simply not how the game works. So i question the practical use of that knowlege. But that went over your head the whole thread

 Mywik wrote:
See and i dont give up telling you that you are comparing apples and oranges .

If we are comparing any available units in the game, the only restriction being the all-around effectiveness for 380 points, then where's the apples and oranges?

You just compare different units, any in the entire game for that matter, and how much shooting, melee, mobility and durability they can bring for said points cost. And with these totally non-apples-and-oranges restrictions of melee+durability+mobility+shooting+points cost nothing matches the Knight.

It's basically the same if I asked about cars. Take all the cars you know, and let's say 100,000$ of cash. Some cars are more durable, some faster, some have better engineering, some have extra addons in them. If there is one car that brings more all-around qualities than any other car, then it's all-around the best car.

Can´t fathom how this is hard to understand.

Equality in 40k?

For the specific role a knight fills, you are indeed better off spending those points on a Knight. But as Mywik is trying to point out, it's not just a game of 380 points v 380 points. The rest of the army is important to create the synergy needed to make a nicely functioning army.
As Mywik said, in a vacuum you can't create an accurate comparison in another codex, because there isn't one.

 Mywik wrote:
[Jeah, we've known that from the start. Nothing new. My point is: This tells us nothing. It doesnt say "knights are always betta" it doesnt say "not bringing knights will lose you a game". It also doesnt even remotely say anything about if they are the best unit you can buy for your army for around 380 points. Which was your question. So no. You are not correct in thinking that a knight is the best option for 380 points since thats simply not how the game works. So i question the practical use of that knowlege. But that went over your head the whole thread

The question was "all-around performance" and I've underlined it in vaurious replies already. You are simply ignoring the "all-around performance per point cost" -factor, so basically you are making a different argument entirely, or answering to a question that was never asked. You are answering a question of the most effective all-around performance per points with "the most effective performance per points regarding the composition of your army, taking into account specialized roles."

I'm not asking what is the best 380 points one can spend regarding their army composition. I'm asking if something can bring equal shooting, melee, durability and mobility to the table for 380 points. It really is that simple.