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've not made my mind up on them yet. I am just generally opposed to the idea of a one unit codex, and Superheavies in non-apoc 40k.

No one seems wiling to buy them not knowing which way the wind will blow. i have been invited to guinea pig against the force but haven't managed to get it done yet. Going to very soon though so i can form a more educated opinion.

I've played the in 10+ games and havent found them to be the gaming breaking army of doom the internet wants you to believe

In my most recent game I was actually tabled on the first turn by a space marine player, granted he had some hot dice and my dice were ice cold, but was still funny as hell

 ironicsilence wrote:
I've played the in 10+ games and havent found them to be the gaming breaking army of doom the internet wants you to believe

In my most recent game I was actually tabled on the first turn by a space marine player, granted he had some hot dice and my dice were ice cold, but was still funny as hell

What army did you use to beat them? Personally I think Knights are going to be a cake walk for many armies and a thorn in the side of several others. I'm not sure if I can be bothered wasting an afternoon getting tabled to prove that 'nids don't have any great counters to them, lol.

What I don't like about Knights isn't the thought that they are some uber force. In fact I think most people aren't saying that, even the people that don't like them.

My problems with them are:

That some armies simply don't have the anti-tank to deal with them.

That we already have too much rock-paper-scissors in the game to the point where a TAC is just trying to do too many things already. This leads to further imbalance if your TAC list comes up against an army that doesn't ignores 1 or 2 of the rock-paper-scissors aspects.

That an army of Knights means anything below S7 is completely useless unless it's scoring and even if it is scoring it's still near-useless. This is just bad game design. My TAC guard list includes squads that don't have plasma/melta guns, I might as well not even put the damned things on the table, and the squads that do, I might as well just put down that one dude instead of his whole squad.

If we're going towards armies where you can have an entire army of Knights, basically all that's happened is we've now got a skirmish game, albeit with larger more expensive figures and bigger numbers for stats.

The thought that Knights would dominate any and all armies was never a consideration.

I've beat knight armies with my eldar, guard, necrons, and blood angels. There a challenging army to both play with and against but i've never once felt like i was going to lose before the game started, like wise I've never really felt like I was going to auto win playing as them. Yeah they have a lot of HPs and a void shield but at the end of the day it still only takes 1 lascannon to make one go boom and when your army only has 4 or so models losing 1 hurts

It takes that 1 lascannon several shots though, lol. If you're really lucky, 2 (less than 1% chance by my calcs).

But yeah, the armies you listed are all armies that I never expected to have great problems with a Knight army. They're all armies that have plenty of high strength and low AP or can rack up a ton of glancing hits. Especially if you know you're going to be facing a Knight army and take extra melta.

I also had a super close game using purifier greyknights but made some tactical mistakes. I still think bringing in an allied knight or two is far scarier then an entire army of them

 ironicsilence wrote:
I also had a super close game using purifier greyknights but made some tactical mistakes. I still think bringing in an allied knight or two is far scarier then an entire army of them

I agree, 2 or 3 Knights backed by a Space Marine or IG contingent is worse, don't most tournies ban allies as well? lol

 ironicsilence wrote:
I've played the in 10+ games and havent found them to be the gaming breaking army of doom the internet wants you to believe

In my most recent game I was actually tabled on the first turn by a space marine player, granted he had some hot dice and my dice were ice cold, but was still funny as hell

Well shoot, scramble the terrain up and go again!

 Jancoran wrote:

 ironicsilence wrote:
I've played the in 10+ games and havent found them to be the gaming breaking army of doom the internet wants you to believe

In my most recent game I was actually tabled on the first turn by a space marine player, granted he had some hot dice and my dice were ice cold, but was still funny as hell

Well shoot, scramble the terrain up and go again!

yeah we did, the 2nd game was a little more balanced as it seemed he blew all his good rules in the first game, but watching him go down the line with lascannons and roll pens and boooooms one after another was rather enjoyable

Indeed. Indeed.

Well I am going to give it a shot and see what's what against it. I am taking my "every day Joe" lunch pail list of Chaos Space Marine Night Lords and gonna' see if there's any point in the exercize at all.

I figure if I can at least compete with it using that list 2-3 times, then I'll be satisfied. But if I cannot and just feel utterly overwhelmed, then I may just have to oppose the snot out of its use in normal 40K.

I am honestly hoping to see proof that its a perfectly reasonable enemy that can beat me if I screw up and gets beat when it should. We all know when we're watching dice screw us vs. the unit itself. I'll be looking for some kind of hope for it. I really HATE the idea of telling someone "no I won't play your totally legal codex" even more than I hate the thought of someone saying "I refuse to play your Tau". I hate that. But I mean, whats the point of lining up with a codex you will never beat? I want to get beat by Generals, not codex's and thus far Ive seen no codex that doesn't allow me to do just that. But I am deeply mistrustful of this one. So far.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

What I don't like about Knights isn't the thought that they are some uber force. In fact I think most people aren't saying that, even the people that don't like them.

My problems with them are:

That some armies simply don't have the anti-tank to deal with them.

I have to ask, then... what do these armies do against armor-heavy IG or SM lists? Get run over by tanks? What works vs things on tracks is generally effective against IK. Lascannons, krak, melta... or whatever your chosen faction calls their equivalents.

That we already have too much rock-paper-scissors in the game to the point where a TAC is just trying to do too many things already. This leads to further imbalance if your TAC list comes up against an army that doesn't ignores 1 or 2 of the rock-paper-scissors aspects.

That's kind of the risk behind a TAC list... you're a jack of all trades, but a master of none, and should expect to have to work at being as good as a "specialist" build in any given area. A TAC list is going to have to work hard to be as good as a dedicated assault army at assault, and it's going to have to work to be as good as a dedicated anti-armor army. It's got a lot of eggs in a lot of baskets, but the downside to the TAC list is that, often, you've only got 1 or 2 units dedicated to a particular thing (in this case anti-armor), that when you run into a specialized list (like armor-heavy builds), you simply don't have enough of the *right* eggs to handle it.

That an army of Knights means anything below S7 is completely useless unless it's scoring and even if it is scoring it's still near-useless. This is just bad game design. My TAC guard list includes squads that don't have plasma/melta guns, I might as well not even put the damned things on the table, and the squads that do, I might as well just put down that one dude instead of his whole squad.

That's true of several armies, though, not just Knights. A lot of those MC/FMC-heavy builds, or any armor-heavy builds, can also be problematic if you have a bunch of low-S troops who are foot-slogging i and also lack anti-armor weapons.

If we're going towards armies where you can have an entire army of Knights, basically all that's happened is we've now got a skirmish game, albeit with larger more expensive figures and bigger numbers for stats.

The thought that Knights would dominate any and all armies was never a consideration.

Don't think we're heading for a game of entirely Knights vs Knights-equivalents... on the one hand, while an individual Knight might be hard to kill, there are some builds that pop them fairly easily... and losing 1 Knight out of your 4 is losing a quarter of your army to what might be a single unit in a single turn, where the person not fielding Knights might have *plenty* more anti-armor dakka where that came from. There's been a lot of comments in the past week or so about people liking the Knights, but learning that dedicated anti-armor units, take them out fairly easily. And, really, just about every army can have some dedicated anti-armor.

yes ranged D weapons are the worst addition to 40k. So stupid....

sand.zzz wrote:
yes ranged D weapons are the worst addition to 40k. So stupid....

cool story bro, knights dont have any ranged "D" weapons

Still a d weapon

 PrinceRaven wrote:
I suspect people will be more likely to ally in psychic support and some anti-air than run full Knights.

 Ascalam wrote:
So can knights

Provided you can (A) hurt it, (B) strike before it or survive 3 Strength D attacks, (C) deal with 6 hull points at AV 13, and (D) catch it.

Riptides are slower, have even worse CC ability than a Haruspex, and are susceptible to tarpits, poison and instant death.

Don't forget its gets stomp too, which is basically another crap ton of hits that can potentially remove models regardless of wounds or saves.

1 or 2 knights is fine. The army of them with the one with the 3++ is what I find concerning. I played against 1 today and it wasn't so bad. If there was 4 more I would have lost the game without a doubt. Them moving 12" and blowing up with a strength D massive template is a terrifying thing to deal with, 4 or 5 of them is blaaaah.

 ironicsilence wrote:

sand.zzz wrote:
yes ranged D weapons are the worst addition to 40k. So stupid....

cool story bro, knights dont have any ranged "D" weapons

I wasn't talking about knights. I was replying to an earlier post talking about ranged D weapons. Guess I shouldve quoted it. Sweet meme though, so funny/clever.

A lot of worry for a unit the can be taken out with 2 melta guns rolling 4+.

Can't think of any MC that would be taken out like that.

I can think of plenty.

What MC has only two wounds?
remember 1 melta shot can take off 4 hull points

None, but it statistacally takes 4 melta pens to wreck an Imperial Knight, 8 if you include the 4+ invulnerable save.

There's a lot of MCs that can be taken down by 8 melta wounds.

Steel Angel wrote:
remember 1 melta shot can take off 4 hull points

Can... but statistically, probably won't...

That may or may not be true ,but it CAN happen in two. It Can Not happen to a MC in two.

Two of any str 8 weapon can take down a IK with luck. that can not happen at all with a MC and when a player can have 2 or more MC for every IK. I rather face the Knights.


statistically your odds are better.

Well, if you have enough Meltaguns Knights are probably easier to deal with.

 Psienesis wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

What I don't like about Knights isn't the thought that they are some uber force. In fact I think most people aren't saying that, even the people that don't like them.

My problems with them are:

That some armies simply don't have the anti-tank to deal with them.

I have to ask, then... what do these armies do against armor-heavy IG or SM lists? Get run over by tanks? What works vs things on tracks is generally effective against IK. Lascannons, krak, melta... or whatever your chosen faction calls their equivalents.

Most tracked vehicles can be dealt with in close combat because you hit their rear armour and they don't stomp/D weapon attack you. The Land Raider is all round 14 and harder to take down, but since it doesn't fight back it's still killable with MC's or FMC's. Most other walkers can be brought down in CC as well.

That we already have too much rock-paper-scissors in the game to the point where a TAC is just trying to do too many things already. This leads to further imbalance if your TAC list comes up against an army that doesn't ignores 1 or 2 of the rock-paper-scissors aspects.

That's kind of the risk behind a TAC list... you're a jack of all trades, but a master of none, and should expect to have to work at being as good as a "specialist" build in any given area. A TAC list is going to have to work hard to be as good as a dedicated assault army at assault, and it's going to have to work to be as good as a dedicated anti-armor army. It's got a lot of eggs in a lot of baskets, but the downside to the TAC list is that, often, you've only got 1 or 2 units dedicated to a particular thing (in this case anti-armor), that when you run into a specialized list (like armor-heavy builds), you simply don't have enough of the *right* eggs to handle it.

What you describe is exactly the problem in tournament games. You don't get to list tailor, so you have to do a TAC list. There are already too many facets to the rock-paper-scissors in 40k.

That an army of Knights means anything below S7 is completely useless unless it's scoring and even if it is scoring it's still near-useless. This is just bad game design. My TAC guard list includes squads that don't have plasma/melta guns, I might as well not even put the damned things on the table, and the squads that do, I might as well just put down that one dude instead of his whole squad.

That's true of several armies, though, not just Knights. A lot of those MC/FMC-heavy builds, or any armor-heavy builds, can also be problematic if you have a bunch of low-S troops who are foot-slogging i and also lack anti-armor weapons.

As far as I'm aware, there's no armies that genuinely render low S troops useless. You always have to take troops, and those troops are the things that are scoring and what can be killed by other troops. The 'nids can take a Tervigon as troops, but for each one need 30 termagaunts. And T6 MC's can still be hurt by a S3 lasgun, a 3+ save T6 MC on average will take a wound every 18 lasgun hits.

Steel Angel wrote:
That may or may not be true ,but it CAN happen in two. It Can Not happen to a MC in two.

Two of any str 8 weapon can take down a IK with luck. that can not happen at all with a MC and when a player can have 2 or more MC for every IK. I rather face the Knights.


statistically your odds are better.

But mcs "can get taken out by 1 force weapon hit, one d cannon shot, one bale sword hit, jaws, 2 d weapon hits, one stomp.....

So the point is moot.

Most mcs can get taken down by 6 bolter wounds or less...knight cannot.....




Automatically Appended Next Post:
Odds are better for knights of you tailor to face them...worse if you don't.

In the Knights codex can you take Knights as troops?

 Kilkrazy wrote:
In the Knights codex can you take Knights as troops?

Troops that can't be hurt by less than S7, that was my point, not that they have no troops selection, but that they have nothing that can be hurt by less than S7. Unless I'm forgetting something, all other armies need something in the troops choice that is scoring and can be killed by things less than S7.

All the Knights are scoring if you take them as a Primary detachment.

They have a modified force organisation, with a minimum of 3 and a max of 6. They are not troops, they just score.

Breng - actually fixing the game, as in making it actually balanced, is a hard problem. I know it is a hard problem, because every hard comp I have seen simply results in another imbalanced army / unit / etc becoming top dog. Every. Single. Time. And this is from people who are very knowledgeable about the tournament scene and what is "broken". Dont say it isnt "hard" unless you have given it a go [disclaimer - I have friends within the GW studio team, and in other games companies. They would fall over themselves laughing when they hear how easy you think it is to balance a game with as many interactions as 40k, or even a 2D game such as Dreadball. You really, really, really do not come across as having much knowledge of this field - this is said with respect. On the surface it appears easy. It isnt.)

My point is that if you are banning IK for "balance", then ban taudar alliances, ban farsight enclave allying with tau, ban more than 2 waveserpents, etc. Or start modifying rules - and by necessity points costs - and come up with entirely new codexes. Good luck with that, from either a sanity perspective OR from getting people to attend.

Oh, and S6 weapons are not useless. They have a rear arc you know.

IK armies are laughably easy to beat for a ton of armies out there, playing to the mission helps - you realise they are nto denial units, yes? THink about that for a second, or two.