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.

 BoomWolf wrote:

Makumba wrote:

BoomWolf anyone who played against a ctan shards knows there is something wrong with them.

The C'tan are a localized problem, not a problem with the LoW as a whole. just like annibarges do not make HS as a whole overpowered, and WS do not make transports as a whole overpowered.

Cool, but if a LoW is would be taken it would be him . in 6th the problem were not stompas or baneblades , which were and still are crap for the points, but the dual pulsar armed super mobile eldar titans that were deleting 3-4 units per turn. Worse of it just because the shard exists people here can't use draigo or ghaz, because the only way to remove shards from the game was to ban all LoW from events.

That would be like saying that dedicated transports should be banned because wave serpents exist.

That's plain silly. if ONE of many options in a category is troublesome than you ban THAT SPECIFIC unit, not the entire category.
Its not even a dickmove against necrons, they HAVE other LoW options. and one is even armed nearly the same.


As for the guy who suggested that knights ruin the balance of the game because "force players to tailor their lists so they can deal with multiple Knights", and leman russes don't? because I tested it and you can have 12 of them in a 1850 point army withing a single FoC. that's 36 hull points with 14 front armor, nearly as though as 6 knights.

Any claims they are overpowered are silly. Ive had seriously no trouble killing knights even at 1000 points and my lists are not remotely optimized.

And then no one buys necron and stores have stuff left unsold. They don't support tournaments, so fewer people come to them, so even fewer armies get bought as the number of people playing drops and the stores lose more money. Most of the money , that is not ccg, comes to shops in forms of serpents,shards or riptides when they were good. If someone would start banning stuff on model per model bases, one can as well write new rules for w40k

LR will never be as good knights, as the army will be static and unable to score fast enough. A ctan is bad , because it is cheap, fast and doesnt make the necron player play with 12+ models.

TAC IG unless it takes ally, has no options to counter knights fast enough for them to get too close and I never played 1000pts. we play 1500 here as it is the standard tournament size of games here.

The point of 1000 points point is that its even smaller, and therefor harder to be ready to everything. and yet even then suprize knights are possible to take down.


As for per-model bans not possible, why not? the big turnies already make up so many of their own rules, bend over some existing rules, make whole new missions and in general feth with the game system (even banning whole categories of models), is banning one specific know problem unit really outside of what they do anyway?
If anything-that's LESS messing with the game than banning the entire LoW slot as they sometimes do, and far less than NOVA's "list of approved LoW" (who are not even remotely fair as the allowed list bans SO many things that are not even good, let alone OP)

 BoomWolf wrote:

As for per-model bans not possible, why not? the big turnies already make up so many of their own rules, bend over some existing rules, make whole new missions and in general feth with the game system (even banning whole categories of models), is banning one specific know problem unit really outside of what they do anyway?
If anything-that's LESS messing with the game than banning the entire LoW slot as they sometimes do, and far less than NOVA's "list of approved LoW" (who are not even remotely fair as the allowed list bans SO many things that are not even good, let alone OP)

I still don't get why the 40k community are so afraid of banning single models or allowing them. I've seen so many people say, with a straight face, that if they allow Ghazzy then EVERYONE is allowed to feth gak up with Reaver Titans and C'tans. There's like zero middle ground with so many 40k players, compared to Fantasy.

 krodarklorr wrote:

 BoomWolf wrote:
The reasons my tactics with nids are not great, is that I am not a nid player.
I don't know their ins and outs very well, I know to prioritize shooting targets, "hit and run" shooting moves and deciding long-term deepstrike locations as an enclaves player.

But I've seen nids beat knights, so I know its within the realm of possibility.

I don't doubt it's within their possibility. The only issue I have with Nids, as a Nid player, is the fact that 7th edition made it so it's THAT much harder for us to kill vehicles. Especially Knights, because we can't kill them in melee, and our shooting isn't that great beyond Devourers with Brainleech worms. And you could argue that charging in a full brood of Carnifexes with Crushing Claws would do the trick, they can't possibly kill them all, right? Well, 365 of their points could wipe out Two Carnifexes before they get to strike, and then after that, you might kill one. So it took you roughly 400+ points worth of your vehicle killers to kill one knight, and now whats left will get shot to bits.

Even the Hive Crone is beyond taking, honesty. I would love to own one, but do I want to spend 83 dollars on one? No. Do I want to go buy 3+ of them just to beat Knights, which will still probably win? No. I would rather decline the game in general. Which sucks, but that's what it comes to.

The Barbed Hierodule is one of the few realistic options Nids have against multiple knights. I don't think knights are that bad for most armies but the Nid codex is just a mess and you're pretty much forced to go formations and/or FW to make them competitive.

 Antario wrote:
The Barbed Hierodule is one of the few realistic options Nids have against multiple knights. I don't think knights are that bad for most armies but the Nid codex is just a mess and you're pretty much forced to go formations and/or FW to make them competitive.

I will admit I've never used or faced a Barbed Hierodule.

But I'm looking at it's stats right now, I'm not sure why you think it's a great option against multiple Knights. You'd have to make sure you keep the thing out of combat as it's lower Ini than a Knight and would die in a couple of combat phases, it could do a couple of HP damage per turn shooting I guess, but it's 565pts for something that is no harder to kill than a Wraithknight

The barbed Hierodule is the only str 10 shooting nids can get aside from psychic shooting.

I completely agree the model is overpriced points-wise, but thats what makes it a fair LOW. it could probably use about 3 more wounds and a BS increase to make it worth the points in today's meta.

Eihnlazer wrote:
The barbed Hierodule is the only str 10 shooting nids can get aside from psychic shooting.

I completely agree the model is overpriced points-wise, but thats what makes it a fair LOW. it could probably use about 3 more wounds and a BS increase to make it worth the points in today's meta.

Tyrannofex and the rupture cannon.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

 Antario wrote:
The Barbed Hierodule is one of the few realistic options Nids have against multiple knights. I don't think knights are that bad for most armies but the Nid codex is just a mess and you're pretty much forced to go formations and/or FW to make them competitive.

I will admit I've never used or faced a Barbed Hierodule.

But I'm looking at it's stats right now, I'm not sure why you think it's a great option against multiple Knights. You'd have to make sure you keep the thing out of combat as it's lower Ini than a Knight and would die in a couple of combat phases, it could do a couple of HP damage per turn shooting I guess, but it's 565pts for something that is no harder to kill than a Wraithknight

The knight player cannot ignore it. So you know where those knights are headed and what angle the shields will be. Your flying MC's with haywire and/or units with high strength shooting can be positioned to take maximum advantage of that. Electroshock grubs are very painful for clustered knights.

Played against Orks the other day with my Sisters and a Knight - the Orks blew the Knight away with a squad of lootas including 4HP in one turn -Last HP was in overwatch :( !

They're basically Wave Serpents without the Serpents few weaknesses.

Except WS are far cheesier than any Knight

 Antario wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

 Antario wrote:
The Barbed Hierodule is one of the few realistic options Nids have against multiple knights. I don't think knights are that bad for most armies but the Nid codex is just a mess and you're pretty much forced to go formations and/or FW to make them competitive.

I will admit I've never used or faced a Barbed Hierodule.

But I'm looking at it's stats right now, I'm not sure why you think it's a great option against multiple Knights. You'd have to make sure you keep the thing out of combat as it's lower Ini than a Knight and would die in a couple of combat phases, it could do a couple of HP damage per turn shooting I guess, but it's 565pts for something that is no harder to kill than a Wraithknight

The knight player cannot ignore it. So you know where those knights are headed and what angle the shields will be. Your flying MC's with haywire and/or units with high strength shooting can be positioned to take maximum advantage of that. Electroshock grubs are very painful for clustered knights.

Hmm, maybe, it seems like too large a points sink to me on the surface. In combination with Flyrants I could see it doing a bit of damage to a couple of Knights, but you're the points for a Hierodule, 2 Flyrants and a Crone you're looking at enough points to buy 3 Knights. The Knights would have to be VERY clustered for Electroshock grubs to hit more than 1 with their huge bases.

A Knight army could possibly focus shooting on it, a 565pt Hierodule only averages 2HP per turn against a 6HP 375pt Knight, the Knight averages about 1 wound per turn on the 6 wound Hierodule, so shooting it to death would take a large investment of the Knight's shooting. You could just ignore the Hierodule early in the game and decimate the rest of the Tyranid army so that late in the game you can just squish it in combat (but then you'd be accepting that the Hierodule might kill a Knight).

It's definitely more competitive, I'd like to try a game and see how it goes in practice. Though I think a Hierodule is a sucky TAC list model, it's not bad against a Knight army because battlecannons will struggle with it... but against any other army in the game it's 565pts for something that is as easy to kill as a 240pt Wraithknight. If you went up against a shooty IG or SM army with 2-3 Knights, the IG/SM contingent could just kill the Hierodule in the first couple of turns.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
Hmm, maybe, it seems like too large a points sink to me on the surface. In combination with Flyrants I could see it doing a bit of damage to a couple of Knights, but you're the points for a Hierodule, 2 Flyrants and a Crone you're looking at enough points to buy 3 Knights. The Knights would have to be VERY clustered for Electroshock grubs to hit more than 1 with their huge bases.

A Knight army could possibly focus shooting on it, a 565pt Hierodule only averages 2HP per turn against a 6HP 375pt Knight, the Knight averages about 1 wound per turn on the 6 wound Hierodule, so shooting it to death would take a large investment of the Knight's shooting. You could just ignore the Hierodule early in the game and decimate the rest of the Tyranid army so that late in the game you can just squish it in combat (but then you'd be accepting that the Hierodule might kill a Knight).

It's definitely more competitive, I'd like to try a game and see how it goes in practice. Though I think a Hierodule is a sucky TAC list model, it's not bad against a Knight army because battlecannons will struggle with it... but against any other army in the game it's 565pts for something that is as easy to kill as a 240pt Wraithknight. If you went up against a shooty IG or SM army with 2-3 Knights, the IG/SM contingent could just kill the Hierodule in the first couple of turns.

Like any LoW (and Knights) and deathstars it's a large point investment and it needs babysitting but it offers an decent ranged anti AV threat the codex severely lacks. It's far from an I-win button but it provides extra options in a vehicle heavy meta. It has 48" range and it can stay in cover. With a venomthrope/malanthrope (and fnp with a bit of luck) it can absorb massive amounts of shooting that would otherwise be targeted at other MC's. It's also one of the few fast MCs (12'+2D6) with fairly good alround cc abilities and when buffed with 'onslaught' it can still fire both its weapons.

 Mr Morden wrote:
Played against Orks the other day with my Sisters and a Knight - the Orks blew the Knight away with a squad of lootas including 4HP in one turn -Last HP was in overwatch :( !

They're basically Wave Serpents without the Serpents few weaknesses.

Except WS are far cheesier than any Knight

Serpents are undeniably cheese.

Serpents, when jinking with their shield up, are as tough to kill per point as Knights.

Serpents, when using their shield offensively and not jinking, are about as killy as Knights.

The Serpent does get to have more models than Knights, for the same points.

Half the game cannot threaten a Knight at all, but has ways (albeit inefficiently) to threaten a Serpent.

Serpents are bad for the game. Knights are worse, even if they aren't as competitive.

In regards to Lemun Russ spam, they can be assaulted and are slow. And vulnerable to pen effects. I had a game where the opponent put two LRs in front of a power field, and it was hard to face, but working around them was possible. Working around fast-moving Knights is a lot less possible.

If your army list cannot handle 1-2 Knights (wraith or imperial), then it's not TAC.

It's some kind of outdated pre-v6 TAC construct that deserves to lose for being outdated.

If you're playing Tyranid... go read the Competitive Tyranid thread, I'm sure they've got ideas.

Get used to the fact that there are only three top 3 armies, sometimes your army is not in there.

morgoth wrote:
If you're playing Tyranid... go read the Competitive Tyranid thread, I'm sure they've got ideas.

I'm flipping through that thread and finding nothing about dealing with Imperial Knights. Maybe I just missed it but it's a long arse thread and I'm finding more about allying Tyranids with an IK than I am about actually dealing with one

If Knights are part of the meta then I think Tyranids basically are incapable of making a TAC list, unless TAC means "lose badly to all comers".

Get used to the fact that there are only three top 3 armies, sometimes your army is not in there.

So the answer is 40k sucks, live with it?

I dislike people who complain like this.

I've used a Leman Russ tank company since 3rd Edition. In its current iteration, it has far -FAR- more versatile firepower than Knights do, while having 40 AV14 hull points at 2,000 points.

It has instant-death shells, which kill monstrous creatures more dead than even D weapons. It has cover-ignoring shells, it has extra hullpoints, it has the ability to give every tank stealth, and some other ways of giving them outflank. It has the ability to make them move flat-out, making them as fast as a Knight for objectives, and they're troops so they get Objective Secured.

This list has existed in various iterations since 3rd, but apparently people suddenly can't deal with it - it's way tougher than the knight list.

EDIT: What I'm saying is that true TAC lists have been dead for some time, but only now are people beginning to realize it, apparently.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
I dislike people who complain like this.

I've used a Leman Russ tank company since 3rd Edition

A Leman Russ tank company doesn't break Tyranids. They have rear armour of 10 or 11 and don't punch back with a D in close combat.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
I dislike people who complain like this.

I've used a Leman Russ tank company since 3rd Edition

A Leman Russ tank company doesn't break Tyranids. They have rear armour of 10 or 11 and don't punch back with a D in close combat.

No, but they can fire Beast Hunter round, which is Str 8 AP2 Instant Death, Heavy 1, Blast while maneuvering at full speed from 72" away. Far more dangerous to Tyranids than a Knight.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:


What I'm saying is that true TAC lists have been dead for some time, but only now are people beginning to realize it, apparently.

This sums it up for me. Well said.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
I dislike people who complain like this.

I've used a Leman Russ tank company since 3rd Edition

A Leman Russ tank company doesn't break Tyranids. They have rear armour of 10 or 11 and don't punch back with a D in close combat.

No, but they can fire Beast Hunter round, which is Str 8 AP2 Instant Death, Heavy 1, Blast while maneuvering at full speed from 72" away. Far more dangerous to Tyranids than a Knight.

I disagree. Beast Hunter shells are bad... but the tank carrying them can still be killed. If I recall correctly they can only be taken on your Commissar tank and HQ tank, so you're only going to have 1 or 2 tanks like that in an army. They're still AV10 rear, a Flyrant can fly past them and on average will kill it in a single round of shooting. Or if you can get S4 infantry in CC with it you can have a crack at glancing it to death. If you do manage to get a TMC in CC with it, it's toast.

The Beast Hunter Leman Russ is a pain in the arse and an armoured battlegroup may have more firepower than a Knight army, but it's no where near as bad a the Knight army that just stands there laughing at you while it blows you apart.

And have you considered how bad it is when you take an armoured battlegroup allied with a few Knights

Yeah, the game might have always had armour in it, yeah, the game might have always had fethed up balance, but yes, Knights have made it worse especially for the poor 'nids.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
I dislike people who complain like this.

I've used a Leman Russ tank company since 3rd Edition

A Leman Russ tank company doesn't break Tyranids. They have rear armour of 10 or 11 and don't punch back with a D in close combat.

No, but they can fire Beast Hunter round, which is Str 8 AP2 Instant Death, Heavy 1, Blast while maneuvering at full speed from 72" away. Far more dangerous to Tyranids than a Knight.

I disagree. Beast Hunter shells are bad... but the tank carrying them can still be killed. If I recall correctly they can only be taken on your Commissar tank and HQ tank, so you're only going to have 1 or 2 tanks like that in an army. They're still AV10 rear, a Flyrant can fly past them and on average will kill it in a single round of shooting. Or if you can get S4 infantry in CC with it you can have a crack at glancing it to death. If you do manage to get a TMC in CC with it, it's toast.

The Beast Hunter Leman Russ is a pain in the arse and an armoured battlegroup may have more firepower than a Knight army, but it's no where near as bad a the Knight army that just stands there laughing at you while it blows you apart.

And have you considered how bad it is when you take an armoured battlegroup allied with a few Knights

Yeah, the game might have always had armour in it, yeah, the game might have always had fethed up balance, but yes, Knights have made it worse especially for the poor 'nids.

My unbound army can have 10 Command Vanquishers with Beast Hunter shells, Artificer Hull and co-axial stubbers. It definitely stands there and laughs while it blows nids apart at BS4, with orders that force cover-saves to be re-rolled.

Oh if we're talking about Unbound then I entirely agree that also feths up the game

Is this now a competition of what that's been released in the past 6 months feths up the game the most?

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
Oh if we're talking about Unbound then I entirely agree that also feths up the game

Then, in the age of Unbound, Lords of War, and Knights, why are people complaining about being unable to build TAC lists?

Well most people still don't accept Unbound and many people don't accept LoW (especially the expensive ones) either.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
Well most people still don't accept Unbound and many people don't accept LoW (especially the expensive ones) either.

Then they can just not accept knights. If they are just randomly banning things because it upsets their precious TAC list, then just add more stuff to the list.

Your original argument is the ABG has been around for ages so why are people complaining now when ABG that has existed for all this time, but it actually had a ton of weaknesses that stopped it being competitive against a TAC army, like the Leman Russes couldn't score, the AV10/11 rear armour. That's why people are complaining NOW.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
Your original argument is the ABG has been around for ages so why are people complaining now when ABG that has existed for all this time, but it actually had a ton of weaknesses that stopped it being competitive against a TAC army, like the Leman Russes couldn't score, the AV10/11 rear armour. That's why people are complaining NOW.

Don't change the subject.

This thread is originally "My TAC is upset by knights!" and my argument is "TAC is, and has been for some time, dead as a squirrel hit by an ATGM." And then they say "Well, no, it's just knights."

Then "it's unbound and knights."
Then "it's lords of war and unbound and knights."
Then "it's flyers and knights and unbound and lords of war."

et cetera.

And I'm like "my point exactly..." People should get with the times. TAC is dead.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
Your original argument is the ABG has been around for ages so why are people complaining now when ABG that has existed for all this time, but it actually had a ton of weaknesses that stopped it being competitive against a TAC army, like the Leman Russes couldn't score, the AV10/11 rear armour. That's why people are complaining NOW.

Don't change the subject.

I'm not?

This thread is originally "My TAC is upset by knights!" and my argument is "TAC is, and has been for some time, dead as a squirrel hit by an ATGM." And then they say "Well, no, it's just knights."

If that's how you construed it as that I apologies. I was referring to the fact you were talking about ABG going back to 3rd edition.

An ABG taken without Unbound and multiple FOC's doesn't break Tyranids. If you take away the "everything scores!" as well, then an ABG is mostly a toothless tiger when it comes to actually winning a game.

And I'm like "my point exactly..." People should get with the times. TAC is dead.

Well given people DO ban a lot of the things that tend to break TAC, I'd say TAC isn't dead, I'd say GW is killing TAC and it's dead if you want to play by their rules.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
Your original argument is the ABG has been around for ages so why are people complaining now when ABG that has existed for all this time, but it actually had a ton of weaknesses that stopped it being competitive against a TAC army, like the Leman Russes couldn't score, the AV10/11 rear armour. That's why people are complaining NOW.

Don't change the subject.

I'm not?

This thread is originally "My TAC is upset by knights!" and my argument is "TAC is, and has been for some time, dead as a squirrel hit by an ATGM." And then they say "Well, no, it's just knights."

If that's how you construed it as that I apologies. I was referring to the fact you were talking about ABG going back to 3rd edition.

An ABG taken without Unbound and multiple FOC's doesn't break Tyranids. If you take away the "everything scores!" as well, then an ABG is mostly a toothless tiger when it comes to actually winning a game.

And I'm like "my point exactly..." People should get with the times. TAC is dead.

Well given people DO ban a lot of the things that tend to break TAC, I'd say TAC isn't dead, I'd say GW is killing TAC and it's dead if you want to play by their rules.

I see the confusion. I was bringing up ABG as an example of why TAC is dead, and has been for years. And I suppose I meant "TAC is dead in WH40k." Whatever houseruled abomination people are playing out there isn't WH40k, but TAC may not be dead