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.

Martel732 wrote:
Nope. There are too many weapons they are straight up immune to. I have to pack an inordinate amount of melta in my lists just because these things exist. They should actually be a bit flimsier, I think. And their weapons need nerfed a bit, too.

They're friggin' mini Titans. What do you expect?

 Yack Maniels wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Nope. There are too many weapons they are straight up immune to. I have to pack an inordinate amount of melta in my lists just because these things exist. They should actually be a bit flimsier, I think. And their weapons need nerfed a bit, too.

They're friggin' mini Titans. What do you expect?

Like every other vehicle/walker in 40K, I expect them to be junk, of course.

I don't get why some Knights are Gargantuan Monstrous Creatures and others are Superheavies. That kind of disparity (plus the obvious point difference) is really what makes it more difficult to compare two things that should be much closer in value and effectiveness.

Having just started my Eldar, I'm a little wary of getting a WK at all. The price is offputting enough, but the hate just puts it over the edge a little.

Imperial Knights are even more expensive, and though I'm out of the loop which is my own fault I have no idea how many books I need to run one. At least one $60 Codex, right? Is the newer Codex: Imperial Knights required as well, or did they literally update their book after a fething year?? Lol

 Lord Corellia wrote:
I don't get why some Knights are Gargantuan Monstrous Creatures and others are Superheavies. That kind of disparity (plus the obvious point difference) is really what makes it more difficult to compare two things that should be much closer in value and effectiveness.

Having just started my Eldar, I'm a little wary of getting a WK at all. The price is offputting enough, but the hate just puts it over the edge a little.

Imperial Knights are even more expensive, and though I'm out of the loop which is my own fault I have no idea how many books I need to run one. At least one $60 Codex, right? Is the newer Codex: Imperial Knights required as well, or did they literally update their book after a fething year?? Lol

Get a WK. Everyone else has them. People are getting used to the stompings. At least where I play, acceptance of inferiority is setting in.

The nwer knight codex allows some new formations, some relics, a better warlord trait table, detachments to take just knights, and three new knight types over the previous one

How about instead of buffing them:

"In any game other than Apocalypse your primary detachment may not be an Imperial Knight detachment"

 master of ordinance wrote:
How about instead of buffing them:

"In any game other than Apocalypse your primary detachment may not be an Imperial Knight detachment"

T'would solve the problem, but then GW has yet another non-army that you have to put tonnes of money into to get anything out of it.

 Selym wrote:

 master of ordinance wrote:
How about instead of buffing them:

"In any game other than Apocalypse your primary detachment may not be an Imperial Knight detachment"

T'would solve the problem, but then GW has yet another non-army that you have to put tonnes of money into to get anything out of it.

How does this solve the problem at all? I don't see any problem with an all knight army and I also don't see any problem with the rock paper scissor mechanic of playing that army. This issue isn't that Knights have an all rock army and there too much paper. It's that some factions get little rocks while others get huge ones for less points. If I pay 400pts for a knight, it shouldn't be as easy as strapping some meltas to a squad to deal with it. If you disagree with the army as a whole then thats one thing, but it exists and is playable and supported by GW so in my mind, the problem is that it should be able to hold up under more pressure as a single force. Whether thats an issue with knights or the abundance of antiarmour weapons or WKs, idk. Maybe a little of all three, but in the end, I don't want to win any game or smash other players into the ground. I just think a tank should be a tank, and right now in 40k, it's not. It's more like a tin can that just take a little coaxing to open. At 400pts a piece and the ability to field them as a whole army, I just think they should be a little more survivable.

I look at it this way, if 40k were real, you be insane to put yourself in any armoured vehicle. You may as well be signing your own death warrant. You'd never go near them. That's just not the way it should be. As a wargamer, I like tanks and armour. So sue me. I just think they should act on the table like a freakin armoured vehicle as opposed to a corpse-mobile. The issue isn't only knights, but probably armour in general.

" a freakin armoured vehicle as opposed to a corpse-mobile. '

It's still so much better than 2nd ed.

 Dramagod2 wrote:
I look at it this way, if 40k were real, you be insane to put yourself in any armoured vehicle. You may as well be signing your own death warrant. You'd never go near them. That's just not the way it should be. As a wargamer, I like tanks and armour. So sue me. I just think they should act on the table like a freakin armoured vehicle as opposed to a corpse-mobile. The issue isn't only knights, but probably armour in general.

In real life you ARE insane to put yourself in an armoured vehicle. IF you're a lone tank or group of tanks with no support, that is. A million-dollar tank can be taken out by a $6 LAW by someone with as much training as it takes them to point it in the right direction.

BUT, first they have to get to the tank and then they have to make that lucky shot to kill it. Infantry either on foot or riding alongside in an APC go a long way to helping ensure that LAW doesn't get where it needs to be. Even then, sometimes it will.

 Dramagod2 wrote:

 Selym wrote:

 master of ordinance wrote:
How about instead of buffing them:

"In any game other than Apocalypse your primary detachment may not be an Imperial Knight detachment"

T'would solve the problem, but then GW has yet another non-army that you have to put tonnes of money into to get anything out of it.

How does this solve the problem at all? I don't see any problem with an all knight army and I also don't see any problem with the rock paper scissor mechanic of playing that army. This issue isn't that Knights have an all rock army and there too much paper. It's that some factions get little rocks while others get huge ones for less points. If I pay 400pts for a knight, it shouldn't be as easy as strapping some meltas to a squad to deal with it. If you disagree with the army as a whole then thats one thing, but it exists and is playable and supported by GW so in my mind, the problem is that it should be able to hold up under more pressure as a single force. Whether thats an issue with knights or the abundance of antiarmour weapons or WKs, idk. Maybe a little of all three, but in the end, I don't want to win any game or smash other players into the ground. I just think a tank should be a tank, and right now in 40k, it's not. It's more like a tin can that just take a little coaxing to open. At 400pts a piece and the ability to field them as a whole army, I just think they should be a little more survivable.

I look at it this way, if 40k were real, you be insane to put yourself in any armoured vehicle. You may as well be signing your own death warrant. You'd never go near them. That's just not the way it should be. As a wargamer, I like tanks and armour. So sue me. I just think they should act on the table like a freakin armoured vehicle as opposed to a corpse-mobile. The issue isn't only knights, but probably armour in general.

Just to remind you here that a Baneblade is 500... Or 550 if you are stupid enough to go by the Escalation variant. And it is no where near as good as even a single Knight.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
BTW, I too have an issue with how vehicles and the like are handled within this game. They feel weak and pathetic and right now and virtually useless in most cases. Trust me, as an Imperial Guard player I feel this more than anyone else out there.

The HP system needs to go. We need to have proper damage tables which reflect real life - Glancing should not kill a tank. Penetrating should kill it 50% of the time.

Still does not stop those Knights being what they are though.

 Dramagod2 wrote:

 Selym wrote:

 master of ordinance wrote:
How about instead of buffing them:

"In any game other than Apocalypse your primary detachment may not be an Imperial Knight detachment"

T'would solve the problem, but then GW has yet another non-army that you have to put tonnes of money into to get anything out of it.

How does this solve the problem at all? I don't see any problem with an all knight army and I also don't see any problem with the rock paper scissor mechanic of playing that army. This issue isn't that Knights have an all rock army and there too much paper. It's that some factions get little rocks while others get huge ones for less points. If I pay 400pts for a knight, it shouldn't be as easy as strapping some meltas to a squad to deal with it. If you disagree with the army as a whole then thats one thing, but it exists and is playable and supported by GW so in my mind, the problem is that it should be able to hold up under more pressure as a single force. Whether thats an issue with knights or the abundance of antiarmour weapons or WKs, idk. Maybe a little of all three, but in the end, I don't want to win any game or smash other players into the ground. I just think a tank should be a tank, and right now in 40k, it's not. It's more like a tin can that just take a little coaxing to open. At 400pts a piece and the ability to field them as a whole army, I just think they should be a little more survivable.

I look at it this way, if 40k were real, you be insane to put yourself in any armoured vehicle. You may as well be signing your own death warrant. You'd never go near them. That's just not the way it should be. As a wargamer, I like tanks and armour. So sue me. I just think they should act on the table like a freakin armoured vehicle as opposed to a corpse-mobile. The issue isn't only knights, but probably armour in general.

Knights are an upper-mid to low-high tier unit. The only things that they are weak against are tailored lists or Eldar.

Both of which shouldn't happen.

How do we begin to fix the imbalance of MC>vehicles?

I propose the elimination of glancing altogether. You only lose hull points when armor is penetrated. That alone will make vehicles more advantageous by nullifing haywire and making armorbane nessacary. If that is too broken for regular vehicles then reserve this suggestion for SHV because a SHV should not be brought down by weak guns.

 Selym wrote:
Knights are an upper-mid to low-high tier unit. The only things that they are weak against are tailored lists or Eldar.

Gathered tournament statistics show Imperial Knight armies ranking higher than any other army, including Eldar, in a performance by population.

 Filch wrote:
How do we begin to fix the imbalance of MC>vehicles?

Remove the distinction altogether.

Have one unit type to cover all large 'things', that would have been covered by the old vehicle and MC rules. Call it constructs or something. Then have a USR called Biological and another Mechanical to cover the differences in how certain weapon types affect them (Poison doesn't affect Mechanical, Haywire doesn't affect Biologial, so on).

One unit type is easier to learn, apply on the table, balance, and also helps smooth over fluff/logic inconsistencies with things like Riptides or other mechanical constructs that use MC rules.

 DarknessEternal wrote:

 Selym wrote:
Knights are an upper-mid to low-high tier unit. The only things that they are weak against are tailored lists or Eldar.

Gathered tournament statistics show Imperial Knight armies ranking higher than any other army, including Eldar, in a performance by population.

That is because they are allied in or using less than 5. Can you show me the statistics that accurately represent Pure IK armies?

 Selym wrote:
Gathered tournament statistics show Imperial Knight armies ranking higher than any other army, including Eldar, in a performance by population.

The stats I've seen posted were all from pre-Necron events. Therefore rendering them obsolete.

 Filch wrote:
That is because they are allied in or using less than 5. Can you show me the statistics that accurately represent Pure IK armies?

Why the hell should Imperial Knights be an army in its own right though? Honestly, it should be a LoW choice in every Imperial Codex. Maybe a 0-2 Heavy Support choice for a few of them.

If Morkanauts, Gorkanauts and Stompas were any good, would people expect them to be in a special snowflake "Da Meks" Codex? I mean sure, GW would be jerking themselves off at the thought of being able to sell another overpriced* $70 book, but that doesn't make it logical.


*GW's Codexes are overpriced, I don't care how much colour is in them or that they're hardback. Take a look at any of the NLC Lord of The Rings/ The Hobbit behind the scenes books; nicer quality, more licensees to slice up the pie between and $20-30 cheaper. Not to mention the fact that 90% of them isn't gak recycled from the past 25+ years of books.

When I Play my 5 IK I imagine them to be the Pacific Rim team of Jeagers. They are slow yet very fortified and immensely stong. Each step must be placed methodically and each punch is placed strategically. The Kaiju are quick and resiliently tough with hard scales and keen instinctual and animalistic ferocity and finesse.

Although 2 of the 4 Jeagers get brutally butchered by the tag team of kaiju, the single Jeager pulls theough and saves the last Jeager. That is why I made an army of IK. That aspect really appealed to me. Also moving and setting up and putting away 5 giant models as opposed to moving my 80 cultists and several marines and obliterators really appealed to me.

Daemon MC and tyranid MC fall into the traditional MC classification. Riptides, Wraith Lords and Wraith Knights are not traditional MC. They Leverage an unfair Advantage by getting Access to long range guns and fighting at high WS and Initiative and invul saves. Also they dont explode or get glanced.

My attitude is that Riptides and Wraith Knights should be classified as Walkers. That is a losing argument anyways as GW will never reclassify them as walkers.

 Filch wrote:
When I Play my 5 IK I imagine them to be the Pacific Rim team of Jeagers. They are slow yet very fortified and immensely stong. Each step must be placed methodically and each punch is placed strategically. The Kaiju are quick and resiliently tough with hard scales and keen instinctual and animalistic ferocity and finesse.

Although 2 of the 4 Jeagers get brutally butchered by the tag team of kaiju, the single Jeager pulls theough and saves the last Jeager. That is why I made an army of IK. That aspect really appealed to me. Also moving and setting up and putting away 5 giant models as opposed to moving my 80 cultists and several marines and obliterators really appealed to me.

Daemon MC and tyranid MC fall into the traditional MC classification. Riptides, Wraith Lords and Wraith Knights are not traditional MC. They Leverage an unfair Advantage by getting Access to long range guns and fighting at high WS and Initiative and invul saves.

My attitude is that Riptides and Wraith Knights should be classified as Walkers. That is a losing argument anyways as GW will never reclassify them as walkers.

Except the Jaegers forgot to bring ranged weapons for the most part. WKs didn't make that mistake.

Real world Pacific Rim.

Mr. President, the kaiju is attacking California!

President : Fire a nuke...

next day in head lines.

Kaiju killed by atomic bomb. California suffers radiation.

end of movie.

 Filch wrote:
Real world Pacific Rim.

Mr. President, the kaiju is attacking California!

President : Fire a nuke...

next day in head lines.

Kaiju killed by atomic bomb. California suffers radiation.

end of movie.

Actually thermobarics would probably work okay. And the navy has railguns now.

Metal Gear Rex had a rail gun and was smaller than an IK i think.

but anyways.

I would like to see a IK upgrade to negate glances or ceramite armor or special armor that turns Str D rolls of 2s-5s into 1 hp removal and 6s into d3 hp removal. These special armor upgrades can not be combined.






Automatically Appended Next Post:

Martel732 wrote:

 Filch wrote:
Real world Pacific Rim.

Mr. President, the kaiju is attacking California!

President : Fire a nuke...

next day in head lines.

Kaiju killed by atomic bomb. California suffers radiation.

end of movie.

Actually thermobarics would probably work okay. And the navy has railguns now.

Have you seen the horrible movie Battle Ships?

The primary benefit gargantuan mc's have is near immunity to their counter weapons systems and the ability to gain cover from simply being in terrain. I eliminated those bonuses from my home games and made the superheavies take a modified vehicle damage chart.

Now neither is so strong as to make the opponent's units obsolete.

(Also tacked 100 points even onto the wraithknight and moded strD a bit)

 Filch wrote:
How do we begin to fix the imbalance of MC>vehicles?

I propose the elimination of glancing altogether. You only lose hull points when armor is penetrated. That alone will make vehicles more advantageous by nullifing haywire and making armorbane nessacary. If that is too broken for regular vehicles then reserve this suggestion for SHV because a SHV should not be brought down by weak guns.

What happens to Gauss, then?

Auto-pen? Seems like something GW would do in response.

 Filch wrote:
How do we begin to fix the imbalance of MC>vehicles?

May I suggest using the updated vehicle and monstrous creature design rules linked in my signature? You can use it to figure out an appropriate armor value rating based on point value.

For example, a wraithknight's survivability is comparable to av 13-13-12, a riptide's 11-11-11. You would still gain the ability to pen them to damage, but they would become immune to lower ap weapons, fleshbane, and poison without adding a special ability to them saying otherwise.

Just thought I'd throw that out there

 Selym wrote:

 Filch wrote:
How do we begin to fix the imbalance of MC>vehicles?

I propose the elimination of glancing altogether. You only lose hull points when armor is penetrated. That alone will make vehicles more advantageous by nullifing haywire and making armorbane nessacary. If that is too broken for regular vehicles then reserve this suggestion for SHV because a SHV should not be brought down by weak guns.

What happens to Gauss, then?

Auto-pen? Seems like something GW would do in response.

Good question. Ok I reject my suggestion.

What about an upgrade that requires 2 glances to count as 1 glance?

Filch, I noticed you literally built your first Knight twenty days ago. Is that right?

It's way too soon to be doing anything but learning how to play your list. Don't forget, most players already have a lot of experience already against IKs. You are still learning basic tactics. So no wonder you're getting stomped. Read this, it will probably help you. https://www.frontlinegaming.org/2015/05/31/imperial-knights-7e-making-a-knight-primary-army/

When facing enemies wielding Destroyer melee weapons, do not charge them if you aren’t going to be going first. Instead, position yourself to receive the charge where the enemy will be forced to charge you through cover, as it currently stands, nothing that has a Destroyer melee weapon has assault grenades.

They need to be av14 fronts with av13 sides and av12 back. A 3+ invulnerable stock with ways to make it 2+ on specific knights. They need more weapons. The cannon should be ordance 4. Drop in price roughly 35 points for each knight. These are just a few musts

 Filch wrote:

 Selym wrote:

 Filch wrote:
How do we begin to fix the imbalance of MC>vehicles?

I propose the elimination of glancing altogether. You only lose hull points when armor is penetrated. That alone will make vehicles more advantageous by nullifing haywire and making armorbane nessacary. If that is too broken for regular vehicles then reserve this suggestion for SHV because a SHV should not be brought down by weak guns.

What happens to Gauss, then?

Auto-pen? Seems like something GW would do in response.

Good question. Ok I reject my suggestion.

What about an upgrade that requires 2 glances to count as 1 glance?

Nah, just double up on Hull Points.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Pain4Pleasure wrote:
They need to be av14 fronts with av13 sides and av12 back. A 3+ invulnerable stock with ways to make it 2+ on specific knights. They need more weapons. The cannon should be ordance 4. Drop in price roughly 35 points for each knight. These are just a few musts

Hah?
Baneblades at 500-600 points a pop have less defence and offence than that.

I can tell you're serious, because it's still possible to one-shot the Knight with a D-Weapon. Not fair. I propose that each Knight should come with a free retinue of 2 Warhound Titans, who can roll "Look Out Sir" for their Knight on a 2+.

To keep things balanced, the Warhound Titans are not ObSec