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.

Before we get too far out into the weeds of a one-on-one comparison I'd like to say again.

ONE Imperial Knight is not a problem.

[MANY Imperial Knights are a problem.

 AnomanderRake wrote:
Before we get too far out into the weeds of a one-on-one comparison I'd like to say again.

ONE Imperial Knight is not a problem.

[MANY Imperial Knights are a problem.

sure but this gets back to my point, Imperial Knights are not the only such army out there these days. both the Imperial Guard, and Space Marines have decurion options that allow them, if they so desire, to deploy armies of nothing but armor IG with the Hammer of the Emperor super formation, and Space Marines with the Armored Might super formation.so even if you ignore IKs, you need to, these days take in consideration the possiability of fighting a army that consists entirely of vehicles.

sure but this gets back to my point, Imperial Knights are not the only such army out there these days. both the Imperial Guard, and Space Marines have decurion options that allow them, if they so desire, to deploy armies of nothing but armor IG with the Hammer of the Emperor super formation, and Space Marines with the Armored Might super formation.so even if you ignore IKs, you need to, these days take in consideration the possiability of fighting a army that consists entirely of vehicles.

As has been illustrated ad nauseum at this point, taking out an all tank army simply isn't even close to taking out an all Knight army. Both you and Slayer fan appear to be deliberately ignoring the very significant differences between your typical AV 13 style wall and an all Knight list. Comparing an army of SH walkers to an army of tanks just isn't quite apples to apples in this case. I can still build as close to a "TAC list" as current 40k will allow and have a shot at taking out your AV12/13/14 wall. I can't say the same for fighting 3-5 Knights.

You're correct, but the big difference is that those armies collapse might quick to some dedicated assault units that can close the gap or reliably get behind the force and shove a gak load of krak grenades up tail pipes.

Knights on the other hand fight back and aren't exactly slouches.

Tycho wrote:

sure but this gets back to my point, Imperial Knights are not the only such army out there these days. both the Imperial Guard, and Space Marines have decurion options that allow them, if they so desire, to deploy armies of nothing but armor IG with the Hammer of the Emperor super formation, and Space Marines with the Armored Might super formation.so even if you ignore IKs, you need to, these days take in consideration the possiability of fighting a army that consists entirely of vehicles.

As has been illustrated ad nauseum at this point, taking out an all tank army simply isn't even close to taking out an all Knight army. Both you and Slayer fan appear to be deliberately ignoring the very significant differences between your typical AV 13 style wall and an all Knight list. Comparing an army of SH walkers to an army of tanks just isn't quite apples to apples in this case. I can still build as close to a "TAC list" as current 40k will allow and have a shot at taking out your AV12/13/14 wall. I can't say the same for fighting 3-5 Knights.

sure except those armies ALSO make bolt guns etc useless. the "half my armies weapons are useless" complaint applies.

BrianDavion wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:
Before we get too far out into the weeds of a one-on-one comparison I'd like to say again.

ONE Imperial Knight is not a problem.

[MANY Imperial Knights are a problem.

sure but this gets back to my point, Imperial Knights are not the only such army out there these days. both the Imperial Guard, and Space Marines have decurion options that allow them, if they so desire, to deploy armies of nothing but armor IG with the Hammer of the Emperor super formation, and Space Marines with the Armored Might super formation.so even if you ignore IKs, you need to, these days take in consideration the possiability of fighting a army that consists entirely of vehicles.

The issue with those IG and SM armor is that they are much easier to succesfully engage, are generally much more static, and have fewer attack vectors than the Knights do. IG have had AC list since 3E, but they were always really awkward to run, while Knights suffer almost none of the drawbacks when fielded as an army. Boltguns might be mostly useless (though can at least do something to rear armor in most cases, for instance dropped via pod if they have nothing better to shoot at) but barefisted close combat attacks are not, there are a whole lot more options for engaging these types of armies than there are for Knights.

 Vaktathi wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

1. Marines can't charge after getting out of a pod. So the Russ aims and gets half its points back?

Right, but if we're talking a BC russ (closest match to Knight armament), assuming no cover and good scatter sure, otherwise...

Even then, Russes aren't known for being good.

In large part because of vehicle rules Knights dont have to worry about.

Plus let us look at Tactical Marines in your situation realistically. You're either running them in a 5 man squad and therefore even the Punisher (one of the better ones) has a decent chance of popping them by itself (it kills 3 Marines on average maybe without upgrades) or they're being in a 10 man squad to hide your Power Fist you wanted for whatever and therefore the Executioner (one of the better ones) can a good chance of hitting the only important members of the squad.

We'll leave aside the fact that an Executioner is also likely to kill itself over the course of a game...

But ultimately the point wasnt to get bogged down in details of various Russ loadouts and highly variable tactical minutae, it was to highlight the dramatically greater mobility, versaility, and resiliency of the Knight in relation to units its often compared with.

2. Russes are still garbage for the points, so the Imperial Knight is more realistically costed than the Russes. That said, it is still only 6HP to strip.

Yes...6HP woth high enough frontal AV to be immune or highly resistant to most S based HP stripping weapons with a like 4++ that doesnt have to worry about being shaken, stunned, losing weapons, getting autohit on rear armor on 3's etc.

3. And not every army can fight summoning lists as they're not equipped to deal with it nor are all armies able to fight Green Tide as not all lists are equipped to handle it. See how this goes? You can't fight every list at once; you can only try to prepare for the extremes each time.

and I have just as much of an issue with lists like those. My point ultimately was that it's not possible for all armies to deal with multiple Knights with a TAC list and as such do present a balance issue beyond just players inability to command their forces, and that should be acknowledged. Tailoring lists is still looked down upon and isnt always possible.

sure except those armies ALSO make bolt guns etc useless. the "half my armies weapons are useless" complaint applies.

Um ... that's a non-starter IMO. I don't really care that my boltguns are useless against a tank army. What I care about is that my anti-tank stuff isn't useless, is easily delivered to those tanks, and can be reliably spread across multiple tanks at once and still work to solid effect. I can still bring down your armor reliably and without too much risk to myself. That's with just using a more "TAC" list that wasn't built exclusively to kill armor. That same "TAC" list simply isn't going to do jack against 3 Knights. That's what everyone is trying to explain.

I take that "TAC" list (or at least as close to TAC as I can get with the current meta) and run against your tanks - I can still win. I can then take that list against a lot of other armies and still be in the game. I take that TAC list against an all Knight army and I'm toast. Zero chance. So I take an army dedicated to killing Knights and I win that game. That "Knight killer" list isn't likely to fare well against ANY other list INCLUDING your AV wall "all tank" example. THAT is where Knights currently present an issue. I personally feel they are really just inadvertanlty exposing a flaw in the game itself, but there you have it.

If you sincerely don't understand the difference at this point I'm not sure what to say ...


EDIT:

I feel like a lot of the "All tank armies are just as hard as all Knight armies" are being posted by people who may not actually have faced a lot of either? I just don't get how people aren't seeing the differences unless their arguments are based on pure theory.

 Vaktathi wrote:
IG have had AC list since 3E, but they were always really awkward to run, while Knights suffer almost none of the drawbacks when fielded as an army.

3E IGAC was better than the infantry-heavy alternative, that's for sure. Halfway competitive. Can't say that today.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
IG have had AC list since 3E, but they were always really awkward to run, while Knights suffer almost none of the drawbacks when fielded as an army.

3E IGAC was better than the infantry-heavy alternative, that's for sure. Halfway competitive. Can't say that today.

That was back when Ordnance was Armourbane, too.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
therefore the Executioner (one of the better ones) can a good chance of hitting the only important members of the squad.

I'm not sure what you're trying to say here - the executioner kills the nearest models, not the models under the blast markers. It's only for barrage weapons that wound allocation selects models closest to the center of the marker.

 Backspacehacker wrote:
The even nastyer combo is grav cannon, grav gun, and multi grav and just unleash hell on it.

Since Tacticals aren't relentless you've got 7 shots.

You need hit, then get a 6 and then he gets the shield.

The average result is zero damage. Grav guns are worse against knights than meltas.

From the position of having both 5 knights and 15~ russes and support vehicles of various configurations, I can say the following:

The mobility element alone tips the balance in favor of the knights.

Beyond and above armament, the capacity to dictate the direction of combat renders even the missile Gallant more valuable in a point grab situation than equivalent points of any Russ. While the russes can very easily sway a battle for you, they do so by straightforward party wipe applications, and there will be, if you're facing competent opponents, situations where that's not enough. Or at least not what you need for a given situation, i.e. 3 secure objective 5s drawn by your opponent.

The 12 +12~ move of a knight grants it the capacity to effectively cross the board almost 3 times during the length of an average game, or on the 4x4/6x4 tables that tend to be the standard, walk to every single objective point in a circuit, and often force movement of anti armour elements when that would not be desired by your opponent.

I think that there are some important points getting lost in the argument over if mass tanks are better than mass Knights and the L2P noobness.

The central are Knights that powerful question really boils down to how casual/competitive of a game is being played.

In a casual pick up game, one Imperial Knight is reasonable. All factions have enough anti-tank to deal with a single Knight without tailoring for it. 2-3 Knights gets more iffy, and will depend mostly on your gaming group. In my club, showing up with 3 Knights means you want a casual game. At the new players night, it's a d**k move. More than 3 Knights and you've moved into competitive play, meaning you shouldn't be playing against opponents who don't want a tournament style game.

In competitive play, Knights (that is, 4-5 of them) are mid tier and tend to be very rock paper scissors. Some armies can't handle them and mostly just hope to not play against them, other armies have easy solutions and look at the Knights as a free win. In small events the Knight player can hope that nobody brought the tools to kill him/dodge the bad match up. In major events, that's much less likely, particularly as the current dominant armies all have the tools to deal with them. Evidence for this is the thing were Imperial Knight builds rarely win GT's.

Compared to mass Leman Russes/Armored Company builds, Knights are better, because those armies are outdated and have major flaws. Compared to GMC, Knights are worse, because the only two GMC anyone cares about (Stormsurge and Wraithknight) are really really good. If you are at a tournament and you don't have the tools to deal with several Knights, your likely going to loose to Knights and to the neckbeard who brought all of the Leman Russes he painted up in 1998. If you are having a casual game, you can always ask the other player to take out some Knights, or play fewer points, or simply decline the game.

In my area more then one LOW of any type and you get dirty looks.

Oldmike wrote:
In my area more then one LOW of any type and you get dirty looks.

Yeah I know. Dante is so broken.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Oldmike wrote:
In my area more then one LOW of any type and you get dirty looks.

Yeah I know. Dante is so broken.

Well, Dante paired with a Sanguinary Priest equals a lot of AP2 attacks at his high initiative. But he is not even in the same category as a Knight or, god forbid, a Stormsurge or Wraithknight.

I'm pretty sure Slayer-Fan was attempting humor

 adamsouza wrote:
I'm pretty sure Slayer-Fan was attempting humor

I know he was.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Oldmike wrote:
In my area more then one LOW of any type and you get dirty looks.

Yeah I know. Dante is so broken.

Yeah, imagine using 2 CAD's to take Dante and Gabriel Seth! Sweet Emperor's teeth, your enemies would have no chance!

 Drasius wrote:
Yeah, imagine using 2 CAD's to take Dante and Gabriel Seth! Sweet Emperor's teeth, your enemies would have no chance!

As an Imperial Guard player, it is broken and wrong that you guys get Lords of War choices in your codex at all. Unfair!

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

 Drasius wrote:
Yeah, imagine using 2 CAD's to take Dante and Gabriel Seth! Sweet Emperor's teeth, your enemies would have no chance!

As an Imperial Guard player, it is broken and wrong that you guys get Lords of War choices in your codex at all. Unfair!

just because it flew in under my radar, you're familer with codex: Cadia right?

Nope, I just play Imperial Guard. With an Allied Knight.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

 Drasius wrote:
Yeah, imagine using 2 CAD's to take Dante and Gabriel Seth! Sweet Emperor's teeth, your enemies would have no chance!

As an Imperial Guard player, it is broken and wrong that you guys get Lords of War choices in your codex at all. Unfair!

As an Inquisition player, it is broken and wrong that you have in-faction superheavies with plastic kits.

Your point?

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
Nope, I just play Imperial Guard. With an Allied Knight.

basicly it's a supplemental codex that add s decurion style formation to IG players and incldues the up to date stat sheets for the baneblade family of super heavies

Oh, OK. I remember people talking about IG getting formations a while back, but I completely ignored it, as I wasn't about to buy a supplement on top of the Codex. If/when GW makes a new IG Codex with formations built-in, I'll reconsider.

Until then, if I want to play Decurion-style formations, I'll work on getting the missing bits for my Eldar.

Imperial Knights aren't that powerful. They don't shoot enough to thin out Eldar/Tau and don't have enough CC attacks to stop throwaway CC units like Ork Nobz while being an AV13 vehicle in CC and an AV12 one when they get shot at. Their only strength at this point rests in being able to make them Obsec, but the dirty little secret is that in most missions nowadays your opponent only has to kill 2/5 knights to make it impossible for the Knight player to win. You need more than 3 units on the board to win most of the time., and there are many solutions to dealing with Knights that cost far less than they do. Like other units they can be buffed (invisibility, forewarning, etc) but by themselves they are less menacing than an equal points value of scatterbikes or warp spiders.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
Oh, OK. I remember people talking about IG getting formations a while back, but I completely ignored it, as I wasn't about to buy a supplement on top of the Codex. If/when GW makes a new IG Codex with formations built-in, I'll reconsider.

Until then, if I want to play Decurion-style formations, I'll work on getting the missing bits for my Eldar.

You're not missing anything on the decurion from but a couple of the formations are okay.

They are not super powerful if you account in the most cheesy lists. In a way, they are good for the game, as they force your opponents to think what to put in their list if they meet one. They also counter the lame deathstars a bit.

It's a rare game where a Knight brings back it's points cost, it requires expertise to use to get everything out of it each turn. Too often you see a Knight who Stomps some unit of Guardsmen, shoots one Leman Russ and that's all she wrote during the whole match. Against powerful lists they can be easily oneshot, becoming a huge amount of "wasted" points.

Meh, they're nothing too strong in a vacuum, but in essence your just playing rock paper scissors, get matched against an army with a plethora of AT weapons and then you're doomed but if you face a TAC list then you'll probably wreak face...