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.

Today's game, we had Knights & Guard Infantry against Orks. And yeah, the Knights did very well. I'm not so much impressed by the FW variants over the regular plastics. Still, the Knights did an impressive job of board control, clearing the center to take those objectives.

A single Knight on its own is poerful but can be dealt with. The real issue comes when someone deploys an entire army of them in a game and basically renders anything with less than S7 invalid.

 master of ordinance wrote:
A single Knight on its own is poerful but can be dealt with. The real issue comes when someone deploys an entire army of them in a game and basically renders anything with less than S7 invalid.

On the flipside, if you build your army to handle GMCs and Superheavies rather than dumping all your points into a Deathstar, someone fielding all Knights just handed you a free win. Rock meets Scissors while complaining Paper is OP.

SJ

 jeffersonian000 wrote:

 master of ordinance wrote:
A single Knight on its own is poerful but can be dealt with. The real issue comes when someone deploys an entire army of them in a game and basically renders anything with less than S7 invalid.

On the flipside, if you build your army to handle GMCs and Superheavies rather than dumping all your points into a Deathstar, someone fielding all Knights just handed you a free win. Rock meets Scissors while complaining Paper is OP.

SJ

or perhaps its more that many armies simply are not capable of making lists able to engage 5 Knights and remaining "TAC". Knights are something many armies have to tailor for when facing a full army of them, which isn't always an option.

 jeffersonian000 wrote:

 master of ordinance wrote:
A single Knight on its own is poerful but can be dealt with. The real issue comes when someone deploys an entire army of them in a game and basically renders anything with less than S7 invalid.

On the flipside, if you build your army to handle GMCs and Superheavies rather than dumping all your points into a Deathstar, someone fielding all Knights just handed you a free win. Rock meets Scissors while complaining Paper is OP.

SJ

Well, if I optimise my army to face nothing BUT vehicles then yes, it would be rather more easy. On the other hand every other army would stomp all over me.

Mine always seems to die turn 1 or turn 2 at the best. I've stopped fielding it.

 master of ordinance wrote:

 jeffersonian000 wrote:

 master of ordinance wrote:
A single Knight on its own is poerful but can be dealt with. The real issue comes when someone deploys an entire army of them in a game and basically renders anything with less than S7 invalid.

On the flipside, if you build your army to handle GMCs and Superheavies rather than dumping all your points into a Deathstar, someone fielding all Knights just handed you a free win. Rock meets Scissors while complaining Paper is OP.

SJ

Well, if I optimise my army to face nothing BUT vehicles then yes, it would be rather more easy. On the other hand every other army would stomp all over me.

So, how do you normally play that you cannot deal with vehicles easily?

SJ

There's a difference between having sufficient AT for most games and sufficient AT for 5 Superheavy walkers sporting invul saves with dramatically more mobility than most other vehicles and both assault phase and shooting phase attack vectors. What would clear Russ company off a table wont necessarily function against Knights.

 Vaktathi wrote:
There's a difference between having sufficient AT for most games and sufficient AT for 5 Superheavy walkers sporting invul saves with dramatically more mobility than most other vehicles and both assault phase and shooting phase attack vectors. What would clear Russ company off a table wont necessarily function against Knights.

I disagree. The ability to deal with massed Russes is the same ability to deal with mass Knights. If you can handle one, you can handle the other.

SJ

Hehe. /popcorn This should be good.

Point for point, Knights outclass Russes. They are much faster, have better survivability with their shields, and most importantly, don't insta-die in HtH. There is a huge difference in cracking WS4 AV13 in HtH vs WS1 AV10/11. And that's before we factor in the A3 S(D) attacks & d3 Stomps...

 jeffersonian000 wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
There's a difference between having sufficient AT for most games and sufficient AT for 5 Superheavy walkers sporting invul saves with dramatically more mobility than most other vehicles and both assault phase and shooting phase attack vectors. What would clear Russ company off a table wont necessarily function against Knights.

I disagree. The ability to deal with massed Russes is the same ability to deal with mass Knights. If you can handle one, you can handle the other.

SJ

Well, you know what they say. That's the good thing about America, you can disagree and have an opinion all you want, doesn't make you right though.

I disagree. The ability to deal with massed Russes is the same ability to deal with mass Knights. If you can handle one, you can handle the other.

Have you read the pages prior to this one? We've covered that subject in detail already ...

All this being said, I think all IKs are rather a bit overcosted, so spamming them is not likely to yield good results.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
Today's game, we had Knights & Guard Infantry against Orks. And yeah, the Knights did very well. I'm not so much impressed by the FW variants over the regular plastics. Still, the Knights did an impressive job of board control, clearing the center to take those objectives.

Castigators work very well vs horde armies in my experience.

I'm biased though, I love the model.

 jeffersonian000 wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
There's a difference between having sufficient AT for most games and sufficient AT for 5 Superheavy walkers sporting invul saves with dramatically more mobility than most other vehicles and both assault phase and shooting phase attack vectors. What would clear Russ company off a table wont necessarily function against Knights.

I disagree. The ability to deal with massed Russes is the same ability to deal with mass Knights. If you can handle one, you can handle the other.

SJ

Not true at all. Russ tanks can be shaken, stunned, immobilized, and lose weapons. Russ tanks cannot engage multiple targets. They dont have inherent invul saves. They are exceedingly, absurdly easy to kill in CC being WS1 and in most cases AV10 (11 at best) when attacked in CC (though, if the FAQ grenade change makes it through to the final version, they will be less ridiculously easy to kill), and can't run from or avoid anything with a maximum move of 6" a turn.

None of these things are true with Knights. If your idea of AT is just raw volume of lascannon fire, sure, they're pretty equivalent. Outside of that they are wildly different beasts when it comes to engaging them.

Knights cannot be shaken or immobilized, they can shoot at multiple targets, they have invul saves to block incoming fire, they are very powerful in CC and much harder to hurt there than Russ tanks being WS4+ and are hit in AV13, and can traverse up to 24" of tablespace in a single turn and can avoid enemy units with far greater ease if they choose.

The Castigator is OK, but laying down 2 Large Blasts anywhere on the table turn after turn also solves a lot of problems before they reach BtB!

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
The Castigator is OK, but laying down 2 Large Blasts anywhere on the table turn after turn also solves a lot of problems before they reach BtB!

The acheron is good vs crowds too....it also happens to be usually the first one of my knights I lose in a game.

 Vaktathi wrote:

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
The ability to deal with massed Russes is the same ability to deal with mass Knights. If you can handle one, you can handle the other.

SJ

If your idea of AT is just raw volume of lascannon fire, sure, they're pretty equivalent.

Not really. AV13/Sv4++ is strictly better than AV14.

The weapons and tactics it takes to kill a tank in 40k are the exact same weapons and tactics it takes to kill a Knight. The only different is that you are dealing with 1/3 the number in Knights versus tanks, and need to dedicate 3x the effort per Knight. You aren't killing all 5 on turn 1, you are killing or mitigating 1 per turn.

And yes, I have read the thread. And posted several times. Asking the question implies you haven't read the thread.

SJ

An Imperial Knight weighs in around 400 pts, less than 3x the points cost of a typical Leman Russ hitting the board. Point for point, Knights are more durable than Russes.

Imperial Knights lose firepower more slowly as well. If you destroy 1 Russ of a Knight, the Knight keeps firing. The Russ is destroyed. And that's just the destroyed result, ignoring the impact of Shakes & Stuns that Knights completely ignore.

Quite frankly, you don't understand the Knight v Russ difference well enough to be posting what you're posting. Much less talking smack to other posters here.

Knights go down fast on their sides. Way faster than a 400 pt model should. If you are using HP scrubbing, IKs are far less durable/pt on the side compared to a LRBT.

OK, I'll bite. What other 400 pt models are you comparing the Knight to?
____

Oh, I see you clarified it to be HP scrubbing. Which is a bit odd, as the Russes will be taking Pens and Shakes and Stuns that the Knight is going to largely ignore.

Not really. It's actually pretty hard to pen AV 13. Yeah, there's melta, but most commonly, the Russ will be doing its thing until it runs out of HPs.

For a single 400 pt? I'm not sure. But let's look at the 295 pt WK or say 400 pts of TWC. It's not even close who is more durable. Thinking about the pool of available power units in the game, IKs are definitely below average in that crowd. Maybe bordering on bad, actually, because of their cost.

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
The weapons and tactics it takes to kill a tank in 40k are the exact same weapons and tactics it takes to kill a Knight. The only different is that you are dealing with 1/3 the number in Knights versus tanks, and need to dedicate 3x the effort per Knight. You aren't killing all 5 on turn 1, you are killing or mitigating 1 per turn.

And yes, I have read the thread. And posted several times. Asking the question implies you haven't read the thread.

SJ

Except Knights strike back in Melee and can Stomp. My Greater Unclean Ones, Daemon Princes, and Bloodthirster fear no Leman Russ, but fear Knights.

I think for people planning to shoot them to death, it's a lot more like fighting a tank than for people who plan on assaulting them. Knights neither strike back, nor stomp when you are scrubbing them to death on their AV 12 sides with no ion shield.

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
The weapons and tactics it takes to kill a tank in 40k are the exact same weapons and tactics it takes to kill a Knight.

If you're talking shooting lascannons from across the board...sure.

Aside from that, they are very different.

You cannot suppress a Knight the way you can a tank like a Russ.

A Russ dies in CC as soon as anything with even thr most basic anti armor gear makes it into base contact, and cannot hit back at all. A Knight is a fearsome CC machine.

DS melta has to contend with an invul save and usually requires setting up a competing threat to hit the Knight from multiple angles to bypass thr Invul or requires devoting significantly more DS melta resources to overcome the additional HP and invul save.

HP stripping doesnt work particularly well on either unless you can get to a Knights side.

The knight has dramatically superior mobility to avoid threats and engage targets on its terms, whereas a Russ can do neither.


I mean, if you want to provide detail on how they're exactly the same, be my guest, but aside from just stating that the weapons and tactics are identical repeatedly, you havent provided any arguments to back that up nor any response to any of the points previously laid out.

The AV 11 rear Russes got a lot better after the grenade FAQ, though. Depends on whether we are talking assault marines or TWC charging them.

Martel732 wrote:
The AV 11 rear Russes got a lot better after the grenade FAQ, though. Depends on whether we are talking assault marines or TWC charging them.

only 3 variants have rear AV11 though, most are rear AV10 :(

That said, yes if the grenade change holds through the final FAQ, it will be a good boost to the rear AV11 russ tanks, the rear AV10 russ tanks can still be taken down absurdly easily by massed S4 hits.

Only 3... sigh. We're already using all the FAQ's so I'm used to it already. I guess I see those 3 a lot.

The thing about the side AV 12 is that the Eldar can get absurd amounts of S6 anywhere they want easily. While shooting through the front with D weapons. Although the ion shield functions against 66% of D weapon shots.