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.

 master of ordinance wrote:
Well, you take an army. You make it to be entirely composed of Super Heavies. You make sure that said Super Heavies are some of the best in the game.
Congratulations, you now have an army that is immune to 80% of its opponents models, has insane manoeuvrability, has more firepower than some gunline armies, can take and hold objectives like no tomorrow, is rapetastic in close combat, just about ignores the vehicle damage chart and basically requires your opponent to minmax everything towards AT to stand a chance against you.
Is it any wonder many people at complaining Knight players?

Perhaps, yet I have known a couple of Knight players in my time: they don't win tournies, in competitive games (against good players) they don't do brilliantly and, although people will grown when they play them, people don't complain (not when on the table next to them someone is running a min-maxxed Tau-Dar list). I'll admit it's a very simple army that doesn't require a lot of thought to put together but I would say that there are worse designed armies that didn't take into account min-maxxing, with knights you are very durable, mobile and put out decent damage but you also have a low model count and are devistated by drop pod assault, Eldar, Tau, etc.

I'm not excusing the fact they are OP, just saying they aren't the worst offenders.

And what about their fluff (and more importantly CSM!)?

Additionally, we have to take objectives into account. Having only four models means you can only hold four objectives at the most, out of a typical six. And every model you lose is one less objective you can hold. Lose just two models, and an opponent with a standard army can easily win by playing the objectives.

Thats assuming though 8th uses objectives.
Im hoping they think outside the box and do some asymmetrical mission types ala 2nd edition mission cards.
I could get bunker assault whilst you might get witch hunter.
Made it much more dynamic and fun imo.

I definitely don't think knights should have ever been their own faction. I mean, introducing essentially junior-Titans into standard games was a fairly poor idea in general, but even going with that they would be better off as super-heavy options in existing Imperium armies who actually have a well-rounded unit roster to support them. Making them their own standalone faction and then bending the FOC over backwards to let them deploy by themselves can only result in either OP cheese (if the Knights are actually self-sufficient enough to take all comers by themselves) or a noob-trap (if Knights actually require non-Knight support to function).

 ross-128 wrote:
I definitely don't think knights should have ever been their own faction. I mean, introducing essentially junior-Titans into standard games was a fairly poor idea in general, but even going with that they would be better off as super-heavy options in existing Imperium armies who actually have a well-rounded unit roster to support them. Making them their own standalone faction and then bending the FOC over backwards to let them deploy by themselves can only result in either OP cheese (if the Knights are actually self-sufficient enough to take all comers by themselves) or a noob-trap (if Knights actually require non-Knight support to function).

Thats one of the worst things 7th has done. Making complete factions of just one type of unit when they should be something like the "Imperial Agents" or just elite troops in other factions: Imperial Knights, Tempestus Scions (They should be elites into a imperial guard army), Adeptus Custodes, Sisters of Silence ,etc, etc...

 master of ordinance wrote:

 mrhappyface wrote:

 Melissia wrote:
Knights are definitely the worst designed army in the game, even fluff-wise (and that's in spite of the existence of Chaos Marines)

Why, why and why? (Genuinnly interested)

Well, you take an army. You make it to be entirely composed of Super Heavies. You make sure that said Super Heavies are some of the best in the game.
Congratulations, you now have an army that is immune to 80% of its opponents models, has insane manoeuvrability, has more firepower than some gunline armies, can take and hold objectives like no tomorrow, is rapetastic in close combat, just about ignores the vehicle damage chart and basically requires your opponent to minmax everything towards AT to stand a chance against you.
Is it any wonder many people at complaining Knight players?

Being one of the best Super Heavy Vehicles doesn't mean much when they're pretty good at their best.

As far as I know, outside the people that refuse to grow up and say, "NO SUPER HEAVY IN MY 40K", you're one of the only people that has complained about their power level.

Congratulations, you now have an army that is immune to 80% of its opponents models, has insane manoeuvrability, has more firepower than some gunline armies, can take and hold objectives like no tomorrow, is rapetastic in close combat, just about ignores the vehicle damage chart and basically requires your opponent to minmax everything towards AT to stand a chance against you.

Having played with and against IKs I cant really disagree. I will say they definitely suffered in obj heavy games or "bad" draws during maelstrom and if you could down say 1 of 3 in a 1500 points game it reduced their threat but overall I agree they required horrible min-maxing which just isnt fun.
I can recall several games playing as different factions where it was literally a case of avoid the IK (either by hiding behind BLoS or staying out of charge range) - boy did Orks suffer from it
It simply was not fun.

 Melissia wrote:
Knights are definitely the worst designed army in the game, even fluff-wise (and that's in spite of the existence of Chaos Marines), but who here seriously expected them to be removed?

is the thing make me laugh harder also in other forums, players think GW destroy an army give them profit just cause players cry, lol ridicolous. And many things will remain OP that for sure i can bet 1000$, you will see for example tau suits , someone really think 5-6 tides will disappear from play? dream on....

 mrhappyface wrote:

 Melissia wrote:
Knights are definitely the worst designed army in the game, even fluff-wise (and that's in spite of the existence of Chaos Marines)

Why, why and why? (Genuinnly interested)

I honestly thought the fluff was pretty good. I know sopme people complained about the whole "women cannot be knights" thing, but it's pretty clear thats been retconned, given GS1 mentions a House Tarenis Baroness.

I never understood the problem with knights. They were some of the most fairly costed models in the game. They have clear weaknesses, especially when fielded as their own faction and actually except for the knight crusader and the knight renegade have very limited damage potential.

They weren't broken or op which is why none of the top 5 armies ever bothered to use them. They were a decent crutch for things like SoB or IG though.

Knights were not a top tier army. Upper mid at best. Maybe hard in random/friendly pickup games where opponent doesn't know what you'll be taking. Easily countered if prepared to fight against.

And there was fluffy logic in taking multiple Knights, because each Knight is pretty much a character on its own. While I've never seen (at least haven't read) any fluff stating about Wraithknight or Riptide "covenants" (not sure what's the appropriate word) - they were/are just yet another constructs/yet another suits.

ERJAK wrote:
I never understood the problem with knights. They were some of the most fairly costed models in the game. They have clear weaknesses, especially when fielded as their own faction and actually except for the knight crusader and the knight renegade have very limited damage potential.

They weren't broken or op which is why none of the top 5 armies ever bothered to use them. They were a decent crutch for things like SoB or IG though.

they where super heavies, which for some people was all it took .

ERJAK wrote:
I never understood the problem with knights. They were some of the most fairly costed models in the game. They have clear weaknesses, especially when fielded as their own faction and actually except for the knight crusader and the knight renegade have very limited damage potential.

They weren't broken or op which is why none of the top 5 armies ever bothered to use them. They were a decent crutch for things like SoB or IG though.

Imperial Knights are practically immune to the vast majority of units in the game. And then combine that insane durability with their excellent shooting and virtually unstoppable melee capabilities. Unless you specifically tailor your list to defeat Imperial Knights, chances are, it's going to be a one-sided slaughter fest.

No, Imperial Knights aren't the most broken thing in the game.

However, that doesn't make them balanced or fairly costed.

Compare Imperial Knights to my poor tactical marines, devastators and assault marines.

Imperial Knights should have had a much higher points cost, and even then, they should not have been an option at all in lists below 2000 points.


And it appears as though none of this is changing in 8th edition. They are going to continue to be undercosted, spammable and overpowered.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Really, that's the two great problems with units like Imperial Knights, wraithknights, etc.

1. They take on way too many in-game roles. They are literally capable of doing EVERYTHING. They can shoot AND do close combat AND move really fast AND are extremely durable AND can deny board space to the opponents' models

and

2. They come at either a discount or, at best, "reasonable" points costs.

Meanwhile, if I'm playing against Imperial Knights, and I have a "general" list like a space marine battle company (without all of the free stuff), basically the only things in my army that pose a threat are my dedicated anti-tank units (the devastators).

Meanwhile, your IKs can wreck EVERYTHING on my side of the field.

That's unfair. That's unbalanced. And that's BAD GAME DESIGN.

You're right. IKs weren't fairly costed. They were overcosted. I lost once to iks with tac ba lists. IG has 3x the firepower of ba. You just don't know what you're doing.

Martel732 wrote:
You're right. IKs weren't fairly costed. They were overcosted. I lost once to iks with tac ba lists. IG has 3x the firepower of ba. You just don't know what you're doing.

I tend to lean this way but to be fair I play space marines and SoB which are both armies that don't give 2 gaks about killing knights and tend to not care about a knight's return fire.

Knights biggest issue is that they're a bit binary, if you don't have the tools to kill at least one per turn you're gonna have a bad time. That said if your army can't kill 1 knight per turn then you have a bad army.

Personally I think the Knights in 7th were balanced the way the whole rest of the edition should have been, powerful but expensive.

ERJAK wrote:That said if your army can't kill 1 knight per turn then you have a bad army. Personally I think the Knights in 7th were balanced the way the whole rest of the edition should have been, powerful but expensive.

Using devastators, tactical marines and assault marines, but not drop pods or grav, please do tell me how you would kill one IK per turn, but not construct your army in such a way that you would suffer a severe disadvantage against horde armies.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
The simple fact is that both wraithknights and Imperial Knights were both game changing at launch and game BREAKING in practice.

It is part of what killed the "generalist, TAC" list.

I don't use those units traditio. That's why my ba can beat the mid tier lists. Basal marine units are complete trash in 7th.

Half my lists just punch hordes. Always angry, all the time.

Martel732 wrote:
I don't use those units traditio. That's why my ba can beat the mid tier lists.

Exactly.

This claim that the IK is overcosted, balanced, fair, etc. is just ridiculous. Because the simple fact is "I don't use those units," if you were to write up a list, would cover most of the units in the game.

What unit would not fall into that list? IKs.

The simple fact that IKs are even usable in a competitive meta actually proves my point that they are imbalanced, overpowered and undercosted.

If they weren't, then they would be an auto-lose in the competitive meta.

They aren't.

Are they bottom tier among the most broken stuff in the game?

Probably.

But against the stuff in the game that's actually underpowered or simply well balanced?

They're game-breakingly powerful. They are an overpowered "all powerful" unit that should never have existed in the first place.

And the simple fact is that they are going to be even MORE powerful in 8th edition.

Good luck killing 1 IK per turn now. It won't happen.

But don't worry. IKs won't be all that much more susceptible to small arms fire.

In fact, they'll be much stronger against scatter lasers now.

And you'll still need anti-tank weapons and melta to kill one.

But now you'll need way more of it.

23 lascannon shots to kill one of them (which should price them well beyond 4 and 3/5s of a tactical squad).

Just one of them.

And they are going to remain ridiculously undercosted.

That's twice as vulnerable as stimtide. But please tell me how its hopeless.

It's true i only use about 20% of my codex but iks are not the reason why. If i'm playing cad angels vs iks with no obj sec, its almost an auto win.

7th ed iks are overcosted imo. Too much can hurt their sides and d weapons make them a joke.

Martel732 wrote:
That's twice as vulnerable as stimtide. But please tell me how its hopeless.

So the what?

That's a stupid argument.

"A is less OP than B, which is riduclously OP," is NOT a argument that A is not OP.

Pick a unit that's not mid (which is just code word for "OP, but bottom barrel in comparison to the most broken stuff in the game") or top tier, and please explain to me how the IK is fair in comparison.

Hint: You can't.

Because it's not.

The parts of the ba codex i use are not op and do fine. Get a grip. You're just really bad at this. I can build the best possible ba lists and not be op in 7th. IKs are weak, not strong in 7th. Av 12 is a bad joke for something that expensive. And only six hps? Okay.

Martel732 wrote:
The parts of the ba codex i use are not op and do fine. Get a grip. You're just really bad at this.

Be specific. Name those particular units. Explain how they aren't OP.

If it's on a bike, in a drop pod, rolling on the psychic table or wielding grav, try again. Because you're just wrong from the get-go.

Drop pods that aren't free are mediocre at best. Mediocre sums up all my best stuff.

BA don't even have libby conclave. Their psykers are meh.

There's nothing op in the ba codex. Or else i'd spam it.

 Traditio wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
The parts of the ba codex i use are not op and do fine. Get a grip. You're just really bad at this.

Be specific. Name those particular units. Explain how they aren't OP.

If it's on a bike, in a drop pod, rolling on the psychic table or wielding grav, try again. Because you're just wrong from the get-go.

"If it's anything I don't personally like, it's broken."

Bikes aren't broken. They're good-but not broken.

Physic powers aren't broken. Invisibility is.

Grav is... Yeah, okay, grav is borked. That's legit. Grav Pistol is okay, at least.

BA don't even get invis lol. We completely missed the 7th ed bus of good units. Grav sucks vs iks btw.

JNAProductions wrote:Bikes aren't broken.

Relative to their non-bike counterparts, they are completely undercosted and overpowered.

If you compare what you get with the bike and then compare it to the points cost that you actually pay for it, it's absolutely ridiculous.

And of course they are broken:

They are considered auto-take in 7th edition competitive metas.

Physic powers aren't broken.

Psykers are broken, and you can't even argue against this.

Simply consider the fact that psykers are considered auto-take in 7th edition competitive metas.

Grav Pistol is okay, at least.

No, the grav pistol is not okay in the least. Compare a grav pistol to a plasma pistol.

No one is bringing ba psykers. I think you know the score with ba, but can't admit it. If ba can beat ik, which they csn , ik are fair.

Also, JNA:

"If it's anything I don't personally like, it's broken."

No. Anything which is obviously and conspicuously better than the vast majority of other selections in the game is broken.

There is nothing in my codex like that.

Keep in mind you don't have to kill them in one turn.

Of course, if someone runs quadra-knight you'll be able to just completely focus one at a time, in which case a well-rounded list probably *will* kill one per turn as I illustrated.

But as long as you've got some ablative wounds to protect your AT, you can take a couple turns to bring an IK down and still come away with a favorable trade.

My dante with five melta pistol sg squad killed three in one game because they cant be tarpittex.