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.

Just went to my first 8th Ed tournament and was kind of surprised to see not a single imperial Knight present. Lots of demon primarchs but no knights. Is any form of the Knight considered competitive right now?

Not a clue, but in my experience so far the knights are far too easy to kill, so much dakka flying about, this combined with "anything can wound anything" just seems to make them a giant point sink and target.

Knights are decent units actually, but the 2-3 most effective tournament lists can wreck them quite easily. Against 75% of the armies they would perform good.

Well, I think IK's go down too early in this edition.
Lascannons are similarly effective weapons are everywhere.
I played with my BA against AdMech recently.
My Shadowsword downed his IK in the first 2 rounds with ease.
Moreover, the damage output of an IK seems to be not the best.
Although he is rather effective in cc with his titanic feet.

I played mine 2 times and then placed it on the shelf, they are just to weak atm, this might change when they get a proper codex tho.

I think its not so much the anti-tank that is hurting the knights. It is the cheap screens with objective secured, missions with progressive scoring, and more smite going around.

And the 3-knights + buffbot lists where always very volatile. Either they would stomp their opponent or they would loose decisively, often on points.

 wuestenfux wrote:
Well, I think IK's go down too early in this edition.
Lascannons are similarly effective weapons are everywhere.
I played with my BA against AdMech recently.
My Shadowsword downed his IK in the first 2 rounds with ease.
Moreover, the damage output of an IK seems to be not the best.
Although he is rather effective in cc with his titanic feet.

HOLD THE MOTHER FUDGING PHONE

Are you saying a weapon designed to kill super-heavies easily killed a super heavy?

Sorry GW but weapons working how they're supposed to is NOT what I signed on for. See you in 9th Editon good sir.

Argh the Shadowsword, a very big reason that Knights are an endangered species. Too cheap, do way too much on top of their knight-slaying main gun, can't be tied up in CC (actively love it, in fact), booooooo.

Also, part of it is I think that Knights are boring.

My superheavy lists don't see play as often I would like, not because they're too powerful or whatever but because they're simply boring.

I think Knights are less way-cool than Daemon Primarchs to most people, so they don't show up as often.

In fact, the only reason I think people are bringing IG superheavies is because they're suddenly really powerful. I feel like I've been the only one bringing a superheavy company since late 4th when it became possible.

My index is packed away right now, but isn't the battle cannon of the knight kind of nerfed now that the Leman Russ cannon can fire twice too? Not sure if it has the same profile.

 bullyboy wrote:
My index is packed away right now, but isn't the battle cannon of the knight kind of nerfed now that the Leman Russ cannon can fire twice too? Not sure if it has the same profile.

The Battle Cannon of the Knight is the same as it always was. Not sure why another unit getting buffed counts as a nerf to a unit in a completely different army, unless you're directly comparing relative strengths, in which case a Knight tears an LRBT in half.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 bullyboy wrote:
My index is packed away right now, but isn't the battle cannon of the knight kind of nerfed now that the Leman Russ cannon can fire twice too? Not sure if it has the same profile.

The Battle Cannon of the Knight is the same as it always was. Not sure why another unit getting buffed counts as a nerf to a unit in a completely different army, unless you're directly comparing relative strengths, in which case a Knight tears an LRBT in half.

A knight costs waaay more, and a leman Russ is way more efficient per point.

I’ve nrver had my knight last more than a turn.

 Amishprn86 wrote:
I played mine 2 times and then placed it on the shelf, they are just to weak atm, this might change when they get a proper codex tho.

That was Mechanicus, they just got a codex.

Iv played against them a few times

ether they get a shot in then die pretty quickly or i get lucky and waste them or i waste a ton of shots at them and they distract me forever.

Often times they will also get first turn charge off with that massive stride which is good. but with free retreat its going to get shot.

Its a fantastic distractionfex so it cannot be the only trick in your army or you will do bad.

Edit: This was only against a normal one with the melta option. i dont know about the other ones.

 Jaxler wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 bullyboy wrote:
My index is packed away right now, but isn't the battle cannon of the knight kind of nerfed now that the Leman Russ cannon can fire twice too? Not sure if it has the same profile.

The Battle Cannon of the Knight is the same as it always was. Not sure why another unit getting buffed counts as a nerf to a unit in a completely different army, unless you're directly comparing relative strengths, in which case a Knight tears an LRBT in half.

A knight costs waaay more, and a leman Russ is way more efficient per point.

I’ve nrver had my knight last more than a turn.

Yes, you would expect that when comparing a specialist unit to a generalist unit.

A unit specialized in shooting should outperform a unit that isn't. A Knight is a high mobility unit with fairly good shooting and good close combat. One would expect its points cost to be less efficient at shooting than a unit whose entire existence is to shoot.

 sfshilo wrote:

 Amishprn86 wrote:
I played mine 2 times and then placed it on the shelf, they are just to weak atm, this might change when they get a proper codex tho.

That was Mechanicus, they just got a codex.

Well, they can use some Knight-specific stratagems now in an AdMech army, but I'm not planning to start collecting AdMech just to give my Knight access to them... Thankfully the Thermal Cannon buff was FAQ'd to the indexes as well.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Jaxler wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 bullyboy wrote:
My index is packed away right now, but isn't the battle cannon of the knight kind of nerfed now that the Leman Russ cannon can fire twice too? Not sure if it has the same profile.

The Battle Cannon of the Knight is the same as it always was. Not sure why another unit getting buffed counts as a nerf to a unit in a completely different army, unless you're directly comparing relative strengths, in which case a Knight tears an LRBT in half.

A knight costs waaay more, and a leman Russ is way more efficient per point.

I’ve nrver had my knight last more than a turn.

Yes, you would expect that when comparing a specialist unit to a generalist unit.

A unit specialized in shooting should outperform a unit that isn't. A Knight is a high mobility unit with fairly good shooting and good close combat. One would expect its points cost to be less efficient at shooting than a unit whose entire existence is to shoot.

I think it could do with a Toughness buff. My Knight Crusader costs about 575 points and at the moment it just doesn't have the resilience to use that versatility. Getting to fall back, shoot, charge and CC every turn sounds nice but if it doesn't have the survivability to do that that advantage is moot. I'd say it deserves T9 for the amount of points that it costs. That way S8 wounds on 5+ and S9 on 4+, allowing it to eat some additional lascannon/ melta shots before going down.

This feels like a perception issue. If people had been taking lascannons in 7th instead of all assault cannons then IKs would have been visibly weaker back then, too.

And there doesn't seem be anything from stopping a Stygies/Lucius IK from deep striking via CP? You can even canticle them, give them a 5++ vs mortal wonuds, or +1 to invulnerable.

...of course that requires a proper detachment instead of a single knight.

Otherwise people are going to be reluctant to take such a big model when lost of points are consumed by hefty characters to provide rerolls.

T9 is an insane durability increase. If that happens, I'd hope Baneblades get T9 too, because they're categorically worse than Knights at combat and in mobility, while being better at shooting and roughly equivalent in durability.

If Knights suddenly got such a drastic durability increase I'd hope Baneblades did too or the superheavy meta will get shifted all out of whack.

FWIW the average cost of an upgraded Baneblade is 555, so right on the money almost

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Jaxler wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 bullyboy wrote:
My index is packed away right now, but isn't the battle cannon of the knight kind of nerfed now that the Leman Russ cannon can fire twice too? Not sure if it has the same profile.

The Battle Cannon of the Knight is the same as it always was. Not sure why another unit getting buffed counts as a nerf to a unit in a completely different army, unless you're directly comparing relative strengths, in which case a Knight tears an LRBT in half.

A knight costs waaay more, and a leman Russ is way more efficient per point.

I’ve nrver had my knight last more than a turn.

Yes, you would expect that when comparing a specialist unit to a generalist unit.

A unit specialized in shooting should outperform a unit that isn't. A Knight is a high mobility unit with fairly good shooting and good close combat. One would expect its points cost to be less efficient at shooting than a unit whose entire existence is to shoot.

Knights are supremely expensive when buying a cc unit and a shooting unit would give you more durability and better shooting and cc. I expect a 500+ point model to survive more than half my opponent’s shooting on turn one.

 Jaxler wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Jaxler wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 bullyboy wrote:
My index is packed away right now, but isn't the battle cannon of the knight kind of nerfed now that the Leman Russ cannon can fire twice too? Not sure if it has the same profile.

The Battle Cannon of the Knight is the same as it always was. Not sure why another unit getting buffed counts as a nerf to a unit in a completely different army, unless you're directly comparing relative strengths, in which case a Knight tears an LRBT in half.

A knight costs waaay more, and a leman Russ is way more efficient per point.

I’ve nrver had my knight last more than a turn.

Yes, you would expect that when comparing a specialist unit to a generalist unit.

A unit specialized in shooting should outperform a unit that isn't. A Knight is a high mobility unit with fairly good shooting and good close combat. One would expect its points cost to be less efficient at shooting than a unit whose entire existence is to shoot.

Knights are supremely expensive when buying a cc unit and a shooting unit would give you more durability and better shooting and cc. I expect a 500+ point model to survive more than half my opponent’s shooting on turn one.

Yes, this is a problem faced by 40k in general.

A single expensive generalist unit is, in fact, usually worse than two cheaper specialized units. It's why Tactical Marines are considered so bad.

What bugs me is how IKs are pretty much agreed to not be tourney competitive, yet Eldar WKs which have the exact same stat line and worse load-outs* are about 80pts MORE expensive. GW had an opportunity to fix this in the Eldar codex by lowering the points cost by about 100pts, but they choose not to for....reasons.



*by worse loadout, I mean WKs have to choose between having a 5++ & melee weapon or good guns with no ++save. IKs can get all 3 in most of their builds for 80pts cheaper.
-

 Galef wrote:
What bugs me is how IKs are pretty much agreed to not be tourney competitive, yet Eldar WKs which have the exact same stat line and worse load-outs* are about 80pts MORE expensive. GW had an opportunity to fix this in the Eldar codex by lowering the points cost by about 100pts, but they choose not to for....reasons.



*by worse loadout, I mean WKs have to choose between having a 5++ & melee weapon or good guns with no ++save. IKs can get all 3 in most of their builds for 80pts cheaper.
-

You're forgetting about the Xenos tax.

Kind of seems like all supposedly 'tough' vehicles go down too easily. Knights, orkanauts, battlewagons, etc. Lascannons don't care unless you're T9, and nothing is, and you don't need many to deal crippling damage.

I'm not sure what would be needed to change that.

 Kap'n Krump wrote:
Kind of seems like all supposedly 'tough' vehicles go down too easily. Knights, orkanauts, battlewagons, etc. Lascannons don't care unless you're T9, and nothing is, and you don't need many to deal crippling damage.

I'm not sure what would be needed to change that.

People realizing hordes are a threat and taking anti-horde weapons instead of cramming 22 lascannons into a list and crying for conscripts to be nerfed into unsuability.

 Galef wrote:
What bugs me is how IKs are pretty much agreed to not be tourney competitive, yet Eldar WKs which have the exact same stat line and worse load-outs* are about 80pts MORE expensive. GW had an opportunity to fix this in the Eldar codex by lowering the points cost by about 100pts, but they choose not to for....reasons.



*by worse loadout, I mean WKs have to choose between having a 5++ & melee weapon or good guns with no ++save. IKs can get all 3 in most of their builds for 80pts cheaper.
-

I think that's GW throwing a bone to the Wraithknight haters. There are lots of people out there who are sick and tired of facing Wraithknights due to GW pushing them on the players with silly OP rules for quite a while. Now that they've made enough money off of them they make them bad so that people won't see them as much.

I'm not defending it, I think all models should have rules made to make them compelling choices for at least some lists. There will always be outliers, but don't deliberately create them as GW does.

fe40k wrote:

 Galef wrote:
What bugs me is how IKs are pretty much agreed to not be tourney competitive, yet Eldar WKs which have the exact same stat line and worse load-outs* are about 80pts MORE expensive. GW had an opportunity to fix this in the Eldar codex by lowering the points cost by about 100pts, but they choose not to for....reasons.



*by worse loadout, I mean WKs have to choose between having a 5++ & melee weapon or good guns with no ++save. IKs can get all 3 in most of their builds for 80pts cheaper.
-

You're forgetting about the Xenos tax.

Xenos tax is real

Um, what?

Wraithknights can receive buffs & synergize with the rest of Eldar.

Call me when Imperial Knights can receive Guide, Fortune, etc.

And people don't use Knights because their firepower does not justify the cost. A baneblade can 1 shot a knight with its primary weapon, and that's not even a stretch. Why would you bring a knight?

Knights are super cool but right now they're not offensive or defensive enough.

I own a Knight but mainly because it's just a cool model. They don't really fit well into lists (lack of synergy) and an all-knight list is not as effective as an all-<insert here> superheavy list.

 Marmatag wrote:

Wraithknights can receive buffs & synergize with the rest of Eldar.

Call me when Imperial Knights can receive Guide, Fortune, etc.

They can be buffed by AdMech characters and particularly Bobby G (who is in practically every Imperial tournement army it seems.

If Buffs are that good they should be built into the cost of the buffing model, bit the recipient. Otherwise you just end up with an overcosted army. The fact that a WK might received buffs from the rest of the army does not justify a higher price tag. IKs are overpriced in this edition and WKs are overpriced compared to IKs.

 Galef wrote:
What bugs me is how IKs are pretty much agreed to not be tourney competitive, yet Eldar WKs which have the exact same stat line and worse load-outs* are about 80pts MORE expensive. GW had an opportunity to fix this in the Eldar codex by lowering the points cost by about 100pts, but they choose not to for....reasons.



*by worse loadout, I mean WKs have to choose between having a 5++ & melee weapon or good guns with no ++save. IKs can get all 3 in most of their builds for 80pts cheaper.
-

I've played Iyanden since 3rd, and after they teased the Iyanden trait, I was sincerely hoping to they'd make WK's playable so I could build an Aeldari Knights list... unfortunately, they got nothing :(

Daedalus81 wrote:
This feels like a perception issue. If people had been taking lascannons in 7th instead of all assault cannons then IKs would have been visibly weaker back then, too.

And there doesn't seem be anything from stopping a Stygies/Lucius IK from deep striking via CP? You can even canticle them, give them a 5++ vs mortal wonuds, or +1 to invulnerable.

...of course that requires a proper detachment instead of a single knight.

Otherwise people are going to be reluctant to take such a big model when lost of points are consumed by hefty characters to provide rerolls.

I take it you never played in 7th then, Lascannons weren't taken because they were rubbish at their job, just like almost every other dedicated anti-tank weapon. If you wanted to drop a Knight, you either went Melta, Grav, Haywire or D.