Are knight tier models too easy to kill?

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.

**p5freak**

Imperial knights should have 4++ against every attack.

**Ice_can**

Backspacehacker wrote:
Right, because fully kitted it's a 600 point model, but 800 points? No the falcion is around 800 points and it's twice the fire power and better BS

Just yo set the record straight the max points for a shadow sword is 514 thats not a 600 point model a normal loadout is 472.
A shadow sword does 3D3 s16 -5 2D6 damage

A legion falchion is 1061 maxed out, 1027 normal loadout 977 at its cheapest.
It does 2d6 s16 -5 2d6 damage and thats for two of the same weapon as a shadowsword is armed with.

That hopefully drives hope the insane power creep that went on in the IG codex. Yet I've seen IG players complaining on dakka that there super heavys should be BS3+ for the same points cost.

**Backspacehacker**

To set THIS record straight, no, a fully kitted shadow sword is 614 points
That's the shadow sword 100 points each for 2 sets of heavy flamer sponsors, a heavy stubber and a hunter killer.

I agree that the falcion is priced correctly and that the shadow sword is under costed. I useing old numbers for the falcion price.

The biggest crime that guard have this edition are as follows
-ease of access to T8 vehicles
- the cheap cost to those vehicle and under costed fort heir power, basalisk only costing just over 100 points for indirect S9 weapons
-the removal of min range making their artillery every more powerful remove the weakness that was, close the gap on them and you can kill them no longer a thing.

**Polonius**

I don't much like good invulnerable saves on large models. 5++ is fine, as that basically just slows down high AP damage, but when you start getting into the 4++ range, you allow hot (or cold) rolling to really determine how a whole game swings.

to me, the easiest way to handle Knights would be to drop the cost (or increase their ability to work) while also either just giving them more wounds, or more elegantly, giving them some method of damage mitigation. The Serpent Shield is great example here. A -1 to all damange, mininmum of 1, will really slow down damage from d3 or D2 sources, which includes most blast weapons and plasma. However, big Anti-tank weapons will still hit, just not as hard.

I could see knights getting some sort of version of grinding advance, where they can shoot more if they don't move full speed.

**StrayIight**

Polonius wrote:
I don't much like good invulnerable saves on large models. 5++ is fine, as that basically just slows down high AP damage, but when you start getting into the 4++ range, you allow hot (or cold) rolling to really determine how a whole game swings.

It's worth noting that there are already 4 Knights that have a natural 4++, and all others (with the exception of Renegade Knights) have access to a 4 up invuln via a strategy.

It's not really done anything for their viability.

Food for thought.

**Backspacehacker**

StrayIight wrote:
Polonius wrote:
I don't much like good invulnerable saves on large models. 5++ is fine, as that basically just slows down high AP damage, but when you start getting into the 4++ range, you allow hot (or cold) rolling to really determine how a whole game swings.

It's worth noting that there are already 4 Knights that have a natural 4++, and all others (with the exception of Renegade Knights) have access to a 4 up invuln via a strategy.

It's not really done anything for their viability.

Food for thought.

Can confirm a 4++ is not that impressive, Magnus has one and he is pretty poopy

**Ice_can**

Flyrents show it being handed out to everyone is a bad idea but that also wasn't helped by the ability to stack a 3+/4++/5+++ which was just down right silly.
Keeping knights at a 3+/5++ with the 4++ strategum feels right between survivable but not totally imune to tac lists.
I suspect the strategums and points drops will be the main changes.

**Tyel**

I don't see how you balance knights. They are a skew in a game which doesn't cope with skew very well.

If you run into a heavy weapon list (say 50% points in weapons doing D6 damage) then they should blow your knights away. If they don't how on earth is a more balanced list meant to cope? Do you just say the Knight player should auto-win if the opponent only has say 500 points in such weapons?

Right now I suspect knight damage output is more of an issue than their toughness - but if their damage output goes up you just increase the all in-alpha nature of 40k, which I don't like.

**mew28**

Blackie wrote:
osmesis wrote:
Possible options for some of the knights if they insist on them costing over 450 points each:

1. 10 Toughness - Heavy Bolters shouldn't be wounding on 5's
2. 2+ Armour and 4+ Invulnerable - Leviathans have this so should Knights
3. Allow them to join a Chapter to receive buffs
4. Remove the Damage Table

As it stands now they are simply outclassed by so many other cheaper units

Yeah, but with those improvements they'd worth 800+ points each.

No they would not. They would still be rocking the same shooting as one leman russ with medicorer CC abilities,

**Pancakey**

Yes.

**Backspacehacker**

mew28 wrote:
Blackie wrote:
osmesis wrote:
Possible options for some of the knights if they insist on them costing over 450 points each:

1. 10 Toughness - Heavy Bolters shouldn't be wounding on 5's
2. 2+ Armour and 4+ Invulnerable - Leviathans have this so should Knights
3. Allow them to join a Chapter to receive buffs
4. Remove the Damage Table

As it stands now they are simply outclassed by so many other cheaper units

Yeah, but with those improvements they'd worth 800+ points each.

No they would not. They would still be rocking the same shooting as one leman russ with medicorer CC abilities,

Giving them chapter buffs.....cool so I'm gonna take ultramarines take guliman and reroll all my failed hits and wounds....oh an no point increase for that cool. I'm gonna make a knight death star of 3 knights and guli oh and their profile never degrades.....yeah no those are horrible suggestions if you think they don't get a point increase then.

**mew28**

Backspacehacker wrote:
mew28 wrote:
Blackie wrote:
osmesis wrote:
Possible options for some of the knights if they insist on them costing over 450 points each:

1. 10 Toughness - Heavy Bolters shouldn't be wounding on 5's
2. 2+ Armour and 4+ Invulnerable - Leviathans have this so should Knights
3. Allow them to join a Chapter to receive buffs
4. Remove the Damage Table

As it stands now they are simply outclassed by so many other cheaper units

Yeah, but with those improvements they'd worth 800+ points each.

No they would not. They would still be rocking the same shooting as one leman russ with medicorer CC abilities,

Giving them chapter buffs.....cool so I'm gonna take ultramarines take guliman and reroll all my failed hits and wounds....oh an no point increase for that cool. I'm gonna make a knight death star of 3 knights and guli oh and their profile never degrades.....yeah no those are horrible suggestions if you think they don't get a point increase then.

I mean sure you could do that. But your getting out shot my an equal points of of russes even with bobby G buffing the knights.

**Backspacehacker**

"my hate crafted list will beat your"

Well no duh when you make a list designed to do something or counter another list it will. Stop looking though a prism, look at the bigger picture. Imagine a knight list getting chapter buffs and what that will do to armies like nids or orks. As they get laid into with rerolling and wounding hits, none of them can wound it on anything but a 5.

Those suggestions with out a point increase are horrible, the only good one is the 2+ armor save

**EnTyme**

Just kind of spitballing here. Would some form of mortal wound defense help at all? Are mortal wounds part of the reason IK aren't viable, or is it mostly a cost issue couple with an abundance of high-damage high-ap attack? I honestly haven't used my IKs since 8th dropped. Got rid of my only Imperium army, and I only have two knights, so don't really have a way to run them until I get my Armigers put together (and I'm waiting for the codex/stand alone kit to do that).

**Martel732**

Just make them cheaper, to reflect their actual value in the game.

**mew28**

Backspacehacker wrote:
"my hate crafted list will beat your"

Well no duh when you make a list designed to do something or counter another list it will. Stop looking though a prism, look at the bigger picture. Imagine a knight list getting chapter buffs and what that will do to armies like nids or orks. As they get laid into with rerolling and wounding hits, none of them can wound it on anything but a 5.

Those suggestions with out a point increase are horrible, the only good one is the 2+ armor save

The knight could be literally unkillable at 800 points and you would never want it because it is doing the damage of an 150 points model.

**Backspacehacker**

EnTyme wrote:
Just kind of spitballing here. Would some form of mortal wound defense help at all? Are mortal wounds part of the reason IK aren't viable, or is it mostly a cost issue couple with an abundance of high-damage high-ap attack? I honestly haven't used my IKs since 8th dropped. Got rid of my only Imperium army, and I only have two knights, so don't really have a way to run them until I get my Armigers put together (and I'm waiting for the codex/stand alone kit to do that).

From what I have seen it's honestly because they are only protected by a 5++ in shooting, which a 4++ on a stratagem. They are just paper thin. It's the same problem Magnus has, all this powers.....iiiiity bitty survival rate. What criminal as well is they only have a 3+ so even AP 2 your saveing on 5. Combo that with a degrading profile that takes away their BS and movement, it only takes one round of shooting to cripple or kill a knight even with medicore shooting.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

mew28 wrote:
Backspacehacker wrote:
"my hate crafted list will beat your"

Well no duh when you make a list designed to do something or counter another list it will. Stop looking though a prism, look at the bigger picture. Imagine a knight list getting chapter buffs and what that will do to armies like nids or orks. As they get laid into with rerolling and wounding hits, none of them can wound it on anything but a 5.

Those suggestions with out a point increase are horrible, the only good one is the 2+ armor save

The knight could be literally unkillable at 800 points and you would never want it because it is doing the damage of an 150 points model.

A knight with chapter tactics and benefiting from guliman will do a lot more then 150 points worth of damage. The suggestions are aweful. The only good one was a 2+ base everything else was getting broken.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
Or oh I got it, it's now Raven guard, enjoy your tanks hitting on 5s. Lt and captain rerolling 1s for damage and wounds not like I'll need anything other then a 2

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Martel732 wrote:
Just make them cheaper, to reflect their actual value in the game.

This is the true answer, they need to drop like 100 points.

**Ork-en Man**

SaganGree wrote:
Something that hasn't been discussed is how the game itself plays and how that relates to the overall survivability of any individual Unit. Specifically the IGUO method of play. (This has already been discussed in a couple of threads already but is pertinent to the discussion)

Now don't misunderstand, I know there are issues that revolve around alternating play, but it does solve so pretty serious holes in how the game has been shifting (for years) to an alpha strike mentality.

The method I'm suggesting is Alternating play during the phase of a Turn.

Points of Interest:
1. There wouldn't be a Player Turn any longer and only the Turn.

2. The Phases would remain the same.

3. First "Turn" is determined as before.

4. After first turn is determined, players alternate play in each phase
a. Example: Movement phase: Player 1 moves a unit. Player 2 moves a unit. Place a token or marker or something to differentiate units that have activated vs those that have yet to. Once either player has moved all their units the other player moves their remaining units
b. Once end of phase triggers the players alternate once more should there be any abilities that trigger at this time.
c. If a player passes then the other player may continue to operate as per the phase. Note: Once both players pass consecutively then that part of the phase ends, even if there are eligible units still available in the phase.

5. This opens up a lot of tactical play in each of the phases as the weight of one list cannot be counted upon to "delete" a unit before it has had an opportunity to act.
a. Tactics such as moving out of range of a decidedly dangerous unit.
b. The introduction of new Stratagems, like being when a unit is selected to activate, play this stratagem to active in the end phase.
c. MSU armies would have the advantage in the movement phase whereas the Elite armies would have the advantage in the shooting phase.
d. Passing becomes a dangerous game of chicken if a player wants to hold out in a phase for an advantage.

6. More importantly, this mode of operation allows "Elite" units the chance to perform as befitting their name.

7. This method would force players into thinking of damage vs durability and would give a needed boost to the performance of large, expensive units, like Knight class units.

8. Additionally, this method would allow designers to better balance against the individual unit vs the whole army as many here constantly calling for.

Is this method perfect? In no way possible... it does however fix more holes (IMO) that create them. Especially for large Elite units like Knights.

I've been tossing that idea around in my head, as well. I imagine the shooting phase would happen similar to the fight phase with alternative shooting.

**Galas**

Personally I don't like the trend of every big unit needing a 4++ to function. Whats the point of anti-tank weapons with -3ap then? Heck, -4 or -5 AP are nearly useless already.

If you want something to last longer give it more wounds, not make AP irrelevant and give invulnerable saves like candy. If every big lord of war has a invulnerable save then mortal wounds will be the most efficient way to kill them instead of anti tank.

**Martel732**

GW has dug themselves a real hole with invuln/mortal wounds/anti-tank/big targets.

**chimeara**

Maybe get rid of moral wounds lol? Or make them savable on invulns?

I dunno, just thinking out loud.....

**Backspacehacker**

chimeara wrote:
Maybe get rid of moral wounds lol? Or make them savable on invulns?

I dunno, just thinking out loud.....

I have wanted one of these two options for ever now. As a psyker heavy army player, tson, I would gladly give up my smite and wounds that can't be saved to be able to throw out savable lighting or flame attacks.

**Daedalus81**

Martel732 wrote:
GW has dug themselves a real hole with invuln/mortal wounds/anti-tank/big targets.

Not really. Marines and Mechanicus all have stratagems to 5+++ mortal wounds on vehicles. Only the really big stuff has invulns and even those are not the majority. AM lacks that strat as they should and none of their codex super heavies get invulns. Meltas remove the full armor save of standard tanks. AP5 might be most useless profile, but it's so incredibly rare that it doesn't matter.

**mew28**

Daedalus81 wrote:
Martel732 wrote:
GW has dug themselves a real hole with invuln/mortal wounds/anti-tank/big targets.

Not really. Marines and Mechanicus all have stratagems to 5+++ mortal wounds on vehicles. Only the really big stuff has invulns and even those are not the majority. AM lacks that strat as they should and none of their codex super heavies get invulns. Meltas remove the full armor save of standard tanks. AP5 might be most useless profile, but it's so incredibly rare that it doesn't matter.

Wow for only 1CP you can get a 5+ save so now it can die like a guardsman.

**SaganGree**

Ork-en Man wrote:

I've been tossing that idea around in my head, as well. I imagine the shooting phase would happen similar to the fight phase with alternative shooting.

Every phase would alternate... including the charge phase and the fight phase. At least the way I want to see it.

**StarHunter25**

I've been running my knights quite regularly. Against most TAC lists, they are almost right on durability. Yeah, Drew Carry kind of throws a kink in that with the 50000 blasters they can bring in a 1500 list, but against most armies I don't feel like they are super durable or made of chiffon.

So if we're aiming for the "stock" knights (paladin, warden, errant) to be ~400 each, I think if we took 2-4 of the following adjustments (some stolen from osmesis), they would be about on point.

1. All of the Questrious chassis are 4++ vs shooting, 5++ melee, exactly as the Magaera and Styrix are now.
2. 2+ armor save
3. An ability similar to All Is Dust. Against d1 attacks Knights get +1 to their saving throw and/or d1 attacks get -1 to wound against big Knights
4. Knights can measure from anywhere on the model to determine CC range, not just from the base, allowing them to attack enemies in ruins.
5a. Either an extreme point reduction on RFBC, or change its profile to be significantly better. As many have pointed out already, a battle cannon on a LRBT is 22 points and effectively has the same ROF as the knight variant. So long story short, 30 points for RFBC, or make it something significant like heavy 5d3.
5b. A new quirk for the thermal cannon; give it exploding damage on 6's. So in melta range one an errant will be a something truly scary to stare down.
5c. Heavy flamer on the gatling cannon gets 10" range? Otherwise this weapon system is fine.
5d. Perfect world, RFBC @ 50 points, heavy 5d3 str 8 ap-2 dam d3, Thermal Cannon @ 40 heavy d6 str 9 ap-4 dam d6, half range roll 2d6 for damage, damage roll of 6 deals extra (d3/d6) damage. Avenger Gatling @ 75 points, heavy 12 s6 ap-2 dam2, Heavy Flamer on it is 10" range.
6. Reaper chainsword gets 2 for 1 on natural 6's to hit.
7. Thunderstrike gauntlet reduces "FNP" abilities by -1.
8. Blessed Autosimulacra on everyone (6+ get a wound back a beginning of turn), Maybe give this an overcharge ability, so you give up movement and/or shooting, but d6 for each wound lost, get it back on a 5+/6+.
9. Something on the Gallant to make it not awful. A "Blood for the Blood God" ability might be too powerful, but perhaps not if you had to declare at activation could only use your fist/sword for that fight phase.
10a. Ironstorm gets d6 extra shots for every 10 models after the first. So vs tac squad d6 shots, blob of 40 conscrips 4d6.
10b. Stormspear... is fine.
10c. Icarus 10 points less.

That's all I've got for now. As I said, 2-4 of these for a 400-450 point knight, with gallant and crusader being on the low and high end respectively.

**Backspacehacker**

I think an implamentation of an all is dust mechanic would work really nicely for a knight actually. +1 to saving throw of damage 1 weapons. If it's ap- you get a 2+ and a 4++ against all other highstr high AP eapons.

That with a point reduction would make them worth it

**generalchaos34**

StarHunter25 wrote:
I've been running my knights quite regularly. Against most TAC lists, they are almost right on durability. Yeah, Drew Carry kind of throws a kink in that with the 50000 blasters they can bring in a 1500 list, but against most armies I don't feel like they are super durable or made of chiffon.

So if we're aiming for the "stock" knights (paladin, warden, errant) to be ~400 each, I think if we took 2-4 of the following adjustments (some stolen from osmesis), they would be about on point.

1. All of the Questrious chassis are 4++ vs shooting, 5++ melee, exactly as the Magaera and Styrix are now.
2. 2+ armor save
3. An ability similar to All Is Dust. Against d1 attacks Knights get +1 to their saving throw and/or d1 attacks get -1 to wound against big Knights
4. Knights can measure from anywhere on the model to determine CC range, not just from the base, allowing them to attack enemies in ruins.
5a. Either an extreme point reduction on RFBC, or change its profile to be significantly better. As many have pointed out already, a battle cannon on a LRBT is 22 points and effectively has the same ROF as the knight variant. So long story short, 30 points for RFBC, or make it something significant like heavy 5d3.
5b. A new quirk for the thermal cannon; give it exploding damage on 6's. So in melta range one an errant will be a something truly scary to stare down.
5c. Heavy flamer on the gatling cannon gets 10" range? Otherwise this weapon system is fine.
5d. Perfect world, RFBC @ 50 points, heavy 5d3 str 8 ap-2 dam d3, Thermal Cannon @ 40 heavy d6 str 9 ap-4 dam d6, half range roll 2d6 for damage, damage roll of 6 deals extra (d3/d6) damage. Avenger Gatling @ 75 points, heavy 12 s6 ap-2 dam2, Heavy Flamer on it is 10" range.
6. Reaper chainsword gets 2 for 1 on natural 6's to hit.
7. Thunderstrike gauntlet reduces "FNP" abilities by -1.
8. Blessed Autosimulacra on everyone (6+ get a wound back a beginning of turn), Maybe give this an overcharge ability, so you give up movement and/or shooting, but d6 for each wound lost, get it back on a 5+/6+.
9. Something on the Gallant to make it not awful. A "Blood for the Blood God" ability might be too powerful, but perhaps not if you had to declare at activation could only use your fist/sword for that fight phase.
10a. Ironstorm gets d6 extra shots for every 10 models after the first. So vs tac squad d6 shots, blob of 40 conscrips 4d6.
10b. Stormspear... is fine.
10c. Icarus 10 points less.

That's all I've got for now. As I said, 2-4 of these for a 400-450 point knight, with gallant and crusader being on the low and high end respectively.

I can see a lot of these being "Knight House" chapter rules. I think once they get their house rules we will be able to really gauge where they need to be, since most of their opponents have been operating on full power when it comes to special rules and stratagems and knighs have been SOL for the most part outside of the 4++ for a CP. Plus relics could be a real game changer as well. I love the idea for 10a, knights need something to thin out hordes beyond the stomp (which can still dish out quite well) but then again a lot of weapons need to go this route to balance horde vs elite armies. In fact, if a lot more weapons had this rule (i.e. Frag Grenade Launchers, Missile Launchers, etc) you would see a lot less plasma spam on the field and a wider variation on weapons in general knowing that there will be hordes, and which will in turn lower the amount of hordes out there and let things like Marines return to the table tops instead of just all their empty transports going to war =P

**Daedalus81**

mew28 wrote:
Daedalus81 wrote:
Martel732 wrote:
GW has dug themselves a real hole with invuln/mortal wounds/anti-tank/big targets.

Not really. Marines and Mechanicus all have stratagems to 5+++ mortal wounds on vehicles. Only the really big stuff has invulns and even those are not the majority. AM lacks that strat as they should and none of their codex super heavies get invulns. Meltas remove the full armor save of standard tanks. AP5 might be most useless profile, but it's so incredibly rare that it doesn't matter.

Wow for only 1CP you can get a 5+ save so now it can die like a guardsman.

Sure. No flaws in that logic.

**Shas'O'Ceris**

Codex rules could help, my renegade is tired of being unbuffable. I like some of the proposals, I would suggest 5+++ instead of 5++ which increases defense against anti-infantry by 33%, makes ap useful again, offers some protection vs MW, and normalizes damage received by multi-damage wounds. But people didn't like that concept when applied widely so i doubt it'll be popular now.

I don't see too much purpose behind 2+/5++ since that doesn't change much for anti-tank weapons.

I am not certain about T9/10. I'd rather see 9, but as mentioned some armies struggle to find S9+, S5 should not be even less advantageous over S4 than current, but the real thing is that Melta is hard to get in so it shouldn't be even less good at its job.

-1D min1 is interesting, makes the high wound count matter more and gives greater purpose to plinking away with infantry. It hits plasma hard, which is probably ok, but plasma needs a balance change anyways imo.

Any of the point decreases help, though I am concerned about knight heavy armies. 1 is doomed if the opponent is expecting it, 2 is harsh as it requires a skewed list, 3 is dooming as knights can do a good few things while requiring specialists to take down.