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.

 BaconCatBug wrote:
If you dropped Knights to T7 with 2+ save it would fix so much it's not even funny. The main problem with 8th edition is that it's either Bring Knights or lose. Even if you tool explicitly for Knights, they just turn around and get a 3++ and block all your stuff, and even if you do manage to degrade them they just stratagem back up to full effectiveness.

why do you keep saying this in multiple threads but ignoring the evidence disproving it?

sigh

Just want to respond to those folks saying "you have to bring Knights or lose" - I couldn't disagree with this more, and I'm not saying this just because of the report.

My list was far from optimal- Ynarri smashes Knights even harder, and I genuinely find that Knights struggle in any events which are using the ITC line of sight blocking rules.

Knights are more of a gatekeeper army these days I reckon- you'll find them at events, but they aren't better than Orks, Ynarri or Talos/Grots.

 BaconCatBug wrote:
If you dropped Knights to T7 with 2+ save it would fix so much it's not even funny. The main problem with 8th edition is that it's either Bring Knights or lose. Even if you tool explicitly for Knights, they just turn around and get a 3++ and block all your stuff, and even if you do manage to degrade them they just stratagem back up to full effectiveness.

Nah, i killed every knight at an ITC tournament last weekend without even trying, it wasnt the knights that i had trouble with, it was hordes. I was able to do 30-40 wounds to knights each turn.

 Amishprn86 wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
If you dropped Knights to T7 with 2+ save it would fix so much it's not even funny. The main problem with 8th edition is that it's either Bring Knights or lose. Even if you tool explicitly for Knights, they just turn around and get a 3++ and block all your stuff, and even if you do manage to degrade them they just stratagem back up to full effectiveness.

Nah, i killed every knight at an ITC tournament last weekend without even trying, it wasnt the knights that i had trouble with, it was hordes. I was able to do 30-40 wounds to knights each turn.

And I also once won a game with a 3000 point handicap while blind. Please share this magical secret sauce that can somehow bypass all the wounds on a 3++ castellan in a single turn.

The best armies have way to deal with the castellan though - Talos armies ring haywire, Ynarri bring double tapping reapers and the ability to use jinx (bringing that invulnerable down), and hordes just don't care about the save.

 liam0404 wrote:
The best armies have way to deal with the castellan though - Talos armies ring haywire, Ynarri bring double tapping reapers and the ability to use jinx (bringing that invulnerable down), and hordes just don't care about the save.

So you literally admit the only way to deal is to specifically tailor to deal with knights.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 liam0404 wrote:
The best armies have way to deal with the castellan though - Talos armies ring haywire, Ynarri bring double tapping reapers and the ability to use jinx (bringing that invulnerable down), and hordes just don't care about the save.

So you literally admit the only way to deal is to specifically tailor to deal with knights.

Those don't seem to be tailor made to kill knights, they're just things that eldar bring anyway.

Yeah the armies that I listed are solid anyway, and just happen to have the tools to beat Knights as part of their bag of tricks.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 liam0404 wrote:
The best armies have way to deal with the castellan though - Talos armies ring haywire, Ynarri bring double tapping reapers and the ability to use jinx (bringing that invulnerable down), and hordes just don't care about the save.

So you literally admit the only way to deal is to specifically tailor to deal with knights.

Haywire is just the best choice on taloi. Aeldari armies are a bad match up for knights as they have the tools to kill them almost by accident. By which I mean if you ignore knights and build for fighting the rest of the competetive armies you end up good against knights anyway.

Even without going soup or Ynaari, Craftworlds has excellent tools to deal with Knights. Fire Prisms, Hemlocks, mass mortal wound output, Doom and Jinx basically make the army tailor made to deal with it without even trying. Apply those last two things on top of Ulthwe Guardians and even they start to rip apart Knights too. Tau have also become really excellent vs Knights because while they don't have a load of easy S9+ weaponry, they have plenty of ways to access +1 to wound abilities, abundant re-rolls and can shrug off so much punishment with drones. Like Guardians, the humble Fire Warrior can start to really put serious hurt on a Knight too with proper target priority and ability use/character buffs. Orks are also a no-brainer anti-Knight army, not just because 90+ boyz is a nightmare for anything to deal with, but Bad Moon Lootas will absolutely wreck them and like Tau Drones, grot shields make them incredibly resilient.

There's plenty more armies that have the tools to deal with them as-is. I'd look at improving the armies that struggle rather than nerfing Knight directly. CA2018 seemingly attempted to do this by reducing points values of a lot of anti-armour stuff from things like Marines and Necrons but it's probably still not enough for them.

I just say this because I'm a pure Craftworlds player who goes Ulthwe instead of Altaioc and I have literally never lost to an army with a Knight in it even in semi-competitive games. If you want to make me even better at killing Knights then go for it, clearly my winrate vs Imperium armies isn't high enough. Only 90% or something. It really should be 95%!

 Bosskelot wrote:
Even without going soup or Ynaari, Craftworlds has excellent tools to deal with Knights. Fire Prisms, Hemlocks, mass mortal wound output, Doom and Jinx basically make the army tailor made to deal with it without even trying. Apply those last two things on top of Ulthwe Guardians and even they start to rip apart Knights too. Tau have also become really excellent vs Knights because while they don't have a load of easy S9+ weaponry, they have plenty of ways to access +1 to wound abilities, abundant re-rolls and can shrug off so much punishment with drones. Like Guardians, the humble Fire Warrior can start to really put serious hurt on a Knight too with proper target priority and ability use/character buffs. Orks are also a no-brainer anti-Knight army, not just because 90+ boyz is a nightmare for anything to deal with, but Bad Moon Lootas will absolutely wreck them and like Tau Drones, grot shields make them incredibly resilient.

There's plenty more armies that have the tools to deal with them as-is. I'd look at improving the armies that struggle rather than nerfing Knight directly. CA2018 seemingly attempted to do this by reducing points values of a lot of anti-armour stuff from things like Marines and Necrons but it's probably still not enough for them.

I just say this because I'm a pure Craftworlds player who goes Ulthwe instead of Altaioc and I have literally never lost to an army with a Knight in it even in semi-competitive games. If you want to make me even better at killing Knights then go for it, clearly my winrate vs Imperium armies isn't high enough. Only 90% or something. It really should be 95%!

Even list that are designed to counter knights can fail, if you don`t play first. 3++ on over 20 wounds model is terrible balance and should not exist.
And generally in tournament players have be able to win us different kind of armies, if you are not prepared to play vs orcs you will lose with the anti-knight army.
There is reason Ynnari with DR and SP are popular and fire prism are not played so much.
After all knight can easily smash 1 fire prism and stop the combo and FP is not the way to counter hordes.
I actually expect that eldars will perform poorly in the incoming LVO, whatever people say the SS ad WS point increase will certainly lower Ynnari effectiveness.

I finally got my hand on the white dwarf and was quite amused by how the Knight army got destroyed by what was an efficient but albeit not optimal aelderi army.
I think the whine around Knights has more to do with the specific design of the unit (one huge unit that you ever kill or suffer from) and the fact that they are very popular due to their design. I got two Knights and never played them, just loved painting them.

Marin wrote:

Even list that are designed to counter knights can fail, if you don`t play first. 3++ on over 20 wounds model is terrible balance and should not exist.
And generally in tournament players have be able to win us different kind of armies, if you are not prepared to play vs orcs you will lose with the anti-knight army.

Knights ARE allowed to win games also, you know. In the scenario you give, if you go first you wipe them. Hence, gatekeeper army. Definitely one of the strongest factions out at the moment and could use a tune-down, but not something that has no place in 40k.

 BaconCatBug wrote:
If you dropped Knights to T7 with 2+ save it would fix so much it's not even funny. The main problem with 8th edition is that it's either Bring Knights or lose. Even if you tool explicitly for Knights, they just turn around and get a 3++ and block all your stuff, and even if you do manage to degrade them they just stratagem back up to full effectiveness.

Amazingly, they were not an issue at all until they got that 3++ save.

Hm...

What could be the problem here....

Completely disagree on knights being T7. TBH, I'd rather see WAY more vehicles in 8th falling across the T5-T8 spectrum rather than the HUGE number of T7 vehicles kicking around. It utterly skews what is otherwise a quite nice wounding system for 8th by still maintaining an artificial extra value on certain strength numbers that line up nicely to the "standard" vehicle chassis.

No, the problem with knights IMO is the crazy impact of their warlord traits and relics that were added to entice people to buy the codex for them. A warlord trait to add durability to a superheavy should be "reroll invuln saves of 1" not "add +1 to your invuln save" and it DEFINITELY should never have been allowed to stack up to a 3++.

the_scotsman wrote:

No, the problem with knights IMO is the crazy impact of their warlord traits and relics that were added to entice people to buy the codex for them. A warlord trait to add durability to a superheavy should be "reroll invuln saves of 1" not "add +1 to your invuln save" and it DEFINITELY should never have been allowed to stack up to a 3++.

Yep. Making it so that the stratagem can ever raise the invul to 4+ would be an super easy and fair fix. It makes sense from the fluff perspective too, the warlord has a super shield that is always overcharged, but cannot be charged further than that.

 liam0404 wrote:
The best armies have way to deal with the castellan though - Talos armies ring haywire, Ynarri bring double tapping reapers and the ability to use jinx (bringing that invulnerable down), and hordes just don't care about the save.

What do you think about the new Sisters Beta Dex and what would you take against a knights force with that dex (prefeably without souping (*)).

Struggling a bit with the army.

thanks

(*) unless you feel thats a essential element of the game now.

 SHUPPET wrote:
that's the expected response from someone who doesn't have an answer to overwhelming evidence proving their position wrong but still doesn't want to let go of it.

If that's your opinion then fine, it's understood. Mine is just the opposite, and instead of leaning on the fact that everyone is entitled to an opinion, it leans on all the knowledge and information we have on the subject.

It's my opinion based upon a number of soft metrics, which is why it will remain opinion and not fact. I will agree that they are attempting to achieve balance without significantly impacting their best selling lines of models, you can read into that what you will. Granted, I'm a cynic and skeptic, which tends to make me assume the worst potential conclusions from the available information.

 Mr Morden wrote:

 liam0404 wrote:
The best armies have way to deal with the castellan though - Talos armies ring haywire, Ynarri bring double tapping reapers and the ability to use jinx (bringing that invulnerable down), and hordes just don't care about the save.

What do you think about the new Sisters Beta Dex and what would you take against a knights force with that dex (prefeably without souping (*)).

Struggling a bit with the army.

thanks

(*) unless you feel thats a essential element of the game now.

Don't sisters have tons of deep striking/highly mobile melta? Feels like they are pretty good at anti tank.

Taking Imperium and choosing to NOT soup is basically saying "I want to be strong but I choose to not be as competitive as possible". I totally understand it and do it myself but it's a bit like a racing driver refusing to fit high performance slick tyres that will take a second of their lap time because they didn't come pre-fitted to the car.

You can still race and you might do well, but you're choosing not to use all the options available to you.

Wayniac wrote:I think RE: Faq the issue is they are all over the place. There are multiple FAQs for each faction, with some rules in one but not in another. That's the issue; not that FAQs are bad but the way they are organized seems to be horrible for actually using them. Ideally, you should require two: the main rulebook FAQ and your faction FAQ. But often, there are rules that apply to your codex that aren't in your FAQ, but in another FAQ that broadly applies to multiple codexes (in which case they should be in the MAIN faq)

I just wanted to chime in; while I agree with you from a casual player perspective that the FAQs are poorly organized, from a competitive player perspective, functionally, it's fine.

Why? Because a player who is looking to place and do well in tournaments should realistically know about how all armies in the game function (otherwise that's just poor planning on their part). That means staying up to date on all the Codices and FAQs, so they will be reading them all in turn anyways. Whether all the entries are grouped into one super-PDF, or scattered across 20, a player looking to place/do well in competition will read them all anyways.


As for the Battle Report and the Army Lists, I thoroughly enjoyed it, because it helps shows an aspect of the game as it's played from a competitive perspective. As I understand, it was illuminating to the Design Team, and it gives insight to players outside of narrative circles. I really hope GW keeps doing this, providing not just more narrative battle reports, but more competitive ones as well.

Do we all agree that the game should be played in this way? Does it matter? You do you. But it's always nice to see and learn from different perspectives and I want to see GW embracing more of and providing more for its player demographics.

 Silentz wrote:

 Mr Morden wrote:

 liam0404 wrote:
The best armies have way to deal with the castellan though - Talos armies ring haywire, Ynarri bring double tapping reapers and the ability to use jinx (bringing that invulnerable down), and hordes just don't care about the save.

What do you think about the new Sisters Beta Dex and what would you take against a knights force with that dex (prefeably without souping (*)).

Struggling a bit with the army.

thanks

(*) unless you feel thats a essential element of the game now.

Don't sisters have tons of deep striking/highly mobile melta? Feels like they are pretty good at anti tank.

Taking Imperium and choosing to NOT soup is basically saying "I want to be strong but I choose to not be as competitive as possible". I totally understand it and do it myself but it's a bit like a racing driver refusing to fit high performance slick tyres that will take a second of their lap time because they didn't come pre-fitted to the car.

You can still race and you might do well, but you're choosing not to use all the options available to you.

Allies by design should be a compliment, not a crutch.

The issue is that several codices are designed to require that crutch. At least the Eldar factions don't NEED allies, but the wording of Doom makes everyone bring in Eldar.

 DV8 wrote:
Because a player who is looking to place and do well in tournaments should realistically know about how all armies in the game function (otherwise that's just poor planning on their part). That means staying up to date on all the Codices and FAQs, so they will be reading them all in turn anyways. Whether all the entries are grouped into one super-PDF, or scattered across 20, a player looking to place/do well in competition will read them all anyways.

I agree, but am also resentful that this is the way it is. While variety is great, there are far too many factions in 40K right now, with far too many units and each faction with its own FAQ.
I used to have almost all the Codices for 40k (save for Guard and Orks at the time) and used to be "up to date" with all the rules for all the armies for all of 40K.
But a combination of factions/unit counts doubling or even tripling since then and me actually having a life outside this game, I just cannot realistically keep up.
I just do not have the mental stamina or disposable income to play competitively anymore.

For a brief time in 8E it looked like the game was going to be streamlined enough for this to be possible for me again. Afterall, 1 BRB and 5 Indexes was all you needed.
But alas, that dream has died.
On the bright side, my sons are getting more and more invested in 40K, so I am able to pass th torch as it were and just play for fun (best of both worlds).

I got off on a bit of a tangent there, but:

TL;DR If you are serious about this game competitively, it isn't a huge inconvenience to keep up. But for some, the inconvenience does indeed put up a wall to that world that shouldn't exist.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Allies by design should be a compliment, not a crutch.

The issue is that several codices are designed to require that crutch. At least the Eldar factions don't NEED allies, but the wording of Doom makes everyone bring in Eldar.

Yep, an this is probably the main reason Aeldari Factions get hate. They don't NEED each other to be good, but together get the same level of advantage as other factions.
Factions using allies as a crutch go for "meh" to "good", but Aeldari go from "good" to "great/OP"
SOMETHING needs to change to limit the advantage of taking Allies without completely removing them

-

Honestly, limiting Doom to only working with Craftworld units would go a long way to solving one of those problems. I don't know why GW just doesn't do that.

 Galef wrote:
*snip*

TL;DR If you are serious about this game competitively, it isn't a huge inconvenience to keep up. But for some, the inconvenience does indeed put up a wall to that world that shouldn't exist.
*snip*

I agree. Ideally you have a gaming group with access amongst them to all the Codices, so as an individual, you don't have to buy them all.

And as a casual player, I only really care about the FAQs in passing. I'll update myself once every few months, but our group doesn't get in a twist if we don't play a rule 100% right, because it's all beer-hammer to us.

Can this thread get locked?

It's people who play against knights without anti vehicle weapons and lose but expect to win vs. everyone else for like the last 8 pages.

 sfshilo wrote:
Can this thread get locked?

It's people who play against knights without anti vehicle weapons and lose but expect to win vs. everyone else for like the last 8 pages.

I think the biggest problem is people who play against Knights with only enough Anti-Tank to kill, say, a Baneblade.

The durability difference between most LOWs (or any vehicle/monster) and a 3++ Castellan is dramatic. To one-round a Baneblade, you need about 30 BS 4+ lascannons, which is possible but expensive. To one-round a 3++ Castellan, you need 72 BS4+ Lascannons, which is almost 250% more firepower...

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 sfshilo wrote:
Can this thread get locked?

It's people who play against knights without anti vehicle weapons and lose but expect to win vs. everyone else for like the last 8 pages.

I think the biggest problem is people who play against Knights with only enough Anti-Tank to kill, say, a Baneblade.

The durability difference between most LOWs (or any vehicle/monster) and a 3++ Castellan is dramatic. To one-round a Baneblade, you need about 30 BS 4+ lascannons, which is possible but expensive. To one-round a 3++ Castellan, you need 72 BS4+ Lascannons, which is almost 250% more firepower...

Yes and without allies and CP a pure knights list can pull of that buff maybe twice in a game and do nothing else strategums wise.
Also that 3++ doesn't work in Close combat run up and punch it.

Seriously instead of complaining try engaging the brain and counter playing a unit by attacking its weaknesses instead of trying to out play it at it's own game.

Is a cawl's wrath castellen undercosted yes by 50-100 points, but the strategums etc are fine in codex.

The other thing I'd add is something that not many of you are commenting on - my list was probably aggressively average in terms of truly competitive Eldar lists. You never really see Vypers or non Ynarri reapers doing well, and even I managed to win.

Knights are one of those units that may look intimidating, but they are far from invincible. Castellan has a 3++? Why are you shooting that, and not the other Knights?

Reanimation_Protocol wrote:

 Ordana wrote:

Spoiler:

Pancakey wrote:

 Ordana wrote:

Pancakey wrote:

Reanimation_Protocol wrote:

 Eldarsif wrote:


If they were to stick to printed paper then yes, that would be problematic. The solution would just to go digital and have a living ruleset there. Digital Ruleset is an eventuality. The question has always been "when" rather than "if".

Of course, GW should be updating its Rule Pamphlet with more precise wording whenever they release a FAQ. That way you would only print the pamphlet and not keep the old pamphlet + FAQ.

Also, downloading 37 FAQs is a bit hyperbolic. There should only be 1-2 FAQs that are current and needed. One for the ruleset and one for you codex. If you are downloading all FAQs for every single codex then that tells more about a person's hoarding instincts than anything else.

yes 37 was hyperbolic because every post here and elsewhere is perfectly rational and emotionless

but the point stands that currently .. say I want to look up how the "Fights twice" ability has been FAQ'd

it's a Berzerker rule .. so Codex FAQ ? - nope .. BRB - nope , big FAQ 1 - nope 2, DC, SiaNE, CA17 Ca18 ...

I know it's in one of those books .. so at this point yeah ... I'd like an abridged version where the older questions (DC is wrong now on many things and should be made redundant) are revoked or further clarified ALL under one document + Codexes

How on earth is a new player supposed to navigate through this mess?

By reading the faq's?
I know, reading a text document in 2019. Perish the thought.

Pease list the “text documents” that contain all of this information.

Your codex, BRB, Big Faq 1 & 2, CA 2018 (for point changes) should cover 99% of cases.
Having to read faq's is the price you pay for GW actually updating the game, which is VASTLY superior to the situation we had before

I'm 100% on board with updates to the game and regular ones ... it is vastly superior to previous iterations. I was reading a batrep from 2011 last night and they mentioned having a 45 minute break to argue with TO over something in an FAQ that no -one had access to, .. the internet and mobile tech is light years better now.

the problem now lies in indexing and parsing the multiple sources of info we have .. in a competitive arena, there is not time to search EIGHT sources including their errata & FAQ to find where the answer to a question lies to prove to you opponent.

especially when multiple sources contradict each other

For example look up how terrain rules apply to non infantry ... one source says 50% obscured and another says on & in & obscured... Now I know we've hashed that out here... but consider someone that "Doesn't frequent Dakka" ...

how are they supposed to parse multiple iterations, several variants that questioned these rules ... some within the first month of release and others years later ... when there's no version numbers or validity chain.

so yes the information is there .. yes the situation is 'better' ... but damned if I'm going to call it a perfect situation and not keep calling GW out on it.

This guy gets it.

Ice_can wrote:

Yes and without allies and CP a pure knights list can pull of that buff maybe twice in a game and do nothing else strategums wise.

I mean, not to add fuel to the fire, but when was the last time you saw a competitive army with Knights field a mono-knights list? There's a reason Knights are always paired with some form of CP battalion.

Ice_can wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 sfshilo wrote:
Can this thread get locked?

It's people who play against knights without anti vehicle weapons and lose but expect to win vs. everyone else for like the last 8 pages.

I think the biggest problem is people who play against Knights with only enough Anti-Tank to kill, say, a Baneblade.

The durability difference between most LOWs (or any vehicle/monster) and a 3++ Castellan is dramatic. To one-round a Baneblade, you need about 30 BS 4+ lascannons, which is possible but expensive. To one-round a 3++ Castellan, you need 72 BS4+ Lascannons, which is almost 250% more firepower...

Yes and without allies and CP a pure knights list can pull of that buff maybe twice in a game and do nothing else strategums wise.
Also that 3++ doesn't work in Close combat run up and punch it.

Seriously instead of complaining try engaging the brain and counter playing a unit by attacking its weaknesses instead of trying to out play it at it's own game.

Is a cawl's wrath castellen undercosted yes by 50-100 points, but the strategums etc are fine in codex.

A pure knights list isn't what we're talking about here, mate.

And "running it up and punching it" isn't actually that viable, as there are several armies that, even with soup, lack the combat power to kill the Knight before it kills them. And also cannot be done over screens (doubly a problem after the FLY nerf). Which is why Knights soup....