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.

A lot of back and forth knights are OP they are average etc

The problem is knights need to be powerful.They cant be bowled over like a Lemun Russ or a Predator etc, but they cant be like a Warhound titan, so they are the mid ground. Personally (and my main army I run all infantry), I find knights fine in soup or in an army. I think they maybe a little cheap but as CA18 rolls on they are manageable. Remember CA18 just got released so lets see in a few months.

Spectral Ceramite wrote:
A lot of back and forth knights are OP they are average etc

The problem is knights need to be powerful.They cant be bowled over like a Lemun Russ or a Predator etc, but they cant be like a Warhound titan, so they are the mid ground. Personally (and my main army I run all infantry), I find knights fine in soup or in an army. I think they maybe a little cheap but as CA18 rolls on they are manageable. Remember CA18 just got released so lets see in a few months.

I think Knights are fine, except for the 3++, really. Cap that at a 4++ and roll on.

Frankly, you really shouldn't be able to relialibly one round a 600 point vehicle. If you can, it pretty much means that who shoots first wins.

 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 run quite a bit of anti-titan and anti-large units. I have bright lances and many other options with my Eldar. But knights aren't really the massive problem its knight having such a huge advantage with imperial soup lists. While eldar (namely ynnari) are more troublesome than they should be.

 Crimson wrote:
Frankly, you really shouldn't be able to relialibly one round a 600 point vehicle. If you can, it pretty much means that who shoots first wins.

My superheavy tanks are routinely one-rounded. I agree with you, on principle, that lethality is too high. But I've gotten so used to it I just plan for it.

 Crimson wrote:
Frankly, you really shouldn't be able to relialibly one round a 600 point vehicle. If you can, it pretty much means that who shoots first wins.

Can’t wait for CA 2019 to “fix” 40k

@Liam0404: I just got the WD and am reading the BR. Great stuff!

I wondered if you'd let us know why the Beta Tactical Reserve rules weren't used?
Being able to "hide" the Dark Reapers in reserve, but still use them in your Turn 1 is a pretty big deal

-

@Galef - thanks I'm glad you enjoyed it!

The Battle report was fought back at the end of July, so the big FAQ hadn't came out yet - the cp costs and tactical restraint rules weren't in play either here.

I also wrote about this for our website if you're interested:

https://www.caledoniandeathwatchnetwork.co.uk/?p=1527

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 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.

Skyweaver + Doom

MW bypass 3++

Also, i thought you would know this, since you seem all knowing and never wrong

 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.

Well they have one pistol for deepstriking and scouting melta guns that need to get within 6" , have one shot and are very expensive - so its not ideal - especially now Sisters lost double shoot AOF and lack Mortal Wounds causing abilities.

The main combat character is strength 7 so hurting knights in melee is hard, we can;t get power axes so the best of the rest is a Strength 5 relic weapon which does 3 damage.. All these on T3 models.

I was really hoping that a player of the quality of Liam might say how he would use Sisters in such a match up and what he thought of the Beta Dex.

Another thread that ends up pointing out the sorry trash heaps that are marines and necrons. The disconnect between those players in the have group (CWE, orcs, tau, etc) when discussing knights vs those in the have not group (crons, nids and marines) is pretty stark.

Most factions have a way of dealing with knights. Horde them to death (orcs, nids, guard, chaos), sneaky tactics them to death (CWE, Ynarri, harlies, gsc), just shoot them who cares (orcs, tau, cwe, guard), or punch them in the face (custodes, gsc chaos, orcs).

The only ones left out in the cold are marines and necrons. Nids suffer but they usually have the bodies or can get tied up in cqc with whatever screens are brought. Now that the meta has shifted to hordes and knights marines seem to struggle to create a list that can deal with both ends of the spectrum and not get tabled by turn 3.

That dead horse beaten, I'm glad that GW is embracing more competitive players. Hopefully they keep their feelers out and actually watch tourney games and not just take a glance at the results to not only see what lists are out there dominating but how they do it (and what rules are broken, mobbing up lootas, grot shields, 3++ knights, yanarri, doom, terrain...)

I do find it strange that they were caught off guard by the lists you guys brought though. I would think the play testers would be reporting on even more broken lists than the ones you guys brought (constrained by the existing models and crazy travel schedules as you guys were) and the fact that the GW staff wasn't well versed in these pretty meta lists says a lot about the communication between those play testers and the brains at GW.

 liam0404 wrote:
@Galef - thanks I'm glad you enjoyed it!

The Battle report was fought back at the end of July, so the big FAQ hadn't came out yet - the cp costs and tactical restraint rules weren't in play either here.

I also wrote about this for our website if you're interested:

https://www.caledoniandeathwatchnetwork.co.uk/?p=1527

Thanks for the read. Can you give your point of view on the subject of Knight balance since we're at it ?

 TwinPoleTheory wrote:

 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.

Where does the continual crappiness of primaris marines, GW's biggest and most important and usually bestselling product line, factor into your "soft metrics"?

Do you allow that enormous contradiction to your conspiracy narrative disprove it, or are you mostly in the "explain away and disregard data that does not fit my narrative" kind of a business?

bananathug wrote:
Another thread that ends up pointing out the sorry trash heaps that are marines and necrons. The disconnect between those players in the have group (CWE, orcs, tau, etc) when discussing knights vs those in the have not group (crons, nids and marines) is pretty stark.

Most factions have a way of dealing with knights. Horde them to death (orcs, nids, guard, chaos), sneaky tactics them to death (CWE, Ynarri, harlies, gsc), just shoot them who cares (orcs, tau, cwe, guard), or punch them in the face (custodes, gsc chaos, orcs).

The only ones left out in the cold are marines and necrons. Nids suffer but they usually have the bodies or can get tied up in cqc with whatever screens are brought. Now that the meta has shifted to hordes and knights marines seem to struggle to create a list that can deal with both ends of the spectrum and not get tabled by turn 3.

That dead horse beaten, I'm glad that GW is embracing more competitive players. Hopefully they keep their feelers out and actually watch tourney games and not just take a glance at the results to not only see what lists are out there dominating but how they do it (and what rules are broken, mobbing up lootas, grot shields, 3++ knights, yanarri, doom, terrain...)

I do find it strange that they were caught off guard by the lists you guys brought though. I would think the play testers would be reporting on even more broken lists than the ones you guys brought (constrained by the existing models and crazy travel schedules as you guys were) and the fact that the GW staff wasn't well versed in these pretty meta lists says a lot about the communication between those play testers and the brains at GW.

Nids also has OOE and Broodlords. They do a lot of damage to Knights, it is possible to one round a knight with OOE, also Smite. Broodlords cant for sure, but can easily do 5 wounds to them in melee and a smite.

bananathug wrote:
Another thread that ends up pointing out the sorry trash heaps that are marines and necrons. The disconnect between those players in the have group (CWE, orcs, tau, etc) when discussing knights vs those in the have not group (crons, nids and marines) is pretty stark.

Most factions have a way of dealing with knights. Horde them to death (orcs, nids, guard, chaos), sneaky tactics them to death (CWE, Ynarri, harlies, gsc), just shoot them who cares (orcs, tau, cwe, guard), or punch them in the face (custodes, gsc chaos, orcs).

The only ones left out in the cold are marines and necrons. Nids suffer but they usually have the bodies or can get tied up in cqc with whatever screens are brought. Now that the meta has shifted to hordes and knights marines seem to struggle to create a list that can deal with both ends of the spectrum and not get tabled by turn 3.

That dead horse beaten, I'm glad that GW is embracing more competitive players. Hopefully they keep their feelers out and actually watch tourney games and not just take a glance at the results to not only see what lists are out there dominating but how they do it (and what rules are broken, mobbing up lootas, grot shields, 3++ knights, yanarri, doom, terrain...)

I do find it strange that they were caught off guard by the lists you guys brought though. I would think the play testers would be reporting on even more broken lists than the ones you guys brought (constrained by the existing models and crazy travel schedules as you guys were) and the fact that the GW staff wasn't well versed in these pretty meta lists says a lot about the communication between those play testers and the brains at GW.

Where does Marines being one of the few factions that falls into the trifecta of Has units that can actually kill it in melee - has easy access to S9 - has ability to turn off invuln saves come in?

IMO marines are not out of the meta because they can't deal with knights, they're out of the meta because they can't deal with aeldari soup/guard/hordes in general. If the meta was just knights, marines would be half decent.

Yeah have fun pulling off Nullzone. What's the percentage to actually get it off again?

Never mind the fact it has a range of 6".

IDK if marines are out of the meta didn't a DW player (with a knight etc) win heat 3 or something or place high. Crutch of the knight but you know in a tourney. But to the point, knight maybe good for points, but are they OP... I think they are almost at were they should be, maybe should cost a tad more.

has easy access to S9 - has ability to turn off invuln saves come in?

Sure let me pay 38pts per a 1W model and take our premium expensive 170 pts anti-tank vehicle...

Let me also take my 380pts premium vehicle as well to transport.

 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.

Of the top 5 armies in the BAO, the biggest ITC tournament we have had in a while, 4 of the top 5 lists had knights.

People talking down knights never seem to bother looking at what the people who actually win big tournaments bring. It’s getting ridiculous now

How many other lists with knights didn't make it? Do people run knight spam cause they think they need it?etc etc many variables

WhiteDog wrote:

 liam0404 wrote:
@Galef - thanks I'm glad you enjoyed it!

The Battle report was fought back at the end of July, so the big FAQ hadn't came out yet - the cp costs and tactical restraint rules weren't in play either here.

I also wrote about this for our website if you're interested:

https://www.caledoniandeathwatchnetwork.co.uk/?p=1527

Thanks for the read. Can you give your point of view on the subject of Knight balance since we're at it ?

At the time of the battle report, I honestly thought that's Knights in some form of imperium soup were one of the best lists in the game (depending on the other components of the soup).

Now? They're second tier at best IMO. The big FAQ really hurt them. They need CPs to be super efficient, and they no longer have ready access to them as a result of those changes.

I also think that unless you're packing mortars, Knights suck in environments that use the LOS blocking rules for the ground floor. It's super easy to avoid being tabled and score objectives.

Add onto this the fact that Ynarri and Orks were probably neck and neck anyway, and they've just slipped too far. I think even Tauncan probably be comfortable Vs Knights as well depending on their build.

 Galef wrote:

 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

-

For 3-4 mounts before CA IK were to most winning faction, in CA they buffed this fraction, until eldars took a hit.
in white dwarf they post again the proven list just cuz they wanna sell more guards and knights.
But i guess the logic is knights and guard soap is problem, leds nerf eldare

the_scotsman wrote:
Where does the continual crappiness of primaris marines, GW's biggest and most important and usually bestselling product line, factor into your "soft metrics"?

Do you allow that enormous contradiction to your conspiracy narrative disprove it, or are you mostly in the "explain away and disregard data that does not fit my narrative" kind of a business?

Do you have actual numbers showing that Primaris models are among their best selling lines of models? That would certainly be a point against my cynical skepticism, despite your assumption that I am unwilling to integrate data into my assumptions. I would be fascinated to see hard GW sales data on a per product line basis, that would be very relevant data.

 TwinPoleTheory wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:
Where does the continual crappiness of primaris marines, GW's biggest and most important and usually bestselling product line, factor into your "soft metrics"?

Do you allow that enormous contradiction to your conspiracy narrative disprove it, or are you mostly in the "explain away and disregard data that does not fit my narrative" kind of a business?

Do you have actual numbers showing that Primaris models are among their best selling lines of models? That would certainly be a point against my cynical skepticism, despite your assumption that I am unwilling to integrate data into my assumptions. I would be fascinated to see hard GW sales data on a per product line basis, that would be very relevant data.

Primaris intercessors are 60$ per a squad of 10. Primaris and space marine players are rare as is. (which is wierd to think about) inferring from that people are not returning to primaris or space marines.

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.

You just highlighted a problem, not countered the complaints lol. Knights get really strong with allies and their codex gives them the choice of the most allies in the game, that is part of their rules. Not grabbing more CP through allies is an entirely self imposed restriction, but I guess you gotta try engaging the brain first . This post was a big backfire.

 SHUPPET wrote:

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.

You just highlighted a problem, not countered the complaints lol. Knights get really strong with allies and their codex gives them the choice of the most allies in the game, that is part of their rules. Not grabbing more CP through allies is an entirely self imposed restriction, but I guess you gotta try engaging the brain first . This post was a big backfire.

Again still not OP though.
I'm.not denying they're a good codex, but the issue lies in CP rules and allies not as everyone keeps screaming that knights are OP.
If you cost evrything in their codex with 200 points of guard assumed, then why are they having thier codex balanced for an out of codex buff, but not skyweavers, dissy cannons and farseers?

 Asherian Command wrote:

 TwinPoleTheory wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:
Where does the continual crappiness of primaris marines, GW's biggest and most important and usually bestselling product line, factor into your "soft metrics"?

Do you allow that enormous contradiction to your conspiracy narrative disprove it, or are you mostly in the "explain away and disregard data that does not fit my narrative" kind of a business?

Do you have actual numbers showing that Primaris models are among their best selling lines of models? That would certainly be a point against my cynical skepticism, despite your assumption that I am unwilling to integrate data into my assumptions. I would be fascinated to see hard GW sales data on a per product line basis, that would be very relevant data.

Primaris intercessors are 60$ per a squad of 10. Primaris and space marine players are rare as is. (which is wierd to think about) inferring from that people are not returning to primaris or space marines.

They're only rare in top tier competitive environments.

Tons of casual players still play marines. We're swamped with Marine players where I live despite their shittiness because most people just want to play the army/models they like as long as they aren't totally worthless (GK...). Also anecdotal but the space marine battleforces are both sold out on GW's site and other 3rd party sellers whereas the Necron and Eldar ones are still there. Up until a few months ago I saw loads of place still selling the older battleforces like Tau and Orks because they hadn't cleared out the stock but after 2 months you can't find those Space Marine sets anywhere.

 Bosskelot wrote:

 Asherian Command wrote:

 TwinPoleTheory wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:
Where does the continual crappiness of primaris marines, GW's biggest and most important and usually bestselling product line, factor into your "soft metrics"?

Do you allow that enormous contradiction to your conspiracy narrative disprove it, or are you mostly in the "explain away and disregard data that does not fit my narrative" kind of a business?

Do you have actual numbers showing that Primaris models are among their best selling lines of models? That would certainly be a point against my cynical skepticism, despite your assumption that I am unwilling to integrate data into my assumptions. I would be fascinated to see hard GW sales data on a per product line basis, that would be very relevant data.

Primaris intercessors are 60$ per a squad of 10. Primaris and space marine players are rare as is. (which is wierd to think about) inferring from that people are not returning to primaris or space marines.

They're only rare in top tier competitive environments.

Tons of casual players still play marines. We're swamped with Marine players where I live despite their shittiness because most people just want to play the army/models they like as long as they aren't totally worthless (GK...). Also anecdotal but the space marine battleforces are both sold out on GW's site and other 3rd party sellers whereas the Necron and Eldar ones are still there. Up until a few months ago I saw loads of place still selling the older battleforces like Tau and Orks because they hadn't cleared out the stock but after 2 months you can't find those Space Marine sets anywhere.

See I've seen the opposite most marine players are deathguard players in my area. But maybe it changes based on area?

Spectral Ceramite wrote:
How many other lists with knights didn't make it? Do people run knight spam cause they think they need it?etc etc many variables

Why do you think that is more important than the prevalence of knights in the top brackets? People playing down knights are wrong doing so as evidenced by players far far better than them utilizing knights to regularly place at the top of big countywide tournaments. No one is going to deny that ynnari are also extremely good, and the debate over which is the gooderest is counterproductive and the people trying to claim there was s nothing wrong at all with knights are laughably wrong themselves

Ice_can wrote:

 SHUPPET wrote:

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.

You just highlighted a problem, not countered the complaints lol. Knights get really strong with allies and their codex gives them the choice of the most allies in the game, that is part of their rules. Not grabbing more CP through allies is an entirely self imposed restriction, but I guess you gotta try engaging the brain first . This post was a big backfire.

Again still not OP though.
I'm.not denying they're a good codex, but the issue lies in CP rules and allies not as everyone keeps screaming that knights are OP.

The point is, regardless to what extreme you were arguing it, the logic you put forth actually works against you, not for you.

Ice_can wrote:
If you cost evrything in their codex with 200 points of guard assumed, then why are they having thier codex balanced for an out of codex buff, but not skyweavers, dissy cannons and farseers?

If these units are too much also, then that's also an issue that may need a down tune, not an excuse to leave poor examples of balance in the game just because they aren't the only instances of it. I was the first one to say to BCB that he's overrating Knights.