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.

Martel732 wrote:
Make some weapons do more damage vs titantic units. If the hammerhead railgun did flat 6 +2 mortal vs titantic, for example, this would help the issue a lot. And reduce invulns by 2.

I don't know, wouldn't that just push it more towards "you need titanics to kill titanics" then we're already made? Just capping the invuln of IK at 5++ seems like a good idea IMO. Personally I had hoped that the Gallant jumped up to 400 and the Castellan to 675 on top of that. Then again, the Eldar superheavy dropped significantly in points (not that it's as good) but I'm not loving the idea that superheavies can be had for less than 400 points.

Furthermore I think "house stratagems" should not be made available in SHAD. Obviously the capping of the invuln would mean changing rotate ion shields & ion bulwark. One of them could just be flinging a mortal wound back on an unmodified roll of a 6 when using the invuln save

Hammerhead is not a titanic.

Two suggestions of the same coin:

1.a. Non-TITANIC units have +X to hit against TITANIC units.
1.b. TITANIC units have -X to hit against non-TITANIC units.

Martel732 wrote:
Hammerhead is not a titanic.

My brain is not operating properly, for some reason I read that as Doomhammer. Still though, I'd imagine most of the anti-titanic weapons would still be on titanics. Just lowering the invuln on IK would make them a lot more fun to play against.

Although it might just be that I find invulns to be pretty frustrating to play against in general when they're better than 5+. Like why did storm shields drop?

PiñaColada wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Hammerhead is not a titanic.

My brain is not operating properly, for some reason I read that as Doomhammer. Still though, I'd imagine most of the anti-titanic weapons would still be on titanics. Just lowering the invuln on IK would make them a lot more fun to play against.

Although it might just be that I find invulns to be pretty frustrating to play against in general when they're better than 5+. Like why did storm shields drop?

It's incredibly frustrating when you hit a tank with your ultra-doom weapon that does 2D6 damage or something, but their invulnerable save just shrugs it off. There should be a limit on the amount of damage invulnerable saves are allowed to make before the shield generator is overloaded.Like, 10 for infantry, 20 for characters and vehicles. Do more than that, and the invulnerable save is lost. It recharges next turn.

There is nothing more annoying that hitting a Castellan or other monstrous gribbly with 6 lascannons or something, and then it passes all 6 3++ saves, and you're sitting there like... well gak now I am dead.

I'm not sure I entirely agree. A superweapon that does 2d6 damage that hits a target that outright ignores the laws of physics a third of the time should fail to kill.

That said, a superweapon that does 2d6 damage with AP-4 shouldn't be facing a 3++ when shooting at an Imperial Knight.

It gets really frustrating when small arms are a better answer than Bright/Darklances or Melta/Fusion for taking down things Bright/Darklances or Melta/Fusion are designed for.

Welcome to the reality of warfare, it's a constant evolution of better armour, better weapons, better defensive systems, better attacks.

Still get the feeling the underlying issue that peoole believe they should be able to always play their gunline as a gunline to blast anything off the table and don't like when things like knight mono lists force alternative playstyles upon them.

Allies in 8th edition are a problem like seriously 32 bodies with 5cp for less than a helverin why wouldn't you.

"Welcome to the reality of warfare, it's a constant evolution of better armour, better weapons, better defensive systems, better attacks. "
Which makes the "old" weapons pointless. But they still pay the points they used to.

Melta(/Fusion) guns/pistols have 12" or 6" range. That's not gunline. They're designed to get up close and pop The Big Bad, the super large, durable vehicles.

Now, they introduce Super Large vehicles. And give them good CC rules that can waste most of your CC units in CC. -
-That's fine, bring on the Melta, right? Nope. All that AP means nothing when it's rocking a decent Invuln
-Bring on the gunline - Lascannons/Brightlances? Nope. Lasguns do better.
-Bring on your CC units? Get destroyed in CC.

It's one thing to suggest "use alternative playstyles". It's another thing to suggest "Don't use any playstyle but the few designed specifically to counter this. Your faction may have one - two if you're lucky."

When so many threats return 25%+ of their points in one turn, it's silly to get upset when anything south of 500 dies in a turn of 2k points trying to kill it. Maybe if it were super durable, but slow and not terribly killy - but those last two don't describe Knights.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
"and don't like when things like knight mono lists force alternative playstyles upon them."

One other comment on this: I played WMH before I played 40k. They introduced Gargants. My favored faction/units actually beat them easily - I didn't need to change my list, and won most games against them (I wasn't particularly good, they were just an easy-for-me matchup). It still factored into me finding an alternative playstyle: 40k. The game was more fun playing with/against minis with more counterplay/nuance than playing toy robots.

Melta sucks because it's rules are out of balance with it's points cost. Thats bad weapons rules or costing on GW.

No it's called playing the mission something every army bar the barely fieldable ones will always do better, everyone is still suck in a must out kill the other player to win mentality.

Again they have 1 relic which can make 1 knight ObSec, which no-one ever takes.
So you know that rule everyone claims is pointless that every other army gets for free, obsec means 1 guardsmen outscores any number of knights on objectives.

Everyone since 8th dropped has been on the table the opposition mentality. It was inevitable that at some point a codex that was supposed to be very difficult to table would be introduced, knights is that codex.

The problem is the designer's didn't account for allies properly.

"Avoid" can work. But it's not as simple as it sounds - IKs move much faster than many units, and have good dakka for their points. Slowing them down and playing the mission is the "right" way to handle them. But, often, it's the *only* way to handle them, as most factions simply don't have the tools to do anything else.

That 1 Guardsman outscoures any number of Knights for one round. Then gets stomped into paste. It's certainly useable, and is part of playing the objective vs the Knight. But it's not autowin.

My compaint about knights is twofold:
(1) They're currently a bit OP. Not as much as many historical OP atrocities, though.
(2) 90% of the decisions I can make in a match just don't matter when facing an IK.

Those are two very different concerns, caused by very different problems.

Lets put it this way a knight has the invun all variants are effective and stuff base cost about 315 pts
baneblade has 2 wounds more and that's where the ads end and base is between 390-420 depending variant

IKs have terrible dakka for their points. You have to use that to your advantage. The Castellan is the only one I have trouble dealing with. The others fall victim to needing to close to really do damage, and that opens them up to smites and beatsticks. Even crusaders are megalame compared to equivalent points of command russes or manticores.

The RFBC is a fething joke. It's just about the worst weapon in the entire imperium. It's just a Russ gun that clocks in at 100 pts. Really?

Martel732 wrote:
IKs have terrible dakka for their points. You have to use that to your advantage. The Castellan is the only one I have trouble dealing with. The others fall victim to needing to close to really do damage, and that opens them up to smites and beatsticks. Even crusaders are megalame compared to equivalent points of command russes or manticores.

The RFBC is a fething joke. It's just about the worst weapon in the entire imperium. It's just a Russ gun that clocks in at 100 pts. Really?

Yes, but that's the balance they should have. I'd argue that the Gallants are just as bad as the Castellan but that depends on your army. If you're fielding something that has an endless horde of durable cheap bodies like nurgle then gallants will be bogged down and do very little but against a somewhat more elite army those things are an incredible bargain. You get 3 of them for 1056 points, that feels a bit ridiculous and if you face that on a board that doesn't have too many ruins (not a barren board, but mostly consisting of craters, forests, hills etc) you get borked.

That's the thing I feel like people need to consider, if you just price hike the castellan to like 750 then I really think Gallantspam might become a new meta (or a bigger part of the current one)

Martel732 wrote:
The RFBC is a fething joke. It's just about the worst weapon in the entire imperium. It's just a Russ gun that clocks in at 100 pts. Really?

I'm just curious why you would say this...

I'm not trying to prove you wrong, genuinely interested, because I've been swearing by my Paladin for two and a half editions now...


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Like, I get that the standard russ Battle Cannon has the same stats, but throwng 2d6 shots at that statline at something is pretty good last I checked

 IHateNids wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
The RFBC is a fething joke. It's just about the worst weapon in the entire imperium. It's just a Russ gun that clocks in at 100 pts. Really?

I'm just curious why you would say this...

I'm not trying to prove you wrong, genuinely interested, because I've been swearing by my Paladin for two and a half editions now...


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Like, I get that the standard russ Battle Cannon has the same stats, but throwng 2d6 shots at that statline at something is pretty good last I checked

The RFBC costs 100 points for a double shooting Battlecannon
Than means a commander russ hull is 64 points for 12 T8 3+ wounds including orders? That or a RFBC isn't 100 point weapon.

Ice_can wrote:

The RFBC costs 100 points for a double shooting Battlecannon
Than means a commander russ hull is 64 points for 12 T8 3+ wounds including orders? That or a RFBC isn't 100 point weapon.

Probably both. 100 points is certainly too much for that weapon but commander russes are definitely underpriced.

may it be another issue with the "platform tax"?

Like, for example Jump Packs are differently costed for Characters than troopers

I'll admit the weapon is only 2 Battle Cannons stuck together, but I dont have an issue at all with thinking it's costed higher thanks to the fact this one can fire over buildings, for example

I will agree though, I think it should be about 60 points as opposed to 100

 IHateNids wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
The RFBC is a fething joke. It's just about the worst weapon in the entire imperium. It's just a Russ gun that clocks in at 100 pts. Really?

I'm just curious why you would say this...

I'm not trying to prove you wrong, genuinely interested, because I've been swearing by my Paladin for two and a half editions now...


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Like, I get that the standard russ Battle Cannon has the same stats, but throwng 2d6 shots at that statline at something is pretty good last I checked

Because I can ignore ik shooting from a non-castellan all game. Compare to drukhari and ig units and despair ik players.

Bharring wrote:
I think It'd help my enjoyment of the game with Knights if they had a 4" move, d6" charge, and no movement stratagems.

Because Knights are apparently super fast and agile...

Have you seen the DoWIII trailer? They move about as agile as you expect


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Blackie wrote:

Ice_can wrote:

The RFBC costs 100 points for a double shooting Battlecannon
Than means a commander russ hull is 64 points for 12 T8 3+ wounds including orders? That or a RFBC isn't 100 point weapon.

Probably both. 100 points is certainly too much for that weapon but commander russes are definitely underpriced.

I think something the entire playerbase might agree on is that the price cut on Tank Commanders came out of nowhere and was unnecessary.

Yeah the 25point drop on tank commanders is insane. Leman russes were already good, now you pay 20 points more and get 1 better BS and orders (and they're HQ slots, which I'd argue is better but that's a debate)

Like what the hell?

"Have you seen the DoWIII trailer? They move about as agile as you expect "
DOW3 was a travesty. Every encounter should consider Knights. Marines should give every member the same gun. Cover/positioning shouldn't matter, as it promotes passivity. Dire Avengers should have Shields.

The people involved in the design don't understand nuance or strategy. Just `moarMoarMORE!!1!`.

That ugly, stupid, hamfisted version of 40k was terrible. Worst of the series by a *wide* margin. It had none of the good in 40k, and brought to the table so much bad.

Unfortunately, 40k has been growing in DOW3's direction ever since. Like they didn't notice that these ideas were *bad*.

Bharring wrote:
"Have you seen the DoWIII trailer? They move about as agile as you expect "
DOW3 was a travesty. Every encounter should consider Knights. Marines should give every member the same gun. Cover/positioning shouldn't matter, as it promotes passivity. Dire Avengers should have Shields.

The people involved in the design don't understand nuance or strategy. Just `moarMoarMORE!!1!`.

That ugly, stupid, hamfisted version of 40k was terrible. Worst of the series by a *wide* margin. It had none of the good in 40k, and brought to the table so much bad.

Unfortunately, 40k has been growing in DOW3's direction ever since. Like they didn't notice that these ideas were *bad*.

Well my question is why shouldn't the smaller titans be able to move as fast as that? I'll grant you the really big ones, but the technology behind everything is fake anyway.

I will day they probably should've caused more a stir and knocked people down running from their sheer weight but there ya go.

Lumbering, poorly designed, badly understood, and bodgingly maintained bipedal walking castles?

In a setting with super-elite super-trained super-fast super-humans, super ninja/samurai Space Elfs, Xenomorphs, and literal speed demons, why would those towering heaps of scrapmetal be relatively fast?

Why would relics of an age of insanely advanced technology NOT be incredibly agile and fast?

Bharring wrote:
Lumbering, poorly designed, badly understood, and bodgingly maintained bipedal walking castles?

In a setting with super-elite super-trained super-fast super-humans, super ninja/samurai Space Elfs, Xenomorphs, and literal speed demons, why would those towering heaps of scrapmetal be relatively fast?

Relatively in scale terms they are actually quite slow if you compair the scale of the model to the scale of the movement distance.

Mechs are dumb in general. Check all logic at the door.

Martel732 wrote:
Mechs are dumb in general. Check all logic at the door.

Not necessarily. They're only nonsensical because we have yet to develop any type of inertial stability system that could keep such a machine from falling over.

If and when we can mimic the balance functions of the Inner Ear, bipedal mechs like that would be very possible.

Martel732 wrote:
Mechs are dumb in general. Check all logic at the door.

They do look cool, but I agree. It only takes 1 farmboy in a speeder with a tow cable to bring one down.

-

 Galef wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Mechs are dumb in general. Check all logic at the door.

They do look cool, but I agree. It only takes 1 farmboy in a speeder with a tow cable to bring one down.

-

Perhaps a lumbering AT-AT is vulnerable to that, but Imperial Knights are much more agile and crucially have arms. They could simply snap the tow cable or even use it against the Speeder. And even if the Knight does get toppled, they seem agile enough to be able to stand themselves back up. Which is probably one of the most crucial features a "walker" type vehicle could have. They need to be able to stand themselves back up.

Edit: Also for accuracy, the Farmboy wasn't the one who used the towcable

By "relics of an age of insanely advanced technology" do you mean DAoT or Crusade-era? I thought they were Crusade era, which is either a bit above or below T'au depending on who you talk to, but still nowhere near DAoT, much less Eldar or Necrons.

So they're "insanely advanced" only by Imperium standards, and maybe to fish people too?

(And Kroot, Vespids, etc as well.)

Isn't there supposed to be a sort of "Iron Triangle" for balance, though? [ Damage | Durability | Speed | Points ]? (Ok, more a quadrahedron)

Damage: Reasonable to good, depending on who you ask, but not great
Durability: Absurd.
Speed: Super fast, even comparitively
Points: A bit up there, but not that high by LoW standards

So it's like picking all three in the iron triangle: something's got to give.