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.

 vipoid wrote:

 stonehorse wrote:

Wayniac wrote:

 Lord Damocles wrote:
Assault Weapons.

Even if it's clear how they're [probably] supposed to work, the rule shouldn't have been left broken for three years and counting.

You know, I could forgive this only because it provides a sort of litmus test. It's obvious to everyone how it's meant to work, so anyone who tries to argue otherwise is blatantly stating they are TFG and you should avoid them like the plague. Should it be fixed? Absolutely, but it existing is a great way to figure out who is the scumbag.

That said though I would laugh my ass off if someone tried to pull that in the final round of a major tournament, on stream, just to show that things are fundamentally broken due to piss poor rules.

I must have missed something, what is making the assault weapon rule so badly written? As far as I know it is that a model can move and advance, then fire the assault weapon with no penelty for advancing. Is the rule written in a way that makes it idiotic?

RAW you cannot select a unit to fire if it has Advanced. Nothing in the Assault weapon rule changes that.

Basically this. Assault lets you advance and fire, true, but the Advance rules says something like the unit cannot be selected to shoot. Assault says something like when you select a unit to shoot, etc. etc.. So RAW if you could select the unit, it could shoot, but Advance prevents you from selecting the unit in the first place.

 vipoid wrote:

 stonehorse wrote:

Wayniac wrote:

 Lord Damocles wrote:
Assault Weapons.

Even if it's clear how they're [probably] supposed to work, the rule shouldn't have been left broken for three years and counting.

You know, I could forgive this only because it provides a sort of litmus test. It's obvious to everyone how it's meant to work, so anyone who tries to argue otherwise is blatantly stating they are TFG and you should avoid them like the plague. Should it be fixed? Absolutely, but it existing is a great way to figure out who is the scumbag.

That said though I would laugh my ass off if someone tried to pull that in the final round of a major tournament, on stream, just to show that things are fundamentally broken due to piss poor rules.

I must have missed something, what is making the assault weapon rule so badly written? As far as I know it is that a model can move and advance, then fire the assault weapon with no penelty for advancing. Is the rule written in a way that makes it idiotic?

RAW you cannot select a unit to fire if it has Advanced. Nothing in the Assault weapon rule changes that.

Oh that is brilliant! By brilliant I mean a dumpster that is on fire.

 stonehorse wrote:

 vipoid wrote:

RAW you cannot select a unit to fire if it has Advanced. Nothing in the Assault weapon rule changes that.

Oh that is brilliant! By brilliant I mean a dumpster that is on fire.

Well again, while it's written horribly I like the fact that it shows who is an ass and who isn't. Anyone who would try to argue RAW on that rule is showing their true colors. Sure it's GW's fault for such awful writing, but the intent of this rule, more than any other rule, is so obvious that it doesn't even take a second of thought to universally see the intention since without it working that way the Assault rule is useless. So for someone to try and seriously argue the RAW for this rule, in particular, proves they are a terrible person and you don't need to play them.

Wayniac wrote:

 stonehorse wrote:

 vipoid wrote:

RAW you cannot select a unit to fire if it has Advanced. Nothing in the Assault weapon rule changes that.

Oh that is brilliant! By brilliant I mean a dumpster that is on fire.

Well again, while it's written horribly I like the fact that it shows who is an ass and who isn't. Anyone who would try to argue RAW on that rule is showing their true colors. Sure it's GW's fault for such awful writing, but the intent of this rule, more than any other rule, is so obvious that it doesn't even take a second of thought to universally see the intention since without it working that way the Assault rule is useless. So for someone to try and seriously argue the RAW for this rule, in particular, proves they are a terrible person and you don't need to play them.

It's like the 'Monsterous Smash' rule from I think 6E. Technically, RAW, you could argue that it has neither Monsterous nor Smash - having 'Monsterous Smash' instead. So no AP2 on those Demon Princes and such. But I never saw anyone make that claim. And it was so obvious that I don't think they ever FAQed it.

Some "RAW" readings are so clearly wrong that it doesn't even warrant correction.

 vipoid wrote:

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
The whole 'Let's have 3+ different save systems, with poorly though-out interactions between them" thing is bad.
Basically, invulnerable save are almost irrelevant unless they are almost as good as the armor save, and then it's AP that's useless.
Maybe converting all invulnerable save into feel no pain-like save would be better?

Perhaps Invulnerable saves should only ever be ln lieu of normal armour saves, rather than something to compliment them?

As in, a model should only ever have an armour save *or* an invulnerable save - never both.

And No invulnerable save should exceed 4++ (5++ should be the norm).

In my opinion, it should be like this:
Heavy vehicles, monsters and buildings should have high wounds, high toughness, high armor and are single models
Light vehicles, planes and light walkers should have medium wounds, medium toughness and medium armor and are single models or small units
Heavy infantry and bikes have medium wounds, low toughness and high armor and invulnerable saves come in small units
Regular Infantry and swarms have low wounds, low toughness and low and come in greater number

So basically, invulnerable saves should only be given to units that should be resilient against anti-tank weaponry. Terminators with storm shields ticks that box for me, a knight doesn't.
High wound models should not have invulnerable saves, if they need to be more resilient, they should be getting more wounds or armor instead.
A degrading armor stat on vehicles would be cool, too, instead of reducing nonsense stats like attacks. Something as durable as a knight could start out at 1+ armor and then degrade to 3+ and 5+ as armor plates are getting blown off.

 Jidmah wrote:
So basically, invulnerable saves should only be given to units that should be resilient against anti-tank weaponry. Terminators with storm shields ticks that box for me, a knight doesn't.
High wound models should not have invulnerable saves, if they need to be more resilient, they should be getting more wounds or armor instead.
A degrading armor stat on vehicles would be cool, too, instead of reducing nonsense stats like attacks. Something as durable as a knight could start out at 1+ armor and then degrade to 3+ and 5+ as armor plates are getting blown off.

So a Knight should be one-shot by a volcano lance? It shouldn't have a snowball's chance in hell of surviving a titan weapon? Knights are supposed to run away screaming when they see a Warhound or god forbid anything larger? A Keeper of Secrets should be countered by armour piercing ammunition? The models that currently have invulns have them because they are not supposed to be countered by armour piercing ammunition, your sensibilities on this matter don't make sense.

People are already complaining about not getting to do anything in the opponents turn, so if you think rather than just giving the KoS a better Sv characteristic you just remove the invuln and give it 50% more wounds, do you think that would make Daemon players feel more in charge or less in charge? Not to mention that anti-invuln abilities and psychic powers would cease to be effective against GDs.

When you want to limit how good anti-tank should be against a unit, giving it an invuln is a natural choice. If anything Terminators should be buffed to have a 4+ invulnerable save to make the invuln worth something against what was previously AP2 and is now -3 and to increase the effectivness against what is now AP-4 since they're only going from 6+ to 5+.

The hatred of invulnerable saves is completely silly, an invulnerable save often defines a units' role on the battlefield, its counters and what it counters. It can be a problem when it becomes cheap or easy to get it down to 3++ and a giant potential problem when it becomes a 2++, but a 4++ is not a big deal, nor are the 5++ auras available to most factions or Dark Angels' 4++ Infantry/Bike aura. I don't think Wyches should have it, but Custodes vehicles and Drukhari vehicles having such mastery over technology to occassionally neutralise even the heaviest weapon is a feature, not a bug.

So your opinion is that knights should counter every weapon in existence and tell me that this is good design? Oh boy.

 vict0988 wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:
So basically, invulnerable saves should only be given to units that should be resilient against anti-tank weaponry. Terminators with storm shields ticks that box for me, a knight doesn't.
High wound models should not have invulnerable saves, if they need to be more resilient, they should be getting more wounds or armor instead.
A degrading armor stat on vehicles would be cool, too, instead of reducing nonsense stats like attacks. Something as durable as a knight could start out at 1+ armor and then degrade to 3+ and 5+ as armor plates are getting blown off.

So a Knight should be one-shot by a volcano lance? It shouldn't have a snowball's chance in hell of surviving a titan weapon? Knights are supposed to run away screaming when they see a Warhound or god forbid anything larger?

A Knight should be downright terrified of a Volcano Lance - or similar Knight Killer weapons. It's what they're designed for. Taking down giant nigh-impenetrable armor on super-tough targets. If Knights aren't afraid of those weapons, who should be? What's the point of the weapon?

A Keeper of Secrets should be countered by armour piercing ammunition? The models that currently have invulns have them because they are not supposed to be countered by armour piercing ammunition, your sensibilities on this matter don't make sense.

People are already complaining about not getting to do anything in the opponents turn, so if you think rather than just giving the KoS a better Sv characteristic you just remove the invuln and give it 50% more wounds, do you think that would make Daemon players feel more in charge or less in charge? Not to mention that anti-invuln abilities and psychic powers would cease to be effective against GDs.

I'm going to disagree here, in that the KoS could have some form of Invuln. It's not even remotely heavily armored, and is only moderately tough. It's a semi-real demon - so that's part of it's defense. It's much more vulnerable to small and medium arms than a Knight or Land Raider, though, as a tradeoff.

When you want to limit how good anti-tank should be against a unit, giving it an invuln is a natural choice.

Which is why it makes sense to give it to targets that should be good against anti-tank weapons. Tanks shouldn't be good against anti-tank weapons, though. If a tank isn't durable enough, you don't make it better against anti-tank; you make it better overall. So more W. Possbly T or Sv improvements if needed. This way you don't gut AT weapons.

The hatred of invulnerable saves is completely silly, an invulnerable save often defines a units' role on the battlefield, its counters and what it counters. It can be a problem when it becomes cheap or easy to get it down to 3++ and a giant potential problem when it becomes a 2++, but a 4++ is not a big deal, nor are the 5++ auras available to most factions or Dark Angels' 4++ Infantry/Bike aura. I don't think Wyches should have it, but Custodes vehicles and Drukhari vehicles having such mastery over technology to occassionally neutralise even the heaviest weapon is a feature, not a bug.

When the invuln specifically counters the counters to a unit, it's bad. So it's not Invulns specifically, it's where they're applied. I don't like how common they are amongst infantry, but the most egregious example is clearly Knights. Consider the Plasma Gun. S7 with good AP. Loses out to a pair of Lasguns when shooting at a 3++ Knight.

I dont think anyone wants a knight to be oneshotted. If you remove ++ save and increase toughness, wounds and normal save it wont be much weaker to anti tank weapons than they are now. They will on the other hand be much stronger against everything else.

Sounds like a nice trade off to me. Would make smash captains and autocannons/plasma and everything weaker than those not so good against knights unlike now when they are the best weapons against knights. Not like people will spam lascannons and other anti tank weapons with those changes since they are narrow in their usage compared to higher rof weapons

IGOUGO
Terrain rules - I dislike TLOS
Too many rerolls - SOME rerolls is fine, but it seems like half of the rules that come out are abilities to allow rerolls
Mass invulnerable saves.

Klickor wrote:
I dont think anyone wants a knight to be oneshotted. If you remove ++ save and increase toughness, wounds and normal save it wont be much weaker to anti tank weapons than they are now. They will on the other hand be much stronger against everything else.

Sounds like a nice trade off to me. Would make smash captains and autocannons/plasma and everything weaker than those not so good against knights unlike now when they are the best weapons against knights. Not like people will spam lascannons and other anti tank weapons with those changes since they are narrow in their usage compared to higher rof weapons

With all the talk on invulnerable saves the past page or so, I'd say basically this.

Increase the Toughness of most vehicles / monstrous creatures, add more Wounds to them, and then alter up anti-tank weaponry to match. If vehicles are T 8-10 (or more!) instead of T 6-8, bump melta and las (and their equivalents in other factions) to S10 and make damage more reliable. Just as a random number for example- say a Leman Russ has 20 wounds, a 2+ save, and T10, a Lascannon can then be S11, AP -3, 6+1d6 Damage. The tank is now far less likely to be downed by Plasma and Autocannons - though they can still chip it away in a pinch, while the weapons specifically out to get them can deal significant damage.

The key is to give anti-tank weaponry the boost to match the boosted profile of the vehicles/monsters for all factions.

#1
I will also agree that IGOUGO holds back 40k a great deal in my mind.

#2
The "facing" has largely been removed from models it almost makes most forms of movement pointless.
Making vehicles able to shoot from anywhere on it and any direction kinda breaks a cinematic feel to games.
Unless the weapon is on a turret or is actually facing that direction it should not be able to fire elsewhere.
Some of these hard to kill units complained about may work better if they have weaker armor in the rear facing... give deep strike even more of a purpose.

I feel like I should request the opposite topic for this what rule would you absolutely keep (want to see in all editions)?

I like the carrot of getting command points by investing in formations that can afford you the tactical flexibility.
A "bonus" to get more flexible mixes of armies.

 Talizvar wrote:
#1
I will also agree that IGOUGO holds back 40k a great deal in my mind.

#2
The "facing" has largely been removed from models it almost makes most forms of movement pointless.
Making vehicles able to shoot from anywhere on it and any direction kinda breaks a cinematic feel to games.
Unless the weapon is on a turret or is actually facing that direction it should not be able to fire elsewhere.
Some of these hard to kill units complained about may work better if they have weaker armor in the rear facing... give deep strike even more of a purpose.

I feel like I should request the opposite topic for this what rule would you absolutely keep (want to see in all editions)?

I like the carrot of getting command points by investing in formations that can afford you the tactical flexibility.
A "bonus" to get more flexible mixes of armies.

Reliable DS is the best change 8th has made, the changes to melee and introduction of CP makes the game feel more interesting and tactical for me, but nothing quite ruined a game like an important unit ending up in the wrong place or dying completely. Failing a charge and being left for the wolves wasn't just a possibility, it was a best case scenario in earlier editions.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Bharring wrote:

 vict0988 wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:
So basically, invulnerable saves should only be given to units that should be resilient against anti-tank weaponry. Terminators with storm shields ticks that box for me, a knight doesn't.
High wound models should not have invulnerable saves, if they need to be more resilient, they should be getting more wounds or armor instead.
A degrading armor stat on vehicles would be cool, too, instead of reducing nonsense stats like attacks. Something as durable as a knight could start out at 1+ armor and then degrade to 3+ and 5+ as armor plates are getting blown off.

So a Knight should be one-shot by a volcano lance? It shouldn't have a snowball's chance in hell of surviving a titan weapon? Knights are supposed to run away screaming when they see a Warhound or god forbid anything larger?

A Knight should be downright terrified of a Volcano Lance - or similar Knight Killer weapons. It's what they're designed for. Taking down giant nigh-impenetrable armor on super-tough targets. If Knights aren't afraid of those weapons, who should be? What's the point of the weapon?

It's not the armour of a Knight that's nigh-impenetrable, it's the ion shield. If the Knight does not have its ion shield then it gets countered by Titans, if it gets countered by Titans it's bad in 3k+ games, then it has to be good in 2k or smaller games. Is the game fun when Knights are good in 2k or smaller games? In my experience it wasn't, my competitive army is still built to take on Knights, I can't put S4 weapons into a competitive list without thinking that it'll be useless against a trio of Knights barrelling down the table.

When you want to limit how good anti-tank should be against a unit, giving it an invuln is a natural choice.

Which is why it makes sense to give it to targets that should be good against anti-tank weapons. Tanks shouldn't be good against anti-tank weapons, though. If a tank isn't durable enough, you don't make it better against anti-tank; you make it better overall. So more W. Possbly T or Sv improvements if needed. This way you don't gut AT weapons.

No because then Knights are unstoppable in smaller games, which they shouldn't be.

The hatred of invulnerable saves is completely silly, an invulnerable save often defines a units' role on the battlefield, its counters and what it counters. It can be a problem when it becomes cheap or easy to get it down to 3++ and a giant potential problem when it becomes a 2++, but a 4++ is not a big deal, nor are the 5++ auras available to most factions or Dark Angels' 4++ Infantry/Bike aura. I don't think Wyches should have it, but Custodes vehicles and Drukhari vehicles having such mastery over technology to occassionally neutralise even the heaviest weapon is a feature, not a bug.

When the invuln specifically counters the counters to a unit, it's bad. So it's not Invulns specifically, it's where they're applied. I don't like how common they are amongst infantry, but the most egregious example is clearly Knights. Consider the Plasma Gun. S7 with good AP. Loses out to a pair of Lasguns when shooting at a 3++ Knight.

Terrain rules. I’m fine with true LOS. However, being able to shoot at something because you can see a miniscule amount of the target that is behind, but not in cover, and for the target to get no bonus survivability is silly. As is being able only the target in between the gaps between the heads (or feet) of the units in front <insert other ridiculous shots here> and for this to have no affect at all on the effectiveness of the shooting.

I dislike the initiative system for melee, to make melee work you often need the damage to come from a smaller numberof high impact units (ideally 1). With the ability to interrupt charging units by delivering the same impact across a number of units allows the charge targets to interrupt and take out some of the those units before they can act. Thus multiple smaller impact units often have difficulty ganging up against an individually more dangerous unit, as opposed to shooting where multiple units can easily combine forces to taking out a target.

Overall this makes shooting comparatively stronger.

I dislike stacking negatives to hit. They make the game not very fun and -2 or even -3 to hit is getting rather punitive and disproportionately affects several armies.

Lord of Wars: Keep them for ‘big games’. Knight (and similar things) and even the specialist flyers seem both out of place and disruptive to normal (as in 1.5k-2k games). To be honest jet type things could stay just get rid of the specialist flier trappings (flyer unit type, supersonic etc…).

Regarding Knights having an Invul being broken or not, this is where a D8-D12 system would be handy. Theoretically we would be able to give them a killer armor save, and then the more heavy duty anti-tank weapons would have a higher AP. The Knight doesn't falter to everything fired at it, but the Lascannons can pretend to be a little better at their jobs.

Otherwise a Knight is wounded on a 3+ and has the same save as a Rhino being targeted.

Agree, in retrospective, giving all vehicles the same save is a missed chance to create wider bandwidth of armor/toughness/wounds profiles.

 vict0988 wrote:
If the Knight does not have its ion shield then it gets countered by Titans, if it gets countered by Titans it's bad in 3k+ games

Titan. 3k+ games. That's what Apocalypse rules are for. If you want to play titans, use the correct ruleset for titans. If you really, really want to play 40k rules and use titans, fine, good for you, take the Warhammer 40k rules, written and balanced for games around 1500/2000 points, and add some rules for titans designed to fit with those rules. But don't write the rules of 40k around titans!
The question about knight having invulnerable save isn't, at all, about how they fare against titans. It's about how they fare against anti-personnel/light anti-tank, and how they fare against designated, strong anti-tank weapons. Right now they are more scared of the first than of the second, and it's stupid. They should be very afraid of AP-4 melta, and not very afraid of AP-1, AP-2 weapons. It's the opposite now. Bad.

 Jidmah wrote:
Agree, in retrospective, giving all vehicles the same save is a missed chance to create wider bandwidth of armor/toughness/wounds profiles.

GW created an entirely new wounding system and didn't experiment AT ALL. This is their fault to begin with.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:
Agree, in retrospective, giving all vehicles the same save is a missed chance to create wider bandwidth of armor/toughness/wounds profiles.

GW created an entirely new wounding system and didn't experiment AT ALL. This is their fault to begin with.

If they had experimented, they would have messed it up though, since they obviously had no idea what's good or bad in their new 8th edition when creating the indexes.

Not played for a while, but did they ever fix the rule about measuring distances from the base of based models? So a dude stood on a 1.2" barrel was too high up for a knight to hit him? Also models that overhang their bases enough can be impossible to melee.

 vict0988 wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:
So basically, invulnerable saves should only be given to units that should be resilient against anti-tank weaponry. Terminators with storm shields ticks that box for me, a knight doesn't.
High wound models should not have invulnerable saves, if they need to be more resilient, they should be getting more wounds or armor instead.
A degrading armor stat on vehicles would be cool, too, instead of reducing nonsense stats like attacks. Something as durable as a knight could start out at 1+ armor and then degrade to 3+ and 5+ as armor plates are getting blown off.

So a Knight should be one-shot by a volcano lance? It shouldn't have a snowball's chance in hell of surviving a titan weapon? Knights are supposed to run away screaming when they see a Warhound or god forbid anything larger?

This was bugging me, so I did the math on this. On average, neither the volcano lance nor the much more powerful volcano cannon would one-shot a knight even if it had no invulnerable save at all. It's all hyperbole, complaining about balance in a game format maybe ten people on the this planet play.

 Jidmah wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:
Agree, in retrospective, giving all vehicles the same save is a missed chance to create wider bandwidth of armor/toughness/wounds profiles.

GW created an entirely new wounding system and didn't experiment AT ALL. This is their fault to begin with.

If they had experimented, they would have messed it up though, since they obviously had no idea what's good or bad in their new 8th edition when creating the indexes.

While true, it wouldn't have killed them to at least attempt since they stuck themselves in a D6 system.

 Jidmah wrote:

 vict0988 wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:
So basically, invulnerable saves should only be given to units that should be resilient against anti-tank weaponry. Terminators with storm shields ticks that box for me, a knight doesn't.
High wound models should not have invulnerable saves, if they need to be more resilient, they should be getting more wounds or armor instead.
A degrading armor stat on vehicles would be cool, too, instead of reducing nonsense stats like attacks. Something as durable as a knight could start out at 1+ armor and then degrade to 3+ and 5+ as armor plates are getting blown off.

So a Knight should be one-shot by a volcano lance? It shouldn't have a snowball's chance in hell of surviving a titan weapon? Knights are supposed to run away screaming when they see a Warhound or god forbid anything larger?

This was bugging me, so I did the math on this. On average, neither the volcano lance nor the much more powerful volcano cannon would one-shot a knight even if it had no invulnerable save at all. It's all hyperbole, complaining about balance in a game format maybe ten people on the this planet play.

There are a lot of people that want to ban Knights in 40k, I'd much rather give them rules that incentivise people to use them against bigger threats rather than stomping on smaller threats. Or in this case argue against you giving them rules that only makes them good for smaller games. Do you think games, where you cannot hurt your opponent in a meaningful way, are fun? Do you realise that changing the rules for Knights would tilt them harder towards being either unstoppable or shot silly quite quickly?

Volcano lance two-shots a Knight, that's problematic IMO, because what do you do when a volcano lance two-shots you? You just swarm the board with bodies, so knowing that these big anti-Titan weapons will show up you leave all the medium-sized Knights at home and just take Titans and/or cheap bodies, after all, the Titans and Titan hunters will kill the Knights relatively easily. Shadowswords one-shots a Knight without an invul for 1CP if it's Cadian or Vostroyan. Yes, one-shot was hyperbole for the volcano lance, but Knights should not be weak to AP-5 guns since that's exactly what their shields are supposed to protect them against. Why would you build shields to protect a Knight against heavy bolters? Do they just weigh less than armour plates?

A lot of people say that "Knights tilt the meta in terms of making anti-tank more popular" that's more or less true, but not to the degree it would be true if the pool of weapons that were good at killing Knights were reduced to -3, -4 and -5 weapons, that would truly tilt the meta and make a bunch of vehicles worse because Knights are countered as much or harder by -0 and -1 guns which are generally at least slightly worse at killing tanks than most -3, -4 and -5 weapons are.

Shadowswords are super narrow in its usage and costs more than most knights. I dont really see it as a problem when a unit that is the direct counter to a knight can kill it for equal points. There are many cheaper and better options to kill knights already.

Couldnt the shields on a knight be better represented with more wounds and toughness so they can tank those lascannons quite well while still seeing them slowly whittle down? And in the process be much sturdier against melee and weak shooting. Those shields should be even better against smaller arms fire after all than a lascannon thatbis built for penetration. Its not like its only knights that are built to withstand heavy fire and survive it but you are the only one I have seen that think they should take less damage from anti tank weapons than anti infantry weapons.

Making anti tank weapons viable more doesnt have to spell doom for vehicles more than how it is since they are more expensive and not as versatile as the guns we see now. So yoy probably wont see an explosion of lascannon devastators or the equivalent. You could probably increase the toughness and at the same time reduce the attack slightly to make vehicles last longer but also not make them op if you spam them. Then you dont have to kill most tanks/knights turn 1 but you still want to kill them at some point. Would also help making the degradation more useful with less ways to go around it so just bracketing it actually is very useful. Then you dont need as much anti tank in your list. Some will be needed still and it will feel more useful in the right matchup.

Just a single change isnt gonna fix vehicles but a few can.

We already have knight equivalent units without invulns: Baneblades. They are already pretty decent all things considered, it's just that knights with their invulns are better than them. Removing the invulns would even the playing field for other similar units.

Also, the way I see it, a Knight's ion shield could just be what gives them T8 and 3+ sv because they aren't nearly as armored as regular tanks. (or the baneblade for that matter)

Dandelion wrote:
We already have knight equivalent units without invulns: Baneblades. They are already pretty decent all things considered, it's just that knights with their invulns are better than them. Removing the invulns would even the playing field for other similar units.

Also, the way I see it, a Knight's ion shield could just be what gives them T8 and 3+ sv because they aren't nearly as armored as regular tanks. (or the baneblade for that matter)

I really like the Baneblade variants over the knights. They have much more defined strengths and weaknesses than the knights. They dont have ++ saves or as many relics/traits/stratagems to ignore their few weaknesses. They arent nearly as strong in melee even though you can use a stratagem to make one of them almost as good in melee. They have a much larger footprint to make movement more difficult and at the same time they are also much lower in height so they cant just see over everything. They are very much affected by terrain.

I kinda like seeing 1-2 Baneblade variants on the table. So much more interesting to play against than knights since they dont ignore most of the terrain in the shooting phase and is one of the most affected units in the movement phase by terrain. Needs to be a ton of terrain to really block a knights movement while I sometimes see baneblades having to choose deploying where it can get good los and never move or ability to move freely but not having anything to shoot at turn 1.Never really seen that happen with a knight.

You pay 4-500 points for a big ass tank with large guns and that is what you get. Not some mech for 300+ pts that can do almost everything.

You pay 4-500 points for a big ass tank with large guns and that is what you get. Not some mech for 300+ pts that can do almost everything.

And survives baseline allready more damage, and is generally more mobile and has better baseline stratagems.

I too find myself enjoying the IG superheavies a lot more than Knights. They can have a lot of firepower, but don't have the character gimmicks, stratagems, mobility, or board control capability that Knights do. When you hit a Baneblade, wounds bleed off quickly and you don't have to deal with a third or half your AT guns being negated.

Oddly, with respect to the Invuls, GW has really blinkered the distinction between Knights and IG Superheavies. Knights initially had invuls, but only 2/3rds the number of wounds of a Baneblade equivalent, and that invul only covered certain angles. Now the invul applies everywhere and the Knights have a functionally identical number of wounds. Mostly GW seems to have compensated for this by dramatically increasing the anti-vehicle capabilities of Baneblade chassis main guns, but that doesn't quite balance things in the same way.

I think the IG superheavies could do with a few more wounds, perhaps rounding to 30 overall from the current 26, particularly as they also used to have triple the wounds (or equivalent) relative to something like a Russ tank and now only have double that. However, I think generally they're much better balanced than a lot of the Knight stuff is.

Edit: I kinda want to write rules for IG superheavy companies in the style of Knights now XD

Only if malcador is the quasi troop slot and cheap enough for it

Dandelion wrote:
We already have knight equivalent units without invulns: Baneblades. They are already pretty decent all things considered, it's just that knights with their invulns are better than them. Removing the invulns would even the playing field for other similar units.

Also, the way I see it, a Knight's ion shield could just be what gives them T8 and 3+ sv because they aren't nearly as armored as regular tanks. (or the baneblade for that matter)

Baneblades are petty bad, I'd quit the game if we got into a Baneblade meta, to make Baneblades on-par with Knights the need to be 75-150 pts cheaper, it's not a problem because of the pts. If you replaced the invuln on Knights and RIS with a Stratagem of similar power with an equal value of pts reduction, Sv, T or wounds then you'd make a less fun meta. Knights were hard to counter and really OP for a while, but because they are relatively hard to kill with lascannons they did not skew the game away from vehicles like the popularity of the Castellan did. You'll be creating a new Castllan meta if you make Baneblade tanks OP. We'll see how strong IH and IF are and how the meta shapes up.

I fail to see how deleting invulns makes baneblades OP. Besides, Knights are the main reason why non-invuln vehicles suck in the first place, since everything is geared to kill 4++ knights.

Anyway, all your objections are based on a theoretical imbalance that could be resolved with playtesting. A 4++, though, is bad not because it affects your precious meta but because it invalidates dedicated anit-tank weapons. With a 4++, my laser dunecrawlers struggle against knights even though that's their prime target.