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.

Dandelion wrote:
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.

Fully agree with thought; if something has the firepower to (relatively) efficiently take out a T8 4++ knight, most regular vehicles don't stand much of a chance.

Hence why I said I don't like 'em either.

Gw wants knights as the dominant low in the meta. Why else would they give the relic and hellforged low such a severe nerfing last ca? The babeblade's cost vs a knight's is also lopsided.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 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 attelmpt since they stuck themselves in a D6 system.

The d6 isn't the issue as the bell curve is introduced by the layering of checks - the-hit-wound-damage-save-save combination meal as it were. If there are issues with the mechanic (and yes, there are) it can't be solved by switching up the dice type without a critical examination of the underlying engine.

 vict0988 wrote:

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.

Meanwhile, a stompa is a thousand points, has no invulnerable save and gets beaten to pulp by a single knight galant

Fighty-Melee support characters having to charge separately from any unit they’re leading/being escorted by.

 Jidmah wrote:

Meanwhile, a stompa is a thousand points, has no invulnerable save and gets beaten to pulp by a single knight galant

He gets beaten by a single Gorkanaut, it's not external balance that's a problem here.

Edit: I was wrong.

niv-mizzet wrote:Fighty-Melee support characters having to charge separately from any unit they’re leading/being escorted by.

Ooh, good one. There should be a way for characters to join charges.

vict0988 wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:

Meanwhile, a stompa is a thousand points, has no invulnerable save and gets beaten to pulp by a single knight galant

He gets beaten by a single Gorkanaut, it's not external balance that's a problem here.

The naut attacks 6 times, hits on 3s and does d6 damage
The galant attacks 5 times, hits on 2s and does 8 damage

The chance of a galant one-shotting a stompa is very real - even if the stompa survives, it will lose so many attacks and WS due to degrading one more time than every other model in the game, that the knight will easily survive and kill it next turn.

 Jidmah wrote:

niv-mizzet wrote:Fighty-Melee support characters having to charge separately from any unit they’re leading/being escorted by.

Ooh, good one. There should be a way for characters to join charges.

vict0988 wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:

Meanwhile, a stompa is a thousand points, has no invulnerable save and gets beaten to pulp by a single knight galant

He gets beaten by a single Gorkanaut, it's not external balance that's a problem here.

The naut attacks 6 times, hits on 3s and does d6 damage
The galant attacks 5 times, hits on 2s and does 8 damage

The chance of a galant one-shotting a stompa is very real - even if the stompa survives, it will lose so many attacks and WS due to degrading one more time than every other model in the game, that the knight will easily survive and kill it next turn.

Repeating myself: gw nerfed fw super heavys to sell more plastic knights. Can't sell as many knights if there are other things running around that can go toe to toe with them. So raise the points through the roof and don't update rules. It took how long for hellforged low to get relentless?

Worst rule in 40k?

Can't deep strike in turn one.

Makes a total mockery of the whole point of deep striking!

Gadzilla666 wrote:
Repeating myself: gw nerfed fw super heavys to sell more plastic knights. Can't sell as many knights if there are other things running around that can go toe to toe with them. So raise the points through the roof and don't update rules. It took how long for hellforged low to get relentless?

Stompa is a GW plastic kit that's in the codex.

 Jidmah wrote:

Gadzilla666 wrote:
Repeating myself: gw nerfed fw super heavys to sell more plastic knights. Can't sell as many knights if there are other things running around that can go toe to toe with them. So raise the points through the roof and don't update rules. It took how long for hellforged low to get relentless?

Stompa is a GW plastic kit that's in the codex.

Oops fethed up. Not really up to date on orks. Still it seems arbitrarily overcosted compared to knights. Why not use hh rules and only allow low in games of 2000 points and up? Then adjust the costs and rules for some of the non knight low? Stompa definitely degrades too quickly. And I obviously don't play orks so I'm not saying that to help myself.

Points are more than just comparing Big Thing to Big Thing.

Knights as a non-soup force don't have infantry support - a Stompa does.

Not saying the Stompa is therefore fairly pointed as a result, just saying direct comparisson across similar role fulfillers is only part of the story.

 Corennus wrote:
Worst rule in 40k?

Can't deep strike in turn one.

Makes a total mockery of the whole point of deep striking!

You can blame the competitive players for that one. And a lot of the other rules that don't really make sense but were done for balance. 100% done because they were getting abused in highly competitive lists at cutthroat tournaments.

Character targeting. there's a character, in an open field, with no-one around, but you can't shoot him because of some scouts that you can't see in a building behind you, because they are closer.

characters within 3" of a non-character unit of the same type cannot be targeted. simple. easy to implement. makes sense!

Couple of people have already hit on the main issues, mainly that individual rules are not as much of a problem as the general design of the game. Like the issue of scale, whereby you have stats for different types of axes in the same battle as giant walking war machines which causes all kinds of issues trying to represent and balance all these elements. The simple lack of facings, both for units and vehicles, causes all manner of knock on issues. IGOUGO comes up a lot, which is more of a problem with how the game works now, with minimal cover and huge alpha strikes putting such a premium on going first. This is one of the primary issues I have with modern 40k, is how bad the terrain rules are. It strips away so much of the "wargame" element of the game. That and the general lack of to hit mods for certain things like shooting at long ranges which nullify a lot of the movement strategy.

The worst rules aren't what's in the game, it's more what's missing from the game.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Points are more than just comparing Big Thing to Big Thing.

Knights as a non-soup force don't have infantry support - a Stompa does.

Not saying the Stompa is therefore fairly pointed as a result, just saying direct comparisson across similar role fulfillers is only part of the story.

Yeah, but when you are off by a factor of three or 650+ points, something is usually amiss. Gorkanauts as knight-equivalents are actually pretty decent for their points.

I'd also argue that the infantry support kind of balances out against being able to use no relevant stratagems and usually coming without a kulture.

 Jidmah wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Points are more than just comparing Big Thing to Big Thing.

Knights as a non-soup force don't have infantry support - a Stompa does.

Not saying the Stompa is therefore fairly pointed as a result, just saying direct comparisson across similar role fulfillers is only part of the story.

Yeah, but when you are off by a factor of three or 650+ points, something is usually amiss. Gorkanauts as knight-equivalents are actually pretty decent for their points.

I'd also argue that the infantry support kind of balances out against being able to use no relevant stratagems and usually coming without a kulture.

Yeah is a fellblade really 347 points better than a 4 lascannon/twin heavy bolter sponson baneblade?

On topic: the ability for a unit to walk out of combat with no penalties allowing its buddies to gun down whatever it was in combat with.

 vict0988 wrote:
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

Knights. This is Knights that you call "bodies" here. You are planning to swarm with Knights. This should be enough for you to understand that you are playing the wrong game. The game you are looking for is either Apocalypse, or Adeptus Titanicus!!!
Everything you said is irrelevant because of this.

Soup. It warps competitive balance, has little to no drawback for those with access to it, is outright denied to other factions, and is extremely fluffy. Forces working together for assorted reasons can be one of the cooler aspects to represent on the tabletop so it shouldn't be eliminated, but soup has been a meta defining force regardless of ingredients. It's time to reign it in or share it with the rest of the class.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 vict0988 wrote:
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

Knights. This is Knights that you call "bodies" here. You are planning to swarm with Knights. This should be enough for you to understand that you are playing the wrong game. The game you are looking for is either Apocalypse, or Adeptus Titanicus!!!
Everything you said is irrelevant because of this.

With Astra Militarum There are no Knight players, only soup players with two or more factions in their soup, Astra Militarum are almost always one of them. Knights should counter big things, whether that's Doomsday Arks, Monoliths, Leman Russes, they should not counter Infantry Squads and Heavy Weapons Teams with HBs. Invuls make them good in the big leagues where they belong.

 some bloke wrote:
Character targeting. there's a character, in an open field, with no-one around, but you can't shoot him because of some scouts that you can't see in a building behind you, because they are closer.

characters within 3" of a non-character unit of the same type cannot be targeted. simple. easy to implement. makes sense!

The character targeting rules are a great example of lazy patchwork rules that make up 8th edition.

Look at how the raven guard are now exploiting this lazy rule! SUCH STRATEGIC!

The honeymoon is over. LONG LIVE THE LAZY BLOAT GOD!

We could just go back to putting characters in units and when the unit dies if they are close to another unit they join that unit like in older editions. I mean, Deathstars are so fun to play with, dOn'T yOu tHiNk?

I think character-targeting rules could do with being tightened up, though mainly for characters who are significantly larger than the units they are currently able to hide behind.

However, I think this would be far less of an issue if Auras were replaced.

 vipoid wrote:
I think character-targeting rules could do with being tightened up, though mainly for characters who are significantly larger than the units they are currently able to hide behind.

However, I think this would be far less of an issue if Auras were replaced.

A simple size chart would make sense to implement. The Characters can't be blocked by anything that's lower than 1 size below them.

So just for example's sake, let's say Guardsmen are 1, Marines are 2, Custodes are 3, and Roboute is 4. Infantry squads can't block LoS for Custodes Characters and Roboute can only be blocked by Custodes and larger. Something like that would make sense.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 vipoid wrote:
I think character-targeting rules could do with being tightened up, though mainly for characters who are significantly larger than the units they are currently able to hide behind.

However, I think this would be far less of an issue if Auras were replaced.

A simple size chart would make sense to implement. The Characters can't be blocked by anything that's lower than 1 size below them.

So just for example's sake, let's say Guardsmen are 1, Marines are 2, Custodes are 3, and Roboute is 4. Infantry squads can't block LoS for Custodes Characters and Roboute can only be blocked by Custodes and larger. Something like that would make sense.

Yeah, something like that would be fine.

I was wondering if there was a stat that the size could be based on. Wounds seems like a terrible choice because it frequently bears absolutely no resemblance to a model's size. Maybe strength or toughness?

 vipoid wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 vipoid wrote:
I think character-targeting rules could do with being tightened up, though mainly for characters who are significantly larger than the units they are currently able to hide behind.

However, I think this would be far less of an issue if Auras were replaced.

A simple size chart would make sense to implement. The Characters can't be blocked by anything that's lower than 1 size below them.

So just for example's sake, let's say Guardsmen are 1, Marines are 2, Custodes are 3, and Roboute is 4. Infantry squads can't block LoS for Custodes Characters and Roboute can only be blocked by Custodes and larger. Something like that would make sense.

Yeah, something like that would be fine.

I was wondering if there was a stat that the size could be based on. Wounds seems like a terrible choice because it frequently bears absolutely no resemblance to a model's size. Maybe strength or toughness?

Nah we need a separate size stat. Keep in mind Necron Scarabs are the same stats as Infantry basically

I’ve proposed a size stat before. Can’t link it now (on the phone) but it’s there if you look.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 vipoid wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 vipoid wrote:
I think character-targeting rules could do with being tightened up, though mainly for characters who are significantly larger than the units they are currently able to hide behind.

However, I think this would be far less of an issue if Auras were replaced.

A simple size chart would make sense to implement. The Characters can't be blocked by anything that's lower than 1 size below them.

So just for example's sake, let's say Guardsmen are 1, Marines are 2, Custodes are 3, and Roboute is 4. Infantry squads can't block LoS for Custodes Characters and Roboute can only be blocked by Custodes and larger. Something like that would make sense.

Yeah, something like that would be fine.

I was wondering if there was a stat that the size could be based on. Wounds seems like a terrible choice because it frequently bears absolutely no resemblance to a model's size. Maybe strength or toughness?

Nah we need a separate size stat. Keep in mind Necron Scarabs are the same stats as Infantry basically

Maybe a rework of the old bulky, very bulky etc. rules?

Here it is! https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/777343.page#10492641

 vict0988 wrote:
Knights should counter big things, whether that's Doomsday Arks, Monoliths, Leman Russes, they should not counter Infantry Squads and Heavy Weapons Teams with HBs. Invuls make them good in the big leagues where they belong.

No, it makes them good against melta-equiped units and bad against heavy bolter units. Which, again, is BAD.