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.

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

Like it. Would work great with the "a talent for murder " rule from 30k if gw would give it to night lords in 40k.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 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.

Not an argument.

Maybe not the worst but igougo. In battle i want to see some interventions or unexpected actions and moves.

It would work better if heavy armour was set to a 0+ save, for example, still failing on a natural 1, but didn't get an invulnerable.
Keeping invulnerable saves for lighter vehicles like raiders and away from heavy armour would allow meltas and las cannons to function as intended, for punching through heavy armour.

 Corennus wrote:
Worst rule in 40k?

Can't deep strike in turn one.

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

Oh boo hoo. DS from turn 2 onwards worked perfectly fine in every edition prior and only 8th changed that. It is not a problem, it is simply going back to how it should be.

What makes a mockery is the fact there is literally no risk in doing it. DS used to be about major risk vs reward for certain units, but now there is no reason not to do it.

 Grimtuff wrote:

 Corennus wrote:
Worst rule in 40k?

Can't deep strike in turn one.

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

Oh boo hoo. DS from turn 2 onwards worked perfectly fine in every edition prior and only 8th changed that. It is not a problem, it is simply going back to how it should be.

What makes a mockery is the fact there is literally no risk in doing it. DS used to be about major risk vs reward for certain units, but now there is no reason not to do it.

Missing out on shooting T1 is a huge loss unless your table prevents shooting T1. Deep Strike was hardly used in my experience with earlier editions, Veil of Darkness could be used T1 so it was good, Deathmarks got a bonus for DS and were RF so they kind of had to, Drop Pods could safely DS, but Terminators and Jump units? Never DS in my experience.

 vict0988 wrote:

 Grimtuff wrote:

 Corennus wrote:
Worst rule in 40k?

Can't deep strike in turn one.

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

Oh boo hoo. DS from turn 2 onwards worked perfectly fine in every edition prior and only 8th changed that. It is not a problem, it is simply going back to how it should be.

What makes a mockery is the fact there is literally no risk in doing it. DS used to be about major risk vs reward for certain units, but now there is no reason not to do it.

Missing out on shooting T1 is a huge loss unless your table prevents shooting T1. Deep Strike was hardly used in my experience with earlier editions, Veil of Darkness could be used T1 so it was good, Deathmarks got a bonus for DS and were RF so they kind of had to, Drop Pods could safely DS, but Terminators and Jump units? Never DS in my experience.

Termicide squads, Obliterators, Tzeentch Flamers. Three there straight off of the top of my head that were mainstay DS units in many an army.

 Grimtuff wrote:

 vict0988 wrote:

Missing out on shooting T1 is a huge loss unless your table prevents shooting T1. Deep Strike was hardly used in my experience with earlier editions, Veil of Darkness could be used T1 so it was good, Deathmarks got a bonus for DS and were RF so they kind of had to, Drop Pods could safely DS, but Terminators and Jump units? Never DS in my experience.

Termicide squads, Obliterators, Tzeentch Flamers. Three there straight off of the top of my head that were mainstay DS units in many an army.

What edition are we talking about? CSM Termies were bad in 5th-7th AFAIK. Obliterators could be deployed and shoot lascannons all game or could switch back and forth between that and another weapon in any case. All Daemons had to DS way back when, in 6th/7th I think Daemons mostly devolved into GDs, Stingrays and Tzeentch units summoning other units.

Did you personally use these tactics? Did you feel they were rewarding to play overall? I only used DS when I absolutely had to and then in meme armies with half a dozen veils of darkness in 5th/6th.

Three CSM terminators with multi-meltas were a staple units for most chaos armies. Drop in, blow up whatever you feel like, die. Obliterators were used pretty similary.

Stuff dropping from deep strike and blowing up vehicles rear armor was very common all through 5th and 6th. The only reason I had gretchin during those editions was to block deep strikers access to the rear armor of my battlewagons.

Tau Commander limit for matched play.
Not only do you need 3 detachments to even field 3 commanders since it's only 1 per detachment and maximum of 3 total. You also cannot take 3 crisis commanders plus any of the character commanders...

X078 wrote:
Tau Commander limit for matched play.
Not only do you need 3 detachments to even field 3 commanders since it's only 1 per detachment and maximum of 3 total. You also cannot take 3 crisis commanders plus any of the character commanders...

I hate the commander rule because it was such a bandaid rule. It did absolutely nothing to address the real problem. Crisis suits are bad and commanders are just objectively better crisis suits. They could have easily fixed the issue in the year between index and codex release by buffing crisis suits and making commanders different from crisis suits through the addition of either built-in aura abilities or by making their wargear options aura abilities rather than identical to the crisis suit ones.

X078 wrote:
Tau Commander limit for matched play.
Not only do you need 3 detachments to even field 3 commanders since it's only 1 per detachment and maximum of 3 total. You also cannot take 3 crisis commanders plus any of the character commanders...

Would you prefer Crisis Commanders were actually fairly priced?

 vict0988 wrote:

X078 wrote:
Tau Commander limit for matched play.
Not only do you need 3 detachments to even field 3 commanders since it's only 1 per detachment and maximum of 3 total. You also cannot take 3 crisis commanders plus any of the character commanders...

Would you prefer Crisis Commanders were actually fairly priced?

I would prefer to be able to field 3 commanders as per rule of three + any character commanders. Best would ofc be to only limit per Commander type so 3 xv85 commanders + 3x XV8 commanders + etc. And yeah i think they are priced quite ok. I we get back JSJ (which never should have gone away) then yeah maybe adding a few more points can be ok, but i digress.

X078 wrote:

 vict0988 wrote:

X078 wrote:
Tau Commander limit for matched play.
Not only do you need 3 detachments to even field 3 commanders since it's only 1 per detachment and maximum of 3 total. You also cannot take 3 crisis commanders plus any of the character commanders...

Would you prefer Crisis Commanders were actually fairly priced?

I would prefer to be able to field 3 commanders as per rule of three + any character commanders. Best would ofc be to only limit per Commander type so 3 xv85 commanders + 3x XV8 commanders + etc. And yeah i think they are priced quite ok. I we get back JSJ (which never should have gone away) then yeah maybe adding a few more points can be ok, but i digress.

Why do you want to spam more than 3 Commanders except because they are underpriced? You can fall back and shoot and advance and shoot, that's the replacement for JSJ. I think giving the JSJ Stratagem to a single sub-faction was a mistake, but Tau are quite strong and unless you play competitively you can fit a unit or two of Crisis into your list and still have a good chance of winning.

I'm still buttmad that I can't use Infiltrators and Eliminators in Deathwatch.

You know, that organization that... actually would probably use Infiltrators and Eliminators religiously, considering their mission?

Just saying.

 vict0988 wrote:

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 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.

Not an argument.

What isn't an argument?
Knights should be more vulnerable to dedicated anti-tank weapons like melta than to heavy bolters. Because else the melta just don't have a target. That's what invulnerable on vehicle do, they make melta not have a target. This is bad.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 vict0988 wrote:

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 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.

Not an argument.

What isn't an argument?
Knights should be more vulnerable to dedicated anti-tank weapons like melta than to heavy bolters. Because else the melta just don't have a target. That's what invulnerable on vehicle do, they make melta not have a target. This is bad.

Saying that something is bad is not an argument, thanks for clarifying.

Can't meltas just be good against all the vehicles without an invul save? That's like saying that no units should have high Toughness and a good Sv because it invalidates weapons with the poison ability which are supposed to be good against high T units, but it's bad against units with a good Sv.

Do you not see the issue where one player hasn't brough enough anti-vehicle to take out 3 Knights and is forced to use non-AV weapons to take them out being extremely fun if not only do Knights have a large wound pool meaning even if you do damage you might not kill one, but you also do terrible damage so you might never kill one? Let's say half your Tactical Squads are armed with heavy bolters, half are armed with meltaguns, your opponent's Knights have a 2+/7++ instead of 3+/5++. As soon as they take out your meltagun squads you're toast, but with the 3+/5++ both weapons do middling damage and you're not just relying on a narrow set of weapons to do the job. The problem is that Knights as a solo army become more painful to play against the fewer counters they have, whether they have effective counters is less important than whether you have anything at all that can hurt them at least a little bit.

T8 already invalidates a huge portion of weapons, S4 is mostly useless and S3 is very also very weak. Give all Knights a 2+ and AP-0 and AP-1 weapons are vastly inferior and now the Knights can have a field-day after they crush the parts of your army that have a chance of dealing with Knights and if they can't because you've spammed lascannons or maybe they're melee Knights against a castle with an effective meat shield and you can swiftly cut them down because you've brought the right counter. A TAC list should be fun to play against a Knight list and changing 3+/5++ 24W to 2+/7++ 24 W or 3+/7++ 30W makes TAC lists worse against Knights. It devolves the game into being decided to a huge degree by match-making or list-tailoring.

If you would make knights a bit slower and less deadly then it wouldnt be much of a problem if they were tankier. I think it would make for more interesting games if the knight player had to try to target the melta squad and the opposing player tried to use it to the best of its abilities. Would be very important in that matchup and create tension. Right now we dont even have that melta squad but rather 2 heavy bolter squads and that makes it more boring.

You could also limit the amount of knights as well. There are many other options on how to solve it but to make everyone skip meltas and use rof weapons always doesnt make for engaging game play.

Shouldn’t a TAC list have anti-tank too?

 JNAProductions wrote:
Shouldn’t a TAC list have anti-tank too?

Shhhhh don’t spoil it.

As for worst rule Other than all of the terrain rules being crap or pay walled in yet another book, I think it’s mortal wounds there boring and lazy and were mostly a fix to rampant ++ and +++ saves which were fixes to the crazy amount of higher ap quality weapons which were a fix to all the high armour saves which were a fix for the volume of fire issues which were a fix for..... you know what really to a complete over haul of the armour system and the weapons systems so there not crap band aided together and over simplified.

 vict0988 wrote:
A TAC list should be fun to play against a Knight list and changing 3+/5++ 24W to 2+/7++ 24 W or 3+/7++ 30W makes TAC lists worse against Knights.

I'm gonna need some evidence for that. Based on my trial games, fewer invulns has been better for TAC lists. With invulns you're basically telling a TAC list that the few anti-tank guns they brought are useless. Knights with their invulns force me to bring skew lists. Knights without invluns are only as tough as two russes (for the cost of two russes) and TAC lists can handle those just fine.

Also the suggestion for more wounds/sv only applies if playtesting reveals new knights to be too fragile. If they're fine then they're fine and can stay at 3+ 24 W, just without the invuln.

 JNAProductions wrote:
Shouldn’t a TAC list have anti-tank too?

Yes, a skew list might have more though. Let's say you have 40% anti-GEQ, 30% anti-TEQ, 30% anti-tank in your TAC list. Let's say anti-GEQ has a damage effect of 30 against Knights, anti-TEQ has a damage effect of 30 against Knights and anti-tank has a damage effect of 40 against Knights. Now if the Knight player destroys the 30% of your list that has the anti-tank, you'll be down to 60/100 damage effect. If you build an anti-tank skew list with 20% anti-GEQ, 20% anti-TEQ and 60% anti-tank and you lose 30% of your list (all anti-tank), you'll have a damage effect of (15+20+40)/100=75/100.

If we skew the Knights further so 40% anti-GEQ has a damage effect of 20, 30% anti-TEQ has a damage effect of 30 and 30% anti-tank has a damage effect of 50, now if you lose those same 30% of your list you'll be down to 50/100 damage effect. If you build a skew list in this world then you'll be at (10+20+50)/100=80/100. By skewing Knights' level of weakness to any one type of gun you are making them relatively harder to beat with TAC list and relatively easier to beat with an anti-tank skew list.

Dandelion wrote:

 vict0988 wrote:
A TAC list should be fun to play against a Knight list and changing 3+/5++ 24W to 2+/7++ 24 W or 3+/7++ 30W makes TAC lists worse against Knights.

I'm gonna need some evidence for that. Based on my trial games, fewer invulns has been better for TAC lists. With invulns you're basically telling a TAC list that the few anti-tank guns they brought are useless. Knights with their invulns force me to bring skew lists. Knights without invluns are only as tough as two russes (for the cost of two russes) and TAC lists can handle those just fine.

Also the suggestion for more wounds/sv only applies if playtesting reveals new knights to be too fragile. If they're fine then they're fine and can stay at 3+ 24 W, just without the invuln.

Anti-tank guns are not useless against Knights with an invul, at the very least you'll be eating their CP by making them use the Rotate Ion Shields Stratagem, assuming they don't use that then lascannons are pretty effective. I'm also telling TAC lists that 100% of their list matters, not just 30%.

If you think Knights are OP then nerf them at their pts cost, not their rules, otherwise you might end up ruining balancing levers and incentivise skew lists just like giving SM Combat Doctrines makes them skew their lists more heavily toward the low-AP shooting that benefits a relatively higher amount from -1 AP than high AP shooting does. It's obvious and nobody needs to tell anybody that Knights won't become a menace if you remove their invulnerable save, the question is, if their pts effectiveness is to remain the same, is it better for the game that they have an invul or more wounds/better Sv characteristic. You can tag a Leman Russ in melee to make it stop Shooting, if all you bring is Leman Russes an Ork player can charge one and then tag four or five other Leman Russes with Pile In moves, the mechanics of the game prevents Leman Russ spam from being popular, which is why I said a Baneblade meta would make the game less fun than a Knight meta, there would be relatively fewer units that could do anything to Baneblades and assuming they were cheap enough they'd be able to quickly wipe out your anti-tank and you wouldn't be able to do anything to them. Knights, on the other hand, have part of their pts efficiency baked into their resilience against anti-tank weaponry, making them relatively less durable against anti-GEQ than a Baneblade if you assume the two units have the same pts efficiency.

Baneblades are not pts efficient, so they are not a problem, Knights are pts efficient and don't have any weaknesses, but that just means they are a popular item on the meta and has a relatively low effect on the meta. Baneblades being pts efficient would mean you either build a Baneblade army or you don't take units that are weak to anti-tank weapons and in any case you load up on anti-tank. It would make armies samey and boring, which is worse for the meta than a Knight meta would be, Knights would just have a good win-rate and a lot of top placements, the major impact on the game from Knights would come in terms of their weapons, not their weaknesses because they have no real weaknesses (in terms of ranged weapons anyways). The reason why heavy bolters and other such weapons are used against Knights is because of other parts of the meta, like Orks and GSC, if you had a Knights/Repulsor meta you'd see a bunch of lascannons becoming more popular way of dealing with both Knights and Repulsors.

 vict0988 wrote:

X078 wrote:

 vict0988 wrote:

X078 wrote:
Tau Commander limit for matched play.
Not only do you need 3 detachments to even field 3 commanders since it's only 1 per detachment and maximum of 3 total. You also cannot take 3 crisis commanders plus any of the character commanders...

Would you prefer Crisis Commanders were actually fairly priced?

I would prefer to be able to field 3 commanders as per rule of three + any character commanders. Best would ofc be to only limit per Commander type so 3 xv85 commanders + 3x XV8 commanders + etc. And yeah i think they are priced quite ok. I we get back JSJ (which never should have gone away) then yeah maybe adding a few more points can be ok, but i digress.

Why do you want to spam more than 3 Commanders except because they are underpriced? You can fall back and shoot and advance and shoot, that's the replacement for JSJ. I think giving the JSJ Stratagem to a single sub-faction was a mistake, but Tau are quite strong and unless you play competitively you can fit a unit or two of Crisis into your list and still have a good chance of winning.

It isn't that they are underpriced. People are going to cram as many as they can in no matter the price because next to riptides they are the best unit tau has. The only way to disincentivize taking commanders is to make crisis suits and commanders different and unique so that every list doesn't become "I need a special weapons unit, crisis suits carry all my special weapons, commanders are objectively better crisis suits. time to throw in a commander."

Tau really should be able to field three commanders, with the named ones excluded from count, just like tank commanders or daemon princes.

 Jidmah wrote:
Tau really should be able to field three commanders, with the named ones excluded from count, just like tank commanders or daemon princes.

That would require GW to actually balance their points though! Plus we all know how amazing of a fix Rule of Three is for the same situation of undercosted units!

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:
Tau really should be able to field three commanders, with the named ones excluded from count, just like tank commanders or daemon princes.

That would require GW to actually balance their points though! Plus we all know how amazing of a fix Rule of Three is for the same situation of undercosted units!

You haven been ignoring that units can be fine in low numbers and broken in large numbers for dozens of threads, so just go back to read one of those if feel like you need that discussion in your life once more.

Rule of 3 is good for the game, commanders should have a proper rule of 3 implemented just like everyone else. The one-per-detachment limit just forces weird HQ choices on them, and is only in place because it was implemented before the rule of 3 existed.

 vict0988 wrote:

I'm also telling TAC lists that 100% of their list matters, not just 30%.

No. You are explicitly telling TAC lists that their high ap weapons that they payed for should not matter. (plus a lascannon is still twice as good as a HB even trhough a 4++)
Removing invulns isn't a balance fix, it's a gameplay fix. I don't like invulns for how they play, and this doesn't just apply to knights: Tau battlesuits for example can get 4++, and I want that changed too.

Dandelion wrote:

 vict0988 wrote:

I'm also telling TAC lists that 100% of their list matters, not just 30%.

No. You are explicitly telling TAC lists that their high ap weapons that they payed for should not matter. (plus a lascannon is still twice as good as a HB even trhough a 4++)
Removing invulns isn't a balance fix, it's a gameplay fix. I don't like invulns for how they play, and this doesn't just apply to knights: Tau battlesuits for example can get 4++, and I want that changed too.

What exactly do you mean by "should not matter" if you mean "your chances of winning against Knights should not be primarilly decided by whether you've brought enough anti-tank" then yes that is what I am saying, but the weapons still have an impact in the game and as you mentioned (and which I already know which should be clear from my previous comment) anti-tank guns are already pretty decent against Knights. I don't understand why you want the rules for 40k to follow the logic of our world, isn't it possible that shields exist in the fantastical setting that is 40k, that increase protection little to no amount against low-AP weapons but proves powerful against high-AP weapons. I'm pretty sure that's the case with some types of armour going back to the middle ages. Different types of armours provided different levels of benefits against different weapons, or maybe that's just Warcraft 3.

Games against knights are already decided by the amount of anti-tank guns you brought. Invulns just arbitrarily make them worse. So instead of having some guns be good against knights, you have no guns that are good against knights.
I also said nothing about realism. I don't expect 40k to follow our logic OR lore-logic because it's a game, everything is an abstraction. I just find invulns to be anti-fun. If I pay for AP -4, I expect to get AP -4 dammit.

Also, AP (armor penetrating) has been the most effective means of dealing with armor since the middle ages because it's literally the definition of AP. Your perception of medieval armor has been skewed by games, I think. With body armor you either use a spike to punch through or just use a hammer to transfer concussive force through the plates. Modern AP rounds are just spikes you shoot really fast.

 Jidmah wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:
Tau really should be able to field three commanders, with the named ones excluded from count, just like tank commanders or daemon princes.

That would require GW to actually balance their points though! Plus we all know how amazing of a fix Rule of Three is for the same situation of undercosted units!

You haven been ignoring that units can be fine in low numbers and broken in large numbers for dozens of threads, so just go back to read one of those if feel like you need that discussion in your life once more.

Rule of 3 is good for the game, commanders should have a proper rule of 3 implemented just like everyone else. The one-per-detachment limit just forces weird HQ choices on them, and is only in place because it was implemented before the rule of 3 existed.

Broken units are broken, no matter how many you're allowed to bring. That's just straight fact.