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.

It just occurred to me that Imperial Knights (specifically the Gallant, Errant, Crusader, Paladin & the Warden) should actually be T7, not T8.

They were AV13 the last edition, and to my knowledge the only AV13 vehicle that got T8. All other T8 vehicles were AV14, the LRs and the Monolith
Predators, for example, were AV13 and only got T7.

This occurred to me while reading one of the many, many IK vs WK debate threads.
The WK seems to be in a much better place with its points reduction, but is still more expensive than any IK (which are all arguably better).

Given that Wraithlords were bumped back to T8, and are the Dreadnought version of a Wraith construct, but Dreads are T7, it seems fitting that the nerf needed to IKs to bring them in line not only compared to the WK, but for the sake of the meta itself, would be to make IKs T7.

The 2 newest varients can remain T8 because they are beefier, but the standard chasis should be T7 to match all the evidence above

-

 Galef wrote:
It just occurred to me that Imperial Knights (specifically the Gallant, Errant, Crusader, Paladin & the Warden) should actually be T7, not T8.

They were AV13 the last edition, and to my knowledge the only AV13 vehicle that got T8. All other T8 vehicles were AV14, the LRs and the Monolith
Predators, for example, were AV13 and only got T7.

This occurred to me while reading one of the many, many IK vs WK debate threads. The WK seems to be in a much better place with it's points reduction, but is still more expensive than any IK.
Given that Wraithlords were bumped back to T8, and are the Dreadnought version of a Wraith construct, but Dreads are T7, it seems fitting that the nerf needed to IKs to bring them in line not only compared to the WK, but for the sake of the meta itself, would be to make IKs T7.

The 2 newest varients can remain T8 because they are beefier, but the standard chasis should be T7 to match all the evidence above

-

Vindicators, Exorcists, some Leman Russes, Ironclad Dreadnoughts, and that's just Imperial examples off the top of my head that were AV13 and are now T8.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
To speak more substantially to your point in terms of balance:
Imperial Knights aren't over durable because of their Toughness, they're over durable because of an Invuln save that goes from good to great depending on how players buff it.

In 7th edition, with AV 13/13/12, they were generally tough units to crack no matter which side you came at them from, as compared to say a Leman Russ or Battlewagon which was tough in front but paper mache on the back. However, its invuln was a 4+ but only on one facing. This introduced an interesting flanking mechanic, where instead of having to get behind a tank to kill it, you had to get to multiple sides of the tank instead.

The problem is that while it's all-around good armor is well represented by T8, the invuln is not well represented by making it one point weaker and available at all times. Worse, it's very easy to get a bunch of knights with a 4+ invuln at all times, or even a 3+, and a 3+ invuln is just too good.

The +1 to Invulns warlord trait needs to be replaced with "Reroll 1s", and the +1 Invuln Strategem needs to cost 2 points for smaller knights. That'd bring their durability down to tolerable levels.

But a drop to T7 would allow more weapons to cause wounds to get that invul to fail. It's a slight change, but one that could make a noticeable different.
It would also give bolter spam a somewhat decent boost.

If IKs don't get T7, then WKs should be T9. That would affect even fewer weapons (only S8 and S9 would notice any difference).
The basic premise of this change is "Wraithlord is to Dreadnought as WK is to IK", backed up by most AV13 tanks being T7, and IK (being wlkers) having more "vulnerable" spots due to more moving parts being exposed compared to a box on wheels

-

 Galef wrote:
But a drop to T7 would allow more weapons to cause wounds to get that invul to fail. It's a slight change, but one that could make a noticeable different.
It would also give bolter spam a somewhat decent boost.

If IKs don't get T7, then WKs should be T9. That would affect even fewer weapons (only S8 and S9 would notice any difference).
The basic premise of this change is "Wraithlord is to Dreadnought as WK is to IK", backed up by most AV13 tanks being T7, and IK (being wlkers) having more "vulnerable" spots due to more moving parts being exposed compared to a box on wheels

-

they're giant heavily armored robots the size of buildings, infantry guns shouldn't be able to hurt them at all...

I want my Missiles and Lascannons and Brightlances to actually scare an IK. And Melta, Fusion, etc too. Currently, it feels like they're only marginally better than the same points worth of small arms.

Good-AP weapons should be better than bad-AP weapons at cracking Knights. With the Invulns they have, AP weapons don't do as much to a Knight as they should.

Bharring wrote:
I want my Missiles and Lascannons and Brightlances to actually scare an IK. And Melta, Fusion, etc too. Currently, it feels like they're only marginally better than the same points worth of small arms.

Good-AP weapons should be better than bad-AP weapons at cracking Knights. With the Invulns they have, AP weapons don't do as much to a Knight as they should.

It used to matter with facings and the shield only helping a side at a time.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Bharring wrote:
I want my Missiles and Lascannons and Brightlances to actually scare an IK. And Melta, Fusion, etc too. Currently, it feels like they're only marginally better than the same points worth of small arms.

Good-AP weapons should be better than bad-AP weapons at cracking Knights. With the Invulns they have, AP weapons don't do as much to a Knight as they should.

It used to matter with facings and the shield only helping a side at a time.

But that's my point. A drop to T7 would make all those things relevant again, which would make the current Knight lists a bit less nasty in the meta.
And as I've said, the newer ones that came out (don't remember their names) could stay T8 to differentiate them (well, more then their guns themselves)
It would also make WKs appropriately costed by compassion.

So Knights take *a few* more wounds (that will still likely get shrugged off like now) but everyone else gets better.
Personally, I think it's a rather elegant fix. It's a small change that affect lots of units

-

Yeah. I was pitching T7 knights to my gaming group the other day. To me, it's not so much about nerfing knights (although they do kind of need it) as it is about making them more interactive. At the moment, knights' ability to walk out of combat without penalty, easily smash most units that might want to try to lock them in combat, and shrug off small arms fire (i.e. the theoretical majority of your guns in a vanilla list) makes them feel really non-interactive. It's like they can basically ignore any part of your army that isn't at least strength 5.

Lowering them to Toughness 7 suddenly makes everything strength 4 in the game have a 1/3rd chance of forcing them to roll a save. Strength 8 weapons like melta and bright lances are wounding them most of the time instead of half the time. Strength 7 weapons like Tau missiles and autocannons (which are often pretty spammable) are suddenly wounding the knight often enough to chip away at them.

Regardless of how this would impact the overall power level of knights (it would nerf them), it would make it much easier for a vanilla army in a pickup game to meaningfully interact with them.

Bharring wrote:
I want my Missiles and Lascannons and Brightlances to actually scare an IK. And Melta, Fusion, etc too. Currently, it feels like they're only marginally better than the same points worth of small arms.

Good-AP weapons should be better than bad-AP weapons at cracking Knights. With the Invulns they have, AP weapons don't do as much to a Knight as they should.

Take a number. AP sucks vs tau and necrons and drukhari and demons. And chaos. AP is anti ig and anti loyalists only.

Wyldhunt wrote:
Yeah. I was pitching T7 knights to my gaming group the other day. To me, it's not so much about nerfing knights (although they do kind of need it) as it is about making them more interactive. At the moment, knights' ability to walk out of combat without penalty, easily smash most units that might want to try to lock them in combat, and shrug off small arms fire (i.e. the theoretical majority of your guns in a vanilla list) makes them feel really non-interactive. It's like they can basically ignore any part of your army that isn't at least strength 5.

Lowering them to Toughness 7 suddenly makes everything strength 4 in the game have a 1/3rd chance of forcing them to roll a save. Strength 8 weapons like melta and bright lances are wounding them most of the time instead of half the time. Strength 7 weapons like Tau missiles and autocannons (which are often pretty spammable) are suddenly wounding the knight often enough to chip away at them.

Regardless of how this would impact the overall power level of knights (it would nerf them), it would make it much easier for a vanilla army in a pickup game to meaningfully interact with them.

I'd rather Knights just be more expensive to be honest.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Wyldhunt wrote:
Yeah. I was pitching T7 knights to my gaming group the other day. To me, it's not so much about nerfing knights (although they do kind of need it) as it is about making them more interactive. At the moment, knights' ability to walk out of combat without penalty, easily smash most units that might want to try to lock them in combat, and shrug off small arms fire (i.e. the theoretical majority of your guns in a vanilla list) makes them feel really non-interactive. It's like they can basically ignore any part of your army that isn't at least strength 5.

Lowering them to Toughness 7 suddenly makes everything strength 4 in the game have a 1/3rd chance of forcing them to roll a save. Strength 8 weapons like melta and bright lances are wounding them most of the time instead of half the time. Strength 7 weapons like Tau missiles and autocannons (which are often pretty spammable) are suddenly wounding the knight often enough to chip away at them.

Regardless of how this would impact the overall power level of knights (it would nerf them), it would make it much easier for a vanilla army in a pickup game to meaningfully interact with them.

I'd rather Knights just be more expensive to be honest.

That's probably a better route to go for the sake of competitive performance. But if my bolters and shuriken catapults are supposed to exist in the same game as a knight-centric list, I'd kind of like to do more than fish for 6s.

Wyldhunt wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Wyldhunt wrote:
Yeah. I was pitching T7 knights to my gaming group the other day. To me, it's not so much about nerfing knights (although they do kind of need it) as it is about making them more interactive. At the moment, knights' ability to walk out of combat without penalty, easily smash most units that might want to try to lock them in combat, and shrug off small arms fire (i.e. the theoretical majority of your guns in a vanilla list) makes them feel really non-interactive. It's like they can basically ignore any part of your army that isn't at least strength 5.

Lowering them to Toughness 7 suddenly makes everything strength 4 in the game have a 1/3rd chance of forcing them to roll a save. Strength 8 weapons like melta and bright lances are wounding them most of the time instead of half the time. Strength 7 weapons like Tau missiles and autocannons (which are often pretty spammable) are suddenly wounding the knight often enough to chip away at them.

Regardless of how this would impact the overall power level of knights (it would nerf them), it would make it much easier for a vanilla army in a pickup game to meaningfully interact with them.

I'd rather Knights just be more expensive to be honest.

That's probably a better route to go for the sake of competitive performance. But if my bolters and shuriken catapults are supposed to exist in the same game as a knight-centric list, I'd kind of like to do more than fish for 6s.

Those kinds of weapons had ZERO effect last two editions. The fact they wound on a 6 is something to be grateful for.

The issue is those weapons do too little for the cost.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Wyldhunt wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Wyldhunt wrote:
Yeah. I was pitching T7 knights to my gaming group the other day. To me, it's not so much about nerfing knights (although they do kind of need it) as it is about making them more interactive. At the moment, knights' ability to walk out of combat without penalty, easily smash most units that might want to try to lock them in combat, and shrug off small arms fire (i.e. the theoretical majority of your guns in a vanilla list) makes them feel really non-interactive. It's like they can basically ignore any part of your army that isn't at least strength 5.

Lowering them to Toughness 7 suddenly makes everything strength 4 in the game have a 1/3rd chance of forcing them to roll a save. Strength 8 weapons like melta and bright lances are wounding them most of the time instead of half the time. Strength 7 weapons like Tau missiles and autocannons (which are often pretty spammable) are suddenly wounding the knight often enough to chip away at them.

Regardless of how this would impact the overall power level of knights (it would nerf them), it would make it much easier for a vanilla army in a pickup game to meaningfully interact with them.

I'd rather Knights just be more expensive to be honest.

That's probably a better route to go for the sake of competitive performance. But if my bolters and shuriken catapults are supposed to exist in the same game as a knight-centric list, I'd kind of like to do more than fish for 6s.

Those kinds of weapons had ZERO effect last two editions. The fact they wound on a 6 is something to be grateful for.

Being better than last edition isn't really the point though. It's a lot of rolling, usually for no effect, and that feels meh when it happens. But the chance that the handful of extra wounds I slip through by fishing for 6s might matter means that I'd be even more frustrated if I didn't at least try to fish for the sixes. Big chunks of my vanilla lists are strength 4 or less. It is less than ideal that large portions of my army are frustrating to use because my opponent's list revolves around powerful T8 units.

The issue is those weapons do too little for the cost.

Right. And making knights T7 would make Strength 4 do more for the cost.

But should a Bolter be effective vs a Knight? No.

The issue comes from a lot of weapons becoming ineffective vs Knights because of all the rules they have.

 Togusa wrote:

 Galef wrote:
But a drop to T7 would allow more weapons to cause wounds to get that invul to fail. It's a slight change, but one that could make a noticeable different.
It would also give bolter spam a somewhat decent boost.

If IKs don't get T7, then WKs should be T9. That would affect even fewer weapons (only S8 and S9 would notice any difference).
The basic premise of this change is "Wraithlord is to Dreadnought as WK is to IK", backed up by most AV13 tanks being T7, and IK (being wlkers) having more "vulnerable" spots due to more moving parts being exposed compared to a box on wheels

-

they're giant heavily armored robots the size of buildings, infantry guns shouldn't be able to hurt them at all...

Aye. Moving to Toughness for everything was a mistake. It makes no sense that lasguns can kill anything.

 Grey Templar wrote:

 Togusa wrote:

 Galef wrote:
But a drop to T7 would allow more weapons to cause wounds to get that invul to fail. It's a slight change, but one that could make a noticeable different.
It would also give bolter spam a somewhat decent boost.

If IKs don't get T7, then WKs should be T9. That would affect even fewer weapons (only S8 and S9 would notice any difference).
The basic premise of this change is "Wraithlord is to Dreadnought as WK is to IK", backed up by most AV13 tanks being T7, and IK (being wlkers) having more "vulnerable" spots due to more moving parts being exposed compared to a box on wheels

-

they're giant heavily armored robots the size of buildings, infantry guns shouldn't be able to hurt them at all...

Aye. Moving to Toughness for everything was a mistake. It makes no sense that lasguns can kill anything.

Toughness for everything is great, they just need to stop holding on the the stats from previous editions.
They need to use the ranges they have, they don't have to be limited.

 Grey Templar wrote:

 Togusa wrote:

 Galef wrote:
But a drop to T7 would allow more weapons to cause wounds to get that invul to fail. It's a slight change, but one that could make a noticeable different.
It would also give bolter spam a somewhat decent boost.

If IKs don't get T7, then WKs should be T9. That would affect even fewer weapons (only S8 and S9 would notice any difference).
The basic premise of this change is "Wraithlord is to Dreadnought as WK is to IK", backed up by most AV13 tanks being T7, and IK (being wlkers) having more "vulnerable" spots due to more moving parts being exposed compared to a box on wheels

-

they're giant heavily armored robots the size of buildings, infantry guns shouldn't be able to hurt them at all...

Aye. Moving to Toughness for everything was a mistake. It makes no sense that lasguns can kill anything.

Actually I like that we moved to one stat.

 Blndmage wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:

 Togusa wrote:

 Galef wrote:
But a drop to T7 would allow more weapons to cause wounds to get that invul to fail. It's a slight change, but one that could make a noticeable different.
It would also give bolter spam a somewhat decent boost.

If IKs don't get T7, then WKs should be T9. That would affect even fewer weapons (only S8 and S9 would notice any difference).
The basic premise of this change is "Wraithlord is to Dreadnought as WK is to IK", backed up by most AV13 tanks being T7, and IK (being wlkers) having more "vulnerable" spots due to more moving parts being exposed compared to a box on wheels

-

they're giant heavily armored robots the size of buildings, infantry guns shouldn't be able to hurt them at all...

Aye. Moving to Toughness for everything was a mistake. It makes no sense that lasguns can kill anything.

Toughness for everything is great, they just need to stop holding on the the stats from previous editions.
They need to use the ranges they have, they don't have to be limited.

That's how I feel, as long as they hold onto D6. Personally I want the game to move to D8 for better granularity.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Blndmage wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:

 Togusa wrote:

 Galef wrote:
But a drop to T7 would allow more weapons to cause wounds to get that invul to fail. It's a slight change, but one that could make a noticeable different.
It would also give bolter spam a somewhat decent boost.

If IKs don't get T7, then WKs should be T9. That would affect even fewer weapons (only S8 and S9 would notice any difference).
The basic premise of this change is "Wraithlord is to Dreadnought as WK is to IK", backed up by most AV13 tanks being T7, and IK (being wlkers) having more "vulnerable" spots due to more moving parts being exposed compared to a box on wheels

-

they're giant heavily armored robots the size of buildings, infantry guns shouldn't be able to hurt them at all...

Aye. Moving to Toughness for everything was a mistake. It makes no sense that lasguns can kill anything.

Toughness for everything is great, they just need to stop holding on the the stats from previous editions.
They need to use the ranges they have, they don't have to be limited.

That's how I feel, as long as they hold onto D6. Personally I want the game to move to D8 for better granularity.

From an accessibility and usage perspective d6's should stay, which means they need to break from the old stat limits. Run S, T, etc up there!
The nature of 8ths core rules means that it'll work fine if they boost the ranges, it also gives far more design space.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Wyldhunt wrote:
Yeah. I was pitching T7 knights to my gaming group the other day. To me, it's not so much about nerfing knights (although they do kind of need it) as it is about making them more interactive. At the moment, knights' ability to walk out of combat without penalty, easily smash most units that might want to try to lock them in combat, and shrug off small arms fire (i.e. the theoretical majority of your guns in a vanilla list) makes them feel really non-interactive. It's like they can basically ignore any part of your army that isn't at least strength 5.

Lowering them to Toughness 7 suddenly makes everything strength 4 in the game have a 1/3rd chance of forcing them to roll a save. Strength 8 weapons like melta and bright lances are wounding them most of the time instead of half the time. Strength 7 weapons like Tau missiles and autocannons (which are often pretty spammable) are suddenly wounding the knight often enough to chip away at them.

Regardless of how this would impact the overall power level of knights (it would nerf them), it would make it much easier for a vanilla army in a pickup game to meaningfully interact with them.

I'd rather Knights just be more expensive to be honest.

Pretty much this. Make them 250 points more expensive, they don't need different stats.

The useless stompa is 920 points, the weakest imperial knight is more effective and how much does it cost? Almost half the price?

 Blackie wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Wyldhunt wrote:
Yeah. I was pitching T7 knights to my gaming group the other day. To me, it's not so much about nerfing knights (although they do kind of need it) as it is about making them more interactive. At the moment, knights' ability to walk out of combat without penalty, easily smash most units that might want to try to lock them in combat, and shrug off small arms fire (i.e. the theoretical majority of your guns in a vanilla list) makes them feel really non-interactive. It's like they can basically ignore any part of your army that isn't at least strength 5.

Lowering them to Toughness 7 suddenly makes everything strength 4 in the game have a 1/3rd chance of forcing them to roll a save. Strength 8 weapons like melta and bright lances are wounding them most of the time instead of half the time. Strength 7 weapons like Tau missiles and autocannons (which are often pretty spammable) are suddenly wounding the knight often enough to chip away at them.

Regardless of how this would impact the overall power level of knights (it would nerf them), it would make it much easier for a vanilla army in a pickup game to meaningfully interact with them.

I'd rather Knights just be more expensive to be honest.

Pretty much this. Make them 250 points more expensive, they don't need different stats.

The useless stompa is 920 points, the weakest imperial knight is more effective and how much does it cost? Almost half the price?

Wow you all just hate allowing people to play with their models don't you, thats unplayable overcosted.

You know what you don't see in 8th edition T7 vehicals competatively.

Your targeting questorus class knights, yet what is it people always take in competitive lists, oh yeah dominus class knight castellens.

Your basically asking for non competitive lists to be removed from play because they don't suit your own narative.

Really the issue is GW wanted this flat wound chart, because apparently being unable to wound thing's is no fun.
But apparently not being able to hit units is totally OK in 8th.

Knights don't score objectives, have no invulnerable saves in CC and need to table an opponent to win most match ups.
Stop trying to beat them at their own play style and play the counter play style.

Yeah, I'd be all for a point increase to make IKs *just* slightly more that the current WK. But anything more than say +50ppm is overkill. I don't want IKs to be nerfed into the ground, I just want them to feel appropriate relative to units like WKs, LRs, etc

I like the earlier point about making them feel more interactive. T7 would certainly do this.
And lets stop pretending that Bolters wounding them on 5+ would be a serious threat to them. Sure it might strip off that extra wound to put them in a lower damage bracket, but that's a GOOD thing for the game.

If your opponent is having to resort to Bolter equivalents to strip wound off an IK, then only one of 2 significant things can be happening:

1) Your opponent has already rid the table of pesky chaff, which is a far better use of Bolters (or should be at least). In this case, you, as the IK player, may already be in a bad position, so a few extra wounds on your IK aren't going to make it any harder for you to win. You're likely already on the backfoot. OR
2) You, as the IK player haven't taken any chaff in your list and the only reason that Bolters are hitting your IK is out of desperation. In this case, your opponent is on the backfoot, and you should feel bad if you think taking an army that invalidates half (or more) of your opponents army should be "the way it should be"

-

Sorry, but at the price point Knights are at, it would be silly to have Bolters wound them on a 5+ without giving them more wounds.

A simple price hike would be better. They're at the correct durability feel, but need to definitely be more expensive. 50-100 is fine, but anything else might be overboard.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Sorry, but at the price point Knights are at, it would be silly to have Bolters wound them on a 5+ without giving them more wounds.

A simple price hike would be better. They're at the correct durability feel, but need to definitely be more expensive. 50-100 is fine, but anything else might be overboard.

I agree that a price increase to about 315ppm base is the best right answer.

But I also think T7 is an alternative right answer. Bolters have always been S4 to represent their superior damage capability over standard human weapons
Their rounds freaking explode. Why should they wound a Rhino any better than an IK? Sure the actual armour plates may be thicker, but the IK has about as much un armoured surfaces area as a Rhino's enter surface area. Plenty of "weak" spots to target other then the heavy plates on the shines and thighs.

I mean, even wounding on 5+ doesn't even increase the damage by 5-6%. Yes the Bolter itself may get twice the wounds, but there's still the 3+ save to get through

-

There are many kinds of explosives.

There is High Explosive Anti Tank rounds (H.E.A.T) made specifically to penetrate heavy armor.

There is frag grenade explosives for anti personel which wont really damage heavy armor.

The bolter round is depicted to be a round tip mini rocket propelled grenade. It lacks the armor piercing tip. Bolter rounds are designed to work in a vacuum of space because of rocket propulsion. The explosive payload is enough to fragment and destroy cover.

Bolter rounds should not be wounding IKs 33% of the time.

 CadianGateTroll wrote:
There are many kinds of explosives.

There is High Explosive Anti Tank rounds (H.E.A.T) made specifically to penetrate heavy armor.

There is frag grenade explosives for anti personel which wont really damage heavy armor.

The bolter round is depicted to be a round tip mini rocket propelled grenade. It lacks the armor piercing tip. Bolter rounds are designed to work in a vacuum of space because of rocket propulsion. The explosive payload is enough to fragment and destroy cover.

That applies to AP, which a Bolter has AP-0, so isn't penetrating anything. But the 1/3 time a Knight fails that 3+ save because a bolter round hits the joint of a giant, easy to hit target that isn't 100% covered in "heavy armour" it would, theoretically, have the capability to cause damage.

Bolter rounds should not be wounding IKs 33% of the time.

Agreed, but they wouldn't be. It would cause a would less than 10% of the time, even if wounding on 5+. Because as above, a Bolter doesn't impede an IKs armour save.
So about 1 in 12 Bolter shots do one, ONE wound to an IK if they would on 5+. Currently that's about 1 in 24 Bolter shots to do 1 wound.

1 in 24 is basically a worthless waste of time rolling dice. 1 in 12 actually has *some* merit if there is no other choice (like chaff).
If less than half my army cannot hurt 75% of yours, it doesn't matter who wins, it isn't a fun or fair game.
Players who do not understand this (or don't care) are not the kind of opponents I want in a friendly game (and even tourneys SHOULD be friendly games)

Standard weaponry should have a much greater impact on the game. 8E has done a better job doing this that other editions, but whole armies filled with T8 or armies with -1 to be hit, or chaff hugging cover for 4+ or better saves is pretty much made all that effort for naught.

-

"You know what you don't see in 8th edition T7 vehicals competatively."

Wave Serpents aren't seen?
Razorbacks weren't seen (before the nerf)?

People just forget about non-Knight vehicles.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I like the +50pt concept.

But the top list is Knight + Loyal32 + Beatsticks. That list has clearly been the list to beat, so needs adjustment. But it does get beat often enough that it's not just trashing the meta.

Add to that that mono-Knight lists aren't competitive.

This suggests a moderate points hike, and not a massive one, is appropriate.

Bharring wrote:

I like the +50pt concept.

But the top list is Knight + Loyal32 + Beatsticks. That list has clearly been the list to beat, so needs adjustment. But it does get beat often enough that it's not just trashing the meta.

Add to that that mono-Knight lists aren't competitive.

This suggests a moderate points hike, and not a massive one, is appropriate.

100% agree...while maybe only 90% since I am the one suggesting the T7 Knight.
Mono-Knights aren't winning tourneys (but aren't fun to play against even still, so I'd really like them NOT to be a valid army option)
And Soup is the issue, but I've argued that Soup itself wouldn't be so bad if CPs were generated some other way. Less dependent on detachments and more dependant on Battle Forged and/or Warlord based.

-

Why don't they just introduce degrading void shield rules for Imperial Knights instead of letting them always have a 3++, like they did for Titans? That way the idea would be to hit it first with high strength lower AP weapons to degrade the void shields, then when it's taken a few wounds and the void shields are weakened you unload with the serious anti-tank stuff like Lascannons or Krak Missiles to finish it. Having a permanent 3++ is too much, but if it just degraded as the Knight took damage I think it'd be workable.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Sorry, but at the price point Knights are at, it would be silly to have Bolters wound them on a 5+ without giving them more wounds.

A simple price hike would be better. They're at the correct durability feel, but need to definitely be more expensive. 50-100 is fine, but anything else might be overboard.

I'm not necessarily opposed to upping the wounds on a knight if they went down to T7. I'm approaching this issue less from a "knights need to be nerfed," angle and more from a, "knights are non-interactive and invalidate half the units in the game," angle. There is definitely a reasonable argument to be made for knights needing to be powered down a bit, but that's not really my goal here. You could slap extra wounds onto knights so that their overall durability balanced out to be about the same as it is now. At T7, at least all the strength 4 stuff in my army would feel like it was able to participate in the game, and my strength 7 and 8 guns would feel like they were consistently whittling the knight down rather than being ignored 1/2 or 2/3rds of the time.

It's also worth mentioning that this is mostly a problem with lists that are built around knights doing most of the work. If the only knight presence in my opponent's list is a single paladin, then my strength 4 elements probably have plenty to do. They can go fight the other stuff in your army while my big guns focus on the knight. The problem is when a buffed up castellan is the offensive lynchpin of your army or when I'm facing nothing but T8. At that point, the strength 4 stuff in my army feels like it's not really even worth the time it takes to move models and roll dice.

And the issue is mostly unique to knights because of their ability to walk out of combat with infantry without any real downside. If I were facing a wall of russes, at least my strength 4 stuff could tie them up in melee.