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.

I don't think this fact gets enough attention, I've done the math on how hard it is to fell a knight and given their absurdly low point cost they are totally too strong in practice, they should get universally nerfed by being 100-200 points more per model. I feel like this is really holding game balance back and it's creating cascading problems and power creep in the game generally. The only other lord of war that's a problem is baneblade variants because of the multipliers people can put on them. Let's be honest a stompa isn't op and nobody is out here complaining about it, but these knights are totally power creeping the game.

Competitively, the recent round of nerfs to knights (mostly aimed at the Castellan) seem to have toned them down a lot. Last I heard, the prevalence of loyalist knights was down a fair bit, and the meta was seeing a return to non-super-heavy vehicles as a result. Is there recent tournament data showing that knights are still a must take and/or that their win percentage is especially high?

Even if knights aren't objectively/statistically OP, it's true that they can be very annoying to play against if you don't bring a list that has either a lot of anti tank or some other gimmick for dealing with knights.

This is largely due to their above-average durability. Packing that many points of your army into a single model means that your opponent's offense doesn't really diminish if you don't kill the knight outright, especially as they can just ignore the degradation table or even come back to life with some CP.

Plus, Toughness 8 is kind of a tipping point. T 8 means that most anti tank guns with more than one shot are wounding you less well than against most vehicles, and anything strength 9 or above is expensive enough that every succesful invul save is nullifying a considerable investment. Toughness 8 also cuts the number of succesful wounds strength 4 small arms fire inflict in half, so the non-anti-tank guns in your army trying to chip in aren't doing as much.

And then there's the knight's ability to win most combats by river dancing and to walk out of combat.

Basically, knights are kind of non-interactive and encourage opponents to tailor their lists. If you don't have enough anti-knight tools to down them quickly, your opponent will keep an usually large portion of his offense alive and at full strength with strats. If you don't tailor to have anti knight tools, many of the weapons in your army won't be able to meaningfully harm a knights (anything strength 4 or less). If you try to tarpit it, it will usually be able to win the fight and/or walk away unphased.

That said, simply raising their costs might not be the right fix. They're probably pointed about right for what they do in a competitive environment where the meta is built with them in mind. It's just that playing a couple of knights skews your list heavily towards extreme durability that hard counters many options in the game.

It might be worth re-examining knights from the ground up rather than just upping the points cost until they're sub-optimal enough to stop seeing play.

I liken knights to 7th edition flyers. Flyers last edition created extreme skew when taken en masse because most weapons couldn't efficiently harm them. If you didn't specifically build a decent amount of anti-flyer tools into your list, you were stuck hitting them on 6's and not assaulting them. This edition, ranged weapons are less effective against flyers than non-flyers, but not to the extent that they're rendered useless, and models with the fly keyword can leverage their melee abilities against flyers. Flyers were non-interactive, but now they're more or less representing the durability their old rules were meant to convey while also becoming more interactive.

Baneblade variants don't seem all that bad to me these days. They don't have the invuls, strats, and relics that push knight durability over the edge. If you can get through half of their wounds, they're at -1 to hit, and iirc they math out as being less killy than shooty knights. They still skew your list heavily towards big beefy armored targets, but they have the decency to take wounds and act wounded instead of ignoring their degradation charts and rising from the dead.

Delete the Super-Heavy and Super-Heavy Auxiliary detachments, remove the Lord of War slot from the Supreme Command detachment, put one Lord of War slot in the Brigade, and allow any Imperium force to have a Knight as a LoW. The issue is not and has never been a Knight, it has always been Knights as a standalone Codex.

(Looks at his 752 point Typhon). Surely not...

200 pts more is way too much, Knights get beaten often enough they don't need a 60% pts increase, GW has already started the power creep engine up on full speed with the new Astartes it seems so it's already too late to nerf them by 100 pts and put everything in place.

A nerf to their Stratagems could balance them. Chaos Daemons get +1 invul for 2 CP, Knights get it for 1 CP, something isn't right here. Nerf the 1CP extra Relic/WL trait Stratagems to be 2 CP each, these 3 Stratagems get used in every battle by Knights.

Stompas aren't balanced, they're gak. Just ban Knights instead of playing around with pts if you hate a unit, otherwise, you'll have to find a more balanced nerf. They don't even need a nerf with the new SM seemlingly being as good as they are. Previous to the new SM codex I'd have said 25-50 pts, now I*m just hoping Necrons get 9 pt Warriors so they can keep up with the creep.

 vict0988 wrote:
200 pts more is way too much, Knights get beaten often enough they don't need a 60% pts increase, GW has already started the power creep engine up on full speed with the new Astartes it seems so it's already too late to nerf them by 100 pts and put everything in place.

A nerf to their Stratagems could balance them. Chaos Daemons get +1 invul for 2 CP, Knights get it for 1 CP, something isn't right here. Nerf the 1CP extra Relic/WL trait Stratagems to be 2 CP each, these 3 Stratagems get used in every battle by Knights.

Stompas aren't balanced, they're gak. Just ban Knights instead of playing around with pts if you hate a unit, otherwise, you'll have to find a more balanced nerf. They don't even need a nerf with the new SM seemlingly being as good as they are. Previous to the new SM codex I'd have said 25-50 pts, now I*m just hoping Necrons get 9 pt Warriors so they can keep up with the creep.

Thr difference in strategum costs is because a pure knights list is going to hit 9 CP without going all in on chacing CP for 12 and will start the battle with 6-7 usually. Having strategums recosted because of armies that can achieve battalions for the cost of a single knight is silly. Knights are not in-need of a nerf if anything they are creeping towards being in need of some serious buffs.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 brazenjaw wrote:
I don't think this fact gets enough attention, I've done the math on how hard it is to fell a knight and given their absurdly low point cost they are totally too strong in practice, they should get universally nerfed by being 100-200 points more per model. I feel like this is really holding game balance back and it's creating cascading problems and power creep in the game generally. The only other lord of war that's a problem is baneblade variants because of the multipliers people can put on them. Let's be honest a stompa isn't op and nobody is out here complaining about it, but these knights are totally power creeping the game.

I'm going to say your either playing a low teir army or your missing the point of how to beat knights.

1 Be clear are you actually talking about a list made exclusively from the Imperial/Renegade Knights codex or a list of knights and infantry plus from another codex? Soup lists as problems mono lists generally are not.

2 Play games with objectives and not just who tables the other player first.
3 Stop being a muppet and trying to table them, usually the biggest mistake and reason people feel they are OP.
3 if you genuinely believe that knights as a codex are OP god help you vrs eldar, drukari, GSC who all have higher win percentages than knights 46% aka pretty well balanced.

Ice_can wrote:
The difference in stratagem costs is because a pure knights list is going to hit 9 CP without going all in on chacing CP for 12 and will start the battle with 6-7 usually. Having strategems recosted because of armies that can achieve battalions for the cost of a single knight is silly. Knights are not in-need of a nerf if anything they are creeping towards being in need of some serious buffs.

So you get all the benefit of fielding restrictive Battalions that can be killed by any unit under the sun with often overcosted HQ choices with all the upside of creating a skew lists that will dominate anything that isn't prepared for it? Knight Militarum Soup is good partially because Guard Stratagems are vastly less effective compared to Knight Stratagems in terms of CP effeciency. If Knights had shoddy Stratagems they'd have a smaller incentive to soup to get the extra CP. There are other reasons to soup with Knights, but from the allies they usually take even outside AM we can see that CP is definitely a priority of theirs because their CP are worth 10-50 pts instead of 10-20 pts as they are in balanced Stratagems. Knights are still one of the best factions in the game when taken outside mono armies and mono Knights armies are still good under certain mission parameters that aren't used in tournaments.

Knights are a hard skew but there are actually a ton of units in the meta keeping them in check. Knights either can't kill them efficiently or are extremely vulnerable to them while costing many times the points.

Off the top of my head:

- Daemon princes
- Guardsmen
- Nurglings
- Plaguebearers
- Smash captains
- Bloodletters
- Eldar flyers
- Genestealers
- Acolytes
- Aberrants
- Riptides
- Orks
- ...and so on

If you're noticing that certain factions are under represented in this list, well... you're right. Some factions DO have an extremely hard time against knights, space marines/chaos space marines being the obvious ones. At the highest competitive levels 40k is very much a game of rock, paper, scissors and knights lean heavily into rock/scissors while being extremely vulnerable to paper and hard scissors.

 vict0988 wrote:

Ice_can wrote:
The difference in stratagem costs is because a pure knights list is going to hit 9 CP without going all in on chacing CP for 12 and will start the battle with 6-7 usually. Having strategems recosted because of armies that can achieve battalions for the cost of a single knight is silly. Knights are not in-need of a nerf if anything they are creeping towards being in need of some serious buffs.

So you get all the benefit of fielding restrictive Battalions that can be killed by any unit under the sun with often overcosted HQ choices with all the upside of creating a skew lists that will dominate anything that isn't prepared for it? Knight Militarum Soup is good partially because Guard Stratagems are vastly less effective compared to Knight Stratagems in terms of CP effeciency. If Knights had shoddy Stratagems they'd have a smaller incentive to soup to get the extra CP. There are other reasons to soup with Knights, but from the allies they usually take even outside AM we can see that CP is definitely a priority of theirs because their CP are worth 10-50 pts instead of 10-20 pts as they are in balanced Stratagems. Knights are still one of the best factions in the game when taken outside mono armies and mono Knights armies are still good under certain mission parameters that aren't used in tournaments.

So your now saying it's a soup list that's the problem and that knights codex should be rewitten for always bringing astra Millicheese (the bye 1 get 1 free faction).
Yeah no that's not a solution for balance that's a way to make knights unplayable overcosted trash.
Allies are the problem, that's says the problem is guard because the CP generation system is bull.

Also you do realise that 6 CP detachment for knights costs 1056 points minimum so a cost per CP of 179 points
Their second cheapest way to generate CP is 229 points per CP

Guard pay 36 before regenerating relics or warlord traits please explain why you think their strategums should be equivalent?

Or how about you stop calling for nerfs to a tier 2 at best army and play the missions instead as guess what any remotely competitive list played by a competent player should have atleast a 50% chance to win and more likely a 60% or more chance to win with certain missions sets.

Ice_can wrote:

 vict0988 wrote:

Ice_can wrote:
The difference in stratagem costs is because a pure knights list is going to hit 9 CP without going all in on chacing CP for 12 and will start the battle with 6-7 usually. Having strategems recosted because of armies that can achieve battalions for the cost of a single knight is silly. Knights are not in-need of a nerf if anything they are creeping towards being in need of some serious buffs.

So you get all the benefit of fielding restrictive Battalions that can be killed by any unit under the sun with often overcosted HQ choices with all the upside of creating a skew lists that will dominate anything that isn't prepared for it? Knight Militarum Soup is good partially because Guard Stratagems are vastly less effective compared to Knight Stratagems in terms of CP effeciency. If Knights had shoddy Stratagems they'd have a smaller incentive to soup to get the extra CP. There are other reasons to soup with Knights, but from the allies they usually take even outside AM we can see that CP is definitely a priority of theirs because their CP are worth 10-50 pts instead of 10-20 pts as they are in balanced Stratagems. Knights are still one of the best factions in the game when taken outside mono armies and mono Knights armies are still good under certain mission parameters that aren't used in tournaments.

So your now saying it's a soup list that's the problem and that knights codex should be rewitten for always bringing astra Millicheese (the bye 1 get 1 free faction).
Yeah no that's not a solution for balance that's a way to make knights unplayable overcosted trash.
Allies are the problem, that's says the problem is guard because the CP generation system is bull.

Also you do realise that 6 CP detachment for knights costs 1056 points minimum so a cost per CP of 179 points
Their second cheapest way to generate CP is 229 points per CP

Guard pay 36 before regenerating relics or warlord traits please explain why you think their strategums should be equivalent?

Or how about you stop calling for nerfs to a tier 2 at best army and play the missions instead as guess what any remotely competitive list played by a competent player should have atleast a 50% chance to win and more likely a 60% or more chance to win with certain missions sets.

I'm not sure why you think it's so unfair to pay 1050 pts for 6 CP?
*I pay 2000 pts for two battalions and 10 CP.
*2000 pts for 7 CP between a battalion and an Outrider/Spearhead + Air Wing.
*If I want to create a 2000 pt skew list I'll get 3 CP for Outrider + Spearhead + Air Wing or 4 CP for Spearhead + Super Heavy (that's right normal factions only get 3 instead of 6 for a 1k pts detachment super heavy detachment).

Why do Knights get to create a skew list with a 4-5 Knights and 2-1 Helverins and get 9 CP? Why do they also get to have OP Stratagems on top? Knights are the last thing to get buffed after every other titanic unit gets buffed, I don't care if they are a "faction" and they lose their last competitive choice as a faction while every other faction that has gak titanic units that need buffs to have a few units that keep them in the competitive meta. I'd still buff every other titanic unit first if those units were worse, which they currently are. Just because Knights are in a good place for competitive does not mean they are a fair faction. Competitive needs to be opened up to more units and factions and if Knights are going to get buffed then there's even further every other titanic unit in the game needs to climb before it becomes viable. Why do Knights have a near-monopoly on Titanic meta relevance? I think mono-Knights are very unfun to play against, I much prefer playing against soup knights, I can at least drink the soup while the knightballs are pounding my teef in, at least my S4 weapons are worth something.

The fact that there is even more powerful meta lists than knights, doesn't take away from the fact that they are generally speaking overpowered and majority of armies don't have a chance unless specifically built to beat them.

A rock, paper, scissor system is bunk anyways as a concept.

Like I said it's because of knights being overloaded that's cascading into power creep all over the place.

I don't play tournaments and I have no interest in doing so. I play pug at my local club and I want my relatively fluffy army to not get crushed in 1 or 2 turns.

I shouldn't have to make an entirely new army that's adapted to the current rule set (I don't have enough time, money, or passion for that).

I'm not saying other stuff isn't potentially even stronger, that stuff should get nerfed as well.

Less of an issue with the power and more with the skew and sizecreep they introduce,which lead to combined arms tac lists beeing pushed out of the meta.

Not Online!!! wrote:
Less of an issue with the power and more with the skew and sizecreep they introduce,which lead to combined arms tac lists beeing pushed out of the meta.

Yeah that's probably right, I play a combined arms/tac list and I don't feel like there's really any counterplay for me to stop that level of domination.

 brazenjaw wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:
Less of an issue with the power and more with the skew and sizecreep they introduce,which lead to combined arms tac lists beeing pushed out of the meta.

Yeah that's probably right, I play a combined arms/tac list and I don't feel like there's really any counterplay for me to stop that level of domination.

It also led to tanks which were formerly plenty durable like leman russes to be outright deleted because of the massive hike in at weaponry.

Also special weapons are now often plasma if not bigger.

Which facilitates horde armies as counter.

I find Knights not to be as much a problem as previous editions. Literally in those days you could easily end in a position where 90% of your army didn't matter, and then 100% didn't matter. Now, at the very least, there's something you can do to chip them down.

My only issue with them is that their games are rather samey, because the number of knights is always the same, and the way the knights work is always the same (move to good position, shoot enough to kill one or two units, charge a third if able and kill it). Yeah, the weapons are a little different, and the stratagems vary slightly based on the house... but the overall play is very very very much the same, whether in the hands of an experienced general or a relative newcomer.

What would help that? Armigers definitely have! I like the "small Knight" feel, more like a Dreadnought than anything. To be honest, they can fail, and that's what makes them interesting. The wrong Armiger in the wrong place is a liability, and not an asset. I never feel that with big Knights.

brazenjaw, I totally relate and agree that the rock-paper-scissors in 40k can be pretty dull once you know how it works. I don't play in many tournaments either but I follow the meta very closely and I like to understand why certain matchups feel like they're screwed from the outset, which can happen a LOT with knights if you're not building specifically to deal with them, or if you play a faction that simply lacks to the tools to do so.

I noticed you're located in the Bellevue area btw, do you ever play at the Mox over there? I've played against several triple knights players at Mox and they seem pretty cool about letting people know beforehand that they're bringing knights. They always offered to take a different list if I didn't feel like playing against knights. I play daemons and eldar so knights generally aren't a problem (challenging still, but not broken), but sometimes I do want to take more casual, fluffy lists and on those days I'll just tell my opponent: no knights today please

What faction do you play?

I don't think the problem is knights being op but that the best counter to the, other lows, have been nerfed so badly. They do have weaknesses mainly scoring objectives. So just play the mission because waiting for gw to fix the rules is a waste of time. Power creep is their business model.

Gadzilla666 wrote:
I don't think the problem is knights being op but that the best counter to the, other lows, have been nerfed so badly. They do have weaknesses mainly scoring objectives. So just play the mission because waiting for gw to fix the rules is a waste of time. Power creep is their business model.

Just play the mission is also boring as feth when you can't really interact against each other and it really just comes down to having enough fodder to sit on the objectives long enough.

Not Online!!! wrote:

Gadzilla666 wrote:
I don't think the problem is knights being op but that the best counter to the, other lows, have been nerfed so badly. They do have weaknesses mainly scoring objectives. So just play the mission because waiting for gw to fix the rules is a waste of time. Power creep is their business model.

Just play the mission is also boring as feth when you can't really interact against each other and it really just comes down to having enough fodder to sit on the objectives long enough.

Agreed. That's why I'm always pushing for better points values for other lows. But if you want to be insane and invest the points like me I can tell you that knocking away a knight's invul with death hex then unloading a hellforged Cerberus or fellblade in it's face can be pretty hilarious.

Gadzilla666 wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:

Gadzilla666 wrote:
I don't think the problem is knights being op but that the best counter to the, other lows, have been nerfed so badly. They do have weaknesses mainly scoring objectives. So just play the mission because waiting for gw to fix the rules is a waste of time. Power creep is their business model.

Just play the mission is also boring as feth when you can't really interact against each other and it really just comes down to having enough fodder to sit on the objectives long enough.

Agreed. That's why I'm always pushing for better points values for other lows. But if you want to be insane and invest the points like me I can tell you that knocking away a knight's invul with death hex then unloading a hellforged Cerberus or fellblade in it's face can be pretty hilarious.

It is , as is out numbering a IG support element with CSM, especially when you recycle squad after squad.
Or running a Pack of Lord discordants with sorcerer support.

But it still doesn't make for a particular fun match.

Additionally pure Knight armies tend to be hardcounters or hardcountered. In essence the match does not even get to be played propperly.
It's my personal gripe. Just like Nulldeployment. And if there isn't really a propper match in the potential round, why bother with it?

Not Online!!! wrote:

Gadzilla666 wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:

Gadzilla666 wrote:
I don't think the problem is knights being op but that the best counter to the, other lows, have been nerfed so badly. They do have weaknesses mainly scoring objectives. So just play the mission because waiting for gw to fix the rules is a waste of time. Power creep is their business model.

Just play the mission is also boring as feth when you can't really interact against each other and it really just comes down to having enough fodder to sit on the objectives long enough.

Agreed. That's why I'm always pushing for better points values for other lows. But if you want to be insane and invest the points like me I can tell you that knocking away a knight's invul with death hex then unloading a hellforged Cerberus or fellblade in it's face can be pretty hilarious.

It is , as is out numbering a IG support element with CSM, especially when you recycle squad after squad.
Or running a Pack of Lord discordants with sorcerer support.

But it still doesn't make for a particular fun match.

Additionally pure Knight armies tend to be hardcounters or hardcountered. In essence the match does not even get to be played propperly.
It's my personal gripe. Just like Nulldeployment. And if there isn't really a propper match in the potential round, why bother with it?

I find it quite boring as well. I view mono knights and to a lesser extent tau and maybe new ih (need to see them played first) as easy buttons for new or less tactical players. They ignore whole phases of the game and in the case of knights rarely view terrain as anything but a roadblock. They make up for this with extreme firepower and resilience to damage or even acting like they're damaged when they are.

Gadzilla666 wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:

Gadzilla666 wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:

Gadzilla666 wrote:
I don't think the problem is knights being op but that the best counter to the, other lows, have been nerfed so badly. They do have weaknesses mainly scoring objectives. So just play the mission because waiting for gw to fix the rules is a waste of time. Power creep is their business model.

Just play the mission is also boring as feth when you can't really interact against each other and it really just comes down to having enough fodder to sit on the objectives long enough.

Agreed. That's why I'm always pushing for better points values for other lows. But if you want to be insane and invest the points like me I can tell you that knocking away a knight's invul with death hex then unloading a hellforged Cerberus or fellblade in it's face can be pretty hilarious.

It is , as is out numbering a IG support element with CSM, especially when you recycle squad after squad.
Or running a Pack of Lord discordants with sorcerer support.

But it still doesn't make for a particular fun match.

Additionally pure Knight armies tend to be hardcounters or hardcountered. In essence the match does not even get to be played propperly.
It's my personal gripe. Just like Nulldeployment. And if there isn't really a propper match in the potential round, why bother with it?

I find it quite boring as well. I view mono knights and to a lesser extent tau and maybe new ih (need to see them played first) as easy buttons for new or less tactical players. They ignore whole phases of the game and in the case of knights rarely view terrain as anything but a roadblock. They make up for this with extreme firepower and resilience to damage or even acting like they're damaged when they are.

You've obviously never actually tried to make mono knights lists work in a competitive setting, they only ignore the psychic phase, thry actually need to be more active in the movement phase, pick the right targets in the shooting phase and plan your chargess, pile in and consolidating, as when you army is 4/6 models you need to be moving shooting, charging every turn and trying to hold objectives when your outscored if even 1 obs sec model is alive make it very much not easy mode.

The issue us too many player's arn't acceptable to their opponents lists weaknesses and just play every game the same way.
It's a low skill floor army yes but winning with a pure list requires serious skill.
Soup lists on the other hand take a touch more skilk to build and optimise but they are easy winning after that initial skill jump.

I think this post really highlights the problem with 8th edition (and why I play tournaments).

You have to have a social contract with your opponents to play this game. A casual knight list stomps a casual list of almost any other faction. That type of hard-skew list is similar to bringing a 7 eldar flyer list. Either you have the tools to deal with it or you get stomped in an un-fun boring way. The only way to deal with it is to bring the hardest list you can or convince your opponents to play softer lists.

Mono-knights are not OP in a competitive setting. Some of the strats are (fighting at full bracket for 1 cp is just dumb, re-rolling ALL 1's for house raven) but they've been nerfed quite a bit so far. Bringing their invlun down to 4++ from 3++ has really made them less oppressive but triple knights can make for some serious "this game sucks" moments (like playing against plague bearer spam or eldar flyer spam).

Knights as an army are spam at the worst level (which is why I never leave home without a trusty slam captain or two) but they make casual 40k really tough to play without talking to your opponents first.

And if you think knights are bad, just wait until you have to play the new IH parking lot hotness (not that it will be OP in competitive settings it will ROFL crush casual tables).

But this is a feature of 8th as far as I am concerned. GW wants you to have to buy new models/rules in order to show up and have a balanced game. They don't want your army from 5th or 6th or 7th to still work (notice that some of the best performing units from previous editions are dog-gak in 8th and a lot of the OP units this edition were trash previously).

Now excuse me while I go re-paint all of my Dark Angels, Blood angels, Space wolves and Death Watch as "custom chapter X" and buy a couple of the new SM infiltrating dreads, some executioners, a new codex, and a couple supplements so I can not get embarrassed at the next game night/tournament I show up to...

bananathug wrote:
I think this post really highlights the problem with 8th edition (and why I play tournaments).

You have to have a social contract with your opponents to play this game. A casual knight list stomps a casual list of almost any other faction. That type of hard-skew list is similar to bringing a 7 eldar flyer list. Either you have the tools to deal with it or you get stomped in an un-fun boring way. The only way to deal with it is to bring the hardest list you can or convince your opponents to play softer lists.

Mono-knights are not OP in a competitive setting. Some of the strats are (fighting at full bracket for 1 cp is just dumb, re-rolling ALL 1's for house raven) but they've been nerfed quite a bit so far. Bringing their invlun down to 4++ from 3++ has really made them less oppressive but triple knights can make for some serious "this game sucks" moments (like playing against plague bearer spam or eldar flyer spam).

Knights as an army are spam at the worst level (which is why I never leave home without a trusty slam captain or two) but they make casual 40k really tough to play without talking to your opponents first.

And if you think knights are bad, just wait until you have to play the new IH parking lot hotness (not that it will be OP in competitive settings it will ROFL crush casual tables).

But this is a feature of 8th as far as I am concerned. GW wants you to have to buy new models/rules in order to show up and have a balanced game. They don't want your army from 5th or 6th or 7th to still work (notice that some of the best performing units from previous editions are dog-gak in 8th and a lot of the OP units this edition were trash previously).

Now excuse me while I go re-paint all of my Dark Angels, Blood angels, Space wolves and Death Watch as "custom chapter X" and buy a couple of the new SM infiltrating dreads, some executioners, a new codex, and a couple supplements so I can not get embarrassed at the next game night/tournament I show up to...

I agree with the sentiment.

Altough i will also point to your repainting effort as conceding Automatically

Not Online!!! wrote:

bananathug wrote:
I think this post really highlights the problem with 8th edition (and why I play tournaments).

You have to have a social contract with your opponents to play this game. A casual knight list stomps a casual list of almost any other faction. That type of hard-skew list is similar to bringing a 7 eldar flyer list. Either you have the tools to deal with it or you get stomped in an un-fun boring way. The only way to deal with it is to bring the hardest list you can or convince your opponents to play softer lists.

Mono-knights are not OP in a competitive setting. Some of the strats are (fighting at full bracket for 1 cp is just dumb, re-rolling ALL 1's for house raven) but they've been nerfed quite a bit so far. Bringing their invlun down to 4++ from 3++ has really made them less oppressive but triple knights can make for some serious "this game sucks" moments (like playing against plague bearer spam or eldar flyer spam).

Knights as an army are spam at the worst level (which is why I never leave home without a trusty slam captain or two) but they make casual 40k really tough to play without talking to your opponents first.

And if you think knights are bad, just wait until you have to play the new IH parking lot hotness (not that it will be OP in competitive settings it will ROFL crush casual tables).

But this is a feature of 8th as far as I am concerned. GW wants you to have to buy new models/rules in order to show up and have a balanced game. They don't want your army from 5th or 6th or 7th to still work (notice that some of the best performing units from previous editions are dog-gak in 8th and a lot of the OP units this edition were trash previously).

Now excuse me while I go re-paint all of my Dark Angels, Blood angels, Space wolves and Death Watch as "custom chapter X" and buy a couple of the new SM infiltrating dreads, some executioners, a new codex, and a couple supplements so I can not get embarrassed at the next game night/tournament I show up to...

I agree with the sentiment.

Altough i will also point to your repainting effort as conceding Automatically

Seconded.

Someone doesn't play competitive

Must be nice to have a LoW that costs less than 1100+ pts. And is actually good...

 flandarz wrote:
Must be nice to have a LoW that costs less than 1100+ pts. And is actually good...

Yeah my fellblade is only 917 lol.

My scorpion is 700 pts and completely poops on knights on the reg. It also just completely poops on most enemy armies in a semi-competitive environment with orions and knights and FW dreads everywhere. One of the most fun LoW units you can buy IMHO.

 slave.entity wrote:
My scorpion is 700 pts and completely poops on knights on the reg. It also just completely poops on most enemy armies in a semi-competitive environment with orions and knights and FW dreads everywhere. One of the most fun LoW units you can buy IMHO.

Brass scorpion?