PDA

View Full Version : Knights for casual play?



Diogenes
28-05-2016, 04:58
I'm really liking the renegade box set, and I'm thinking about building an exalted court. The question I have is do you think people are going to be interested in casual pickup games against them? What's your local game scene like in this regard? If somebody showed up with knights to a LGS do you think people would whine about playing pickup games against them? Have knights gained more acceptance now that they're more common?

Latro_
28-05-2016, 07:26
Normally we ask if a super heavy is in play.
If someone brought a knight army it'd probably be pre-planned and known about but i doubt anyone would mind 'giving it a go' if it was straight pickup.

Lord Damocles
28-05-2016, 07:32
I wouldn't expect many people to be over keen on 'giving it a go' more than once though, unless they've tailored against it.

Casper Hawser
28-05-2016, 09:36
I played against a list with a couple of them and it was a close game but I new I'd be facing them a week earlier so had tailored my list appropriately. I don't know where I'd begin writing a list to face five imperial Knights mainly because I don't spam units.
I'd say get the game and just run one or two unless you play tournaments regularly then go for it as I'm sure you'll come across tougher lists than 5 Knights.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Dosiere
28-05-2016, 12:38
I probably wouldn't play that game unless I had the opportunity to tailor a list to a certain degree. It's not about the principle of the thing, it's just that there would be little point to playing out the game with my typical "all-comers" type of list. Knights are a thing, and I build to handle 1 or 2 if they show up, but not an entire army of them. It's the kind of game that might be a fun one-off thing, but would get old real quick.

Zustiur
28-05-2016, 15:19
I would decline. I've never enjoyed a game that involved super heavies or gargantuan creatures.

sent via tapatalk

stroller
28-05-2016, 15:27
For a pickup game I'd decline. I typically run one - maybe two units that could dent a knight. I'd expect them to be target 1 (and 2), and when they'd gone, effective game over. Can't see much fun in that.

Re-reading, realising we're talking about *5* knights. The words "off" and/or "No, thanks" might well be part of a fairly brief discussion.

insectum7
28-05-2016, 20:14
My typical game size is 1850. I'm ok with a Knight or two once you hit 1500ish, the game plays best when it's not all about a single model or unit. I've been including Drop Pod Meltas in nearly every list for a few years now in order to have some counter to super-heavies. I half expect that facing against my typical army is not fun for an opponent relying on a Superheavy or two.

Fighting against more than one or two Knights tends to be just boooorriiing, regardless of who is winning.

Maidel
28-05-2016, 22:19
It's a legitimate standard army?

Surely refusing is like refusing to play orks just cos your army isn't tailored for them?

jbeil
28-05-2016, 22:23
It's a legitimate standard army?

Surely refusing is like refusing to play orks just cos your army isn't tailored for them?

True, but there's nothing in the Ork book that could be indestructible for a generic all-comers list. Knights can be.

Diogenes
28-05-2016, 23:16
True, but there's nothing in the Ork book that could be indestructible for a generic all-comers list. Knights can be.

If knights are a standard list then is it really a "take all comers" list?

Maidel
28-05-2016, 23:44
If knights are a standard list then is it really a "take all comers" list?


Exactly! When something changes in the meta, you have to adapt. It's exactly this sort of change that can affect all armies, when people have to play for knights as a possible opponent they gave to change other options, which then means they aren't as specialised against another army.

I'd be horrified if I turned up with a beautifully painted knight army (which is bloody expensive as well!) and no one would play me.

I hate painting large models so id never do it, but that shouldn't mean other people can't.

insectum7
28-05-2016, 23:54
If knights are a standard list then is it really a "take all comers" list?

Probably not a "generic take all comers list." Superheavies lie outside what many consider "generic".

Yes, your army should have a way to handle vehicles. That's pretty standard. It's also true that Knights are just bigger vehicles, and their armor is only 13 at max. Armies should be expected to be able to handle Armor like that.

The problem is more that Knights don't suffer damage in the same way as other vehicles. A Leman Russ Squadron can be shaken and reduced to only Snap Firing, or attacked effectively in Close Combat by fairly normal troops. These extra little differences make Knights largely immune to a lot of "normal" AT tactics, and it makes it harder for certain armies to grapple with them.

de Selby
28-05-2016, 23:56
typically when people say take all comers they have in mind taking a variety of units that can fight all kinds of enemy units. they don't mean their list will beat all other lists, or even have an equal chance against all lists. most codices can't even build a list like that without allies.

five knights is too many for me. I can handle one, or two with tailoring, or more if I went out and bought different models.

Maidel
29-05-2016, 00:30
typically when people say take all comers they have in mind taking a variety of units that can fight all kinds of enemy units. they don't mean their list will beat all other lists, or even have an equal chance against all lists. most codices can't even build a list like that without allies.

five knights is too many for me. I can handle one, or two with tailoring, or more if I went out and bought different models.

But isn't that a fault of your army build? I'm not criticising, I just mean that your army is geared to what you expect to come across. However if more people play the knight army, more people will have to adapt.

Also people keep saying ' I can't handle 5'. Not all games involve taking down everything the enemy throws at you. Some battles gave different victory conditions and out manoeuvring an army with 5 models should be bloody easy.

librisrouge
29-05-2016, 01:39
Part of it is your meta. I have a positively brutal one here and rarely do well, even with five knights at 1850. My IG does just as well. Of course, at my store, any list that calls itself take-all-comers but can't flatten at least 3 knights is laughable.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

insectum7
29-05-2016, 01:59
But isn't that a fault of your army build? I'm not criticising, I just mean that your army is geared to what you expect to come across. However if more people play the knight army, more people will have to adapt.

Also people keep saying ' I can't handle 5'. Not all games involve taking down everything the enemy throws at you. Some battles gave different victory conditions and out manoeuvring an army with 5 models should be bloody easy.

It's not necessarily that an army/player can't handle a bunch of Knights. It's that an army of 5 Knights is half chore, half bore to play against. I'm rather certain my TAC, competitive list could favorably compete against a 5 Knight army. But because Knights are immune to so much, they wind up being tactically simple. There's not a lot of give and take between players. It's just not very fun/interesting.

Diogenes
29-05-2016, 04:27
typically when people say take all comers they have in mind taking a variety of units that can fight all kinds of enemy units. they don't mean their list will beat all other lists, or even have an equal chance against all lists. most codices can't even build a list like that without allies.

five knights is too many for me. I can handle one, or two with tailoring, or more if I went out and bought different models.

I think that's the reason they shake up the meta, make new armies, release new models, and change edition- to make you go out and buy new models.

Casper Hawser
29-05-2016, 08:26
But isn't that a fault of your army build? I'm not criticising, I just mean that your army is geared to what you expect to come across. However if more people play the knight army, more people will have to adapt.

Also people keep saying ' I can't handle 5'. Not all games involve taking down everything the enemy throws at you. Some battles gave different victory conditions and out manoeuvring an army with 5 models should be bloody easy.

I suppose it depends on your army I expect if your playing Eldar with skimmers and bikes it wouldn't be a problem. If your running an infantry list out manoeuvring 5 knights that can move 12 inches would be a problem.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Splen
29-05-2016, 08:45
Sounds like a fun challenge, I'd give it a go. If you do it maybe suggest playing maelstrom missions so that the opponent has the opportunity to go for points and get a 'technical' victory without necessarily having to deal with all five knights head on? I think if someone brought more that a couple of knights to my local club or store they would get some sideways glances and have the **** taken out of them a bit for 'power gaming' (all in the spirit of fun of course!) but I don't think they'd struggle to get a game. Maybe not with the same person more than a couple of times but who wants to play the same army every time anyway?

One other piece of advice: I really suggest you should try to paint them to the best standard you can manage. If it's obvious someone has pulled out all the stops hobby-wise people don't seem so likely to accuse them of just buying the win. Also it definitely hurts less to be beaten by a beautifully painted/modelled army!

Maidel
29-05-2016, 09:17
I suppose it depends on your army I expect if your playing Eldar with skimmers and bikes it wouldn't be a problem. If your running an infantry list out manoeuvring 5 knights that can move 12 inches would be a problem.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

But they can only be in 5 places at once.

My infantry guard army has 9 infantry squads and 3 infantry command squads as well as 6 heavy weapons teams, 3 sentinels, rough riders... Those 5 knights might well be able to move 12, but they can't be in 3 places at once.

Casper Hawser
29-05-2016, 09:40
But they can only be in 5 places at once.

My infantry guard army has 9 infantry squads and 3 infantry command squads as well as 6 heavy weapons teams, 3 sentinels, rough riders... Those 5 knights might well be able to move 12, but they can't be in 3 places at once.

How have they performed against 5 Knights?
Don't get me wrong I never turn down a game and I never judge people for what army they bring or like. One of my most common opponents plays Mech Eldar with bikes and Wraith Knight it's a knightmare to play against using any of my 3 40k armies (chaos marines/daemons and Blood Angels) or my Horus Heresy legion (World Eaters) but I never say no I just see it as a challenge. Compared to them I see imperial Knights as mildly annoying.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

de Selby
29-05-2016, 14:02
I think that's the reason they shake up the meta, make new armies, release new models, and change edition- to make you go out and buy new models.

The irony is I like buying new models. But I'm not going to go out and buy a new army to kill 5 knights (or more generally, to fight some of the even more extreme, heavily optimised armies that are possible now). It'll look weird and I won't enjoy painting it (I spend more time painting than I do gaming) and it'll be very expensive (big expensive new models at low points costs) and it'll be invalidated/sub-optimal again within a year.

Fithos
29-05-2016, 19:15
But they can only be in 5 places at once.

My infantry guard army has 9 infantry squads and 3 infantry command squads as well as 6 heavy weapons teams, 3 sentinels, rough riders... Those 5 knights might well be able to move 12, but they can't be in 3 places at once.
With objective secured which they get in their detachment, the most they would ever need to be is 6 places at once and that's assuming they happened to draw secure objective 1-6 all in one turn. I would say 5 places at once is generally quite sufficient for objective games.

Of course I would still play it with my AM. We are one of the armies that can actually hurt a knight with every unit we field. Other armies though like dark eldar or tyranids might as well just pack up.

Sent from my SCH-R970 using Tapatalk

Maidel
29-05-2016, 19:48
How have they performed against 5 Knights?
Don't get me wrong I never turn down a game and I never judge people for what army they bring or like. One of my most common opponents plays Mech Eldar with bikes and Wraith Knight it's a knightmare to play against using any of my 3 40k armies (chaos marines/daemons and Blood Angels) or my Horus Heresy legion (World Eaters) but I never say no I just see it as a challenge. Compared to them I see imperial Knights as mildly annoying.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I've never tried.

I only play it because I like it, I dont expect to win with it.

I think that's the difference, is if you play to win, or play to have fun.

de Selby
29-05-2016, 20:11
I play to have fun but I don't see the point if I know we'Re going to call it on turn two. We might as well call it on turn zero and have time to do something else, since I only play once a week. I've played against two and just played it out to see how many I could kill before I was tabled (only one) but I'd rather have a proper game.

I do understand why someone would build a knight household. it's one of the more powerful armies that actually has a good theme. but it should be up against something on the same level.

Maidel
29-05-2016, 20:25
Then the points are wrong. 1500 pts is 1500 pts. If that's not equal, then it's wrong.

thanoson
29-05-2016, 20:51
Exactly! When something changes in the meta, you have to adapt. It's exactly this sort of change that can affect all armies, when people have to play for knights as a possible opponent they gave to change other options, which then means they aren't as specialised against another army.

I'd be horrified if I turned up with a beautifully painted knight army (which is bloody expensive as well!) and no one would play me.

I hate painting large models so id never do it, but that shouldn't mean other people can't.

So then, to make sure you can play your beautiful knight list, maybe you should ask around say a week ahead of time or allow somebody to make a list to face it? Because contrary to popular (knight player) beliefs, they are not a balanced army to fight against. Their special rules and immunities to normal army rules means that most codex or casual list are not equipped to face that. Yes, some have ways of dealing with a super heavy list (marine, tau, eldar) But that's not always the case. Just discuss it ahead of time and don't try to "Suprise, Knight list sucka" them to death.

de Selby
29-05-2016, 21:04
I reckon the points are wrong. It's hard to balance extreme specialisation anyway but gw isn't really trying right now.

a note: I think you can get five in 1850 but only 4 in 1500. Only 3 could actually be a more dangerous army because you could fit in o her powerful stuff you might want.

Maidel
29-05-2016, 21:39
So then, to make sure you can play your beautiful knight list, maybe you should ask around say a week ahead of time or allow somebody to make a list to face it? Because contrary to popular (knight player) beliefs, they are not a balanced army to fight against. Their special rules and immunities to normal army rules means that most codex or casual list are not equipped to face that. Yes, some have ways of dealing with a super heavy list (marine, tau, eldar) But that's not always the case. Just discuss it ahead of time and don't try to "Suprise, Knight list sucka" them to death.

You did read the part where I said 'I hate large models' and thus this would never be my army?

Most people in casual games don't have the ability to plan a week in advance, for me there is no issue with someone doing this. People want to blame gw for creating an unbalanced list, perhaps people need to look at their own finely tuned army list which minces up other people's armies, but can't take on Knights.

It all goes in circles, anyone who is an mtg player will know all about a constantly changing meta where every week there can be an evolving game and 'I win' decks are out of date the next time you play.

If people start tooling up for Knights, then it leaves then open (possibly) to hoard lists, which are in turn crushed by Knights, I personally don't see this as a problem.

thanoson
29-05-2016, 21:54
But they can only be in 5 places at once.

My infantry guard army has 9 infantry squads and 3 infantry command squads as well as 6 heavy weapons teams, 3 sentinels, rough riders... Those 5 knights might well be able to move 12, but they can't be in 3 places at once.

So, my experience against knight list using bugs and daemons go like this: Mostly nurgle daemon list has no shooting save my soulgrinders. I'm not shooting 1 down in a turn. So, I need to get in hth combat to destroy one. However, he's probably swinging the D and has stomp attacks. Unless I have a Dprince with armorbane, I don't dare place my MC's in hth with a knight because the D. My plaguebearers can do it, But with the stomps and D, they normally get beat, causing Instability test. Poof, there goes more of my squad. The only thing that can really damage a knight. Now, say I actually beat one in hth. Yay! Except he now explodes, killing one of my units that can kill a knight. And anything else close by. Rinse and repeat 4 more times. Keep in mind, I'm being double battlecannoned by each one every turn. There is no stunning, there is no immobilizing them. They can march right in and get into hth hoping to blow up.

Now, by bugs are a little better because they can use flyrants, carnies and Zoanthropes. At best, I'm hoping to kill 1 a turn, but carnies fall victim just like my daemons. That leaves zoeys and flyrants to do all the work while everything else in my army is useless. A few successful charge, explosions and it will cripple my list. Not to mention, still being battlecannoned.

The key to beating a knight list is range. Grav, melta, D, and even Hive guard haywire all work great; From a distance. Much different when you have to do it in hth. Bigger risk and you'll probably lose that squad anyway.

thanoson
29-05-2016, 22:03
You did read the part where I said 'I hate large models' and thus this would never be my army?

Most people in casual games don't have the ability to plan a week in advance, for me there is no issue with someone doing this. People want to blame gw for creating an unbalanced list, perhaps people need to look at their own finely tuned army list which minces up other people's armies, but can't take on Knights.

It all goes in circles, anyone who is an mtg player will know all about a constantly changing meta where every week there can be an evolving game and 'I win' decks are out of date the next time you play.

If people start tooling up for Knights, then it leaves then open (possibly) to hoard lists, which are in turn crushed by Knights, I personally don't see this as a problem.

This is not MTG and GW has stated that things aren't balanced before. This is supposed to be a narrative game where you discuss things with your blokes ahead of time and have a fun game. Also, I was responding to your use of "If I had a beautifully painted up Knight army" etc, etc, something like that. Like I said, discuss 1st and let your opponent make a more balanced list against knights and nobody would mind. It's the gotcha that rubs folks the wrong way. And I've seen guys smile their asses off as they unveil their big surprise against an opponent.

Clang
29-05-2016, 22:17
Good: "I'll be bringing my 5 Knight army next week if anyone wants a game." (And remember to smile when That Guy brings his Knight-killing army.)

Bad: "Okay, random stranger, let's deploy our armies and start playing. My first unit is...a Knight - ha ha." "My next unit is...another Knight - ha ha ha." "My next unit is...yet another Knight - ha ha ha ha - want to forfeit the game yet?" And so on.

thanoson
29-05-2016, 22:31
Good: "I'll be bringing my 5 Knight army next week if anyone wants a game." (And remember to smile when That Guy brings his Knight-killing army.)

Bad: "Okay, random stranger, let's deploy our armies and start playing. My first unit is...a Knight - ha ha." "My next unit is...another Knight - ha ha ha." "My next unit is...yet another Knight - ha ha ha ha - want to forfeit the game yet?" And so on.

Lol. But the knight player shouldn't mind the 1st one since he thinks everything is balanced and fun. wink

Maidel
29-05-2016, 23:50
This is not MTG and GW has stated that things aren't balanced before. This is supposed to be a narrative game where you discuss things with your blokes ahead of time and have a fun game. Also, I was responding to your use of "If I had a beautifully painted up Knight army" etc, etc, something like that. Like I said, discuss 1st and let your opponent make a more balanced list against knights and nobody would mind. It's the gotcha that rubs folks the wrong way. And I've seen guys smile their asses off as they unveil their big surprise against an opponent.

Who said anything about 'smile and laugh'.

Clearly when the guy asks for a game he tells people what he is playing.

I'd play him with any of my armies, who cares? I'd probably lose, but heck, my armies are made to be fluffy, not conpetative.

I'd love to see where gw said it wasn't balanced, because that would completely undermine the concept of points and tournaments.

de Selby
30-05-2016, 00:21
If people start tooling up for Knights, then it leaves then open (possibly) to hoard lists, which are in turn crushed by Knights, I personally don't see this as a problem.

I do see this as a problem. So the games you're describing have all been decided in the purchasing phase, that's not much fun.

I also think you're way off imagining that people don't want to play lots of knights because they're used to crushing their opponents. that's not what a balanced, take all comers list is supposed to do. the people who will have no trouble with knights are the ones with crusher lists of their own.

Maidel
30-05-2016, 00:38
I do see this as a problem. So the games you're describing have all been decided in the purchasing phase, that's not much fun.

I also think you're way off imagining that people don't want to play lots of knights because they're used to crushing their opponents. that's not what a balanced, take all comers list is supposed to do. the people who will have no trouble with knights are the ones with crusher lists of their own.

No, I clearly didn't explain that well.


What I mean is that the game can be broken down in to concepts like 'firepower' 'assault' 'horde' 'elite' etc. In most circumstances each concept does very well against another one, but will do hideously against a third. So people either find a 'glitch' they can exploit or they builds balanced army list. The thing is that 'balance' changes as the meta changes, and so you have to adapt.

You describe it as the 'purchasing phase' which for me has always been the 'army building phase' and that's a valid part of the game. You can't turn up with 1500pts of rhinos and expect to win a game, it's always been like that.

For me this would be an opportunity, not an issue. Peoples 'all comer' lists adapt to include more anti-knight weapons and then lose something else, well what was that something else doing? Find out and adapt into that now exposed weakness.

To me all this seems like is people moaning that the exact army build they gave been using for x-years now no longer works, it just feels like sour grapes.

thanoson
30-05-2016, 01:06
Who said anything about 'smile and laugh'.

Clearly when the guy asks for a game he tells people what he is playing.

I'd play him with any of my armies, who cares? I'd probably lose, but heck, my armies are made to be fluffy, not conpetative.

I'd love to see where gw said it wasn't balanced, because that would completely undermine the concept of points and tournaments.

Tournaments for the longest time were shunned by GW because people kept complaining about broken list and codex balance. There used to be big complaints on their boards about this and GW used to say this was never intended for tournament play.

de Selby
30-05-2016, 01:20
I started writing long a reply but I'm on my phone so I'm gonna leave it:p

To the op : I wouldn't see much point in starting a game against a knight household using the models I currently have to work with. So you may hit people like me when looking for pick up games.

thanoson
30-05-2016, 01:20
No, I clearly didn't explain that well.


What I mean is that the game can be broken down in to concepts like 'firepower' 'assault' 'horde' 'elite' etc. In most circumstances each concept does very well against another one, but will do hideously against a third. So people either find a 'glitch' they can exploit or they builds balanced army list. The thing is that 'balance' changes as the meta changes, and so you have to adapt.

You describe it as the 'purchasing phase' which for me has always been the 'army building phase' and that's a valid part of the game. You can't turn up with 1500pts of rhinos and expect to win a game, it's always been like that.

For me this would be an opportunity, not an issue. Peoples 'all comer' lists adapt to include more anti-knight weapons and then lose something else, well what was that something else doing? Find out and adapt into that now exposed weakness.

To me all this seems like is people moaning that the exact army build they gave been using for x-years now no longer works, it just feels like sour grapes.

Or, it could be that super heavies and gargantuans that were strictly Apoc only are now being shoehorned into a system that was not meant to face those 2 things on a regular basis only to increase sells in those things. In Apoc, I can understand playing those things as the immunities they have are offset with appropriate list and weapons that can match them. In other words, you expect that in a Apoc game. In a 40k game, that same list has major immunities that your average army does not have. SM, Eldar and tau excluded. Hell, I'll add Crons in there too, as even the basic trooper has a chance to do damage. However, unless the opponent makes a boring lance/heavy weapon/flyer list, the match goes to the superheavy/Gargantuan list most of the time because of the inherent immunities they possess.

Maidel
30-05-2016, 07:51
Or, it could be that super heavies and gargantuans that were strictly Apoc only are now being shoehorned into a system that was not meant to face those 2 things on a regular basis only to increase sells in those things. In Apoc, I can understand playing those things as the immunities they have are offset with appropriate list and weapons that can match them. In other words, you expect that in a Apoc game. In a 40k game, that same list has major immunities that your average army does not have. SM, Eldar and tau excluded. Hell, I'll add Crons in there too, as even the basic trooper has a chance to do damage. However, unless the opponent makes a boring lance/heavy weapon/flyer list, the match goes to the superheavy/Gargantuan list most of the time because of the inherent immunities they possess.

And so when people make a list like that, it opens up possibilities for other lists that wouldn't have had as much chance before.

I'm going round in circles here. Everyone who disagrees with me is basically saying 'Knights are bad because the army I have been using for years doesn't work against them.'

Cybtroll
30-05-2016, 08:54
I instead love Knight, because they are the perfect antidote to the spamming of a single unit and to the death star unit that, in my opinion, are the thing that really makes the game boring (in the first case) or a waste of time (in the latter).

To be clear, I play Deathwing. I'm currently building an exalted house for the fluff, but if I find an opponent that is playing knight, I'll be happy to play against him (and so anyone in my meta. Even if the are some armies like the renegade guard that will simply lock you in close combat forever and win easily).

BUT, as already said, I will require the army to be painted. I play Deathwing because I'm lazy, and that's the only army I have been able to fully paint.
There is no possible excuses for playing an unpainted 5 model army.

[About balancing, I have always considered a single Knight equivalent of 3 Dreadnought with a twin linked cannon. Never understood why people ***** in their pants]

Lord Damocles
30-05-2016, 10:09
[About balancing, I have always considered a single Knight equivalent of 3 Dreadnought with a twin linked cannon. Never understood why people ***** in their pants]
Because the Knight is tougher, much faster, and probably puts out more damage..?

Casper Hawser
30-05-2016, 10:32
Pts wise your pretty much spot on with 3 dreads + twin linked autocannons being the same as a Knight. But an Imperial Knight will put out a hell of a lot more firepower than the Dreads and in assault with D strength attacks and stomp will annihilate units where the Dreads would probably kill 1 or 2 on average.
It would be nice to see on table 2000 pts worth of Dreads vs 2000pts of Knights but my money would be on the Knights and I don't think it would be a close game.
I don't think it's about s#\+ing your pants it's knowing you only have 2 or 3 units being able to hurt a knight. So once there gone the Knights just have to mop up. If you know your playing Knights you can make sure your list has plenty of weapons that can hurt the knight.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

MasterCrafted
30-05-2016, 13:16
I'm quite glad none of this really effects me, as I've never faced an knight or any superheavy for that matter and probably never will. I play in a kind of 5th/6th edition bubble where such things only exist in epic where they belong. Im pretty sure my whole army would struggle to kill one knight over the course of a game, let alone multiples of them.

Sent from my SM-T310 using Tapatalk

insectum7
30-05-2016, 14:27
[About balancing, I have always considered a single Knight equivalent of 3 Dreadnought with a twin linked cannon. Never understood why people ***** in their pants]

You could shoot a few heavy weapons at the Dreds and cause in-game effects. A Devastator Squad with four lascannons can kill one of those Dreadnoughts, or immobilize it or keep it from firing at full capacity. A single squad with a Lascannon or Melta has a significant chance of doing damage that will affect the next game turn. If you are pressed elsewhere on the board, and you only have a couple weapons to spare to face the Dreds, you still feel like you can do something. Imagine three Dreds coming at you and you have four units with anti tank weapons. (Say, four Tac squads with Lascannons) You could fire the first squad and shake one Dred, second squad Immobilizes the next Dred, the next Squad misses, and the last squad knocks a weapon off the last Dreadnought. You've gone and cut the Dreds damage output significantly, and bought yourself a little time.

Against a Knight a couple heavy weapons have no effect other than counting down hull points, and the Knight just goes off and does what it's going to do. Damage to a Knight has no effect until it explodes.

You can also engage a Drednought in CC and if it blows up on you, it's not so terrible. Superheavy Explosion results can do a ton of damage.

Fangschrecken
30-05-2016, 15:32
And so when people make a list like that, it opens up possibilities for other lists that wouldn't have had as much chance before.

I'm going round in circles here. Everyone who disagrees with me is basically saying 'Knights are bad because the army I have been using for years doesn't work against them.'

Personally I don't like to see more than one gargantuan or super heavy because my TAC list can't handle that, and I'm pretty sure most people in my gaming group can't either (apart from necrons). Maybe because our games are randomly assigned. As in a certain number or people show up and we all draw for our opponent. I really wouldn't like for my one game a week to be against something that I've got no serious hope of beating.

I also realize that the game isn't well balanced but I'd like to have some glimmer of hope. Against an all knights list my standard TAC list will struggle because I don't have the models available to deal with them. In 1500pts I've got three units that can reliably hurt large vehicles and that's typically sufficient for most games, but against all knights they may take down one or two and them get killed. leaving me with nothing to fight back with except three units that may be able to plink off a couple hull points if I get lucky.

Basically, once my anti-tank guys are dead if they haven't taken out enough knights I may as well concede. And with four knights pounding my lines that's probably going to be by turn 2 or 3. Which them means my one game a week has ended fairly early in a decisive loss and that isn't fun. If I got matched against such a list the following week or later I might just not play and chit-chat with the store owner and go home early. I'm honestly getting a little depressed just thinking about such a series of events. I really don't want to have to go and buy more and different models just so I can beat a single list. I don't have the time or money for that...

The Highlander
30-05-2016, 16:17
And so when people make a list like that, it opens up possibilities for other lists that wouldn't have had as much chance before.

I'm going round in circles here. Everyone who disagrees with me is basically saying 'Knights are bad because the army I have been using for years doesn't work against them.'

The big problem with knights is that unlike other armies they are immune to a very large proportion of units, and capable of effortlessly destroying most things very quickly. Most other armies can at least be hurt by normal units (even if the chances are slim) but unless you have strength 7 or some special rule then your troops are reduced to spectators. Playing against a powerful list can be fun, but watching as your army is slaughtered without being able to fight back is not.

Again, knights are a very specific type of army and unless you are lucky enough to have lots of weapons that can easily kill them (such as eldar D weapons) then most lists would not stand a chance. Brining one knight as part of a larger army is fine for casual play, but if you want to bring a whole army of them I would so that is something that should be arraigned in advance to give your opponent a sporting chance.

Theocracity
31-05-2016, 14:47
I feel like the best way to play a Knight Household is to lean into the narrative aspect over the pick-up game aspect. The nature of the army means that you're going to have limited opportunities for evenly matched games in a standard environment, so it might be better to construct scenarios outside of the standard rulebook that even things up a bit.

You could give your opponent advantages (endless reserve replacement units, fortifications, orbital bombardments, mercenary help), or you could give your Knights disadvantages (not all of them show up at once, they have to complete a mini game on certain objectives, they suffer vehicle damage, if any Knights die you lose, etc).

You could also build out the whole chivalric nature of Knights, and give each of them character rules that aren't necessarily beneficial - they have to abide by a code of honor, or have a rivalry with another knight, or are secretly a traitor who could flip to your opponent during the game. You could also play them like they were a ongoing campaign - if a Knight is lost, you can't use them in the following games, until finally the last one falls and their quest is complete.

Comrade Penguin
31-05-2016, 16:09
Knights are one of the reasons I stopped playing 40k in the first place. At one point I plan on returning to the game (fingers crossed for 8th), but when I do I will refuse any game with superheavies unless I can specifically tailor my list against it. I would refuse to play any game with more than 1 superheavy as well.

I know this sounds a little extreme, but I really have no interest in playing a game where I have literately zero chance of winning. I don't play Eldar, Tau, or Marines. I run Orks, Nids, and Demons. So most of my army cannot even dent a superheavy, and the units that can are sub-par and will likely be the first to die.

Now I am not a WAAC player, and I don't mind losing. Some of my best games have been close loses that came down to the wire. But when I play I want to kill things, not plink away at unkillable robots before I am wiped from the board. There is a reason many people say they like playing against orks. Even if you lose to them you are still killing tons of models. Victories against knights are just plain boring since you may only kill 1-2 models.

Mandragola
31-05-2016, 17:04
I took 4 knights in a 1500 point hardcore tournament last year, the qualifier for the UKGT. I hadn't been practicing and the first games I'd played all year were at the event itself. As it happens I qualified by getting nominated as one of the best painted armies so the outcome of the games wasn't relevant, but it does mean I can comment on playing with them. Actually I did also do well enough to qualify from the games I played, despite having had literally no practice at all and being pretty flaky on the rules for 7th edition. And all my opponents qualified as well, so I definitely didn't get an easy draw.

So to be totally clear, no, I do not think that 5 knights can ever be reasonable in a casual pick up game. You will just trounce everyone. Yes, everyone... unless they also have knights. My 4 knights won two of the 6 games at the qualifier by tabling my opponent without suffering any casualties, and one of those guys had 3 wraithknights of his own (I went first...).

The only thing that I lost to were warp spiders before I figured out how to deal with them (never shoot at them, charge with a castigator) and obsec scatterbikes. I beat everyone who didn't bring knights or wraithknights of their own. I drew one game against another guy with 4 knights.

You can talk all day about what the game ought to be like in theory. But the reality is that taking an all-knight list will not lead to fun nights out for you at your games club, so it is not a good investment for you. Sure, there ought to be such a thing as a balanced take all comers list that's also fluffy. An all-knight list is fluffy, but it is neither balanced or take all comers. Just as there are often fluffy lists that don't work on the table, an all-knight army is a fluffy list that works too well.

Honestly, take one knight, or maybe two, and some other stuff. Other stuff is cool, not just knights. Get some skitarii or some guard to run around them, hold objectives and do some slightly different things. It will make your army more interesting and you'll have more fun.

Tokamak
31-05-2016, 22:01
Never played with knights on a table. Disappointing to hear they're so strong because I was planning on taking some. I hoped for some major Achilles heel or something.

Is tailoring lists against them difficult? For example, does a Gorkanaut or Morkanaut stand any chance at all? How do flyers compare against them?


You could give your opponent advantages (endless reserve replacement units, fortifications, orbital bombardments, mercenary help), or you could give your Knights disadvantages (not all of them show up at once, they have to complete a mini game on certain objectives, they suffer vehicle damage, if any Knights die you lose, etc).

You could also build out the whole chivalric nature of Knights, and give each of them character rules that aren't necessarily beneficial - they have to abide by a code of honor, or have a rivalry with another knight, or are secretly a traitor who could flip to your opponent during the game. You could also play them like they were a ongoing campaign - if a Knight is lost, you can't use them in the following games, until finally the last one falls and their quest is complete.

I love that though playing with such drastic self-made house rules doesn't feel right. Are there any examples online that my opponent and I could agree on?

Theocracity
31-05-2016, 22:46
I love that though playing with such drastic self-made house rules doesn't feel right. Are there any examples online that my opponent and I could agree on?

I haven't seen any, though I also haven't gone looking for them as I don't play Knights. I might tool around with work shopping some though - I like the idea behind a Chivalry-based scenario pack.

As far as whether those sort of house rules feel right - I feel like running Knight-only lists can severely limit the number of opponents who would have fun playing a game with you. If giving yourself story-based disadvantages can improve the quality of life for your opponents, it's a beneficial trade for both parties (unless your opponent is the type to think that taking a handicap is somehow insulting the competition, rather than an honest reflection of the wonky state of the game).

Plus, if the disadvantages are characterful and entertaining, you can have fun even if they hinder you in game. I feel like designing Knight Household scenario rules should lean towards taking more disadvantages in exchange for more fun character moments.

Or to put it another way, it should be like playing Orks - as long as you get a chance to yell WAAAGH! and get in a fight, it doesn't matter if you win or lose.

Comrade Penguin
01-06-2016, 15:01
Is tailoring lists against them difficult? For example, does a Gorkanaut or Morkanaut stand any chance at all? How do flyers compare against them?


Hehehehahah that's a good one. The Gork and Morkanauts would hit a knight like a wet paper bag before being swatted off the board. Maybe if you had 2-3 nauts attack a knight at once you might stand a chance. But there really is no comparison when you factor the points cost of both units. The orks really have no answer to knights unless the completely list tailor and take nothing but tank bustas.

To the OP: During 4th edition there was an IG list called armored company that allowed you to take nothing but tanks. It was fluffy and there were built in rules that allowed anyone to glance the tanks even if their strength normally would not be high enough. A guy at my shop put together an armored company list, and he got people to play him a single time. After one game people would politely refuse.

I feel like you would run into the same issue. People may agree to try it once, but you probably would not have many repeat opponents.

insectum7
01-06-2016, 16:28
Is tailoring lists against them difficult? For example, does a Gorkanaut or Morkanaut stand any chance at all? How do flyers compare against them?


It really, really depends on what army you are using. Marines have Drop Pod Melta Squads and it's an easy way to take Knights off the table if you commit to them. I've fought Knights, Warhounds and Reaver Titans with Drop Melta Squads and it's all gone pretty swimmingly. I'm sure Fire Dragons can do something similar. But an army like Orks? I'm sure they can handle a Knight or two, but it tends to take a lot of bodies as far as i can tell, and the attrition from Stomps and explosions will grind them down I think. Dark Eldar are lacking in the anti-Knight department. Basically, there are some armies with an obvious counter, and there are some armies where, if everything goes perfectly you can handle some number of them, but will otherwise have to avoid the fight, bog them down or get around them by some other means.

Tokamak
01-06-2016, 17:58
I'm mostly asking because I would want any second army to be able to handle knights really well. But if I hear that the toughest units from other races struggle against these knights I do believe that GW really messed up.

I mean look at those giant Tyranid gribblies, or the Tau Stormsurge, or any of the the Baneblade variants. There's got to be so equally valid and fun answers. I know it's stupid to go by visuals alone but if the game is about miniatures then surely being able to intuitively what each model is capable of depending on it's looks should be part of GW's responsibility?

Maybe the next edition will be able to calibrate the super-heavies so each of them have valid counters.

daveNYC
01-06-2016, 18:21
Never played with knights on a table. Disappointing to hear they're so strong because I was planning on taking some. I hoped for some major Achilles heel or something.

Is tailoring lists against them difficult? For example, does a Gorkanaut or Morkanaut stand any chance at all? How do flyers compare against them?


Depends on what army you're running. As others have mentioned, podded melta will do great. Heck, you can throw that against a battle titan and come out depressingly ahead. And then on the other hand, you've got Dark Eldar, who would have to bring as many lances as possible, all of which would be on T3 or AV tissue paper models, and even then it'd be iffy.

Which I think is the issue with all-knight armies. You can either bring a generic all-comers, which won't work, since a good chunk of the tools in the all-comers list won't do anything, or you can tailor, which means that if you're doing a random game night, you might be crimping yourself to the point where you will struggle hard against non-knight armies. And worse, if you tailor, you can (depending) tailor enough that the knight player doesn't have any fun. Podded melta again, you bring enough of that and your opponent's models won't last more than a turn or two. That's not fun either.

Mandragola
01-06-2016, 18:29
Stormsurges and wraithknights are able to compete with knights. Both have something that knights lack - ranged D. Lots of ranged D is pretty effective against knights, as you can imagine. Tau and Eldar are both able to take more than one of these, as a bonus.

On the other hand, some stuff just isn't as good as you'd imagine. A Shadowsword is meant to have an incredibly badass titan-killing gun but actually, unless you get that 6, it's not all that much of a threat to a knight with its shield in the right direction.

But the biggest problem is stuff that's not intended to kill knights. In any normal army designed for playing random opponents you need stuff in there to hurt infantry. So you stock up on dakka, or you get melee units or whatever. And knights just ignore these things completely. That means a major section out of any normal army just does't work against knights at all. The knights only have to compete against the rest of the army.

Then there's obviously the issue that the knights are pretty destructive things, capable of destroying lots of the things that can hurt them before anything bad happens. So the enemy army gets disarmed, then the harmless remainder get slaughtered.

Where I've used knights in non-tournament settings it honestly hasn't been pretty. I went to this campaign weekend at warhammer world a week after the original errant and paladin were released, with one of each of them. They stomped all over everything all weekend. I felt particularly bad because the last game was against a guy who'd come all the way from Poland for the weekend and it was a complete mismatch. Not fun for either of us, and that was just two knights in a 3000 point game (though admittedly I also had a Typhon, and some other bits and pieces).

Comrade Penguin
01-06-2016, 18:48
Stormsurges and wraithknights are able to compete with knights. Both have something that knights lack - ranged D. Lots of ranged D is pretty effective against knights, as you can imagine. Tau and Eldar are both able to take more than one of these, as a bonus.


I think that is the problem with people who advocate changing up lists to account for the new meta involving multiple super heavies. For the most part, Marines, Tau, and Eldar have no problem doing this. Drop pod melta/grav guns will neuter any super heavy vehicle put on the table. Unfortunately my Orks and Tyranids cannot take drop meltas, or storm surges, or eldar knights. We simply do not have the tools available to give us a fair chance.

Dosiere
01-06-2016, 18:48
And so when people make a list like that, it opens up possibilities for other lists that wouldn't have had as much chance before.

I'm going round in circles here. Everyone who disagrees with me is basically saying 'Knights are bad because the army I have been using for years doesn't work against them.'

Actually no I don't think that's what is being said. The point is that one or two are fine and most will build an all comers type list to deal with a knight on the table. The problem is facing an entire army made up of nothing but Knights, which is where the disconnect is think. I did change how I build to deal with the fact that knights are a thing, but for various reasons I don't want to play a game against nothing but Knights. It's rather boring frankly, whoever wins.

Maidel
01-06-2016, 19:15
Actually no I don't think that's what is being said. The point is that one or two are fine and most will build an all comers type list to deal with a knight on the table. The problem is facing an entire army made up of nothing but Knights, which is where the disconnect is think. I did change how I build to deal with the fact that knights are a thing, but for various reasons I don't want to play a game against nothing but Knights. It's rather boring frankly, whoever wins.

I find someone playing horde armies extremely boring as they move 200 models every turn? Should we ban them because I find it boring?

Fangschrecken
01-06-2016, 19:52
I find someone playing horde armies extremely boring as they move 200 models every turn? Should we ban them because I find it boring?

A horde army is entirely different and you know it. A horde may be a ton of models and take a long time to kill all of them but at least in a standard list almost every unit has the capacity to cause some damage. A army of super heavies can and will ignore many units in a TAC list.

Maidel
01-06-2016, 20:12
A horde army is entirely different and you know it. A horde may be a ton of models and take a long time to kill all of them but at least in a standard list almost every unit has the capacity to cause some damage. A army of super heavies can and will ignore many units in a TAC list.

In the context of the person I quoted, it's not different at all. He said win or lose playing against Knights was boring with the implication being this was a reason why they shouldn't be allowed in casual play.

As I said, I find playing against a horde army boring (especially with my own hoard army) but that's hardly a justification for not letting them play.

Comrade Penguin
01-06-2016, 20:26
In the context of the person I quoted, it's not different at all. He said win or lose playing against Knights was boring with the implication being this was a reason why they shouldn't be allowed in casual play.

As I said, I find playing against a horde army boring (especially with my own hoard army) but that's hardly a justification for not letting them play.

Hordes can be killed by everyone, and are pretty weak overall in the meta. Knights cannot be killed by everyone and will chew through most of the armies out there. You are making a poor comparison.

I personally hate playing against Tau and find it boring, but I wouldn't refuse a match since there is at least a chance of a close game. Against a knight army I am better off conceding after deployment and looking for another opponent to play.

Aurelius 12 Reborn
01-06-2016, 22:44
The problem I have with my Exalted Court is that if I don't give opponents prior warning I get people being salty or refusing to play. Alternatively if I do give warning then very often my opponents decide that the only way to play is to create a tailored anti-knight list.

My army isn't tailored, it's not designed to attack anyone in particular. Sure it's nasty but I mostly play it because I think Knights are gorgeous and it's a cool army. However I am always at a disadvantage because most of my opponents aren't willing to take them on with a regular force.

My airborne guard army cannot cope well with Power Armour but I don't have the luxury of acting like I'm hard done by if I face them- I'm told that my army should be more balanced, or I should go for power over fluff. But somehow people don't apply the same logic to Knights.

But that's just my local meta. Your mileage may vary.

insectum7
02-06-2016, 00:56
In the context of the person I quoted, it's not different at all. He said win or lose playing against Knights was boring with the implication being this was a reason why they shouldn't be allowed in casual play.

Boring through lack of game mechanics interaction is different than boring through time spent moving models. A horde army can always be interacted with. You can damage it and remove models, probably by any model of your own in the game. There is lots of tabletop effect and interaction when playing a horde army.

That's much different than Knights. Against an unprepared player Knights can be: "I have ten models in this unit, one of them can hurt the Knight. *roll dice* Didn't affect the Knight. Moving on to the next squad." Then the Knight goes, and can wipe out a squad with shooting and then a vehicle in close combat. One player is limited in their possible choices of action, and action taken has limited and likely unrewarding effectiveness. The other player can make simple, exaggerated actions that have lots of immediate effect.

That's an ok state of asymmetry for a small portion of an army/game, but played as an entire game it's lousy. That's why a full Knight army makes a boring game. Possible actions are limited, often forced and even ineffective. A horde army gives you a lot to do.

Dosiere
02-06-2016, 04:36
I find someone playing horde armies extremely boring as they move 200 models every turn? Should we ban them because I find it boring?

It's boring because a good portion of my army has either zero or a very small chance of even doing anything exciting. Alternatively I could spam a bunch of drop pod meltas and stuff but then it's just the opposite problem. It's also boring to have an entire army composed of the same dang thing. Land raiders are cool, but that doesn't mean I want to fight an army composed of nothing but 8 of them and nothing else. Sure I could camp,objectives while the Knights remove my models and "win" the game, but I don't want to play that game.

It's not the same thing. but sure, you can avoid playing whoever you like, obviously. I would ask why you expect someone to playa game they won't enjoy just because it's "legal"?

Aurelius 12 Reborn
02-06-2016, 06:54
I would ask why you expect someone to playa game they won't enjoy just because it's "legal"?

Because it isn't purely about them? There are two players whose enjoyment should be considered. In this game compromise is often required, I might not want to play against OP Eldar but I'm not going to blanket refuse to take them on.

The whole purpose of a points system is to maintain some kind of balance. Sure it isn't perfect by a long way, but there's got to be some level of acknowledgement that this is a marker of whether two armies can reasonably compete.

gitburna
02-06-2016, 08:02
If points were the only consideration and effectiveness wasn't an issue, then armies like 6x30 gretchin would be a thing. If you want to play with your knights, why not take along the free game you get in the box, it looks easy enough to play in around 10 minutes before or after 40k... and you could arrange a bigger game for another time?
Sent from my RM-821_eu_euro1_276 using Tapatalk

Tokamak
02-06-2016, 08:22
Because an army consisting of only knights would be completely oddball and interesting if it wasn't for the roflstomping of balanced armies. In fact, it'd be great if there were more armies with multiple super-heavies like that. It's just that GW should rehaul their rules to such an extend that it's the super-heavy army that's shooting itself in the foot with glaring weaknesses rather than all-comer armies.

Especially now GW is bound to be selling more knights than ever with their bulk deals. Then consider that Imperial Knight armies are relatively cheap and the game is in major trouble (more so than it was before).

Warhammer 8th edition had a really neat solution where a 6 would always hit, and another 6 would always wound, and a 1 on armour save would always fail. Which gives a goblin a tiny chance of hurting a greater daemon.

For 40k it's more difficult to implement such a sweeping equaliser in the rule set, but if GW manages that then I doubt many people would still object to playing against super heavies.

Geep
02-06-2016, 08:53
A 'take all comers' army doesn't exist anymore, given that with fully 'normal' rules you can face an entire army of super heavy vehicles, or one heavy with flyers, or a horde, or jetbike spam, or one of many other things that it could easily be argued should be ruled out of 'normal' games.
What most people mean when they have a 'take all comers' army is an army that will be ok against any other army- able to handle a super heavy or two, threaten a horde, etc. - but these armies fail when they hit the extremes, just as the extreme army fails when it hits an extreme build made against it (and these extreme builds fail against everything but their intended target).

The above should be obvious, but I feel a need to state it since some people seem intent on insulting the TaC army designer's inability to cover all bases- it can't be done.

I personally really dislike Super Heavies, Gargantuan Creatures and hordes of Monstrous Creatures because they have no granularity in play: They are alive and fully functional, or dead. Every other unit in the game can take damage and becomes less effective as it does so, so you feel a sense of achievement nearly every combat and shooting phase. An army that just accumulates tokens, with rare model removal, is dull.
I really like the look and idea of the giant models (I own a lot!), but for gameplay I'd always go back to the earlier game rules where you could knock tracks and guns off a Super Heavy, and I'd apply these rules to Gargantuan Creatures as well. I also think something like the tank damage charts should exist for anything with ~4+ wounds (said as the owner of a 12,000+ point Tyranid army, with more monstrous creatures than I can remember).

Tokamak
02-06-2016, 09:47
A 'take all comers' army doesn't exist anymore, given that with fully 'normal' rules you can face an entire army of super heavy vehicles, or one heavy with flyers, or a horde, or jetbike spam, or one of many other things that it could easily be argued should be ruled out of 'normal' games.


The above should be obvious, but I feel a need to state it since some people seem intent on insulting the TaC army designer's inability to cover all bases- it can't be done.

It IS obvious. I'm on the TaC armies side. They are the ones that in theory should have the biggest advantage against any given niche army. It's the niche armies that should struggle to leverage their one strength against many weak spots they have.

GW has made a move towards highly specialised armies. And that's great, there should be many of them. But if they're automatically stronger then people simply refuse to play and that kills army diversity. That's not on the people who refuse, that's on GW. If they want to keep selling these kits then they have to tone down their potency.]

Right now GW seems to try to make a 40k simulation game where the power of these units corresponds to how strong they would be in the lore. And frankly that just doesn't make for a very fun game.

Mandragola
02-06-2016, 11:02
A 'take all comers' army doesn't exist anymore, given that with fully 'normal' rules you can face an entire army of super heavy vehicles, or one heavy with flyers, or a horde, or jetbike spam, or one of many other things that it could easily be argued should be ruled out of 'normal' games.
What most people mean when they have a 'take all comers' army is an army that will be ok against any other army- able to handle a super heavy or two, threaten a horde, etc. - but these armies fail when they hit the extremes, just as the extreme army fails when it hits an extreme build made against it (and these extreme builds fail against everything but their intended target).

The above should be obvious, but I feel a need to state it since some people seem intent on insulting the TaC army designer's inability to cover all bases- it can't be done.

It isn't obvious, and it isn't true. Take all comers armies do exist, but not all codices are able to make them.

You can absolutely make a TAC list with Eldar, Tau or Marines, and necrons too up to a point. These armies can make lists that can play proper games with a decent chance of winning against all-knight armies and anything else.

It obviously isn't a good thing that most other armies can't make TAC lists. The game isn't in a good state, and that's partially due to knights. They are the downfall of a lot of otherwise interesting armies. The one good thing that knights do for the meta is stomp all over death star lists, and for that reason I'm glad they exist.


I personally really dislike Super Heavies, Gargantuan Creatures and hordes of Monstrous Creatures because they have no granularity in play: They are alive and fully functional, or dead. Every other unit in the game can take damage and becomes less effective as it does so, so you feel a sense of achievement nearly every combat and shooting phase. An army that just accumulates tokens, with rare model removal, is dull.
I really like the look and idea of the giant models (I own a lot!), but for gameplay I'd always go back to the earlier game rules where you could knock tracks and guns off a Super Heavy, and I'd apply these rules to Gargantuan Creatures as well. I also think something like the tank damage charts should exist for anything with ~4+ wounds (said as the owner of a 12,000+ point Tyranid army, with more monstrous creatures than I can remember).

I agree with this 100% It's especially weird for titans, since even in the old epic you could blow bits off them, slow them down and stuff. I remember playing an imperator titan where I had to allocate plasma to all its different weapons, movement and so on, and decide just how much of it to fire out of its plasma cannon thingy. Now a 40k warlord just has a ton of hull points and is immune to almost everything. Boring. It would be great to see this sort of thing for superheavies.

Tokamak
02-06-2016, 11:18
Especially considering they're such huge point sinks they could do with more elaborate rules without slowing down the game as much. They're taking up the space of many smaller units after all.

Comrade Penguin
02-06-2016, 14:40
I agree that Knights are too powerful and are immune to too many weapons for their points cost. They should become less efficient over time rather then how they operate at 100% efficiency and then suddenly blow up.

I always felt that the new super heavies should have been given point costs similar to the old forge world models in 3-5 editions. They should be powerful, but they should be priced higher than their counterparts in their own codex. That way you could take your big fancy knight if you are willing to pay the higher points for it, but you would be paying through the nose and it would have been more point efficient to take normal infantry/tanks. That way everybody wins.

Theocracity
02-06-2016, 14:56
Because an army consisting of only knights would be completely oddball and interesting if it wasn't for the roflstomping of balanced armies. In fact, it'd be great if there were more armies with multiple super-heavies like that. It's just that GW should rehaul their rules to such an extend that it's the super-heavy army that's shooting itself in the foot with glaring weaknesses rather than all-comer armies.

Especially now GW is bound to be selling more knights than ever with their bulk deals. Then consider that Imperial Knight armies are relatively cheap and the game is in major trouble (more so than it was before).

Warhammer 8th edition had a really neat solution where a 6 would always hit, and another 6 would always wound, and a 1 on armour save would always fail. Which gives a goblin a tiny chance of hurting a greater daemon.

For 40k it's more difficult to implement such a sweeping equaliser in the rule set, but if GW manages that then I doubt many people would still object to playing against super heavies.

I think a "6 always wounds" style rule works fine in Fantasy where melee is the primary form of combat and you can use positioning to choose your engagements. In 40k's shooting heavy environment it would just incentivize high rate of fire weapons over single shot even more than they already are, and no one would field a big model of any sort when it would just get hosed down by every gun in an army in a single turn. It also doesn't account for vehicle armor too well, which is the root of the Knight problem.

I agree that super heavies could use more in depth damage rules. Hopefully Renegade could be used as a workshop for developing those in the future.

Mandragola
02-06-2016, 15:27
A lot of the problems kind of stem from when they got rid of the idea of guns doing more than one wound, way back at the start of 3rd edition. The binary instant death rule was introduced to cover the gap, but it does a pretty bad job of it.

Weirdly, AoS does this pretty well. For some reason multiple wounds aren't seen as too difficult a concept for AoS players. It's also pretty common for normal infantry to have two wounds or more. And then big stuff like dragons and war machines sees its power slowly degrade as it suffers wounds.

I'm honestly quite keen on the idea of 40k getting the AoS treatment - so long as they kept points values from the start... and didn't blow up the galaxy. The way in which vehicles and stuff with wounds function in 40k is just kind of stupid and throws up all kinds of oddities. Notably, you don't use the armour penetration stat to see if you penetrate the armour of a vehicle, just to see if it explodes. So you get the weird split where krak missiles kill dreadnoughts but not terminators, while power axes kill terminators but not dreadnought, when terminators and dreadnoughts are supposed to be made out of the same material. You also get the absurd split between stuff that's a walker and stuff that's a MC, which is almost completely arbitrary.

There's basically a lot wrong with 40k, so I'm not too attached to the rules system. I'm glad they've used warhammer as their guinea pig though. Now maybe they can fix 40k into a system that's actually good.

Tokamak
02-06-2016, 15:46
In Fantasy they destroyed rank and file which kind of stopped it from being a fantasy game. But in 40k has always been more kinetic and less abstract in nature. A simplification that would consolidate the heavies and the flyers into something that's more balanced would be refreshing.

Theocracity
02-06-2016, 16:24
A lot of the problems kind of stem from when they got rid of the idea of guns doing more than one wound, way back at the start of 3rd edition. The binary instant death rule was introduced to cover the gap, but it does a pretty bad job of it.

Weirdly, AoS does this pretty well. For some reason multiple wounds aren't seen as too difficult a concept for AoS players. It's also pretty common for normal infantry to have two wounds or more. And then big stuff like dragons and war machines sees its power slowly degrade as it suffers wounds.

I'm honestly quite keen on the idea of 40k getting the AoS treatment - so long as they kept points values from the start... and didn't blow up the galaxy. The way in which vehicles and stuff with wounds function in 40k is just kind of stupid and throws up all kinds of oddities. Notably, you don't use the armour penetration stat to see if you penetrate the armour of a vehicle, just to see if it explodes. So you get the weird split where krak missiles kill dreadnoughts but not terminators, while power axes kill terminators but not dreadnought, when terminators and dreadnoughts are supposed to be made out of the same material. You also get the absurd split between stuff that's a walker and stuff that's a MC, which is almost completely arbitrary.

There's basically a lot wrong with 40k, so I'm not too attached to the rules system. I'm glad they've used warhammer as their guinea pig though. Now maybe they can fix 40k into a system that's actually good.

Yeah, there could be a lot of good if they go that route.

insectum7
02-06-2016, 17:11
I agree with this 100% It's especially weird for titans, since even in the old epic you could blow bits off them, slow them down and stuff. I remember playing an imperator titan where I had to allocate plasma to all its different weapons, movement and so on, and decide just how much of it to fire out of its plasma cannon thingy.

It was a great mini-game within the game, and it made the thing play like the big complicated machine that it was. The Imperator had a great Achilles heel as well, one of the best ways take it out was to swarm it with infantry in assault. Just basic ol' infantry. The old Imperator is my go to template for Knights etc. in 40K.

Aurelius 12 Reborn
02-06-2016, 22:13
I totally agree that more depth to super heavies would be a very good thing. I don't like the fact that massive vehicles don't take modular damage when this makes even more sense than it does on regular sized vehicles.

In fantasy I seem to recall that ogres could take a tiny low-model high cost army (14 figures or so if my memory serves me right) that kind of force really appeals to me and when combined with how gorgeous the Knights are it seems like a great choice.

I do also prefer fluffy armies over pure quality. This isn't a sliding scale dichotomy like some people think, but I tend to go for what I think makes a cool force rather than an effective or take on all comers one. Nothing right or wrong with this but it does shape my attitude towards list building.

I also disagree that Knights are immune to too many units- they're only AV13 on the front! The amount of Grav and Plasma and ACs in most forces mean this is killable. They don't die to bolters but they're easily squishable.

Angelwing
03-06-2016, 09:33
I really don't know why they changed the super heavy damage from a chart to only hull points.

On the original question, my usual armies could probably cope with one knight and give it a decent fight, but any more and I'd seriously struggle. If someone wanted a PuG with an army of them, I'd only accept if I could tailor my force with whatever I had in the cases.
I've had this situation before with the old imperial guard armoured company list (which I thought had no place in regular 40k).
These sorts of extreme armies are really only suited to special scenarios. The spearhead book got this right.

Tokamak
03-06-2016, 11:13
I do also prefer fluffy armies over pure quality. This isn't a sliding scale dichotomy like some people think, but I tend to go for what I think makes a cool force rather than an effective or take on all comers one. Nothing right or wrong with this but it does shape my attitude towards list building.

That's why I don't mind fluffy armies being at a disadvantage. That way a fluffy player won't be accused of a cheesy waac army. That's why a knight household is such a crying shame.

Grarik
03-06-2016, 12:21
I also disagree that Knights are immune to too many units- they're only AV13 on the front! The amount of Grav and Plasma and ACs in most forces mean this is killable. They don't die to bolters but they're easily squishable.

A normal marine army would have enough grav, plasma, etc, to deal with 1 or 2 nights, but as a lot of people have said, an army is a whole different kettle of fish. Assuming that you're right about marines being able to handle a knight army, however, what about other armies? Orks, tyranids, dark eldar, and grey knights just to list a few would need heavy tailoring to be truly competitive against a knight army.

Aurelius 12 Reborn
03-06-2016, 14:26
That's why I don't mind fluffy armies being at a disadvantage. That way a fluffy player won't be accused of a cheesy waac army. That's why a knight household is such a crying shame.

I agree about the accusations, although I also don't see why fluffy things should be overcosted deliberately. If anything that might make less people want to embrace the fluffier side.

Tokamak
03-06-2016, 16:45
Well the alternative is the current situation where people are eager to try fluffy armies but are then, understandably, refused by their opponents. That's the only reason I'd rather see GW err on the side of too week than erring on the side of too powerful.

An army that's entirely unprepared for a super heavy shouldn't have an easy time either. But they should at least be able to nibble away at them and take their edge off. Like small arms and melee hits should be able to make a super heavy fight far under it's strength even though it's still impossible to destroy it out right.

Same for flyers, small arms should be able to at least make flyers fight less efficiently and deny it options.

Comrade Penguin
03-06-2016, 19:51
I also disagree that Knights are immune to too many units- they're only AV13 on the front! The amount of Grav and Plasma and ACs in most forces mean this is killable. They don't die to bolters but they're easily squishable.

So If I have a unit of marines and only one of them has a lascannon, that means that 9 out of 10 marines are effectively useless against the knight army. They have no other target in which they can use their weapons, so they are relegated to the role of ablative wounds for that lascannon.

20 hormgaunts: 20 out of 20 are useless.

Ork boy unit: 26 out of 30 are useless (assuming you took a powerclaw and rockets)

Guardsmen unit: 8 out 10 useless (heavy weapon included)

Bloodletter unit: 20 out of 20 useless

Khorne bezerkers: 8 out of 10 useless if you take a meltabomb or powerfist

Tau firewarriors: 9 out of 10 useless if you take the marker light

I could go on and you would find that around 80-90% of models in any given army cannot touch a knight and would be sitting there doing nothing all game. Really this goes for any unit, whether infantry or vehicle, with weapons that are lower than strength 6.

Aurelius 12 Reborn
03-06-2016, 20:02
Nothing except grabbing objectives or moving a relic which can't be picked up by the Knight.

de Selby
03-06-2016, 21:03
I've actually found that objectives hamstrung me when playing against knights. Both of us know I have to get units on the objective and the knights smash those units. My army dies faster because I can't play an avoidance game.

insectum7
03-06-2016, 22:33
I also disagree that Knights are immune to too many units- they're only AV13 on the front! The amount of Grav and Plasma and ACs in most forces mean this is killable. They don't die to bolters but they're easily squishable.

AV 13 is not amazing, it's true, but there's a "critical mass" issue with their resilience for a number of reasons. I'm not sure how organized this attempt at explanation will come out though, bear with me.

1: Other units with similar armor have weaknesses.
A Land Raider, the traditional "tough guy", has armor of 14, which is great. But a Land Raiders damage output is limited, and it still has multiple "foils". Melta is great against a Land Raider, and Lance weapons, which are common in Eldar armies, also kill the advantage of high armor. In addition, because the damage output of a LAnd Raider isn't amazing, it's primary role in most lists is actually as a transport to get something into CC. Being a standard vehicle, a Land Raider then becomes vulnerable to CC attacks by MCs, Powerfists, Meltabombs, etc. Many of which have a chance to kill the raider in a single hit.

The other heavily armored units are vehicles like Leman Russes or Predators, which have a much higher damage output, point for point, and can keep their distance. But they're also very "directional". Their side and rear armor is 10-12, and they are very vulnerable to flanking maneuvers with lighter guns and are especially vulnerable to infantry in CC. Sit in front of them and you're going to feel the pain, but you can shake/stun them, knock off their guns, immobilize and flank them. There's good tactical play involved there.

Knights have almost none of these downsides. They are heavily armored, have a force field, take no damage effects, can do heavy damage at range, are remarkably quick, and are pretty devastating in close combat. The amount of weapons that significantly threaten them is reduced, their vulnerability in close combat is significantly reduced, and your reward for killing them in CC is that they blow up on you.

2. You can take a whole army of them.
People don't take entire armies of Land Raiders, Leman Russes, etc. These units aren't troops choices, and though you can take them in formations they still can't cover every battlefield role, and have distinct vulnerabilities. The problem with Knights is that some people want to take entire armies of them, and do. There's little incentive not to, given the lack of go-to counters for them.



I'm all for some Superheavies in the game beyond a certain points level. I love the Knight model. I basically expect that any army at an 1850 level can handle one or two of them if you know what you're doing. But the capacity to take on a Knight can dwindle rapidly since the Knights themselves can dish out a lot of damage. This is what leads to the "critical mass" situation. That first Knight and maybe the second can be dealt with, but then standard lists begin running out of effective counters. If there are still two or thee Knights to go, it's not fun. You may really just have a game where only one player can make any meaningful/effective plays, and that's a terrible game to play. An army of five Knights is just an all or nothing affair right now, and it's not the sort of experience people are looking for when playing 40K.

Comrade Penguin
03-06-2016, 22:44
Nothing except grabbing objectives or moving a relic which can't be picked up by the Knight.

Tell me, what do I do when a knight squats on an objective or the relic? These things move 12 inches a turn so can get to foreign objectives with remarkable speed.

So how do I shift them with normal units where maybe one out of 10-20 figures can actually hurt the knight? Use harsh language?

Geep
04-06-2016, 03:04
^ I'd add to the above that, while going for objectives may help win a game, it's really boring!

The fun of the game comes from player tactics and units interacting- if I can't meaningfully interact, and instead just play 'can I move this unit onto an objective in time', it's a pathetic game. You may have some interaction ability, able to shoot or charge my units on objectives, but it's obviously in my best interest to make sure you can't do that- so we're both left playing games of solitaire right beside each other.

Zustiur
04-06-2016, 19:42
Also, while some codices may be able to handle multiple knights, far fewer player collections can do so. I can theoretically take 30 drop podding melta weapons but the fact remains I only have 3. It bothers me that people don't consider this simple fact when saying a knight army is a legit choice and that the meta should shift accordingly. I'm not going to buy all those Lascannons and combi meltas just to play a decent game with a knight player. Screw that guy.

sent via tapatalk

de Selby
04-06-2016, 19:56
well it's not the players fault there's no balance, he just wants to play a knight household. But yeah, I'm not going to buy all that stuff either.

GW is bringing back epic. I wonder whether people will be able to play knight armies there.

Aurelius 12 Reborn
04-06-2016, 19:57
I guess this is something that depends very much on your local meta. The local scene has lots of Grav in pods or on bikes, devastating Tau firepower, Wraithknights and other such brutal combos.

I appreciate the cumulative effect of Knights makes them difficult to handle but you could say the same about Stormsurges or Wraithknights. Plus every knight that dies cuts down my options dramatically.

flyingthruwater01
04-06-2016, 20:03
Epic is the game for a Knight army. The Knight Household list is powerful but certainly not unbeatable in EA

Sent from my 4027X using Tapatalk

Geep
05-06-2016, 03:34
Also, while some codices may be able to handle multiple knights, far fewer player collections can do so.
It's not just player collections, some codices are seriously hamstrung on being able to dent vehicles. My Necrons may laugh at vehicle heavy armies, but my 'Nids blunt their teeth fruitlessly- and their options of countering even a few vehicles are extremely limited. The classic 'throw a carnifex at it' completely falls down when the Knight strikes first with a Str D weapon (assuming it doesn't just outmanoeuvre the 'Fex). Sure I can swarm objectives to win- and from turns 3+ I'll be off drinking coffee, paying bills and whatnot until the Knight player comes to tell me whether he managed to shift my units in time. Exciting stuff.


well it's not the players fault there's no balance, he just wants to play a knight household. But yeah, I'm not going to buy all that stuff either.
I agree- it's not the fault of the player, and that's a big issue. Many people are drawn to things like Knight armies because they look cool- new players included. To find out that they struggle to get games because their force was broken in the 'design codex' stage is really terrible.


GW is bringing back epic. I wonder whether people will be able to play knight armies there.
I want to believe this will be awesome (as an E:A player), but I just can't. I can easily see GW screwing this up and absolutely wasting the opportunity. The Epic playerbase will be fine, but it'd be so nice to have more model options from supported lines. Rumours already point to GW making 'WTF?' moves, like shifting Epic to 10mm- a great way to ensure veterans never buy the models, and how much new blood will join a game system they've shown themselves happy to axe in the past?

Edit: I should add: Epic doesn't solve all of the 'super heavy army' issues. the lack of granularity with damage is still really frustrating, but lessened by blast marker mechanics and things having less damage capacity in general (from an E:A perspective, I'm unsure on NetEpic)

Tokamak
05-06-2016, 13:47
Saw this battle report of imperial knights vs super heavy Tau:

http://warhammer.org.uk/phpBB/viewtopic.php?f=12&t=132068

Sounds fun. Maybe both armies need slightly more fleshing out of other troops but it doesn't look completely one-sided.


I agree- it's not the fault of the player, and that's a big issue. Many people are drawn to things like Knight armies because they look cool- new players included. To find out that they struggle to get games because their force was broken in the 'design codex' stage is really terrible.


Yes that would be me. I had a cool idea for an Imperial Knight theme and to find out that it's a broken army is really disheartening.

And I imagine GW keep on driving their IK sales with modification sets and bulk deals only compounds the problem. Eventually all that's left is IK players being able to play against other IK which kind of defeats the point.

Theocracity
05-06-2016, 16:24
Yes that would be me. I had a cool idea for an Imperial Knight theme and to find out that it's a broken army is really disheartening.

At some point over the last year I realized that if I kept driving my purchasing decisions based on what was good or bad in the game that I'd end up with a shelf of models that I didn't care about, and likely weren't even good in the current meta. Nowadays I just buy whatever I feel like building, painting, or fits my personal vision of what a cool army looks like.

I realize that the game is still important for lots of people, but for me I'm much happier having an army that satisfies me aesthetically over one that wins games. Which is my way of saying that collecting a Knight household because it looks cool can be perfectly valid even if you don't get any games in with them.

Fangschrecken
05-06-2016, 17:07
Sure, that does look fun, but they both planned for it. I think the objection here is more that knights are terrible for a pickup game. Can I bring a list that can go toe to toe with that knight list? Sure. Will I have the right models with me at the LGS? Doubtful.

williamsond
05-06-2016, 17:25
Playing against all knight armies have been some of the worst gaming experiences I've ever had, unless you build a list full of hard counters I found it to be a very frustrating and joyless experience.

Tokamak
05-06-2016, 18:30
I totally understand. I just think it's terrible on GW's part.

To me, injecting super heavies (as a concept not as they're currently written) into the game makes it more exciting. Super heavies are cheap points and they allow new players to take on larger armies from the get go. And GW seems to want that as well considering how much they push it in marketing.

BUT to make them this powerful and immune against vanilla armies. That's just such a gross oversight.

Super-heavy shouldn't literally mean 'heavies that are super' they should be just another unit type parallel to fast, heavy and elite, not above it.

Aurelius 12 Reborn
05-06-2016, 20:38
Super-heavy shouldn't literally mean 'heavies that are super' they should be just another unit type parallel to fast, heavy and elite, not above it.

I totally agree, but I'm not sure that Knights are the biggest problem. I would rather face an army of Knights than an army of Wraithknights. Inthink a bigger issue is how walkers compare to gargantuan creatures. Funny how both the Stormsurge and Wraithknight are Gargantuan creatures.

de Selby
06-06-2016, 00:10
In a contest between knights and some of the terrifying super armies eldar and tau can make with gargantuan creatures, I would totally be rootitng for the unfortunate knights.

Mandragola
06-06-2016, 00:22
As far as knights compare to the other good big stuff - the wraithknight and stormsurge, there actually is a pretty big difference between a vehicle with an invulnerable save and a gargantuan creature. Far more things can hurt a gargantuan creature, basically.

For instance a marine with a plasma gun wounds a wraithknight on a 5+. He only hurts a knight on a 6 from the front and it gets a 4++ against him. The knight is effectively toughness 9.

Stuff with a toughness value is actually vulnerable to lots of things that can't hurt knights. Anything with a strength of 5 or more can wound a wraithknight, and rending stuff of any strength can. A stormsurge only has toughness 6 and a 3+ save, so krak missiles wound it on a 2+ and even stuff like heavy bolters are a threat to it.

All of which means that more parts of an enemy army can fight a wraithknight than an imperial knight. It's not to say that those units aren't badass, but there's a difference. You can fight them with far more units in your army than can fight the knights.

And of course, you can't take an army that's only wraithknights or stormsurges. You have to take other stuff, which allows the other player to play. Facing 3 wraithknights and some other eldar units is seriously tough, but it's very different to going against 5 knights.

This of course has no bearing on what happens when knights, wraithknights and stormsurges meet. That's actually a pretty fair contest - and in any case Eldar and Tau both have plenty of other ways to beat up knights.

Geep
06-06-2016, 02:34
^Mandragola has very good points, but I think it's hard to deny that Gargantuan Creature spam is also a problem. The fact that they have their own issues does nothing to excuse the Knights, though. There are, of course, other problem builds that don't rely on SHs or GCs, but spamming some other unit type- but again this doesn't get Knights off the hook for being fundamentally flawed.

I think Knights cop most of the open criticism since the problems with them are much clearer than with many other problem builds (being literally immune to small arms fire and other things already addressed). The thread title also has something to do with the finger pointing here, of course :p

Tokamak
06-06-2016, 13:58
I'm sure knights players much rather actually play with their army than win with their army.

Zustiur
06-06-2016, 15:52
I'm sure [casual] players much rather actually play with their army than win with their army.

Fixed that for you.

sent via tapatalk

Theocracity
06-06-2016, 15:54
Fixed that for you.

sent via tapatalk

Well, that's the thread name....

Comrade Penguin
06-06-2016, 16:47
Well, that's the thread name....

I think the heated debate in here shows that there are some strong opinions about all knight armies. I think the OP should talk to people at his local game store to see if people would be interested in playing against that army before chucking that much money at what may be very expensive shelf decorations.

That said, even if someone agrees to play against your knight army once that doesn't mean they will agree to a second game. As I said up thread I agreed to play against the all tank Armored Company once to give it a try, had a horrible boring game, and politely refused all future requests.

Tokamak
06-06-2016, 20:02
I think the OP should talk to people at his local game store to see if people would be interested in playing against that army before chucking that much money at what may be very expensive shelf decorations.


And everyone seems to agree that GW should ensure that the rules are developed in such a way that declining to fight against any army is unreasonable.

AngryAngel
07-06-2016, 23:06
That is a great idea but, the game rules, unit rules are so bad it makes balance of this kind seemingly impossible in the game anymore. Now don't get me wrong the game has never been what I would point to as highly balanced, but the balance of forces both internal and external at this point is so off as to be laughable. It makes the high end lists that were tough before seem tame. However they have raised the bar so much that the rock paper scissors is more like meteor, volcano and nuke.

Formations, limitless flyers that don't need FoC, armies made only of super heavies or gargantuan creatures, for me anymore, casual play is really an army not seeking to crush you with spam and actually using standard infantry and vehicles, hell even a standard marine battle company or demi company has been made OP with formations giving free transports as far as the eye can see, that really should be a sign.

While some may love all the freedom, and in a way I do too, my kingdom to have both fun, loose army set ups and an actual solid options for competitive games which will also be fun.

It is getting too over the top, and no, I don't think all knight armies are casual, in fact I'd say the only thing casual about them might be ease of transport and use. As an actual casual army would have real issues dealing with just a bunch of super heavies around the board.

Tokamak
08-06-2016, 00:59
A casual play is really an army not seeking to crush you with spam and actually using standard infantry and vehicle

And that's exactly the type of army that should dominate any 'eggs in one basket' army under the right ruleset.

In developing new rules and units. GW should take the most vanilla list and hold that as the benchmark that should hold a say, 50%-60% winrate against armies that have super-heavies, flyers or any death-star units.

That's when the game starts being fun again. That's when wacky army lists start being welcomed. It's the player with the exotic army that has to be extra skillful, not the player with a standard list (who mainly should struggle against other standard lists).

And it's quite clear that GW hasn't done this. Instead they've designed awesome looking models and interesting lore, then later on they let the miniature and the lore decide the rules. And sure enough. An Imperial Knight would realistically perform the way it does now if you look at the size of the model and what they're historically capable of. And definitely, when you put them against other super-heavies, there's some balance again. But as long as they enjoy invincibility against vanilla armies, 40k can't really be called a game.

Aurelius 12 Reborn
08-06-2016, 14:07
I think in part the solution is to reevaluate what a vanilla army is- a dirty question perhaps but should a vanilla army include a superheavy and limited air support (after all that would be a real combined arms detachment)?

Alternatively I'd like to think that casual play is where quirky oddball non-vanilla armies come out to play.

Also I don't think you can really argue that a generalist army should be better than a specialist one- it should be able to deal with most opponents to an extent, but it shouldn't be able to beat with everything. An aspect of the game has to be RPS/hard counters. Specialised armies should good at what they do, but weak(er) against everything else.

Airborne forces should be fast and manoeuvre able, but lack in heavy armour or artillery support. Infantry hordes should have numbers and the ability to use buildings and terrain, but only have man portable heavy weapons and struggle against artillery. Artillery should have devastating long range firepower but weak armour and inaccurate guns.

An issue with Knights is that in the current meta they can do too many things, putting them at the higher end of potency curve compared to other oddball armies. (while this thread is about casual play it is worth noting that pure Knight armies don't win tournaments.)

There is also an issue of scale and size creep in general- which started when someone thought Apocylapse was a good idea. The move in the norm from 1500 to 1850 points has led to more expensive units becoming more regular. And with the table staying at 6x4 big stuff can't be escaped from. I've been a proponent of bigger tables for bigger point games for ages.

Another issue is that most games take place in a vacuum. Which means that the units on the table are all that matters. If games were more campaign like then specialist armies would suffer greater strategic disadvantages over large combined arms forces.

I'd love to see a return of the strategy rating of forces- meaning those with more cunning commanders, more agile forces etc would get more choice over the battle, maybe deploying 75% of the terrain, choosing the deployment style, getting a reserve bonus, free choice of first turn. Something to represent their flexibility and strategic acumen. Equally forces like artillery companies might get a preliminary bombardment or something. The point is that most forces would be getting the drop on slower hard to hide Knights.

I think simple solutions which would go some way to redressing the balance would be;

1. Bring back the Superheavy Damage Chart

2. Go back to only infantry & transports being able to hold objectives

3. Cityfight style rules for combat in streets, height advantage to infantry etc.

4. Hold battles over 1750 points on an 8x4 board meaning there's more space for tactical play.

5. Some kind of stratagem system to reward balanced or highly specialised forces which is appropriate.

But that's just my 2p.

Zustiur
08-06-2016, 14:33
All very good suggestions Aurelius. Knights are clearly not the only problem. I think a lot could be solved by reviewing the force org chart/combined arms detachment and reinforcing it. All super heavies and gargantuan creatures should take at least 2 slots so that, for example, you could only fit in one other heavy support choice with your wraithknight. A war hound might take 3 slots.
If other lords of war warrant it they could also take up two hq slots.

All of this would mean ditching the formations as they currently exist.

sent via tapatalk

Tokamak
08-06-2016, 15:13
Superheavies should be helpless against infantry melee. They could be impervious against small-arms fire, but once infantry gets near a knight or a baneblade, then they should be able to drastically sabotage it. Not destroy it, but either make it vulnerable or impotent for as long as they're in melee combat with it.


Go back to only infantry & transports being able to hold objectives

And exclude massacre as a victory condition. That way a knight household would still need at least one group of infantry to escort to an objective. If they lose that infantry group then they can only stalemate at best.

Fluxeor
08-06-2016, 15:25
I really like Knights from both a thematic and modelling aspect, but they do need some tweaking in the standard 40k ruleset (as do other super heavies and gargantuan creatures).. something Renegade actually did quite well is the damage table and porting that over would be a huge positive step for the likes of Knights, Gargantuan and Monstrous creatures at the same time could use something similar, limiting their capabilities as they take damage.
When it comes to small arms like Bolters, Lasguns and whatnot, I actually do think that they shouldn't be able to deal damage to something like a Knight or Land Raider, but instead rather than wasting the fire from the guys surrounding a units special weapons, enough hits should be detrimental to the targets ability to fire back (confusing targeting systems or sight with say 1/3 of a squad landing small arms hits reducing the targets BS by 1 up to a max of -3 if it fires at a target within the same table quarter).

Aurelius 12 Reborn
08-06-2016, 20:55
@ Tokamak I reckon Knights shouldn't be that much of a pushover in melee. They're faster, more responsive, can stamp and have a close combat weapon (unless it's a Crusader). Def agree on tanks though.

Also think you're on to something regarding massacre results- although I'd make this more specific to particular missions. Sometimes killing everything is the desired result, but if you have to take and hold ground, or capture specific artefacts etc then yeah just killing your enemy hasn't earned you your objectives. Again more of a campaign/broader picture set of win/draw/loss conditions should help and make games more fun.

@Fluxeor
I think the idea of small arms reducing stats overcomplicates things quite a bit and just turns into a 'stun lock' mechanic. A simpler solution would be that heavy weapons and special weapons get the split fire rule in Infantry squads. It really makes no sense that they don't already have this.

Tokamak
08-06-2016, 21:08
Right, it's just, creating rules according to lore without a regards to the (meta) game has landed us in this pickle to begin with. On paper it would still require the same amount of points in infantry to stand a modest chance against a knight. Which is quite a lot of infantry indeed.


The thing about making them fragile against infantry melee is that these super heavies can still be fitted to wipe them away from a distance easily. But if cheap infantry finally can start to bog a knight down that means a knight will have to prioritise it's firepower on them rather than on juicy targets.

A way to do that would be to make a 'sabotage' rule work per squad rather than per model. That means that the size of the squad wouldn't matter, it's all about that one heroic grunt that found his way into the superheavy and mess with it internally. So to actually start harming a knight a player could try assaulting with multiple smaller squads to increase the likelihood of that happening. And of course, multiple small units come with their own weakness in that they're more easily dealt with by other units.

I also wouldn't be too worried about more elaborate rules. After all, a single knight is worth several units. They're already speeding up the game so you have some 'complexity' budget to spare.

barontuman
08-06-2016, 21:11
The problem we are trying to solve is one that GW does not want to solve. Compare the Knight box to an infantry box.

Knight includes about the same amount of plastic.
Knight can be slapped together by a youngster and on the table quickly.
Knight takes much less shelf space compared to the same number of points for non-superheavy models.
Knight sells for much more money.

Monetarily, GW would be better off convincing the world to play exclusively large models and forgetting the rest of the game. What do we get out of it? Less value, higher costs. How do they get us to buy into this strategy? Make the Knights overly powerful in the game. This is what drove me away from the game. I like to play miniatures games, not games which revolve around few large toys.

Aurelius 12 Reborn
08-06-2016, 21:32
I like to play miniatures games, not games which revolve around few large toys.

And I personally get a little offended when an army I spent almost a year converting and painting (http://www.warseer.com/forums/showthread.php?418322-The-Lost-Companions-an-Imperial-Knight-Freeblade-Household) gets dismissed as toys because they're bigger than a regular infantryman.

I take your point about what makes business sense but this thread isn't about that. The beauty of casual play is that we aren't beholden to the teat of GW for everything. We can say 'actually in our games we found this more fun' without that being a major problem. Sure it would be great if GW thought like us but everyone wants that, and not everyone thinks the same.

@Tokamak IIRC Knights can't disengage with units that can't hurt them- is that correct? If so it might be easier to impose a penalty on the Knight when attempting to hit such small and (relatively) hard to hit people. Something like a -1 WS in combat when attempting to hit infantry?

That would also help the Castigator find a niche now the Warden exists.

On the downside this doesn't make the chances of killing a knight go up, which might be less fun and less effective. But tar pitting becomes viable, and it puts the onus on the knight player (who as you say has spare room for a little more complexity) to remember the mechanic rather than another thing for the infantry player to worry about.

Theocracity
08-06-2016, 21:50
And I personally get a little offended when an army I spent almost a year converting and painting (http://www.warseer.com/forums/showthread.php?418322-The-Lost-Companions-an-Imperial-Knight-Freeblade-Household) gets dismissed as toys because they're bigger than a regular infantryman.

I take your point about what makes business sense but this thread isn't about that. The beauty of casual play is that we aren't beholden to the teat of GW for everything. We can say 'actually in our games we found this more fun' without that being a major problem. Sure it would be great if GW thought like us but everyone wants that, and not everyone thinks the same.

I like the way you think. A lot of people around here focus on the random pick up game element, which isn't as friendly to house rules, but I can't imagine that someone would say no if you suggested a way for Knight games to be more fun for them.


@Tokamak IIRC Knights can't disengage with units that can't hurt them- is that correct? If so it might be easier to impose a penalty on the Knight when attempting to hit such small and (relatively) hard to hit people. Something like a -1 WS in combat when attempting to hit infantry?

That would also help the Castigator find a niche now the Warden exists.

On the downside this doesn't make the chances of killing a knight go up, which might be less fun and less effective. But tar pitting becomes viable, and it puts the onus on the knight player (who as you say has spare room for a little more complexity) to remember the mechanic rather than another thing for the infantry player to worry about.

I sort of like the idea that Knights shouldn't be able to melee attack standard Infantry. Stomp attacks sure - and those are destructive enough - but that helps even things out. Knights could melee walkers, vehicles, and monstrous creatures normally, so that's what they'd be aiming for while avoiding pesky infantry.

A sabotage rule so that infantry can do damage isn't a bad one either - though it should be not that easy, and you should still be incentivized to take tank-busting melee options to help get the job done. Perhaps Knights should also get a small chance to disengage from melee as well, just so they don't get totally hosed by tarpits.

Edit: Actually, you could steal a page from Skies of Death's dogfighting mechanic. When infantry is in melee with a Superheavy, both sides secretly choose a strategy, and then compare the values against a table to see what actions are available.

For example, the Knight could select Disengage, Ignore, or Crush, while the Infantry chooses Cower, Stand and Shoot, or Sabotage. The results of the chart could then give the Knight a chance to disengage from assault, fire at a target despite being in melee, or do stomp and melee attacks. Meanwhile the Infantry could take less damage from melee attacks, get a shooting attack on the Knight, or get a chance to cripple it with melee. Each result could put a unit at risk or benefit depending on what your opponent chose (for example, going for a Sabotage could fail against a Disengage or cause you to get killed against a Crush but would be really effective against an Ignore).

Tokamak
08-06-2016, 21:54
How do they get us to buy into this strategy? Make the Knights overly powerful in the game. This is what drove me away from the game. I like to play miniatures games, not games which revolve around few large toys.

They're not going to sell as many models if other people keep declining games against them. So even GW at it's most cynical would have a motive for fixing this.


A sabotage rule so that infantry can do damage isn't a bad one either - though it should be not that easy, and you should still be incentivized to take tank-busting melee options to help get the job done.

Quick concept and think of it as a super-heavy wide rule where results on the table have similar effects:

Each squad engaged in melee with the knight may roll to see if one soldier can successfully climb into a superheavy.

On a 6+ roll one heroic and lucky trooper has climbed into the heavy

From there on roll on the 'sabotage' table
1: The trooper dies and so does his entire squad
2-3: The Imperial Knight will be unable to fire or attack in the next turn
4-5: The Imperial Knight loses his Ion Shields for the rest of the battle
6: The Imperial Knight is destroyed


So to summarise, one roll per squad in melee with the superheavy and a successful role gets a roll on the damage table. It's enough to make infantry a nuisance but not enough to make them totally kill every knight they meet. It's mainly the risk of losing your knight to their shenanigans that will make knight players more wary of infantry. And keep in mind that in order to even get this roll the infantry player will have to expose his troops to some serious firepower before they even get in melee. Not to mention that knights also have very little problems with armoured transport either. Only drop-pods will truly become dangerous to them now and that's kinda neat. Tank-busting equipment is also still relevant if the infantry player wants more certainty.

Elbows of Death
08-06-2016, 22:10
I don't play modern 40K but I'd be fine with Knights in casual play...but moreso if the game/scenario was based around it. How about a group of knights trying to cross a board while a larger army tries to stop them etc. Lots of potential. This is how old titans/gargants used to be run. There was a game in my childhood where the local store built a comically large 3' tall gargant and invited everyone to bring a couple of units to try to stop it. It had to move down a 12' table with everyone engaging it. Goofy, but fun.

AngryAngel
08-06-2016, 22:43
And that's exactly the type of army that should dominate any 'eggs in one basket' army under the right ruleset.

In developing new rules and units. GW should take the most vanilla list and hold that as the benchmark that should hold a say, 50%-60% winrate against armies that have super-heavies, flyers or any death-star units.

That's when the game starts being fun again. That's when wacky army lists start being welcomed. It's the player with the exotic army that has to be extra skillful, not the player with a standard list (who mainly should struggle against other standard lists).

And it's quite clear that GW hasn't done this. Instead they've designed awesome looking models and interesting lore, then later on they let the miniature and the lore decide the rules. And sure enough. An Imperial Knight would realistically perform the way it does now if you look at the size of the model and what they're historically capable of. And definitely, when you put them against other super-heavies, there's some balance again. But as long as they enjoy invincibility against vanilla armies, 40k can't really be called a game.

I would agree with this.



Superheavies should be helpless against infantry melee. They could be impervious against small-arms fire, but once infantry gets near a knight or a baneblade, then they should be able to drastically sabotage it. Not destroy it, but either make it vulnerable or impotent for as long as they're in melee combat with it.



And exclude massacre as a victory condition. That way a knight household would still need at least one group of infantry to escort to an objective. If they lose that infantry group then they can only stalemate at best.

Victory condition changes could be something to look at, as people would be less inclined to spam you if all they were setting up for is a draw, I like it, if done well.



I don't play modern 40K but I'd be fine with Knights in casual play...but moreso if the game/scenario was based around it. How about a group of knights trying to cross a board while a larger army tries to stop them etc. Lots of potential. This is how old titans/gargants used to be run. There was a game in my childhood where the local store built a comically large 3' tall gargant and invited everyone to bring a couple of units to try to stop it. It had to move down a 12' table with everyone engaging it. Goofy, but fun.

I don't think many people wouldn't play some fun super heavy full scenarios, but the issue is some people love the giant things would like them to be fun for casual aside from just the random scenario but in even semi competitive sense for casual games.

Like I know my fav game feeling is semi casual/competitive, fun varied lists but trying your best to win with forces taken. Something hard to do with or against all knight armies.

Aurelius 12 Reborn
09-06-2016, 00:56
@Theocracity Right back at you. A mini RPS against infantry would be far more balanced and fun than either side getting a 'you can't hurt me' issue. I might suggest a table like that to my gaming buddies and give it a go.

@Tokamak I like the idea but I think the table would need work- again combined with bringing back the shdc you'd get a fair result. Otherwise that a 1 in 36 chance of a Gretchin killing a Knight. Which really makes no sense when a chainfist wielding terminator would struggle to do that!

Geep
09-06-2016, 04:32
Each squad engaged in melee with the knight may roll to see if one soldier can successfully climb into a superheavy.

On a 6+ roll one heroic and lucky trooper has climbed into the heavy

From there on roll on the 'sabotage' table
1: The trooper dies and so does his entire squad
2-3: The Imperial Knight will be unable to fire or attack in the next turn
4-5: The Imperial Knight loses his Ion Shields for the rest of the battle
6: The Imperial Knight is destroyed

I know everyone wants different things in the rules, and though I agree with the direction of your idea what you've given above is what I really dislike about current GW rules. Specifically, it's way too 'all or nothing', and 'praying for 6's'- regardless of any skill.
I'd rather have something like: Infantry roll to hit the Knight as normal, then roll to damage. Armour penetration rolls of a 6 that do not cause a glancing or penetrating hit have still managed some form of mischief- roll on a table (options include -1WS, -1BS, One random weapon must snapfire, a DC is lost, and similar- mostly minor, one turn things)*. This would go hand in hand with a return of a meaningful vehicle damage table for all vehicles, including superheavies (I'd like to see a return of glancing hits as part of this).


I sort of like the idea that Knights shouldn't be able to melee attack standard Infantry. Stomp attacks sure - and those are destructive enough - but that helps even things out. Knights could melee walkers, vehicles, and monstrous creatures normally, so that's what they'd be aiming for while avoiding pesky infantry.
I dislike stomp attacks as they are now, mainly because they completely avoid any skill comparison, with an overly strong 'all or nothing' element. I'd personally like to see stomps go away completely, and Knights (and similar) simply have more attacks, rolling to hit and wound as usual (possibly with a multi-wound mechanic)*. At the very least models should have an Initiative test to avoid a Stomp. Additionally, Stomps should be less generic- I consider it completely fine that a Reaver stepping on a Carnifex or Land Raider would give the victim a bad day, but a regular Knight really shouldn't be able to do much to such targets- at least not with its feet!

*To expand on this, rolling to hit in combat makes the aforementioned '-1 WS' minor damage table have more meaning. I'd also allow the Super Heavy (and any nearby models) to shoot at the infantry engaged with the SH, so long as their weapons can't hurt the SH (this makes the various stubbers and flamers available to Knights be more than a way of breaking the Assault rules, and also means the '-1 BS' minor damage table effect has a benefit to those who inflict it).
Taking this idea to its end, I'd allow an engaged Super Heavy to shoot out of any combat it was in, but lose any chance of close combat attacks if it does so (weaker weapons could still shoot at those in combat with it, following the usual SH ability to split fire). This would allow for a recreation of epic stories, such as Titans valiantly firing on incoming Tyranid Gargantuan Creatures, but at the expense of themselves as they are eventually overwhelmed by the millions of scuttling lesser bugs.

Tokamak
09-06-2016, 10:06
I agree that if knights want to actually hurt infantry efficiently they should be geared for it.


Otherwise that a 1 in 36 chance of a Gretchin killing a Knight. Which really makes no sense when a chainfist wielding terminator would struggle to do that!

Right but only one squad of gretchin has that 1 in 36 chance. It's not like throwing 36 gretchin at a knight would give you a fair chance of killing him. To get to those odds you would need 36 squads (at least 180 gretchin) of them. Seems fair. And of course the terminator squad will get the same odds plus any anti-tank gear they may wield.

And relying on the sabotage rule alone would be a terrible strategy anyway. It's just that the knight player wouldn't want to expose his knight to that probability either.

Geep
09-06-2016, 15:17
Right but only one squad of gretchin has that 1 in 36 chance. It's not like throwing 36 gretchin at a knight would give you a fair chance of killing him. To get to those odds you would need 36 squads (at least 180 gretchin) of them. Seems fair. And of course the terminator squad will get the same odds plus any anti-tank gear they may wield.
I still dislike such a mechanic as it completely ignores all details of the attacker and defender. Why would a minimum squad of Gretchin have the same chance as a maximum squad of Ogryns or Tactical Marines (assuming no upgrades, so no additional anti-tank ability)?
Referring back to my previous post, it's a similar mechanic that makes me hate Stomps and the like- no one cares what the defender or attacker is, damage is just a roll on a table that players have minimal influence over.

Tokamak
09-06-2016, 17:08
I intentionally didn't really add attacker/defender specifics because that would be up to balance. It's just a rough concept. The gist is that each unit gets the same chance to make things harder for the knight.

That gretchin, ogryns and marines, all without anti-tank capabilities, would stand the same chance is already the case is it not? They can't do anything against a knight. And to a knight, or any super-heavy, they'd be all the same as well. That is, until one of them manages to crawl up into their interior.

Geep
09-06-2016, 17:31
That gretchin, ogryns and marines, all without anti-tank capabilities, would stand the same chance is already the case is it not? They can't do anything against a knight. And to a knight, or any super-heavy, they'd be all the same as well. That is, until one of them manages to crawl up into their interior.
Fair enough, it's just that having many small units of gretchin (which would increase the Knight-damaging chance) is much more possible than having many units of Ogryns or Marines. Whether anyone would do that is another matter.

Tokamak
10-06-2016, 00:00
Yeah that's thing, it being strong against superheavies would be the only reason to do it. It's a pretty lousy part of your army against anything else. So if you're in a setting that doesn't allow you to tailor armies to your opponent then it wouldn't happen a lot by default. And well, if you get to tailor against knights there's way better alternatives.

The 'all or nothing' is a fair point though. But we're talking about willingly walking your infantry into certain death against very bad odds here. They're a threat that's high enough for the knight player to try and mitigate but it's not high enough for the infantry player to fully commit into a suicide charge.

Maybe that destroy on a 6 is too distracting. The idea of infantry being able to take down the ion-shields for the rest of the game sounds more appealing. It suddenly opens the knight up for other mid-heavy fire. I just wouldn't know what to replace it with for other super-heavies.

Then again it's just spitballing ideas here. The main point is that superheavies currently don't have an achilles heel, and they desperately need one. Not just for balance, it also makes games more dramatic and puts more narrative into the fight.

Aurelius 12 Reborn
10-06-2016, 11:38
I know I keep coming back to the damage chart but I really think that's the answer- in my mind this sabotage attack should give basic infantry the chance to damage a knight but it shouldn't be more effective than dedicated anti-tank infantry. If anything I'd be tempted to link it to a piece of wargear like Krak grenades- common enough to be prevalent, but not to the point where conscript no. 38448337280467832 'Joe Bloggs' can do much to stop the knight other that wet himself.

For the interim how about something like this; use the following damage chart (with 7th edition modifiers?)



1. Gun Crew Shaken: One weapon may only fire snap shots next turn

2. Driver Stunned: The vehicle may only fire snap shots and cannot move or pivot next turn.

3. Shield Generator Destroyed: The vehicle's ion or void shield generator is destroyed and will not function until it is repaired. If the vehicle does not have a shield generator count this as result as Weapon Destroyed.

4. Weapon Destroyed: one weapon chosen at random is destroyed. If the vehicle has no functional weapons remaining count this as Drive Damaged.

5. Drive Damaged: The vehicle's speed is permanently reduced by 3" and it may not move flat out or run.

6. Hull Breach: The vehicle loses D3 hull points.

7+ Chain Reaction: The vehicle loses D6 hull points


and add the following rule in assault phase;



Well placed grenades
Although lacking the explosive force to bring down a superheavy vehicle, a well placed grenade can damage a vital system.
When attacking with Krak grenades against a superheavy vehicle which the grenade cannot glance or penetrate roll to hit as normal. Any to hit roll of a 6 is 'well placed'. Roll a d6. On the roll of a 6 the grenade has damaged the vehicle. Roll once on the Superheavy Damage Chart and apply the result. Do not remove a hull point unless the result says so.

Tokamak
10-06-2016, 12:44
Yes I like that. But it shouldn't be limited to grenades. Any infantry, including Tyranids, should be able to have a 'well placed something'.

Aurelius 12 Reborn
10-06-2016, 13:08
Yes I like that. But it shouldn't be limited to grenades. Any infantry, including Tyranids, should be able to have a 'well placed something'.

I agree on the aliens. Didn't realise the filthy alien stuff didn't just read 'counts as Krak grenades'!

Not sure about all infantry being capable though- not all infantry have a chance to kill a rampaging gribbly after all. At least anti armour grenades/the equivalent are available for most armies.

Cybtroll
10-06-2016, 13:55
I think most of the previous suggestions may work well, but remember that to make things more complicated a Knight is a super heavy AND a walker. It's a very different concepts from a Baneblade. Exactly like a Dreadnought is quite different from a tank, rule - wise.
Also, I don't like that weapons of the super - heavy may be disabled. Having used many times a Cerberus it doesn't made very sense. Maybe temporarily, but not for all the game. Same for snap shot: a single gun is ok, all of them is too much. Remember that knight (but the majority of super-heavy) have a very small fire output considering their point cost (2 battle cannon and a stunner for 375 point... not really a good value if you became able to disable them).

Theocracity
10-06-2016, 14:23
I agree on the aliens. Didn't realise the filthy alien stuff didn't just read 'counts as Krak grenades'!

Not sure about all infantry being capable though- not all infantry have a chance to kill a rampaging gribbly after all. At least anti armour grenades/the equivalent are available for most armies.

The RPS chart I was playing around with gave infantry Rending in the most favorable scenario for them - I'm not sure whether that counts as too powerful or not powerful enough.

Actually, since I'm here, I'll go ahead and do a quick write up of what I was thinking:

Superheavy Walker (I'll just say Knight for short) gets to choose from Disengage, Ignore the Insects, or Crush your Foes.

Infantry get to choose from Cower Before the Beast, Hold Your Positions, or Daring Sabotage.

After each side chooses, the results are compared and the following actions occur. Note that this applies to all units in a particular combat - I haven't figured out a way to make this work for multiple units beyond that :p.

Disengage vs Cower: The Knight easily avoids getting bogged down, as the Infantry is too cowardly to engage it. Both sides skip their Assault phase, and the Knight gets to leave combat at the end of the turn.

Disengage vs Hold: The Knight is successfully kept at bay by the infantry's guns. The Infantry may choose to make a shooting attack on the Knight at their usual Initiative step instead of making an Assault attack. The Knight forgoes its attack and leaves combat at the end of the turn if it passes an Inititative check.

Disengage vs Sabotage: The Knight tries to avoid the hounds nipping at its ankles. The Infantry make an assault action on the Knight as normal. The Knight forgoes its assault action and can leave combat at end of turn if it passes an Initiative check.


Ignore vs Cower: The Knight concentrates its fire on targets more deserving of its wrath. The Knight forgoes its assault action in order to make a bonus shooting attack on a target other than the one it's engaged with. The Infantry forgo their assault action, the cowards.

Ignore vs Hold: The Knight trusts its armor plating to keep away the gnats, while the Infantry try to bring down the monstrosity. The Knight forgoes its assault to make a shooting attack on a different target; the Infantry forgo their assault to make a shooting attack on the Knight.

Ignore vs Sabotage: Overconfident of its power, the Knight moves too slowly and allows the brave soldiers below an opening to strike. The Knight forgoes its assault in order to make a shooting attack on a different target; the Infantry make their assault action as normal and benefit from Rending.


Crush vs Cower: When faced with a towering monstrosity, avoiding its wrath is not cowardice - it's discretion! The Knight makes its assault attacks as normal. The Infantry forgo their assault attacks but benefit from a 4++ invulnerable save against the Knight.

Crush vs Hold: Both sides clash, heroically standing firm in the face of death. The Knight makes its assault attacks as normal. The Infantry may choose to make a Shooting attack instead of an Assault attack at their normal Initiative phase.

Crush vs Sabotage: Only the suicidally brave are willing to attack the feet of a monster that's trying to crush them. The Infantry make their assault attacks as normal. The Knight makes its assault attacks as normal, and benefits from rerolls to hit as its foes make it easy to be stepped on.


What do y'all think? It's very rough draft at this point and I'm not sure about the balance, but I wanted to give options for the various ways to fight Knights - tarpits, shooting, and assault - as well as counter play for what the Knights would want to do. Suggestions are definitely welcome.

Tokamak
10-06-2016, 15:55
I think most of the previous suggestions may work well, but remember that to make things more complicated a Knight is a super heavy AND a walker. It's a very different concepts from a Baneblade. Exactly like a Dreadnought is quite different from a tank, rule - wise.
Also, I don't like that weapons of the super - heavy may be disabled. Having used many times a Cerberus it doesn't made very sense. Maybe temporarily, but not for all the game. Same for snap shot: a single gun is ok, all of them is too much. Remember that knight (but the majority of super-heavy) have a very small fire output considering their point cost (2 battle cannon and a stunner for 375 point... not really a good value if you became able to disable them).

Infantry taking down the shields ais what I like best. It means an army will still have to cooperate to bring down a knight rather than having grunts just yolo their way in for a tiny chance.

And the same should go for any superheavy in the game. They all need to have the possibility of infantry making them more vulnerable.

The beauty of this is that in giant apocalypse games this rule would be hardly used at all as players can just turn the super-heavies against each other. It's just in normal pickup games that superheavies become less frustrating to play against.

Aurelius 12 Reborn
10-06-2016, 17:09
I think if it is streamlined so all damage uses the same table it helps with speed and ease of rules.

My main concern is that regular infantry shouldn't fare well against super heavies (especially Knights who can fight back) and anti tank infantry should definitely be better equipped to harm them. Hence restricting the bonus to those who are geared to fighting armour. After all, if you can't hurt a Leman Russ, you shouldn't magically gain the ability to hurt a Knight.

@Cybtroll
I think that the loss of a weapon, while costly, doesn't feel too outrageous a price. Also the Knight's benefits as a walker are included innately in that it can utterly devastate the infantry in return, or possibly even first!

@Theocracity
I like the idea of a table but I'm not sure the bonuses quite work. It might work better in a game like Renegade rather than as a replacement for regular play.

Tokamak
10-06-2016, 17:16
After all, if you can't hurt a Leman Russ, you shouldn't magically gain the ability to hurt a Knight.


That's why I think it should be a rule that applies to all super-heavies. And whether or not they 'should' be able to do it lorewise can be debated but it doesn't really have any bearing on the game.

Aurelius 12 Reborn
10-06-2016, 20:51
That's why I think it should be a rule that applies to all super-heavies. And whether or not they 'should' be able to do it lorewise can be debated but it doesn't really have any bearing on the game.

Sorry maybe I wasn't being clear, yeah it should definitely apply to all super heavies to bring back some parity. But from a pure game mechanics point of view, why should a squad who can't hurt a regular armoured vehicle be given the ability to hurt a superheavy one? A guardsman who assaults the rear of a Rhino can't hurt it. But a version of the well placed rule which disregarded kit would mean that the same S3 guardsman could hurt a Baneblade, Fellblade, Knight or Brass Scorpion. To me that doesn't make sense either from a game mechanic or fluff sense.

de Selby
10-06-2016, 23:19
The funny thing is that superheavy tanks and walkers don't exist in real life because they're so impractical. So any discussion of fluffy ways to balance them could start with giving them some of the disadvantages they'd have in reality like getting stuck, running out of fuel and ammo, and falling over. Instead of a superheavy damage table there could be a superheavy impracticality table, that you roll on every turn whether the enemy hits you or not :D

Tokamak
11-06-2016, 00:20
why should a squad who can't hurt a regular armoured vehicle be given the ability to hurt a superheavy one? A

More weak spots and points of entry. The armour may be thicker but there's also more ways to get around it.

Geep
11-06-2016, 06:26
Going back to a 'well placed "something"' to hurt vehicles, I think it'd be fair to have possible vehicle damage come at a cost to the assaulting infantry, beyond just possible attacks back. For example, infantry roll to hit, then to damage (through whatever mechanic)- then for every successful damage roll inflicted the infantry unit takes a S4 hit, as they my cause the damage by cutting high-powered cables, accidentally getting caught in the hydraulics, or other dangerous activities. This would also help provide some balance if the damage system ignored the attacker's stats, as (going back to the previous comparison) a gretchin has much more to fear from a S4 hit than a marine.


why should a squad who can't hurt a regular armoured vehicle be given the ability to hurt a superheavy one?
Personally I think all squads should have a chance of hurting anything- even if it's just a slim chance and close-combat only, or something like that. I remember facing the BS possible in past 40k where Fire Warriors could shoot under their Devilfish, immune to assault as the Devilfish formed an impenetrable wall to my assaulting Hormagaunts. Nothing sucks the fun out of the game more than being completely powerless.

Freman Bloodglaive
11-06-2016, 06:43
well it's not the players fault there's no balance, he just wants to play a knight household. But yeah, I'm not going to buy all that stuff either.

GW is bringing back epic. I wonder whether people will be able to play knight armies there.

Historically you could play Knights and Titans in Epic, and it worked because every unit can, potentially, hurt them because of the way the rules worked. What makes them difficult in 40k is because it's possible that 90% or more of their opponent's army can't actually do anything to them at all.

Tokamak
11-06-2016, 10:33
WFB used to have a similar problem but the 8th edition changed that. Now everything has a chance of hurting anything. For 40k such a simple rule can't be implemented due to the abundance of ranged. You'd get something terrible like in AoS where goblin archers dominate the game with their endless rain of arrows that are bound to get lucky at least a few times.

But to let infantry wreak havoc to superheavies just makes so much sense.

Superheavies kill heavies, and infantry from afar
Heavies kill infantry and other heavies
Infantry kills superheavies but only up close and will likely die while doing so.

The current situation where one unit type can just completely ignore another unit type should end.

Freman Bloodglaive
11-06-2016, 12:53
Wasn't the rule against armoured companies that a six followed by another six on the damage table would count as a glancing hit, regardless of the strength of the attack?

Geep
11-06-2016, 18:08
Wasn't the rule against armoured companies that a six followed by another six on the damage table would count as a glancing hit, regardless of the strength of the attack?
Yes- there was also the rule that vehicles couldn't get within 6" of cover unless they had supporting infantry within 6" of them (the rationale being that tanks don't have great lines of sight from the inside, and wouldn't want to get too close to where they think enemy infantry may be... because infantry can wreck tanks!).

The designers notes pointed out that the 'lucky hit' rule was needed so that any squad could hurt the masses of tanks, because the game is boring when one side is invulnerable, and the infantry rule was both fluffy (from a real-life point of view) and kept the importance of infantry in the all-tank army, as is appropriate for 40k!
It's very sad to see that once upon a time GW designers actually understood the underlying ideas of the game they made rules for, but no more... Now we have things like the most recent ad I've seen- "Do you want to win at all costs? Buy this horribly broken bundle with free special rules!" (very nearly a direct quote). Marketers are the best rules designers, right?

Tokamak
11-06-2016, 18:22
I couldn't believe my eyes
http://i.imgur.com/0wHnmOn.jpg

WAAC is a derogatory word in gaming. Yes gamers are free to pursue it but it's on the developer to mitigate it and protect the community against it. To ADVERTISE using that slogan shows actual contempt towards their audience.

The bearded one
14-06-2016, 21:05
I couldn't believe my eyes
http://i.imgur.com/0wHnmOn.jpg

WAAC is a derogatory word in gaming. Yes gamers are free to pursue it but it's on the developer to mitigate it and protect the community against it. To ADVERTISE using that slogan shows actual contempt towards their audience.

Or that they've become disconnected to the point they don't grasp the derogatory implications of the term.

daveNYC
15-06-2016, 08:43
Or that they've become disconnected to the point they don't grasp the derogatory implications of the term.

The advertising for those tank bundles got an incredibly negative reaction from me. Anyone know when GW decided to target their advertising to people who value winning over friendship? Because about a year ago they were convinced that most of their customers didn't even play the game.

If that's what GW is pimping as the image of the game, then I'm not sure I want to be seen in the same room as it.

Mandragola
15-06-2016, 17:40
It also demonstrates that their marketeers have no concept of how to actually play 40k. I mean, speaking as a dead-eyed WAAC tournament junkie, fielding 6 vindicators doesn't strike me as a good idea at all.

If you're trying to sell people pay-to-win bundles and then people who buy them don't win, you fail on every level imaginable.

Apologist
15-06-2016, 18:19
Yes, a horrid post on their blog. Tongue in cheek, perhaps, but still a rotten idea. I used the handy feedback button at the bottom to register a short note that I was put off by the tone.

silveralen
15-06-2016, 19:11
Yes- there was also the rule that vehicles couldn't get within 6" of cover unless they had supporting infantry within 6" of them (the rationale being that tanks don't have great lines of sight from the inside, and wouldn't want to get too close to where they think enemy infantry may be... because infantry can wreck tanks!).

The designers notes pointed out that the 'lucky hit' rule was needed so that any squad could hurt the masses of tanks, because the game is boring when one side is invulnerable, and the infantry rule was both fluffy (from a real-life point of view) and kept the importance of infantry in the all-tank army, as is appropriate for 40k!

I'd point out that the closest existing equivalent to that rule would be something like a riptide, which is hardly an improvement for many. If anything, rolling 100~ shots to not even get a single wound to stick can be even more frustrating and prolong the game. Of course, currently no force exists consisting of 6 riptides alone, so it isn't likely to come up.

Personally, I think it is jsut a symptom of the weird an arbitrary way tank armor and infantry armor interact with strength/ap. I'm hoping for an edition where vehicle armor and ground armor aren't so different that anti tank weapons are stopped by heavy infantry armor consistently, while the same sort of armor can be melted by a weapon which can barely scratch a tank. I think that tends to at least impede "take all comers" lists a bit currently.

de Selby
15-06-2016, 23:27
My wishlist:
Creatures:
Change the To Wound table (shocker!) so a six always wounds
Change monstrous and gargantuan creatures so their profile degrades as they take wounds, like Age of Sigmar.
Vehicles:
Make any roll equal to or greater than a vehicle's armour strip a hull point, then if you can roll greater than or equal to the weapon's AP value on a D6 it becomes a penetrating hit and you roll on the damage chart (this would generally make penetrating high armour values generally a bit easier and penetrating low armour values a bit less of a sure thing, I think. Also make AP values other than 1 or 2 useful against, you know, armour).
Damage chart for normal vehicles and another one for superheavies.

If there are going to be formations consisting of one powerful thing, they should come with special victory conditions or something so the game is still fun.

All the points would need adjusting but they need adjusting anyway.

Theocracity
15-06-2016, 23:48
My wishlist:
Creatures:
Change the To Wound table (shocker!) so a six always wounds
Change monstrous and gargantuan creatures so their profile degrades as they take wounds, like Age of Sigmar.
Vehicles:
Make any roll equal to or greater than a vehicle's armour strip a hull point, then if you can roll greater than or equal to the weapon's AP value on a D6 it becomes a penetrating hit and you roll on the damage chart (this would generally make penetrating high armour values generally a bit easier and penetrating low armour values a bit less of a sure thing, I think. Also make AP values other than 1 or 2 useful against, you know, armour).
Damage chart for normal vehicles and another one for superheavies.

All the points would need adjusting but they need adjusting anyway.

I still don't think that 6s Always Wound works in 40k, just because of the ability to project force at range is so different from Fantasy. The idea of no unit being helpless against big creatures is tempting, but it breaks immersion if the mighty Hive Tyrant gets hosed down by lasguns at 24 inches.

I think if they did introduce 6 Always Wounds, they'd also need to bring in another element of AoS - the 1+ armor save and its opposite Mortal Wounds. That way you could have big centerpiece models be suitably scary and stick around under fire, and you could introduce various army synergies that could grant better armor-piercing capabilities or Mortal Wounds. That way a lone platoon of guardsmen will be prey for a big monster, but stand a chance to hurt it if buffed by the Bring it Down orders of a nearby commander - unless of course the commander gets assassinated as a counter play option.

I think it also makes sense to have vehicles follow the same basic rules as monstrous creatures - toughness values, armor, wounds, and a damage degradation chart. It may not make as much sense but it's probably better to keep things consistent rather than invent different rules for them just because.

de Selby
16-06-2016, 00:16
Hive tyrants are toughness 6 so that can already happen. It doesn't happen often though (4 wounds requires an average of 4*3*6*2=144 IG lasgun shots, assuming the thing isn't in the air), and I think wraithknights and what-not could do with being brought back closer to that level.

Anyway, GW doesn't consult me about their rules updates and this is all a bit off topic I guess.

Geep
16-06-2016, 04:01
As de Selby points out, Hive Tyrants and most big creatures can already be hosed down by lasguns. I've lost many Carnifexes that way (a little bad luck is all it takes). The "6's always wound" really only affects Gargantuan Creatures- which is the intended target.
As to whether that 'breaks immersion' or otherwise shouldn't be possible, there's plenty of possibilities for how a regular soldier could more efficiently use their weapon on a big creature. In the Anphelion Project book a Heirophant gets taken down by a commissar with power sword.

Carnifexes and Hive Tyrants do tend to stick around under lasgun fire, and do have excellent saves against that kind of thing. 'Mortal wounds' already exist in the form of rending and high strength/low AP weapons, which are already abundant enough!


I think it also makes sense to have vehicles follow the same basic rules as monstrous creatures - toughness values, armor, wounds, and a damage degradation chart. It may not make as much sense but it's probably better to keep things consistent rather than invent different rules for them just because.
The only problem I have with this solution is that it exacerbates an already existing problem: The best anti-tank weapons often aren't anti-tank!
Currently the vehicle damage table is often not that important- what matters is simply causing masses of glancing and penetrating hits, to strip hull points- so high strength multi-shot weapons are the go-to tank killer, and lascannons and meltaguns are practically forgotten (unless they can be spammed in the one unit, to gain the many-shot ability).

I like most of de Selby's ideas, but for this one:

Make any roll equal to or greater than a vehicle's armour strip a hull point, then if you can roll greater than or equal to the weapon's AP value on a D6 it becomes a penetrating hit and you roll on the damage chart (this would generally make penetrating high armour values generally a bit easier and penetrating low armour values a bit less of a sure thing, I think. Also make AP values other than 1 or 2 useful against, you know, armour).
I'd go the opposite way- hits greater than or equal to the armour value cause a roll on a damage table (with mainly short-term effects), but only low AP weapons are likely to strip hull points and cause lasting damage. That way many units can suppress tanks, but to actually take them out quickly requires a dedicated weapon.

Tokamak
16-06-2016, 06:45
I still don't think that 6s Always Wound works in 40k, just because of the ability to project force at range is so different from Fantasy. The idea of no unit being helpless against big creatures is tempting, but it breaks immersion if the mighty Hive Tyrant gets hosed down by lasguns at 24 inches.

Agreed. The quantity of small arms fire is too large for that to work. But 6's always wounding for melee attacks doesn't seem to hurt. It just gives the visual of countless of infantry crawling up a super heavy in order to bring it down.

And I still like the idea of reducing the odds of a unit getting a lucky hit on a super heavy to one roll per squad regardless of size.

Theocracity
16-06-2016, 13:41
As de Selby points out, Hive Tyrants and most big creatures can already be hosed down by lasguns. I've lost many Carnifexes that way (a little bad luck is all it takes). The "6's always wound" really only affects Gargantuan Creatures- which is the intended target.
As to whether that 'breaks immersion' or otherwise shouldn't be possible, there's plenty of possibilities for how a regular soldier could more efficiently use their weapon on a big creature. In the Anphelion Project book a Heirophant gets taken down by a commissar with power sword.

Carnifexes and Hive Tyrants do tend to stick around under lasgun fire, and do have excellent saves against that kind of thing. 'Mortal wounds' already exist in the form of rending and high strength/low AP weapons, which are already abundant enough!

You can tell it's been a while since I've sat down for a game when I forget stuff like this. But what I was trying to get at is actually more in your next point:


The only problem I have with this solution is that it exacerbates an already existing problem: The best anti-tank weapons often aren't anti-tank!
Currently the vehicle damage table is often not that important- what matters is simply causing masses of glancing and penetrating hits, to strip hull points- so high strength multi-shot weapons are the go-to tank killer, and lascannons and meltaguns are practically forgotten (unless they can be spammed in the one unit, to gain the many-shot ability).


I think that if any weapon has a chance of wounding, it's not just anti-vehicle weapons that'll get forgotten. High rate of fire weapons could become the choice for basically any target - hordes, monstrous creatures, vehicles, tanks, gargantuan creatures, superheavies - since there's little that they couldn't solve with the right application of statistics. It's a problem we already have but I think it could be made worse if changes are not applied properly.

A thought - what about the other element of AoS's system, armor modifiers rather than binary AP? Do you think that would hurt or help?


Agreed. The quantity of small arms fire is too large for that to work. But 6's always wounding for melee attacks doesn't seem to hurt. It just gives the visual of countless of infantry crawling up a super heavy in order to bring it down.

And I still like the idea of reducing the odds of a unit getting a lucky hit on a super heavy to one roll per squad regardless of size.

I actually had the same thought. It's a bit unintuitive - infantry may be able to crawl into a superheavy but not necessarily a Wraithlord - but it does allow for some fun heroic opportunities that fit the 40k theme.

BTJ
16-06-2016, 14:10
Honestly, I think the easiest fix for masses of super heavies is just make Krak Grenades S7 instead of six and change rending to dealing D6 extra damage if you roll a six against a vehicle, but reduce the amount of units with access to rending.

Draconis
16-06-2016, 14:29
I couldn't believe my eyes
http://i.imgur.com/0wHnmOn.jpg

WAAC is a derogatory word in gaming. Yes gamers are free to pursue it but it's on the developer to mitigate it and protect the community against it. To ADVERTISE using that slogan shows actual contempt towards their audience.

But that text is not in the original picture.. It was a rumored formation that has a lot of people calling fake. That makes buying 3 vindicators gives you 3 more for free. And if they all fire at the same target, the blast becomes S: D and 2" bigger, up to 15".

Elbows of Death
16-06-2016, 17:16
It doesn't help that it's listed under the tag "Game Breakers" on the official GW site. :D

228467

daveNYC
16-06-2016, 17:40
But that text is not in the original picture.. It was a rumored formation that has a lot of people calling fake. That makes buying 3 vindicators gives you 3 more for free. And if they all fire at the same target, the blast becomes S: D and 2" bigger, up to 15".

Yeah, scope out the GW site. The pitch for all three formations is roughly "these are OP and you will win which is all that matters."

Draconis
16-06-2016, 17:54
lol well damn. I'll be corrected then. But I have a feeling it's more out of satire than to be serious. Like when you joke around calling something dirty or cheese.

Here's the hilarious part. Why are people calling this cheese? You can do the formations normally anyway? You can buy 6 vindicators for 343.50 or buy this bundle for 346.50. It doesn't change the game. GW is doing nothing but bundling their stock, and you're not even saving money.

Geep
16-06-2016, 18:01
But that text is not in the original picture
Maybe GW changed it afterwards, but the photo Tokamak posted, text included, is exactly what was first used to advertise these 'deals'. Regardless, even with their current advertising it shows that there is something very wrong with GWs connection to gamers.


Honestly, I think the easiest fix for masses of super heavies is just make Krak Grenades S7 instead of six and change rending to dealing D6 extra damage if you roll a six against a vehicle, but reduce the amount of units with access to rending.
If the universe contained naught but Marines and Guard then maybe something like this would help, but many armies have little or no krak grenade access, limited rending ability, and other factors that mean there just isn't a 'simple fix' that won't just break something else. The entire way vehicles, and monstrous creatures for that matter (and the larger counterparts of both, and fliers while we're at it) work all needs some serious changes- or at least would, if those in charge gave a rat's about making a good quality game.

Draconis
16-06-2016, 18:05
Maybe GW changed it afterwards, but the photo Tokamak posted, text included, is exactly what was first used to advertise these 'deals'. Regardless, even with their current advertising it shows that there is something very wrong with GWs connection to gamers.


If the universe contained naught but Marines and Guard then maybe something like this would help, but many armies have little or no krak grenade access, limited rending ability, and other factors that mean there just isn't a 'simple fix' that won't just break something else. The entire way vehicles, and monstrous creatures for that matter (and the larger counterparts of both, and fliers while we're at it) work all needs some serious changes- or at least would, if those in charge gave a rat's about making a good quality game.

re-read my post now, I edited it.

Tokamak
16-06-2016, 23:04
It's from the weekly GW email.

If it's tongue in cheek it wouldn't just be in poor taste, it would also be the first time since decades that GW poked fun at it's players.

The point is, gamers are rejecting the product. Imperial Knights are awesome on their own merits and they don't need the crutch of game-potency to sell. Stunts like this are a detriment because players are figuring out that if they don't want to fight against it, the battle won't happen.

ehlijen
16-06-2016, 23:41
I don't think it's necessarily the vehicles/monsters/flyers that need changing.
I don't see much wrong with infantry that isn't specially equipped having a hard time taking on really tough units.
But the issue I do see is that a game about infantry (that's what the core rules are about) too easily negates infantry as a valid choice simply through army choice.

Anything that can't be hurt by S3/S4 needs to be strictly restricted by a meaningful FO chart, and anything that is only very difficult to hurt with basic infantry needs to be somewhat restricted as well. Yes, that means all tank/flyer/knight/etc armies need to go. 40k is not the rule set for them, in my opinion. If it is to be, then any unit not capable of hurting those tough things needs to be buffed or removed.

If IG infantry squads with flamer/HB are meant to be a valid choice (and as a legal option they are presented as such), then it shouldn't be this easy to utterly negate them through army composition.

EPIC can handle all Titan/flyer/superheavy armies without making infantry irrelevant because it assumes that all infantry units are equipped with AT weapons. The Flamer/HB IG squad doesn't exist at that scale, and they presumably come with free kraks, too, as they can hurt anything in assaults.

40k doesn't have that. It either needs that or, preferably, it needs FO charts back that ensure things too tough for non specialised AT units are limited in numbers and that the opposing force contains at least something a flamer can actually hurt.

Tokamak
17-06-2016, 10:55
I think that would greatly reduce the diversity in armies. I like formations and I like the idea of weird niche armies. It's just that if the weird niche armies are dominating the meta it means the fault lies within the units, not the FO charts.

ehlijen
17-06-2016, 13:53
I think that would greatly reduce the diversity in armies. I like formations and I like the idea of weird niche armies. It's just that if the weird niche armies are dominating the meta it means the fault lies within the units, not the FO charts.

I vehemently disagree. Some niche armies straight up won't be supported for any given rule set. Yes, that reduces diversity, but right now too much diversity has left 40k entirely too unfocused to serve any given style of game well with its rules.
At its core, the rules deal with infantry vs infantry combat (trooper positioning, cover, melee, challenges, look out sir etc). But it also wants to support superheavy only play? (superheavies that not only ignore most of the infantry but also many of the vehicle rules). And it wants to include air combat on a playfield much too small to handle that?

The fault isn't with any given unit, it's that the game can't cope with complete freedom of choice in army composition. Too many options exist that can be made irrelevant (by accident even) by the opponent's list. Example: I paid points for some flamers, you brought only knights; I'm essentially down any points I spent on non-AT weapons. The game is now full of such extreme rock-paper-scissors, making meaningful points costs more or less impossible. How much should a piece of gear cost that might literally be a waste of whatever you spend on it, or might win you the game depending on what your enemy chooses to take?
40k needs an option cull. Either of extreme lists or of gear that is too easily made pointless. As long as both stay around, there will be balance problems no matter what.

Tokamak
17-06-2016, 17:15
I vehemently disagree. Some niche armies straight up won't be supported for any given rule set.

Which is fine if the niche arms err on the side of being too weak rather than too powerful. Formations shouldn't be used as a tool to win. It should be a tool to play fluffy armies that most likely get butchered in a game.


The fault isn't with any given unit, it's that the game can't cope with complete freedom of choice in army composition. Too many options exist that can be made irrelevant (by accident even) by the opponent's list.

That means the fault is with the units. Infantry should have a tough time against knights but it shouldn't be mathematically impossible to beat them.

led571
17-06-2016, 22:45
Ok after reading though this thread I don't believe the rules need changing at all after all an Imperial Knight is 100pts more expensive than a WK and it seams to work fine, the biggest issue is not talking to your opponent before the game starts and be prepared to get another army out the car before you play if they don't feel happy to play against the knights.

I am a huge lover of knight currently have 12 and that includes the ability for the 3 knight 1k list, but if unless I've all ready planned a game I will always take a second army with me.

ehlijen
17-06-2016, 22:47
Which is fine if the niche arms err on the side of being too weak rather than too powerful.

I don't think I succeeded in being clear. A lot of these niche lists will end up too powerful against some armies and too weak against others due to the absolute cut-offs involved. Tank armies will fold to AT armies but laugh off most of an anti horde army, for example. This Rock-Paper-Scissors can lead to games becoming futile to play based solely on list choices in extreme cases and that's bad, regardless of which list is powerful and which is weak.




Formations shouldn't be used as a tool to win. It should be a tool to play fluffy armies that most likely get butchered in a game.


Why? That's just reinforcing the game-universe disconnect. If an army is 'fluffy', that means it adheres to well thought out background, which means it was useful in some way in universe. Things that are useful in universe should be useful on the table, not necessarily to the same degree as in the dramatised stories, but roughly in the same areas.

Also, no, there shouldn't be lists people are encouraged to play that are by design going to get butchered. That's just bad balance again.
Decisions on the table should determine success or defeat, with list choices being important, but secondary to that.

The game should be the event, not the list writing. And that means the game shouldn't be predetermined by the lists.



That means the fault is with the units. Infantry should have a tough time against knights but it shouldn't be mathematically impossible to beat them.

Again, you are incorrect. The fault is that the rules system tried to pitch infantry against knights in a game this open without accounting for the fact that the knight is flat out immune to many forms of infantry but can still be taken as an entire army (thus rendering numerous units potentially useless).

Thing is, a 50ft tall walker should be immune to many weak forms of attack. If pistols could blow up tiger tanks, no one would have built them; but that's why in a tank warfare game you don't track pistol shots.
If the game is to have armies that can be entirely immune to attack X (knights vs S5-, flyers vs templates and markers), then those type X attacks are in quantum state of being useful and useless at the same time during list building. That means giving them a single points value is never going to be accurate, and that means you're never going to get useful balancing.
Weapons that are good against some things but weak against others are interesting, because they push the player to make good tactical use of them on the table.
Weapons that are good against some things but powerless against others are not interesting, because they can be defeated by list building, not good tactical play.

The concept of units that are 100% immune to some things and being spammable is bad for balance. Hence, FO charts and selection restrictions (to go hand in hand with removing background justification for problematic lists).

Knights can be in the game, but they are clearly exceptions to the baseline units of the game, and should thus be exceptions in their force, not the baseline. 40k was written with the tactical marine as the baseline and most weapons being balanced against how good they are against that. All Knight armies create an entirely different baseline that is not truly compatible
with those balancing assumptions. They throw the game out of whack.

vlad78
17-06-2016, 22:55
I don't think I succeeded in being clear. A lot of these niche lists will end up too powerful against some armies and too weak against others due to the absolute cut-offs involved. Tank armies will fold to AT armies but laugh off most of an anti horde army, for example. This Rock-Paper-Scissors can lead to games becoming futile to play based solely on list choices in extreme cases and that's bad, regardless of which list is powerful and which is weak.



Why? That's just reinforcing the game-universe disconnect. If an army is 'fluffy', that means it adheres to well thought out background, which means it was useful in some way in universe. Things that are useful in universe should be useful on the table, not necessarily to the same degree as in the dramatised stories, but roughly in the same areas.

Also, no, there shouldn't be lists people are encouraged to play that are by design going to get butchered. That's just bad balance again.
Decisions on the table should determine success or defeat, with list choices being important, but secondary to that.

The game should be the event, not the list writing. And that means the game shouldn't be predetermined by the lists.



Again, you are incorrect. The fault is that the rules system tried to pitch infantry against knights in a game this open without accounting for the fact that the knight is flat out immune to many forms of infantry but can still be taken as an entire army (thus rendering numerous units potentially useless).

Thing is, a 50ft tall walker should be immune to many weak forms of attack. If pistols could blow up tiger tanks, no one would have built them; but that's why in a tank warfare game you don't track pistol shots.
If the game is to have armies that can be entirely immune to attack X (knights vs S5-, flyers vs templates and markers), then those type X attacks are in quantum state of being useful and useless at the same time during list building. That means giving them a single points value is never going to be accurate, and that means you're never going to get useful balancing.
Weapons that are good against some things but weak against others are interesting, because they push the player to make good tactical use of them on the table.
Weapons that are good against some things but powerless against others are not interesting, because they can be defeated by list building, not good tactical play.

The concept of units that are 100% immune to some things and being spammable is bad for balance. Hence, FO charts and selection restrictions (to go hand in hand with removing background justification for problematic lists).

Knights can be in the game, but they are clearly exceptions to the baseline units of the game, and should thus be exceptions in their force, not the baseline. 40k was written with the tactical marine as the baseline and most weapons being balanced against how good they are against that. All Knight armies create an entirely different baseline that is not truly compatible
with those balancing assumptions. They throw the game out of whack.

I second that post. Knight armies broke the game.

vlad

Tokamak
17-06-2016, 23:47
The concept of units that are 100% immune to some things and being spammable is bad for balance.

-The fault is that the rules system tried to pitch infantry against knights in a game this open without accounting for the fact that the knight is flat out immune to many forms of infantry

Agreed on both observations. But they both indicate that the fault lies in both the lists AND the rules of the unit.


Hence, FO charts and selection restrictions (to go hand in hand with removing background justification for problematic lists).

So why just fix the lists rather than the unit? It will only result in more vanilla cookie cutter armies.

Imperial Knights lack weaknesses and that's the problem. They require very specific builds (powerweapon/drop pod squads) to counter while they're highly potent against balanced vanilla armies as well as any other niche army.

There's nothing inherently wrong with an infantry based army taking on a handful of lumbering mechanical giants. The scale difference is epic and it gives a great narrative to a match. But if you want a niche army with lumbering giants then it's you who should fight against the odds and not the diverse all-comers army.

Mandragola
18-06-2016, 00:00
I think that if any weapon has a chance of wounding, it's not just anti-vehicle weapons that'll get forgotten. High rate of fire weapons could become the choice for basically any target - hordes, monstrous creatures, vehicles, tanks, gargantuan creatures, superheavies - since there's little that they couldn't solve with the right application of statistics. It's a problem we already have but I think it could be made worse if changes are not applied properly.

A thought - what about the other element of AoS's system, armor modifiers rather than binary AP? Do you think that would hurt or help?

On this point, I think that AoS (and 40k before 3rd edition) did it best, and worked to solve the issue where multiple shots are always better.

The most important thing that you have to do in order to make single-shot weapons viable is to let them do multiple wounds in one hit. Right now they can't, so autocannons and multilasers tend to be a better choice than lascannons for blowing up tanks, which is wrong according to the fluff.

But if stuff just had wounds like it does in AoS (so probably quite a lot of them - AoS stuff tends to have more wounds than 40k stuff) then a multilaser might only do one wound per hit but a lascannon might do D6. The lascannon would also have a better chance of wounding and a better save modifier. The difference I'd make with AoS is to not have wounds carry over to other models. If one guy gets smoked by a lascannon it shouldn't make the 3 guys next to him also blow up.

Honestly the more I think about AoS and doing that to 40k, the more I like the idea. The main reason for that is just to rewrite the rules for all the units, hopefully in a way to make all of them useful. I hate how many useless models there are for 40k - especially when it's ones that I own!

Geep
18-06-2016, 03:59
I like the above discussion, in response to this though:

I don't believe the rules need changing at all after all an Imperial Knight is 100pts more expensive than a WK and it seams to work fine
Wraith Knights are far from fine, but a few main points:
You can't have an army of Wraith Knights, Wraith Knight weaponry is quite limited compared to Knights, Wraith Knights are less tough than Knights.
That said, spamming them is still a big problem, and the supporting troops they can get are insane. It doesn't make you right to smack your opponent with a big stick just because that guy at the other table has a nail in the stick he's using.

Casper Hawser
18-06-2016, 06:54
I like the above discussion, in response to this though:

Wraith Knights are far from fine, but a few main points:
You can't have an army of Wraith Knights, Wraith Knight weaponry is quite limited compared to Knights, Wraith Knights are less tough than Knights.
That said, spamming them is still a big problem, and the supporting troops they can get are insane. It doesn't make you right to smack your opponent with a big stick just because that guy at the other table has a nail in the stick he's using.

I thought there was some sort of Wraith host formation where you could get 3 WraithKnight's in a list.
I think the WraithKnight's should be about 500 pts toughness 8 3+/5++ and feel no pain is a pain in the ass there much tougher than Imperial Knights.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

toonboy78
18-06-2016, 07:02
I like the above discussion, in response to this though:

You can't have an army of Wraith Knights,

yes you can, unbound


Wraith Knight weaponry is quite limited compared to Knights,

they can have ranged D weapons

wraithknights are point for point every bit as good as knights

Tokamak
18-06-2016, 13:10
yes you can, unbound


That said, wouldn't mind seeing Wraithknights get an upgrade sprue and a codex on their own. IF!!! the units themselves are balanced against normal armies.

Geep
18-06-2016, 14:00
I think the WraithKnight's should be about 500 pts toughness 8 3+/5++ and feel no pain is a pain in the ass there much tougher than Imperial Knights.
I'm not arguing that they're not tough, but the weaknesses of anything 'fleshy' are much greater- A Wraithknight can be hurt by a bolter. It's not common, but it's possible. A Lascannon hit has a good chance of chipping a wound from a Wraithknight (2+, then the saves) whereas a Knight only has to worry on a 4+ (and still has a save after that). Low strength Rending hits are an issue to a Wriathknight- much less so to a Knight. Knights do have the damage table- but it's pretty uncommon that that is actually a serious problem for them. Please take note of the end of this post before deciding to argue about how good Wraithknights are.


yes you can, unbound
Unbound isn't really relevant to the current discussion, given that by its very nature it throws all attempts at rules-based balance out the window.


they can have ranged D weapons
Yes, Wraithknights can have ranged D weapons- for a total of 2 shots per turn. They can then have additional weapons, sure, but they still can't match the sheer volume of firepower Knights can put out (with many options for blasts or multi-shot weaponry- and it's not weak blasts or shots!). If it were down to a 1 on 1 then the Wraithknight probably has the advantage, but vs a 'regular' army that has a good mix of troops and vehicles (almost a joke in the modern game), the Knight is more adaptable. Despite all this, please take note of the final point before trying to argue.


wraithknights are point for point every bit as good as knights
I'd argue that Wraithknights are probably better than Knights- which is the exact point I was making! To say that Knights aren't too bad because Wraithknights exist is like saying that murder is fine because sometimes genocides happen- both are terrible, and the argument of which is worse is kind of moot in any normal circumstance.

Knight armies as they currently are shouldn't exist in the 40k game- or at least not as a possibility in any regular game. Wraithknights existing does not make this better- they are well recognised as being quite broken themselves. I think currently this thread has come down to two main points of view on this issue:
Should the FoC be better enforced so that things like Knight armies no longer exist outside of specifically arranged games,
or
Should the rules be changed to the point where a full Knight army is no longer as silly and dominating* as it currently is?
(by extension this wraps around to super heavies and gargantuan creatures in general)

(*This doesn't mean they win every game, but it does mean that many games are not 'games', and are not fun for one side or the other)

Tokamak
18-06-2016, 14:05
I think currently this thread has come down to two main points of view on this issue:
Should the FoC be better enforced so that things like Knight armies no longer exist outside of specifically arranged games,
or
Should the rules be changed to the point where a full Knight army is no longer as silly and dominating* as it currently is?
(by extension this wraps around to super heavies and gargantuan creatures in general)

Yes, so that brings us to what sacrifice is made:

Change FoC and keep superheavies as they are: Drastically reduced variation in army themes.

Change superheavies and keep FoC as they are: Reduce the lore characteristics of these giant units being able to rule the battlefield.

In other words:
Changing FoC sacrifices gameplay, changing the units sacrifices lore accuracy.

I think that gameplay should picked over lore accuracy every time. This is a game rather than a lore simulator. Not to mention that superheavies in normal games still pose a problem to balanced armies, whether it's one, or an entire army of them.

ehlijen
18-06-2016, 15:21
Yes, so that brings us to what sacrifice is made:

Change FoC and keep superheavies as they are: Drastically reduced variation in army themes.

Change superheavies and keep FoC as they are: Reduce the lore characteristics of these giant units being able to rule the battlefield.

In other words:
Changing FoC sacrifices gameplay, changing the units sacrifices lore accuracy.

I think that gameplay should picked over lore accuracy every time. This is a game rather than a lore simulator. Not to mention that superheavies in normal games still pose a problem to balanced armies, whether it's one, or an entire army of them.

I disagree that army diversity automatically results in greater gameplay. Part of the appeal is the background of the game, it can't just be sacrificed for gameplay without consequences, especially since it doesn't always result in good gameplay.

When valkyries and vendettas came out, we started getting background for all air cav armies. That doesn't make all flyer armies fun to play. GW has done that pattern a few times now (release new unit and background stating how this new unit is totally deployed en masse without support), and it usually doesn't result in interesting games.

Diverse armies are armies with actual diversity to them, on the table and not just in the form of unused list options.

Aurelius 12 Reborn
18-06-2016, 15:57
The issue is that killing your opponent outright is too viable a strategy. The game itself needs to change so that a rampaging knight household remains terrifying and hard to kill, but doesn't become an easy win force- if they can't take objectives, struggle to find good cover, can't win by murdering everything to death then playing against them becomes more reasonable.

I think we should be going the other way to banning army types- we should be encouraging more of an RPS style confrontation between tank armies, bike/Cav/jump armies, swarms and hordes, airborne, and low model count superheavy armies.

If people want a balanced force which can deal with most threats well-ish then yes combined arms is definitely the way to go.

This is how formations should have worked, as alternate army lists which blocked off certain options but allowed for others.

A tank company should be able to take tank commanders, but only CCS infantry squads in APCs, and no infantry specialists or arty.

An airborne force should only have infiltrators or infantry in aircraft, no tanks or heavy vehicles, and no arty, but access to CAS.

Yes this is a silly fluffy sci fi game with no real world connections but even so in real world combat certain units are used because they are especially effective against others, but they also have serious weaknesses. Paratroopers in 20th century struggled to deal with heavy armour or heavily entrenched positions because they lacked the firepower to crack them. Armour got bogged down in street fighting because of the lack of manoeuvrability and the ability for infantry to conduct ambushes. Fast reconnaissance forces could conduct strikes against enemy supply lines, or outflank opposing forces, but got devestated if caught.

The game ought to reflect this, and not just homogenise everyone back into the old force org chart.

Tokamak
18-06-2016, 18:41
I disagree that army diversity automatically results in greater gameplay. Part of the appeal is the background of the game, it can't just be sacrificed for gameplay without consequences, especially since it doesn't always result in good gameplay.


But you just advocated for doing away with knight household lists. Something which existed in the lore way before the knights got their first codex.


Diverse armies are armies with actual diversity to them

You you know very well that I'm talking about cross-army diversity rather than in-army diversity. If every army becomes a balanced mix of different unit types then you get cross-army homogeneity. It'd be just different faction flavours of the same army configuration. And that's what makes the gameplay overall far less diverse.

Geep
19-06-2016, 04:04
The issue is that killing your opponent outright is too viable a strategy. The game itself needs to change so that a rampaging knight household remains terrifying and hard to kill, but doesn't become an easy win force- if they can't take objectives, struggle to find good cover, can't win by murdering everything to death then playing against them becomes more reasonable.
I agree that this is a problem, but gameplay wise I've never found a win based on objectives alone to be very fun. Army interaction in this case is pretty one sided, and it's quite boring being the one (literally) stomped.

I really like your proposed army/formations idea, and think this could have been a great way for GW to go with their current marketing strategy. They could release a main book that sticks with a rigid FoC, then have side books that change the restrictions for fluffy armies. They sort-of did this with things like the Iyanden book, but the FoC was so wobbly by then it hardly mattered.

I think rules changes are needed regardless of whether or not the FoC is stabilised, and especially if the above themed army books idea were used. It's just not fun to have things that are practically untouchable for most of your army, having more of them just makes the frustration greater.

Casper Hawser
19-06-2016, 07:52
I'm not arguing that they're not tough, but the weaknesses of anything 'fleshy' are much greater- A Wraithknight can be hurt by a bolter. It's not common, but it's possible. A Lascannon hit has a good chance of chipping a wound from a Wraithknight (2+, then the saves) whereas a Knight only has to worry on a 4+ (and still has a save after that). Low strength Rending hits are an issue to a Wriathknight- much less so to a Knight. Knights do have the damage table- but it's pretty uncommon that that is actually a serious problem for them. Please take note of the end of this post before deciding to argue about how good Wraithknights are.


Unbound isn't really relevant to the current discussion, given that by its very nature it throws all attempts at rules-based balance out the window.


Yes, Wraithknights can have ranged D weapons- for a total of 2 shots per turn. They can then have additional weapons, sure, but they still can't match the sheer volume of firepower Knights can put out (with many options for blasts or multi-shot weaponry- and it's not weak blasts or shots!). If it were down to a 1 on 1 then the Wraithknight probably has the advantage, but vs a 'regular' army that has a good mix of troops and vehicles (almost a joke in the modern game), the Knight is more adaptable. Despite all this, please take note of the final point before trying to argue.


I'd argue that Wraithknights are probably better than Knights- which is the exact point I was making! To say that Knights aren't too bad because Wraithknights exist is like saying that murder is fine because sometimes genocides happen- both are terrible, and the argument of which is worse is kind of moot in any normal circumstance.

Knight armies as they currently are shouldn't exist in the 40k game- or at least not as a possibility in any regular game. Wraithknights existing does not make this better- they are well recognised as being quite broken themselves. I think currently this thread has come down to two main points of view on this issue:
Should the FoC be better enforced so that things like Knight armies no longer exist outside of specifically arranged games,
or
Should the rules be changed to the point where a full Knight army is no longer as silly and dominating* as it currently is?
(by extension this wraps around to super heavies and gargantuan creatures in general)

(*This doesn't mean they win every game, but it does mean that many games are not 'games', and are not fun for one side or the other)

It's a long post to quote but a Wraith Knight cannot be hurt by a st 4 bolter. One of us is playing the game wrong.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

ehlijen
19-06-2016, 08:52
But you just advocated for doing away with knight household lists. Something which existed in the lore way before the knights got their first codex.

So? Emperor battleships have been around for a while, too. That doesn't mean they belong into 40k as a game. Their place is in their own game, same as all knight armies. The power disparity between tactical marines and knights as too wide to fit both as a baseline for entire armies into one rules set.


You you know very well that I'm talking about cross-army diversity rather than in-army diversity. If every army becomes a balanced mix of different unit types then you get cross-army homogeneity. It'd be just different faction flavours of the same army configuration. And that's what makes the gameplay overall far less diverse.

I'm not. I don't want to pay for the existence of niche armies (which may or may not fit the game's scope in any case) by sacrificing in-army diversity. I don't care how many different armies there if most actual games played become bland, and all knight armies are blander than armies with one knight and other stuff. 40k the game takes too long to play out to take refuge in diversity over multiple games; each game needs to be interesting in its own right, and homogenous armies kill that (which is why, regardless of whether the lists remain, I think background espousing the awesomeness of massed, homogenous use of new unit X needs to be dialed down or removed).


It's a long post to quote but a Wraith Knight cannot be hurt by a st 4 bolter. One of us is playing the game wrong.

I believe Geep confused T7 and T8. Even so, his point stands with regards to poison, rending and S5 shooting.

Casper Hawser
19-06-2016, 10:05
Rending can effect vehicles then there's armourbane and tank hunters.
All I'm saying is the Wraith Knight is superior in most ways to an imperial knight and you can run the Eldars version of a decurion and fit 5 in a 2000 pts game and still have over 500pts to play with. There jump monstrous creatures so they can get across the board far quicker 3+ 5++ and feel know pain is overall superior to 4++ against one facing and shooting only.
Either way there both pain in ass lists to face and I'd want to know in advance so I could tailer my list to suit but I'd rather face the Imperial Knight list than the Eldar war host with 5 auxiliary Wraith Knights.
You can tell I'm bitter towards Wraith Knights[emoji35]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Tokamak
19-06-2016, 11:29
Yeah most of the arguments go for any superheavy. I think wraithknight armies are less appealing mostly for aesthetic and lore reasons.

Aurelius 12 Reborn
19-06-2016, 16:30
It would be nice if the Knight codex had contained infantry (thinking cultists reflecting the sacristans) and tech priests, but I wouldn't say it was a homogenised force as it stands- far less that the min max rinse and repeat forces which plague tournaments and net lists.

Mandragola
20-06-2016, 08:26
Yes, so that brings us to what sacrifice is made:

Change FoC and keep superheavies as they are: Drastically reduced variation in army themes.

Change superheavies and keep FoC as they are: Reduce the lore characteristics of these giant units being able to rule the battlefield.

In other words:
Changing FoC sacrifices gameplay, changing the units sacrifices lore accuracy.

I think that gameplay should picked over lore accuracy every time. This is a game rather than a lore simulator. Not to mention that superheavies in normal games still pose a problem to balanced armies, whether it's one, or an entire army of them.

I think that this sums up the situation, more or less. The only issue is the bit about "lore accuracy". It actually is not lore-accurate for marines to be helpless scoring unit tokens waiting to be slaughtered. They always ought to be able to put up a fight.

This is why I come down very firmly on the side of changing the rules, not the FoC. The rules exist to make a game that portrays the 40k universe. They fail st that. You can take a fluffy army (or an unfluffy one) but it will not then perform how the fluff says it should, because the in-play rules do not reflect the fluff.

One of the things I'd definitely look at is the chance to hit stuff. It should be way easier to hit lumbering big stuff than it is to hit infantry. And getting infantry out of cover should be seriously hard to do. In reality you can only really do it by obliterating the cover with sustained bombardment or sending in your own infantry to remove them.

Cybtroll
20-06-2016, 11:52
When it was introduced, I was ok with the fixed to - hit roll and the different weapon's type. But I agree: given the current model range, probably that need a fix.
A simple +-1 for any difference in size (infantry, vehicles/mc, super heavy) may work.

daveNYC
20-06-2016, 12:55
When it was introduced, I was ok with the fixed to - hit roll and the different weapon's type. But I agree: given the current model range, probably that need a fix.
A simple +-1 for any difference in size (infantry, vehicles/mc, super heavy) may work.

Something like the Cluster Fire rule from the R'varna suit could also work. Increased fire rate against larger targets. Since the current fire rates are a bit of an abstraction anyway, increasing the rate of fire against larger targets could represent spending less time aiming and more time holding down the trigger.

Tokamak
20-06-2016, 14:38
I think that this sums up the situation, more or less. The only issue is the bit about "lore accuracy". It actually is not lore-accurate for marines to be helpless scoring unit tokens waiting to be slaughtered. They always ought to be able to put up a fight.

Any infantry really. In the Mechanicum novel the knights and warhound titan pilots were still concerned about hostile infantry getting to close to their feet and were appreciative of the friendly infantry backing them up.

In the game, knights don't seem to need infantry.
Now the INCORRECT way to fix that is to make infantry compulsory through FoC. It would be fluffy but gameplay wise the infantry would only be a points sink to a knight household.
The CORRECT way would be to change the way knights work so they start to rely on infantry backing them. They can still chose to go pure knights but they'd have quite a literal Achilles heel that the opponent can exploit.

Mandragola
20-06-2016, 16:09
Agreed, not just marines. For me it's weirdest with marines though. They are the iconic guys from 40k. They appear in most of the stories (notably the heresy) and on the covers of stuff. Then in the game a space marine with a bolter is a spectator, waiting to die whenever one of the many enemies who he can't even damage deign to pay attention to him.

The fact is that it would actually be a really big problem if there were marines next to your knight, or indeed genestealers, harlequins, orcs and so on. It would actually be very difficult to hit them with a chainsword and all but impossible to stomp on them. You can imagine how unhappy you'd be in a knight to go into built up terrain where genestealers lived, as the damn things would climb up your legs and chop through all your power cables in moments. You'd be lucky if you even saw them.

Or I suppose the genestealers might stay on the ground in a nice dense formation, banging their claws against the knight's frontal leg armour and never looking behind it to see the pistons and stuff.

Tokamak
20-06-2016, 17:11
We need more Golden Daemon dioramas of superheavies being swarmed by infantry to get this point across.

Senbei
20-06-2016, 22:47
We need more Golden Daemon dioramas of superheavies being swarmed by infantry to get this point across.

....and of super-heavies with electrified hulls, maybe?

Freman Bloodglaive
28-06-2016, 14:29
We need more Golden Daemon dioramas of superheavies being swarmed by infantry to get this point across.

I approve this message.