Imperial Knight codex= oportunity to adjust other LoW?

[BolterZorro]

Imperial Knight codex= oportunity to adjust other LoW?

 

I love to see a big (or more) central piece in the battle field. But nowadays, it seems to sux badly as soon as you are aiming for a bit of efficiency.

 

I think that the IK codex should be a big oportunity for GW to adjust the other Lord of War: Khorne Lord of Skulls,  renegade Knight, (and my fav) Wraithknight etc...

 

Less points, more survavibility, more fire power, sharing the new IK rules, etc....there are many direction for improving thoose beemoth in the battlefield.

 

So, Games Workshop, what will you do?

[Mileposter]

I'm curious as to the mentality - why is the Imperial Knights Codex an opportunity to adjust items not appearing in the Codex?

[BolterZorro]

The mentality is based upon the GW strategy that consist on publish erata/faq soon after Codex publication.

those erata/faq/changes/additions could be for other codexes also.

And why not speaking of other LoW?

 

And....why not?

[Karhedron]

I would think it is unlikely. The best hope for this is the next Chapter Approved at the end of the year. Hopefully GW's playtesting of IKs will give them a better handle on how LoWs should be costed.

 

Whether other factions will get to benefit from that remains to be seen.

[Halandaar]

The mentality is based upon the GW strategy that consist on publish erata/faq soon after Codex publication.

 

It's an errata for the newly released Codex, not an FAQ for all codexes. 

 

In any case, they obviously don't feel like Wraithknights or Lord of Skulls need adjusting, seeing as they didn't get touched in Big FAQ 1. Whether the new Knights Codex impacts on that remains to be seen, but you certainly aren't going to see any changes until the Autumn Big FAQ at earliest.

[MARK0SIAN]

I really hope they do sort out lords of war. Most of them are so underwhelming and overcosted they’re almost never worth taking compared to the same points value of regular units. Such a shame when they’re about to release new models.

[chapter master 454]

I think the points of the LoW is a cautionary move and a wise one. I am talking about having them pointed more on the end of high than low, we saw this across ALL big units in the game like tanks, mainly because in all reality a lot of things in 8th edition got buffed and tanks received a lot of good changes that powered them up like no longer having to account for turret placement, weapons getting shot off that made them worthless, being made immobile and thus a non-factor in a game any longer along with a massive boost to being tougher than ever. Ofcourse they did have a slight hit in the form of moving and firing heavy weapons but that is a discussion for another day.

 

In this instances, the prior edition saw LoWs do tremendous damage with little to answer them. Often being a dominating force with Wraithknights and Storm Surges being the big terrors if I remember right. So going into this edition these units stood to gain massive gains in resistance to damage despite losing little in firepower, thus a massive points hike into 8th. Naturally, some costs could be better done and some are seriously just thrown in for the giggles I admit with GW not pricing units on their statlines but on what they can take or where they belong.

Examples of that exist with Devastator Centurions vs. Assault Centurions, Imperial knights vs. Wraith Knights (both have the same statline but yet one is more expensive). This means GW are in someway attempting to approach a new angle in balance design but kind of got cold feet on a fair few models and decided to tax them hard. Units should not be taxed on what they can bring, they should be costed according to their stats and rules with consideration for the army if it should have access to these options so freely. A good move towards this was shown in the Tau Codex, the deployable sentry that strike teams can have used to cost 20 points to bring. Let me make it clear, this unit was literally a weapon platform worth nothing without a weapon, by all accounts because of how mixed toughness works it's T4 was moot and the entire squad had 4+ save anyway along with immobile, yet you had to pay 20 points prior to even putting a weapon on it to take it which back then ranged from 20-24 points. Now, the DS08 sentry is free to take and you only pay for the weapon it mounts. Good move.

This shows GW are attempting to fix points values as they go and are learning a lot with every attempt. Remember, 8th edition is now a completely different beast and not only we are learning but so is GW. They at least has the ability and foresight to see they needed to rebuild.

 

For LoWs in general, these units are awesome however they does need to be some measure of balance involved. We all want to bring knights into the limelight but that must be done with careful hands or we will just have them run rampant over the tables. I often find and hear that at tournaments, the best games are played when you aren't against the top lists. The question must be asked and we must remember it:

 

Do we want the army to be fun or do we want it to win?

 

An army can be fun and still be able to win but an army that wins rarely is fun for anyone. We must balance our want to make things viable with our perception of what is viable. What does it mean to be viable in this game? What does it mean to be "worth playing"?

I love my land raiders, I own four of them and one day I dearly want to have one of each, even going as far as to even convert one into the mighty Ares but are land raiders viable? Yes, they are in fact. I could be considered biased in both sides, lascannons do cost a high amount but they impact is indisputable. I would argue for all guns that twin-linking should mean you get a discount on the weapons cost meaning that there would be a difference between 1 twin-linked and 2 of the same gun. However, I do not want to see land raiders become part of the "top" because then it stops being...well...stops being what we love. Land Raiders in any game without question should have opponents pause, no-one can dismiss a land raider. In the same way, no-one should dismiss a Lord of War like an imperial knight yet, I feel my land raiders generate more threat than a lord of war.

In my opinion, the only changes needed are some fat trimming of points. Bring the points universally down for knights across the board by just trimming points here and there. Knights are worth 300 points imo, their guns can see similar drops of around 10-15 points.

 

I ramble, got my point across...carry on fellow brothers and heretics!

[BolterZorro]

Nice brick of text chapter master 

yes, a point adjustment and eventually few rules/repair could be enough for the LoW. Because when you see a 500 points toys vanish in T1, there is no fun at all. For all other choice, you can't be 500 point down in T1 (with the actual faq adjustment). 

 

PS: why on earth did the moderator move this topic here in AdMech???? It is about Lords of War and eventually IK, that means multi codexes ! This should be in news/rumors/general as it was

[MARK0SIAN]

Chapter Master is right in a lot of ways but superheavies have been costed on how good they were in 7th and they’re nowhere near as difficult to deal with now.

 

I would also disagree strongly that they are more resistant to damage in this edition than before. When I used a knight in 7th I wouldn’t at all be surprised to still have it standing and doing well at the end of the game. Now, if I go second, I’m ecstatic if I even get to use it before it’s been wiped off the table.

 

This edition has too many shots from too many multi-damage weapons with too many rerolls to hit and wound to let anything without a decent invulnerable save last long and superheavies don’t have decent invulnerable saves unless they’re Primarchs.

[Stray]

There is absolutely a points cost issue present. Quite how that get's correctly balanced however, I've no idea.

 

Take the example of the Shadowsword. It's a common sight in Guard lists, and it's not hard to see why. You can field one for well under 500 points, it has pretty equivalent staying power to a Knight (albeit without the 5 up invuln), but vastly more firepower. It's a good bet that as a single unit, it will delete any opposing superheavy in a single round of shooting.

 

A Knight players closest unit in terms of firepower, is undoubtedly the Porphyron. Which has maybe 3-4 more wounds (and in fairness is T9), but also costs nearly a thousand points - double that of the Shadowsword - and meaning you really can't viably even field one outside of really large games (in fact if memory serves, it's power level means it's banned under most tournament rules anyway). I'm honestly not seeing what that extra 500 points is buying you (though I dearly love the unit itself - it's a beautiful model).

 

The relative strengths of these units are what they are, and I see no problem with the stats in either case. But Knight point values (and possibly those of super heavies across the board) are well out of wack as things stand.

[MARK0SIAN]

I agree with everything you say but one of the reasons the Porphyron is so expensive is because it’s Forgeworld. That means it’s subject to GWs obligatory and massive Forgeworld points tax. GW really don’t seem to like FW models in their games and so they discourage taking them by making them ridiculously expensive in terms of points.

[Claws and Effect]

I ran into the same problem with my Fire Raptor. Some jackwagon took 4 of them to a tournament and now if I want to use the thing it will cost me about a quarter of my points total.

 

I rarely get more than 1 shooting phase with it. I'm finding it difficult to justify 450 points for something that is only going to get 1 turn of use.

 

Before I wouldn't take it at less than 2000 points. Now I don't want to at under 2500.

[Ishagu]

It does feel that a Shadowsword with 4 additional Las Cannons and 5 additional Twin Heavy Bolters, at 540 points, for a t8 unit with 26 wounds is pretty darn cheap.

[Vel'Cona]

I ran into the same problem with my Fire Raptor. Some jackwagon took 4 of them to a tournament and now if I want to use the thing it will cost me about a quarter of my points total.

 

Lesson of the day:  WAAC ruins everything :P

[ImperialSquishiness]

 

 

I ran into the same problem with my Fire Raptor. Some jackwagon took 4 of them to a tournament and now if I want to use the thing it will cost me about a quarter of my points total.

Lesson of the day: WAAC ruins everything :P

Yep. Including my hobby spirit...

[Stray]

I ran into the same problem with my Fire Raptor. Some jackwagon took 4 of them to a tournament and now if I want to use the thing it will cost me about a quarter of my points total.

 

I rarely get more than 1 shooting phase with it. I'm finding it difficult to justify 450 points for something that is only going to get 1 turn of use.

 

Before I wouldn't take it at less than 2000 points. Now I don't want to at under 2500.

 

There's a couple of ways to stack a -3 to hit on a Fire Raptor if that's any help?

 

I feel you though. There does seem to be an awful lot of knee-jerk point adjustments based on the one time performance of a single players tournament list. Point adjustments DO shut these lists down, but they are lazy fixes, which generally treat a symptom, not the disease.

 

The salt really starts to flow when you notice that some of the worst offenders, remain untouched (yeah, looking at you again Shadowsword), check out the Basilisk: D6 (roll two dice, keep the highest) S9 -3 D3 hits, with functionally infinite range, and no need for line of sight. That vehicle costs 108 points, weapon included.

 

A Knight player pays 104 points for a RFBC... O.o

[Marshal Reinhard]

I've tried writing a reply concerning the seemingly strange pricing of the knights compared to other LoW's several times now, but ended more unsure what the source of the problem is each time. I'm gonna try to lead myself through a comparison between a knight and a Baneblade below to try and see if I can make sense of anything.

 

The reason I chose a comparison with a Baneblade rather than the aforementioned Shadowsword is because i feel it makes the two machines far more comparable. I also question the pricing of the Shadowlord itself not just in comparison with knights, but to other AM Super heavy tanks. Is it really reasonable that it costs exactly the same as a baneblade (before adding non-free weapons) when its main weapon is that more destructive? But I digress. Since I don't have the AM codex, I'm looking at the entries from Imperium Index 2, so my points values could be out of date.

 

The standard Knight will set you back 320 points and comes with free Titanic Feet. Meanwhile a Baneblade costs 430 points and comes with free Adamantium tracks and Baneblade cannon. Neither machine can of course be fielded just like this, requiring we pay for some additional weapons first, but for purposes of points cost comparison it suffices just fine.

 

To drive home how similiar the machines are at this point, we can add a rapidfire battlecannon to the Knight, driving up the cost to 420. Compared to the Knight, the Baneblade has +1 strength, +2 wounds, -1 leadership, considerably worse WS and slightly worse BS. It fires a weapon that has +1 strength and -1 AP compared to the knight, but is otherwise identical.

 

Titanic Feet and Adamantium tracks are also very comparable, having identical profiles aside from the fact the former allows for 3 times as many attacks (making for a total of 12 for the knight vs 9 for the baneblade when fully healed). Finally the knight has a 5++ save that the tank lacks. Overall they should perform very similiarly at this stage.

 

It's with the addition of more guns that the two start to diverge. The Baneblade has to take and pay for: an autocannon, a demolisher cannon and a twin heavy bolter to be legal and can then add up to two pairs of sponsons, each with 3 more weapons each, can take a pintle mounted weapon and a hunter killer missile. Doing so will add more than 200 points in total cost, but that's a lot of dakka.

 

The Knight has to take another large weapon, either a shooty one that may or may not be bundled with another small weapon or a melee weapon, and either a heavy stubber or meltagun, to be legal. It can then take one of 3 possible carapace weapons as an extra.

 

There's far too many possible variations to compare at this point but if we look at the most possible hits that the shootiest knight vs the shootiest baneblade setup can deal out we get: 

 

2D6 Rapid-fire battlecannon hits, 12 Avenger gatling cannon hits, D6 Heavy flamer hits, 6 heavy stubber hits and 3 Stormspear rocketpod hits dealt by the Knight.  VS

 

2D6 Baneblade cannon hits, D3 Demolisher cannon hits, 2 Autocannon hits, 30 heavy bolter hits, 4 lascannon hits, 3 heavy stubber hits and 1 once-only Hunter Killer Missile hit dealt out by the Baneblade.

 

The Knight described above will set you back 585 points, while the baneblade requires 659 points. So for 74 more points, the baneblade brings a considerably larger arsenal. Again, it gets even uglier if you look at the Shadowsword which has a comparable arsenal, including the dreaded volcano cannon, and is cheaper than both...

 

TL;DR - Knights are just undergunned still even when you go full dakka? Perhaps, the Castellan can fix this. I also no longer feel like it would be overpowered if the one gun on the Castellan really is a volcano cannon when taking into account what an absolute steal the Shadowsword is...

 

It does feel that a Shadowsword with 4 additional Las Cannons and 5 additional Twin Heavy Bolters, at 540 points, for a t8 unit with 26 wounds is pretty darn cheap.

 

Looking at the possibly outdated Index, I think it adds up to 580 points? They didn't make it cheaper did they?

[Ishagu]

It's 540 now, so yeah - must be cheaper.

[Stray]

I think you've hit the nail on the head Reinhard. 

 

Knights do definitely lack firepower for the points they are worth. And conversely, as long as units exist that have equivalent or greater firepower (especially those that can remove a Knight from the board in a single turn, and often before the Knight is able to act) while costing less, Knights - and other similar units - are made less and less relevant.

 

The issue really comes down to points. No-one wants a game where all units are perfectly mirrored (if we do, we should probably be playing a far older miniature wargame known as chess ), abilities and stats (within the realm of common sense) aren't an issue where they're appropriately costed.

 

We're seeing more and more just weird points values. I have a horrible feeling at this stage, that if GW were to be transparent about how points values are really assigned, we'd learn that it's really just down to the game designer working on that unit at the time. Revisions then clearly get made based on tournament performance, which is somewhat understandable but doesn't just affect that niche of the community. The fact is, that most of us play games outside of a tournament environment 90% of the time, but probably still use points values when doing so.

 

I wonder if, realistically, point values need looking at from the ground up. That, I fear though, is probably something we wouldn't see this edition :/

[hermanista]

At least with the new chapter approved books we've at least got some chance of repainting without needing a whole new codex/edition.

[MagicHat]

Reinhard, the AM codex have updated the weapon profiles of (all?) Baneblade variants.

Baneblade cannon is IIRC 3d6 shots, S9, AP3 and fixed damage 3.

[Marshal Reinhard]

Sounds like the IK codex better buff some of the old knight stuff then.

[ImperialSquishiness]

The RFBC needs to be 3d6. A regular russ with a battle cannon puts out the same dice with grinding advance, but can also reroll those dice if catachan or cadian with an order. Plus you can have Pask hitting on 2s/tank commander on 3s.

I know most of the super heavy guns changed from the index. Anything 2d6 jumped to a 3d6, d6 jumped to 2d6. The only exceptions were the shadowsword going from 2d6 to 3d3 and the stormlord staying at 20.

 

FWIW I think the Knight castellan has a volcano cannon as it has the same crown on the barrel that the ss does. It could also be a quake cannon, which isn't the worst. Basically a 2d6 S14 AP-4 gun that does d6 damage, minimum 3.

[PiñaColada]

I will maintain my opinion that the baneblade is the best of the AM super heavies even though people seem convinced that the shadowsword is all that. The shadowsword is a bargain sure, but it's so ridiculously narrow in it's focus many games it will never even be close to making it's points back. Due to the number of shots the banebalde spews out it's a really good anti-tank gun that easily doubles as anti-elite. If the shadowsword faces anything resembling a horde army or something where no single units is worth more than 150 points it's terrible but bring up that argument to someone and they make it seem like that would never happen.

 

Obviously both of these tanks are great and much better than any current knights in my opinion but people seem to be hoping the Castellan get the volcano cannon (and there's reason to believe that) but I'm hoping it's the baneblade cannon

[Ishagu]

But what if I run my Shadowsword with 5 Twin Heavy Bolters and 4 Las Cannons as well?