Imperial Knight codex= oportunity to adjust other LoW?

[PiñaColada]

It's certainly more versatile then but I'd be real worried about the amount of points you'd invested in the thing. If you're playing AM your opponent is probably getting the +1 to the initial turn roll off. Meaning you have roughly a 38% chance of actually going first. Assume you won't, do you really think that thing isn't focus fired to the point it's either dead or real close to it? Although I concede this is my fear with all titanics, they are just not that tough. It's a gun specialised against titanics in an edition where a lot of stuff is pretty efficient against them, and the high AP is nice but often negated by invulnerable saves.

Again, I actually think it's really good. I'm just arguing there are real scenarios where it's not going to shine. The strength of it in comparison to the baneblade is the cost so if you're decking it out that advantage is gone. I guess I just find the fact that the baneblade is always going to have good targets is worth the premium in points cost.

[ImperialSquishiness]

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

I disagree. Take a tallarn hellhammerand deepstrike it. More brutal than a BB as it's S10 AP-4 and ignores cover for the same damage. Plus deepstriking keeps it off the board for a turn when you aren't likely to get t1. If the DS beta comes in, it's still worth doing, but a BB will be better as it has the extra range so can drop in your dz.

[PiñaColada]

That's something I've heard people say but I still don't understand how it could be legal since the tank chassis itself is bigger than 7 inches and as such cannot be placed wholly within 7 inches. Am I missing something?

[ImperialSquishiness]

The plastic BB is about 6 7/8" wide with sponsons. I always let my opponents measure up so the can't say I'm cheating them. Never had anyone dispute it yet.

[PiñaColada]

Huh, colour me surprised. I was sure, and now I'm not sure why, that it was 7.5 inches. Then yeah, I can see your argument.

[Marshal Reinhard]

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

 

 

Not sure I'd call something that potentially comes with that many extra weapons "ridicilously narrow". The baneblade's got more utilty sure, but that comes not just from the main cannon but its added demolisher and other guns as well as the possible sponsons it shares with Shadowsword.

 

The thing when comparing with knights though is the already existing RFBC needs to be on par with the Baneblade cannon or made drastically cheaper to compensate if the latter has now been buffed. In the index they were roughly the same and we paid also roughly the same for them.

 

Also, the Castellans mystery cannon is clearly some energy weapon since it has all those hitech looking gubbinz on it. IMHO anyway.

[Stray]

 

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

 

The thing is, the already existing Knights RFBC needs to be on par with the Baneblade cannon or made drastically cheaper to compensate if the latter has now been buffed. In the index they were roughly the same and we paid also roughly the same for them.

 

Also, the Castellans mystery cannon is clearly some energy weapon since it has all those hitech looking gubbinz on it. IMHO anyway.

 

 

Just an interesting little bit of math-hammer as people have been discussing the Baneblade cannon vs the RFBC:

 

 

Target is a Rhino (pretty much the optimum target for a RFBC in terms of average wounds) T7, 10 wounds and a 3+ save.

 

Baneblade cannon: BS 4+, 72" Heavy 3D6, S9, -3 3. Average wounds: 8.75

 

RFBC: BS 3+, 72" Heavy 2D6,  S8, -2, D3. Average wounds: 4.1

 

Bare bones, the Baneblade comes to 456 points (cannon cost is baked in). Cheapest access to the RFBC is on a Paladin, cost at minimum options comes to 458 points.

 

 

(I'm not trying to make a point - just providing comparison info for the discussion).

[Marshal Reinhard]

Ah, updated stats. Just what I wanted to see. And I'll make the point for you. The RFBC needs to be buffed or made cheaper, simply put.

[Stray]

It's unarguably the poorest main weapon choice you can have on a Knight, that much is certain. Other than staying at range (which counts you out of getting into melee - pretty critical if a Knight is going to make it's points back), there's simply no reason to take it over either of the other two options. :/

[PiñaColada]

Not sure I'd call something that potentially comes with that many extra weapons "ridicilously narrow". The baneblade's got more utilty sure, but that comes not just from the main cannon but its added demolisher and other guns as well as the possible sponsons it shares with Shadowsword.

 

The thing when comparing with knights though is the already existing RFBC needs to be on par with the Baneblade cannon or made drastically cheaper to compensate if the latter has now been buffed. In the index they were roughly the same and we paid also roughly the same for them.

 

Also, the Castellans mystery cannon is clearly some energy weapon since it has all those hitech looking gubbinz on it. IMHO anyway.

 

I would. Obviously you can add some major utility by paying for the optional extras on it and as such my argument weakens. But the point of the shadowsword is the main gun, which is overkill on almost anything in the game. Is it great against it's preferred targets? Absolutely! But we are in a meta (subject to change and local biases) where the preferred targets are somewhat rare, how many times do you see land raiders or knights? Probably not that often..

 

I think it comes down to, why would you max out the damage potential of the shadowsword rather than just use those points as a "down payment" on a leman russ? That way you are much more resistant to a alpha strike since the firepower is tied up in two durable units rather than one. Again, it's still a good unit and one of the very best super heavies in 8th right now in my opinion.

 

To move it back to knights I will have to agree that the RFBC needs to either more closely mirror the baneblade cannon or get a significant discount. All close combat weapons need to be buffed as well, maybe adding another 2 attacks when used.

It's unarguably the poorest main weapon choice you can have on a Knight, that much is certain. Other than staying at range (which counts you out of getting into melee - pretty critical if a Knight is going to make it's points back), there's simply no reason to take it over either of the other two options. :/

Also, it's plain ugly. Why did the design team feel content to leave it at PVC pipe? The Castellans equivalent is how it should have been designed from day 1

[Marshal Reinhard]

I actually like the simple look of RFBC

 

Anyway, I get the Impression you're arguing that the Baneblade is more usefull to bring to your average game than the Shadowsword is, while the rest of us are for the most part saying that the Shadowsword is too cheap for what it brings. Though to be fair I did challange you on calling it ridicilously narrow. Anyway, I'd say the reason to max out the guns on the Shadowsword rather than 1 more Leman russ is that you get a lot more extra guns for cheaper. Reservations for that this might again be incorrect musings based on the outdated info of the Index.

 

We're in complete agreement that the RFBC needs to be buffed, and I'd argue that this is probably true for the other main guns as well. As for the close combat weapons, what even is the point of the Gallant setup right now? Merely the privilege of choosing between attack profiles?

[Stray]

Without something other than a main weapon option to distinguish them, I'd be in favour of just having a base Knight, as Renegades do, and allowing Imperial players to use whatever Weapon combination they like. Frankly, you're right - the likes of the Gallant is without purpose other than it being 'cheap'.

 

Likewise, although the Avenger is a decent weapon, It's only a tiny fraction more points to take a Knight Castigator over a Knight Warden. You get a better weapon, and a faster, more durable platform.

Give players the option to take a pair of Avengers though, and suddenly, you have really good horde clearance - something Knights generally aren't good at. It's a far more relevant option as things stand.

[hermanista]

Without something other than a main weapon option to distinguish them, I'd be in favour of just having a base Knight, as Renegades do, and allowing Imperial players to use whatever Weapon combination they like. Frankly, you're right - the likes of the Gallant is without purpose other than it being 'cheap'.

 

As soon as you don that, the 3 datasheet beta rule kicks in and your imperial knight army becomes very different and loses its variety.

 

With the rule the renegade knights list is capped at 3 remember.

[Stray]

 

Without something other than a main weapon option to distinguish them, I'd be in favour of just having a base Knight, as Renegades do, and allowing Imperial players to use whatever Weapon combination they like. Frankly, you're right - the likes of the Gallant is without purpose other than it being 'cheap'.

 

As soon as you don that, the 3 datasheet beta rule kicks in and your imperial knight army becomes very different and loses its variety.

 

With the rule the renegade knights list is capped at 3 remember.

 

 

True, but it's a beta rule so is optional for the foreseeable future. Plus in all honesty if you start fielding twin-avenger Knights you're never taking more than three Knights total at 2K points anyway. I wouldn't be overly concerned (that, and we'll likely never see it regardless - not unless the variant names become something other than what are effectively load out titles).

[PiñaColada]

 

Without something other than a main weapon option to distinguish them, I'd be in favour of just having a base Knight, as Renegades do, and allowing Imperial players to use whatever Weapon combination they like. Frankly, you're right - the likes of the Gallant is without purpose other than it being 'cheap'.

 

As soon as you don that, the 3 datasheet beta rule kicks in and your imperial knight army becomes very different and loses its variety.

 

With the rule the renegade knights list is capped at 3 remember.

 

Exactly right. Also I would still argue that the avenger gatling cannon is a bit "too good" to be a horde clearing weapon. Damage 2 is a luxury not needed for hordes but more suitable for elites such as interssesors, bikes, nobs, shining spears etc. (Actually is there a T3 W2 units, since those would be the optimal target?) 

 

Really what I would want for true horde clearing is a cheap option of a twin-linked hurricane bolter that you can put on a budget knight with the specific goal of clearing chaff in mind

[Stray]

 

 

Without something other than a main weapon option to distinguish them, I'd be in favour of just having a base Knight, as Renegades do, and allowing Imperial players to use whatever Weapon combination they like. Frankly, you're right - the likes of the Gallant is without purpose other than it being 'cheap'.

 

As soon as you don that, the 3 datasheet beta rule kicks in and your imperial knight army becomes very different and loses its variety.

 

With the rule the renegade knights list is capped at 3 remember.

 

Exactly right. Also I would still argue that the avenger gatling cannon is a bit "too good" to be a horde clearing weapon. Damage 2 is a luxury not needed for hordes but more suitable for elites such as interssesors, bikes, nobs, shining spears etc. (Actually is there a T3 W2 units, since those would be the optimal target?) 

 

Really what I would want for true horde clearing is a cheap option of a twin-linked hurricane bolter that you can put on a budget knight with the specific goal of clearing chaff in mind

 

 

That's just it though isn't it. There is no other option other than tap dancing - which against GEQ, is of the exact same effectiveness as the Avenger - outside of Forge World, the Avenger is your only real chaff option.

 

That that is itself an issue, I don't disagree with :)

[BluejayJunior]

 

 

Without something other than a main weapon option to distinguish them, I'd be in favour of just having a base Knight, as Renegades do, and allowing Imperial players to use whatever Weapon combination they like. Frankly, you're right - the likes of the Gallant is without purpose other than it being 'cheap'.

 

As soon as you don that, the 3 datasheet beta rule kicks in and your imperial knight army becomes very different and loses its variety.

 

With the rule the renegade knights list is capped at 3 remember.

 

 

True, but it's a beta rule so is optional for the foreseeable future. Plus in all honesty if you start fielding twin-avenger Knights you're never taking more than three Knights total at 2K points anyway. I wouldn't be overly concerned (that, and we'll likely never see it regardless - not unless the variant names become something other than what are effectively load out titles).

 

The Rule of 3 isn't a beta rule, but it is a recommendation for organized/tournament play, so still optional in most matched play.

Even so, with the release of the Armigers and Castellan and any other new Knight units, combining the other Knights into one datasheet probably wouldn't have a huge effect. The new units would allow you to still field all Knights to get around the Rule of 3.