Discussing the 'fear of Knights'

[hermanista]

When your opponents fear your knights...

 

...half the job is done!

 

 

Next step, heroic charges!

[Heliomanes]

The stigma seems to be alive and well even on this board. Specifically in the Knights post in the "news" forum, someone just talked about "an autowin pure knight list that others have no interest in playing" in all seriousness.

[MajorNese]

The stigma seems to be alive and well even on this board. Specifically in the Knights post in the "news" forum, someone just talked about "an autowin pure knight list that others have no interest in playing" in all seriousness.

The same with every new codex/army release: "I've heard a few leaked rules, this is now the ultimate autowin cheesefest". 2 weeks later it mostly turns into "yeah, we can deal with it this-and-that way".

 

As someone who doesn't play knights, I've definitely hated their guts last edition. A single knight as centerpiece, that's manageable. The Adamantine Crutch formation was a lot tougher, and a full knight list was just not fun to play against. Not to say you instantly lost, but knowing you play against knights instantly demotes half (or more) of a usual list and throws it out of the window, because it couldn't even put a dent in a single knight, let alone half a dozen of them. Spending the entire game throwing your (supposedly elite) target dummy units into the grinder just to not get overrun simply feels frustrating and pointless. Especially when a 1hp knight still wrecks everything it gets close enough to, and any damage done against it didn't matter.

 

In 8th edition, I don't see a problem. Every unit can put some dent into them, AP-1 or -2 makes medium weaponry more viable, and multiwound weapons actually hurt them gradually, instead of the old fishing-for-6s-to-explode thing. Most superheavies (especially FW ones) share the same basic profile, so everyone should have some experience in dealing with that type of unit. LoWs are kind of unreliable now - either they refuse to die by saving the few really dangerous shots/rolling low on D6 damage weapons (and still get worse), or it's the other way around, they die first turn and leave a gaping hole in the army.

 

As for forgeworld units - most people back in the day could only afford few of them, and focused on the absolute cheese units, creating the stigma. In our circle, since FW got toned down and recasters became a thing, everyone puts in a FW model here or there. Even the more casual gamers, using suboptimal models they just like aesthetically. And since everyone considers what they might add, they actually read the rules and see that it's not all Eldar-grade instawin stuff.

[jeffersonian000]

That’s because you still haven’t learned that Infantry models in a unit are ablative Wounds for the unit’s heavy weapon. People tend to stop thinking “my bolters are useless” when they realize they have a 10 Wound Lascannon with 18 overwatch shots.

 

Perspective.

 

SJ

[MajorNese]

That’s because you still haven’t learned that Infantry models in a unit are ablative Wounds for the unit’s heavy weapon. People tend to stop thinking “my bolters are useless” when they realize they have a 10 Wound Lascannon with 18 overwatch shots.

 

Perspective.

 

SJ

That has been clear to me for a few editions. But a single heavy/special weapon in a tac squad will never make it worth its points, when facing something that will laugh at anything but that special weapon, and even that won't make much of a dent. A tac squad with plasma back in the day had 2 plasma shots (wounding on 5s) and one krak grenade (6s). Everything else was just expensive ablative wounds, and whenever they were in range, they were dead next round. Considering they costed around a third (IIRC) of a knight on a min-sized squad (+special stuff), they were just not worth their points in any way.

 

As I've said, last edition that was a problem, this edition the mechanics have changed. Multi-damage, stratagems, mortal wounds, AP even on medium weapons, modified wounding table, aura buffs, there are many ways to deal damage. Last edition, anything below S6 couldn't even make a dent, and would serve as target dummies/ablative wounds/speedbump. Not really a fulfilling, interesting game.

 

Your example picks one of the worst units for this though, and by that calculation knights would be broken as hell: A single lascannon shot for 155p, would take merely 23 rounds to take down a knight. 18 overwatch shots might kill an ork or two, but only has a 16% chance of inflicting a single unsaved wound on a knight, meaning your knight dies when charging one and a half chapters of space marines at the same time. Considering the points cost of a knight, this wouldn't work in any way, the marines would still be target dummies.

[jeffersonian000]

When was the last time you only had one Tac Squad versus an entire enemy army?

 

Nothing is in a vacuum.

 

SJ

[Beams]

That’s because you still haven’t learned that Infantry models in a unit are ablative Wounds for the unit’s heavy weapon. People tend to stop thinking “my bolters are useless” when they realize they have a 10 Wound Lascannon with 18 overwatch shots.

 

Perspective.

 

SJ

Bolters are super useful, tac Marines, sisters Guardsmen, etx are all useful and a good part of the game. The heavy special weapons are cool, but they aren't the squad.

 

The only problem is when you play with against a whole army of knights those squad mates are worthless.

 

That squad throwing out 60 bolyer shorts? Suddenly worthless. My 200+ Bolter shots per turn are stripping, what, 5 wounds off a single knight?

 

I don't mind playing against one or two, but if I don't know beforehand that I'm playing against excusively knights, most of my army is worthless.

[Lysere]

 

That’s because you still haven’t learned that Infantry models in a unit are ablative Wounds for the unit’s heavy weapon. People tend to stop thinking “my bolters are useless” when they realize they have a 10 Wound Lascannon with 18 overwatch shots.

 

Perspective.

 

SJ

Bolters are super useful, tac Marines, sisters Guardsmen, etx are all useful and a good part of the game. The heavy special weapons are cool, but they aren't the squad.

 

The only problem is when you play with against a whole army of knights those squad mates are worthless.

 

That squad throwing out 60 bolyer shorts? Suddenly worthless. My 200+ Bolter shots per turn are stripping, what, 5 wounds off a single knight?

 

I don't mind playing against one or two, but if I don't know beforehand that I'm playing against excusively knights, most of my army is worthless.

 

 

Protecting key models who can do decent chunks of damage against the enemy isn't worthless, ensuring you lockdown objectives helping to secure the win isn't worthless.

 

I will agree that that not knowing you might face knights might be an issue, but only if you agreed to a friendly game meant to be played with less competitive lists, its also a question of how many knights there are as well.

[MajorNese]

To draw a comparison to Skyrim:

 

Left - a well-rounded list with objective campers, character snipers, counter charge and chaff clearers.

Right - more superheavies.

 

[Mushkilla]

 

That’s because you still haven’t learned that Infantry models in a unit are ablative Wounds for the unit’s heavy weapon. People tend to stop thinking “my bolters are useless” when they realize they have a 10 Wound Lascannon with 18 overwatch shots.

 

Perspective.

 

SJ

Bolters are super useful, tac Marines, sisters Guardsmen, etx are all useful and a good part of the game. The heavy special weapons are cool, but they aren't the squad.

 

The only problem is when you play with against a whole army of knights those squad mates are worthless.

 

That squad throwing out 60 bolyer shorts? Suddenly worthless. My 200+ Bolter shots per turn are stripping, what, 5 wounds off a single knight?

 

I don't mind playing against one or two, but if I don't know beforehand that I'm playing against excusively knights, most of my army is worthless.

200 bolters will be stripping 7.4 wounds on average off a Questoris/Dominus knight. They will strip 14.8 wounds off a armiger class knight. All of this is without buffs. If you have re-roll 1s to hit or wound you can add another 16.6% to those values. If you have re-roll 1s to hit and wound you can add 36% to those values. So those bolters will be helping to bring knights down, after 12 wounds a knight suffers a 20% decrease in damage outout, after 18 wounds a 40% decrease. Yes mechanicus knights get access to machine spirit resurgent, but that stratagem only affects one knight at a time and will eat through the knight players limited CP quickly.

 

The knight player doesn't have access to objective secure, making them bad at playing the mission. They can't move through ruin walls like infantry, so they are a lot less mobile on any board with a reasonable amount of terrain. Knights only have access to one ignore line of sight weapon and it's not reliable. In my experience it's very unlikely for a knight army to table a decent player so that leaves them back to playing the mission, which as they have low model/unit count and don't have objective secure is hard.

 

Fear of pure knights this edition is irrational.

 

EDIT: did I mention weakness to mortal wounds, lack of screening units and no psychic defence that pure knight lists suffer from?

[Wargamer]

My issue with Knights is that many of the weapons I have that are designed to counter them are low rate of fire and random damage - two terrible combinations when dealing with a unit packing a 5++ or better save. My first game of 8th featured a Knight who just ignored every meltagun hit I landed, and had Cawl constantly healing it.

 

Suffice to say, I was not sold on the idea that 8th had balanced Knights. Armigers seem fine, but the big guys I'm unconvinced.

[Charlo]

My issue with Knights is that many of the weapons I have that are designed to counter them are low rate of fire and random damage - two terrible combinations when dealing with a unit packing a 5++ or better save. My first game of 8th featured a Knight who just ignored every meltagun hit I landed, and had Cawl constantly healing it.

 

Suffice to say, I was not sold on the idea that 8th had balanced Knights. Armigers seem fine, but the big guys I'm unconvinced.

 

Conversely, most of the knights best weapons are random shot too.

[jeffersonian000]

The big guys are still heavily priced for what you get, even if they aren’t as overpriced as they were.

 

In the end, play with more tall line of sight blocking terrain.

 

SJ

[Wargamer]

Conversely, most of the knights best weapons are random shot too.

A heavy weapon squad with bad rolls does nothing to a Knight. A Knight with bad rolls merely cripples a heavy weapon squad, unless they run a lot of ablative wounds (which many people consider a waste of points).

[Mushkilla]

Good thing you get 5-6 heavy weapon squads for the price of a knight.

 

But seriously it's easy to beat knights, at worst you just play the mission. I'm going to be running knights in my local meta because I'm one of the more proficient players and knights are considered bottom tier so make for a good handicap. I'm not expecting to win much with them.

 

Knights are a bit like Tau they are good at crushing inexperienced players but fall apart against anyone with a modicum of experience. Once you know how to play against knights they just aren't that intimidating. At least that's my experience.

 

I just don't see knights being competitive as a pure army. This is by design, low CP, no objective secure, low model count, no chaff, etc. That being said they are fun to play and play against in my experience so that is a big appeal for me.

[Stray]

My issue with Knights is that many of the weapons I have that are designed to counter them are low rate of fire and random damage - two terrible combinations when dealing with a unit packing a 5++ or better save. My first game of 8th featured a Knight who just ignored every meltagun hit I landed, and had Cawl constantly healing it.

 

Suffice to say, I was not sold on the idea that 8th had balanced Knights. Armigers seem fine, but the big guys I'm unconvinced.

 

I gotta say, this sounds like nothing more than really bad luck to me. That or your opponent was shady. Cawl, at best, can heal a Knight for a single wound per turn. And that means sticking close to the Knight which isn't the ideal spot to stick him.

 

If you find the big Knights problematic, wait until you see what some of the focused competitive players start doing with Armiger Helverins...

 

 

Conversely, most of the knights best weapons are random shot too.

A heavy weapon squad with bad rolls does nothing to a Knight. A Knight with bad rolls merely cripples a heavy weapon squad, unless they run a lot of ablative wounds (which many people consider a waste of points).

 

 

I have to disagree... Bad rolls are bad rolls. A Mori Quake Cannon with bad rolls doesn't do anything. Nor does the Knight. I think in your example you're taking about completely ineffective fire (which could just as easily have been 10's of wounds inflicted, depending on the squads and weapons), vs some moderately low rolls doing something. You see the bias inherent in the example here right?

 

There's a reason why you haven't - and still won't now - see Knight lists on the top tables of any tournaments. Yet you will absolutely see plenty of infantry heavy armies up there. Nothings changed in that regard, and none of us here play Knights because of how super powerful they are :P - we just love Knights.

 

I totally get it though, sometimes we find something that our normal play style struggles with. All of us land there at times. If there is something specific about Knights and your army that is a blocking issue - share it! There's some really great and very wise Knight players here, all of whom I know would be really happy to show you where to make adjustments and how to run circles around that Knight in your local meta buddy 

[Epsolonofthe5th]

Thank you for all of the above folks.

I play traditional BA list and I will fight anything. If the only game on offer is a pure knightly house I'll take it. nNever played it before, will I get crushed likely, will I learn a bucket load, hell yeah, will I have fun? I will give it my best it will depend on the IK player

[Mushkilla]

Thank you for all of the above folks.

I play traditional BA list and I will fight anything. If the only game on offer is a pure knightly house I'll take it. nNever played it before, will I get crushed likely, will I learn a bucket load, hell yeah, will I have fun? I will give it my best it will depend on the IK player

Captain Smashguinius and red thirst has you covered! Pure Knights melt to smash captains. :)

[Stray]

 

Thank you for all of the above folks.

I play traditional BA list and I will fight anything. If the only game on offer is a pure knightly house I'll take it. nNever played it before, will I get crushed likely, will I learn a bucket load, hell yeah, will I have fun? I will give it my best it will depend on the IK player

Captain Smashguinius and red thirst has you covered! Pure Knights melt to smash captains.

 

 

Yes! Listen to Mushy.

 

Knights have gotten better at assault recently, but other than mortal wounds, it's still where they're most vulnerable. Rush 'em with something that can do some serious damage in melee (I'm not massively familiar with Marines in 8th, but I understand there are some Terminator load outs which really bring some pain, and as a BA player, I'm sure you'll have many good CC options!) 

 

Knights typically get no benefit from Ion shields up close, so CC can scare us big time when it's not on our terms!

 

You've got all the tools to do great.

[9x19 Parabellum]

I'm going to play a little devil's advocate here, Stray.

 

There's a difference between being "afraid" of an opposing army (presumably that fear is that you're going to get crushed by it) and simply not enjoying playing something.  You seem to be conflating the two here, or at least, presuming that everyone that doesn't want to play against a Knight list is basing that opinion on the (wrong) presumption that Knights are OP.

 

I certainly do not see Knights being "OP" this edition (in whatever way you choose to define that).  Indeed, I have started collecting them myself!

 

But that being said, my tastes vary from day to day and week to week as to what I want to play (with) and against.

 

And there's a big difference in game experience between fighting against a well rounded, take-all-comers list and 3-5 superheavies (depending on the points you play at).

 

I remember a game at the end of last year, before TS and DG codexes came out, where my buddy fielded both Magnus and Mortarion against my combined Blood Angels and Raven Guard.  I got trounced, but that was not the issue; it was not a fun game. There was no doubt in my mind when I saw the two Daemon Primarchs that this game would be over before it started.  That lack of uncertainty makes a not interesting game (for me); I don't enjoy it. I don't mind losing when the game is good.  But there's a reason no one pays money to watch the New York Yankees play against Hometown USA's Little League reformed baseball team.  Shooting a bunch of bolters at Mangus and hoping he rolled a "2" on his Invulvn saves was not enjoyable. It was not exciting or fun or thrilling - it just felt like I was wasting a lot of time masturbating dice.

 

The problem, if indeed there is one, with taking an entire army of Knights, is that your opponent has to deal with somewhere in the neighborhood of 80 T8 wounds.  If you didn't come well prepared for that (read: lots of Anti-tank), you're going to have a lopsided game. I'm not saying you can't or won't win. I'm saying it's going to be a lopsided game.  Maybe the tactical objective deck will give you some love and you'll outscore your opponent.  Maybe not, but either way, rolling a whole bunch of dice and hoping I get 6's on my wound rolls is not thrilling or exciting. 

 

What I've come to learn about 40k is that a good deal of the "enjoyment' for most (not all, but most) players is a.) the realization that you are not screwed from the start and b.) the feeling that you are making headway by doing damage to your opponent and making him remove models from the table.

 

Your opponent is allowed to enjoy the game too, and if playing against your all Knight army, regardless of how much fun YOU think it is, is not fun for him, you might wish to rethink some of your social position on this.  And you should disregard the presumption that it's entirely about winning for your opponent. 

 

I played a game against one guys' "heroes of the imperium" list.  His whole list was Guilliman, Celeste, Voldus and Lysander.  Was it a legal list? Sure.  But I didn't enjoy the game; one of us was playing Herohammer and the other was playing 40k. If I wanted to play with a party of super-powerful demi-gods, I'd go play D&D. I play 40k because I (usually) want a game of rank-n-file and massed gobs of infantry/troopers.  When my opponent(s) consistently fail to provide that, I lose interest in the game.  The loss of one person from your potential pool of players probably won't hurt too much (assuming a robust gaming meta/demographic), but you should keep your finger on the pulse of that, because you might find you don't have anyone to play at some point.

[Stray]

Hmm. Yeah, I think that's probably a fair point. I probably was conflating the two to a degree.

 

You're right, this is a hobby and we engage in hobbies for the purposes of enjoyment (unless we're like, masochists or something O.o).

While I can totally see that someone wanting to play 40K as infantry vs infantry say, isn't - quite possibly - going to have as much fun against a Knight Household,  I can't completely get past the idea that in fairness the Knight player too deserves to enjoy the game and have a fun experience. They've bought a legal, fully supported army, and let's face it - gone are the days when 40K is an infantry vs infantry game. I don't think we can reasonably expect that unless pre-arranged, and even then, we must understand that we're somewhat asking for special treatment in that an opponent needs to list adjust to suit us?

 

For me, 'fun' is something that occurs when I enter the game in the right frame of mind. It's independent of winning or losing, it's independent of what i'm fighting. It is dependent on my engaging in a competitive yes, but also co-operative experience with my opponent. I've had games where I've been obliterated, but if I'm having a laugh playing with a great person, it just doesn't seem to matter all that much :)

[Heliomanes]

I think you make fair points, Parabellum.

You can broadly set them into two categories;

1. The game balance argument. Much of the game is based on counters (anti-tank, anti-infantry etc), which can be frustrating and a bit like rock, paper, scissors. I agree that it is a problem, but thankfully the move from 7th to 8th did a lot to remedy this. Still, not everything can be able to interact meaningfully with everything else, (try playing an army of servitors vs the ITC top 10 lists) and honestly I don't think GW will remove "counters" from the game as a whole, at least not entirely.

2. The enjoyment argument. What you enjoy is highly subjective, and the gods know that I have had games I didn't enjoy too much. Some of this will be due to having different vision of what we want from a game. Some might love ultra competitiveness, others might enjoy fluffy campaigns. I think most of us enjoy a good mix, and harbor the delusion that what we enjoy is the golden middleground between the different extremes. This gets problematic when people inflate their perception of what they enjoy and see it as something that is or should be universal. This brings us statements like "Who wants to play against a pay to win army of superheavies", or "who wants to sit around and wait for an IG player to move 300 dudes around and roll a thousand dice".

Still, there's a good argument to be made for an if not objective then an intersubjective understanding of what feels rewarding. You're on to what I believe is the key in your post - interactivity. There's no fun in feeling like there's nothing you can do, that you just have to sit there and nod and remove models from the table.

So, we know that the rock, paper scissors parts of the game will remove some interactivity. The balance issues will do the same (40k is not even close to being balanced enough to be considered a truly competitive game). We also know that different people enjoy different things, and their armies will reflect this. So I think the best course of action will be to take responsibility for your own sense of agency. Tailor your army towards meeting these things in the best possible way, in a way that gives you the ability to interact. This means that you shouldn't show up with 50 bolters and be pissed that the opponent handed to you randomly at the tournament brought his knights or tanks that day. You made a choice, and it's infinitely more rewarding and constructive to own your decisions rather than just venting at how other people enjoy the hobby and what armies they like to collect, assemble, paint and play (not that I'm accusing anyone here of that).

Edit: I'd also mention the virtue of managing one's expectations. Disappointment and frustration often sets in when you get surprised in a negative fashion. I often bring nonsensical and fluffy armies just because I think they are fun - but I don't expect the moon from them either.

[Finkmilkana]

Pure knights lists are far from overpowered, but they are incredible annoying to play against with many balanced lists. This is because nothing but heavy anti tank is actually point effective against them and most (though not all) meele units are simply useless. Chances are, the anti tank of a balanced list will be focused by the knights and is decimated turn 2-3 after killing maybe 1-3 knights. At that point you have to hide in ruins to not get killed in meele (even if you play a meele list), play objective and pray to not get wiped. There is still a high chance the knight list will loose by points (so you can not even just call it), but the game is just not fun anymore at that point.

 

While on the other hand, a list that knows it will fight knights, will just load up on S8+ shooting and kill 2 knights a turn.

 

In that regard, pure knight lists are having the same bad effect on the game as true horde lists: either you load up on the stuff that can effectively hurt them and wipe the board with them or you don’t and half your army just feels useless. And it’s very hard for many factions to build a balanced list that can realistically deal with both.

 

Now, a 3 (or even 4) knights + screens(ad mech, guard) list on the other hand is both stronger overall and much more fun to play against (because half your army isn’t just feeling useless).

[9x19 Parabellum]

Helio, I pretty much agree with all that, just a couple remarks to no one thing in particular.

 

1. I think a key thing that bothers me (and, I daresay, others like me) is players that select army lists with the explicit purpose of stacking <rock or paper or scissors> and hoping they catch someone with their pants down.  There are a number of ways this could play out: going all in with armor and hoping your opponent as no AT, or the exact opposite with hordes, or stacking psychic power/mortal wounds, etc. That mentality bothers me because a player like that is specifically looking to take advantage of their opponent's unpreparedness.  I also can't help but notice and remark upon the observation that it is often these same players that will cry and whine when they DO randomly meet the army that had the hard counter to whatever they brought. 

 

The issue with Knights is that it's very easy...in fact, it's pretty much baked in...that you are going to be stacked in one department of the rock or paper or scissor.  The (probably inaccurate) perception on the part of the critical crowd is that those types of players are inherently drawn to an army like Knights because it demands that style of play while simultaneously relieving them of any social responsibility "Don't blame me! It's not my fault! What else am I supposed to bring except for 24 wound toughness 8 models!"  Now I'm not suggesting that everyone who plays Knights shares this mentality but I have seen a bit of correlation between 1-trick pony armies and <the type of mentalities they attract> in my 20+ years of playing GW games now.

 

2. Regarding agency. Also agreed but with some sympathy toward the player who's mindset is like mine.  So my local meta (and in particular, me and my best friend with whom I play every week), go into our gaming with a "blind" attitude. That is to say, we don't prepare army lists with the foreknowledge of what we are going up against.  Ie, we don't list tailor. Ergo, it behooves you to go into your games with something of a "take all comers" list.  Sure, I can load up my Raven Guard with 3x units of 4 (+ Armorium Cherub) Lascannons, enjoy the -1 to be hit and, with buffs, probably pop off a Knight each turn.  But I have to play a mix of AT, AH (anti-horde) scoring units, fast units, buffs, psychic defense, transports, etc, in order to be well prepared for all threats.  That mentality directly flies in the face of having to go up against Knights.  So my sympathy is with the person playing against Knights in this case, as there is only so much agency they can reasonably be expected to take given their opponent is an unknown.  "Oh you didn't bring 15 lascannons and/or 12 thunderhammers?  I'm sorry, you lose." (I realize that's some pretty liberal hyperbole, but you get the picture)

[9x19 Parabellum]

Pure knights lists are far from overpowered, but they are incredible annoying to play against with many balanced lists. This is because nothing but heavy anti tank is actually point effective against them and most (though not all) meele units are simply useless. Chances are, the anti tank of a balanced list will be focused by the knights and is decimated turn 2-3 after killing maybe 1-3 knights. At that point you have to hide in ruins to not get killed in meele (even if you play a meele list), play objective and pray to not get wiped. There is still a high chance the knight list will loose by points (so you can not even just call it), but the game is just not fun anymore at that point.

 

While on the other hand, a list that knows it will fight knights, will just load up on S8+ shooting and kill 2 knights a turn.

 

In that regard, pure knight lists are having the same bad effect on the game as true horde lists: either you load up on the stuff that can effectively hurt them and wipe the board with them or you don’t and half your army just feels useless. And it’s very hard for many factions to build a balanced list that can realistically deal with both.

 

Now, a 3 (or even 4) knights + screens(ad mech, guard) list on the other hand is both stronger overall and much more fun to play against (because half your army isn’t just feeling useless).

 

I think this right here is exactly right, in particular, the last sentence.

 

Anyway, Stray, thanks for considering my points. I want to be clear here, that I'm NOT saying you are having badwrongfun for playing full knight lists.  I can't wait to try my own out for the first time.  Just giving you guys something to think about (I hope).