Q-Knights: Best primary gun?

[9x19 Parabellum]

I can't believe I haven't seen a thread discussing this, so here goes...

 

What's the best primary gun for Questoris Knights? (discounting the usual "it depends on what you have" ; yeah I know- I get that, but given that Knights will be the centerpiece around which my supporting force will be built, I'd like to get some opinions).

 

RFBC: I hate random shots, compounded by random damage.  That's 4 stages of randomization (random # shots, random hit rolls, random wound rolls, random damage).  2 stages (to hit/to wound) is bad enough. 4 makes it intolerable.  How are you suppose to plan anything based around that?

 

Thermal Cannon: Same problem as above, but has 2 things going for it: 1. It's cheaper, 2. It looks cooler.  36" range doesn't seem too much of a problem given the 12" movement of Knights, giving him 48" threat range all around.

 

AGC: My favorite primary gun due to it's inherent non-randomness. Plus it's cheap and looks bad-azz!

 

Las Impulsor:  I'm still deciding on this one.  Hard to know how much cost is "baked in" to the Preceptor who runs 100 pts over a normal Q Knight (how much for the gun vs. how much for the Armiger buff?) so making a direct comparison to the other guns is difficult.

 

So...how about it? What do you guys say?

[Stray]

Easy peasey!

 

It's the Avenger. Why? Because it's stupendously consistent. It will even out perform the RFBC on average against heavy armour.

 

The Thermal is fine if you want to shove a few shots into a bigger tank, but it too is a very swingy weapon. Frankly, if you have an Avenger equipped you likely also  have a close combat weapon (which will out perform the Thermal cannon vs armour) or a Thermal Cannon as well. We've a few new weapon options which start to beat the Thermal cannon at it's own game now also, making it less of an obvious choice.

 

We won't even mention the RFBC - it's just bad... well, actually that's unfair, it's not just bad... It's also expensive :P

 

The Las-Impulser... I don't know. It's a bit of a jack of all trades, master of none. It's not as good as the Avenger vs anything but armour, and it's not as good as the Thermal vs armour. It's something of a watered down version of both combined into one gun really, and it too, is a very luck based, swingy weapon. I can't say I'm a fan.

[Focslain]

I haven't had issues with the RFBC personally, but best overall is the AGC. Lots of shots, good strength, decent rend and damage.

 

The Thermal is just an up'd version of the lance from the warglaive and that is a wild card. I'd replace the lance with the autocannon in a hot second if I could and keep the chain-cleaver.

 

But this is about the best Questor knight weapon. Which is the AGC, period.

[Tyriks]

I'm a fan of the las-impulsor. I'd say it ranks second (obviously behind the Avenger). It works better than the thermal against big groups of targets. I've had a few points in games my giant guns have finished off all appropriate targets and wind up really overkilling a marine or two. I hate that feeling. I'd rather have the las and still be viable if my opponent doesn't bring a lot of armor.

[9x19 Parabellum]

Thanks for the response, Stray.

 

Well this is both good and bad.  It's good because it matched my assessment! It's bad because I have 3 knights but only 1 AGC!  Which means I think 2 guys are getting Thermal Cannons since it's the next best thing.

[synthaside]

The rapid fire battle cannon can do ok it's just overpriced for what it s and bad dice swing it from pretty ok to awful. I like using it with the re-roll all ones stratagem on my AgC rfbc combo knight .... That's a whole lotta dakka .

[Nusquam]

The problem with the RFBC is threefold:

 

Expensive

 

On a Paladin you're wasting the range because you're buying a melee weapon or wasting the melee. Compounding the cost issue.

 

On a crusader, it already has an AVG so the best compliment is the thermal cannon. The RFBC can dakka but again, wasting the range since you need to move up to use the AVG and heavy flamer.

 

What makes the last impulsor good, while being in the same Jack of all trades category as the RFBC, is that the Preceptor has additional rules built into the chassis to buff Armigers that compliment it well.

 

The Paladin or RFBC itself need an additional support rule and cost decrease

[synthaside]

The rapid fire battle cannon can do ok it's just overpriced for what it s and bad dice swing it from pretty ok to awful. I like using it with the re-roll all ones stratagem on my AgC rfbc combo knight .... That's a whole lotta dakka .

[Marshal Reinhard]

The one little thing that RFBC has over all of the other weapons is something that will not come into play on most normal sized game tables: it's range. With twice the range of all the other weapons its full potential just isn't utilized in games where the other weapons can pretty much always fire as well.

 

That said, this one advantage doesn't really justify it being the most costly and on average worst performing of Q-class weaponry

[Tyriks]

The problem with the RFBC is threefold:

Expensive

On a Paladin you're wasting the range because you're buying a melee weapon or wasting the melee. Compounding the cost issue.

On a crusader, it already has an AVG so the best compliment is the thermal cannon. The RFBC can dakka but again, wasting the range since you need to move up to use the AVG and heavy flamer.

What makes the last impulsor good, while being in the same Jack of all trades category as the RFBC, is that the Preceptor has additional rules built into the chassis to buff Armigers that compliment it well.

The Paladin or RFBC itself need an additional support rule and cost decrease

You're only wasting the the range/melee if it's one on one with a single target. It can easily bombard those lascannon devastators lurking in the backfield while charging the scouts sitting on the objective you need. Rarely are those "wasted."

[Karhedron]

Probably Avenger. Following on from this I would then lean towards the Warden as being the best all-rounder knight as it can shred infantry (even Primaris and Terminators) quite efficiently with shooting and then use its CCW to carve up the heaviest opponents in melee. An Ironspear missile launcher adds some useful ranged anti-tank if you have the points to spare.

[Nusquam]

 

The problem with the RFBC is threefold:

Expensive

On a Paladin you're wasting the range because you're buying a melee weapon or wasting the melee. Compounding the cost issue.

On a crusader, it already has an AVG so the best compliment is the thermal cannon. The RFBC can dakka but again, wasting the range since you need to move up to use the AVG and heavy flamer.

What makes the last impulsor good, while being in the same Jack of all trades category as the RFBC, is that the Preceptor has additional rules built into the chassis to buff Armigers that compliment it well.

The Paladin or RFBC itself need an additional support rule and cost decrease

You're only wasting the the range/melee if it's one on one with a single target. It can easily bombard those lascannon devastators lurking in the backfield while charging the scouts sitting on the objective you need. Rarely are those "wasted."

With a 12" move and 72" range, it's not that the shots are wasted, it's the range advantage that's wasted. It could be 36" range and still threaten 48" and be able to hit anything relevant on the table. You're paying for that 72" range which is completely unnecessary. If it had two profiles or a debuff from rocking the target with shells it could have a mechanical advantage that's more useful.

[chapter master 454]

Feeling people are taking a dump on the RFBC and being a little unfair towards it.

 

There are elements of randomness of it but you can play around it in the same way poker players play around their completely random game, you work the odds. This is where math-hammer can help you understand a weapons effectiveness and where it should be deployed and how.

 

Yes, the Avenger Gatling Cannon (AVG) is a beast with being able to mince infantry and LIGHT armour along with the heavy flamer makes it fairly good at dealing with the common complaints people have these days: Mass Infantry. Strap an Ironstorm Missile Pod and a heavy stubber on that knight and you have an infantry clearing monster. This puts the Warden in contention for one of the most favourable knights to field against those infantry spam lists. However the AVG does not cut mustard vs. actual armour. While it can get through it fairly well, once you need to start rolling 5s to wound you are doing some serious damage to your damage output at range. Some rough maths put the AVG on average at 4 wounds (not giving half numbers or the like, giving the benefit of the doubt and giving the AVG 4 here. For those wondering, the average is actually 3.56).

 

The Rapid-Fire Battle-Cannon (RFBC) however also gets the same damage output against similar targets (I am calling the target T7 with a 3+). I am ofcourse calling it by average rates of fire and rolls. This does not account for the gun being able to fire more than normal rate of fire and ofcourse lets not forget the RFBC can benefit from various options. First, you can use a command re-roll to attempt to up the rate of fire when it is really needed. Rolled a 1 and 6? Re-roll the 1 really amp the shots.

This weapon can make short work of any tank (up to medium, like predators and leman russes) and that comes from having the ability to output high quality shots in numbers. I find it a little sad that people dismiss this weapon because it is 2D6 shots...that does average to 7 shots. Yes, it sucks when it rolls low but oh boy watching this thing high roll can very easily annihilate a lot of targets. Inherently I do understand the desire for consistency but if we were so against it then how come blast was so loved? It was random as heck and mitigated so hard by 2" checking all models it became minimal in effect.

Lastly this weapon does, as others have pointed out, have OBSCENE range. Only out-done by a volcano lance, this thing can reach out and touch any target it wants with impunity and often in the game of 40k, there will be stragglers or units camping out in ruins somewhere attempting to leverage their range to protect them. Being able to, at all stages of the game, have sure ways of getting them no matter where the knight goes. Need the knight to claim an objective on one side of the board but need to support another on the other side of the board? no problem. Mobility is a VERY powerful stat in games and range on these guns is in effect giving you a TON of mobility. On paper, you could try and dismiss it for random elements and in theory you can try to dismiss it but as I have shown, on paper it is extremely respectable AND in my playing with a crusader mounting one, it has been an incredible effective weapon. Having the "1st hive world problem" of a target rich environment all the time because I can reach everywhere on the board is rather nice.

 

The Thermal Cannon is another extremely effective weapon. One element I see people ignoring and it is starting to irk me: on an errant or crusader...you have an effective MELTA range of 30". 30" of 2D6 pick the highest. That is crazy, and on a weapon that shoots D6 shots (average of 3.5 shots) it can quite literally look at ANY tank and delete it. Land Raider? If it ain't limping, it's dead. Leman Russ? Leman rushed to the tech priests of final rites in a toolbox! This weapon is like a lascannon and a multi-melta had a baby! Even if the target is outside of melta range, it is an AP4 Lascannon with D6 shots which is pretty good to begin with but once within melta range the damage multiplier jumps from 3.5 to 5. Because of how 2D6 drop lowest works, it makes the median and mode 5 and while the true average is 4.5 something, the fact of the matter is each shot has a high chance of being 5 damage. Even if you get lower and get 4s, that still slams a lot of tanks fairly hard with the only thing you need to overcome is the double 3+ to hit and to wound stage as AP4 means most tanks get nothing against it.

It is the PREMIUM anti-big boy weapon for questoris knights and it was the job it applied for, got and is the go-to when tanks become an issue. One good high roll annihilates any armoured target.

 

However the question in mind was "best weapon for questoris knights?". In my opinion, you would never go wrong with a rapid-fire battle cannon. Never. It is pricey but it just covers so many bases so cleanly, it just does the job nicely all round. There is no such thing as "Wasting" range on weapons in Imperial Knights. No unit in the army has an issue covering ground to get into melee however our biggest problem is ensuring we can support each knight carefully. In a pure knight list, this becomes a problem when we need to spread out and get objectives best we can. Also...while the heavy flamer on the AVG is very nice to have...I personally would LOVE if it didn't have it to begin with and effectively makes all AVG 92 points, just 12 short of the RFBC which has a heavy stubber. The Flamer is nice but I often find it not exactly contributing as much as I would like and again, it can very easily be out of range of any decent targets OR is going to target the same unit the AVG was and is now just overkill. Where as the RFBC with heavy stubber can actually put that second weapon to good use on other random targets to help plink wounds or just help clear chaft.

 

92 for an AVG (because of Heavy Flamer) vs. 104 for a RFBC (because of Heavy Stubber). The points difference is, in terms of knights, really small but I believe despite being that slight more expensive, the RFBC is the best Questoris weapon just in general.

[9x19 Parabellum]

Wow.

 

I completely missed that the Warden has a heavy flamer in it's profile, and that there is a heavy flamer built into the AGC arm! This despite the fact that I built an AGC before I posted this thread, and used one in my first game with Knights last week!

 

This is why talking on the forums is good!

[Stray]

Feeling people are taking a dump on the RFBC and being a little unfair towards it.

 

There are elements of randomness of it but you can play around it in the same way poker players play around their completely random game, you work the odds. This is where math-hammer can help you understand a weapons effectiveness and where it should be deployed and how.

 

Yes, the Avenger Gatling Cannon (AVG) is a beast with being able to mince infantry and LIGHT armour along with the heavy flamer makes it fairly good at dealing with the common complaints people have these days: Mass Infantry. Strap an Ironstorm Missile Pod and a heavy stubber on that knight and you have an infantry clearing monster. This puts the Warden in contention for one of the most favourable knights to field against those infantry spam lists. However the AVG does not cut mustard vs. actual armour. While it can get through it fairly well, once you need to start rolling 5s to wound you are doing some serious damage to your damage output at range. Some rough maths put the AVG on average at 4 wounds (not giving half numbers or the like, giving the benefit of the doubt and giving the AVG 4 here. For those wondering, the average is actually 3.56).

 

The Rapid-Fire Battle-Cannon (RFBC) however also gets the same damage output against similar targets (I am calling the target T7 with a 3+). I am ofcourse calling it by average rates of fire and rolls. This does not account for the gun being able to fire more than normal rate of fire and ofcourse lets not forget the RFBC can benefit from various options. First, you can use a command re-roll to attempt to up the rate of fire when it is really needed. Rolled a 1 and 6? Re-roll the 1 really amp the shots.

This weapon can make short work of any tank (up to medium, like predators and leman russes) and that comes from having the ability to output high quality shots in numbers. I find it a little sad that people dismiss this weapon because it is 2D6 shots...that does average to 7 shots. Yes, it sucks when it rolls low but oh boy watching this thing high roll can very easily annihilate a lot of targets. Inherently I do understand the desire for consistency but if we were so against it then how come blast was so loved? It was random as heck and mitigated so hard by 2" checking all models it became minimal in effect.

Lastly this weapon does, as others have pointed out, have OBSCENE range. Only out-done by a volcano lance, this thing can reach out and touch any target it wants with impunity and often in the game of 40k, there will be stragglers or units camping out in ruins somewhere attempting to leverage their range to protect them. Being able to, at all stages of the game, have sure ways of getting them no matter where the knight goes. Need the knight to claim an objective on one side of the board but need to support another on the other side of the board? no problem. Mobility is a VERY powerful stat in games and range on these guns is in effect giving you a TON of mobility. On paper, you could try and dismiss it for random elements and in theory you can try to dismiss it but as I have shown, on paper it is extremely respectable AND in my playing with a crusader mounting one, it has been an incredible effective weapon. Having the "1st hive world problem" of a target rich environment all the time because I can reach everywhere on the board is rather nice.

 

The Thermal Cannon is another extremely effective weapon. One element I see people ignoring and it is starting to irk me: on an errant or crusader...you have an effective MELTA range of 30". 30" of 2D6 pick the highest. That is crazy, and on a weapon that shoots D6 shots (average of 3.5 shots) it can quite literally look at ANY tank and delete it. Land Raider? If it ain't limping, it's dead. Leman Russ? Leman rushed to the tech priests of final rites in a toolbox! This weapon is like a lascannon and a multi-melta had a baby! Even if the target is outside of melta range, it is an AP4 Lascannon with D6 shots which is pretty good to begin with but once within melta range the damage multiplier jumps from 3.5 to 5. Because of how 2D6 drop lowest works, it makes the median and mode 5 and while the true average is 4.5 something, the fact of the matter is each shot has a high chance of being 5 damage. Even if you get lower and get 4s, that still slams a lot of tanks fairly hard with the only thing you need to overcome is the double 3+ to hit and to wound stage as AP4 means most tanks get nothing against it.

It is the PREMIUM anti-big boy weapon for questoris knights and it was the job it applied for, got and is the go-to when tanks become an issue. One good high roll annihilates any armoured target.

 

However the question in mind was "best weapon for questoris knights?". In my opinion, you would never go wrong with a rapid-fire battle cannon. Never. It is pricey but it just covers so many bases so cleanly, it just does the job nicely all round. There is no such thing as "Wasting" range on weapons in Imperial Knights. No unit in the army has an issue covering ground to get into melee however our biggest problem is ensuring we can support each knight carefully. In a pure knight list, this becomes a problem when we need to spread out and get objectives best we can. Also...while the heavy flamer on the AVG is very nice to have...I personally would LOVE if it didn't have it to begin with and effectively makes all AVG 92 points, just 12 short of the RFBC which has a heavy stubber. The Flamer is nice but I often find it not exactly contributing as much as I would like and again, it can very easily be out of range of any decent targets OR is going to target the same unit the AVG was and is now just overkill. Where as the RFBC with heavy stubber can actually put that second weapon to good use on other random targets to help plink wounds or just help clear chaft.

 

92 for an AVG (because of Heavy Flamer) vs. 104 for a RFBC (because of Heavy Stubber). The points difference is, in terms of knights, really small but I believe despite being that slight more expensive, the RFBC is the best Questoris weapon just in general.

 

Well, I can't say I entirely agree, but you certainly state your case well buddy!

 

I have a tendency toward the hyperbolic at times, whereas the truth lies likely somewhere more in the middle. When you have a weapon with a reasonable level of randomness involved, it's actually very hard to say how it will perform. You can have games where a RFBC is a complete rock star, and others where you may literally get more mileage from a carapace weapon. Hot and cold dice are a thing, and you can never know what you're going to roll.

 

Me? I need all the luck I can get, so I prefer to plan around the averages - what is most likely to happen. It's also why I like the Avenger, it's a lot more predictable than the other two options.

 

Law of averages in effect, the reality is your RFBC has a great range advantage - but I see a Knight that stands back to shoot as typically a wasted Knight. They're expensive so I want them firing and in CC - all in the same turn if possible. It has a niche with average dice vs T7 targets, but otherwise? It's simply outclassed - and for more points than any other option.

 

Likewise, you might delete that tank when you point a Thermal cannon at it, but in reality? Average performance is 7 wounds vs a Rhino (not enough to kill it) and 6 vs a Land Raider. Either CC choice would have done substantially  more average wounds sadly.

 

In some ways, that's an argument against the Crusader for me too these days. Rather a Warden who assaults the tank and gets more work done for fewer points.

 

...but then i'm a filthy traitor and can dual wield Avengers for days anyway :P

[Vel'Cona]

I pretty much agree with everything in this thread.  ACG is clearly the most consistent weapon, TC is spikey but good for killing big things, and the poor RFBC just doesn't do anything particularly well other than being long ranged (which isn't necessary) and costing more for no adequately explored reason.  The Las-impulsor is a wildcard for the moment, but IMO it'll be a dud because it's either a crappy RFBC or a crappy TC, and can't be both at once.  The Preceptor itself has some utility supporting Armigers, but whether this is worth the tax of a seemingly crummy main gun is anyone's guess.

 

If we really want to put another nail in the RFBC's coffin, just look at the Heirlooms and compare.  The ACG's is amazingly good (nearly required) and the TC's, while restricted to Taranis armies, it also quite powerful.  The RFBC's Heirloom is decent but not outstanding, and it's mated to a Knightly House that is honestly rather lackluster.  The Las-impulsor doens't have an Heirloom at all (another issue with it), though its connection to Canis Rex may create some interest (though honestly he's not that great for his price tag).

[Frostbit3]

I’ve found the rfbc to be worthwhile. In most of the knight armies ive played ive found I need/wanted something to anchor the backfield or deny access to a home objective. If you aren’t moving, the “effective range” is irrelevant, and the ability of the rfbc to reach out and touch the enemy is invaluable.

[Stray]

I’ve found the rfbc to be worthwhile. In most of the knight armies ive played ive found I need/wanted something to anchor the backfield or deny access to a home objective. If you aren’t moving, the “effective range” is irrelevant, and the ability of the rfbc to reach out and touch the enemy is invaluable.

 

I have to ask though, if you're stationary at the back of a map and thus getting full use of the RFBC - why take a Knight?

 

We must be talking about either a Crusader or a Paladin. If the former the AGC is potentially going to waste, if the latter, the CC weapon certainly is.

A Knight that isn't getting into CC where possible, is a Knight that is ignoring half it's potential (and a huge portion of it's points). Frankly these days, Knights are invariably more terrifying in assault then they are at shooting.

 

If we really want a back line unit to reach out at range from a stationary position, surely something from the IG range would be better, and more cost effective?

 

This is part of the RFBC's real issue. It's sole advantage is range - which is exactly where a Knight should not be.

[Focslain]

 

I’ve found the rfbc to be worthwhile. In most of the knight armies ive played ive found I need/wanted something to anchor the backfield or deny access to a home objective. If you aren’t moving, the “effective range” is irrelevant, and the ability of the rfbc to reach out and touch the enemy is invaluable.

 

I have to ask though, if you're stationary at the back of a map and thus getting full use of the RFBC - why take a Knight?

 

We must be talking about either a Crusader or a Paladin. If the former the AGC is potentially going to waste, if the latter, the CC weapon certainly is.

A Knight that isn't getting into CC where possible, is a Knight that is ignoring half it's potential (and a huge portion of it's points). Frankly these days, Knights are invariably more terrifying in assault then they are at shooting.

 

If we really want a back line unit to reach out at range from a stationary position, surely something from the IG range would be better, and more cost effective?

 

This is part of the RFBC's real issue. It's sole advantage is range - which is exactly where a Knight should not be.

 

 

Not really, most of my knights are killed in CC where I have to face high Str, low AP and multiple damage weapons and they are more available in CC then range. Not to mention the higher rate of fire.

 

A range-centric knight isn't a bad thing. If you want to play a pure IK list then you need a back field protector, those being the Castellan, Crusader and Helviren. The major hang up in the RFBC vs the AGC is the RNG. It's too random in it's effectiveness to be the best weapon. It's good, but not the best.

 

The RFBC gives the Paladin the ability to work two flanks, assaulting one while it has the range to shoot the other... will have to try this. 

[Karhedron]

OK, so it seems like T7 is the sweet spot where the RFBC can potentially outshine the AGC. To test this, I have done some (very) simple number crunching assuming the RFBC gets an average of 7 shots. Of course we all know it is swingy but at least averages give a fair comparison. The scores below show the average number of wounds caused to a target of a particular toughness (although there aren't many T4 targets with 15+ wounds ). I have ignored the effects of armour since they both have AP-2.

AGC
T4 10.66
T5 10.66
T6 8
T7 5.33
T8 5.33

RFBC
T4 7.77
T5 6.22
T6 6.22
T7 6.22
T8 4.66

This suggests that even at the T7 sweet spot, the RFBC only slightly outperforms the Avenger and against all other targets, the Avenger is superior. If you are firing at infantry (or any multi-model unit) then the Avenger is always going to be better as it stands more chance of reaching its maximum ceiling of 12 kills due to the fixed number of shots. It is also consistent vs 2-wound models as a weapon that does D3 damage will almost always have some wasted wounds.

I guess there is a case for range but if you want a static firing platform, you could get the same firepower for less from an allied Russ (especially if you are taking an IG CP-battery anyway). It is hard to see a case for ever taking a Paladin over a Warden. You might want to take one on a Crusader if you want a gun that is longer range and less swingy than a Thermal Cannon but that is about it.

[9x19 Parabellum]

"Flanking"

 

Interesting concept, and one I hadn't much given thought to for knights.  Focslain is right in that a RFBC allows you to punch up one flank and shoot at the other.  I hadn't really considering playing knights this way.  I suppose you could run 2 Paladins, one down each flank, and force the enemy to split fire, or divide their forces.   Up to this point I had always imagined Errants, Gallants and/or Wardens dominating the center from which their effectinve threat range pretty much dominated the whole table.  I might have to try the flanking Paladin approach.

[Focslain]

Considering that Maelstrom is a major thing in my local group, taking multiple objectives tends to spread my force out.

 

Also in all my standard games I've taken a Crusader and he tends to sit on those back line objectives and hit everything on board. Only reason I'm not going to use it anymore is because I have access to Helverins and the Castellan to do the same thing and much better.

If we do bigger games I can see the Paladin and/or the Crusader making a return.

 

Like I have stated, my biggest issue with the RFBC is the RNG on shots, if it was say a Heavy 6 I'd drop the AGC in a second.

[Mushkilla]

Yeah the range of the battle-cannon is actually really useful. I think people are making the assumption that that range means your knight has to be static.

 

I run crusaders very aggressively, and the battle cannon means they can charge things that are out of the way and still target anything I can draw line of sight to on the table. I find people often try to spread out against knights and abuse the fact that we are a low model count army that are relatively easy to run rings around. We might look mobile on paper, but once you take into account having to manoeuvre around terrain and our mobility degrading, combined with line of sight blocking terrain. That 72" range can be pretty helpful.

 

As Focslain mentioned sometimes knights end up on flanks. This tends to happen because it had to manoeuvre around terrain to take out a crucial target, say a manticore hiding behind a line of sight blocker. The battle cannon means even though the rest of the combat is taking place on the other flank it can still support it. This is a really common scenario when an opponent double castles (splits his gunline force into two separate battle groups that set up in each corner of his deployment zone).

[Stray]

 

 

 

 

 

Not really, most of my knights are killed in CC where I have to face high Str, low AP and multiple damage weapons and they are more available in CC then range. Not to mention the higher rate of fire.

 

CC is certainly one of the places where we're most vulnerable, but - and the numbers don't lie - it's also the place where we are almost always able to do the most damage. Even the Crusader, without a dedicated CC weapon, can cause more damage just with it's Riverdance than it often is able to with the Avenger.

 

You need to pick your fights, sure. You need to watch for assault units that can hurt you, sure. But I can't accept that a Knight that isn't getting into CC, isn't wasting a great deal of it's potential. You'd likely be better off with a similarly armed tank.

[Heliomanes]

I think that a lot of people bought Paladins back in the day and now really want to still like their rules. I know I did, but I might be projecting. Nothing wrong with that, but it can get you to argue hard for the underdog.

The RFBC has its relic counterpart locked into a very specific knight house a lot of us are unlikely to take. It also costs more than all the alternatives, and in most cases performs worse, even without comparing to the relic versions people inevitably bring for the gatling and the thermal cannon. I mean the relic gatling is universally available and provides on average a close to 50% improvement - without factoring in synergy from warlord traits and stratagems (rerolls produce more 6s, which provide more hits).

Having a little more range on the more expensive battle cannon seems like such a bad trade. I mean, the gatling and the  thermal already have 36 range on a platform that moves 12' natively, with options to increase that through advance shenanigans and mitigating the degradation that comes with taking damage. A 48' threat range is pretty big, so the utility added from the additional range seems miniscule when compared to the cost increase and decrease in firepower.