10th Ed Imperial Knights preview discussion

[Focslain]

2 hours ago, Helycon said:

It would have been much better to look at towering, which seems to have been a much bigger culprit. 

Ok, so can someone explain why Towering is game breaking? 

 

From how I read it (and play it) it just granted true line of sight. So if I can see it I can target it and vis-versa. Not seeing this as an issue unless your playing with small pieces of terrain. 

 

Personally try to include two or more pieces of blocking terrain when I play to even the field.  Have since 8th., so not seeing the issue here.

[Scribe]

I've been playing around with things, I'm going to stick to 4 Armigers at a minimum, so trying to find the right combination of 3 Knights.

 

With the new costs you considering dropping to 2 Knights and many Armigers, or shuffling deck chairs to keep to 3? The enhancements seem good, but they add up now and put us in some weird pricing spots.

[Helycon]

4 minutes ago, Focslain said:

Ok, so can someone explain why Towering is game breaking? 

 

From how I read it (and play it) it just granted true line of sight. So if I can see it I can target it and vis-versa. Not seeing this as an issue unless your playing with small pieces of terrain. 

 

Personally try to include two or more pieces of blocking terrain when I play to even the field.  Have since 8th., so not seeing the issue here.

You can basically nullify any threats as it's impossible for the other player to hide them. Towering models are generally so large you can almost always have a line to draw from you model to the other unit or model. If this simply wasn't the case and you couldn't shoot through weird windows or use your hull, it would be easier for people to skirt about. 

[Focslain]

19 minutes ago, Helycon said:

You can basically nullify any threats as it's impossible for the other player to hide them. Towering models are generally so large you can almost always have a line to draw from you model to the other unit or model. If this simply wasn't the case and you couldn't shoot through weird windows or use your hull, it would be easier for people to skirt about. 

Ah, so it is a terrain issue then. 

[Helycon]

18 minutes ago, Focslain said:

Ah, so it is a terrain issue then. 

No, it's models basically ignoring that terrain 

[Focslain]

5 minutes ago, Helycon said:

No, it's models basically ignoring that terrain 

No, it's a terrain issue. Basically people aren't using true LOS blocking terrain. 

[Helycon]

33 minutes ago, Focslain said:

No, it's a terrain issue. Basically people aren't using true LOS blocking terrain. 

No, it's a keyword issue. Knights are just so big it's fairly easy to have LOS even with fairly obscuring ruins. Cerastus Knights will make this worse. 

 

It's especially prevalent when you're in a ruin. Normally, you can't be shot when in there. Towering just ignores this. Same for a woods feature. You can't shoot in or through. Towering models always can, because they are that tall. Fluffy? Yes! Fair? Not really. Good luck hiding your melee units that can't shoot back anyway. 

[Lord_Ikka]

Yeah, my list went from 3 and 5 with three Enhancements to 3 and 4 with two Enhancements. Going to have to play it and feel out if it is worth the third big boy or move back to more Armigers for board control.

 

Re-working Towering seems like a more balanced way forward, but I don't know how exactly they need to do that. 

Edited July 5, 2023 by Lord_Ikka

[Helycon]

52 minutes ago, Lord_Ikka said:

Yeah, my list went from 3 and 5 with three Enhancements to 3 and 4 with two Enhancements. Going to have to play it and feel out if it is worth the third big boy or move back to more Armigers for board control.

 

Re-working Towering seems like a more balanced way forward, but I don't know how exactly they need to do that. 

It's a heavy hit for sure, especially because the armigers are also very capable units. Bondsman abilities just supercharge them it seems. Anxious to see how it pans out. 

 

I'd personally just remove towering altogether, same with how vehicles interact. In a wood? Dense forest, can't be seen, but can shoot out. Same for ruins. Hiding against the walls so you can be spotted. Also, it's less mental load. Yes, we have less stratagems, but every single unit now has an ability. Not sure if that helped for opponents really 

 

Also, how did the Lancer get shafted, with those S6 AP0 shots? The blanket fix just shows they don't seem to know where the issues really lie. 495 Points? How is that more than a Castigator?

 

Also, I did not notice the Porphyrion go up that badly. Yikes... Glad I didn't invest in one for playing with. I might still het one as a centerpiece, but that's definitely on the back burner now.

Edited July 5, 2023 by Helycon

[Scribe]

44 minutes ago, Helycon said:

Also, how did the Lancer get shafted, with those S6 AP0 shots? The blanket fix just shows they don't seem to know where the issues really lie. 495 Points? How is that more than a Castigator?

 

As far as "Get across the board and smash." It just does it better, and the free Tank Shock allows for quite a lot of damage. 

 

After much thought, I am wondering if I dont just stick with the following, and skip on enhancements.

 

Castigator
Lancer
Paladin

 

I'm just in the building phase now anyway, so its all just theory. :D

[Lord_Ikka]

Perhaps just change Towering to give a -1 to Hit to Towering units that are targeting units that would have otherwise been Obscured?

 

I'll be running a Paladin, a Warden w/Mythic Hero, a Cerastus Atrapos w/Mysterious Guardian, 3 Warglaives, and 1 Helverin. Lost a Warglaive and Banner from my previous list, but still should be decent.

[Heir of Sigismund]

Their points changes make us just drop an armiger or 2. Doesn’t address the real issue of towering at all 

 

Anyone running a vindicare? Or would 2 voidsmen squads for screen/OC be more worthwhile?

Edited July 6, 2023 by Heir of Sigismund
.

[Karhedron]

6 hours ago, Heir of Sigismund said:

Anyone running a vindicare? Or would 2 voidsmen squads for screen/OC be more worthwhile?

 

Despite being only 1 model, the Vindicare's Lone Operative ability probably makes him more durable against incoming fire than the Voidsmen. You will be in trouble if the enemy drops in with some shooty Deep Strikers such as Inceptors but Voidsmen would not survive much better against them in all honesty.

 

I plan to run a Skitarii with TUA as a counts-as Vindicare to represent an AdMech Sniper cyborged up to the eyeballs. 

 

[Focslain]

On 7/5/2023 at 4:33 PM, Helycon said:

No, it's a keyword issue. Knights are just so big it's fairly easy to have LOS even with fairly obscuring ruins. Cerastus Knights will make this worse. 

 

It's especially prevalent when you're in a ruin. Normally, you can't be shot when in there. Towering just ignores this. Same for a woods feature. You can't shoot in or through. Towering models always can, because they are that tall. Fluffy? Yes! Fair? Not really. Good luck hiding your melee units that can't shoot back anyway. 

Umm, no. Woods just grants Benefit of Cover when shooting through and for Ruins it blocks LoS if the ruins are between the units. If a unit is inside a ruin it can shoot out and be shot at.

 

Towering negates the Woods cover and blocking LoS of shooting across ruins, however they don't get the benefit of either themselves. 

 

Now getting around buildings with a melee unit, that is a different issue.

[sairence]

The shooting out of a ruin only works if a unit is wholly within, if I understand the rules commentary correctly. Just having part of the base in doesn't work. So that is the one case where I can see towering being necessary. 

 

But that could be easily addressed by Towering just providing an exception to that specific case, instead of blanket ignoring all ruins.

[Focslain]

6 minutes ago, sairence said:

The shooting out of a ruin only works if a unit is wholly within, if I understand the rules commentary correctly. Just having part of the base in doesn't work. So that is the one case where I can see towering being necessary. 

 

But that could be easily addressed by Towering just providing an exception to that specific case, instead of blanket ignoring all ruins.

Replace Unit with Model and yeah, that is how I read it. I still think the major issue at least on the tournament side is the need for more actual blocking LoS terrain. Had to laugh at the tournament companion pdf as the maps didn't have any real LoS blocking terrain.

 

I'm even fine with multi-floor ruins considering the first floor as blocking if looking thru it as it works both ways. 

 

The point increase currently was fine, found the cost of the larger knights a bit under-costed when i first saw them. Now I'm back to my 9th lists being the go to.

[Helycon]

20 hours ago, Focslain said:

Umm, no. Woods just grants Benefit of Cover when shooting through and for Ruins it blocks LoS if the ruins are between the units. If a unit is inside a ruin it can shoot out and be shot at.

 

Towering negates the Woods cover and blocking LoS of shooting across ruins, however they don't get the benefit of either themselves. 

 

Now getting around buildings with a melee unit, that is a different issue.

Not sure why I said (or maybe even thought) you couldn't shoot in them, apologies. 

 

But yes, shooting over them is the issue. Towering simply shouldn't do that. You can never hide units from tall models that way, unless they're really high. That makes it possible only possible to use very high terrain, which doesn't always work in specific settings, such as a forest. I get your point people need more LoS blocking terrain, but I don't think that's the simplest fix, which is removing towering, or, like Lord_Ikka stated, give it a -1 to hit. Towering dudes are generally the ones with the big guns. It's fine for them to be shot at. 

[ValourousHeart]

The issue that Knights have isn't so much their high rate of fire, long range or even the natural effect of tall models over short terrain.  The big issue is that most lists I've faced so far struggle to do more than 12 wounds to my army in a turn.  Those lists generally do really well verse other armies like my Ravenwing, because they aren't having to rely on Devastating Wounds and Lethal Hits to deal damage.

 

Everyone getting their panties in a bunch was used to previously being able to drop over one questor worth of wounds in a turn.  My Knights had a 50% win rate in earlier editions, mostly because of how easy it was to get a decked out melee unit to go Canadian Lumberjack on my forest of Knights.

 

The LOS rules and benefits of cover now work both ways.  If you can't draw LOS between the Knight and the Unit neither side can shoot.

 

If you are taking Knights in a friendly game, go ahead and tell your opponent to take tactical objectives.  Do not let your friends fall into the trap of thinking that Bring it Down is a good choice... unless you have nothing but Armigers.  The other thing is to remind your friend about what Slay the Warlord does... +3 CP and army wide 5+ FNP.  They can dump their warlord selection on a single model that they leave in Deep Strike until the last minute, just to screw us out of that.  Don't worry, we'll be just fine even if we don't actually slay their warlord.  But it is better than the feels bad moment of your friend giving us that 5+ FNP on turn 2.

 

Speaking of Armigers, that is likely the reason that Chaos Knights are performing so much worse than Imperial Knights.  Because it is easy to include something that can drop an Armiger in one turn by itself, but bringing down a Questor or Dominus often takes multiple dedicated tank killers or more than one turn.

 

The other thing we can do to help our reputation, at least in friendly games, is don't take units like the Crusader or Castellan.  Take Knights that move around the board and might charge.  That way your friend can move units to parts of the board you are not and try to score some objectives.

 

Also if you are going to play Knights build and bring a few buildings that are similar in size to your Knights.  They are good for you and good for your opponent.  I play at a the local GW and the corporate policy is to not have enough terrain on the table, to encourage players to buy their own.  For non-Knight games you can get by with the 8 pieces on a 44 x 60 board.  But with Knights you really need more, so I bring 3 buildings and that is generally enough... unless we are playing on the AOS table at which point I need my whole terrain tub.

[Karhedron]

Looks like the points hikes are having the desired effect. Knights were on a 57% win rate at the Tacoma Open which is probably still too high but not as oppressive as it was out of the gate.

 

https://40kmetamonday.wordpress.com/2023/07/17/7-17-23/

 

 

[Lord_Ikka]

Yeah, 40k Stats is showing about a 57% win rate if you filter it for the last weekend (7/10-7/20). If the optimal win rate for good balance is within 45-55%, Knights are still a little over that but aren't the worst (Custodes at 61% surprisingly, and Aeldari at 58). Overall, the game looks...ok, with only those three factions above 55%, but there are 8 under the 45% threshold. Still, that is just one week's worth of stats (for GT or bigger tournaments, so 24+ players) that had all the points and rules changes implemented. Hopefully we get a few more weeks of data before GW tries to do any further changes.

 

Games by Faction - 40k stats (goonhammer.com)

[Focslain]

11 hours ago, ValourousHeart said:

Also if you are going to play Knights build and bring a few buildings that are similar in size to your Knights.  They are good for you and good for your opponent.  I play at a the local GW and the corporate policy is to not have enough terrain on the table, to encourage players to buy their own.  For non-Knight games you can get by with the 8 pieces on a 44 x 60 board.  But with Knights you really need more, so I bring 3 buildings and that is generally enough... unless we are playing on the AOS table at which point I need my whole terrain tub.

Luckily my local GW actually has a few large pieces of terrain, more on the way as well (saw the new hire painting a bunker set last weekend) plus my local has some decent buildings and I'm looking to add to that collection.

 

On the subject of slay the warlord, every game I've done so far I either haven't killed the warlord until turn 3 or not at all. Recently a necron player just ran his warlord to the other side of the board and i couldn't give chase since I needed to pivot to deal with his immortal blob of warriors. Have a game against Tau later today, we'll see how that goes.

[ValourousHeart]

6 hours ago, Focslain said:

On the subject of slay the warlord, every game I've done so far I either haven't killed the warlord until turn 3 or not at all. Recently a necron player just ran his warlord to the other side of the board and i couldn't give chase since I needed to pivot to deal with his immortal blob of warriors. Have a game against Tau later today, we'll see how that goes.

 

I don't think it matters that we don't complete the task.  Unless you have a clear plan that requires extra movement and needs the +3 CP, the to hit and wound bonus of Slay the Warlord is just too good to pass up even if we never collect.  Especially with my Valiant... when that harpoon gets in range, the last thing I want is roll a 1.

 

Personally I've only killed the warlord once, and in that game it happened to be the last model, tabling my opponent.

[Karhedron]

Agreed, slaying the Warlord is very much a "win more" mechanic.

[Focslain]

On 7/20/2023 at 5:15 PM, ValourousHeart said:

 

I don't think it matters that we don't complete the task.  Unless you have a clear plan that requires extra movement and needs the +3 CP, the to hit and wound bonus of Slay the Warlord is just too good to pass up even if we never collect.  Especially with my Valiant... when that harpoon gets in range, the last thing I want is roll a 1.

 

Personally I've only killed the warlord once, and in that game it happened to be the last model, tabling my opponent.

Agreed, Slay the Tyrant's passive is just too good not to take, regardless of completing the quest. Just like to be able to do it every other game as I'm sure there will be a crusade bonus for doing it once our codex drops.

 

Also in my game thrusday, my opponent conceded after turn two. It took 3 armigars to wipe out most of his army, not counting the paladin that did nothing turn one. He almost killed one armigar, almost.

 

Starting to see how tough this army is even without towering in the mix.

[Helycon]

11 hours ago, Focslain said:

Agreed, Slay the Tyrant's passive is just too good not to take, regardless of completing the quest. Just like to be able to do it every other game as I'm sure there will be a crusade bonus for doing it once our codex drops.

 

Also in my game thrusday, my opponent conceded after turn two. It took 3 armigars to wipe out most of his army, not counting the paladin that did nothing turn one. He almost killed one armigar, almost.

 

Starting to see how tough this army is even without towering in the mix.

I agree. You can easily invalidate about 60%+ from an armies shooting by just showing up with Imperial Knights, due to the higher toughness on all models. Whilst it's great for Knights, it's not great for the game as a whole. Knights are just an odd army to balance in that regard.