Imperial Knight and Wraithknight

[ElectricPaladin]

So, it's come out in the latest White Dwarf that the wraithknight is supposed to be the Eldar knight, which Epic players will recognize as the Eldar equivalent of the knight titan from the Epic game. The question that I - a relatively inexperienced Eldar player and soon-to-be-owner of at least one Imperial knight - have is this:

Does this play out on the tabletop as well?

Here is the situation as I see it:

Imperial Knight
• Stats: WS 4, BS 4, S 10, I 4, 3 Attacks
• Defenses/Durability: 6 HP, AV 13/12/12 instead, ion shield (4++ in one direction, chosen at the start of the opponent's shooting) it's a walker so it always presents its front in melee, and it can't lose systems to damage.
• Mobility: 12'' Move, Move Through Cover
• Ranged Combat: one heavy stubber standard (4/6 36'' Heavy 3). Comes with a rapid fire battle cannon (8/3/72'' Ordnance 2, Large Blast) and a second heavy stubber or a thermal cannon (9/1/36'' Heavy 1, Large Blast, Melta).
• Melee Combat: Stomp!, D-Weapon
• Costs: 375 (battle cannon version) or 370 (thermal cannon version).

Wraithknight
• Stats: WS 4, BS 4, S 10, I 5, 4 Attacks
• Defenses/Durability: 6 Wounds, T 8, 3+ Armor, Ld 10 and Fearless
• Mobility: Jump Monstrous Creature subtype
• Ranged Offense: two heavy wraithcannons (10/2/36'' Assault 1, Distort) come standard; they can be traded in for either a ghostglaive (+1 Strength, AP 2, Master Crafted) or a suncannon (6/2/48'' Heavy 3, Blast) and a scattershield (5++ that can Blind nearby units). Can also add up to two of... a shuriken cannon (6/4/24'' Assault 3, Pinning, AP 2 with 6s to-wound), a scatter laser (6/6/48'', Heavy 4, can cause other ranged weapons to become twin-linked), or a starcannon (6/2/36'' Heavy 2).
• Melee Offense: 10/2 attacks in melee, can be upgraded with the ghostglaive
• Cost: 240 base, up to 320 with the most expensive upgrades

For my part...

This is some very interesting data, but overall I think that they are comparable. The wraithknight is more versatile because it has exponentially more options - more than ten possible configurations compared to the imperial knight's mere two - which makes it potentially more useful on the tabletop. In a knight vs. knight duel, I honestly don't know which horse I'd back. The imperial knight will make mincemeat of the wraithknight if it can close, but between its jump pack and potentially nasty anti-vehicle ranged weapons, I'm not convinced that the imperial knight will close... and even if it does, the wraithknight has better Initiative and could, potentially, kill the imperial knight before it gets to swing. I think that in a one-on-one duel it would come down to luck, and in a three-on-three brawl, it would come down to skill and target priority.

I'm curious to read the reactions of the rest of the community. We know now that there is intended to be parity between the wraithknight and the imperial knight - do you think that this is true? Are they comparable units?

[Patrick Boyle]

The problem come with just how much more effective Monstrous Creatures are than Walkers. If I'm not mistaken the Wraithknight isn't actually faster; being a super heavy walker the Knight can walk 12", while at the same time the Wraithknight moves 12" with it's Jump Pack. The problem being that it's still fast enough to play keepaway by staying just out of reach, which is where the Knight loses. Both of it's weapon options ignore the Wraithknight's armor, but the Battlecannon still only wounds on a 4, and the Melta on a 3, and you have to do that 6 times. If the wraithknight is lucky it only needs two shots to drop you even with 6HP as you lose D3 on a 6 damage table roll, but even if it's not lucky, it's still probably going to chip away at your faster.

That said these things in normal circumstances wouldn't be fighting in a vacuum like that, but being a vehicle at all is still a huge weakness for the Knight generally.

[GrauGeist]

Suppose we have the Knights each have equal points in Eldar Guardians or Dark Eldar Warriors fire at them.

OK, now, let's put each model in Assault with a a 2++ Model.

No? OK then.

[ElectricPaladin]

Suppose we have the Knights each have equal points in Eldar Guardians or Dark Eldar Warriors fire at them.

OK, now, let's put each model in Assault with a a 2++ Model.

No? OK then.

Can you clarify? Are you saying that neither of them is viable in a competitive environment that includes the kind of absurd defenses we are seeing these days? Or something else?

[Maskedaxe]

it has been decided. both knights must fight to the death. my money is on the wraithknight. although that may be because I am an Eldar. but I think the wraigthknights ability to move twice in a turn is a huge advantage. the imperial knight will never get close to use that shiny bike chain sword of his. the way I see it eldar wins in 3 - 4 turns if all dice rolls are in favor

[ElectricPaladin]

it has been decided. both knights must fight to the death. my money is on the wraithknight. although that may be because I am an Eldar. but I think the wraigthknights ability to move twice in a turn is a huge advantage. the imperial knight will never get close to use that shiny bike chain sword of his.

I'd do it a couple of ways:

1) Knight-on-knight duel on a 4'x4' table.
2) A team of Imperial knights versus a team of wraithknights on a 4'x6' table.
3) 1500 point game that must include three Imperial knights on one side and three wraithknights on the other. The rest of the list must be oriented around supporting the knight (so no just taking the broken-est list you can think of and winning on virtue of the knight's back-up dancers). The Imperial side can be any Imperial codex: Any flavor of Space Marine, Imperial Guard, Inquisition, Sisters of Battle... whatever. The Eldar side can include Dark Eldar allies, if you don't mind dividing your points, but remember - the list must be oriented around supporting the knight!

I'd love to read those battle reports.

[GrauGeist]

@EP - I'm simply illustrating that MCs and SH Walkers have different strengths and weaknesses vs the whining that MCs are better.

I think the Titan is fine, as is the Wraithknight. In a larger battle, the theoretical MC advantages of the WK are not that great. Especially if the Imperial player knows he's hunting WKs. The additional +36" range of the Titan's battlecannon is huge, and the Guard player can bubble wrap against that huge WK base.

But don't play 4' x 4' - that's a knife fight that guarantees the Eldar an advantage. Play GW standard 1500 pts, and note that those Knights are probably non-Scoring...

[Al Shut]

Play GW standard 1500 pts, and note that those Knights are probably non-Scoring...

They can form their own army, they must have some way to score.

[ElectricPaladin]

They can form their own army, they must have some way to score.

Not necessarily. Actually, I think it would be interesting to see an army that didn't have any way to score and had to rely on secondary objectives and preventing the opponent from scoring, rather than claiming objectives itself.

[Cap'nSmurfs]

Just in case you missed it, we've known the Wraithknight is the successor to the Epic Eldar Knight since they were released; Jes said so in that WD's interview.

[rogue.trader.voril]

Not necessarily. Actually, I think it would be interesting to see an army that didn't have any way to score and had to rely on secondary objectives and preventing the opponent from scoring, rather than claiming objectives itself.

Lol. We do. They are called Dark Eldar :) You ever try to sit on an objective with a t3 5+ troop? :)

[This Dave]

Yes, they're called Imperial Guard. We've been doing it a LOT longer than Dark Eldar have. :)

[This Dave]

Suppose we have the Knights each have equal points in Eldar Guardians or Dark Eldar Warriors fire at them.

OK, now, let's put each model in Assault with a a 2++ Model.

No? OK then.

I'll put 400 quatloos on the Knight vs. anything with a 2++ save in assault. It has a D weapon.

[Mr Mystery]

Wraithknight clearly has flexibility and manoeuvre ability on its side.

Variety of possible loadouts, arguable edge in Hth as despite the Imperial Knight hitting harder, the Wraithknight hits first, with a enough attacks to take out its opponent.

Set up at closest is 24" in regular games, removing the strength D entirely from the equation.

Plus. Minimum of six shots (assuming all hit, wound and bypass the armour save) to knack it.

Any less, and it's still fighting at full efficiency.

Main weakness there? Player stupidity/overconfidence*


Delete as appropriate if you have delicate sensibilities!

[Katharon]

Still withholding my opinion until I have the rules in my hand.

[Tyrendian]

Still withholding my opinion until I have the rules in my hand.

WD is out, and all relevant pages have been posted on here a few days ago anyways... not the codex obviously but since this here is more of a 1v1 discussion anyway that shouldn't be too bad...

[lattd]

I think distort could play a big favour for the wraithknight, although I'm not 100% sure it's effects on super heavies.

[David Crossley]

I'll put 400 quatloos on the Knight vs. anything with a 2++ save in assault. It has a D weapon.

Yeah that does end up being a very big advantage against the current crop of deathstar units.

With saying that though if the rumour regarding 7th Edition with Escalation and Stronghold rules being rolled into the core rulebook is anywhere near true, then it's not entirely out of the question that Str would no longer cap out at 10, but at D, thus any equipment or abilities that boosts a model or weapon's strength above 10 would become Str D, which would make a Ghostglaive equipped WK a bit more of a tempting option.

[Tyrendian]

Yeah that does end up being a very big advantage against the current crop of deathstar units.

With saying that though if the rumour regarding 7th Edition with Escalation and Stronghold rules being rolled into the core rulebook is anywhere near true, then it's not entirely out of the question that Str would no longer cap out at 10, but at D, thus any equipment or abilities that boosts a model or weapon's strength above 10 would become Str D, which would make a Ghostglaive equipped WK a bit more of a tempting option.

very good point there... maybe we might even get some kind of scaling "Strength above 10" - i.e. S11 has a chance to do one extra wound/HP, S12 has a chance to do 2 or something... who knows...

[ElectricPaladin]

Just in case you missed it, we've known the Wraithknight is the successor to the Epic Eldar Knight since they were released; Jes said so in that WD's interview.

Yep. Whelp - I missed it.

[Houghten]

They can form their own army, they must have some way to score.
It's called "obliterate the enemy army and win by default."

That, or take an allied detachment of Guard or Marines.

[SON OF ROMULOUS]

still not even going to call it a fair fight when both xenos monsterous creatures have to be removed wound by wound... when their imperial and ork counter parts can be blown to bits with 2 lucky shots. so ya so very excited to spend 120+ per model to have it get kicked around by the cow ppl and by space elves...

[DarkLink]

It takes two very lucky shots to blow up a superheavy.


I think distort could play a big favour for the wraithknight, although I'm not 100% sure it's effects on super heavies.

Instant Death does nothing to vehicles.

[ElectricPaladin]

It takes two very lucky shots to blow up a superheavy.

I agree with DarkLink. A lot of people have been posting about how "fragile" the imperial knights are... but let's look at the math (in vague, generic terms).

You've got to hit. The best likely case scenario is twin-linked BS 4, which is almost a guaranteed hit, but some opponents will be trying to hit with BS 3, or BS 4 without be benefit of twin-linkage. Either way, some shots will be missed.

Then you've got to penetrate. The strongest guns in the game (Strength 10) will still only penetrate the knight's front armor half of the time.

Then you've got to cut through the ion shield, which blocks the shot half the time.

And then you've got to roll a 6 to get the Explodes! (or a 4 with an AP 1 gun, or a 5 with an AP 2 gun) result which will knock of d3 hull points.

And then you've got to roll a 3 on the d3.

And you've to to do this twice to two-shot the knight.

Can knights be taken out? Absolutely. But I don't think we'll see a lot of them being two-shotted.

[Cap'nSmurfs]

Yeah, they're not fragile at all when you properly account for what the Super-Heavy vehicle rules mean. Sure, they're on the fragile end of Super-Heavy, but that still puts them in a whole different ballpark to 40k vehicles.

[Houghten]

The strongest guns in the game (Strength 10) will still only penetrate the knight's front armor half of the time.

Oh, come now. There are lots of weapons in the game blastier than a straight-up S10, even ignoring the Destroyer ones. A S10 Ordnance weapon will penetrate that AV13 75% of the time; a melta within melta range or a Vanquisher battle cannon will manage it 83% of the time. Bastion-breacher shells will punch through a whopping 97% of the time.

I'm not saying two-shotting the thing is very likely, mind you. I don't disagree on that point. I'm just an incurable nitpicker who wanted to take issue with you saying S10 non-ordnance non-lance non-armourbane was the strongest thing around.

Also, I think my favoured method for murdering Knights would probably have to be a squad's worth of grav-cannon. Who needs penetrating hits when you can just pour on the glances and watch it topple?

[Az Alderson]

hey guys
i know this might be a bit off topic but i was wondering - are the imperial knights playable in heresy era (30k) games? thanks all

[Gingerpanda]

Would love to see GW (or someone) come up with a set of rules for just combat and damage tables for (or a par of Battletech) for Super Heavies and Stompers, Wraithknights and Imperial Knights.

[DarkLink]

I agree with DarkLink. A lot of people have been posting about how "fragile" the imperial knights are... but let's look at the math (in vague, generic terms).

Can knights be taken out? Absolutely. But I don't think we'll see a lot of them being two-shotted.

Let's say a Wraithknight shoots at the thing. Each shot hits on 3s, pens on 4s, saves on a 4+, +1 to the damage roll so you need a 5+, then a 1/3 chance of exploding for 3 hullpoints. Do the math, and each individual shot only has less than a 2% chance of doing 3 hullpoints. A meltagun in half range will do slightly better, but its still probably about a 3% chance, give or take a little bit.

[computertrucker]

Curious how close are they points wise?

Also I'm of opinion this battle could really go either way. And as an added boost. Both models look amazing.

[zerosignal]

Would love to see GW (or someone) come up with a set of rules for just combat and damage tables for (or a par of Battletech) for Super Heavies and Stompers, Wraithknights and Imperial Knights.

It was called Adeptus Titanicus/Epic, you could get two armies for the cost of a single 40K Knight, it was an excellent game, and they stopped supporting it.

If I wanted to play Epic, I'd play Epic. Really dislike this slide towards stupid-heavies. Keep 40K small-unit!

[Beamo]

hey guys
i know this might be a bit off topic but i was wondering - are the imperial knights playable in heresy era (30k) games? thanks all

So far they are standalone, and can be a primary detachment or an allied detachment to any army. Based on that, and the fact that they did exist in 30k, I would say there is nothing to prevent you from running them alongside a 30k army at this time. As they don't occupy a FOC slot, all they do is eat up your ally detachment allowance, but they also can not score.

That's current, not sure how that will change if they get a stand-alone codex. Based on a few things I'm seeing on the kit itself and with GW adding knights as its own army section on the website, I'm thinking we may see a baron/lancer kit in the near future along with a stand-alone codex.

[Az Alderson]

i hope they can be...im currently painting up and collecting my 30k Emperors Children force from forge world and would love to have one alongside that army

[Katharon]

WD is out, and all relevant pages have been posted on here a few days ago anyways... not the codex obviously but since this here is more of a 1v1 discussion anyway that shouldn't be too bad...

I prefer to make purchases over $50 by knowing everything of what I am buying -- whether its a toaster or a game. For a $140+ model, I'm damn well going to wait to have the codex rules in my hands before purchasing. WD is unreliable in that respect.

[daboarder]

yeah I want one for chaos but I'm not dropping that cash on one whent he wd reads like its deliberately hiding specifics.

[Katharon]

yeah I want one for chaos but I'm not dropping that cash on one whent he wd reads like its deliberately hiding specifics.

Indeed. If anything this feels like, for once, GW is taking advantage of their leaks by quickly putting these bad-boys up for pre-order so soon. It doesn't necessarily mean that the rules for the Imperial Knights are going to be bad, but there is a lot of vagueness going around.

[Learn2Eel]

I'll put 400 quatloos on the Knight vs. anything with a 2++ save in assault. It has a D weapon.

I think that was GrauGeist's point.

A Wraithknight cannot survive 240 points worth of Eldar Guardians or Dark Eldar Kabalite Warriors shooting at it. An Imperial Knight can.
A Wraithknight will merely bounce off in assault with a 2++ model. An Imperial Knight won't.

The Imperial Knight can, thus, ignore some of the most damaging Troops in the game as well as providing a solid hard counter to two of the nastiest death stars in the game (Seer Council and Screamerstar). The Wraithknight cannot. Of course, the Wraithknight is still a top, top unit, and the Imperial Knight is over a hundred points more expensive when both are taken stock (as both really should be).

As far as a straight fight between the two Knights is concerned, it would be pretty close. The Wraithknight edges forward in shooting ever so slightly, but the Imperial Knight would have the advantage in combat.

[daboarder]

I think that was GrauGeist's point.

A Wraithknight cannot survive 240 points worth of Eldar Guardians or Dark Eldar Kabalite Warriors shooting at it. An Imperial Knight can.
A Wraithknight will merely bounce off in assault with a 2++ model. An Imperial Knight won't.

The Imperial Knight can, thus, ignore some of the most damaging Troops in the game as well as providing a solid hard counter to two of the nastiest death stars in the game (Seer Council and Screamerstar). The Wraithknight cannot.

Conversely a wraith cannot die to a pair of meltagun shots, regardless of how well they roll. A knight can

[Learn2Eel]

Conversely a wraith cannot die to a pair of meltagun shots, regardless of how well they roll. A knight can

Exactly. There are things both units can survive easily that the other can't. It's why I don't feel a straight comparison between the two is really fair, especially as one is a super heavy.

[GrauGeist]

I think that was GrauGeist's point.

A Wraithknight cannot survive 240 points worth of Eldar Guardians or Dark Eldar Kabalite Warriors shooting at it. An Imperial Knight can.
A Wraithknight will merely bounce off in assault with a 2++ model. An Imperial Knight won't.

Exactly so. The models have different strengths and weaknesses, and in gameplay, it's not obvious that either is miscosted to the point of being gamebreaking.

[Lake]

A lot of people at my club are interested in the Imperial Knight for one reason above all others. 3-6 of them make a primary detachment. One person is making the list of 3 imperial paladins and a Warhound as a lord of war. Thats an option of theme the Wraithknight doesn't allow. In 1750 when the Eldar army comes backed up by 3 wraithknights, they seem to find themselves a tad insignificant when there's, albeit only 4 models on the enemy team, a metric ****-tonnage of D-weapons. :D

[Rajden]

Hopefully the tanks will see some buffing in the rumored 7th edition to come. One way they could pan out the hullpoint problem: would be to toll for all hullpoints wounds at thesame time and add together the results (after saves ofc). A Penatrating hit could say subtrackt two wounds on a roll of five or six instead, with a bonus explosion effect if six is rolledand the tank runns out of wounds. That way you wouldn't be baleto kill them as fast as you can now...

IE, no autokilling tanks on a single hit.

[ElectricPaladin]

Exactly so. The models have different strengths and weaknesses, and in gameplay, it's not obvious that either is miscosted to the point of being gamebreaking.

To be fair, the question I was asking wasn't exactly "which one is better?" What I was asking is this: "when they first appeared in the game, they were equivalent models - is this still true."

It sounds like it is.

[GrauGeist]

IE, no autokilling tanks on a single hit.

Except, that's exactly how tanks actually do go down. For most of the time that we've had tanks, one-shot = one-kill. The trick was breaching the armor, but once that happened, dead tank.

If you don't like that, don't take tanks. Or take so many that losing one doesn't matter.

[Katharon]

Hopefully the tanks will see some buffing in the rumored 7th edition to come. One way they could pan out the hullpoint problem: would be to toll for all hullpoints wounds at thesame time and add together the results (after saves ofc). A Penatrating hit could say subtrackt two wounds on a roll of five or six instead, with a bonus explosion effect if six is rolledand the tank runns out of wounds. That way you wouldn't be baleto kill them as fast as you can now...

IE, no autokilling tanks on a single hit.

As an IG Tank enthusiest (my friends in my local gaming group think I have a tread obsession...) I have to say that I vehemetly disagree with this. The IG Leman Russ should be fixed in some ways, but not in the way you are thinking of here. If you want to fix tanks, then this is how you do it:

1) A return to 5th edition's method for determining hits against vehicles in CC. A chunk of metal on treads DOES NOT HAVE A FUGGING WEAPON SKILL. If it moved then everything hits one on a 4+, if it didn't move then it's automatic hits. Simple and smooth. No more of this WS1 sheise.

2) Give the Leman Russ one of two things: either give it back its ability to fire ordnance weapons and secondary weapons at full Ballistic skill and the ability to actually move further than 6" (as it stands now, the Leman Russ can never move further than 6" due to being a heavy tank) OR give it a 4th hull point and make it more durable against/in comparison to Land Raiders and Defilers.


Do those things and tanks will be fixed for 6th in my honest opinion. I'm even being as objective as I can be on that #2.

[Learn2Eel]

Hopefully the tanks will see some buffing in the rumored 7th edition to come. One way they could pan out the hullpoint problem: would be to toll for all hullpoints wounds at thesame time and add together the results (after saves ofc). A Penatrating hit could say subtrackt two wounds on a roll of five or six instead, with a bonus explosion effect if six is rolledand the tank runns out of wounds. That way you wouldn't be baleto kill them as fast as you can now...

IE, no autokilling tanks on a single hit.

Vehicles have to have some sort of weakness to balance out the fact that the majority of guns in the game can't hurt them at all, and that balance is that they are able to be destroyed in one hit or "disabled". Similar things still happen to models with wounds and Toughness values through effects such as Pinning and Instant Death. The problem with vehicles has more to do with the fact that the current meta is built around easily accessed, cheap high Strength shooting, and that scoring models cannot score or deny from inside a transport. This has significantly reduced the value of transports in particular, while the current rules for walkers are just flat out inferior to monstrous creatures. Battle tanks like Predators, Whirlwind Scorpius' and the like are still great value for points though.

[Nabterayl]

Also, I think there may be an aesthetic commitment here. Everybody knows that an actual armored fighting vehicle can be taken out with a single hit, and that's especially true if your AFV paradigm stops around 1960, as 40K's does. But Godzilla can never be taken out with a single hit. Part of what makes a giant monster a giant monster is the fact that you have to hit it with a lot of guns to put it down - even guns that would put a tank down with a single good hit. A tank that literally cannot be destroyed with less than three hits does not behave the way we expect tanks to behave; similarly, a giant monster that can be put down with a single shot does not behave the way we expect giant monsters to behave.

[GrauGeist]

According to the most recent update:

1) the Imperial Knights don't occupy any force organisation slots,
2) they are not Lords of War, they are an army unto themselves.
3) all Imperial Knights are scoring units, and
4) if you're playing 3-6 as a primary detachment, pick one as your Warlord.

1) While we saw non-FOC units in the old CSM Codex, we never saw it for something as big and killy as a Russ, much less a Dread / Russ / Russ combination.
2) Superheavy and Destroyer, and NOT a Lord of War?
3) Scoring! That right there is a huge advantage. IMO, Knight Titans are now an excellent value for the points.
4) Warlord! A Knight Titan with Warlord Traits? That's pretty awesome, too.

Quite frankly, this latest rules bit suggests that I might field 1500 points as Knight Titans + Allied Imperial Guard:

In 1850 pts, that's like this:

Primary:
3 Knight Titans (Scoring!)
- Paladin (Warlord!)
- Paladin (support)
- Paladin (support)

Imperial Guard allies (Battle Bros FTW!):
- CCS w/ 4 Plasma Guns
- Veterans w/ Lascannon & Plasma Guns
- Veterans w/ Meltaguns
- Vendetta
- Demolisher
Excellent support: Skyfire Lascannons, BS4 Meltaguns, BS4 Plasmaguns, AV14 S10 Ordnance.

Looking forward to seeing a lot of these soon.

[Rajden]

Also, I think there may be an aesthetic commitment here. Everybody knows that an actual armored fighting vehicle can be taken out with a single hit, and that's especially true if your AFV paradigm stops around 1960, as 40K's does. But Godzilla can never be taken out with a single hit. Part of what makes a giant monster a giant monster is the fact that you have to hit it with a lot of guns to put it down - even guns that would put a tank down with a single good hit. A tank that literally cannot be destroyed with less than three hits does not behave the way we expect tanks to behave; similarly, a giant monster that can be put down with a single shot does not behave the way we expect giant monsters to behave.

Tanks from the 41st millenium (even though they resemble the tanks from back in the days like say 1960s) are way more advanced and even more so armoured. The whole point with a tank is to be able to field heavy guns safely without having to care for small arms fire. But in the 41st millenium there is no real limit on how many "heavy weapons" one can bring. Most of which can take out a tank without much effort.

By removing the auto kill result from the chart and replacing it with actual tank wounds (hullpoints) you give it at least some more defence against semi-heavy weapons. Or say if a six is rolled for a penatrating hit (explodes) - roll a D3 for the ammount of hullpoints lost.

The fact still stands that tanks (unless they are AV14 all around are way to easy to take down and therefore no fun to play with. I'm not saying I don't play tanks myself, I just have doubts in that if I really want to brink a tank or two every time I write that army list. -And I shouln't have to... :/

[Flllyi]

Is the rumor that they are scoring units if taken as an army true?

[LCS]

So far no one has mentioned the fact the Imperial KNight only has that 4+ from one direction, but the Wraithknight just has to put the tip of its toe into some area terrain and now it has 5+ cover from everywhere. A great rule, if you ask me.

[Anggul]

The Wraithknight should really be a super-heavy walker. It's barely smaller than a Revenant, and is a walker, not a monster. It's a machine piloted by a guy. The wave of walkers counting as MCs is silly, whether it's Dreadknights, Riptides or Wraithknights. They're machines with a pilot, not monsters. Also if a Knight's chainsword is D, that massive Ghostglaive should be. I'm happy to have to pay more points for it, I would rather the rules reflect it properly than have it cheaper.

[Cap'nSmurfs]

Wraith constructs *aren't* machines as such, though. They're made from a semi-living material, Wraithbone, and animated not by electric wiring and servos but by psychic links to the spirits of living (or dead, or both) pilots. The Dreadknight I can see, but the Wraithknight is as "monstrous creature" as it gets, short of a Daemon Prince or a Tyranid.

[eldargal]

The Wraithknight should really be a super-heavy walker. It's barely smaller than a Revenant, and is a walker, not a monster. It's a machine piloted by a guy. The wave of walkers counting as MCs is silly, whether it's Dreadknights, Riptides or Wraithknights. They're machines with a pilot, not monsters. Also if a Knight's chainsword is D, that massive Ghostglaive should be. I'm happy to have to pay more points for it, I would rather the rules reflect it properly than have it cheaper.
I agree on some points, the Ghostglaive is definitely underpowered to the point of pointlessness (I mean it should be free for what it does) but I do think Monstrous Creature suits it better, it's advantaged and disadvantages mesh better with the Eldar in my opinion. Ideally in a future codex the WK will get a bit of a boost though I'm generally happy with it's power level now. Bar teh bloody ghostglaive....

[John Bower]

I wonder if the Wraithknight was a first crack at putting dumbed down Super heavies into Codices. Then somebody looked at it and thought, nah, people won't go for that, let's just dumb it right down and make it a normal MC. What they should've done is left it out of the codex, and put it where it really belonged with that 70 quid price tag, Apoc.

[Katharon]

Riptide anyone?

[Horncastle]

Tanks from the 41st millenium (even though they resemble the tanks from back in the days like say 1960s) are way more advanced and even more so armoured. The whole point with a tank is to be able to field heavy guns safely without having to care for small arms fire. But in the 41st millenium there is no real limit on how many "heavy weapons" one can bring. Most of which can take out a tank without much effort.

By removing the auto kill result from the chart and replacing it with actual tank wounds (hullpoints) you give it at least some more defence against semi-heavy weapons. Or say if a six is rolled for a penatrating hit (explodes) - roll a D3 for the ammount of hullpoints lost.

The fact still stands that tanks (unless they are AV14 all around are way to easy to take down and therefore no fun to play with. I'm not saying I don't play tanks myself, I just have doubts in that if I really want to brink a tank or two every time I write that army list. -And I shouln't have to... :/

My only problem with the way the system works now is glancing a tank to death. I miss the way it worked in 3rd and 4th edition with separate glancing and penetrating hit tables.

[This Dave]

My only problem with the way the system works now is glancing a tank to death. I miss the way it worked in 3rd and 4th edition with separate glancing and penetrating hit tables.

I don't at all miss the "glancing hit and you're useless for a turn" of 5th. Glance a Leman Russ in 5th and at "best" it was immobilized. Every other result meant the thing either couldn't shoot, lost its main weapon, or even destroyed.

I do get why the mechanic was introduced so that glances would do something but it is kind of severe. Maybe if Glancing hits only did a HP on a 4+ or something?

[Siris Le Osiris]

The Wraithknight should really be a super-heavy walker. It's barely smaller than a Revenant, and is a walker, not a monster. It's a machine piloted by a guy. The wave of walkers counting as MCs is silly, whether it's Dreadknights, Riptides or Wraithknights. They're machines with a pilot, not monsters. Also if a Knight's chainsword is D, that massive Ghostglaive should be. I'm happy to have to pay more points for it, I would rather the rules reflect it properly than have it cheaper.

Barely smaller my ***, they barely make it past the Revenant's crotch. :P
Wraith units have been toughness based since 3rd ed so its hardly part of the "wave" of MCs rather the wave copying a unit that has actually explainable reasons for being a MC compared to weird crap like dreadknights and riptides that really are actual armoured machines.

7557

[Katharon]

I don't at all miss the "glancing hit and you're useless for a turn" of 5th. Glance a Leman Russ in 5th and at "best" it was immobilized. Every other result meant the thing either couldn't shoot, lost its main weapon, or even destroyed.

I do get why the mechanic was introduced so that glances would do something but it is kind of severe. Maybe if Glancing hits only did a HP on a 4+ or something?

At most I think glances should have only been able to either immobilize, stun, or destroy a weapon against a tank. Make it a D3 deal.

[Rajden]

2/3 of Revenants are basically legs... :P

With all the forcefields, backup systems and what not - tanks should be closer to monsterous creatures then they are now. Really, if not for fluff, then at least for game balance.

[The Imperial Fist]

Also, I think there may be an aesthetic commitment here. Everybody knows that an actual armored fighting vehicle can be taken out with a single hit, and that's especially true if your AFV paradigm stops around 1960, as 40K's does. But Godzilla can never be taken out with a single hit. Part of what makes a giant monster a giant monster is the fact that you have to hit it with a lot of guns to put it down - even guns that would put a tank down with a single good hit. A tank that literally cannot be destroyed with less than three hits does not behave the way we expect tanks to behave; similarly, a giant monster that can be put down with a single shot does not behave the way we expect giant monsters to behave.

A giant monster still has a brain/central nervous system and relies on a cardio-respiratory system. Even if you were to say it had extremely tough skin/dense bone, a large calibre sniper round through the eye would take out the brain in one shot, something strong enough to penetrate the throat could puncture the windpipe in one shot, or something powerful could penetrate the spine in a single shot and kill it in one shot. Or a heart shot etc... The same things that actually instantly (give or take a minute for the heart and throat) kill people in battle, rather than dying through inadequate tissue profussion which is the root cause for 99% of other gunshot related deaths.

Depending on the calibre, a single round can easily go through a brick wall (7.62 and up will, 5.56 may do, depends on range, 9mm is unlikely to in a single shot) so unless we are saying there skin and muscle is denser than brick (or concrete for a single .50 calibre round) a single shot of modern ballistics could kill a monster.

[The Imperial Fist]

Is the rumor that they are scoring units if taken as an army true?

Not a rumour, posted by GW. All are scoring, and in a primary detachment of them select one to be Warlord.

[DarkLink]

A giant monster still has a brain/central nervous system and relies on a cardio-respiratory system. Even if you were to say it had extremely tough skin/dense bone, a large calibre sniper round through the eye would take out the brain in one shot, something strong enough to penetrate the throat could puncture the windpipe in one shot, or something powerful could penetrate the spine in a single shot and kill it in one shot. Or a heart shot etc... The same things that actually instantly (give or take a minute for the heart and throat) kill people in battle, rather than dying through inadequate tissue profussion which is the root cause for 99% of other gunshot related deaths.


Rifles that in-game would be much weaker than a bolter are regularly used to kill any number of very, very large animals in real life, and really, the tough part is finding the animals without them running away and disappearing, not killing them. Flesh is not particularly resilient, and no carapace is actually going to be even remotely strong enough to stop heavy weapons.

[The Imperial Fist]

Rifles that in-game would be much weaker than a bolter are regularly used to kill any number of very, very large animals in real life, and really, the tough part is finding the animals without them running away and disappearing, not killing them. Flesh is not particularly resilient, and no carapace is actually going to be even remotely strong enough to stop heavy weapons.

That was my point, the post I quoted said monsters can't be one shoted, I was pointing out they could be even by current standards.

[George Labour]

Unless said monster has three backup systems complete with seperate nerve clusters, lungs, and even armor encased brain parts.

And in a universe where teenagers are modified to have metal bones, spit acid, and learn new skills by eating brains all so that they can fight fungus men, cosplaying trucker elves, and anthropomorphized sapient emotions....that's not really out of the realm of possiblity.

[The Imperial Fist]

Unless said monster has three backup systems complete with seperate nerve clusters, lungs, and even armor encased brain parts.

And in a universe where teenagers are modified to have metal bones, spit acid, and learn new skills by eating brains all so that they can fight fungus men, cosplaying trucker elves, and anthropomorphized sapient emotions....that's not really out of the realm of possiblity.

Even if the brain was surrounded by armour, that's why you choose the eye - the optic nerve connects to the brain so there is always a way in that way.

[DarkLink]

And in a universe where teenagers are modified to have metal bones, spit acid, and learn new skills by eating brains all so that they can fight fungus men, cosplaying trucker elves, and anthropomorphized sapient emotions....that's not really out of the realm of possiblity.

Don't try and science out of it. Monstrous Creatures make absolutely no sense whatsoever for a wide number of reasons (for one, ever hear of the square-cube law?). How they work is completely fictional and arbitrary. There's no reason to try and base their function on real life analogs. Same thing applies to vehicles. 40k's current system does not approximate how a real vehicle would function. What's important is not realism, it's game balance.

[George Labour]

Even if the brain was surrounded by armour, that's why you choose the eye - the optic nerve connects to the brain so there is always a way in that way.

I think you're missing the point......

[daboarder]

Even if the brain was surrounded by armour, that's why you choose the eye - the optic nerve connects to the brain so there is always a way in that way.

doesn't work on old one eye.....;)

[Katharon]

Don't try and science out of it. Monstrous Creatures make absolutely no sense whatsoever for a wide number of reasons (for one, ever hear of the square-cube law?). How they work is completely fictional and arbitrary.

Dinosaurs.


There's no reason to try and base their function on real life analogs.

Actually there is, since it gives players a frame of reference. The game mechanics themselves are based on real life analogs. Don't really get why this is a bad thing either or should be a point of contention.

[DarkLink]

I'm just saying that we shouldn't be so worked up about how you think things work in real life (which people often make poor, unrealistic assumptions about anyways), because as long as the game is fun, who cares.


Dinosaurs.


Which, while large, would be taken out by a single shot from anything larger than a shoulder fired rifle. And the big ones were comparatively slow and ponderous. Compared to what we're capable of mechanically, living organisms are kind of pathetic, structurally.

[The Imperial Fist]

I think you're missing the point......

No, not really. The poster had said that it's perfectly acceptable for us to believe a tank can be one shotted, while we all "know" a monster never could be. My point is it's perfectly possible to kill anything that relies on a cardio-pulmonary system and a central nervous system with one shot. Biology/evolution has tried to protect the vital areas, but we have spent millenia developing ways to overcome it. Don't get me started on the Astartes fused rib cage, we require the expansion provided by the intercostal muscles to be able to brethe... While tanks are developed with the aim of surviving battle, though even they can be one shotted.


I'm just saying that we shouldn't be so worked up about how you think things work in real life (which people often make poor, unrealistic assumptions about anyways), because as long as the game is fun, who cares

Granted, but I'm basing my assumptions on first hand and front line experience of Emergency Medicine, Combat Medicine and anti-tank training.

[daboarder]

Which, while large, would be taken out by a single shot from anything larger than a shoulder fired rifle. And the big ones were comparatively slow and ponderous. Compared to what we're capable of mechanically, living organisms are kind of pathetic, structurally.
not really accurate.

Biological processes are much more efficient, intricate and specific that anything humans are able to replicate in industry. nature has just not been forced to overcome the kind of structural pressures that we place mechanical structures under.

[Littha]

nature has just not been forced to overcome the kind of structural pressures that we place mechanical structures under.

There are all kinds of interesting deep sea creatures that withstand ridiculous pressures that we have only reletively recently been able to match using machinary.

In any case, not all monsterous creatures are of a biological inclination anyway. Wraithlords/Knights are made of wraithbone and thus may even be solid blocks of material with no weak points and thats before getting into daemons which admittedly do look biological but we know from the fluff that they are basically just solidified warp energy.

[daboarder]

I meant variables not actual pressure.
Besically biology is better than a lot of people give it credit. Most modern material and medicinal research aims to replicate products that are made in nature

[This Dave]

If you want to one shot a MC that's what the Beastslayer silver bullet Vanquisher round is for. My HQ tank once dropped two Riptides before the rest of his entire army rage killed it. :)

[DarkLink]

not really accurate.

Biological processes are much more efficient, intricate and specific that anything humans are able to replicate in industry. nature has just not been forced to overcome the kind of structural pressures that we place mechanical structures under.

Don't try and talk to an engineer about this. Various metals and composite materials outperform bone by such a huge margin it's not even funny, though interestingly enough there's actually no reason why an animal couldn't form bones of steel. It would be a pretty complex material, sure, but it would be easy to make an artificial bone structure that's far stronger and lighter than any naturally occuring skeleton. Nature's main miracle is the fact that life exists and is self sustaining, not that it could create a monster genuinely able to tackle a tank and win. The mechanisms nature is limited to are pretty inefficient in a lot of regards, though.

Edit: here's a good article on it: http://www.materialstoday.com/mechanical-properties/news/why-are-your-bones-not-made-of-steel/

[daboarder]

Don't try and talk to an engineer about this. Various metals and composite materials outperform bone by such a huge margin it's not even funny, though interestingly enough there's actually no reason why an animal couldn't form bones of steel. It would be a pretty complex material, sure, but it would be easy to make an artificial bone structure that's far stronger and lighter than any naturally occuring skeleton. Nature's main miracle is the fact that life exists and is self sustaining, not that it could create a monster genuinely able to tackle a tank and win. The mechanisms nature is limited to are pretty inefficient in a lot of regards, though.

its a question of environment, metals corrode and are reactive whereas the inorganic structures in bone are stable in phisiological environments. Ultimately the point is that I don;t find it too much of a suspension of disbelief to believe an genetically modified alien beast could take a sabot round to the face. especially in the context of a galaxy where sentient emotions eat people.

nb: this is the viewpoint of a chemical scientist.

[silashand]

Walkers as vehicles is a stupid rule IMO. MCs are just *so* much better that it's not even funny and they are supposed to fill roughly the same role in an army. My group has all but decided to just house rule all walkers as MCs just so some of the less seen ones may actually get used once in a while. Will take a little playtesting to get the stats right, but it shouldn't be too hard. If nothing else, the simple fact that you can blow off a weapon on one, but not the other is just plain idiotic game design.

[Littha]

Don't try and talk to an engineer about this. Various metals and composite materials outperform bone by such a huge margin it's not even funny, though interestingly enough there's actually no reason why an animal couldn't form bones of steel. It would be a pretty complex material, sure, but it would be easy to make an artificial bone structure that's far stronger and lighter than any naturally occuring skeleton. Nature's main miracle is the fact that life exists and is self sustaining, not that it could create a monster genuinely able to tackle a tank and win. The mechanisms nature is limited to are pretty inefficient in a lot of regards, though.

Edit: here's a good article on it: http://www.materialstoday.com/mechanical-properties/news/why-are-your-bones-not-made-of-steel/

That article is just dripping with bias... It also completely misses the point that bones actually do more than just provide structural support, they also produce blood cells, store a lot of things (Minerals, Fatty acids, heavy metals), act as a PH buffer and have some effects on insulin production.

[Learn2Eel]

My main issue is not so much the rules for Walkers versus Monstrous Creatures, but the viability of each unit based on personal stats as well as the whole debate about what should separate a monstrous creature from a walker.

As someone explained earlier, a Wraith construct makes perfect sense as a monstrous creature. Then we get to stuff like the Nemesis Dreadknight and a Dreadnought. A Dreadknight is effectively an exo-suit with a pilot. A Dreadnought is, again, effectively an exo-suit with a pilot. Why is a Dreadknight a monstrous creature but not a Dreadnought? That, for example, never really made sense to me, especially when stuff like War Walkers are, well, Walkers but a similar unit in concept with the Riptide is a monstrous creature.

Then we get into individual rules. There are examples of very competitive Walker units and non-competitive monstrous creatures, so I think it is less to do with the Unit Types and more with the rules for each individual unit. Obviously, a monstrous creature has more innate benefits than a Walker, especially in 6th Edition with all the extra rules monstrous creatures get. However, the Soul Grinder is point-for-point one of the best ground vehicles in the game. It brings decent Skyfire, it is a monster in combat that ignores krak grenades, it is very cheap, it is pretty darn durable with AV 13/13/11 4 hull points and a 5+ invulnerable save, and it can get some pretty nasty guns and buffs from the "Daemon of" and weapon upgrades. Contrast that to its predecessor, the Defiler, and you get two very different situations based I guess on the rules for the Soul Grinder learning from the deficiencies of the Defilers' rules.

Undoubtedly Walkers need to get some unique special rules like monstrous creatures did, but the units themselves could feasibly be improved. Just changing a Defiler to a monstrous creature is no guarantee of making it competitive, after all.

[DarkLink]

That article is just dripping with bias...

How so? Do you dispute any of the engineering analysis? Biomedical engineering isn't directly my thing, so if you're a more experience physicist or engineer then I'd like to hear your professional opinion.



It also completely misses the point that bones actually do more than just provide structural support, they also produce blood cells, store a lot of things (Minerals, Fatty acids, heavy metals), act as a PH buffer and have some effects on insulin production.

...which is something the article directly mentions, and frankly isn't relevant to this conversation. We're talking about whether or not biological organisms can take a missile launcher to the face. Sure, all those secondary roles might be the reason animals don't have steel or titanium bones, but producing blood cells isn't a property that allows you to resists being exploded into little bits.

[DarkLink]

its a question of environment, metals corrode and are reactive whereas the inorganic structures in bone are stable in phisiological environments.

Which is probably part of the reason why bones aren't made of steel, the other half being that it would be one convoluted evolutionary path to reach that point. Evolution can tweak and hone things, but unless we artificially induce change we're going to be stuck with the same basic mechanics that make out bodies run for a long time, even if some of the details change.



Ultimately the point is that I don;t find it too much of a suspension of disbelief to believe an genetically modified alien beast could take a sabot round to the face. especially in the context of a galaxy where sentient emotions eat people.


Yeah, I don't really mind. Mechs don't make any sense, either, basically any technology that would make a giant walking robot functional would be better used making more practical things like tanks more efficient, but mechs are cool, so who really cares.

[Nabterayl]

That was my point, the post I quoted said monsters can't be one shoted, I was pointing out they could be even by current standards.
I think you may have misread my post. My point was that I think GW is going for a certain look and feel by separating monstrous creatures into a different category from vehicles. The look-and-feel for how 40K vehicles operate is World War II (even though the look-and-feel for how they look is often earlier than that). That aesthetic archetype requires that a dude with a tube in the grass can one-shot the metal behemoth. The one-shot kill is one of the tropes that defines the archetype.

But the look-and-feel that informs the monstrous creature rules is Godzilla. Now obviously Godzilla makes no sense biologically. And obviously Godzilla probably could be one-shotted even in a Godzilla movie if the missiles and bombs and artillery fired at him actually behaved like they do in the real world. But a Godzilla movie in which the giant monster can be killed by a single sufficiently powerful or sufficiently well-placed attack ... just isn't a Godzilla movie. One of the tropes that defines the archetype of the giant monster is that the giant monster will never be one-shotted, even if that makes no sense.

I think that GW has a commitment to these two archetypes, and a commitment to making them separate. Which is why, I hypothesize (absent some sort of crazy super-weapon, represented by the Instant Death rule or the Destroyer rule), MCs are designed such that they can't be one-shotted.