It should be difficult to pick out an infantry character amongst a number of similar shaped models on the battlefield compared to shooting at a two hundred foot tall warmachine suddenly being invulnerable because it took [X] amount of wounds. Knights already ruled the field in 8e for a good period of the game. Go ask Brandon Grant about the effectiveness of one Knight on the field. Knights are fine when they aren't used by a point and click player.
I agree that the rule is silly in its effects. However I think it only fair to acknowledge that (based on what we know) Knights will be weaker in 9th than they were in 8th:
1) They can still be shot from anywhere on the board, including from the aerial of a tank through three windows and a crack in the wall.
2) They, however, cannot return fire in the same way and have their visibility blocked a lot more by the more abstract terrain rules
3) Changes to blast weapons will only be of marginal improvement to them against 50% of armies on the table because many of their blast weapons already roll 2 dice for the number of shots so the guaranteed minimum of three isn’t a big improvement. It only becomes a big improvement against hordes.
4) They’re not an army with lots of fat they can trim to absorb the upcoming points increase, meaning even a 5% increase is likely to result in the loss of a model in an army with a very low model count.
5) Having a unit sit out their turn to perform one of these mission specific ‘actions’ will rarely be practical with so few units on the table.
Don’t get me wrong, I agree with you that it’s stupid because the rumoured rule can make large parts of an opposing army obsolete, it’s not a fair way to do it. However, I do support the intent behind the rule which is to give the units some more survivability in a game where it’s laughably easy to wipe them out really quickly, especially if we’re talking about a LoW like a baneblade with no invulnerable save.
Edited by MARK0SIAN, 28 June 2020 - 08:10 AM.