Hello Dakka.

40K moral dilemma for you here. For my gaming club tomorrow night, there's only one guy I can possibly play against. He uses two Knights at 1500pts with outflanking melta-wielding Sisters in Rhinos to support.

I use quite fluffy armies (either Guard or Dark Eldar), and neither has the raw firepower or combat ability to deal with Knights. Last time out, using my IG, I was stomped all over the board despite throwing everything at those damn Knights.

Is it wrong to ask him to leave them at home this time? Am I being naive to not be building lists that can deal with Knights (I don't have the models without serious investment)? Should I simply try to enjoy playing a game where I have little to no chance of winning, no matter how tactically masterful I am? Otherwise I'm sitting at home with no war-gaming tomorrow.

Have at it, internet.

Don't have to play against the knights if you don't want to.

What are you taking to fight them anyway?

Knights are part of the game. IG have plenty of ways to deal with them, probably more than most other armies do. Either update your army or resign to losing a lot of games.

Going to try with my 5th ed Dark Eldar this time:

Archon, clone field, ghostplate, huskblade, soul trap
6 Incubi bodyguard
- Raider (dark lance)

Haemonculus, 9 wracks, raider (dark lance)

10 Kabalites, splinter cannon, raider (dark lance, night shields) with splinter wracks

10 Kabalites, splinter cannon, raider (dark lance, night shields) with splinter wracks

5 Wyches, haywire grenades, venom

5 Wyches, haywire grenades, venom

5 Wyches, haywire grenades, venom

5 Wyches, haywire grenades, venom

Ravager, three dark lances, night shields

 Scoundrel13 wrote:
Hello Dakka.

40K moral dilemma for you here. For my gaming club tomorrow night, there's only one guy I can possibly play against. He uses two Knights at 1500pts with outflanking melta-wielding Sisters in Rhinos to support.

I use quite fluffy armies (either Guard or Dark Eldar), and neither has the raw firepower or combat ability to deal with Knights. Last time out, using my IG, I was stomped all over the board despite throwing everything at those damn Knights.

Is it wrong to ask him to leave them at home this time? Am I being naive to not be building lists that can deal with Knights (I don't have the models without serious investment)? Should I simply try to enjoy playing a game where I have little to no chance of winning, no matter how tactically masterful I am? Otherwise I'm sitting at home with no war-gaming tomorrow.

Have at it, internet.

Welcome to the world of GW. Man-up (or rather Wallet-up) and buy something to counter it... and thus the cycle continues...

 Toofast wrote:
Knights are part of the game. IG have plenty of ways to deal with them, probably more than most other armies do. Either update your army or resign to losing a lot of games.

...or ask your opponent if they can not use them if you don't have the tools to fight them.

I feel 40k is (unfortunately) the sort of game where there has to be a bit of negotiation, especially if you're playing the same opponents and want a closer match.

Otherwise have a crack at fine tuning your army to take them on, assuming you have the models to do that.

 Scoundrel13 wrote:
Going to try with my 5th ed Dark Eldar this time:

Archon, clone field, ghostplate, huskblade, soul trap
6 Incubi bodyguard
- Raider (dark lance)

Haemonculus, 9 wracks, raider (dark lance)

10 Kabalites, splinter cannon, raider (dark lance, night shields) with splinter wracks

10 Kabalites, splinter cannon, raider (dark lance, night shields) with splinter wracks

5 Wyches, haywire grenades, venom

5 Wyches, haywire grenades, venom

5 Wyches, haywire grenades, venom

5 Wyches, haywire grenades, venom

Ravager, three dark lances, night shields

Which Edition is he using for his Knghts? Makes a big difference especially in close combat?
Wounldn't flickerfields be better as he is likely to get close quickly with Knights and Dominions - 5+ Invuln can be life or death.
Could try Trueborn with mutiple blasters?

You are perfectly within your rights to ask him not to bring them (or just to bring one, which I feel is a reasonable compromise as one at 1500 isn't stupidly hard to destroy), and if he's a reasonable human being and has the minis available, I imagine he'll agree. If he doesn't have the minis to swap out, you could always play at a lower points level.

40k requires negotiation between the players, but I don't see how that is ever a bad thing. Five minutes of discussion to ensure both parties have a better two hours is a fair trade, I think.

Flyers are something to look into against knights. Aside from a stubber, there isn't really much a Knight can do to a flyer. Also the Dark Eldar Flyers, particularly the Void Raven, may have a few options to consider.

The Vendetta also brings some options to the table having 3x Las-Cannons that are twin-linked. Chimera with melta-veterans might also be something you can consider.

Dude mass venoms is 1 of the best things you can use against a knight IMO. Knights aren't good against MSU. Take trueborn squads with blasters on venoms (Instead of witches) and hit from every facing. Scourge with haywire blasters will tear that puppy up too. You can easily wreck sisters with incubi or even kabalites with a succubus - I'd leave raiders with disintegraters. Drop one of your HQ.

One thing I saw once that is a good thing to keep in mind.

"Its not the screws fault that your hammer is useless"


Knights are part of the game now. They're their own codex, just as much as Space Wolves, Vanilla Marines, or Astra Militarum.

I wager that you wouldn't be happy if someone asked you not to use your 3 Lemun Russes that you'd paid good money for, assembled, and painted.


Imperial Guard have plenty of tools to take on Knights. You have cheap melta squads and massed Lascannon fire.

Maybe you should consider getting a Knight of your own too, not as counter for other Knights but for the tactical benefits. They're awesome models and they compliment most Imperial lists quite well. Even a single Knight can be a great centerpiece.

And Haywire is an excellent way of taking out super heavies.

It's quite simple.
You probably play Warhammer 40k for your enjoyment.
Playing against Knights does not give you enjoyment.

So nothing wrong with asking the opponent not to play it.

You don't have to play against anything or anyone whom you don't want to. If you're playing with good buddies then they should be more open to the idea that you just don't have the tools to counter Knights and perhaps not run them or give you some sort of handicap. Playing against random people at your FLGS is where you have to make the decision to play someone or not. Just remember that it's equally okay for them to run Knights, so no negative comments sent their way.

 Scoundrel13 wrote:
Hello Dakka.

40K moral dilemma for you here. For my gaming club tomorrow night, there's only one guy I can possibly play against. He uses two Knights at 1500pts with outflanking melta-wielding Sisters in Rhinos to support.

I use quite fluffy armies (either Guard or Dark Eldar), and neither has the raw firepower or combat ability to deal with Knights. Last time out, using my IG, I was stomped all over the board despite throwing everything at those damn Knights.

Is it wrong to ask him to leave them at home this time? Am I being naive to not be building lists that can deal with Knights (I don't have the models without serious investment)? Should I simply try to enjoy playing a game where I have little to no chance of winning, no matter how tactically masterful I am? Otherwise I'm sitting at home with no war-gaming tomorrow.

Have at it, internet.

Speaking to this as a moral dilemma (as you specified):

Either you (and he) are morally obligated to accept anything within the rules without negotiation, or not.

Within the rules, it is your option to densely pack the board with tons of terrain that is impossible for the knights to deploy on (not just wobbly model syndrome, but terrain they LITERALLY cannot fit on). You can fill the board with multi-level ruins, low bridges, narrow streets, etc, that all allow access for the models the size of infantry and small tanks, but which cannot accommodate Knights.

This, of course, assumes that your gaming club has enough of this scenery. If not, put as much of it as possible in such a way to hinder him as much as possible.

Now, either you and your opponent can agree to negotiate elements of the game (including both terrain and army construction), or you and he can play games where he brings knights, and either cannot deploy them at all, or is extremely limited in his deployment.

I bring this up as a thought experiment. I feel that clearly, you should be able to discuss these types of things with your opponent pre-game.

If, on the other hand, your opponent feels disinclined to do so, there's nothing preventing you from loading the board to handicap him. Alternatively, show up with a ridiculous Unbound army and take him apart (borrow several of those nasty C'Tan). This, too, is legal within the rules--unless he's open to negotiating on the type of game you are playing.

On the other hand, the real flaw in the rules is that this guy might only have two Knights and some Sisters. GW has written a game where some legal, valid armies have intense, crippling difficulty versus other legal, valid armies.

Kangodo wrote:
It's quite simple.
You probably play Warhammer 40k for your enjoyment.
Playing against Knights does not give you enjoyment.

So nothing wrong with asking the opponent not to play it.

But what if your opponent enjoys playing with his $140 model that he probably spent hours assembling and painting?

Then you'd be denying his enjoyment for your enjoyment.


Ultimately, every codex has the tools to deal with Knights. If a player doesn't take advantage of them that's his problem, not the guy with the Knights.

 Grey Templar wrote:
I wager that you wouldn't be happy if someone asked you not to use your 3 Lemun Russes that you'd paid good money for, assembled, and painted.

If someone (for some silly reason) brought an army that couldn't deal with 3 Russes, I'd be totally fine with my opponent asking me not to use them.

A very large facet of 40k is the rock paper scissors style of army building, I personally do not really like that facet, so I'm happy enough to negotiate terms with my opponent to make the game itself entertaining, especially in the situation where the person might not own the models required to face my army, better to have a fun game now than get the guy to spend hundreds of dollars and several months getting his army up to snuff.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Grey Templar wrote:

Kangodo wrote:
It's quite simple.
You probably play Warhammer 40k for your enjoyment.
Playing against Knights does not give you enjoyment.

So nothing wrong with asking the opponent not to play it.

But what if your opponent enjoys playing with his $140 model that he probably spent hours assembling and painting?

Then you'd be denying his enjoyment for your enjoyment.

If your opponent can't enjoy the game and you can't enjoy the game, maybe you shouldn't be playing a game together unless you can come to mutually agreeable terms

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
I wager that you wouldn't be happy if someone asked you not to use your 3 Lemun Russes that you'd paid good money for, assembled, and painted.

If someone (for some silly reason) brought an army that couldn't deal with 3 Russes, I'd be totally fine with my opponent asking me not to use them.

A very large facet of 40k is the rock paper scissors style of army building, I personally do not really like that facet, so I'm happy enough to negotiate terms with my opponent to make the game itself entertaining, especially in the situation where the person might not own the models required to face my army, better to have a fun game now than get the guy to spend hundreds of dollars and several months getting his army up to snuff.

People shouldn't show up to a Rock, Paper, Scissors tournament without Scissors.

The whole idea that its not only ok to handicap players, but that its socially unacceptable to NOT handicap is baffling.

No other game on the face of the earth encourages holding back, or even mandates it. You don't see people saying "Manning is OP, please ban!"


People should play the game. Playing the game is fun. Whats not fun is telling someone they can't use a model they spent a ton of money on, and probably 5+ hours building and painting.

Why should someone suffer because of your lack of planning?

Besides, Knights really aren't that hard to kill. Surely you can do 6 HPs of damage to an AV13/12/12 vehicle with a 4+ save(only on one facing I might add, flank it with Meltas)

To refresh the perspective of the thread the question asked isn't to do with tournaments.

It is a guy going to a local club where he only has one possible opponent; a guy playing with 2 knights and sisters.

Firstly, I don't think there is any harm in diplomatically suggesting double knights will give your collection a game that neither player would enjoy and as such changing the parameters of the game.

My suggestion is consider playing something different; perhaps a game of zone mortalis, or a series of quick 600 point games. Alternatively make sure you have plenty of terrain/objectives that is unfriendly to the knight if you are forced to face it.

If playing against the knights becomes inevitable don't despair. Use low cost defensive tactics to mitigate the damage the knights can do and make sure to focus on easy objectives rather than getting tied up in trying to destroy the knights.

If you can simply ignore the knights and still make a game of it then ignoring the knights is a valid tactic.

 Grey Templar wrote:
But what if your opponent enjoys playing with his $140 model that he probably spent hours assembling and painting?
Then you'd be denying his enjoyment for your enjoyment.
Ultimately, every codex has the tools to deal with Knights. If a player doesn't take advantage of them that's his problem, not the guy with the Knights.

That's not my problem, it's my enjoyment and money.
I'm not going to have every single game ruined to keep my opponent happy.

If my opponent cannot enjoy a game without an Imperial Knight than I will refuse 9 out of 10 games and either don't play at all or pick another opponent.
But to stay on topic: I think it is also bad sportsmanship to tell him only a day before.

In my area we have a gentalmans agreement to give fair warning to your opponent before bringing a lord of war(a real one not the HQs who became lords of war).

It has worked out nicely as generally people enjoy the games significantly more that way. Plus there are some of us who have lords of war but wont use them unless the opponent has them as well so then I know im not being rude or mean by bringing it.

This is IK we're talking about, not a transcendent c'tan. Any army that can't handle IK at 1500 will also suffer against cron AV13, land raider spam, Flyer spam etc. At that point you're basically telling half your opponents "I don't want to play against that army". In my meta, the people with good lists don't have a problem getting games. The people who refuse to play any list they don't like are the ones on the outside looking in while everyone else is throwing dice...

The classic "L2P newb" argument.

40k is a dynamic game.

If you fail to update your lists to the current play environment then why would you expect to have a chance at winning?

Martel732 wrote:
The classic "L2P newb" argument.

As opposed to the classic "let's play 40k like it's 1998 because my way of having fun is the only way of having fun and I'm too cheap/lazy to update my army" argument?

 TheAvengingKnee wrote:
In my area we have a gentalmans agreement to give fair warning to your opponent before bringing a lord of war(a real one not the HQs who became lords of war).

It has worked out nicely as generally people enjoy the games significantly more that way. Plus there are some of us who have lords of war but wont use them unless the opponent has them as well so then I know im not being rude or mean by bringing it.

Yea, LOW is a whole other can of worms.

I personally don't think Imperial Knights are that bad. Granted I have never been surprised to play one, they have either been in tournament settings, or against friends who don't mind using them.

Now, Adamantium Lance.... that can be bad... lol but typically only seem in a tournament/competitive setting.

I'm okay with being asked not to play my Knights, just don't get mad when I ask you not to play core units of your army. Fair is fair, right? I mean, it's not like most armies cannot kill a Knight in a single round of shooting if they are taking anti-tank units they should be taking anyway, so if I should drop units from my list you already can deal with, then you should be okay with dropping units from your list I don't want to deal with.

SJ

 Toofast wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
The classic "L2P newb" argument.

As opposed to the classic "let's play 40k like it's 1998 because my way of having fun is the only way of having fun and I'm too cheap/lazy to update my army" argument?

I personally find the knights much more unfair than the other units you listed, and so I could see refusing to play such an opponent.

I have been running eldar allies with my DE. Unit of fire dragons deep striking with an archon with a webway should handle a knight in 1 shot.

It is absolutely not wrong to ask an opponent not to use superheavies. That opponent, however, is perfectly within their rights to decide you're being a wet blanket and decide not to play with you.

What armies you bring are always a matter of negotiation, it's a give and take thing.

 Toofast wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
The classic "L2P newb" argument.

As opposed to the classic "let's play 40k like it's 1998 because my way of having fun is the only way of having fun and I'm too cheap/lazy to update my army" argument?

Is this the classic North Korean "I will tell you how you should have fun!" argument?

And this is why threads like this always turn into a flame-war.
I don't like to play against SHV's in WH40k, so I MUST be cheap, lazy or just a bad player.

 Toofast wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
The classic "L2P newb" argument.

As opposed to the classic "let's play 40k like it's 1998 because my way of having fun is the only way of having fun and I'm too cheap/lazy to update my army" argument?

There is no 'right way' to have fun. 40k as a game is heavily dependent on consistent play groups that are interested in staying friends after the game simply because you can approach it so many different ways and mismatches lead to bitching and no fun.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with asking your opponent to bring or not bring anything It's a social event, and just as I can ask my friend to not bring red wine to a party you can ask for stuff...doesn't always mean you'll get it.
The danger is the slippery slope that previous posters have discussed, but if you're aware of it go right ahead.

 Grey Templar wrote:
But what if your opponent enjoys playing with his $140 model that he probably spent hours assembling and painting?.

Then he has the option of choosing not to play against you.

In a casual game, it's perfectly acceptable to not want to play against certain units or armies. The point is that both players are supposed to enjoy the game. If your opponent has something that you don't want to play against, then discuss it with them. If the two of you are able to reach a compromise, then game on. If not, then you both go and find something else to do with your time.

Why so many people seem to be so dead set on insisting that a player should be forced to play a game that they don't enjoy is beyond me. This is a hobby, not a job.

It's the same reason people fielded CSM lists in 2nd ed that could shoot other lists off the table in a single round.

This one time this guy refused to play against knights.

We took him out back and beat his face in with metal dreads.

He learned his lesson.

True story.

 Toofast wrote:
This is IK we're talking about, not a transcendent c'tan. Any army that can't handle IK at 1500 will also suffer against cron AV13, land raider spam, Flyer spam etc. At that point you're basically telling half your opponents "I don't want to play against that army". In my meta, the people with good lists don't have a problem getting games. The people who refuse to play any list they don't like are the ones on the outside looking in while everyone else is throwing dice...

So, for you there is no negotiation? What if the guy is still new to the game or doesn't have a lot of money to spend on the latest big thing?
This new meta requires a large degree of negotiation to make it work. "Suck it up and enjoy losing" isn't a good answer.

 TheAvengingKnee wrote:
In my area we have a gentalmans agreement to give fair warning to your opponent before bringing a lord of war(a real one not the HQs who became lords of war).

It has worked out nicely as generally people enjoy the games significantly more that way. Plus there are some of us who have lords of war but wont use them unless the opponent has them as well so then I know im not being rude or mean by bringing it.

Well thats fine. Knights aren't Lord of Wars though, unless they're the Forge World knights in a non-Knight detachment.

Of course everyone has the right not to play against anyone, but if the reason is "I don't like your toy soldier" it comes across as pretty childish. Even more so when the complaints that they're overpowered are really not true.

There are some things I don't enjoy playing against, but I enjoy playing more than not playing. And I can deal with those things, in a way its a nice challenge.

I never refuse a game because of lists.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 MWHistorian wrote:

 Toofast wrote:
This is IK we're talking about, not a transcendent c'tan. Any army that can't handle IK at 1500 will also suffer against cron AV13, land raider spam, Flyer spam etc. At that point you're basically telling half your opponents "I don't want to play against that army". In my meta, the people with good lists don't have a problem getting games. The people who refuse to play any list they don't like are the ones on the outside looking in while everyone else is throwing dice...

So, for you there is no negotiation? What if the guy is still new to the game or doesn't have a lot of money to spend on the latest big thing?
This new meta requires a large degree of negotiation to make it work. "Suck it up and enjoy losing" isn't a good answer.

Newbies are an exception. But than again we're probably playing at point levels where you can't actually field Knights so its not a problem.

Once we're at a level where a Knight can realistically be fielded, I'll field mine. The newbie is going to run into the eventually, better he finds out early he needs to be prepared. I'll even help him make lists which can deal with Knights.

The best way to teach a newbie is with real lists, but also with advice and other help. Help like "You probably shouldn't move those guys there" or "You should get some more melta in this list, maybe swap out X and drop Y so you can get Z"

This is why I only care about winning if its a fully competitive match.

If it's a casual game I don't give a feth whether I win or not. If I know I can't win I lose in style.

Kangodo wrote:

 Toofast wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
The classic "L2P newb" argument.

As opposed to the classic "let's play 40k like it's 1998 because my way of having fun is the only way of having fun and I'm too cheap/lazy to update my army" argument?

Is this the classic North Korean "I will tell you how you should have fun!" argument?

And this is why threads like this always turn into a flame-war.
I don't like to play against SHV's in WH40k, so I MUST be cheap, lazy or just a bad player.

For me it's that if I bring mine and don't tell my opponent and I win just because it walked all over his army(literally sometimes), I don't enjoy the game as much. Now if my opponent says they are going to bring one I feel much less bad about dusting off my lord of war for a game. Several others have them and just don't want to rely on them as a crutch to win what could be a difficult game .

 Grey Templar wrote:
Of course everyone has the right not to play against anyone, but if the reason is "I don't like your toy soldier" it comes across as pretty childish.

If I don't eat a biscuit because I don't like that type of biscuit, is that also 'childish'...?

 insaniak wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Of course everyone has the right not to play against anyone, but if the reason is "I don't like your toy soldier" it comes across as pretty childish.

If I don't eat a biscuit because I don't like that type of biscuit, is that also 'childish'...?

That's not the same thing.

 Grey Templar wrote:

 insaniak wrote:
If I don't eat a biscuit because I don't like that type of biscuit, is that also 'childish'...?

That's not the same thing.

But it is exactly the same.

 TheAvengingKnee wrote:
For me it's that if I bring mine and don't tell my opponent and I win just because it walked all over his army(literally sometimes), I don't enjoy the game as much. Now if my opponent says they are going to bring one I feel much less bad about dusting off my lord of war for a game. Several others have them and just don't want to rely on them as a crutch to win what could be a difficult game .

But not everyone is like that, some people like to win at any cost.
I personally haven't lost to Knights or other SHV's, but I don't like how they changed the game and I would rather avoid it.
A game against an Imperial Knight can be fun sometimes if I get at least a warning.

Of course it is.

40K is a game. It's something that you do for fun.

If you don't enjoy playing against particular units, or particular lists, or factions, or armies painted a particular colour, or particular players, or on certain days of the week, or against people using green dice, or against people who own cats, or in stores that have windows, or whatever... then choosing to not do so is not 'childish'. It's just choosing to not do something that you don't like doing.

There is no particularly good reason that someone should feel obligated to spend their leisure time doing something that they don't want to do.

IME, Knights are really only fun for the person playing with them.

IMO, there's nothing wrong with telling someone you'd rather not play against Knights, just like there is nothing wrong with telling someone you'd rather not play against Eldar, or an Unbound list, or a Transcendent Ctan

Life is short, and gaming time is precious. Spend your time having fun.

This reminds me of the time my buddy brought 3 drop podded special weapons teams and vets with meltas against my IK and it died turn two from the second volley of pods. Then I stopped taking knights and started winning more games. Gear your lists to kill knights and you will win more games because if you can kill a knight you can kill a lot of the other things in the game that are scary. Personally as dark eldar I wouldn't go anywhere without 3 venom's with blaster true born to deal with such nonsense.

 Grey Templar wrote:

Kangodo wrote:
It's quite simple.
You probably play Warhammer 40k for your enjoyment.
Playing against Knights does not give you enjoyment.

So nothing wrong with asking the opponent not to play it.

But what if your opponent enjoys playing with his $140 model that he probably spent hours assembling and painting?

Then you'd be denying his enjoyment for your enjoyment.


Ultimately, every codex has the tools to deal with Knights. If a player doesn't take advantage of them that's his problem, not the guy with the Knights.

Welcome to False Equivalency Town.

The good news is that you won't be alone.

Kangodo wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:

 insaniak wrote:
If I don't eat a biscuit because I don't like that type of biscuit, is that also 'childish'...?

That's not the same thing.

But it is exactly the same.

No its not the same.

A better comparison would be asking for a biscuit, getting one, and then saying its not fair that I didn't give you a glass of lemonade as well.

If you want to play 40k, play 40k. Not 40kminusthepartsIdon'tlike.

Why should anyone waste time playing games that they don't think are fun?

 Grey Templar wrote:
People shouldn't show up to a Rock, Paper, Scissors tournament without Scissors.

Unfortunately the game is balanced such that TAC lists are a thing of myth and it's possible for your opponent to bring vastly more paper than your brought scissors to compete with because you also brought enough rocks and paper to deal with opponent's rocks and scissors of which this particular opponent didn't bring any, this makes for a boring game.

The whole idea that its not only ok to handicap players, but that its socially unacceptable to NOT handicap is baffling.

What? The idea is baffling because no one is saying it. No one is saying it's socially unacceptable to not handicap. I think it's socially unacceptable to assume you opponent isn't allowed to negotiate a game and must be forced to play you even if it's going to be a crap game.

No other game on the face of the earth encourages holding back, or even mandates it. You don't see people saying "Manning is OP, please ban!"

Manning? Is that a player of some sport? No one is saying you should have to hold back in a competitive environment, but in a social game, yeah, I think negotiations are perfectly fine. Also "no other game"... so you'd be fine if a professional player of sport X showed up to a local primary school and played at 100% and won the game 100-0?

Also you do have other games with handicaps that are used in social games.

People should play the game. Playing the game is fun. Whats not fun is telling someone they can't use a model they spent a ton of money on, and probably 5+ hours building and painting.

Playing a game you know the outcome of before it starts is fun for you? Ok, that's fine. I don't find it fun. I prefer to play a game where I think there's a somewhat equal chance of success for both sides.

If someone doesn't share my vision of what is fun I simply won't play against them, the only way you'll find out if someone is too different to enjoy a game with or whether they are on the same wavelength as you and are happy to compromise is to ask them, and it's totally acceptable to ask.

Why should someone suffer because of your lack of planning?

No one has to suffer. If you can't come to an agreement of what you'll find fun, just don't play a game and spend your evening doing something else or playing against someone else.

 Grey Templar wrote:
A better comparison would be asking for a biscuit, getting one, and then saying its not fair that I didn't give you a glass of lemonade as well.

If, by 'better' you mean 'completely unrelated' then yes, that would be a better comparison.


Here's what's happening here: You offer me a biscuit. I say 'Your biscuits normally have anchovies on them. I don't like anchovies. Do you have any other types of biscuits?'

At that point, you can offer me a different biscuit, I can accept the biscuit I don't like and eat it because, I don't know, that's manly or something... or I can choose to not take the biscuit.


One of those options is a bit weird... and yet you seem to think it's what people should feel obliged to do.

If you want to play 40k, play 40k. Not 40kminusthepartsIdon'tlike.

This is the 40K that tells us right at the front of the rulebook that we should feel free to alter the rules however we see fit?

That 40k?

 Grey Templar wrote:
No its not the same.
A better comparison would be asking for a biscuit, getting one, and then saying its not fair that I didn't give you a glass of lemonade as well.
If you want to play 40k, play 40k. Not 40kminusthepartsIdon'tlike.

No, I'm not saying something is fair.
I'm saying I am not going to play the game if I do not like the list I am playing against.
Or in an analogy: "I am not going to eat the biscuit if I do not like the biscuits that I can pick from."

And who are you to tell me what I should be playing?
I can give you my address, you could buy me an army, paint it and then compensate me for the hours.
Perhaps then I would allow you to tell me what kind of 40k I should be playing.
And until you do it I will continue to play '40kminusthepartsIdon'tlike' and I'll Forge the Narrative as I like it.

There is a guy in our group who got one Knight when they first came out. Nobody liked it, but we dealt with it. Then he got another Knight and started bringing lists with 2 of them. Again people were/are not happy. Now he has a "tournament" list with 3 of the damned things! Time before last when I played him I made if fairly clear I was NOT enjoying the game. I actually won, but it was just not all that much fun playing against 2 of the damned things. Our most recent game he "chose" not to bring them and instead brought a Dread Knight. At least that is something I can respond to in a number of ways.

The real bummer for me is not that I can't "deal" with 2 or even 3 knights, it is just that the game becomes somewhat of a roll off and whoever wins that takes the game. even when I win, I feel like I have lost against those things.

Nothing wrong with asking him to play something else. Be wary, he may disagree and want to run his Knights, but no one is forcing you two to play each other.

I think if you ask the other player not to play a knight, they should be well within their rights to dictate what you cannot play in exchange. It should be give and take.

IMHO, you shouldn't ask him/her not to. I see it as a challenge to bring down a Knight, and 2 would just be more fun. Go for it, as longs as you have plenty of S9 weapons, Lascannons FTW!

Life's too short to play a game you won't enjoy. If you don't enjoy playing against IK, then don't. There's lots of other things to do.

 casvalremdeikun wrote:
I think if you ask the other player not to play a knight, they should be well within their rights to dictate what you cannot play in exchange. It should be give and take.

Sure, go through the mighty BA codex and find something objectionable.

 Kid_Kyoto wrote:
This one time this guy refused to play against knights.

We took him out back and beat his face in with metal dreads.

He learned his lesson.

True story.

Dreadsock sock assault ?

It's not wrong to ask your opponent to play with/without anything.

It's also not wrong for him to refuse.

It's also not wrong for the two of you to not play each other because you can't agree on the type of game you'd like to play.

One of the three opponents I play the most plays GK. his army or more precise the models he owns destroy IG. 3 NDKS or fewer NDKS with centurions. after getting losing to him multiple times, and not wanting to play against eldar , which two of my other opponents played. I asked him to switch out. oddly he agreed. His new list had 0 ndks or centurions in it, no tigurius. What he did bring was ~300pts of GK and ~1200pts in night and imperial titan. Was a joy to play against.
IMO it is an unfixable thing. If someones armies can't deal with combination of some models, then the only way to have fun is to not play against people that have them. Problems of course start if the playgroup is small or 40% of all players suddenly play eldar or necron.

I have a hard time playing my Eldar 'casually'. Even when I bring a list that isn't min/maxed, I (often) win anyway. But this is due in part to how strong the codex is overall (and in part to how well I make decisions and roll 6's).

When I know someone wants a non-competitive game (from my point of view, not theirs--they may be bringing the most competitive list they can put together coupled with a tournament attitude), I pretty much have to play one of my other armies.

My point (I think I have one) is that, when you ask your opponent not to bring the Knight/Knights (which you certainly can), you may very well be putting him in a position where he feels like he has to play a completely different army. And if he doesn't have one (heaven help him if all he has are Sisters and Knights, I guess), then he might feel like you're asking him to 'roll over' for you. /shrug

In any case: By all means ask. A casual game of 40K is not bound by tournament conventions where you have no choice but to play the guy (and the models) on the other side of the table.

Kangodo wrote:

I personally haven't lost to Knights or other SHV's, but I don't like how they changed the game and I would rather avoid it.
A game against an Imperial Knight can be fun sometimes if I get at least a warning.

In those cases you bring in a unit to murder it, or a bigger super heavy to trounce it. My personal favorite is pulling out a warhound, putting DA libby with the 4+ invuln bubble behinds it, and spamming precience on it. makes short work of a knight player usually. This seems to discourage cheesy use of knights as there's always a bigger fish ready to obliterate them. Also if they are not a heavy psycher army a drop pod fully of zoanthropes can be great fun to a knight, Oh your shield adjusts in the shooting phase, well isn't that a shame you didn't cover your rear armor.

I played against an Imperial Knight just yesterday. The games are always the same. Focus fire on the Knight before he can get into CC, then spend the rest of the game dealing with what's left.

I don't like playing against Imperial Knights because they are really boring and repetitive to play against...I guess I could replace Lord of War with Imperial Knights and I'd feel generally the same. I know for a fact people feel the same way about my T CTan. Apocalypse exists for a reason, I suppose.

 MWHistorian wrote:

 Toofast wrote:
This is IK we're talking about, not a transcendent c'tan. Any army that can't handle IK at 1500 will also suffer against cron AV13, land raider spam, Flyer spam etc. At that point you're basically telling half your opponents "I don't want to play against that army". In my meta, the people with good lists don't have a problem getting games. The people who refuse to play any list they don't like are the ones on the outside looking in while everyone else is throwing dice...

So, for you there is no negotiation? What if the guy is still new to the game or doesn't have a lot of money to spend on the latest big thing?
This new meta requires a large degree of negotiation to make it work. "Suck it up and enjoy losing" isn't a good answer.

We don't really have negotiations other than if you want to use something that's on the ban list for BAO, LVO, NOVA, etc you must clear it with your opponent first. This is because we recognize that not all super heavies were created equal. Some are easy to kill and will barely kill anything, some are unstoppable and can table 1500 points on their own, others are somewhere in between the 2 extremes. IK are somewhere in the middle and taking 1-2 more units of AT is enough for most lists to compensate and have a chance against them. We don't have a lot of new players and almost everyone in the regular group has 5k+ of their main army. Whatever they need to add to their list to make a fair game, they usually have. When we get a new player we tone it down but once a league starts up they're expected to keep up.

 Toofast wrote:

 MWHistorian wrote:

 Toofast wrote:
This is IK we're talking about, not a transcendent c'tan. Any army that can't handle IK at 1500 will also suffer against cron AV13, land raider spam, Flyer spam etc. At that point you're basically telling half your opponents "I don't want to play against that army". In my meta, the people with good lists don't have a problem getting games. The people who refuse to play any list they don't like are the ones on the outside looking in while everyone else is throwing dice...

So, for you there is no negotiation? What if the guy is still new to the game or doesn't have a lot of money to spend on the latest big thing?
This new meta requires a large degree of negotiation to make it work. "Suck it up and enjoy losing" isn't a good answer.

We don't really have negotiations other than if you want to use something that's on the ban list for BAO, LVO, NOVA, etc you must clear it with your opponent first. This is because we recognize that not all super heavies were created equal. Some are easy to kill and will barely kill anything, some are unstoppable and can table 1500 points on their own, others are somewhere in between the 2 extremes. IK are somewhere in the middle and taking 1-2 more units of AT is enough for most lists to compensate and have a chance against them. We don't have a lot of new players and almost everyone in the regular group has 5k+ of their main army. Whatever they need to add to their list to make a fair game, they usually have. When we get a new player we tone it down but once a league starts up they're expected to keep up.

That's all very local meta specific and applying your local meta to everyone and saying "there's no need for negotiations ever" seems a bit disingenuous.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with asking an opponent not to play with a certain unit. The game requires some negotiation and compromise sometimes for both parties to have fun.

Always remember that if you would like for an opponent to change their list to meet your expectations, you should be expected to do the same for your opponent, should they ask.

In this case, I can see a reasonable compromise being dropping 1 Knight, but I also understand if the Knight player simply asked you instead to improve your list to handle the Knights.

Or just ask them if you can sub in a bit more anti tank so that they are not 100% screwed.

just agreeing before hand tends to work between civil people.

Or...

You could ask to borrow one of his Imperial Knights, and you can go Knight vs. Knight. Don't know how close a buddy you are with this opponent, or how you feel about doing something like that, but there's another possible compromise.

Sub in with what. No will agree to play against more points and you would have to have the extra models in the frist place.
The agreing part never works. If there is no way for a close friend to not play an army which trounces the one I own, how would stranger react? at best this would mean no game , so wasted time for a trip there and back again. And because it is you who don't want to play him, he gets the table, so he will probably get a game right away, against someone who is willing to play him, and you hope that maybe a group of people will be late and a table will be free. But because you were sign up for another table, your on the end of the line right now, so itsmore like 2-3 groups of people being late more then 20+min. One could sit a whole day and not get a game in.

I play with the same half dozen people all the time. I also have a rather large undefeated Necron Scarab farm (12 Spyders, too many Scarabs). They've all played against it, muitiple times, and they all dread facing it. Being that they have all indulged me going against it, I have no problem mixing it up, every other game against them, where I won't field them. I view the Imperial Knight situation in question the same way. If someone played against my list, and I crushed them because their collection is ill equipped to deal with it, and they asked me nicely ahead, I would be willing to take their enjoyment into consideration and field something different.

If I felt they were just trying to get me to handicap myself, so they can get an easy win, I'd double down on playing them.

I don't know the specifics of the OP's situation, but if he's faced it a few times and suffered crushing defeats, I don't see an issue asking for a casual game amognst friends without the knights. If it is a league, or a tournament, where the results matter, then it's kind of asking alot for your opponenet not to bring his best.

That being said, I don't think Imperial Knights are all that hard to defeat, if you know your going to face them ahead of time.

Just curious, what about fixed-list leagues?

OP here.

Wow, didn't really expect to get this much response. I guess it's an issue we've all as gamers been on one end or the other at some point.

Some added context for those asking: My DE army is fixed at 1500pts, I spent a long time building, converting and painting a very personalised and themed army. Although some of you said the TAC list is dead, or impossible to work, this is basically what I've tried to achieve. I wanted a themed DE army where all units ride to war in skimmers, nobody walking!

The list is all the models I have for DE. No trip blaster trueborns here.

I am not a newbie player, have been playing for about ten years. I do not have the money/ time to invest in more models right now, as with a poor salary I feel priced out of expanding at the moment.

I have far more IG (3500), but I played my Knights and Sisters opponent with this list before, so I want to try with DE. Unfortunately, they have less AT firepower.

The opponent was not the nicest guy tbh last time. Kind of rubbed it in my face that all my A14 couldn't save me from being smooshed by Knights, and when I said his list seemed nonsensical for 1500 pts (when would 30 Sisters be supported on the field by two super-heavies?) I got a "tough sh*t" in return.

I get that "the game has changed" and this is apparently the way 40K is now. Some of you will say "stop playing then". But I do still love this game. When it's great, it's really great. But it can feel like smashing your head against a brick Knight sometimes.

Anyway, that's just me being petty. Thanks for all the advice anyway.

Nope. You have every right to not fight anything. It might make you feel bad to deny a game, but it's your right. For example, our local group has an all Imperial Knights army, and I refuse to play against it. The reason is, my current collection of Orks is not sufficient to actually fight it. I lack the proper models to actually take them down. It would be a waste of time to play against his army. Even if we play Maelstrom, and I can out score him, the game isn't fun if I can't at least fire/slash back. I don't play 40k to play cat and mouse. I play it to blow stuff up! (And not just my stuff!)

The goal of a game is to have fun, and that applies to both you and your opponent. If you aren't having fun, why are you playing?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Toofast wrote:
Knights are part of the game. IG have plenty of ways to deal with them, probably more than most other armies do. Either update your army or resign to losing a lot of games.

Also telling people to 'spend more money for a casual game' is bad and wrong advice.

It sounds like you are justified in wanting your opponent to change what they field. It sounds like the issue is bigger than a Knight, though. Your opponent doesn't sound like a very friendly person.

 Scoundrel13 wrote:
OP here.
Wow, didn't really expect to get this much response. I guess it's an issue we've all as gamers been on one end or the other at some point.

You know how the internet has these topics that always get out of hand, like religion, tipping, death penalty and guns?
Well, this is one of the 'bad guys' from WH40k.

It's basically because there are three large groups (and some other small ones):
1) You play to have fun, so refuse lists that you don't find fun.
2) But it's in the rules, so you must play against it.
3) Be reasonable and listen to each other (don't always refuse them and don't always play them)

I'm in the third group: The other guy spent a lot of money on those units and I actually do like to play against it from time to time.
But if I would have to face a Knight every single battle, WH40k would lose it's appeal to me.
Enjoying the game is not just important for you! If you don't enjoy it, you might quit. And if you quit the opponent lost someone to play with.

Compare it to a good and healthy relationship If you only do what your girlfriend likes, you are both going to end up single some time soon.

I get that "the game has changed" and this is apparently the way 40K is now. Some of you will say "stop playing then". But I do still love this game. When it's great, it's really great. But it can feel like smashing your head against a brick Knight sometimes.

Nonsense! You like this game, no reason to stop playing.
As you might have noticed a lot of people agree with you. This means that you will probably always find someone that wants to play without Superheavies.

Makumba wrote:
Sub in with what. No will agree to play against more points and you would have to have the extra models in the frist place.
The agreing part never works. If there is no way for a close friend to not play an army which trounces the one I own, how would stranger react? at best this would mean no game , so wasted time for a trip there and back again. And because it is you who don't want to play him, he gets the table, so he will probably get a game right away, against someone who is willing to play him, and you hope that maybe a group of people will be late and a table will be free. But because you were sign up for another table, your on the end of the line right now, so itsmore like 2-3 groups of people being late more then 20+min. One could sit a whole day and not get a game in.

...and your puppy ran away with your cat, and your girlfriend took your favourite Oasis record, the one with the special pasta sauce spot on the back of the sleeve... and your favourite shirt has a hole in it and you can't find your second favourite shirt, and it's raining and you can't find your car keys, and you haven't eaten all day and then you buy a pie and it has a hair in it and when you take it back the guy at the pie shop is rude and insists that you put it there yourself and you dont have any money to buy something else to eat and you really just wanted to play some warhams but the entire universe is conspiring against you and you feel insignificant in an uncaring universe and what's it all for anyway?



Or, you just say 'Hey, I don't really want to play against Knights. Any chance you could drop them from your list, and I'll chop something out of my list to match?' at which point your prospective opponent, being a reasonable guy who is just after a casual game, says 'Yeah, sure...' and you both get on with the game.

This really doesn't have to be some sort of giant production. It's just a game.

Makumba wrote:
Sub in with what. No will agree to play against more points and you would have to have the extra models in the frist place.
The agreing part never works. If there is no way for a close friend to not play an army which trounces the one I own, how would stranger react? at best this would mean no game , so wasted time for a trip there and back again. And because it is you who don't want to play him, he gets the table, so he will probably get a game right away, against someone who is willing to play him, and you hope that maybe a group of people will be late and a table will be free. But because you were sign up for another table, your on the end of the line right now, so itsmore like 2-3 groups of people being late more then 20+min. One could sit a whole day and not get a game in.

It's not like it matters anyway [/eeyore voice].

To answer your original question, I agree with many others that no - it's not wrong to ask your opponent not to use Knights. But if losing Knights leaves a hole in his army that your army happens to exploit, he has the right to ask you not to use whatever it is you've got, and so on and so forth.

 Scoundrel13 wrote:
(when would 30 Sisters be supported on the field by two super-heavies?)

To answer this question, I can think of a few scenarios.

1) A world with Adepta Sororitas stationed on it is being raided by Dark Eldar and a nearby Knight Order is sent to respond to the threat. These 2 Knights arrive at a small outpost just in time to try to save the Sisters manning it.
2) These Sisters are the last holdouts of a larger battle, with the Knights sent to reinforce.
3) Several Knights are dispatched to break an area of strong enemy resistance, and the Sisters are there to recover Holy Relics of their Order.
4) Same as above, but the Sisters are the only available ground troops to hold the ground the Knights capture.
5) Since 2 Knights bring about as much power as hundreds of Sisters, a token number are deployed to help the God-Machines of the Emperor while the major force is sent elsewhere, where their firepower is needed.

[off-topic-ish rant]
As satirical as the phrase "Forging the Narrative" has come, I honestly think a lot of people just aren't trying hard enough. That's a list of 5 very reasonable things I just casually rattled off while I boiled water for soup, I'm sure somebody actually playing a game could justify the scenario a bit better. Hard to read stories of "WHY would a Chaos army take 2 Chaos Lords, 3 Hellturkies, and 90 cultists. SO anti-fluff" sometimes.
[/endrant]

[edit]reordered the bits for more sensible organisation

But we all know the real answer is "Because I want to curb stomp my opponents, and I had to put something else in to make 1500, because I haven't finished up my 3rd and 4th Imperial Knights.

(Sorry if I sound bitter....I have to face these things routinely, and they're so frigging boring to play agaiagainst, win or lose)

Rihgu wrote:

[off-topic-ish rant]
As satirical as the phrase "Forging the Narrative" has come, I honestly think a lot of people just aren't trying hard enough. That's a list of 5 very reasonable things I just casually rattled off while I boiled water for soup, I'm sure somebody actually playing a game could justify the scenario a bit better. Hard to read stories of "WHY would a Chaos army take 2 Chaos Lords, 3 Hellturkies, and 90 cultists. SO anti-fluff" sometimes.
[/endrant]

Sounds like Tuesday in the Alpha Legion to me.

But seriously folks, 40k is a game. It's there for you to have fun, not for you to trounce people or complain about other people having fun doing something you don't like. The centerpiece of all human interaction is communication, if you and your opponent can agree on how your specific instance of the game ought to be played both people will have a lot more fun than if people decide to start getting self-righteous about rules or lore. You can know all you want about the rules and the lore, it's not an excuse to be a dick.

If you just spent a hundred and forty dollars on your big cool giant robot and you want to use it communicate that. If you're trying to play pure Daemons and you don't think you could do much to the Knight communicate that. If you think you could make a reasonable game out of what the situation is with an extra AT unit communicate that. If Knights killed your mother and you're deathly afraid of them, communicate that. Don't assume your opponent is obligated to comply with your phobias, understand it's a give and take, recognize it's just a game, and remember that you can always walk away from the table.

 DarknessEternal wrote:
It's not wrong to ask your opponent to play with/without anything.

It's also not wrong for him to refuse.

It's also not wrong for the two of you to not play each other because you can't agree on the type of game you'd like to play.

Exactly, if you can't come to some form of consensus, it's not like a game would ever work anyway.



I'm open to playing against a knight, maybe in a large casual game where we're maybe using one or two big things and some forgeworld. But if a regular opponent gave me the "it's a real codex now so you have to play against it" I'd laugh and tell them to find someone else to play gi joe with. This game needs formatting, badly, it's too many things to too many people and although I must agree that negotiation is sadly part of it, it often is far more comlicated, lengthy and emotional than it needs to be and it often leaves both parties feeling the other is acting entitled because neither party's preferences for play or overall ideals align.

Don't hate the player, hate the game. Why a few short editions ago you could tell your regular opponent running 3 knights or super heavies or stupid formations that you just wanna play 40k this week, not apoc. They could still take that personally back in the day but were less likely to. do so. GW could reduce our collective stress as gamers by formatting their bloated abortion of a game into neat little packages that facilitate better communication between players and gaming groups, or we can all pretend that this giant massive abortion of a ruleset is "40k".




As for whether you'll have much success trying to dictate what people play, it seems the individual playing the knights isn't really playing the game you yourself want to play. You' might be better off not playing them, because invariably you'll stop playing them eventually if you're not having fun, you may find some way to cope competitively speaking but if that essentially boils down to just spamming insanely expensive models into your list it just seems like a race to the bottom.

Rihgu wrote:

 Scoundrel13 wrote:
(when would 30 Sisters be supported on the field by two super-heavies?)

To answer this question, I can think of a few scenarios.

1) A world with Adepta Sororitas stationed on it is being raided by Dark Eldar and a nearby Knight Order is sent to respond to the threat. These 2 Knights arrive at a small outpost just in time to try to save the Sisters manning it.
2) These Sisters are the last holdouts of a larger battle, with the Knights sent to reinforce.
3) Several Knights are dispatched to break an area of strong enemy resistance, and the Sisters are there to recover Holy Relics of their Order.
4) Same as above, but the Sisters are the only available ground troops to hold the ground the Knights capture.
5) Since 2 Knights bring about as much power as hundreds of Sisters, a token number are deployed to help the God-Machines of the Emperor while the major force is sent elsewhere, where their firepower is needed.

Or the same one that applies to pretty much every variation of this question (as it comes up frequently with the 'Why is Marneus Calgar/Abaddon/Etc taking part in tiny skirmishes?' style questions) - the game of 40K that you're playing is just a snapshop of a section of a much larger battle.

Those 30 sisters and 2 knights aren't the entire army. They're just the parts of the army that happen to be in that part of the battlefield at that particular point in time.

 Crablezworth wrote:

 DarknessEternal wrote:
It's not wrong to ask your opponent to play with/without anything.

It's also not wrong for him to refuse.

It's also not wrong for the two of you to not play each other because you can't agree on the type of game you'd like to play.

Exactly, if you can't come to some form of consensus, it's not like a game would ever work anyway.



I'm open to playing against a knight, maybe in a large casual game where we're maybe using one or two big things and some forgeworld. But if a regular opponent gave me the "it's a real codex now so you have to play against it" I'd laugh and tell them to find someone else to play gi joe with. This game needs formatting, badly, it's too many things to too many people and although I must agree that negotiation is sadly part of it, it often is far more comlicated, lengthy and emotional than it needs to be and it often leaves both parties feeling the other is acting entitled because neither party's preferences for play or overall ideals align.

Don't hate the player, hate the game. Why a few short editions ago you could tell your regular opponent running 3 knights or super heavies or stupid formations that you just wanna play 40k this week, not apoc. They could still take that personally back in the day but were less likely to. do so. GW could reduce out collective stress by formatting their bloated abortion of a game into neat little packages that facilitate better communication between players and gaming groups, or we can all pretend that this giant massive abortion of a ruleset is "40k".

Basically this. My codex allows me to use my Stompa in a normal game. Would I bring it to a normal game? No. No I wouldn't. Not unless an opponent explicitly asked me to, for whatever reason. My Stompa belongs in Apoc, where it was designed for. I don't mind facing a Knight every once in a while, but it is not my goal to face one every game. Do i feel bad for denying a guy the chance to play his 140 dollar toy? Maybe a little. But in an age where Super Heavies are frowned upon anyway, what the heck do people expect? Know your meta before investing. That's all I can really say. (Not to mention the price of a Knight is pure absurd anyway. Hell, I didn't even pay close to retail for my Stompa, and why would I?)

If they want to bring a Knight, then consider super-heavies of your own.

In the case of the Orks, I've heard of some one proposing the Klaw-Stompa (Only around 450 points) against a Knight.

If I knew some one was going to bring a super-heavy, Id take one too. Adds a new meaning to the word "Escalation".

You should never feel bad for asking an opponent to leave ANY unit at home. As long as it is not every game, as he has a right to use his highly expensive models as well.
Explain that you would like a fluffy, sub-competitive battle this time.
At the end of the day the hobby is primarily about having fun. Winning is only a secondary concern.

The Imperial Answer wrote:
If they want to bring a Knight, then consider super-heavies of your own.

In the case of the Orks, I've heard of some one proposing the Klaw-Stompa (Only around 450 points) against a Knight.

If I knew some one was going to bring a super-heavy, Id take one too. Adds a new meaning to the word "Escalation".

Not everyone can just go and spend $100+ on a new model just to keep up with the Joneses.

If somebody asked me to leave my sicaran at home, I would gladly accept. If they asked me a second time I would be ok again. If they kept asking then I would mention that negotiation is a two way thing. But I would never turn it down the first couple of times... *unless* I have just bought the model.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

rollawaythestone wrote:

The Imperial Answer wrote:
If they want to bring a Knight, then consider super-heavies of your own.

In the case of the Orks, I've heard of some one proposing the Klaw-Stompa (Only around 450 points) against a Knight.

If I knew some one was going to bring a super-heavy, Id take one too. Adds a new meaning to the word "Escalation".

Not everyone can just go and spend $100+ on a new model just to keep up with the Joneses.

Exactly this ^. Also 'escalation' is a way for GW to get more £/$/€ out of everyone. Still fun to participate in though ;-).


I'd just like to point out btw that whilst I own a knight and bargelords, amongst other dangerous units - I have a very special place in my heart for my sicaran with schism of mars and ceremite (despite it being unpainted :-p)

rollawaythestone wrote:

The Imperial Answer wrote:
If they want to bring a Knight, then consider super-heavies of your own.

In the case of the Orks, I've heard of some one proposing the Klaw-Stompa (Only around 450 points) against a Knight.

If I knew some one was going to bring a super-heavy, Id take one too. Adds a new meaning to the word "Escalation".

Not everyone can just go and spend $100+ on a new model just to keep up with the Joneses.

In the case of the Klaw Stompa, like other Ork Super-heavies, you can't buy it. You have to make it the old fashioned way. But I see your point none the less.

Why all this hate on the reasonably price and stat'd Imperial Knight? Most people kill them quick, yet Knight players still enjoy playing them knowing full well they will die fast to he exact units people need to play to kill any big box unit. Knights are useless against Flyers, can be tar-pitted by Grots, and kill 1-2 models a turn with their mighty Str D sword. Stomp-stomp-stomp? Save-save-save. I mean seriously, who can't kill one at his point in the game?

As to boring, try playing against Guard, or Eldar, or Tau, or any of the other static gun-line armies people seem to gravitate to. Talk about boring! At least against a Knight it takes some planning, a dynamic execution, and the possibility of failure. In Deathstar 40k, a Knight is pretty to defeat.

In point of fact, you should praise an opponent that takes 2 Knights at 1500 points. Half their army is effective against Flyers while the rest have to both defeat the two models and try to win.

Knight players realize that as long as their opponents fail to play to the mission, the Knight player will win. So play to the mission! Bring anti-tank! Use more terrain! Why oh why do people still play with 3rd Ed levels of spars terrain?!?! Does no one understand the term "Line of Sight Blocking"?!?!?!

SJ

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
Why oh why do people still play with 3rd Ed levels of spars terrain?!?! Does no one understand the term "Line of Sight Blocking"?!?!?!

Terrain is kind of expensive and not very many people are skilled at making their own.

That's a great question, I wish some of the people in this community were more respectful. It basically boils down to "if you don't like it, say something about it." I usually don't because I feel it makes me learn a little better when I have to work against a handicap like that. But that's completely up to you and shouldn't be any different than requesting no forgeworld, no lords of war, etc.

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
Why all this hate on the reasonably price and stat'd Imperial Knight? Most people kill them quick, yet Knight players still enjoy playing them knowing full well they will die fast to he exact units people need to play to kill any big box unit. Knights are useless against Flyers, can be tar-pitted by Grots, and kill 1-2 models a turn with their mighty Str D sword. Stomp-stomp-stomp? Save-save-save. I mean seriously, who can't kill one at his point in the game?

As to boring, try playing against Guard, or Eldar, or Tau, or any of the other static gun-line armies people seem to gravitate to. Talk about boring! At least against a Knight it takes some planning, a dynamic execution, and the possibility of failure. In Deathstar 40k, a Knight is pretty to defeat.

In point of fact, you should praise an opponent that takes 2 Knights at 1500 points. Half their army is effective against Flyers while the rest have to both defeat the two models and try to win.

Knight players realize that as long as their opponents fail to play to the mission, the Knight player will win. So play to the mission! Bring anti-tank! Use more terrain! Why oh why do people still play with 3rd Ed levels of spars terrain?!?! Does no one understand the term "Line of Sight Blocking"?!?!?!

SJ

Whilst I agree that knights are very reasonably priced for their points, the OP has said he litrally owns nothing to counter them, and doesn't have the money to invest, which is an entirely different matter. Stormravens are perfectly pointed, but an opponent who doesn't have the models to deal with 2 or 3 of them won't enjoy facing them on a regular basis.
Those of us with large collections often forget that whilst units exist in the rules that are perfect counters to specific units, it doesn't mean they exist in a persons collection, especially if they can't afford to keep up with a model arms race.

Also play maelstrom - stops gunlining to a large extent :-p. Best thing about 7th imo.

The Imperial Answer wrote:

rollawaythestone wrote:

The Imperial Answer wrote:
If they want to bring a Knight, then consider super-heavies of your own.

In the case of the Orks, I've heard of some one proposing the Klaw-Stompa (Only around 450 points) against a Knight.

If I knew some one was going to bring a super-heavy, Id take one too. Adds a new meaning to the word "Escalation".

Not everyone can just go and spend $100+ on a new model just to keep up with the Joneses.

In the case of the Klaw Stompa, like other Ork Super-heavies, you can't buy it. You have to make it the old fashioned way. But I see your point none the less.

The Klaw Stompa costs $253 from Forgeworld. Pretty much every Ork superheavy has a corresponding model for sale.

Poly Ranger wrote:
the OP has said he litrally owns nothing to counter them, and doesn't have the money to invest

Then the OP is screwed anyway and shouldn't be playing 40k. If you can't counter 1-2 knights then you can't counter any other vehicle-heavy army, and that means you don't have enough anti-tank. And I don't think it's reasonable to expect your opponents to buy/build/paint new models and redesign their army so that your fundamentally flawed army can still have a chance of winning.

Also play maelstrom - stops gunlining to a large extent :-p. Best thing about 7th imo.

This is like saying that you can "fix" the food you just spilled on the floor by burning your house down. Sure, you made the original problem go away, but you just replaced it with an even bigger one.

rollawaythestone wrote:

The Imperial Answer wrote:

rollawaythestone wrote:

The Imperial Answer wrote:
If they want to bring a Knight, then consider super-heavies of your own.

In the case of the Orks, I've heard of some one proposing the Klaw-Stompa (Only around 450 points) against a Knight.

If I knew some one was going to bring a super-heavy, Id take one too. Adds a new meaning to the word "Escalation".

Not everyone can just go and spend $100+ on a new model just to keep up with the Joneses.

In the case of the Klaw Stompa, like other Ork Super-heavies, you can't buy it. You have to make it the old fashioned way. But I see your point none the less.

The Klaw Stompa costs $253 from Forgeworld. Pretty much every Ork superheavy has a corresponding model for sale.

Not quite. That particular configuration is the Bigmek Stompa. They don't sell a pure Klaw Stompa. You have to buy an extra-combat arm. The traditional one you had to build the combat arms on your own, but some people just build the stompa from the ground up itself as its cheaper to do this.

Also the Ork Battle Fortress and Heavy Bommers were dis-continued so you have to build those yourself. The Skull-Hammer also has no official model.

 Peregrine wrote:

Poly Ranger wrote:
the OP has said he litrally owns nothing to counter them, and doesn't have the money to invest

Then the OP is screwed anyway and shouldn't be playing 40k.

In a post history that is littered with a litany of exaggeration, hyperbole and extreme, binary arguments, this still ranks as one of the most ridiculous things I've seen you post.

DE are loaded with Lance weapons, which means they can flay hull points off AV13/12 with ease. If the OP does not have enough Lance weapons to strip 6 hull point in one turn, he built his list wrong.

As to terrain, Stack-of-Books-Hills, Shoe-Box-Skyscrapers, and Soda/Beer-Can-Towers are pretty cheap, easier to "make", and fill that needed LoS a locking feature that makes 7th playable.

There are no excuses other than not dreaming big enough.

SJ

 Peregrine wrote:
Then the OP is screwed anyway and shouldn't be playing 40k.

I wouldn't go that far now. Everyone reserves the right to enjoy the game they've invested in. However there are options to consider that might work in the OP's favor. Taking IG and DE as allies might work to the OP's advantage. You have the best of both worlds then.

 Peregrine wrote:

Poly Ranger wrote:
the OP has said he litrally owns nothing to counter them, and doesn't have the money to invest

Then the OP is screwed anyway and shouldn't be playing 40k. If you can't counter 1-2 knights then you can't counter any other vehicle-heavy army, and that means you don't have enough anti-tank. And I don't think it's reasonable to expect your opponents to buy/build/paint new models and redesign their army so that your fundamentally flawed army can still have a chance of winning.

Also play maelstrom - stops gunlining to a large extent :-p. Best thing about 7th imo.

This is like saying that you can "fix" the food you just spilled on the floor by burning your house down. Sure, you made the original problem go away, but you just replaced it with an even bigger one.

Everyone has the right to play 40k. You honestly have no right to tell anyone they shouldn't play anything. Anyone saying "Throw more money at an unbalanced game because reasons" is doing it wrong. The inherent nature of Super Heavies is what makes Knights so annoying. While the models themselves might be costed proper for their statlines/gear, the benefits of being a Super Heavy are outright absurd. How far they can move each turn, the stomp attacks, a SD weapon, being immune to EXPLODES! results, and the fact they are more of a danger to your opponent upon their death is a further slap to the face. If one is close to death, send it into their ranks so it wipes out several squads with a that bull-gak "Catastrophic Damage" rule.

Acting like a player is obligated to play you because you bought something stupid is...stupid. My army is well rounded as it is. I will never go out and buy a 100+ model just to have a contingency plan. My money is more valuable to me than that. Because then I'd need to buy boatloads of models just to counter every factions shinanigans. It's easier for me to politely inform my opponent that I find something unenjoyable to face and see if they are willing to compromise then to spend more money than needed. I won't keep up with GW's bs. I won't support their 'escalation' in normal games.

 Peregrine wrote:


This is like saying that you can "fix" the food you just spilled on the floor by burning your house down. Sure, you made the original problem go away, but you just replaced it with an even bigger one.

Agreed, it would be like instead of totaling up vp's to figuer out who won, instead just flipping a coin.

 Peregrine wrote:
Then the OP is screwed anyway and shouldn't be playing 40k.

That's a bit unnecessary, I agree that the op is "screwed" only in so much that he likely won't succeed in changing how the other player wants to play the game. As for the second comment, tha the op shouldn't be playing 40k, that's not really necessary and what passes for 40k at this point is so subjective that it's almost meaningless to refer to it as one game.

Proving something is "legal" or "official" is kinda pointless in some ways, it makes the assumption that just because you can show someone that two plus two makes four, they somehow must like the number 4 now and all free will, agency and preference is now gone,

 Peregrine wrote:

Poly Ranger wrote:
the OP has said he litrally owns nothing to counter them, and doesn't have the money to invest

If you can't counter 1-2 knights then you can't counter any other vehicle-heavy army

I don't play against knights, and it's not because I can't handle them, it's because I think the idea of an entire codex for one models is stupid, almost as stupid as pretending 40k and apoc are the same thing. They are for some people, just not for me.

 Peregrine wrote:
I don't think it's reasonable to expect your opponents to buy/build/paint new models and redesign their army so that your fundamentally flawed army can still have a chance of winning.

But is the opposite somehow reasonable? It may simply be the sad truth in some instances but is that a good thing peregrine? Should we all have to drop thousands of dollars to compensate for every hit the of the crack pipe jervis takes? If that indeed is true, why is that good?

I'm unhappy the op can't find an opponent he gels with because that's what is killing the game in general. The op didn't come in crapping on competitive gamers, he didn't come in calling the knight player a waac tfg, he just laments the state of things. I'm a bit more on the competitive side, but I feel his pain. If I wasn't lucky to still have a handful of regular opponent's I don't think I'd suffer the nightmare of trying to get in a pickup game.




By me consenting to play against knights, I'm condoning the dumbing down of this game and rewarding GW's free market 40k escalation horsegak. I'll try not to make judgements of the player who wants to run a knight, it's not his fault the game is stupid, I'll just politely say no.

 Peregrine wrote:

Poly Ranger wrote:
the OP has said he litrally owns nothing to counter them, and doesn't have the money to invest

Then the OP is screwed anyway and shouldn't be playing 40k. If you can't counter 1-2 knights then you can't counter any other vehicle-heavy army, and that means you don't have enough anti-tank. And I don't think it's reasonable to expect your opponents to buy/build/paint new models and redesign their army so that your fundamentally flawed army can still have a chance of winning.

Also play maelstrom - stops gunlining to a large extent :-p. Best thing about 7th imo.

This is like saying that you can "fix" the food you just spilled on the floor by burning your house down. Sure, you made the original problem go away, but you just replaced it with an even bigger one.

I see what you are saying Peregrine.
Consider this though:
It sounds like the OP only has access to 1.5k points and can't afford more at the present moment. Im making an educated guess that this is his first collection by the sound of it.
Now when you started the hobby, did you by any chance invest in units that were sub par? Was your first 1000pts put together perfectly both TAC wise and synergy wise?
I was lucky in the fact that I started at the end of 2nd so naturally collected both an ork and BA army. Fortunatly for me, you really couldn't go wrong with BA in 3rd ed. However, my purchases for orks led to a terrible army. I also once traded my eldar collection in 4th for a CSM collection (which I still have to this day and have expanded upon), it had 10CSM and 5 Bezerkers as the only troops choices, was incredibly character heavy, had a predominance of teminators, oblitorators and havocs and only a LR and rhino as transportation (all decent but did not gel well together), I could not afford at the time to sort out that armies flaws and so it was shelved (sorted now mind).
In fact all my armies were shelved about the time fantasy had the Albion canpaign (mid 4th in 40k), and I entirely missed 5th and got back into the game about 3 and a half years ago. I immediately made large purchases from both GW and Ebay consisting of lots of SG, jp DC, Baals by the bucket load, more vindis and a couple of ravens, to add to my BA force. Why do I tell you this? Because until the new dex, jp DC and SG were hopeless for their points. I made the mistake of doing no research. I had to correct that by taking mech forces of the baals, vindis and ravens I had bought running along with my old asms.
I was an experienced gamer yet I made these mistakes. I fortunatly had the money to correct it (well id already spent it on the models but that's beside the point). Not everybody has the cash to do such a thing.
I was absolutely gutted that I had 25 SG and 30 jp DC that I never got to use (oh how times have changed ;-)), so now and again my friends would have fluffy matches against me so I could use them. It may have been negotiation, but it didn't feel like it - it felt natural. We played fun games and it didn't matter who won because it was narrative driven. A totally different ball game to the usual competitive scene.

Melevolence wrote:
You honestly have no right to tell anyone they shouldn't play anything.

Of course I do. If a player literally has no way to destroy a knight and can't get any new models to fix the problem then 40k is not the right game for them. Like it or not 40k is a game with vehicles in it, if you want an infantry-only game then you should play something else that will be more fun for you.

Anyone saying "Throw more money at an unbalanced game because reasons" is doing it wrong. The inherent nature of Super Heavies is what makes Knights so annoying. While the models themselves might be costed proper for their statlines/gear, the benefits of being a Super Heavy are outright absurd. How far they can move each turn, the stomp attacks, a SD weapon, being immune to EXPLODES! results, and the fact they are more of a danger to your opponent upon their death is a further slap to the face. If one is close to death, send it into their ranks so it wipes out several squads with a that bull-gak "Catastrophic Damage" rule.

Have you looked at the point cost for those superheavies? They're powerful units, but they're also very expensive and struggle to kill enough to justify their point cost.

Acting like a player is obligated to play you because you bought something stupid is...stupid. My army is well rounded as it is. I will never go out and buy a 100+ model just to have a contingency plan. My money is more valuable to me than that. Because then I'd need to buy boatloads of models just to counter every factions shinanigans. It's easier for me to politely inform my opponent that I find something unenjoyable to face and see if they are willing to compromise then to spend more money than needed. I won't keep up with GW's bs. I won't support their 'escalation' in normal games.

IOW, "I still want to play 4th edition, I'm not obligated to keep up with the 7th edition game".

PS: if your army can't handle superheavies/flyers/etc then it isn't "well rounded".

The Imperial Answer wrote:

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
Why oh why do people still play with 3rd Ed levels of spars terrain?!?! Does no one understand the term "Line of Sight Blocking"?!?!?!

Terrain is kind of expensive and not very many people are skilled at making their own.

Am I missing something here? 2 or 3 Knights is not expensive? I am sure you can afford 2, 3 or more Knights you can afford terrain.

Poly Ranger wrote:
Now when you started the hobby, did you by any chance invest in units that were sub par? Was your first 1000pts put together perfectly both TAC wise and synergy wise?

No, but that's not the point here. The OP has literally nothing that can deal with a knight (despite playing an army that can spam huge numbers of anti-tank weapons), and is not willing/able to add anti-tank units to their list. This isn't slightly poor optimization, it's burying your head in the sand and pretending that vehicles don't exist, and then expecting other people to remove all of their vehicles so that you don't have to lose any games because of that decision.

Davor wrote:

The Imperial Answer wrote:

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
Why oh why do people still play with 3rd Ed levels of spars terrain?!?! Does no one understand the term "Line of Sight Blocking"?!?!?!

Terrain is kind of expensive and not very many people are skilled at making their own.

Am I missing something here? 2 or 3 Knights is not expensive? I am sure you can afford 2, 3 or more Knights you can afford terrain.

Perhaps, but most people would go with buying units over terrain. You can play a 40k game with units and no terrain, but not with just terrain and no units (unless GW has a rule suggesting otherwise).

Terrain is free. If people aren't using enough terrain it's because they don't want LOS blocking terrain, not because it's impossible to block LOS without paying tons of money.

 Peregrine wrote:
Terrain is free. If people aren't using enough terrain it's because they don't want LOS blocking terrain, not because it's impossible to block LOS without paying tons of money.

Or because they don't have the skills to make good, or passable terrain. I'd use a coke bottle for terrain if that's all I had, but not everyone is going to do that, or have an opponent that will go for that idea. Also where does this "free terrain" come from ?

 Peregrine wrote:

Melevolence wrote:
You honestly have no right to tell anyone they shouldn't play anything.

Of course I do. If a player literally has no way to destroy a knight and can't get any new models to fix the problem then 40k is not the right game for them. Like it or not 40k is a game with vehicles in it, if you want an infantry-only game then you should play something else that will be more fun for you.

False equivalency there bub, name another vehicle that can wipe out multiple units by being destroyed. You're puttimg words in the op's mouth in way, making it seem like a rhino and a revenant titan are somehow the same thing because they're vehicles. His issue is with knights.

I don't think it's unreasonable to expect players to spend some money and time keeping up with the joneses, that's a far cry from telling anyone who doesn't enjoy playing 5 knights to just quit the game.

Davor wrote:

The Imperial Answer wrote:

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
Why oh why do people still play with 3rd Ed levels of spars terrain?!?! Does no one understand the term "Line of Sight Blocking"?!?!?!

Terrain is kind of expensive and not very many people are skilled at making their own.

Am I missing something here? 2 or 3 Knights is not expensive? I am sure you can afford 2, 3 or more Knights you can afford terrain.

The way you phrased that almost burst a blood vessel in my brain, but I get what you are saying now. Terrain is pretty cheap. Go to a model train store and you will find plenty that isn't ridiculously out of scale. One can literally cover their entire 4ft x 6ft table in well made terrain for less than the price of a single knight.

And while I don't totally agree with what Peregrine said, he does make a valid point. If you struggle with vehicles at 1500 pts, you are probably going to struggle against most armies, not just knights. I know it is impossible to change what you already own, but with some time and a modest investment, you can alter your army to he able to deal with IK and other vehicles well. As someone said earlier in the thread, IG are one of the armies that should have the least problem dealing with IK. DE can be built to deal with them well too with their ability to take lance weapons.

The Imperial Answer wrote:
Also where does this "free terrain" come from ?

Put a sheet of green paper on the table and say "this is a forest. It is area terrain for models inside it, and blocks LOS to anything behind it".

 Peregrine wrote:
If a player literally has no way to destroy a knight and can't get any new models to fix the problem then 40k is not the right game for them.

Really?

I've been playing 40K for more than 20 years now. I've never played a game against a knight. But I should just quit if my army doesn't include something that can kill a model that I never play against...?



Automatically Appended Next Post:

Davor wrote:
Am I missing something here? 2 or 3 Knights is not expensive? I am sure you can afford 2, 3 or more Knights you can afford terrain.

...assuming that you didn't spend all of your money on knights...

 Peregrine wrote:

The Imperial Answer wrote:
Also where does this "free terrain" come from ?

Put a sheet of green paper on the table and say "this is a forest. It is area terrain for models inside it, and blocks LOS to anything behind it".

I can find nothing wrong with that idea.

 Peregrine wrote:

Melevolence wrote:
You honestly have no right to tell anyone they shouldn't play anything.

Of course I do. If a player literally has no way to destroy a knight and can't get any new models to fix the problem then 40k is not the right game for them. Like it or not 40k is a game with vehicles in it, if you want an infantry-only game then you should play something else that will be more fun for you.

Anyone saying "Throw more money at an unbalanced game because reasons" is doing it wrong. The inherent nature of Super Heavies is what makes Knights so annoying. While the models themselves might be costed proper for their statlines/gear, the benefits of being a Super Heavy are outright absurd. How far they can move each turn, the stomp attacks, a SD weapon, being immune to EXPLODES! results, and the fact they are more of a danger to your opponent upon their death is a further slap to the face. If one is close to death, send it into their ranks so it wipes out several squads with a that bull-gak "Catastrophic Damage" rule.

Have you looked at the point cost for those superheavies? They're powerful units, but they're also very expensive and struggle to kill enough to justify their point cost.

Acting like a player is obligated to play you because you bought something stupid is...stupid. My army is well rounded as it is. I will never go out and buy a 100+ model just to have a contingency plan. My money is more valuable to me than that. Because then I'd need to buy boatloads of models just to counter every factions shinanigans. It's easier for me to politely inform my opponent that I find something unenjoyable to face and see if they are willing to compromise then to spend more money than needed. I won't keep up with GW's bs. I won't support their 'escalation' in normal games.

IOW, "I still want to play 4th edition, I'm not obligated to keep up with the 7th edition game".

PS: if your army can't handle superheavies/flyers/etc then it isn't "well rounded".

No, you don't. You have as much right as telling the OP not to play this game as I do telling you you have no right to live. Which is none. Just because he doesn't wish to play the game you think he needs to, doesn't mean he doesn't have a right to play. This is a game. We play to have fun. Yes, fun is subjective. But there is nothing in the rules telling the OP "feth you, play everyone who wants to play no matter what they bring". The rules even encourage his mind set by telling him to find like minded people or negotiate games. Vehicles are fine, I never said they weren't. I didn't even say I wanted an all infantry game. Don't strawman. My argument was that players should not be shoehorned by GW to buy bigger models to 'compete' with bigger models. I also wont play models I don't find fun. Plain and simple. And turning down a game because one doesn't own models to defeat certain things is reasonable. Commanding them to buy models or GTFO is not.


Yes, the cost of them is appropriate. I said that. But I also said that their unit type is what is not appropriate for the 'ordinary' game. The issue isn't the Knights are properly balanced, it's that SUPER HEAVY as a unit type are not balanced for regular games. Also, point cost to death ratio isn't an argument. Look at the Ork 'Naught units. Almost roughly 300 points each, AREN'T Super Heavies, and can be one shoted by an AP 2 weapon and don't get any of the ridiculous special rules. By your logic, my 'Naught should be just as difficult to take out as Knights.


My army IS well rounded. For "normal" 40k. No Apoc like GW is trying to force upon me. Which I refuse to partake in. I play Apoc each month with my gaming group, where we can bring the stupid gak to the table.

I have an entire thread with terrain made from scrap items. Terrain is cheap and easy to make.

Maelstrom Missions are the bane of Imperial Knights. There was an awesome thread a few months back about how an army of nothing but Gretchin and 2 Flyers defeated an all IK army, without destroying a single one, because the Gretching had Objective Secured and the IK can not.

The Imperial Answer wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

The Imperial Answer wrote:
Also where does this "free terrain" come from ?

Put a sheet of green paper on the table and say "this is a forest. It is area terrain for models inside it, and blocks LOS to anything behind it".

I can find nothing wrong with that idea.

We used to run Aeronautica Imperialis games on giant contour maps, it was fantastic.

 Crablezworth wrote:
False equivalency there bub, name another vehicle that can wipe out multiple units by being destroyed.

What's your point? Name a non-LRBT vehicle that can take a hull-mounted lascannon. Having unique attributes doesn't mean that a unit can't be compared to other units.

You're puttimg words in the op's mouth in way, making it seem like a rhino and a revenant titan are somehow the same thing because they're vehicles.

No, but a knight and a LRBT squadron have roughly the same durability. If you can't kill a knight you can't kill many other common units, which means your list sucks and the problem is your refusal to acknowledge that 40k is a game with vehicles, not your opponent's decision to bring a vehicle.

I don't think it's unreasonable to expect players to spend some money and time keeping up with the joneses, that's a far cry from telling anyone who doesn't enjoy playing 5 knights to just quit the game.

Where did this "5 knights" straw man come from? OP's opponent has two of them, not five.

 insaniak wrote:
I've been playing 40K for more than 20 years now. I've never played a game against a knight. But I should just quit if my army doesn't include something that can kill a model that I never play against...?

What does playing against it have to do with anything? It's an AV 13 vehicle, if you have the ability to kill things like LRBTs or Predators you have weapons that can kill a knight even if you've never actually faced a knight. The OP supposedly has nothing that can kill a knight, which means that they don't have any anti-tank units in their army and would have the same problems against other vehicles. And if you auto-lose when your opponent brings vehicles you should probably find a different game to play.

 Peregrine wrote:
The OP supposedly has nothing that can kill a knight, which means that they don't have any anti-tank units in their army and would have the same problems against other vehicles.

And if the people they normally play against don't have any vehicles, that woudln't be a problem. It's not a reason to tell them they don't deserve to play your game.

And if you auto-lose when your opponent brings vehicles you should probably find a different game to play.

Or just, you know, not play games against armies with vehicles in them...

 Peregrine wrote:

 insaniak wrote:
I've been playing 40K for more than 20 years now. I've never played a game against a knight. But I should just quit if my army doesn't include something that can kill a model that I never play against...?

What does playing against it have to do with anything? It's an AV 13 vehicle, if you have the ability to kill things like LRBTs or Predators you have weapons that can kill a knight even if you've never actually faced a knight. The OP supposedly has nothing that can kill a knight, which means that they don't have any anti-tank units in their army and would have the same problems against other vehicles. And if you auto-lose when your opponent brings vehicles you should probably find a different game to play.

As a random aside here pure Daemons do auto-lose against Knights because their only tools to kill AV13 are melee units, Smash got nerfed to hell and back, and Knights clean up in melee.

In response to OP, I've never faced a Knight and only twice seen them on the table in an allies game. I have some stuff to deal with a Knight, but against 2 or 3 I would most likely fail. It's the same as playing against an all Flyer army. I doubt everyone has enough units to counter 5 or 6 Flyrants/Stormtalons.

If you knew ahead of time what your opponent was bringing, then sure you could tailor your whole army against it, but at that point it;s just rock, paper, scissors.

Also, very happy to see Peregrine show up with a l2p response

 Peregrine wrote:

 Crablezworth wrote:
False equivalency there bub, name another vehicle that can wipe out multiple units by being destroyed.

What's your point? Name a non-LRBT vehicle that can take a hull-mounted lascannon. Having unique attributes doesn't mean that a unit can't be compared to other units.

You're asking what my point is and I will replay that my point is obvious even if you choose to ignore it. That point is simple, it's a bad comparison.

 Peregrine wrote:


No, but a knight and a LRBT squadron have roughly the same durability

And what if the problem isn't the units durability, it's the fact that you don't like the unit and have no interest sharing a table with it?

 Peregrine wrote:



Where did this "5 knights" straw man come from? OP's opponent has two of them, not five

You of all people taking issue with hyperbole, ok, my mistake, 2 knights. And it's not a strawman, you are literally sayin anyone who doesn't enjoy playing against x amount of knights should leave the hobby. I can only assume you're putting it on a bit and being hyperbolic because that idea t phase value is absurd.

 Peregrine wrote:
if you auto-lose when your opponent brings vehicles you should probably find a different game to play.

Is that necessary? You would skip past even the suggestion the op spread his wings a bit, try and find new opponents or play groups, nope, to you he should just flat out quit?

Melevolence wrote:
You have as much right as telling the OP not to play this game as I do telling you you have no right to live.

Err, lol? Saying "40k is clearly not the game for you, maybe you'd have more fun with something else" is equivalent to saying "you have no right to live"? Seriously?

The issue isn't the Knights are properly balanced, it's that SUPER HEAVY as a unit TYPE are not balanced for regular games.

You're right, most superheavies aren't balanced for normal games. Putting all your eggs in one basket is usually a bad idea, and the superheavy unit will struggle to kill enough to justify its huge point cost. But I guess that's the price you pay when you want to bring an awesome model instead of the same old serpent spam lists.

(And yes, there are specific LoW units that are blatantly overpowered, but that's a problem with their unit rules and point costs, not LoW in general.)

My army IS well rounded. For "normal" 40k. No Apoc like GW is trying to force upon me. Which I refuse to partake in. I play Apoc each month with my gaming group, where we can bring the stupid gak to the table.

IOW, "my army is well rounded for my special house-ruled version of 40k where the things my army has trouble dealing with aren't allowed".


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 insaniak wrote:
And if the people they normally play against don't have any vehicles, that woudln't be a problem. It's not a reason to tell them they don't deserve to play your game.

It's not a question of "deserving" to play "my" game, it's about whether or not 40k is the right game for them. You might have a right to play 40k despite not having any fun with it, but that doesn't mean that you should.

Or just, you know, not play games against armies with vehicles in them...

Which isn't a reasonable request to make. Vehicles are part of standard 40k, and people build armies that include them. If you have a "no vehicles" policy you're expecting people to make an exceptional effort to redesign their own armies to fit your preferences, just so you don't have to change your army at all.

 Peregrine wrote:

Melevolence wrote:
You have as much right as telling the OP not to play this game as I do telling you you have no right to live.

Err, lol? Saying "40k is clearly not the game for you, maybe you'd have more fun with something else" is equivalent to saying "you have no right to live"? Seriously?

The issue isn't the Knights are properly balanced, it's that SUPER HEAVY as a unit TYPE are not balanced for regular games.

You're right, most superheavies aren't balanced for normal games. Putting all your eggs in one basket is usually a bad idea, and the superheavy unit will struggle to kill enough to justify its huge point cost. But I guess that's the price you pay when you want to bring an awesome model instead of the same old serpent spam lists.

(And yes, there are specific LoW units that are blatantly overpowered, but that's a problem with their unit rules and point costs, not LoW in general.)

My army IS well rounded. For "normal" 40k. No Apoc like GW is trying to force upon me. Which I refuse to partake in. I play Apoc each month with my gaming group, where we can bring the stupid gak to the table.

IOW, "my army is well rounded for my special house-ruled version of 40k where the things my army has trouble dealing with aren't allowed".

The point is the same. Neither of us have the right to tell anyone what to do. Get it now?

Something we all know. The issue is, even if they 'eggs in one basket', the game still tends to be uninteresting, and unfun. Facing several knights or all knight, or all flier list turns into "Sit on objectives and hope I don't die, because I can't even return fire/hurt their gak". Not fun for the person who can't even roll dice except when it will hurt him.

It isn't a house rule, silly bird. The rule book states players should be negotiating what we bring to the table. If my opponent brings something the list I brought that day can't handle and wont tweak his list to make the game reasonable, I won't waste his or my time setting up and wasting two hours of me doing nothing of importance. I'd rather we skip the game and have a beer instead. No house rule made.

 Crablezworth wrote:
And what if the problem isn't the units durability, it's the fact that you don't like the unit and have no interest sharing a table with it?

OP explicitly states that being unable to kill 1-2 knights is the problem.

You of all people taking issue with hyperbole, ok, my mistake, 2 knights.

Of course I am, because your "hyperbole" is the difference between "an army with a typical number of HP worth of vehicles" and "a one-dimensional spam army that easily overwhelms an average list's anti-tank units". Being unable to handle 1-2 knights means you don't have enough anti-tank for 7th edition. Being unable to handle an army of nothing but AV 13 means that you haven't tailored to face a single opponent.

And it's not a strawman, you are literally sayin anyone who doesn't enjoy playing against x amount of knights should leave the hobby. I can only assume you're putting it on a bit and being hyperbolic because that idea t phase value is absurd.

No, please read what I actually said: that if you literally have nothing in your list that can kill a knight and won't buy any new models to fix the problem then you should find a different game. A list with no anti-tank units is never going to be successful in the current game, so why stubbornly insist on playing a game that doesn't support the things you want to do?

 Peregrine wrote:
IOW, "my army is well rounded for my special house-ruled version of 40k where the things my army has trouble dealing with aren't allowed".

Isn't that the version of 40K that the rulebook tells us to play?

It's not a question of "deserving" to play "my" game, it's about whether or not 40k is the right game for them. You might have a right to play 40k despite not having any fun with it, but that doesn't mean that you should.

If you're having fun playing with an army made up entirely of grots armed with pointy sticks, why the hell shouldn't you?

The fact that your army struggles against certain other armies is only a problem if you play against those armies. Which was entirely the point of this thread.

The OP clearly has fun playing 40K. He just doesn't want to play against Knights. That's not a reason to not play 40K. It's just a reason to not play against Knights.

Vehicles are part of standard 40k,...

Only if you include them.

If you have a "no vehicles" policy you're expecting people to make an exceptional effort to redesign their own armies to fit your preferences, just so you don't have to change your army at all.

Now you're catching on.


Although the OP made no claim of expecting his opponent to not use Knights. He just asked if it was ok to ask his opponent to not use them, because he would rather not face them.

I'm honestly puzzled as to why you think this is such a big deal.

And I suppose everyone agreeing we shouldn't be telling other people how to play the game and shaking hands and going home friends is out of the question at this point?

 AnomanderRake wrote:
And I suppose everyone agreeing we shouldn't be telling other people how to play the game and shaking hands and going home friends is out of the question at this point?

I would...but I don't have hands :( I type with my nose.

 Peregrine wrote:
A list with no anti-tank units is never going to be successful in the current game, ...

Unless the people you play against aren't using tanks...

...so why stubbornly insist on playing a game that doesn't support the things you want to do?

Because it does... so long as you stick to playing the type of games you enjoy playing?

Melevolence wrote:
The point is the same. Neither of us have the right to tell anyone what to do. Get it now?

Of course I have a right to suggest that people do something. Why is this even something you feel the need to debate?

Something we all know. The issue is, even if they 'eggs in one basket', the game still tends to be uninteresting, and unfun. Facing several knights or all knight, or all flier list turns into "Sit on objectives and hope I don't die, because I can't even return fire/hurt their gak". Not fun for the person who can't even roll dice except when it will hurt him.

If you can't even return fire against a knight/Baneblade/etc then the problem is that your list sucks, and you're going to lose a lot of games against lists with no LoW units.

It isn't a house rule, silly bird. The rule book states players should be negotiating what we bring to the table. If my opponent brings something the list I brought that day can't handle and wont tweak his list to make the game reasonable, I won't waste his or my time setting up and wasting two hours of me doing nothing of importance. I'd rather we skip the game and have a beer instead. No house rule made.

Key point: negotiating. Showing up and saying "I'm not playing against LoW" is not negotiating, nor is expecting your opponent to do all of the work and modify their list to accommodate whatever you brought that day. Why should they be expected to change their list to make the game "reasonable"? Why shouldn't you have the obligation to fix your own list to be able to compete with theirs?

And that line still doesn't change the point about your list not being well-rounded. If you have to negotiate away a list of things your army can't even attempt to fight back against then you don't have a well-rounded army.

 AnomanderRake wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 insaniak wrote:
I've been playing 40K for more than 20 years now. I've never played a game against a knight. But I should just quit if my army doesn't include something that can kill a model that I never play against...?

What does playing against it have to do with anything? It's an AV 13 vehicle, if you have the ability to kill things like LRBTs or Predators you have weapons that can kill a knight even if you've never actually faced a knight. The OP supposedly has nothing that can kill a knight, which means that they don't have any anti-tank units in their army and would have the same problems against other vehicles. And if you auto-lose when your opponent brings vehicles you should probably find a different game to play.

As a random aside here pure Daemons do auto-lose against Knights because their only tools to kill AV13 are melee units, Smash got nerfed to hell and back, and Knights clean up in melee.

The forgeworld Daemon Lords like An'ggrath can challenge a knight and strike one down. The Decimator also has a melee weapon capable of threatening a knight. Both of these are considered daemon units compatible with a daemon army.

 insaniak wrote:
Unless the people you play against aren't using tanks...

A hypothetical situation that has nothing to do with the normal game.

Because it does... so long as you stick to playing the type of games you enjoy playing?

IOW, never play pickup games, never play against anyone who doesn't follow your specific rules about army construction, etc. That is clearly not the situation the OP is in.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 insaniak wrote:
Isn't that the version of 40K that the rulebook tells us to play?

I don't see anything in the rulebook that says "if you don't want to include any anti-MEQ units in your army you can just tell your opponent not to bring their C:SM army".

If you're having fun playing with an army made up entirely of grots armed with pointy sticks, why the hell shouldn't you?

Because this is clearly a situation where the person playing the unconventional army isn't having fun?

 Peregrine wrote:


A hypothetical situation that has nothing to do with the normal game.

A "normal" game is an absurd notion. It will be different depending on everyone's meta, what their players enjoy etc..

 Peregrine wrote:

Melevolence wrote:
The point is the same. Neither of us have the right to tell anyone what to do. Get it now?

Of course I have a right to suggest that people do something. Why is this even something you feel the need to debate?

Something we all know. The issue is, even if they 'eggs in one basket', the game still tends to be uninteresting, and unfun. Facing several knights or all knight, or all flier list turns into "Sit on objectives and hope I don't die, because I can't even return fire/hurt their gak". Not fun for the person who can't even roll dice except when it will hurt him.

If you can't even return fire against a knight/Baneblade/etc then the problem is that your list sucks, and you're going to lose a lot of games against lists with no LoW units.

It isn't a house rule, silly bird. The rule book states players should be negotiating what we bring to the table. If my opponent brings something the list I brought that day can't handle and wont tweak his list to make the game reasonable, I won't waste his or my time setting up and wasting two hours of me doing nothing of importance. I'd rather we skip the game and have a beer instead. No house rule made.

Key point: negotiating. Showing up and saying "I'm not playing against LoW" is not negotiating, nor is expecting your opponent to do all of the work and modify their list to accommodate whatever you brought that day. Why should they be expected to change their list to make the game "reasonable"? Why shouldn't you have the obligation to fix your own list to be able to compete with theirs?

And that line still doesn't change the point about your list not being well-rounded. If you have to negotiate away a list of things your army can't even attempt to fight back against then you don't have a well-rounded army.

Except you were not suggesting. Telling someone they should not play is not suggesting.

Because most people don't make a TAC list to also handle Super Heavies. With the points allowed for a non apoc game, it is IMPOSSIBLE to bring enough units to cover every thing, especially Super Heavies. And as an Ork player...you're right. Not much in our army CAN take a Baneblade or other Super Heavies. Which is why I won't play them. Not that my list 'sucks'. My army lacks reliable tools to deal with multiple super heavy threats per game.

Because they brought the more over powered unit. It's more reasonable for me to ask them to not use it, and I'll reduce my army to match the points used. Unless you think I carry 1k plus points worth of extra models with me for a pick up game? It's far easier for my opponent to say "Sure, I won't use X, just lower your army to match". Anyone bringing Super Heavies should expect to meet resistance. They have every right to tel me ''no, I'd rather use the model" and that's OK. But if they insist on using it, I'll decline the game and not waste time. I'm not going to say "Sure, use that model. Let me drive home and back to get an answer to that model." And if you expect anyone to do that, you're foolish.

 Peregrine wrote:

 insaniak wrote:
Unless the people you play against aren't using tanks...

A hypothetical situation that has nothing to do with the normal game.

Can you define a normal game?


A normal game to me is 40k, a normal game to many others is apocalypse. We're just now forced to pretend there didn't use to be a distinction between the two.

Melevolence wrote:
Except you were not suggesting. Telling someone they should not play is not suggesting.

I'm sorry, I didn't realize that if I don't put a giant "THIS IS A SUGGESTION" sign on a bit of advice people will think that I'm holding a gun to their head and forcing them to do what I want.

Because most people don't make a TAC list to also handle Super Heavies.

Then it isn't a TAC list. TAC means "take ALL comers", not "take some lists that I'm prepared to face and lose horribly against others".

Because they brought the more over powered unit. It's more reasonable for me to ask them to not use it, and I'll reduce my army to match the points used.

Alternatively, since you're the person who is unhappy with the situation it is YOUR responsibility to make some changes to your own list, and only ask them to do something different as a last resort.

Unless you think I carry 1k pluus points worth of models to me for a pick up game?

Why are you assuming that your opponent has those models available to change their list?

It's far easier for my opponent to say "Sure, I won't use X, just lower your army to match".

Oh, I see, so I'm expected to play a badly designed army that is missing a key component while you get to adjust your army to bring your best units at the new point level?

Anyone bringing Super Heavies should expect to meet resistance.

Why? Because you've decided that you know better than GW about what should be included in 40k? Why should the person playing the game as-written expect to meet resistance, while the person who wants to add house rules expect their house rules to be accepted by default?

I'm not going to say "Sure, use that model. Let me drive home and back with an answer." And if you expect anyone to do that, you're foolish.

But it's perfectly ok to say "drive back home and get some new models to replace your LoW".


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Crablezworth wrote:
Can you define a normal game?

A game played using all of the default rules, without adding or removing anything. This includes LoW because they are part of the default rules as published by GW.

 Peregrine wrote:

 insaniak wrote:
Unless the people you play against aren't using tanks...

A hypothetical situation that has nothing to do with the normal game.

I must have missed the rule that requires players to include vehicles in their armies...

Because this is clearly a situation where the person playing the unconventional army isn't having fun?

Which situation are you talking about?

Because the 'situation' that was being asked about to start this discussion was someone asking if it was ok to ask an opponent to not use certain units.

Presumably he is doing just fine with his army in other games. He just wanted to know if it would be inappropriate to ask someone to not use a unit that he doesn't like playing against. The rest of this nonsense is just the whole thing getting blown all out of proportion.

The Imperial Answer wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 insaniak wrote:
I've been playing 40K for more than 20 years now. I've never played a game against a knight. But I should just quit if my army doesn't include something that can kill a model that I never play against...?

What does playing against it have to do with anything? It's an AV 13 vehicle, if you have the ability to kill things like LRBTs or Predators you have weapons that can kill a knight even if you've never actually faced a knight. The OP supposedly has nothing that can kill a knight, which means that they don't have any anti-tank units in their army and would have the same problems against other vehicles. And if you auto-lose when your opponent brings vehicles you should probably find a different game to play.

As a random aside here pure Daemons do auto-lose against Knights because their only tools to kill AV13 are melee units, Smash got nerfed to hell and back, and Knights clean up in melee.

The forgeworld Daemon Lords like An'ggrath can challenge a knight and strike one down. The Decimator also has a melee weapon capable of threatening a knight. Both of these are considered daemon units compatible with a daemon army.

Daemon Lords aren't allowed in regular games anymore unless they are less then 25% of your army cost

And yes daemons have units that can hurt it in melee, none of them are reliable at killing a knight (too slow, doesn't cause enough damage in one swing, below i4). But one the knight gets to swing and stomp those units are dead and most of them cost over 300+ points

 Peregrine wrote:

 Crablezworth wrote:
Can you define a normal game?

A game played using all of the default rules, without adding or removing anything. This includes LoW because they are part of the default rules as published by GW.

So if I don't use every possible option from every single codex, dataslate, and other publication, I'm not playing 'normal' 40K?

Your games must be massive...

 Peregrine wrote:


Why? Because you've decided that you know better than GW about what should be included in 40k?

Or they know what they like and don't like playing against... And peregrine, don't act like you don't constantly (like the rest of us on here) say what should and shouldn't be included in this terrible excuse for a game. Or am I mistaken and you're constantly playing againsts absurd unbound lists and any old crap collection of stuff people are now allowed to call a legal army. Tell you what man, I'll personally fly out for a game against you, because I know you'll have no issue at all playing against my unbound triple transcendent c'tan list.

 Peregrine wrote:
Why should the person playing the game as-written expect to meet resistance, while the person who wants to add house rules expect their house rules to be accepted by default?

Everyone is playing with house rules because no matter what this edition is so bloated, every flgs, gaming group or "meta" has it's no no buttons that few dare press.



The same people acting like entitled brats and having a hissy fit because no one wants to play against their star god, eldar titan, knight or silly formation are the first to espouse the "can we just play 7th edition" tagline but when someone counters with "ok, can I bring my unbound super silly all -fill in the blank- list?" , well then all of a sudden the same people wishing to use the free market nature of the game as a beat stick reel their bs in real quick and start saying "well obviously no unbound, I mean that would just be silly".



The core of the problem is this edition has no boundaries, when everything is legal, what power does the word legal even have at that point?


I'm gonna go downstairs to the workshop and whip up 3 transcendent c'tans. I mean they're legal, so by that logic surely all my regular opponents and anyone I meet looking for a pickup game will not just want to play against them, no, they'll have to. And when they tall me they're not having any fun, I'll tell them that I'm having fun thus they musts be.

 Crablezworth wrote:
Or am I mistaken and you're constantly playing againsts absurd unbound lists and any old crap collection of stuff people are now allowed to call a legal army. Tell you what man, I'll personally fly out for a game against you, because I know you'll have no issue at all playing against my unbound triple transcendent c'tan list.

I don't like it, but we're talking about very different situations here. The 3x c'tan list would be almost impossible to beat with anything but a tailored anti-c'tan list, and not very fun to play against without that tailored counter list. Even lists that have no trouble at all with "average" opponents are going to lose horribly to it. And since nobody (or at least nobody who wants to have friends) brings a 3x c'tan list nobody is going to be prepared with a counter list when you show up, and many people won't even have the ability to build an effective counter list.

A list with 1-2 knights, on the other hand, isn't so blatantly overpowered and impossible to win against. Those knights are roughly comparable to other vehicle-based lists, and if you have the ability to deal with LRBTs/Hammerheads/etc you at least have a chance. And if you don't have any chance of fighting back against 1-2 knights then you have nowhere near enough anti-tank units and you're going to lose a lot of games against "normal" lists with no superheavies. So the 1-2 knight list isn't a case of "I have no hope of winning no matter what I do", it's "my list has a huge fundamental weakness and instead of fixing it I want you to change your list so I don't have to".

Everyone is playing with house rules because no matter what this edition is so bloated, every flgs, gaming group or "meta" has it's no no buttons that few dare press.

That doesn't change the fact that they're house rules, or that a person who wants to make house rules for their group should have the burden of justifying those rules instead of just showing up with a set of their own house rules and expecting everyone else to accept them.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 insaniak wrote:
So if I don't use every possible option from every single codex, dataslate, and other publication, I'm not playing 'normal' 40K?

Oh FFS, you know what I meant. A game uses all of the default rules is one where those rules are available. The game includes the rules for tactical squads as long as a tactical squad is an option that you can put in your army, even if you decide to take scouts instead. The game doesn't include the rules for tactical squads if your opponent says "I'm not playing you unless you leave your tactical squads at home".

 Peregrine wrote:
Oh FFS, you know what I meant. A game uses all of the default rules is one where those rules are available. The game includes the rules for tactical squads as long as a tactical squad is an option that you can put in your army, even if you decide to take scouts instead. The game doesn't include the rules for tactical squads if your opponent says "I'm not playing you unless you leave your tactical squads at home".

Ok.

Now can you explain why that's a problem?


If both players agree to leave those tactical squads at home, who the hell are you to tell them that they shouldn't be playing 40k?

 insaniak wrote:
If both players agree to leave those tactical squads at home, who the hell are you to tell them that they shouldn't be playing 40k?

Because:

1) If you're going to remove large sections of 40k, especially things like vehicles/LoW/etc that are the few "unique" things 40k has, why not find a better game that doesn't need so much modification? We're not talking about removing 1-2 of GW's worst balance mistakes, the OP essentially needs vehicles removed entirely. So why not play Infinity instead, and have a much better all-infantry game?

2) This isn't a situation where both players have decided that they don't like unit X and don't want to include it, it's one where one player likes X and has it in their army and the other player wants to remove it.

 Peregrine wrote:


That doesn't change the fact that they're house rules, or that a person who wants to make house rules for their group should have the burden of justifying those rules instead of just showing up with a set of their own house rules and expecting everyone else to accept them..

See, you can pretend to not get the point all you want, but then you say something like:

 Peregrine wrote:
[And since nobody (or at least nobody who wants to have friends) brings a 3x c'tan list nobody is going to be prepared with a counter list when you show up, and many people won't even have the ability to build an effective counter list..

But that's a good thing right? The hobby will lose dead weight, I mean those people didn't want to get with times and comprise their entire army of 3 models as well, like me, and thus should leave the game... right?







I mean for once the person asking the question (the op) isn't shouting waac at the top of their lungs, blaming everything on tournaments and labelling players. For once its a nice fluff bunny,just putting out a very real and very human downside of this terribel game we play and the answer we give them is put up or shut up essentially. I agree with you peregrine that it is a reasonable expectation to expen some time money and effort to keep an army up to snuff. But then again, I'm more competitive than fluffy when it comes to the game. I take my issues with fluff bunnies being holier art than though but the op sounds fairly reasonable. I don't think the op will have much success altering what his opponent puts in their collection, but I do hope they can find an opponent they enjoy playing.

 Peregrine wrote:
1) If you're going to remove large sections of 40k, especially things like vehicles/LoW/etc that are the few "unique" things 40k has, why not find a better game that doesn't need so much modification? We're not talking about removing 1-2 of GW's worst balance mistakes, the OP essentially needs vehicles removed entirely. So why not play Infinity instead, and have a much better all-infantry game?

Because you have 40K, and don't have Infinity?

Or... whatever. Pick a reason. Did I miss the sign on sheet where we all need to provide you with a valid reason for wanting to play 40K before we're allowed to buy models?

That might cause some amount of consternation.

2) This isn't a situation where both players have decided that they don't like unit X and don't want to include it, ...

Well, no... because he hasn't actually spoken to his opponent about it yet. Hence this thread.

 insaniak wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:
1) If you're going to remove large sections of 40k, especially things like vehicles/LoW/etc that are the few "unique" things 40k has, why not find a better game that doesn't need so much modification? We're not talking about removing 1-2 of GW's worst balance mistakes, the OP essentially needs vehicles removed entirely. So why not play Infinity instead, and have a much better all-infantry game?

Because you have 40K, and don't have Infinity?

Or... whatever. Pick a reason. Did I miss the sign on sheet where we all need to provide you with a valid reason for wanting to play 40K before we're allowed to buy models?

Yeah I'm at a loss there too, somehow disregarding the time, money and effort put into a 1500pt and just playing a different game is a better solution than asking your opponent if they'd be ok taking a less powerful list.

Surprised nobody mentioned that the opponent doesn't seem like a nice person to play with. 2 sides to every story but it seems this person will just the OP to "grow some balls" and not even consider changing his list.

It seems this person thinks he is so great playing 40K. Then again only getting one side of the story, but it just doesn't seem the opponent is reasonable.

Davor wrote:
Surprised nobody mentioned that the opponent doesn't seem like a nice person to play with. 2 sides to every story but it seems this person will just the OP to "grow some balls" and not even consider changing his list.

It seems this person thinks he is so great playing 40K. Then again only getting one side of the story, but it just doesn't seem the opponent is reasonable.

We don't know anything about the op's knight/sisters playing opponent.




I've had a regular opponent who also plays marines ask me not to run a thunderfire or stormtalon next time we play. I just flatly said "I'm not even spamming them, what's the deal?". It was worth him asking but he certainly didn't effect what I chose to put in my marine list. I felt it was a bit of an absurd request given he also plays marines, so its a mirror match in terms of codex's from the get go, he also has both models just not finished or painted. So I got a bit defensive because to my thinking, why should I have to alter my list because he has no time to paint the very same models he's asking me not to use? But the simple reality is if neither of us can come to some agreement or consensus we probably won't keep playing one another. And that's not a good thing for the game. My only thought is if there was a return to actual structure and limitation in how armies are put together, there would be a chance to mitigate some of the balance issues.

I prefer competitive games, I'm generally happier if my opponent brings what they feel is a good list given the circumstances (not everyone has thousands of points of painted models to draw from).

 Scoundrel13 wrote:

The opponent was not the nicest guy tbh last time. Kind of rubbed it in my face that all my A14 couldn't save me from being smooshed by Knights, and when I said his list seemed nonsensical for 1500 pts (when would 30 Sisters be supported on the field by two super-heavies?) I got a "tough sh*t" in return.

Sounds like Asshat to me. Again one side of the story, but that doesn't sound like to me his opponent will change his tune and change up his army for once. Anyone who has to "rub" and say "tough crap" to someones face is a person who must win with plastic toy soldiers.

Why did this become such a huge thread? Holy cow.

Why can no one give the OP a clear and concise answer to his simple question. Is he breaking any rules of the game or being TFG by asking his opponent to not take a knight.

No...you are not. What you are doing is being a sissy pants but that is actually not uncommon among 40k players. I routinely beat peoples cheese with my own cheese. The game is cheese - you must find your own cheese and make them cry. Thats the game. I've tried to give suggestions about how to beat a knight with DE and IG.

Melta vets in space wolf drop pods.
Or venom with blaster true born.

 Xenomancers wrote:
Why did this become such a huge thread? Holy cow.

Why can no one give the OP a clear and concise answer to his simple question. Is he breaking any rules of the game or being TFG by asking his opponent to not take a knight.

No...you are not. What you are doing is being a sissy pants but that is actually not uncommon among 40k players. I routinely beat peoples cheese with my own cheese. The game is cheese - you must find your own cheese and make them cry. Thats the game. I've tried to give suggestions about how to beat a knight with DE and IG.

Melta vets in space wolf drop pods.
Or venom with blaster true born.

He is not TFG and he is not being a sissy pants. To be calling anyone a sissy pants would be like saying "grow a pair". Do you play Warmahordes by any chance?

 Xenomancers wrote:
Why did this become such a huge thread? Holy cow.

Why can no one give the OP a clear and concise answer to his simple question. Is he breaking any rules of the game or being TFG by asking his opponent to not take a knight.

Generally questions have question marks at the end of them. If you'd actually read the thread you'd see plenty of people answering the op.

 insaniak wrote:
Or... whatever. Pick a reason. Did I miss the sign on sheet where we all need to provide you with a valid reason for wanting to play 40K before we're allowed to buy models?

Sigh. Why do you keep repeating this straw man? Saying "you should play a different game" does not mean that I've appointed myself ruler of 40k and you need to justify your decision to play to me.

Well, no... because he hasn't actually spoken to his opponent about it yet. Hence this thread.

I think we can safely conclude, based on the OP's opponent buying knights and making them a regular part of their army, that they like knights. We don't need a documented conversation to know this.

 Crablezworth wrote:
But that's a good thing right? The hobby will lose dead weight, I mean those people didn't want to get with times and comprise their entire army of 3 models as well, like me, and thus should leave the game... right?

Sigh. The 3x c'tan list is a tiny minority of the game, built entirely around a massive balance mistake. A list with 1-2 knights is just a typical 7th edition list, and any list that has no hope of competing with it is also going to struggle against a lot of other typical 7th edition lists. I'm pretty sure you can see the difference between the two.

and the answer we give them is put up or shut up essentially

Well yeah, because that's all there is to say in this situation. A list that can't handle 1-2 knights is the kind of "special snowflake" list that demands carefully crafted opposing lists designed around a non-standard selection of units that won't exploit any of the snowflake's fundamental weaknesses. To accommodate a list with no anti-tank units you have to have a long list of house rules: no knights, no LRBTs, no Hammerheads, no more than one Chimera, etc. And it isn't reasonable to expect people to bring special armies just to play against you. The only reasonable solution is for the OP to add more anti-tank to their list so that they have a chance of competing with "normal" lists, or to just accept that they aren't going to win very often.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Crablezworth wrote:
But that's a good thing right? The hobby will lose dead weight, I mean those people didn't want to get with times and comprise their entire army of 3 models as well, like me, and thus should leave the game... right?

Sigh. The 3x c'tan list is a tiny minority of the game

Evidence?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Peregrine wrote:
A list with 1-2 knights is just a typical 7th edition list

Evidence?

 Peregrine wrote:
I'm pretty sure you can see the difference between the two.

I see no difference betwen the two as neither are typical 7th edition lists, whatever a typical 7th edition list is.

 Peregrine wrote:
it isn't reasonable to expect people to bring special armies just to play against you

Except when they're comprised of 3 star gods right?

 Peregrine wrote:
The only reasonable solution is for the OP to add more anti-tank to their list so that they have a chance of competing with "normal" lists, or to just accept that they aren't going to win very often.

That's not the only solution, you're simply just saying that. He could also try and find opponents who share the same ideals.

 Peregrine wrote:
Sigh. Why do you keep repeating this straw man? Saying "you should play a different game" does not mean that I've appointed myself ruler of 40k and you need to justify your decision to play to me.

Well then what does it mean?

Because if you're not trying to tell people that they should only be playing this game if they're playing it your way, you're doing a really average job of expressing yourself.

I think we can safely conclude, based on the OP's opponent buying knights and making them a regular part of their army, that they like knights. We don't need a documented conversation to know this.

So?

I like my Thunderwolves, and my Redeemer. I still have absolutely zero problem with an opponent asking me to not use them, which has happened on several occasions.

The issue wasn't whether or not the prospective opponent likes the models in question. It was whether or not they had an issue with not using them... something that hasn't been established yet, because the purpose of this thread was to determine whether asking that question in the first place would be out of line.


Somehow, we got from a really straightforward question that should have been easily answered with something along the lines of 'It's a game, you should feel free to play it however you want, provided your opponent agrees' to this mess where everyone is being told that they are unworthy to lay their eyes on 40K's hallowed rules if they aren't prepared to play the game the way certain people think it should be played.

Please, let it go.

It's become an argument about feelings instead of facts.

 Crablezworth wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 Crablezworth wrote:
But that's a good thing right? The hobby will lose dead weight, I mean those people didn't want to get with times and comprise their entire army of 3 models as well, like me, and thus should leave the game... right?

Sigh. The 3x c'tan list is a tiny minority of the game

Evidence?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Peregrine wrote:
A list with 1-2 knights is just a typical 7th edition list

Evidence?

And evidence that it is being used in every meta.

After all, if it is typical everyone should have faced one at some point.

 Peregrine wrote:
I'm pretty sure you can see the difference between the two.

I see no difference betwen the two as neither are typical 7th edition lists, whatever a typical 7th edition list is.

ITT: People with no concept of false equivalencies, and other people not wise enough to just stop replying to them.

The question has been answered. Why bother arguing with unreasonable people who don't understand that the purpose of a "game" is to have fun?

 Crablezworth wrote:
Evidence?

The fact that the c'tan is one of maybe 2-3 units at that level of power, out of the huge number of units in 40k.

Evidence?

The fact that you don't have to work very hard to put 6 HP worth of AV 13+ vehicles in your army. That's just "ok, I'll take a pair of Hammerheads for my heavy support" or "Pask is really cool!", not a deliberate attempt to bring the most overpowered army you can imagine. Even "casual" players who don't care at all about army optimization will frequently have that.

 Crablezworth wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:
I'm pretty sure you can see the difference between the two.

I see no difference betwen the two as neither are typical 7th edition lists, whatever a typical 7th edition list is.

You don't see the difference between playing Imperial Knights, in a regular 40K legal formation straight out of their codex, and playing multiple Trancendant C'tans, the nightmarishly powerful Lord Of War that people constantly scream is broken and only legal in Apocalypse/Escalation sized games ?

I'm sorry, but I don't believe you.

Peregrine, have you ever turned down a game?

 insaniak wrote:
Because if you're not trying to tell people that they should only be playing this game if they're playing it your way, you're doing a really average job of expressing yourself.

Go back and read what I actually said, not what people have decided to use as a straw man, and there's nothing unclear. What I said has nothing to do with how I want to play the game, it was a direct response to a statement that the OP had literally no units in their army capable of killing a knight (and therefore no units capable of killing a long list of non-LOW vehicles) and does not enjoy that situation. In that context "why are you playing 40k" isn't a demand for them to do what I want, it's simply recognition of the fact that they aren't having fun and their situation isn't likely to improve.

 adamsouza wrote:

 Crablezworth wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:
I'm pretty sure you can see the difference between the two.

I see no difference betwen the two as neither are typical 7th edition lists, whatever a typical 7th edition list is.

You don't see the difference between playing Imperial Knights, in a regular 40K legal formation straight out of their codex, and playing multiple Trancendant C'tans, the nightmarishly powerful Lord Of War that people constantly scream is broken and only legal in Apocalypse/Escalation sized games ?

I'm sorry, but I don't believe you.

Typical is subjective, you're saying knights in a list are typical, read common. And yet no one I play ever wants to field one. Tell you what, I'll t ake your word for it that where you play knights are common, why does that make them more valid if the only metric we're apparntly using for if we want to play an opponent is if their list is legal in 7th.

Here's the metric for if a list is legal in 7th. Does it comprise gw 40k models? It's legal.


You're the guys setting the bar that all that is required is that your army be legal for it to be universally accepted by prospective opponents. And yet a 3 c'tan unbound list is totally legal. Replace the op's opponent's two knights with two transcendent c'tans. Are we still going to call the op a whiner and insist he leave the hobby or maybe admit we all play a terrible terrible game.

 Crablezworth wrote:
Typical is subjective, you're saying knights in a list are typical, read common. And yet no one I play ever wants to field one.

Not just knights, knight-equivalent vehicles. For example, if you can kill a LRBT squadron you can probably kill a knight. So even if few people in an area use knights there are still probably lots of people bringing 6 HP worth of AV 13+ vehicles, and most people would find it at least a little bit odd if there weren't.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Crablezworth wrote:
Typical is subjective, you're saying knights in a list are typical, read common. And yet no one I play ever wants to field one.

Not just knights, knight-equivalent vehicles. For example, if you can kill a LRBT squadron you can probably kill a knight. So even if few people in an area use knights there are still probably lots of people bringing 6 HP worth of AV 13+ vehicles, and most people would find it at least a little bit odd if there weren't.

The op never argued for or demanded that no one use any vehicles. He like many others doesn't seem to have fun playing against super heavies in 1500pts. I'm under no illusions that there are some pretty terrible super heavies, it's the entire idea of them being used at 1500 that I myself can't wrap my head around.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Scoundrel13 wrote:
Is it wrong to ask him to leave them at home this time?

It's not wrong, but I fear your request may not be successful. Who knows, maybe they'll happily comply with your request. If they asked you to run a more competitive list next time, would that be something you're not comfortable doing or simply unable to do due to lack of models?

 Scoundrel13 wrote:


Am I being naive to not be building lists that can deal with Knights (I don't have the models without serious investment)?

Not naive, but sadly the game is very much pay to play. Peregrines not entirely wrong to think that you should make some effort to "keep up with the joneses". That may be as simple as a few more lascannons ore dark lances or as sad and cynical as gleefully joinging the race to the bottom and buying a knight or transcendent c'tan or revenant titan. The most cost effective solution is find opponents who share your fluffy ideals.

 Scoundrel13 wrote:
Should I simply try to enjoy playing a game where I have little to no chance of winning, no matter how tactically masterful I am? Otherwise I'm sitting at home with no war-gaming tomorrow.

If you know you're very likely to not enjoy the game, it may be worth passing on. Take the evening to scour the internets for new opponents.

 Peregrine wrote:
Then the OP is screwed anyway and shouldn't be playing 40k.

So if I don't want to play against Knights I either:
-Ask my opponent not to play them.
-Sell all my WH40k models and play a different game.

Guess which option I am going with..

 Crablezworth wrote:
The op never argued for or demanded that no one use any vehicles. He like many others doesn't seem to have fun playing against super heavies in 1500pts. I'm under no illusions that there are some pretty terrible super heavies, it's the entire idea of them being used at 1500 that I myself can't wrap my head around.

The OP said that they don't have anything that can kill a knight. That means they also don't have anything that can kill a LRBT squadron/Hammerhead/Predator/etc, and will have to remove those units from the game as well if they want any chance of winning.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Kangodo wrote:
So if I don't want to play against Knights I either:
-Ask my opponent not to play them.
-Sell all my WH40k models and play a different game.

Guess which option I am going with..

Guess which option you're going with when your opponent says "nope, they're part of my army, maybe you should change your own army if you're worried about your chances of winning".

Kangodo wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:
Then the OP is screwed anyway and shouldn't be playing 40k.

So if I don't want to play against Knights I either:
-Ask my opponent not to play them.
-Sell all my WH40k models and play a different game.

Guess which option I am going with..

Or Option 3.

You resolve and talk to your opponent and say that you just want to have a fun game. Politely ask them. This is up to you.

Or Option 4

Don't play and just quit the game and find a new opponent if they refuse to do so.

Also Peregrine you are being extremely unhelpful and should cease insulting the OP and saying what he should and should not

 Peregrine wrote:
Guess which option you're going with when your opponent says "nope, they're part of my army, maybe you should change your own army if you're worried about your chances of winning".

The option I'm going with of just finding a different opponent?
Which would be quite easy to do since it is clear that the majority doesn't like Knights.
Perhaps I would play a single game to kick his ass and proof a point (that it is not about winning, but about fun).

 Xenomancers wrote:
Why did this become such a huge thread? Holy cow.

Why can no one give the OP a clear and concise answer to his simple question. Is he breaking any rules of the game or being TFG by asking his opponent to not take a knight.

No...you are not. What you are doing is being a sissy pants but that is actually not uncommon among 40k players. I routinely beat peoples cheese with my own cheese. The game is cheese - you must find your own cheese and make them cry. Thats the game. I've tried to give suggestions about how to beat a knight with DE and IG.

Melta vets in space wolf drop pods.
Or venom with blaster true born.

Yeah, to hell with hiom for not wanting to play a certain list. We should go lynch him for being such a sissy pants!!

/s

P.S. who even says sissy pants anymore???

It is not 'wrong' to ask your opponent not to bring a knight.

However, if you play this guy regularly, I would consider letting him take his knight once in a while if he asks for it.
I had to deal with lots of people who didn't want super-heavies in their games and since I have 4 of them, that made me sad because I had put a lot of work into painting them.

So hence came the solution, someone came to me and asked me to play a game in which I used one of my super-heavies. Reason: He had a tourney and super-heavy was allowed, but he had no experience handling them.
To make a long story short, my Lord of Skulls finally saw some table time, people saw the game and came to the conclusion that a lot of superheavies aren't that amazing rules-wise resulting in me being able to field a super-heavy once in a while on the condition that I let them know in advance that I will be bringing 'a superheavy'.

This thread really sums up 40k nowdays.

 Scoundrel13 wrote:
Hello Dakka.

40K moral dilemma for you here. For my gaming club tomorrow night, there's only one guy I can possibly play against. He uses two Knights at 1500pts with outflanking melta-wielding Sisters in Rhinos to support.

I use quite fluffy armies (either Guard or Dark Eldar), and neither has the raw firepower or combat ability to deal with Knights. Last time out, using my IG, I was stomped all over the board despite throwing everything at those damn Knights.

Is it wrong to ask him to leave them at home this time? Am I being naive to not be building lists that can deal with Knights (I don't have the models without serious investment)? Should I simply try to enjoy playing a game where I have little to no chance of winning, no matter how tactically masterful I am? Otherwise I'm sitting at home with no war-gaming tomorrow.

Have at it, internet.

Don't play him, your not willing to change your army why should he have to cater to you in that case? And by don't play him you decline to play against him not refuse to play against him. If hes curious as to why simply state your fluff army cant compete, that gives him the choice to alter his army instead of being forced to.

"Its physically impossible for my army to beat yours, and I can't spend cash for units that can. Gonna have to hold off this time buddy." And no hard feelings.

 60mm wrote:
This thread really sums up 40k nowdays.

A horribly divided community due largely to crappy rules? Pretty much

If you dont enjoy super heavies, fliers, and drastic imbalance, then maybe 40k isn't for you.

 MWHistorian wrote:
If you dont enjoy super heavies, fliers, and drastic imbalance, then maybe 40k isn't for you.

Or.. I could.. you know..
Find an opponent that also doesn't like them? Because that is quite easy to do, seeing as most people don't seem to enjoy them that much.

It's interesting how a small minority of players is trying to convince everyone to stop playing the game.
Quite funny to see.

Here's one suggestion for the OP. agree to play him with his normal army.
Turn 1, move 6 forward, run all your units forward.
turn 2. Repeat. Turn 3. Repeat. Repeat until your at his board edge, then do the same towards your board edge. Look him in the eye and ask if he's having fun.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
This of course, is if he says "no" or whines excessively about you asking politely for a no-knight opponent.

 Pyeatt wrote:
Here's one suggestion for the OP. agree to play him with his normal army.
Turn 1, move 6 forward, run all your units forward.
turn 2. Repeat. Turn 3. Repeat. Repeat until your at his board edge, then do the same towards your board edge. Look him in the eye and ask if he's having fun.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
This of course, is if he says "no" or whines excessively about you asking politely for a no-knight opponent.

Hahaha. Or, since you know he only has sisters and IK, pack the board full of flyers.

The problem with both is that the game is not fun. Why waste your time playing stuff that isn't fun... life is too short.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Bishop F Gantry wrote:
Don't play him, your not willing to change your army why should he have to cater to you in that case? And by don't play him you decline to play against him not refuse to play against him. If hes curious as to why simply state your fluff army cant compete, that gives him the choice to alter his army instead of being forced to.

You're right of course. The practical reality, though, is that there are (only) 2 players. So, either they can figure it out and play an enjoyable game, not figure it out and force a game that's not fun, or play XB1 and call it a night.

Kangodo wrote:

 MWHistorian wrote:
If you dont enjoy super heavies, fliers, and drastic imbalance, then maybe 40k isn't for you.

Or.. I could.. you know..
Find an opponent that also doesn't like them? Because that is quite easy to do, seeing as most people don't seem to enjoy them that much.

I have no horse in this race but where do you get that 'most people don't enjoy' fliers or superheavies? (no comment about the drastic imbalamce, you'd have to be a....special kind of person to enjoy drastic imbalance in a tabletop wargame ).

I don't know if people have not picked up on this but they are already negotiating some elements - ie the OP is using a 5th Ed Dark Eldar list rather than the new one.

And i don't know if people have also missed the part where it sounds like this opponent seems relatively easy to Out-manoeuvre.

Is OP playing 7th Ed. Maelstrom of War?

Maybe try a Cities of Death mission, see if that lets you win all the games =P

Its ok. They may not be classed as a LOW but they are a LOW regardless and thus if you are not bringing a LoW then it is justified to ask you opponent not to bring one. I have the same view on ranged D-weapons. If you are not bringing a ranged D-Weapon, then I am not going to bring one unless I ask first and you give your approval. Its rude, unfun, and unsportsmanlike to bring LOW superheavies when your opponent cannot effectively counter them as they pretty much require a tailored list to face them.

Again, not if you're playing the right mission.

I remember having a rather standard Army list facing a Space Marine army built around a Fellblade.
Played Relic.

Yes almost all of my Units died in trying to overwhelm with Targets.
Barely took 1-2 HP off the thing...

Still won the Game by having 3 models holding the Relic by Turn 6

 jasper76 wrote:
Why should anyone waste time playing games that they don't think are fun?

So playing without a chance to win or with limited chances to win is not fun? Isnt that WAAC douchebag attitude? Just play, get decimated and watch one of the kind tragic story unfolding before your eyes, write a book then if you like.

Seriously laid back casual gentleman players need to make up their minds, you can never say what one wants from a game.

Plumbumbarum wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:
Why should anyone waste time playing games that they don't think are fun?

So playing without a chance to win or with limited chances to win is not fun? Isnt that WAAC douchebag attitude? Just play, get decimated and watch one of the kind tragic story unfolding before your eyes, write a book then if you like.

Seriously laid back casual gentleman players need to make up their minds, you can never say what one wants from a game.

It's not WAAC douchebag attitude to expect a fair chance of winning. Only in the GW world is fairplay looked down on.

Plumbumbarum wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:
Why should anyone waste time playing games that they don't think are fun?

So playing without a chance to win or with limited chances to win is not fun? Isnt that WAAC douchebag attitude?

No it most certainly is not, wtf.
Bringing an army your opponent cannot possibly beat if he specifically asks you not to, that's a WAAC douchebag attitude.

If I bring an AV 12 vehicle list and all you bring is bolters, I highly doubt that you'll be having fun because you will literally be equal to a bystander because nothing you do will have any effect on the game.

Plumbumbarum wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:
Why should anyone waste time playing games that they don't think are fun?

So playing without a chance to win or with limited chances to win is not fun? Isnt that WAAC douchebag attitude? Just play, get decimated and watch one of the kind tragic story unfolding before your eyes, write a book then if you like.

Seriously laid back casual gentleman players need to make up their minds, you can never say what one wants from a game.

You're reading too much into what I was saying. The OP doesn't have fun playing against IKs. Why then should he waste his gaming time playing against IKs? Games are supposed to be fun for people.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
P.S. Bringing 2 IKs in a 1500 point game, game after game after game, and being a prick about winning..
here starts to develop the image of a WAAC player.

DaPino wrote:
It is not 'wrong' to ask your opponent not to bring a knight.

However, if you play this guy regularly, I would consider letting him take his knight once in a while if he asks for it.
I had to deal with lots of people who didn't want super-heavies in their games and since I have 4 of them, that made me sad because I had put a lot of work into painting them.

So hence came the solution, someone came to me and asked me to play a game in which I used one of my super-heavies. Reason: He had a tourney and super-heavy was allowed, but he had no experience handling them.
To make a long story short, my Lord of Skulls finally saw some table time, people saw the game and came to the conclusion that a lot of superheavies aren't that amazing rules-wise resulting in me being able to field a super-heavy once in a while on the condition that I let them know in advance that I will be bringing 'a superheavy'.

Geez, handling things like a reasonable adult? HERESY!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 jasper76 wrote:

P.S. Bringing 2 IKs in a 1500 point game, game after game after game, and being a prick about winning..
here starts to develop the image of a WAAC player.

My thoughts exactly. I know a guy who has 3 IK, tons of Ork flyers, and tons of DE flyers. He uses them to curbstomp other players, usually people who don't have the models to deal with it. I brought three Land Raiders against his Grey Knights in a Maelstrom game and beat the pants off him objectives wise and he got super butthurt.

Don't hate the player, hate the game.

 jreilly89 wrote:

My thoughts exactly. I know a guy who has 3 IK, tons of Ork flyers, and tons of DE flyers. He uses them to curbstomp other players, usually people who don't have the models to deal with it. I brought three Land Raiders against his Grey Knights in a Maelstrom game and beat the pants off him objectives wise and he got super butthurt.

Hehe. Lack of grace in defeat...the hallmark of the WAAC player.

For real? He allies IKs with Orks and Dark Eldar??? That wouldn't fly around these parts, allies chart be damned.

OP here! Time for update three.

I have scoured all of your responses (literally, all), and there are some nuggets of good advice in here, without a doubt.

I'd like to ask certain posters, who shall not be named, to take their personal arguments somewhere else, as they have ceased to be helpful. And to stop using "op" in vain.

I did not say I could not handle any vehicles, and by extension, wish them removed from all 40K. As you can see from my list, I am a little light on AT, but I have enough to compete in most games.

My AT for DE consists of 6 Dark Lances and potentially twenty haywire grenades (twenty wyches).

To those who say I should be willing to drop elements of my own army- I think you are correct. That seems only fair.

I should also have allowed more time to tell the opponent that I preferred not to play Knights again. This i would have allowed him more time to change his list, or for us to negotiate.

I would be happy for my opponent to use one Knight at 1500pts. This seems proportionate.

I totally get those who say that I should be updating and changing my army to cater to these new threats. I may do this, but my DE list was built as a themed, uniquely converted, narrative heavy list. I feel that to suddenly plump for venoms with blaster-born does not fit my narrative army. Should I sacrifice that to be able to compete?

Those who mentioned I should find other narrative, fluffy players: great idea, as there wouldn't be the clash of tourny/ fluff mindset. Unfortunately, my local area is competitive, so they are hard to find. But I will try.

So what actually happened in the end? Did you ask them if they could not use their knights?

I find the Lemman Russ examples kind of a strange. Sure maybe 3 LR have the same resilince as a knight in a void. But unlike the LR the knights actualy does kill models and not 2-3 meq per turn,if it doesn't scater too much. And if somehow the LoW using player failed to cast invisibility every turn.

A squadron of russes dies to a turn one drop pod full of melta sternguard or centurion, if they get lucky rolling 6s. a knight does not even if he goes second because two will placed in a such a way that both will be shielded and from turn 1+ they will have invisbility on.

Ah and IG has no way to deliver a first turn melta in to 6" or under range.

nareik wrote:
To refresh the perspective of the thread the question asked isn't to do with tournaments.

It is a guy going to a local club where he only has one possible opponent; a guy playing with 2 knights and sisters.

Firstly, I don't think there is any harm in diplomatically suggesting double knights will give your collection a game that neither player would enjoy and as such changing the parameters of the game.

My suggestion is consider playing something different; perhaps a game of zone mortalis, or a series of quick 600 point games. Alternatively make sure you have plenty of terrain/objectives that is unfriendly to the knight if you are forced to face it.

If playing against the knights becomes inevitable don't despair. Use low cost defensive tactics to mitigate the damage the knights can do and make sure to focus on easy objectives rather than getting tied up in trying to destroy the knights.

If you can simply ignore the knights and still make a game of it then ignoring the knights is a valid tactic.

Heck, do scenarios, and limit units based on that for your game. Those are typically more fun anyway.

 Frazzled wrote:

nareik wrote:
To refresh the perspective of the thread the question asked isn't to do with tournaments.

It is a guy going to a local club where he only has one possible opponent; a guy playing with 2 knights and sisters.

Firstly, I don't think there is any harm in diplomatically suggesting double knights will give your collection a game that neither player would enjoy and as such changing the parameters of the game.

My suggestion is consider playing something different; perhaps a game of zone mortalis, or a series of quick 600 point games. Alternatively make sure you have plenty of terrain/objectives that is unfriendly to the knight if you are forced to face it.

If playing against the knights becomes inevitable don't despair. Use low cost defensive tactics to mitigate the damage the knights can do and make sure to focus on easy objectives rather than getting tied up in trying to destroy the knights.

If you can simply ignore the knights and still make a game of it then ignoring the knights is a valid tactic.

Heck, do scenarios, and limit units based on that for your game. Those are typically more fun anyway.

One of my favourite types of scenarios to play when one player has a LoW or Super Heavy and the other player doesn't, is to allow the non-LoW player the ability to continuously recycle their destroyed units and bring them back onto the table to represent a never ending tide of superior numbers/reinforcements.

See how long the 'out numbered' defenders can last before the overwhelming numbers of the enemy eventually drag them down, then for more fun, switch sides and see if the LoW player can take-out their own army faster!

Now were cooking with sriracha!

Campaigns and scenarios are a good way to deal with this kind of stuff.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
So what actually happened in the end? Did you ask them if they could not use their knights?

I didn't ask him in the end. We did not play, as work got pretty hectic today and I was unable to get to the club. I rang and called it off, Knights not mentioned. For the future, if we try to play again, I will ask if he can just use one Knight, or we'll negotiate something we're both happy with.

Without sounding too crass. As you've asked for opinions, I'll give you some insight in to mine.

While playing against knights may not be the best, (i play one and have played against them before getting my own)it is still part of the game. Would you at a tournament ask a guy to swap his knight out?

You cant really expect someone to take something out because you don't know how to deal with it.

And IG las spam can deal with it quite proficiently.

 Scoundrel13 wrote:
For the future, if we try to play again, I will ask if he can just use one Knight, or we'll negotiate something we're both happy with.

That's the best way to do it, just talk to them and see if they are willing to or not, if they are great, if not well not so great. at that point you would need to decide if you would rather play against knights or not play at all. The biggest thing is its just a game if you can't both have fun in the game playing together then you shouldn't be playing each other.

 Wolves for the Wolf God wrote:
You cant really expect someone to take something out because you don't know how to deal with it.

I don't necessarily think it's a case of expecting your opponent to do something to make you happy but rather it being okay to ASK whether they would be willing to do something.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

 Wolves for the Wolf God wrote:
You cant really expect someone to take something out because you don't know how to deal with it.

I don't necessarily think it's a case of expecting your opponent to do something to make you happy but rather it being okay to ASK whether they would be willing to do something.

Also, I am asked semi-frequently not to use my Transcendent C'Tan, and these boards of full of people who refuse to play against one.

If people let me know they don't have fun playing against one of my models, why would I have fun using it against them? Cruelty?

Hi Scoundrel, I don't know if this has been suggested, but I think I would ask my opponent if he's fine if I proxy one or several superheavies (playing IG), I think Shadowsword is the Titankiller version of the Baneblade.

It may have been said but I'm not invested enough to read the whole thread. Write your own missions, why not try mixing it up a bit?

You could play long ways on the board. Your objective is to get as many units as possible across the table as possible his is to stop you. 1 point for each unit that crosses. After all units have crossed or been destroyed switch sides, you use his and he uses yours.

Just an idea, no idea if it would be fun, but basically you should be able to enjoy yourself with uneven games just by tweaking your objectives and switching sides, as a bonus you both get to play with an army you might not normally experience.

 Crablezworth wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
Why did this become such a huge thread? Holy cow.

Why can no one give the OP a clear and concise answer to his simple question. Is he breaking any rules of the game or being TFG by asking his opponent to not take a knight.

Generally questions have question marks at the end of them. If you'd actually read the thread you'd see plenty of people answering the op.

Aren't you brilliant! you can use proper punctuation! Do you teach English and so have an insatiable need to pick at peoples use of grammar on the internet? Jezz dude.

 Scoundrel13 wrote:
Hello Dakka.

40K moral dilemma for you here. For my gaming club tomorrow night, there's only one guy I can possibly play against. He uses two Knights at 1500pts with outflanking melta-wielding Sisters in Rhinos to support.

I use quite fluffy armies (either Guard or Dark Eldar), and neither has the raw firepower or combat ability to deal with Knights. Last time out, using my IG, I was stomped all over the board despite throwing everything at those damn Knights.

Is it wrong to ask him to leave them at home this time? Am I being naive to not be building lists that can deal with Knights (I don't have the models without serious investment)? Should I simply try to enjoy playing a game where I have little to no chance of winning, no matter how tactically masterful I am? Otherwise I'm sitting at home with no war-gaming tomorrow.

Have at it, internet.

Politely ask your opponent if he would mind not fielding them. If he refuses, then you have 2 clear choices: either you stop playing with him or you adapt your list so you can kill his Knights. As for Guard tactics, a decent 1500pts list would be a tank commander with 2 extra leman russes, all of them having demolisher cannons, lascannons and heavy bolters as a HQ, 3 veteran squads with 3 meltas and autocannons and a heavy weapons squad with Lascannons behind an aegis defence line. Then in reserve, 10 scions with 2 plasma guns and a plasma pistol in a vendetta. Watch the smug look melt off his face when he's faced with demolisher cannons that glance his front armour on a 3+ and scions with hellguns that will make short work of his sisters.

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Crablezworth wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
Why did this become such a huge thread? Holy cow.

Why can no one give the OP a clear and concise answer to his simple question. Is he breaking any rules of the game or being TFG by asking his opponent to not take a knight.

Generally questions have question marks at the end of them. If you'd actually read the thread you'd see plenty of people answering the op.

Aren't you brilliant! you can use proper punctuation! Do you teach English and so have an insatiable need to pick at peoples use of grammar on the internet? Jezz dude.

It's jeez, not jezz

The Imperial Answer wrote:
The forgeworld Daemon Lords like An'ggrath can challenge a knight and strike one down. The Decimator also has a melee weapon capable of threatening a knight. Both of these are considered daemon units compatible with a daemon army.

Soul Grinders and the Decimator are I3, the Knight is I4. They'd never survive long enough to make any melee attacks. An'ggrath is a solution, but when one of your top most reliable solutions to a four hundred point vehicle anyone can take whenever they feel like it is a nine hundred point character Gargantuan Creature something's gone horribly wrong. Since that comment I've gone back over the Daemons book and I'm thinking suicide Screamers might be their best bet against Knights, since they hit at I4 (so the Knight can't kill them before they can attack, which is the issue with 95% of things you'd challenge a Knight in melee with), they're relatively inexpensive, fast enough to chase it down, and a unit of three has not half bad odds to strip a hull point or two (and it's AP2 so you can get lucky).


Automatically Appended Next Post:

natpri771 wrote:

 Scoundrel13 wrote:
Hello Dakka.

40K moral dilemma for you here. For my gaming club tomorrow night, there's only one guy I can possibly play against. He uses two Knights at 1500pts with outflanking melta-wielding Sisters in Rhinos to support.

I use quite fluffy armies (either Guard or Dark Eldar), and neither has the raw firepower or combat ability to deal with Knights. Last time out, using my IG, I was stomped all over the board despite throwing everything at those damn Knights.

Is it wrong to ask him to leave them at home this time? Am I being naive to not be building lists that can deal with Knights (I don't have the models without serious investment)? Should I simply try to enjoy playing a game where I have little to no chance of winning, no matter how tactically masterful I am? Otherwise I'm sitting at home with no war-gaming tomorrow.

Have at it, internet.

Politely ask your opponent if he would mind not fielding them. If he refuses, then you have 2 clear choices: either you stop playing with him or you adapt your list so you can kill his Knights. May I suggest Vendettas and Leman Russ demolishers for your guard?

Ally in D99 and throw a melta-Executioner squad at it!

DaPino wrote:

Plumbumbarum wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:
Why should anyone waste time playing games that they don't think are fun?

So playing without a chance to win or with limited chances to win is not fun? Isnt that WAAC douchebag attitude?

No it most certainly is not, wtf.
Bringing an army your opponent cannot possibly beat if he specifically asks you not to, that's a WAAC douchebag attitude.

If I bring an AV 12 vehicle list and all you bring is bolters, I highly doubt that you'll be having fun because you will literally be equal to a bystander because nothing you do will have any effect on the game.

Well that bolter list you mention would be as useless as your hyperbole and if you make one, you lack basic understanding of the game and cant expect to have fun unless you find the other 2 guys in the entire world that comprehend as much. Its a different topic, I meant a hard desperate matchup, it should be fun for a fluff casual player, they do it to roll dice eat a beer and drink a pretzel and who cares about winning etc.

Also it was a semi serious post, I just enjoy turning the casual player favourite WAAC douchebag term against them. In fact I have the mind of a competitive player but dont use competitive lists, they range from decent to mediocore but I enjoy the hard matchups and never cry to someone to remove models because op and always acknowledge if my win comes from paricular imbalance on the table, on the other hand the officialy casual player I know will throw rules lawyers, op etc at everyone and find every excuse for loosing but if he wins, he acts like it was exactly his tactical acumen and Napoleon worthy maneuvers that granted him victory. At that point, anyone making even a slight constructive remark about the game is sore looser for him and a stupid grin on his face puts the 'dont care about winnning' part into serious doubt.

Anyway I find the whole issue of caring for opponent enjoyment and a pressure to handicap ridiculous and cringe at the threads like 'will I be tfg for taking a second riptide' or sth. Seriously a special game with special snowflake players, outside of straight idiotic matchups like bolters vs tanks or foot cc nids vs flyer wing you should play instead of walking around like that important lady in a cloth shop looking for something special for herself.

And if you dont like it, take it to GW not to player who fields his IK or ctan or serpents. Its their game their crap balance etc.

DaPino wrote:

If I bring an AV 12 vehicle list and all you bring is bolters, I highly doubt that you'll be having fun because you will literally be equal to a bystander because nothing you do will have any effect on the game.

It would be my own fault for only bringing bolters.

Who brings a knife to a gun fight ?

Orks don't field an all Gretchin forces for a reason. Sure, it would be fluffy, and could be fun to play, but you would be gimping your army.

Hey, I brought all Gretchin, would you mind completely redoing your entire 1500 point army not to include any vehicles or Monstrous creatures ?

Sure, I would do it for a friend, if they gave me advance notice.
But a pickup game, with someone you just know from the FLGS, with no advance notice ?
Do you have that many points of extra models with you ?
Can you piece together a competant force with what you have on hand ?
Do you like the person you are playing against enough to even bother ?

Makumba wrote:
Ah and IG has no way to deliver a first turn melta in to 6" or under range.

D99 or Elysians can Combat Drop Valkyries full of melta-vets/Executioner squads. Not the regular IG book but some of the same models.

There is nothing at all wrong with setting up a game where your opponent and you agree to not use superheavies. It would only be wrong if you both agree to it and you showed up with a baneblade pr he with a knight breaking the agreement.

I play in a friendly environment....And I really hate how Knights were brought into normal games. I ask my friend if he could not use his knight , and just play without it. If he says no, then I will make a list that is just cheesy and not fun to play against. I can easily tailor my list to make sure he cant do anything...But that is just not fun , so I try to keep thinks friendly and fluffy.

 EVIL INC wrote:
There is nothing at all wrong with setting up a game where your opponent and you agree to not use superheavies. It would only be wrong if you both agree to it and you showed up with a baneblade pr he with a knight breaking the agreement.

I absolutely agree with you.

Bringing this back to the OP's situation.

The OP knows, in advance, the opponent he will likely face off against likes to field 2 Imperial Knights, and outflanking sisters.
The OP wants to bring an army that he thinks will do poorly in that match up.
The OP asked if people thought it would be okay if he asked the guy, when he gets there, to redo his army not to include the IKs.
The OP has other armies better suited to the match up.

The thread quickly dissolved into factions
A.) No, it's not okay. If you want to play an army that cant handle armor, be prepared to lose when you go up against armor.
B.) Yes, it's okay to open a dialouge. You shouldn't play what's not fun for you.
C.) Yes, Imperial Knights are the evil. How dare GW insert things I don't want to fight into a codex, and not just a supplement I can blanket refuse to use.
D.) Yes. Imperial Knight players are WAAC
E.) GW is Evil, 40K is the suck
F.) Yes, it's okay to open a dialouge, but remember he is under no obligation to agree to your request. His desire to play those Imperial Knights is every bit as valid as you desire not to play against him.
G.) People whose answer is other than A and want to know what right the people who chose A have to have an opinion other than theirs

I'm in the F camp

I, too, am in the F) camp.

I also really disagree with people in the C) and D) [especially D), that's like saying all Daemon, Tau, SM and Eldar players are WAAC]

But that's another story

I think almost everyone is A or F and G is just an F who finds people who are black and white A to be annoying.

DaKKaLAnce wrote:
I play in a friendly environment....And I really hate how Knights were brought into normal games. I ask my friend if he could not use his knight , and just play without it. If he says no, then I will make a list that is just cheesy and not fun to play against. I can easily tailor my list to make sure he cant do anything...But that is just not fun , so I try to keep thinks friendly and fluffy.

So your response to your opponent bringing a list that violates your arbitrary rule about what "should" be allowed is to list tailor and make sure they don't have any fun and learn not to break your arbitrary rules in the future? Are you aware that a single knight isn't even close to overpowered?

DaKKaLAnce wrote:
I play in a friendly environment....And I really hate how Knights were brought into normal games. I ask my friend if he could not use his knight , and just play without it. If he says no, then I will make a list that is just cheesy and not fun to play against. I can easily tailor my list to make sure he cant do anything...But that is just not fun , so I try to keep thinks friendly and fluffy.

Until you find that some people like the "cheesy" lists to play against. I want someone to play at their best, even if I decide to make a poor choice in my list. I just wanted to field my custom Nemesor. I'm not gonna stop someone from using a bunch of Centurions or Wave Serpents.