Let`s do a comparison:



They get
* 2 strategems - Loyalists get 29
* 1 warlord trait - Loyalists get 15
* 1 relic - Loyalists get 23
* 0 household traditions - Loyalists get 9 + 6 Freeblade qualities

Why on earth would I put a renegade knight in my list over a daemon engine lord of war?

Broken implies absurdly strong or not able to be played. They're just very weak. You're also comparing a free index that could've just not come out to a full codex, it's like me complaining that assassins only have (amount of stratagems they have) stratagems.

You want somthing slightly cheaper or you only have a knight?

 Phobosftw wrote:
Let`s do a comparison:



They get
* 2 strategems - Loyalists get 29
* 1 warlord trait - Loyalists get 15
* 1 relic - Loyalists get 23
* 0 household traditions - Loyalists get 9 + 6 Freeblade qualities

Why on earth would I put a renegade knight in my list over a daemon engine lord of war?

First off, they're still better than most Daemon Engines.

Second, they were never intended as a full faction in the way that Imperial Knights were. It's not a case of Chaos got the same thing but worse, rather that GW figured that Chaos players might want a way to use the models from this Imperium faction, so the rules are there if you want them.

Thirdly, twin Avenger Gatling Cannons.

I've been playing quite a bit with a full RK list. Two big knights, two Warglaives, two Helverins. Battlion of cultists and Hellwrights. My first Major I went 3-2(17th place) with that list. Had a couple tactical errors first two games that cost me. But smooth sailing games 3-5. I love playing the faction. I do however would like a little bit of love from GW giving me some additional relic (s), warlord traits and strats. I don't even really care if I don't get house traits, but that would also be cool. Overall I can't complain, double avengers is a really scary thing.

 Stux wrote:


First off, they're still better than most Daemon Engines.

Debatable after the latest CA. Also, I would bet money on a daemon engine formation in Vigilus II.

Your not wrong, it is kinda BS that GW didn't include a blurb in the IK codex or FAQ that chaos can take all the same options just change the relevant key words.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Stux wrote:


First off, they're still better than most Daemon Engines.

Debatable after the latest CA. Also, I would bet money on a daemon engine formation in Vigilus II.

Fair enough. But if it's at least debatable, then surely we can say that Renegade Knights are not brokenly bad as the OP suggests.

 Phobosftw wrote:
Let`s do a comparison:



They get
* 2 strategems - Loyalists get 29
* 1 warlord trait - Loyalists get 15
* 1 relic - Loyalists get 23
* 0 household traditions - Loyalists get 9 + 6 Freeblade qualities

Why on earth would I put a renegade knight in my list over a daemon engine lord of war?

Yup. I have a renegade knight army that i've put a ton of work into kitbashing and customizing with green stuff sculpts, but they're just blah to play.

The real issue is how vital those effects are. For many armies the warlord traits and relics are cool, and can be pretty powerful, but for an army who's warlord is nearly 1/3rd of your points, the impact those relics/warlord traits have is far greater. An Imperial knight isn't just a little better, it's miles better than the same priced renegade knight. For example without even spending any CP you can have a knight that rerolls hits in melee, avenger cannon hitting for twice as much damage, and has an extra attack, all for the same you spent on a renegade knight. There are many other combinations, and the imperial knights have some of the best faction traits in the game.

To me the chaos knight index came across as lazy, the 1 warlord trait and relic are possible the most useless things they could have chosen, and being a pdf with no print version it literally would have taken someone 15 minutes of work to fix that and make it not suck.

I just see it the complete opposite way. It's not lazy, it would have been lazy to give Chaos nothing with the Imperium codex coming out.

 Stux wrote:
I just see it the complete opposite way. It's not lazy, it would have been lazy to give Chaos nothing with the Imperium codex coming out.

It's beyond lazy. It would have taken next to nothing to give chaos knights either unique rules and traits or just copy paste what loyalist knights got. Instead they half assed it and gave what should be either a dark reflection at best or mirror match at worse an objectively worse version.

 Stux wrote:
I just see it the complete opposite way. It's not lazy, it would have been lazy to give Chaos nothing with the Imperium codex coming out.

degrees of lazy.
not doing anything > doing less than 5 minutes worth of work to make an index that's literally no better than not doing anything except for one single strategem ported over.

It's hard to not call both lazy when, like i said, it would have taken someone less time than a lunch break to make it not suck.


Hell, because it's just a pdf, there's not even anything stopping them from fixing this situation now. a few simple copy paste edits, re-upload, done. The laziness of not doing that is incredible.

Danny slag wrote:

 Stux wrote:
I just see it the complete opposite way. It's not lazy, it would have been lazy to give Chaos nothing with the Imperium codex coming out.

degrees of lazy.
not doing anything > doing less than 5 minutes worth of work to make an index that's literally no better than not doing anything except for one single strategem ported over.

It's hard to not call both lazy when, like i said, it would have taken someone less time than a lunch break to make it not suck.


Hell, because it's just a pdf, there's not even anything stopping them from fixing this situation now. a few simple copy paste edits, re-upload, done. The laziness of not doing that is incredible.

You could say the same thing about anything without a Codex though.

To me it just says there's a possibility of a Codex down the line.

How valuable are the 15 warlord traits and 23 relics, really? I don't know Knights specifically since it's not an army I play much, but across the books I do play I find that between 70 and 90% of Warlord traits and Relics are pointless flavour choices that make no difference to anyone.

 Stux wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Stux wrote:


First off, they're still better than most Daemon Engines.

Debatable after the latest CA. Also, I would bet money on a daemon engine formation in Vigilus II.

Fair enough. But if it's at least debatable, then surely we can say that Renegade Knights are not brokenly bad as the OP suggests.

Yes, I agree.

Of course, it doesn't help that we're comparing performance in the context of one of the most overpowered units in the game - Imperial Castellan with Cawl's Wrath, Ion Bulwark, and Rotate Ion Shields!

 Stux wrote:
I just see it the complete opposite way. It's not lazy, it would have been lazy to give Chaos nothing with the Imperium codex coming out.

This. All day this. They could have given Renegade Knight players nothing. Their stratagems and warlord traits appeared before many full factions.

A renegade knight still outperforms things like wraithknights any day. As someone stated above, duel Gatling anyone?

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

 Stux wrote:
I just see it the complete opposite way. It's not lazy, it would have been lazy to give Chaos nothing with the Imperium codex coming out.

This. All day this. They could have given Renegade Knight players nothing. Their stratagems and warlord traits appeared before many full factions.

I agree with this, but I see no reason for Chaos not to get a codex equivalent is the thing. Give some fun god specific stuff. Yeah sure, what we got is better than nothing, but chaos getting gimped for being chaos kinda sucks.

No, it was very good of them to provide a freely available option for Chaos players. There is an imbalance in terms f respective options, but the fundamentals of the knight are strong.

 Sir Heckington wrote:

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

 Stux wrote:
I just see it the complete opposite way. It's not lazy, it would have been lazy to give Chaos nothing with the Imperium codex coming out.

This. All day this. They could have given Renegade Knight players nothing. Their stratagems and warlord traits appeared before many full factions.

I agree with this, but I see no reason for Chaos not to get a codex equivalent is the thing. Give some fun god specific stuff. Yeah sure, what we got is better than nothing, but chaos getting gimped for being chaos kinda sucks.

That isn't what happened here. All it is is that Renegade Knights are still in Index. They're not getting persecuted, this just isn't the army that got released. The fact they got an expanded index is frankly gravy, and not something GW normally do.

 Stux wrote:

 Sir Heckington wrote:

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

 Stux wrote:
I just see it the complete opposite way. It's not lazy, it would have been lazy to give Chaos nothing with the Imperium codex coming out.

This. All day this. They could have given Renegade Knight players nothing. Their stratagems and warlord traits appeared before many full factions.

I agree with this, but I see no reason for Chaos not to get a codex equivalent is the thing. Give some fun god specific stuff. Yeah sure, what we got is better than nothing, but chaos getting gimped for being chaos kinda sucks.

That isn't what happened here. All it is is that Renegade Knights are still in Index. They're not getting persecuted, this just isn't the army that got released. The fact they got an expanded index is frankly gravy, and not something GW normally do.

And they probably won't get a codex, at least I doubt it, but it's a possibility. It is nice that GW gave them some stuff I agree.

I have been assured in another thread that this is a PL issue, not a knight issue, so just use match play.

 Sir Heckington wrote:
I agree with this, but I see no reason for Chaos not to get a codex equivalent is the thing. Give some fun god specific stuff. Yeah sure, what we got is better than nothing, but chaos getting gimped for being chaos kinda sucks.

Forgeworld do the daemon knights, which chaos get and imperials do not (and which at various points have basically been knights +1). If and when they update the rules is anyone's guess.

A.T. wrote:

 Sir Heckington wrote:
I agree with this, but I see no reason for Chaos not to get a codex equivalent is the thing. Give some fun god specific stuff. Yeah sure, what we got is better than nothing, but chaos getting gimped for being chaos kinda sucks.

Forgeworld do the daemon knights, which chaos get and imperials do not (and which at various points have basically been knights +1). If and when they update the rules is anyone's guess.

Yeah, feth leaving stuff to FW.

Like, I have nothing against FW, but leaving stuff to FW is just asking for it to be OP or UP.

Danny slag wrote:
To me the chaos knight index came across as lazy, the 1 warlord trait and relic are possible the most useless things they could have chosen, and being a pdf with no print version it literally would have taken someone 15 minutes of work to fix that and make it not suck.

That's not actually the case any more - it was printed in CA 2018.

 Brother Castor wrote:

Danny slag wrote:
To me the chaos knight index came across as lazy, the 1 warlord trait and relic are possible the most useless things they could have chosen, and being a pdf with no print version it literally would have taken someone 15 minutes of work to fix that and make it not suck.

That's not actually the case any more - it was printed in CA 2018.

Although this raises an issue, it means it'll disappear when CA 2019 hits if it's not reprinted there or somewhere else.

 Sir Heckington wrote:

 Brother Castor wrote:

Danny slag wrote:
To me the chaos knight index came across as lazy, the 1 warlord trait and relic are possible the most useless things they could have chosen, and being a pdf with no print version it literally would have taken someone 15 minutes of work to fix that and make it not suck.

That's not actually the case any more - it was printed in CA 2018.

Although this raises an issue, it means it'll disappear when CA 2019 hits if it's not reprinted there or somewhere else.

Well it won't because it's a free PDF too. They won't reprint it in CA 2019.

I play Renegade Knights. I enjoy doing so, and am grateful that we got some acknowledgement in the form of the mini index (as has been pointed out, it's more than many have received in the past).

I don't think it's wrong to point out that we are very much the 'poor cousin' to our Imperial counterparts and, to hope for more though.

I have to accept we're very much a 'niche' faction at best, but figure at the same time, any development of Renegade Knights benefits the overarching Chaos faction as a whole.

I guess if it's something you want further developed, the way to go about that is to make it known to GW. There are no guarantees, but it was that that got us the mini-index, and (years of) that, that got SoB players the content they are due to receive.

I suppose otherwise we wait and see what the future holds.

 AnomanderRake wrote:
How valuable are the 15 warlord traits and 23 relics, really? I don't know Knights specifically since it's not an army I play much, but across the books I do play I find that between 70 and 90% of Warlord traits and Relics are pointless flavour choices that make no difference to anyone.

GW is bad at judging how strong things are, so any given thing is effectively random in power. The more things a faction gets, the higher the chances that one of them will be must take level powerful.

See I don't get this argument. If GW was not able to judge if something was good or bad, then each edition eldar would not be one of the top armies, because probability would make it so that one day GW would give them bad rules.

When we say "Renegade Knights are basically broken", I'm assuming this the usual dakka hyperbole? I get that they're not as good as Imperial Knights due to the lack of traits, relics and stratagems, but my army would suck against an Imperial Knights list too. Are they competitive against other factions in casual matched play (i.e where your opponent's list hasn't been tailored to only take the most powerful combination of units in the game)?

Given that Knights get mainly taken as Auxilliary I would argue they are almost on par. They don't get the house rules in those instances and sure the stratagems aren't as good, they instead get a much better choice of weapon combos

Isn't the Mark of Chaos and Keywords (plus the weapons selection) the main differences with loyalist? Have anyone listed all the stratagems, psyonic power and combo available to Renegade Knight?
(Also, the double Avenger is overestimated in my opinion: it's useful but S6 is a real weakness for the gun profile - with S7 it would have been great)

Sometimes I think that stuff simply flyes under the radar... take the "no deepstrike within 12" of Vigilus. The exact same rule is on the Land Raider Proteus since Index days, but is discussed like something new...

Sumilidon wrote:
Given that Knights get mainly taken as Auxilliary I would argue they are almost on par. They don't get the house rules in those instances and sure the stratagems aren't as good, they instead get a much better choice of weapon combos

Have you ever seen a castellan in an imperial army, that is not fully loaded with relics or that isn't raven etc ? And am not using this as an argument to say your wrong. I just don't know if a single knight taken without the cawl gun+raven is actually a valid choice. Maybe castellans aren't "broken" at all, maybe it is just the extra rules they get makes them so good.

Karol wrote:
I just don't know if a single knight taken without the cawl gun+raven is actually a valid choice. Maybe castellans aren't "broken" at all, maybe it is just the extra rules they get makes them so good.

For castellans it's fairly single choice - Cawls wrath is basically a second plasma weapons worth of firepower for free and Raven doubles you up again. Both have clear paths to being fixed - by making Cawls wrath the generic profile (and increasing the cost accordingly) and by fixing the whole CP battery issue and re-costing the Raven stratagem against a more predictable pool of command points.

The smaller knights do show up in tournaments in a few different configurations though, both weapons and households. The castellan just stands out as the smashcaptain of the codex with the many ways you can make a more reasonable unit entirely unbalanced.

A.T. wrote:

Karol wrote:
I just don't know if a single knight taken without the cawl gun+raven is actually a valid choice. Maybe castellans aren't "broken" at all, maybe it is just the extra rules they get makes them so good.

For castellans it's fairly single choice - Cawls wrath is basically a second plasma weapons worth of firepower for free and Raven doubles you up again. Both have clear paths to being fixed - by making Cawls wrath the generic profile (and increasing the cost accordingly) and by fixing the whole CP battery issue and re-costing the Raven stratagem against a more predictable pool of command points.

The smaller knights do show up in tournaments in a few different configurations though, both weapons and households. The castellan just stands out as the smashcaptain of the codex with the many ways you can make a more reasonable unit entirely unbalanced.

Agree with all this, and with Karol's comment here.

The issue is not really that Renegades are weak. It's that the Imperial Codex has access to a handful of the best traits, relics, and CTs of any Codex AND they can all be stacked on the same model.

That's what needs fixing.

 Brother Castor wrote:
When we say "Renegade Knights are basically broken", I'm assuming this the usual dakka hyperbole? I get that they're not as good as Imperial Knights due to the lack of traits, relics and stratagems, but my army would suck against an Imperial Knights list too. Are they competitive against other factions in casual matched play (i.e where your opponent's list hasn't been tailored to only take the most powerful combination of units in the game)?

If you go by the 'tier list' that was published based on tournament results over the last year or so, then they do appear to be problematic, being one of the very lowest performers out there.
Make of that what you will, but I'm not aware of better evidence that isn't purely anecdotal.

StrayIight wrote:

 Brother Castor wrote:
When we say "Renegade Knights are basically broken", I'm assuming this the usual dakka hyperbole? I get that they're not as good as Imperial Knights due to the lack of traits, relics and stratagems, but my army would suck against an Imperial Knights list too. Are they competitive against other factions in casual matched play (i.e where your opponent's list hasn't been tailored to only take the most powerful combination of units in the game)?

If you go by the 'tier list' that was published based on tournament results over the last year or so, then they do appear to be problematic, being one of the very lowest performers out there.
Make of that what you will, but I'm not aware of better evidence that isn't purely anecdotal.

I still think this is apples and oranges. Renegade Knights are an Index force, it wasn't intended as a fully fledged faction at this stage.

A.T. wrote:

Karol wrote:
I just don't know if a single knight taken without the cawl gun+raven is actually a valid choice. Maybe castellans aren't "broken" at all, maybe it is just the extra rules they get makes them so good.

For castellans it's fairly single choice - Cawls wrath is basically a second plasma weapons worth of firepower for free and Raven doubles you up again. Both have clear paths to being fixed - by making Cawls wrath the generic profile (and increasing the cost accordingly) and by fixing the whole CP battery issue and re-costing the Raven stratagem against a more predictable pool of command points.

The smaller knights do show up in tournaments in a few different configurations though, both weapons and households. The castellan just stands out as the smashcaptain of the codex with the many ways you can make a more reasonable unit entirely unbalanced.

I think this is very true. The Castellan itself appears to be a reasonable unit. (Hell, field it in a Renegade list without the Imperial bells and whistles, and I think an argument can be made for it actually being a relatively poor choice). It's the combination of CP via soup, strats, relics & traits which are creating the unit we see being so prevalent on the tournament scene.

My belief is that the internal balance of the Knight Codex is actually not that bad. They are powerful units, but ones that come with significant drawbacks (no obsec, hugely vulnerable in melee, no psychic protection, cost, etc etc). They have powerful strats, but these are often expensive, and there is no easy way to generate large amounts of CP via the Knight Codex alone.

...As soon as you soup though? That internal balance may as well not exist.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Stux wrote:

StrayIight wrote:

 Brother Castor wrote:
When we say "Renegade Knights are basically broken", I'm assuming this the usual dakka hyperbole? I get that they're not as good as Imperial Knights due to the lack of traits, relics and stratagems, but my army would suck against an Imperial Knights list too. Are they competitive against other factions in casual matched play (i.e where your opponent's list hasn't been tailored to only take the most powerful combination of units in the game)?

If you go by the 'tier list' that was published based on tournament results over the last year or so, then they do appear to be problematic, being one of the very lowest performers out there.
Make of that what you will, but I'm not aware of better evidence that isn't purely anecdotal.

I still think this is apples and oranges. Renegade Knights are an Index force, it wasn't intended as a fully fledged faction at this stage.

Possibly. It's difficult to interpret 'intent', but I certainly can't (and wouldn't) argue against your stance. I'll only point out that, regardless of intent, they have been placed in a position where they can be run as a standalone faction, people are doing so, and that the data mentioned appears to be the best evidence we have, flawed as it may or may not be.

Giving chaos some sort of buff shouldn't be that hard. 2 stratagems per each god, one relic. Maybe an extra warlord table. Could fit on 2 pages of a WD article, if the pictures were not too big. 4 pages and the pictures can be huge.

This are my idea. Warrning I know little to nothing about chaos, so they maybe stupid.

1 Khorn one, something that makes it really dangerous in melee and some anti psyker stuff.

2 Tzeench gets to become a psyker and better inv

3 Nurgle regenarates and practicly does not degrade,

4 slanesh faster and -1 to hit, maybe some mechanic that lets it fight/shot/move more for doing wounds to itself or when it takes wounds. Maybe even a reverse degradation table, it gets more powerful the more it gets hurt.

Or we could leave the damn things alone and NOT create another monstrosity as they're already perfectly fine for their cost and take the Imperial equivalent, put it into a sack with some weights and drop it into the ocean when no one's looking?

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Or we could leave the damn things alone and NOT create another monstrosity as they're already perfectly fine for their cost and take the Imperial equivalent, put it into a sack with some weights and drop it into the ocean when no one's looking?

Yeah no, Fix the rules instead.

Stux, I feel like you're being the crab pulling its kin into the barrel. There isn't any non-negative goal that I can see where some players are made to play at a handicap by GW.

You say we should be grateful for getting an inferior ruleset instead of none at all. They DID give us nothing for weeks, it was public distress that got an index at all. And I did thank them for that much, I sent the FAQ team an email praising the one new stratagem because it is exactly what I needed it to be. But I also told them that holding out on sub-faction traits entirely was going to keep chaos players feeling like 2nd class citizens to the company. Which is why this thread exists. People are displeased with the product, and telling us to be happy with less when our peers get more is not doing anyone a favor.

There is no benefit to the community to tell players that they should have inferior game pieces. Saying an index is intentionally bad isn't helpful. Saying that some model out there is worse therefor we've got it good isn't helpful either. That worse off model should be fixed up too, not used as an excuse to lower the standard.

I'm not saying that renegade armigers need to reach the same level of OPness as a souped up castellan. I want to have a fairly level playing field, where two people can bring the same model and one doesn't have free abilities that make it strictly better than the other. Different abilities that maybe have different roles is fine, but giving loyalist many options and chaos literally none is rude (talking traits still, the WL and relic may be meh but at least there is one at all).

That means I'm ok with loyalists getting access to double avenger too, it's silly how it is now. (might need FW to make a sold separate agc to pull off)

So lets stop pulling eachother down, praising GW for causing unrest. Instead we can be happy for what is good and request that what isn't be brought up to a decent standard.

Obviously it would be great if everything was brought up to Codex standard. That's not what I'm saying.

What I'm saying is that it was a pretty cool move on GWs part to release FREE Chaos rules for the new units that Imperial Knights got.

 Stux wrote:
Obviously it would be great if everything was brought up to Codex standard. That's not what I'm saying.

What I'm saying is that it was a pretty cool move on GWs part to release FREE Chaos rules for the new units that Imperial Knights got.

It was, but it was also a reactive move based on a huge amount of public pressure (the official facebook page comments area was saturated with 'where is the support for Chaos' - just as a single example). I don't believe there was a plan in place initially, and lets face it, as great as it was to get *something*, that mini index represents perhaps an afternoons work at best.

Note that it has never been updated with support for the Preceptor which was later made available also. Not a huge deal, but indicative of the level of attention that things have been given beyond calming the masses.

I'd echo what was said above. No one is asking for the moon on a stick, but something approaching parity would be nice. In many ways it would be preferable to not permit something at all, rather than to provide no more than token support (though it doesn't generate nearly as much money - which is something Knights do exceptionally well for a GW product apparently).

Shas'O'Ceris wrote:
I'm not saying that renegade armigers need to reach the same level of OPness as a souped up castellan. I want to have a fairly level playing field, where two people can bring the same model and one doesn't have free abilities that make it strictly better than the other.

So either make the chaos knights as overpowered as the castellan, or nerf the castellan down to size. And option 1 is clearly a bad option.

A.T. wrote:

Shas'O'Ceris wrote:
I'm not saying that renegade armigers need to reach the same level of OPness as a souped up castellan. I want to have a fairly level playing field, where two people can bring the same model and one doesn't have free abilities that make it strictly better than the other.

So either make the chaos knights as overpowered as the castellan, or nerf the castellan down to size. And option 1 is clearly a bad option.

'Souped up Castellan'. I think you may have missed the key point. The Castellan isn't a problematic unit in and of itself - it becomes one when used as a sole focus for strats, relics and traits, while being fed CP via souped options (well outside of the internal balance of the Knight codex to boot). You won't see anyone complaining about the Renegade version - hell, you won't see anyone field it! Neither does any reasonable person want a Chaos unit that is as close to a competitive 'list crutch' as the combo'd version of the Imperial Castellan made possible via souped options. We aren't advocating that.

Shas wasn't implying anything like what you are stating. Rather the opposite in fact.

StrayIight wrote:

A.T. wrote:

Shas'O'Ceris wrote:
I'm not saying that renegade armigers need to reach the same level of OPness as a souped up castellan. I want to have a fairly level playing field, where two people can bring the same model and one doesn't have free abilities that make it strictly better than the other.

So either make the chaos knights as overpowered as the castellan, or nerf the castellan down to size. And option 1 is clearly a bad option.

'Souped up Castellan'. I think you may have missed the key point. The Castellan isn't a problematic unit in and of itself - it becomes one when used as a sole focus for strats, relics and traits, while being fed CP via souped options (well outside of the internal balance of the Knight codex to boot). You won't see anyone complaining about the Renegade version - hell, you won't see anyone field it! Neither does any reasonable person want a Chaos unit that is as close to a competitive 'list crutch' as the combo'd version of the Imperial Castellan made possible via souped options. We aren't advocating that.

Shas wasn't implying anything like what you are stating. Rather the opposite in fact.

Thank you straylight. I was saying that chaos doesn't need a WL trait that is an outlier in efficiency like ion bulwark and a relic as fantastic as Cawl's wrath together. What we need is to fill the empty slot of sub-faction trait. Additional strats WL and relics would be cool too, and I'd hope that one of them is defense based and less of a positive outlier than the above.

Myself, I'd take a relic if it gave a 6+++. We don't get a spare relic strat (that's fine by me I think giving auxiliaries WL traits and relics is a bad design choice) so I'd also enjoy a WL trait that does something mildly useful like reroll misses in overwatch. House trait I would love advance and charge, or 1 offense reroll each phase, or this model may treat 1 ranged weapon as if it were pistol 1 in the shooting phase if within 1" of an enemy unit.

 AnomanderRake wrote:
How valuable are the 15 warlord traits and 23 relics, really? I don't know Knights specifically since it's not an army I play much, but across the books I do play I find that between 70 and 90% of Warlord traits and Relics are pointless flavour choices that make no difference to anyone.

Hugely important, far more than in any other army, for several reasons.

First they effect a model which is almost 1/3rd your entire army, unlike other armies.
Second, the relics are straight upgrades to all the best parts of the knights. Ion shield, Avenger cannon, and fist. All amazing, and like point 1, they effect a huge portion of your army.
Third, the warlord traits are some of the best out of any book.

And one more point, the faction rules are arguably even more powerful than the relics/warlord traits. It's all around top tier stuff.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Stux wrote:
Obviously it would be great if everything was brought up to Codex standard. That's not what I'm saying.

What I'm saying is that it was a pretty cool move on GWs part to release FREE Chaos rules for the new units that Imperial Knights got.

is it though? I'd rather pay $30 for real rules than nothing for useless rules that are a slap in the face with how bad they are.

Welp... we have the dual gatling knight which is incredible. The faction may be flavorless, but i enjoy them

Perhaps GW didnt want chaos to have access to a proper knight faction. That is literally the only reason not to provide more than what they did.

 Smirrors wrote:
Perhaps GW didnt want chaos to have access to a proper knight faction. That is literally the only reason not to provide more than what they did.

With respect, 'GW don't want you to have a proper Chaos Knight Faction' is literally the only reason? Not say, time, resources, fixed released schedules, pre-assigned focus...

If they didn't want Chaos Knights to be a thing, they wouldn't be available. If they didn't want them to be usable as a faction, there wouldn't be rules to do so - especially not rules that they then supplemented by public request.

Honestly, I suspect it's far more likely to have just been a case of them doing Knights, not really even thinking about the Renegade side of things at the time (or at least, not wanting to increase the size of their task), or putting it to one side for later. Later just often doesn't come when you have many other games and armies to cater for while working toward release windows that have been planned well ahead.

Renegade knights exist because GW wanted to package 2 in a box together to move a ton of plastic at a perceived discount. The renegade box set needed a reason to exist so they made one chaos and figured we better give it 40k rules to make sure players on both sides of imperium and chaos buy the boxes (also so there is a reason for them to be fighting). It would have been nice for GW to have included renegade knights as its own codex (and could still happen one day) but until that day its sadly less usable.

Honestly I have ideas of what a renegade and chaos knight book could/should look like. It would be neat to have chaos upgrade kits for imperial knights, Nurgle, khorne, tzeench and slanesh themed plus a few renegade only weapons options using xenos tech as upgrades or *gasp* actual tech innovation not found on an STC. (heresey i know). there is a lot of room for creativity ln GWs part there if they felt liek tackling it and I hope they do one day but I do not think it is high on the priority list.

Imperium Knights have 4 things that make them more powerful than Chaos knights.

1 Extra Warlord Trait for 1 CP.
2 Heirlooms worth taking.
3 Warlord Trait Ion Bulwork.
4 House Traits.

Fixing any 2 of these would change Chaos knights.

Also with Demonic Engines getting some love in the new vigilus book, they will be much better.

Karol wrote:
Giving chaos some sort of buff shouldn't be that hard. 2 stratagems per each god, one relic. Maybe an extra warlord table. Could fit on 2 pages of a WD article, if the pictures were not too big. 4 pages and the pictures can be huge.

This are my idea. Warrning I know little to nothing about chaos, so they maybe stupid.

1 Khorn one, something that makes it really dangerous in melee and some anti psyker stuff.

2 Tzeench gets to become a psyker and better inv

3 Nurgle regenarates and practicly does not degrade,

4 slanesh faster and -1 to hit, maybe some mechanic that lets it fight/shot/move more for doing wounds to itself or when it takes wounds. Maybe even a reverse degradation table, it gets more powerful the more it gets hurt.

This is similar to what Forgeworld rules did for the chaos Knights in 7th.

https://www.forgeworld.co.uk/resources/fw_site/fw_pdfs/Warhammer_40000/Chaos_Knight.pdf

Just enough difference for each of the various gods yet similar to the standard loyalist knights.

Danny slag wrote:

 Stux wrote:
Obviously it would be great if everything was brought up to Codex standard. That's not what I'm saying.

What I'm saying is that it was a pretty cool move on GWs part to release FREE Chaos rules for the new units that Imperial Knights got.

is it though? I'd rather pay $30 for real rules than nothing for useless rules that are a slap in the face with how bad they are.

I see you are still maintaining your usual ridiculous hyperbole, how fun.

You're neglecting the third option, no rules at all. That's what you'd have gotten without the Index. Maybe you don't agree, but at the time I remember a lot of people being very excited about the index.

 Stux wrote:

Danny slag wrote:

 Stux wrote:
Obviously it would be great if everything was brought up to Codex standard. That's not what I'm saying.

What I'm saying is that it was a pretty cool move on GWs part to release FREE Chaos rules for the new units that Imperial Knights got.

is it though? I'd rather pay $30 for real rules than nothing for useless rules that are a slap in the face with how bad they are.

I see you are still maintaining your usual ridiculous hyperbole, how fun.

C'mon man. Making passive aggressive statements because someone expressed a position counter to yours (albeit passionately, and with some embellishment), in place of reasoned discourse, doesn't add anything to the debate.

You both made a point, and both have some merit.

I think you're right, it WAS nice that a free Mini Index was released, and we're better off with it, than without it. But frankly, more could be done (for balance sake, SHOULD be done), and I'm unconvinced that it wasn't mostly a PR move due to a flood of comments asking about Chaos/Traitor Knights upon the release of the Imperial Codex.

We have the provided Index. But what now? Where are we left, and should we be happy with the current state of Renegade Knights? Additionally, how does it's existence, or the reason for it existing, go toward addressing the OP's challenge?

Apologies. My opinion of this user is tarnished due to a previous thread, but you're right. I shouldn't bring that here.

 Stux wrote:
Apologies. My opinion of this user is tarnished due to a previous thread, but you're right. I shouldn't bring that here.

No worries, no judgements. It happens

You really were making an important point, and it would be a shame to see it obscured by a side argument between you.

 Draco765 wrote:
Just enough difference for each of the various gods yet similar to the standard loyalist knights.

It was a pity forgeworld couldn't resist going for that last +1 in the rules, but the principle was sound.

There's a topic.

Stick to it, without insulting other users.

Edit: Remove.

Sans hyperbole.

For matched play the rules are objectively inferior to IK rules. Consequently, for the purposes of matched or tournament play, they are largely useless.

Subjectively, the clear lack of effort put forth by GW in creating these rules reinforces a perception among Chaos players that they are not valued as customers.

As a result, I have not fielded Knights since early 8th edition and likely won't bother as long as their rules remain in their current state. They look pretty in the cabinet though, right next to Magnus.

Being worse than Imperial Knights doesn't necessarily have to mean they're competetively useless when they have access to other ally options.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Being worse than Imperial Knights doesn't necessarily have to mean they're competetively useless when they have access to other ally options.

Super, show your work. Thanks!

RK can't hit any of the crucial breakpoints (3++, targeting warlords, operate normally despite degradation, etc.) that IK can hit. As a result, they are functionally inferior. This has nothing to do with allies, which are there solely to provide a reservoir of CP to spend on them. Given that RK have a grand total of 2 stratagems and 1 relic to use, that reservoir of CP is objectively less useful to them. So you can throw in all the allies you want, it still doesn't put them anywhere near the same level of functionality as IK. Consequently, they are largely useless.

Maybe in the next codex GW is going to make renegade demon engines, and the new buff lord is going to make them better. no idea how much better, but +1 to hit is something.

 TwinPoleTheory wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Being worse than Imperial Knights doesn't necessarily have to mean they're competetively useless when they have access to other ally options.

Super, show your work. Thanks!

RK can't hit any of the crucial breakpoints (3++, targeting warlords, operate normally despite degradation, etc.) that IK can hit. As a result, they are functionally inferior. This has nothing to do with allies, which are there solely to provide a reservoir of CP to spend on them. Given that RK have a grand total of 2 stratagems and 1 relic to use, that reservoir of CP is objectively less useful to them. So you can throw in all the allies you want, it still doesn't put them anywhere near the same level of functionality as IK. Consequently, they are largely useless.

I agree with you, it's just not necessarily the case that being worse means it's competetively useless. It could hypothetically have had some ally combo available that Imperial knights do not, it just doesn't.

Renegade knights contribute quite a bit to a chaos force. If you can't win that is entirely on you.

 Marmatag wrote:
Renegade knights contribute quite a bit to a chaos force. If you can't win that is entirely on you.

That's why you see them in every tournament wherever Chaos shows up....
Oh wait.

 Marmatag wrote:
Renegade knights contribute quite a bit to a chaos force. If you can't win that is entirely on you.

Again, flippant statements with no attached arguments or data support are, well, a flippant statement with no attached arguments or data support.

Thanks for contributing...nothing.

An acquaintance of mine when 5-1 at a major with a Renegade Knight and Armigers alongside Magnus.

Is it top tier? No. But only Guard + Knight and Ynnari are, so if that's your benchmark for "what's good," then pretty much nothing is.

It's like people who complained that Tau weren't good. Or Orks aren't good. That is flatly incorrect; those armies are good. The fact that a few "better" things exist doesn't change that.

 Marmatag wrote:
An acquaintance of mine when 5-1 at a major with a Renegade Knight and Armigers alongside Magnus.

Is it top tier? No. But only Guard + Knight and Ynnari are, so if that's your benchmark for "what's good," then pretty much nothing is.

It's like people who complained that Tau weren't good. Or Orks aren't good. That is flatly incorrect; those armies are good. The fact that a few "better" things exist doesn't change that.

See? That was much better than a flippant statement with no data, I mean, it's anecdotal and is impossible to properly gauge without knowing what or who he faced, but it's data!

Yes, I'm sure there are situations where somebody manages to not faceplant with them. But they are nowhere near the level of basic utility of IK. I'd be willing to bet that IK vs RK we'd be looking at IK winning the vast majority of those match ups. So the fact of the matter is that when you field them you know, without a doubt, that you are bringing an inferior product to the table.

 TwinPoleTheory wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:
An acquaintance of mine when 5-1 at a major with a Renegade Knight and Armigers alongside Magnus.

Is it top tier? No. But only Guard + Knight and Ynnari are, so if that's your benchmark for "what's good," then pretty much nothing is.

It's like people who complained that Tau weren't good. Or Orks aren't good. That is flatly incorrect; those armies are good. The fact that a few "better" things exist doesn't change that.

See? That was much better than a flippant statement with no data, I mean, it's anecdotal and is impossible to properly gauge without knowing what or who he faced, but it's data!

Yes, I'm sure there are situations where somebody manages to not faceplant with them. But they are nowhere near the level of basic utility of IK. I'd be willing to bet that IK vs RK we'd be looking at IK winning the vast majority of those match ups. So the fact of the matter is that when you field them you know, without a doubt, that you are bringing an inferior product to the table.

You keep saying that a free product is inferior to a full price codex.
That comes under businesses 101 you don't give away content from behind the pay wall for free.

Also I do love how everyone keeps using examples of the meta 1400 points of Guard and a Castellen list as examples of why pure renegade knights are worse than Imperial Knights.

Compair Apples with Apples and people might stop writing you off as crack pots.

Are they more powerful, ok they have some traits most while good arn't exactlly OP like -1 to hit or 5+ fnp level of power.
They have strategums but they are highly limited in CP to use said strategums.
Choas has the ability to pick any weapon combo in questorus class knights, advantage Chaos.
Pure knights have an advantage over renegade knights but nothing not to be expected when compairing and index army to a codex army.


Do Imperial Knights forces rsally have more options than Renegade Knights well not really they get 1 named charictor and a preceptor knight.

The Preceptor is Imperial Knights only due to the story in the codex implying that onky 1 STC to produce the weapon exsists and it has been fought over with imperial then rebegade and finally back to imperial Forgeworld being the 1 location in the galaxy that can produce it.

Renegades can do double Thermal Cannons, double battlecannon and the famous Double Avenger Cannons thats 3 configuration that imperial Knight's can't advantage Choas.

Ice_can wrote:
You keep saying that a free product is inferior to a full price codex.
That comes under businesses 101 you don't give away content from behind the pay wall for free.

Yes, the discrepancy is that you guys keep telling us we should be happy because of that. At the same time, the multiple Chaos players who come in here to say they'd have been happy not only to pay, but to wait for a properly done codex is blown off.

Ice_can wrote:
Also I do love how everyone keeps using examples of the meta 1400 points of Guard and a Castellen list as examples of why pure renegade knights are worse than Imperial Knights.

Yes, and I said, line up IK vs RK, run a statistically significant series of games to gather data, and you will find IK winning the vast majority of those games.

Ice_can wrote:
Compair Apples with Apples and people might stop writing you off as crack pots.

The above would be 'Apples' to 'Apples', which I mentioned in the previous post.

Ice_can wrote:
Are they more powerful, ok they have some traits most while good arn't exactlly OP like -1 to hit or 5+ fnp level of power.

No, just 3++ and vastly superior relics.

Ice_can wrote:
They have strategums but they are highly limited in CP to use said strategums.

Strangely so is RK, but with significantly less variety and utility, but hey, nice attempt to minimize.

Ice_can wrote:
Choas has the ability to pick any weapon combo in questorus class knights, advantage Chaos.

Super, remind me why we don't see RK Castellans and such in that case? Oh, that's right, because they can't do any of the tactically useful things that IK can do, you know, like operate normally while damaged, snipe enemy characters, get a 3++, use one of the most amazing AT weapons in the game. I'm sure that has nothing to do with it though.

Ice_can wrote:
Pure knights have an advantage over renegade knights but nothing not to be expected when compairing and index army to a codex army.

Except that RK is now a Codex list, so yeah, not so much.

Ice_can wrote:
Do Imperial Knights forces rsally have more options than Renegade Knights well not really they get 1 named charictor and a preceptor knight.

As long as you ignore stratagems, relics, and house traits, sure.

Ice_can wrote:
Renegades can do double Thermal Cannons, double battlecannon and the famous Double Avenger Cannons thats 3 configuration that imperial Knight's can't advantage Choas.

So far, this is the only actual advantage that you've managed to list. I take it that since this is the only actual advantage you've listed that it outweighs all of the other places where RK is demonstrably and objectively inferior to IK, that the hill you've chosen?

Man, just because something is not completely top tier doesn't make it absolutely gak. Not everyone plays this game to WAAC. Hell I bought a knight just because it looked fun to convert and paint, not to mention a good way to learn to magnetize properly.

I have found my knights to do well enough against my buddies. They won't win me a game by myself, but they really plug some holes in my Death Guard.

PS - Converting knights to chaos is one of the most fulfilling things I have done in this hobby, can't recommend it enough!

PPS - Wishlisting I know, but if GW released a Renegade Knight codex, I would LOVE if Dominus and Armigers could have full weapon customization as well!

The main issue, that I see, is related to Knights and PL.

If you want a big, 100 PL Knight-Fight, and decide to each go ham on melee Knights (you like punching people with chainsaws bigger than Space Marines) the IK player gets five Gallants. The Renegade player gets four Renegade Knights that are the same as Gallants, except they lack any household trait, and have only one relic and two strats between them all.

 TwinPoleTheory wrote:

Ice_can wrote:
You keep saying that a free product is inferior to a full price codex.
That comes under businesses 101 you don't give away content from behind the pay wall for free.

Yes, the discrepancy is that you guys keep telling us we should be happy because of that. At the same time, the multiple Chaos players who come in here to say they'd have been happy not only to pay, but to wait for a properly done codex is blown off.

Ice_can wrote:
Also I do love how everyone keeps using examples of the meta 1400 points of Guard and a Castellen list as examples of why pure renegade knights are worse than Imperial Knights.

Yes, and I said, line up IK vs RK, run a statistically significant series of games to gather data, and you will find IK winning the vast majority of those games.

Ice_can wrote:
Compair Apples with Apples and people might stop writing you off as crack pots.

The above would be 'Apples' to 'Apples', which I mentioned in the previous post.

Ice_can wrote:
Are they more powerful, ok they have some traits most while good arn't exactlly OP like -1 to hit or 5+ fnp level of power.

No, just 3++ and vastly superior relics.

Ice_can wrote:
They have strategums but they are highly limited in CP to use said strategums.

Strangely so is RK, but with significantly less variety and utility, but hey, nice attempt to minimize.

Ice_can wrote:
Choas has the ability to pick any weapon combo in questorus class knights, advantage Chaos.

Super, remind me why we don't see RK Castellans and such in that case? Oh, that's right, because they can't do any of the tactically useful things that IK can do, you know, like operate normally while damaged, snipe enemy characters, get a 3++, use one of the most amazing AT weapons in the game. I'm sure that has nothing to do with it though.

Ice_can wrote:
Pure knights have an advantage over renegade knights but nothing not to be expected when compairing and index army to a codex army.

Except that RK is now a Codex list, so yeah, not so much.

Ice_can wrote:
Do Imperial Knights forces rsally have more options than Renegade Knights well not really they get 1 named charictor and a preceptor knight.

As long as you ignore stratagems, relics, and house traits, sure.

Ice_can wrote:
Renegades can do double Thermal Cannons, double battlecannon and the famous Double Avenger Cannons thats 3 configuration that imperial Knight's can't advantage Choas.

So far, this is the only actual advantage that you've managed to list. I take it that since this is the only actual advantage you've listed that it outweighs all of the other places where RK is demonstrably and objectively inferior to IK, that the hill you've chosen?

No if you drop your I'm a victim mentality you would have noticed I was agreeing that Index Renegade Knights aren't as good as codex Imperial Knights.

But you've gone full victim rant and keep trying to bring in outside factors instead of actually answering the breakdowns

Yeah build a stacked combination of warloard trait, strategums, psychic powers. It's the same type of argument that eldar can create a -7 to hit unit, technically true but not relevant to the topic being discussed.

Ice_can wrote:
No if you drop your I'm a victim mentality you would have noticed I was agreeing that Index Renegade Knights aren't as good as codex Imperial Knights.

First off, again, for the reading challenged, they're not an Index list anymore, they are a Codex list. Index implies that somewhere down the road they will get a Codex and become a real army. They have gotten their Codex, according to GW, this is a full-fledged, completely functional army. As far as the 'victim' mentality, you're the one telling us we should not only be satisfied with this implementation, but that we should be grateful we got one at all, I'm simply telling you, we're not, if that makes me a 'victim', so be it.

Ice_can wrote:
But you've gone full victim rant and keep trying to bring in outside factors instead of actually answering the breakdowns

Look, I get that reading isn't your thing, that's fine, everyone's different. I've answered every one of your 'breakdowns'.

Ice_can wrote:
Yeah build a stacked combination of warloard trait, strategums, psychic powers. It's the same type of argument that eldar can create a -7 to hit unit, technically true but not relevant to the topic being discussed.

Again, reading, try it. That 'stacked combination' is kind of the point, I didn't 'stack' anything from outside the IK codex, at all.

So tell me again why I should be grateful for a sub-standard, half-baked product? Oh that's right, because it was free, because I got into this game for the free stuff, it's a budget hobby!

 TwinPoleTheory wrote:

Ice_can wrote:
No if you drop your I'm a victim mentality you would have noticed I was agreeing that Index Renegade Knights aren't as good as codex Imperial Knights.

First off, again, for the reading challenged, they're not an Index list anymore, they are a Codex list. Index implies that somewhere down the road they will get a Codex and become a real army. They have gotten their Codex, according to GW, this is a full-fledged, completely functional army. As far as the 'victim' mentality, you're the one telling us we should not only be satisfied with this implementation, but that we should be grateful we got one at all, I'm simply telling you, we're not, if that makes me a 'victim', so be it.

Ice_can wrote:
But you've gone full victim rant and keep trying to bring in outside factors instead of actually answering the breakdowns

Look, I get that reading isn't your thing, that's fine, everyone's different. I've answered every one of your 'breakdowns'.

Ice_can wrote:
Yeah build a stacked combination of warloard trait, strategums, psychic powers. It's the same type of argument that eldar can create a -7 to hit unit, technically true but not relevant to the topic being discussed.

Again, reading, try it. That 'stacked combination' is kind of the point, I didn't 'stack' anything from outside the IK codex, at all.

So tell me again why I should be grateful for a sub-standard, half-baked product? Oh that's right, because it was free, because I got into this game for the free stuff, it's a budget hobby!

You really need to get over yourself, I am looking at the CA 2019 right now and it says "Index: Renegade Knights". Not everything that GW comes out with is going to be absolute gold, if you can't accept that and get incredibly agitated over it, than maybe this hobby isn't for you. Honestly, I am SUPREMELY grateful that GW gave us Chaos players the option to even RUN knights, and on top of that, to give us Chaos players an actual unique hook to the army (customizable weapons on questoris and a unique stratagem), they didn't HAVE to do it, but they did and I am having fun with mine.

Is it the best knight based faction? Not by a long shot! I have been playing this game off and on since 5th edition, armies rise and fall in power every edition and expansion, depending on the meta in tournaments and at stores. Hell I remember when Gray Knights were king and Tyranids and Orks were hot trash, things change. I also remember when factions would go several editions before they got a new codex as well! If anything, I can't help but be super pleased with GW this time around, everyone is getting a codex it seems like and even a few new armies altogether are sneaking in!

Lastly, if you feel this offended by a Renegade Knight index, why don't you just ask your playgroup if you can add some warlord traits or stratagems to the mix as funsies? As long as you aren't being ridiculous with them I don't see why nobody would be upset by that.

DudleyGrim wrote:
You really need to get over yourself, I am looking at the CA 2019 right now and it says "Index: Renegade Knights".

Fair enough, I concede the semantic point. It's still final and not changing, and trash.

DudleyGrim wrote:
Honestly, I am SUPREMELY grateful that GW gave us Chaos players the option to even RUN knights, and on top of that, to give us Chaos players an actual unique hook to the army (customizable weapons on questoris and a unique stratagem), they didn't HAVE to do it, but they did and I am having fun with mine.

You're right, they didn't have to do it, I don't have to be happy about the money and time I invested in it either and as a customer am free to crap all over it. But congratulations on your satisfaction with painting projects, good for you.

DudleyGrim wrote:
Is it the best knight based faction? Not by a long shot! I have been playing this game off and on since 5th edition, armies rise and fall in power every edition and expansion, depending on the meta in tournaments and at stores.

I've been playing since the 80s, I'm quite aware of GW's craptastic rules history.

DudleyGrim wrote:
Lastly, if you feel this offended by a Renegade Knight index, why don't you just ask your playgroup if you can add some warlord traits or stratagems to the mix as funsies?

Because strangely, my group is inclined to play by the rules we're most likely to see out in the world.

DudleyGrim wrote:
Is it the best knight based faction? Not by a long shot! I have been playing this game off and on since 5th edition, armies rise and fall in power every edition and expansion, depending on the meta in tournaments and at stores.

I've been playing since the 80s, I'm quite aware of GW's craptastic rules history.

If you hate it so much than why let it ruin your life? It obviously upsets you greatly, why not read a book or take a break? No one is forcing you to play the game, or putting limitations on yourself on what you can do with the game/models. Hell, I've had entire armies of models squatted by GW, I was upset, so I took a break until I discovered the new 8th edition of 40k. Maybe that is something you ought to do if the hobby is upsetting you so much.

DudleyGrim wrote:
If you hate it so much than why let it ruin your life?

I don't, it's just deeply annoying to listen to a bunch of painters tell me the rules aren't busted when they are objectively busted.

 TwinPoleTheory wrote:

DudleyGrim wrote:
If you hate it so much than why let it ruin your life?

I don't, it's just deeply annoying to listen to a bunch of painters tell me the rules aren't busted when they are objectively busted.

Well then Don Hooson managed to win a major tournament in the last year using Renagade Knights as a not-insignificant portion of his list. That is something that not every army can claim. Therefore, Renegade Knights are NOT "busted" or "worthless" like you have been claiming. Maybe it is you as the player who can't get them to work?

Ice_can wrote:

 TwinPoleTheory wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:
An acquaintance of mine when 5-1 at a major with a Renegade Knight and Armigers alongside Magnus.

Is it top tier? No. But only Guard + Knight and Ynnari are, so if that's your benchmark for "what's good," then pretty much nothing is.

It's like people who complained that Tau weren't good. Or Orks aren't good. That is flatly incorrect; those armies are good. The fact that a few "better" things exist doesn't change that.

See? That was much better than a flippant statement with no data, I mean, it's anecdotal and is impossible to properly gauge without knowing what or who he faced, but it's data!

Yes, I'm sure there are situations where somebody manages to not faceplant with them. But they are nowhere near the level of basic utility of IK. I'd be willing to bet that IK vs RK we'd be looking at IK winning the vast majority of those match ups. So the fact of the matter is that when you field them you know, without a doubt, that you are bringing an inferior product to the table.

You keep saying that a free product is inferior to a full price codex.
That comes under businesses 101 you don't give away content from behind the pay wall for free.

Also I do love how everyone keeps using examples of the meta 1400 points of Guard and a Castellen list as examples of why pure renegade knights are worse than Imperial Knights.

Compair Apples with Apples and people might stop writing you off as crack pots.

Are they more powerful, ok they have some traits most while good arn't exactlly OP like -1 to hit or 5+ fnp level of power.
They have strategums but they are highly limited in CP to use said strategums.
Choas has the ability to pick any weapon combo in questorus class knights, advantage Chaos.
Pure knights have an advantage over renegade knights but nothing not to be expected when compairing and index army to a codex army.


Do Imperial Knights forces rsally have more options than Renegade Knights well not really they get 1 named charictor and a preceptor knight.

The Preceptor is Imperial Knights only due to the story in the codex implying that onky 1 STC to produce the weapon exsists and it has been fought over with imperial then rebegade and finally back to imperial Forgeworld being the 1 location in the galaxy that can produce it.

Renegades can do double Thermal Cannons, double battlecannon and the famous Double Avenger Cannons thats 3 configuration that imperial Knight's can't advantage Choas.

Wrong. You don't have to compare them against only the top tier meta netlist out there. Compare renegade knights to literally any army, pick one, hell pick even the worst, and every one of those will have some synergies, some strategems, something cool they can do. Renegade knights have 1 useless warlord trait, 1 useless relic, and only 1 mid-tier stratagem. Even Tau Riptides have more synergies and things they can do.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

DudleyGrim wrote:

DudleyGrim wrote:
Is it the best knight based faction? Not by a long shot! I have been playing this game off and on since 5th edition, armies rise and fall in power every edition and expansion, depending on the meta in tournaments and at stores.

I've been playing since the 80s, I'm quite aware of GW's craptastic rules history.

If you hate it so much than why let it ruin your life? It obviously upsets you greatly, why not read a book or take a break? No one is forcing you to play the game, or putting limitations on yourself on what you can do with the game/models. Hell, I've had entire armies of models squatted by GW, I was upset, so I took a break until I discovered the new 8th edition of 40k. Maybe that is something you ought to do if the hobby is upsetting you so much.

I will never understand someone so myopic that they'll argue for broken rules.
I can understand arguing that a rule isn't broken, or the subjectivity of what's good and what's less powerful, but the position that there's nothing wrong with poorly written rules is baffling.

As has been said countless times, the fix isn't even hard. Being a pdf with no print copy it would take someone at GW all of 10 minutes to fix this.

"As has been said countless times, the fix isn't even hard. Being a pdf with no print copy it would take someone at GW all of 10 minutes to fix this."

That's pretty much what I've stated many times. That being said, I still have fun with my RK. Because, it's a game and that's what it's meant for.

Danny slag wrote:

Ice_can wrote:

 TwinPoleTheory wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:
An acquaintance of mine when 5-1 at a major with a Renegade Knight and Armigers alongside Magnus.

Is it top tier? No. But only Guard + Knight and Ynnari are, so if that's your benchmark for "what's good," then pretty much nothing is.

It's like people who complained that Tau weren't good. Or Orks aren't good. That is flatly incorrect; those armies are good. The fact that a few "better" things exist doesn't change that.

See? That was much better than a flippant statement with no data, I mean, it's anecdotal and is impossible to properly gauge without knowing what or who he faced, but it's data!

Yes, I'm sure there are situations where somebody manages to not faceplant with them. But they are nowhere near the level of basic utility of IK. I'd be willing to bet that IK vs RK we'd be looking at IK winning the vast majority of those match ups. So the fact of the matter is that when you field them you know, without a doubt, that you are bringing an inferior product to the table.

You keep saying that a free product is inferior to a full price codex.
That comes under businesses 101 you don't give away content from behind the pay wall for free.

Also I do love how everyone keeps using examples of the meta 1400 points of Guard and a Castellen list as examples of why pure renegade knights are worse than Imperial Knights.

Compair Apples with Apples and people might stop writing you off as crack pots.

Are they more powerful, ok they have some traits most while good arn't exactlly OP like -1 to hit or 5+ fnp level of power.
They have strategums but they are highly limited in CP to use said strategums.
Choas has the ability to pick any weapon combo in questorus class knights, advantage Chaos.
Pure knights have an advantage over renegade knights but nothing not to be expected when compairing and index army to a codex army.


Do Imperial Knights forces rsally have more options than Renegade Knights well not really they get 1 named charictor and a preceptor knight.

The Preceptor is Imperial Knights only due to the story in the codex implying that onky 1 STC to produce the weapon exsists and it has been fought over with imperial then rebegade and finally back to imperial Forgeworld being the 1 location in the galaxy that can produce it.

Renegades can do double Thermal Cannons, double battlecannon and the famous Double Avenger Cannons thats 3 configuration that imperial Knight's can't advantage Choas.

Wrong. You don't have to compare them against only the top tier meta netlist out there. Compare renegade knights to literally any army, pick one, hell pick even the worst, and every one of those will have some synergies, some strategems, something cool they can do. Renegade knights have 1 useless warlord trait, 1 useless relic, and only 1 mid-tier stratagem. Even Tau Riptides have more synergies and things they can do.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

DudleyGrim wrote:

DudleyGrim wrote:
Is it the best knight based faction? Not by a long shot! I have been playing this game off and on since 5th edition, armies rise and fall in power every edition and expansion, depending on the meta in tournaments and at stores.

I've been playing since the 80s, I'm quite aware of GW's craptastic rules history.

If you hate it so much than why let it ruin your life? It obviously upsets you greatly, why not read a book or take a break? No one is forcing you to play the game, or putting limitations on yourself on what you can do with the game/models. Hell, I've had entire armies of models squatted by GW, I was upset, so I took a break until I discovered the new 8th edition of 40k. Maybe that is something you ought to do if the hobby is upsetting you so much.

I will never understand someone so myopic that they'll argue for broken rules.
I can understand arguing that a rule isn't broken, or the subjectivity of what's good and what's less powerful, but the position that there's nothing wrong with poorly written rules is baffling.

As has been said countless times, the fix isn't even hard. Being a pdf with no print copy it would take someone at GW all of 10 minutes to fix this.

UR-025/Robotica Imperialis

Danny slag wrote:
I will never understand someone so myopic that they'll argue for broken rules.
I can understand arguing that a rule isn't broken, or the subjectivity of what's good and what's less powerful, but the position that there's nothing wrong with poorly written rules is baffling.

As has been said countless times, the fix isn't even hard. Being a pdf with no print copy it would take someone at GW all of 10 minutes to fix this.

Yes, but the meta of Dakka is to miss the point.

Danny slag wrote:
I will never understand someone so myopic that they'll argue for broken rules.
I can understand arguing that a rule isn't broken, or the subjectivity of what's good and what's less powerful, but the position that there's nothing wrong with poorly written rules is baffling.

As has been said countless times, the fix isn't even hard. Being a pdf with no print copy it would take someone at GW all of 10 minutes to fix this.

I'll never understand people who deliberately spread false information - such as that Index: Renegade Knights isn't in print anywhere.

Especially when the correct information - that it is printed in Chapter Approved 2018 - is even in the thread you're posting in...

 Dysartes wrote:

Danny slag wrote:
I will never understand someone so myopic that they'll argue for broken rules.
I can understand arguing that a rule isn't broken, or the subjectivity of what's good and what's less powerful, but the position that there's nothing wrong with poorly written rules is baffling.

As has been said countless times, the fix isn't even hard. Being a pdf with no print copy it would take someone at GW all of 10 minutes to fix this.

I'll never understand people who deliberately spread false information - such as that Index: Renegade Knights isn't in print anywhere.

Especially when the correct information - that it is printed in Chapter Approved 2018 - is even in the thread you're posting in...

Or at the original link:

https://whc-cdn.games-workshop.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/ENG_Index_Renegade_Knights.pdf

Whilest i can understand some of the frustration, this seems a bit excessive no?

if one expect renegade knight can be run almost "brainless" like imperial counterparts well... of course he got disappointed, they need a tuned list and aren't broken like castellan soup lists. It's called "play skills", need play instead complain in a forum about rules, that wont help, my 2 cents. I play tje list i regularly play at tournaments for many months, with small changing and i regularly get results with it now. You cant grab 4 renegade knights or a renegade castellan and expect it can perform as imperials do , they dont have a whole codex they lack key stratagems/traits, they lack wargears, they are a super elitary army, they perform well in the rightt army build in skilled player hands.

 blackmage wrote:
if one expect renegade knight can be run almost "brainless" like imperial counterparts well... of course he got disappointed, they need a tuned list and aren't broken like castellan soup lists. It's called "play skills", need play instead complain in a forum about rules, that wont help, my 2 cents. I play tje list i regularly play at tournaments for many months, with small changing and i regularly get results with it now. You cant grab 4 renegade knights or a renegade castellan and expect it can perform as imperials do , they dont have a whole codex they lack key stratagems/traits, they lack wargears, they are a super elitary army, they perform well in the rightt army build in skilled player hands.

Just seems like a lot of contorting and work for a mediocre result.

perhaps you are right but at least i know how to play my army that's enough for me, good luck dude, keep whining maybe helps you improve ur playing skills.

 blackmage wrote:
perhaps you are right but at least i know how to play my army that's enough for me, good luck dude, keep whining maybe helps you improve ur playing skills.

Coming from someone trying to sell the virtues an objectively inferior ruleset, that's rich.

But hey, keep drinking that piss while GW calls it rain, they appreciate you paying them for their waste.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Dysartes wrote:

Danny slag wrote:
I will never understand someone so myopic that they'll argue for broken rules.
I can understand arguing that a rule isn't broken, or the subjectivity of what's good and what's less powerful, but the position that there's nothing wrong with poorly written rules is baffling.

As has been said countless times, the fix isn't even hard. Being a pdf with no print copy it would take someone at GW all of 10 minutes to fix this.

I'll never understand people who deliberately spread false information - such as that Index: Renegade Knights isn't in print anywhere.

Especially when the correct information - that it is printed in Chapter Approved 2018 - is even in the thread you're posting in...

Or at the original link:

https://whc-cdn.games-workshop.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/ENG_Index_Renegade_Knights.pdf

Do you think an online pdf is "in print?" Maybe you shouldn't be using the computer if you don't understand that's not what in print means. lol

And CA changes every year, by it's very nature, so no, that doesn't count for anything either. It's a pdf, online, and those take only moments to change. The fact that you people have to stretch so hard to try and find invalid arguments to defend your position shows you really have no argument except the fact that you want to disagree with someone on the internets.

Danny slag wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Dysartes wrote:

Danny slag wrote:
I will never understand someone so myopic that they'll argue for broken rules.
I can understand arguing that a rule isn't broken, or the subjectivity of what's good and what's less powerful, but the position that there's nothing wrong with poorly written rules is baffling.

As has been said countless times, the fix isn't even hard. Being a pdf with no print copy it would take someone at GW all of 10 minutes to fix this.

I'll never understand people who deliberately spread false information - such as that Index: Renegade Knights isn't in print anywhere.

Especially when the correct information - that it is printed in Chapter Approved 2018 - is even in the thread you're posting in...

Or at the original link:

https://whc-cdn.games-workshop.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/ENG_Index_Renegade_Knights.pdf

Do you think an online pdf is "in print?" Maybe you shouldn't be using the computer if you don't understand that's not what in print means. lol

And CA changes every year, by it's very nature, so no, that doesn't count for anything either. It's a pdf, online, and those take only moments to change. The fact that you people have to stretch so hard to try and find invalid arguments to defend your position shows you really have no argument except the fact that you want to disagree with someone on the internets.

Unless you want to claim that your original statement was outright distorted, you said:

Being a pdf with no print copy

That's just plain wrong.

I don't disagree that GW did the bare minimum for Renegade Knight players and SHOULD'VE done more, but that doesn't mean one should resort to lying.

So much negativity towards renegade knights here. Mono RK are clearly not very good but soup them up and they can add flavour and some missing elements to some chaos forces. Just take a look through the DG tactics thread to find some players who are doing well with DG/Nurgle/RK lists.

Here's an example of a batrep I've found where they can be used to synergise well with Nurgle which lack potent damage dealing threats. Double avenger gatling cannons are amazing fun.

https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/764685.page