Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 phatonic wrote:
D weapon close attack aint as scary as ranged attack D weapons, ive played against a full knigth titan army before and i will still use the same tactic, deffrollah battlewagons with boarding planks(powerklaw) good thing about em being walkers they cant do death and glory and remember! The blast scatters!

d weapons a d weapon. If I say no to one then I say no to all.

My local is pretty much done with the current stuff. Were running what we call classic 40k. Meaning no allies, no data slates, no lords of war and no super-heavies/ d weapons. Your codex against mine and thats it. We doo leave the fortifications for sume games but mostly just use them as terrain.

I really hate the "Well its a Codex, so we should allow it!" Line of thought. We as a community have fallen pretty far when we accept a book with one unit in it on equal terms to real armies. Because that is what this thing is a book with one unit. It could easily have been a data slate, or White Dwarf update, or in escalation. But GW puts the word codex on it and we are all accepting that it is the same as other codices (its not, nor is the Inquisition codex)

Breng77 wrote:
I really hate the "Well its a Codex, so we should allow it!" Line of thought. We as a community have fallen pretty far when we accept a book with one unit in it on equal terms to real armies. Because that is what this thing is a book with one unit. It could easily have been a data slate, or White Dwarf update, or in escalation. But GW puts the word codex on it and we are all accepting that it is the same as other codices (its not, nor is the Inquisition codex)

Its their term, so they can define it how they like

It is as much a real codex as Tau, Eldar, Chaos Marines etc. Your opinion on this statement of fact is not relevant here

Nothing states that tournaments can disallow them. However ther fact that they are considerably weaker as an army than Tau / Tau. Taudar or even those two 'dexes plain really means that taking the arbitrary (I dont like D is arbitary, as is "one unit is not a codex") decision to ban them really highlights that you should ban those two other codexes as well. Especially as Knights are a reasonable counter to both, when played as a full army, and CONSIDERABLY easier to deal with than those two dexes for other armies.

Codex so must be allowed is arbitrary as well. Their decision to call it a codex is arbitrary. As for easy of dealing with, that depends on what you play I would argue that for some armies Tau and Eldar are easier to deal with than 5 Knights would be. For my army Tau/Eldar/Taudar etc.are considerably easier to deal with than 5 Knights would be.

I'm also not arguing that they should definitely not be included. Just that "They're a codex so lets include them" is a bad argument.

As for tournaments banning them...nothing states anything about tournaments in general a tournament could ban everything except the ork codex if it wanted to do so.

Furthermore, Codex Tau, and Codex Eldar are full armies, and have been part of the game for years. So saying banning this new book containing one unit would be on par with banning Existing books is a totaly falsehood. I.e. if the book was Data Slate Imperial Knights and contained the same info would it be a fair comparison to Tau/Eldar? To me the Knight is far more akin to Say Belakor or FW units, than to a true codex.

I just fear for the game when we all blindly go "Well its a codex, same as all the rest." I'm waiting for the day of Codex:Attack bikes. 2 units Heavy Bolter Attack Bikes and Multi-melta attack bikes.

I've played about 10 games in total with knights at 1500 points and the army isnt as super powerful as people seem to think. Its like every other new dex that comes out, scary on paper till you play some games with it. I've only stomped 1 person with the list and that was due to his poor list construction.

As a stand alone army I dont think they are that tough, I think they shine when adding in a knight as an ally

I suspect knights will be like FW rules, most events wont allow them but over time more and more will

1500 points limits them a lot, higher points make a difference. And they are not unbeatable, but they are a terrible match-up for a number of armies.

Breng77 wrote:
1500 points limits them a lot, higher points make a difference. And they are not unbeatable, but they are a terrible match-up for a number of armies.

..Just like Triptides and Wave Serpents, whats the issue again?

Even at higher point games (2k) I still havent dominated with them and most games have been a good enjoyable challenge. I've found that any balanced all comers army list has a decent amount of anti tank and can generally hold there own against them. They are a solid list and in the right hands can be a very tough army but I've never really felt like my opponent doesnt stand a chance.

Now in few games at 2k that I've used knights as allies, I feel like thats when they play there best. I've found that 1-2 knights joining an army is much more destructive then 4-6 knights on there own but YMMV

theres also the debate on how knights are treated in combat, my local group treats walkers in combat as infantry so they can be bogged down by a large group in combat. I suspect people that treat the knights as vehicles in combat will have far different results

I don't fear the game because of a one-unit Codex. I do fear for the game when the vocal minority cries, "the sky is falling!", and anyone actually pays them attention. It's a Codex, with an army, special rules, FoC, allies matrix, available in hardcopy, just like most (but not all) codexes currently in the game (poor Sisters and their Digi-Dex). Saying, "I don 't like the new unit/army/codex, its different, challenges my comfort zone, and therefore most be banned because I refuse to step outside of my comfort zone" really does not mean GW or Tournament Organizes should ban one specific new Codex.

Yes, we as players are free to make our own decisions on how we as a collective hobby wish to play this game. The first decision we all made was to play by GW rules, with GW models, in a social evironment. Knights are GW models using GW rules.

Personally, I like the new Imperial Knights, and have been wanting to play them in 40k since 1990, when I first started playing them in Epic. 24 years later, GW has produced not only a model, not just a sample set of rules, but a legal Codex for 40k scale Imperial Knights complete with their own background, history, and hooks for getting them on the table.

If you don't like them, then don't play them. Just keep in mind that the rest of us don't have to play your army either. And when you are standing across the the table from a army of Knights at a tournament, you can either man-up or pack-up, because Knights are here to stay. I'd recommend putting some energy into understanding the new kid on the block rather than wasting energy b!tching about how much it puts you out of your comfort zone.

SJ

Well mostly I think it narrows some armies to Mono-builds because they are a hard counter and I think that is bad for the game. If they become a mainstay I'll play and see how it goes. But if as I fear they are a super hard counter to my codex. That will probably be my last Straw as a GW player. Hard counter armies are bad for the game. Now other people are free to like them. But as a TO I lean on the NO superheavy side of things. It has little to do with comfort zone and more to do with enjoyment on my part. I like how my army functions, and it does ok, but knights flat out hard counter it (especially when used as allies.) because my only answers to anti tank are close combat and not cheap at that.

I just don't like the idea of an entire army of AV13 vehicles, with very small side sections from what I can see. It basically just reduces all standard weaponry to uselessness.

I know that a good list will have anti-tank. I get that. But if I bring an infantry heavy list, now I have them reduced to solely objective camping since they don't have the firepower to even glance a Knight. It also really narrows down what my opponent is going to shoot at, since my troops can wait to be finished off after he fires into everything that can glance aV13.

From a competitive tournament stand point, I think depending on the army list, an infantry heavy list would have problems in general, not just against knights

as for the army building entirely av13, they arent really the only army that can do that. Several other armies have the ability to spam a large amount of av 13 and av 14 hulls

Only time will tell how well knights do on the competitive scene, I dont think they will do as well as a lot of people are thinking, I've found in my games with them they can cause some problems in casual settings, when I bring them to play in casual games I'll generally let my oppenet know ahead of time so he isnt caught off guard, and if its just a general pick up game i'll have a spare army with me just in case someone doesnt want to play against them. I love playing games with an army of big stompy robots but in casual games i'm more interested in both players having fun


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I'll also be interested to see what reasons are given for the tournaments that dont allow them, right now most TOs ive seen generally dont allow the brand new codexs to be used anyways but once the "grace" period is over they will have to make the decision

They are the only army that can field an entire army of AV 13 Walkers. Which is a big deal in close combat (a Predator gets murdered by lots of things in CC, a walker does not). They are also the only army that is entirely made of Superheavies. Essentially killing them in CC is a huge risk because of the D, and Stomp and their explosion.

But more I see them being a gun line armies counter assault element against assault armies.

It's not that I'm against spamming high armor, it's the idea that there is high armor and nothing else. FW for example are rendered completely useless. Even with EMP grenades they're hitting against a walker's weapon skill instead of against a standard vehicle. A 5 point cultist up to a 30 point thousand son marine have the exact same role against an all vehicle list. Try and hide out of LOS on an objective.

But I want to stress, I am not against the knights. I think they look fine and there plenty of ways to deal with them. I don't like it from a rules perspective to ever render the standard troop useless against an entire army.

 wowsmash wrote:

 phatonic wrote:
D weapon close attack aint as scary as ranged attack D weapons, ive played against a full knigth titan army before and i will still use the same tactic, deffrollah battlewagons with boarding planks(powerklaw) good thing about em being walkers they cant do death and glory and remember! The blast scatters!

d weapons a d weapon. If I say no to one then I say no to all.

My local is pretty much done with the current stuff. Were running what we call classic 40k. Meaning no allies, no data slates, no lords of war and no super-heavies/ d weapons. Your codex against mine and thats it. We doo leave the fortifications for sume games but mostly just use them as terrain.

For the most part I like that, but the spanner in the works is IK ARE a codex. A codex with bugger all rules, but one which can be used to create an (extremely limited) army.

It doesn't need Escalation or Apoc, it's a self contained codex.

Breng77 wrote:
Codex so must be allowed is arbitrary as well. Their decision to call it a codex is arbitrary. As for easy of dealing with, that depends on what you play I would argue that for some armies Tau and Eldar are easier to deal with than 5 Knights would be. For my army Tau/Eldar/Taudar etc.are considerably easier to deal with than 5 Knights would be.

No, it isn't arbitrary - the rule has a good foundation: play the armies GW considers to be a full army. GW definitely considers them a full army

You also have no idea why they decided to call it a codex. I know why, from a good friend, but even without that the reason is not arbitrary, it has a solid foundation and one that is fairly obvious.

It's to stop people claiming there is a "core" 40k game. There isn't. There is 40k, and 40k. Of course as they REPEATEDLY tell you, you can do with this game as you wish, but don't pretend you are somehow playing "pure" 40k.

This reminds me a lot of the old prejudice against SCs. Irrational.

Breng - I'm also not arguing that they should definitely not be included. Just that "They're a codex so lets include them" is a bad argument.
No, it is a consistent one. Name a tournament that has outright banned a codex, even in 7th ed daemon days, which was FAR more imbalanced than anything 40k has seen. Off hand I cannot think of one.

Breng - As for tournaments banning them...nothing states anything about tournaments in general a tournament could ban everything except the ork codex if it wanted to do so.

Yes, and? I already stated this. They can ban pink armies if they want, as well. I was saying that saying "we like all codexes, except this codex because ...one unit" is a bad reason to ban a codex, and is bad for the game, and is a suggestion that an odd fear of SH is likely to cause other issues in the game.

Breng - Furthermore, Codex Tau, and Codex Eldar are full armies, and have been part of the game for years.
So when tau appeared in third you supported them not being included? Or would that be your inconsistency showing through? When is an army allowed to be played - 1 year after release? Where is your arbitrary line in the sand to be drawn?

Breng- So saying banning this new book containing one unit would be on par with banning Existing books is a totaly falsehood. I.e. if the book was Data Slate Imperial Knights and contained the same info would it be a fair comparison to Tau/Eldar? To me the Knight is far more akin to Say Belakor or FW units, than to a true codex.

Your opinion is irrelevant. It is, factually, a codex. I also proved it isn't a falsehood, so retract that statement, as you are wrong.

Breng - I just fear for the game when we all blindly go "Well its a codex, same as all the rest." I'm waiting for the day of Codex:Attack bikes. 2 units Heavy Bolter Attack Bikes and Multi-melta attack bikes.

Then You fear some very odd things,

Also - outright ban superheavies? Ooh, that malcador or macharius Vulcan are really scary...not. Another arbitrary line in the sand.

Yeah I fear Gw $50 money grab books that have no reason to be a codex other than so,e attempt at saying you just include this thing we put the word codex on it...so even though it is a substandard product in the face of every other army (as it is a unit not an army), and they could have put more effort into it. If they called it a codex to stop people from saying there is a core 40k that is still an arbitrary reason. I.e. They did it because they could not because it is on even footing as far as breadth and depth with any previous codex (except inquisition which is also a sorry excuse for a codex) and it does not follow the rules as most other codices. I mean even if they wanted to stick to a one model codex...why not actually you know provide different stats and upgrades for hq knights? Different knights with different stats in different FOC slots? More weapon options etc. It is a lazyily produced codex. As such I as a to would have no issue banning it and leaving every other book just out of principle of not appreciating obvious money grabs.

I also never claim "pure 40k" I just think the game works better played in certain ways, no reason you need to agree, but lately I feel Gw has put out a lot of lazy money grab product and see no reason to support one just because it is labeled codex.

The easy way out is to allow all codexes and only core rules. That way, units with a D weapon can't be used.

Why is that? the d rules are in the knights codex.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
The easy way out is to allow all codexes and only core rules. That way, units with a D weapon can't be used.

By that logic nobody can actually use any codex special rule except USR's, and weapons in the main rulebook.


Also Core 40k is indeed, all the stuff out there for codex and supplements and such.

You might want to read over pages 108 & 109 again if you think anything apart from codices are "core 40k".

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

 wowsmash wrote:

 phatonic wrote:
D weapon close attack aint as scary as ranged attack D weapons, ive played against a full knigth titan army before and i will still use the same tactic, deffrollah battlewagons with boarding planks(powerklaw) good thing about em being walkers they cant do death and glory and remember! The blast scatters!

d weapons a d weapon. If I say no to one then I say no to all.

My local is pretty much done with the current stuff. Were running what we call classic 40k. Meaning no allies, no data slates, no lords of war and no super-heavies/ d weapons. Your codex against mine and thats it. We doo leave the fortifications for sume games but mostly just use them as terrain.

For the most part I like that, but the spanner in the works is IK ARE a codex. A codex with bugger all rules, but one which can be used to create an (extremely limited) army.

It doesn't need Escalation or Apoc, it's a self contained codex.

true but thats covered under our no super heavy/ d weapons rule. Thus the codex isn't usable in our local meta. We post it so everyone knows the rules.

 Accolade wrote:

 Rezyn wrote:
Yeah I was chatting with a GW rep at the local GW store and he was saying "they would have to", yet I spoke with another guywho runs a FLGS and he said he wasnt going to allow them.

This seems to be the new GW mantra- just put all of the expansions into the main rules, then they have no choice! You have to buy our big kits! *Cackle*

It's like someone at GW thought they came up with the secret reason why everyone doesn't gravitate towards Apocalypse-size games. It's not a cost or preference issue, we just haven't been told what to do yet.

I hope they do roll all those rules into the one book. It would be cost effective for us and finally put to rest that we can use all the units available to us all the time.

Let the tears commence.

 Rezyn wrote:
Yeah I was chatting with a GW rep at the local GW store and he was saying "they would have to", .....

There is no 'have to' when it comes to tournaments. Not since GW stopped sponsoring them, anyway.

A TO is fully within his rights to disallow anything and everything he chooses.

I find it strange that people say Knights shouldn't exist as a codex, that the rules should have been sold in white dwarf.

If you don't want to spend money on the codex for the rules, that's fine as they were in white dwarf! Despite the availability of the white dwarf rules plenty of people at my local store have purchased the codex. I don't think you can argue against paying customers.

A lot of people on this forum seem to forget there is more to a codex than just rules and this content is obviously a selling point for many people.

My opinions on why the book was released as a codex? Firstly, GW had a huge amount of material they put together for this release, more than they would include in a dataslate (indeed more than they would include in a codex seeing as they've released a companion book and novel). Secondly, I feel GW perceives a portion of the players putting 'codex'on a pedestal. GW wanted to let us know this army is a 'proper' 40k army for day to day use, not some dataslate or expansion to be easily dismissed by 'core' gamers.

Sadly I haven't got a game in against any knights (neither primary nor ally) so I can't comment on their impact on the wider game.

If a knight player in the Nottingham/East Midlands is willing to organise a game or two with me some time I'd really appreciate it. After all the slagging off they get on the net I'd like to see if I can reduce these upstarts into a heap of molten slag!

Breng77 wrote:
Why is that? the d rules are in the knights codex.

I didn't know that.

Just ban that codex then and have done with it, if you don't want Knights in your tournament.

Its wierd that people are happy for the really cheesy broken units like Waves Serpents, Seer Counil, Riptides etc carry on but not Knights - or is that because people who win tournaments use the broken units...............

 Mr Morden wrote:
Its wierd that people are happy for the really cheesy broken units like Waves Serpents, Seer Counil, Riptides etc carry on but not Knights - or is that because people who win tournaments use the broken units...............

Actually I think you'll find the people who don't want to see Knights in tournaments are also the people who aren't happy with Serpent spam are also the people who aren't happy about both internal and cross codex imbalance.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

 Mr Morden wrote:
Its wierd that people are happy for the really cheesy broken units like Waves Serpents, Seer Counil, Riptides etc carry on but not Knights - or is that because people who win tournaments use the broken units...............

Actually I think you'll find the people who don't want to see Knights in tournaments are also the people who aren't happy with Serpent spam are also the people who aren't happy about both internal and cross codex imbalance.

100% spot on for me. Rather than put out a knights codex that adds more broken units to an already broken game I'd prefer to see them actually fix the broken things in the game.

If you don't want to spend money on the codex for the rules, that's fine as they were in white dwarf! Despite the availability of the white dwarf rules plenty of people at my local store have purchased the codex. I don't think you can argue against paying customers.

The entirety of the rules is not in a white dwarf.

A lot of people on this forum seem to forget there is more to a codex than just rules and this content is obviously a selling point for many people.

Codices exist primarily as a source for rules they have put out plenty of other fluff books to cover what they put in codex knights as far as fluff goes. Furthermore like I said to me (and this is my opinion) 1 unit does not an army make. They could have made a codex: knights, and actually put effort into the rules, and balanced the rules appropriately but they did not. They released a book filled with rules with the express purpose of pushing an extremely strong model, and multiples of that model (if it was a unit edition to an army people might buy one, now people will buy 3+ to run it as an army, furthermore because it was not added to specific armies more people will buy it) They are a company and allowed to make money, I just wish they put a little more thought into how they went about it.

Meh, when I don't play heavily house-ruled or home-brewed games (mostly on vassal) I've largely just resigned to GW going on a pantsless rampage throughout the wargaming community and decided to adapt.