Switch Theme:

Is it rude to run Imperial/Chaos Questores Knights in a casual or below 1250pt games?  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


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.




Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut




 Thairne wrote:

Also, again, what is the difference between a knight and 3 Leman Russes? Why is one acceptable and the other not?
Bias. Because "big stompy knight" was a thing before 8th dropped and you LITERALLY got boned against such lists. Not in 9th tho, which makes the entire argument fly out the window imo.

A couple of reasons:

1. The Russes normally come with a whole bunch of infantry and other vehicles, so the lists aren't skew in the same way Knights are.
2. With 3 different targets you can more easily destroy one, which reduces the effectiveness of the trio by a third. You can hide from one, or engage it in close combat to reduce its effectiveness. None of that applies to Knights. There's a huge difference between taking on a single model and 3 separate ones with roughly the same number of wounds.
   
Made in de
Mysterious Techpriest






1. In a 1000 or 1250pts game, you usually have armigers or other allies. Unless you want to play an entirety of 2 models, which not only makes you drain ALL your CP, but makes you factually unable to play the mission and do anything.

2. 3 different targets are harder to avoid, have more board control, more shots, more guns, are actually harder to take down and are far less easy to avoid and actually harder to play against. If I had a choice of my opp having 1 knight or 3 russes, I'd go for the knight, since its the objectively weaker choice.

I honestly dont get it. All I can see against knights in 9th is the stigma of knights being knights.

Data author for Battlescribe
Found a bug? Join, ask, report:
https://discord.gg/pMXqCqWJRE 
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut




 Thairne wrote:

I honestly dont get it. All I can see against knights in 9th is the stigma of knights being knights.

Well...yes. Many people have problems with Knights, superheavies in general, or fliers due to how awkwardly they sit within the game's rules or how they inevitably lead to skew, and that's regardless of whether they're actually good or not.
   
Made in de
Mysterious Techpriest






so you admit that no matter what knights can and cant do, its bad?
That, my friend, is the problem. And its not with the one wanting to play with his models, but others considering it "rude" without any factual basis.

Like Nekooni said earlier
Why is your "right" to bring skew more important than the other players enjoyment of the game, and their right to outright refuse the match once they see your list and decide "na, i dont want to play that"?

one can easily turn it around.
How am I rude if I want to play with the models I bought, build, painted and brought?
Its not rude. You can refuse, just like you can refuse to play anyhing, but its not RUDE. If your personal bias prevents you from playing a game without good cause, its not the one that brings the models that is rude.
And to me, that is a mark of a person that I would not want to play.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/09/15 12:59:29


Data author for Battlescribe
Found a bug? Join, ask, report:
https://discord.gg/pMXqCqWJRE 
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut




 Thairne wrote:
so you admit that no matter what knights can and cant do, its bad?

Again...yes.

 Thairne wrote:
That, my friend, is the problem. And its not with the one wanting to play with his models, but others considering it "rude" without any factual basis.

I'm not going to apologise for finding games against Knights dull to the point of narcolepsy. Nor do I have a problem with anyone who doesn't think that way. I don't think it's rude or wrong for someone to want to play Knights, but I can absolutely understand the problems their opponents may have playing against them, especially at lower points values. These aren't exactly surprising revelations for anyone who's been around 40k for any length of time. People preferring that superheavies and/or flyers not be in regular games of 40k may not be in the majority, but it's a common enough sentiment, in my experience.
   
Made in us
Humming Great Unclean One of Nurgle





In My Lab

I think a list of nothing but Leman Russes is just as potentially problematic as a list of nothing but T8 Knights.
They're both skew.

The difference is, an IG list that features some Leman Russes can easily include infantry and lighter vehicles, while a Knight list is more inherently skew.

At a tournament, you throw down no matter what. For a friendly game, you want to at least TRY to make sure everyone has fun.

Clocks for the clockmaker! Cogs for the cog throne! 
   
Made in de
Mysterious Techpriest






Slipspace wrote:
 Thairne wrote:
so you admit that no matter what knights can and cant do, its bad?

Again...yes.

 Thairne wrote:
That, my friend, is the problem. And its not with the one wanting to play with his models, but others considering it "rude" without any factual basis.

I'm not going to apologise for finding games against Knights dull to the point of narcolepsy. Nor do I have a problem with anyone who doesn't think that way. I don't think it's rude or wrong for someone to want to play Knights, but I can absolutely understand the problems their opponents may have playing against them, especially at lower points values. These aren't exactly surprising revelations for anyone who's been around 40k for any length of time. People preferring that superheavies and/or flyers not be in regular games of 40k may not be in the majority, but it's a common enough sentiment, in my experience.


That is a valid opinion and I'm not argueing or condemning you for it.
The question asked tho - is it rude? And the answer to me is a clear no.

Data author for Battlescribe
Found a bug? Join, ask, report:
https://discord.gg/pMXqCqWJRE 
   
Made in gb
Fixture of Dakka





The new edition of 30K seems to have the right approach, which is basically allow 1 Knight for every 2 Armigers. If you go that extra mile in 40K then I can't see how your opponent can complain.

Casual gaming, mostly solo-coop these days.

 
   
Made in de
Mysterious Techpriest






Any "serious" list usually goes 2/7 or even 1/10. Afaik there is no list that successfully runs 3/4. The less big knights, the better the list usually.

Data author for Battlescribe
Found a bug? Join, ask, report:
https://discord.gg/pMXqCqWJRE 
   
Made in gb
Fixture of Dakka





Yeah, as wonderful as the Knights are they eat up a lot of points where one could have 3-4 Armigers instead, which are quite powerful in their own right and one is afforded far more mobility.

The only thing with Imperial Knights is only having two Armigers to choose from, which are good but boring after the first few games. There is also the argument for having Knights in an army called "Imperial Knights"!

Thankfully Chaos Knights got three new Wardogs this year so its not so bad for them, but ideally both factions could do with just one more unit( Knight or Infantry ) to flesh things out at the smaller end.

Just my thoughts, though.

Casual gaming, mostly solo-coop these days.

 
   
Made in de
Witch Hunter in the Shadows



Aachen

 Thairne wrote:
so you admit that no matter what knights can and cant do, its bad?
That, my friend, is the problem. And its not with the one wanting to play with his models, but others considering it "rude" without any factual basis.

Like Nekooni said earlier
Why is your "right" to bring skew more important than the other players enjoyment of the game, and their right to outright refuse the match once they see your list and decide "na, i dont want to play that"?

one can easily turn it around.
How am I rude if I want to play with the models I bought, build, painted and brought?
Its not rude. You can refuse, just like you can refuse to play anyhing, but its not RUDE. If your personal bias prevents you from playing a game without good cause, its not the one that brings the models that is rude.
And to me, that is a mark of a person that I would not want to play.

Simply wanting to play your models is not rude, and noone claimed that as far as I am aware.
Maybe "rude" is not the right word, would you prefer "inconsiderate"? I was just using the same wording as the OP.

I'm simply saying talk to the other player beforehand so both know what to expect, that'll make for the best experience - in my experience. If the other side completely tailors their list to hardcounter you, guess what: they're being a dick. Call them out on it. You know what helps there? Talking. Exchanging lists. Because then you get a chance to tell them "hey, this is not going to be a fun game if you bring 3 Shadowswords now that you know I'm playing knights, can you please fix that?"

To keep it short on your other points, what JNA and Slipspace wrote perfectly represents what I think.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/09/17 09:33:36


 
   
Made in gb
Lord of the Fleet






London

I've had this scenario before in which a relative newbie asked to play me at 1250 and the only army I had on hand was my Knights. I only took two Knights and lied that it was 1250 but it was still a rather easy win that I felt rather bad about.

I'd say it'd be in bad taste to just spring Knights at that level without at least telling them beforehand if they're a bit of a stranger. If you think they're experienced enough to face Knights at a low points value then perhaps that'd be fine.

You can spout crap like "oh well I'm free to run whatever what I want", and you are, but just be a bit courteous towards your opponent.
   
Made in de
Ork Admiral Kroozin Da Kosmos on Da Hulk






Yeah, I gave knights all the chances, approached them with an open mind et all.

The issue is not them being strong or being particularly hard to beat.

Playing against knights in small games is just no fun, and IMO knight players need to be aware of that.

7 Ork facts people always get wrong:
Ragnar did not win against Thrakka, but suffered two crushing defeats within a few days of each other.
A lasgun is powerful enough to sever an ork's appendage or head in a single, well aimed shot.
Orks meks have a better understanding of electrics and mechanics than most Tech Priests.
Orks do not think that purple makes them harder to see. They do think that camouflage does however, without knowing why.
Gharkull Blackfang did not even come close to killing the emperor.
Orks can be corrupted by chaos, but few of them have any interest in what chaos offers.
Orks do not have the power of believe. 
   
Made in fi
Locked in the Tower of Amareo





 Thairne wrote:
1. In a 1000 or 1250pts game, you usually have armigers or other allies. Unless you want to play an entirety of 2 models, which not only makes you drain ALL your CP, but makes you factually unable to play the mission and do anything.

2. 3 different targets are harder to avoid, have more board control, more shots, more guns, are actually harder to take down and are far less easy to avoid and actually harder to play against. If I had a choice of my opp having 1 knight or 3 russes, I'd go for the knight, since its the objectively weaker choice.

I honestly dont get it. All I can see against knights in 9th is the stigma of knights being knights.


We see knights at tournament top tables. Not leman russ. If you rate russ higher says something about you

2024 painted/bought: 109/109 
   
Made in us
Fixture of Dakka




NE Ohio, USA

tneva82 wrote:
 Thairne wrote:
1. In a 1000 or 1250pts game, you usually have armigers or other allies. Unless you want to play an entirety of 2 models, which not only makes you drain ALL your CP, but makes you factually unable to play the mission and do anything.

2. 3 different targets are harder to avoid, have more board control, more shots, more guns, are actually harder to take down and are far less easy to avoid and actually harder to play against. If I had a choice of my opp having 1 knight or 3 russes, I'd go for the knight, since its the objectively weaker choice.

I honestly dont get it. All I can see against knights in 9th is the stigma of knights being knights.


We see knights at tournament top tables. Not leman russ. If you rate russ higher says something about you


You don't see any Russ because you don't see Guard....

   
Made in nl
Hardened Veteran Guardsman




If someone plays Knights (of either flavour) why shouldn't they be able to play in lower points games? Our local store, due to time constraints, only allows games up to 1,000 points. Based on the responses here Knights players would effectivly be banned and I can't really see why.
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut




Tallonian4th wrote:
If someone plays Knights (of either flavour) why shouldn't they be able to play in lower points games? Our local store, due to time constraints, only allows games up to 1,000 points. Based on the responses here Knights players would effectivly be banned and I can't really see why.

Ultimately it comes down to games being fun. It's no different to someone not wanting to play a game with their casual list against someone's tuned meta list in a tourney practice game. The difference with Knights is really just that they don't have much of an option to adjust because the issue is fundamental to their army's design. It's for that very reason many people think Knights shouldn't be their own army in the first place.
   
Made in us
Deathwing Terminator with Assault Cannon






 Jidmah wrote:
Yeah, I gave knights all the chances, approached them with an open mind et all.

The issue is not them being strong or being particularly hard to beat.

Playing against knights in small games is just no fun, and IMO knight players need to be aware of that.
To chime in and perhaps elaborate on this, some people like to play the game for the little tactical value it still retains somewhat, which happens to be wrestling for board control via offense and defense in holding/accomplishing objectives to accrue victory points.

When facing a knights list, your list can either be 1. one with enough counters to effectively kill/cripple the knight in first 2 turns, then dillydally rest of the game accruing points, or 2. one without enough counters so you play hide-and-seek all game long. In short, facing a knights list is a either-or situation and some people may find it distasteful to play against it for such reason.

Knights' only counter (high ap melee) is generally seldom included in a tac list because it's so specialized, limited to HQ's, and/or expensive. To fight against knights means taking more sources of high ap melee options than needed in a typical game, thus always requiring 'adjustments' to fight against them.

This message was edited 6 times. Last update was at 2022/09/19 20:30:06


 
   
Made in us
Fixture of Dakka




NE Ohio, USA

 skchsan wrote:

Knights' only counter (high ap melee) is generally seldom included in a tac list because it's so specialized, limited to HQ's, and/or expensive. To fight against knights means taking more sources of high ap melee options than needed in a typical game, thus always requiring 'adjustments' to fight against them.


Lol. High AP melee is by no means the ONLY counter.

   
Made in us
Deathwing Terminator with Assault Cannon






ccs wrote:
 skchsan wrote:

Knights' only counter (high ap melee) is generally seldom included in a tac list because it's so specialized, limited to HQ's, and/or expensive. To fight against knights means taking more sources of high ap melee options than needed in a typical game, thus always requiring 'adjustments' to fight against them.


Lol. High AP melee is by no means the ONLY counter.

"Means of dealing with" is not the same thing as a "counter". Sure, you can throw a lot of high S shots hoping it fails its invul, but that's precisely what knights are meant to tank. Also, you can't take enough MW sources to effectively deal with knights in small games either - and if your answer to knights is MWs, then that in itself is a MW spam skew list.

And you're not getting the point of the discussion here - we're not saying knights are unbeatable army but simply requires tweaking your list to a certain degree in order to effectively handle them because otherwise the only thing you have is weight of dice. Some people are ok with it, some people aren't.

This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2022/09/19 22:44:18


 
   
Made in de
Witch Hunter in the Shadows



Aachen

Tallonian4th wrote:
If someone plays Knights (of either flavour) why shouldn't they be able to play in lower points games? Our local store, due to time constraints, only allows games up to 1,000 points. Based on the responses here Knights players would effectivly be banned and I can't really see why.

So instead of talking to players beforehand youd rather drive to the store and then find out noone wants to play with you? I really dont get whats the issue with just asking. People are more likely to say yes to a match this way.
   
Made in us
Strangely Beautiful Daemonette of Slaanesh





Denver, CO

So, obviously the general merits have been played out in this thread, though, I would say the proponents of 'why is this any more or less rude than tide? and 'why are my models the problem?' and 'why shouldn't I play any level games with X models' are just theory hammering their point without regard to the reality of play. Setting aside the obvious 'casual vs competitive' which the same people would cast aside, they remain unable to accept the existence of two basic things:

1. People who do not wish to play Knights/super X lists are simply not going to play them. I don't know anyone who shows up with a massive side board to use as a hard counter to whomever in a PUG setting. So that argument is moot and probably not based in reality.

2. People. These games are played by people, with people. It is an inherently social gathering.
These games take a lot of time. Even seasoned players will spend 2-4 hours on a single game. When you're in a PUG setting with normally functioning adults with normal lives and responsibilities, the vast majority do not have time to waste debating whether or not your Knights/skew list is worth their time.

But it's that basic human interaction, that investment of personal time eating into family obligations which is going to force the hand. So, given their investment in just getting to a location to play, not having that basic conversation or wanting to argue about how they should play your list is in fact being Rude and showing you do not respect them or their time. I've played enough games where someone brought a skew list, or deathstar, or heavies/fliers to know that person isn't interested in playing the same type of game I am. So then I'm left holding the bag and either losing my entire afternoon or possibly playing a game I know I will not enjoy.


It's not about You. It's about Us.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/09/30 03:14:13


 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
This line of reasoning broke 7th edition in Fantasy. The books should be as equal as possible, even a theoretical "Codex: Squirrels with Crustacean allies" should have a fair chance to beat "Codex: God".

 Redbeard wrote:

- Cost? FW models cost more? Because Thudd guns are more expensive than Wraithknights and Riptides. Nope, not a good argument. This is an expensive game. We play it knowing that, and also knowing that, realistically, it's cheaper than hookers and blow.
 
   
 
Forum Index » 40K General Discussion
Go to: