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.

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

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

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

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

SJ

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

SJ

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

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

The Imperial Answer wrote:

rollawaythestone wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

rollawaythestone wrote:

The Imperial Answer wrote:

rollawaythestone wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 Peregrine wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

There are no excuses other than not dreaming big enough.

SJ

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

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

 Peregrine wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

 Peregrine wrote:


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

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

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

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

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

 Peregrine wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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




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

 Peregrine wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Imperial Answer wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

Davor wrote:

The Imperial Answer wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 Peregrine wrote:

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

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

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

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

Davor wrote:

The Imperial Answer wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Really?

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



Automatically Appended Next Post:

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

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

 Peregrine wrote:

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

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

I can find nothing wrong with that idea.

 Peregrine wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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


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

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

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

The Imperial Answer wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

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

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

I can find nothing wrong with that idea.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 Peregrine wrote:

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

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

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