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.

 DJGietzen wrote:
2) Its a 1 in 6 chance the model gets worse. An equal chance the model gets better. 2/3 of the time rolling on the chart would do nothing. Seems like a fair trade to me, and a decent way to keep the unit interesting with out a bunch of 'upgrades'

Giving every model in your army a 1 in six chance of being worse than what you paid for is not 'keeping them interesting'. It's lunacy.

It's akin to removing veterans and scouts from the Marine codex, and rolling a die for each of your tactical squads at the start of each game to see what you actually wind up fielding. It's a stupid idea as a part of normal gameplay.

 insaniak wrote:
See, the same could be said about the guy who spent all of that time converting something that they knew from the start wasn't going to be game-legal.

Personally, I might allow it in a friendly game at home if we had discussed it previously and agreed on appropriate rules for it... But a lot of people prefer to stick to the actual rules of the game, as nonsensical as that may be rapidly becomming.

I would absolutely encourage someone to ask the group first before embarking on a modelling project that they might not be allowed to use. I understand a new group or tournament setting would be a different kettle of fish.

I am currently at the stage where I feel like "the rules of the game" are a close approximation (98.756%) to the way people should be playing and that adding or subtracting "small" changes to make the game more playable is something people should do because currently... they are totally nonsensical!!

The above allows me to think playing a knight in a chaos army would be 100% legit because honestly.. considering where everything else is at.. why not?

bodazoka wrote:
Please understand I don't mean bringing a "codex grey" painted model slapping it on the table next to your Tyranid's and going "lets play". But if someone converts that bad boy to look like a Magus is piloting it with a bunch of rippers crawling around it leading some units of purestrains then yes he is allowed to play it. And he get's some respect points from me for doing it!

Yeah, but that's changing the rules even more. "I made a really cool conversion" isn't a justifiable reason to start changing the rules.

 DJGietzen wrote:

 azreal13 wrote:


It is written as a choice, rather than a compulsion.

Agreed it is gakky unimaginative rules writing though.

1) You don't know how its written, you only know how it was presented to you second hand. It might very well be optional, it might not.

And that's exactly what I was referring to. Or was it not written as a choice in the post we were discussing?

2) Its a 1 in 6 chance the model gets worse. An equal chance the model gets better. 2/3 of the time rolling on the chart would do nothing. Seems like a fair trade to me, and a decent way to keep the unit interesting with out a bunch of 'upgrades'

Nope, it's stupid, as it is supposed to represent either novice or veteran level warriors, something even GW has traditionally made a choice almost all the time.

Guys.. look at the epid equivalents.. it's obvious that chaos is going to get their own version of these kinds of models..

The random dice roll for the quality of your knight just helps you forge a better narrative!

After rolling a '1', you can imagine how the actual pilot is drunk after a feast in his holdfast and some excited squire took it for a spin instead!

Cinematic!

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

bodazoka wrote:
*snip*

Nope, sorry, doesn't matter how well it's converted, no. If you add a rule of "as long as it's converted well, play whatever the hell you want!", then everyone would just start converting everything to get around the rules, and the rules are whacky enough as they are.

Sorry I don't mean everything is capable of being converted and played, specifically these knights I feel could (and maybe should) be used that way. I would like to see where they are at in 6 months, I don't believe GW would limit something this cool to purely imperial. It would make financial sense to have some sort of conversion kit for other races (specifically chaos) and you know how they like money!!

 DJGietzen wrote:
2) Its a 1 in 6 chance the model gets worse. An equal chance the model gets better. 2/3 of the time rolling on the chart would do nothing. Seems like a fair trade to me, and a decent way to keep the unit interesting with out a bunch of 'upgrades'

I wouldn't call it a "decent" way, I'd call it a "piss poor" way. They're basically like different troops and you're rolling to see which one you get. They could have just made them unique troops, maybe even with different weapon options, different markings, different schemes, different point costs... kind of like they do in every other army.

It's basically like playing a Bretonnian army and you take a dozen "Knights" for a certain number of points and then roll to see if they are Errant, Realm, Questing or Grail instead of just picking Errant, Realm, Questing or Grail and paying the appropriate points for them.

bodazoka wrote:

 azreal13 wrote:
Would you play against someone who built a 6' x 1" void shield generator and then placed their whole Tau gunline under it's protection?

This is on the same curve, just more towards the reasonable end. I have absolutely no issue with counts as models (I have many myself) but using units you shouldn't just because you chose to build them? Nah.

haha that's a bit extreme isn't it? little bit strawman? of course you wouldn't play that.. but the guy who bring's that get's a hand shake that game and a "congrats you win" before I place my models down and I go play someone else!

Please understand I don't mean bringing a "codex grey" painted model slapping it on the table next to your Tyranid's and going "lets play". But if someone converts that bad boy to look like a Magus is piloting it with a bunch of rippers crawling around it leading some units of purestrains then yes he is allowed to play it. And he get's some respect points from me for doing it!

I'm aware of what you are referring to. I agree with Insaniak, organised in advance, in a game amongst friends, I'd probably go with it, but outside of that...

Actually, my example is not a strawman at all. My void shield example is technically legal, as nowhere are a void shield's dimensions specified, nor is there currently a model, so there is no basis in rules (but in reasonable behaviour, of course) to deny it. Using a unit as battle brothers with an army it isn't allowed to ally with/normally isn't BB with is an overt ignoring/breaking of the rules.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

dereksatkinson wrote:
Guys.. look at the epid equivalents.. it's obvious that chaos is going to get their own version of these kinds of models..

The fear is the incredibly derpy Skull Train Of Doom is the equivalent, and I doubt you'll find many who'd argue that the IK isn't a much cooler model.

 insaniak wrote:

I suspect that you would find quite a few gaming groups scattered around who would be reluctant to accept 'But I built it, and that was hard!' as a valid reason for ignoring the rules...

What fething rules? GWs "rules" are rapidly becoming irrelevant if everyone is having to "tune" the rules to make a balanced game. The ever increasing stupidity of newly released rules is balkanizing the 40K player base and hurting the game.

Crablezworth says it well:

 Crablezworth wrote:

It's now a political nightmare to get a game in with new people and new groups and that problem is only further compounded with every week that sees a new release. I wish it was a simple dychotomy but there's so much crap in 40k now that every group has its own biases, there's no baseline anymore, no standard and it's destructive as hell.

 azreal13 wrote:
I'm aware of what you are referring to. I agree with Insaniak, organised in advance, in a game amongst friends, I'd probably go with it, but outside of that...

Actually, my example is not a strawman at all. My void shield example is technically legal, as nowhere are a void shield's dimensions specified, nor is there currently a model, so there is no basis in rules (but in reasonable behaviour, of course) to deny it. Using a unit as battle brothers with an army it isn't allowed to ally with/normally isn't BB with is an overt ignoring/breaking of the rules.

Well.. if we are being technical the model in your example does not have complete rules, so how are you even allowed to field it?

bodazoka wrote:

 azreal13 wrote:
I'm aware of what you are referring to. I agree with Insaniak, organised in advance, in a game amongst friends, I'd probably go with it, but outside of that...

Actually, my example is not a strawman at all. My void shield example is technically legal, as nowhere are a void shield's dimensions specified, nor is there currently a model, so there is no basis in rules (but in reasonable behaviour, of course) to deny it. Using a unit as battle brothers with an army it isn't allowed to ally with/normally isn't BB with is an overt ignoring/breaking of the rules.

Well.. if we are being technical the model in your example does not have complete rules, so how are you even allowed to field it?

Of course it does, it's in Stronghold Assault. It's just a stellar example of poor rules writing from GW. Again.

 azreal13 wrote:

dereksatkinson wrote:
Guys.. look at the epid equivalents.. it's obvious that chaos is going to get their own version of these kinds of models..

The fear is the incredibly derpy Skull Train Of Doom is the equivalent, and I doubt you'll find many who'd argue that the IK isn't a much cooler model.

And why not using the new models as count as with the StoD(TM) rules? If GW no longer cares about rules and doesn't sponsor any kind of organized gaming it seems logical that people with a gaming group would adapt some house rules as using count-as or their own gaming level (regular, escalation...) to their playing style.

M.

 azreal13 wrote:
Of course it does, it's in Stronghold Assault. It's just a stellar example of poor rules writing from GW. Again.

I said it has in complete rules, so how are you able to play it?

I really wanted to get a knight. I really did. The kit looks fantastic, it's very reminiscent of the old epic models, well updated and gorgeous to boot.

But it seems that each new bit of information we get about it, in conjunction with glimpses at the future of 40k, and I just feel like the game is falling apart. US full retail to play one knight costs $181...I guess you could get more "bang for your buck" by running more knights, but it appears that the rules in the codex are basically just rules for ONE MODEL?! so it doesn't sound like you can really improve that cost.

Look, I love 40k fluff, I always have (it's probably been one of the driving factors keeping me in the game), but I like to purchase game-focused books with relatively equivalent amounts of rules and fluff. There cannot be that much rule content, so I'm essentially paying for background with the codex. But wait, it can't be that much fluff because what would the companion book be? (This would have been a perfect opportunity to provide a small rulebook very cheap...honestly, one model's rules aren't worth more than $10 are they?. And the fluff could have been put in the compendium)

I just can't bring myself to pay all that money for one (albeit very pretty) model. Though with escalation coming it sounds like I won't have much of a choice whether or not to play against bigger and bigger units...I feel genuinely sad that 40k is turning into this, I wish everyone who keeps playing it well but I feel like I'm paying more and more money to play an imaginary game of toy robots!

"pew pew! I got you! Nuh-uh, my robot has a special laser shield! Whatever, my robot has a special shield-melting ice cannon!"

bodazoka wrote:

 azreal13 wrote:
Of course it does, it's in Stronghold Assault. It's just a stellar example of poor rules writing from GW. Again.

I said it has in complete rules, so how are you able to play it?

Exactly.

There's still more rules supporting it's inclusion in the game than what you're proposing.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Miguelsan wrote:

 azreal13 wrote:

dereksatkinson wrote:
Guys.. look at the epid equivalents.. it's obvious that chaos is going to get their own version of these kinds of models..

The fear is the incredibly derpy Skull Train Of Doom is the equivalent, and I doubt you'll find many who'd argue that the IK isn't a much cooler model.

And why not using the new models as count as with the StoD(TM) rules? If GW no longer cares about rules and doesn't sponsor any kind of organized gaming it seems logical that people with a gaming group would adapt some house rules as using count-as or their own gaming level (regular, escalation...) to their playing style.

M.

Because not everyone is very good, or confident, in conversion work, and they'd like a model as cool as the IK for Chaos that they can just glue together and slap paint on, but won't look like a mess.

Which, I guess, given GWs track record of "just add spikes" might be a forlorn hope, even with an official model.

 Blacksails wrote:
The random dice roll for the quality of your knight just helps you forge a better narrative!

After rolling a '1', you can imagine how the actual pilot is drunk after a feast in his holdfast and some excited squire took it for a spin instead!

Cinematic!

If I didn't know that you were being facetious...

I don't see how the hell one can forge a narrative when they have to roll on a random table to determine something's traits. Honestly, I always found it dumb how psychic powers and warlord traits were random in general. Oh, so today after forging my narrative, Sergent Togard has It Will Not Die! The next day, however, he instead commands his troops and inspires them to be fearless instead! And the next battle, he now makes enemies have fear! Despite how it's the same Sergent Togard!

How the gak does that make any narrative sense whatsoever?

These knight random tables are the same way. They basically took a stupid system and made it apply to even more things.

No one writes a story with a D6. At least, no one worth reading writes a story with a D6.

I dunno, when I roll for stats it kind creates the character in D&D.

If I get an 8 for int, or a 6 for strength, it really needs to be written into the characters backstory.

Or if he is almost 10s cross the board, he is the everyman hero.

 Crablezworth wrote:
No one writes a story with a D6. At least, no one worth reading writes a story with a D6.

So the DragonLance series would fall into the latter category?

 Leth wrote:
I dunno, when I roll for stats it kind creates the character in D&D.

If I get an 8 for int, or a 6 for strength, it really needs to be written into the characters backstory.

Or if he is almost 10s cross the board, he is the everyman hero.

For the most part very very few play DnD like that anymore :p Not since 3rd edition really when most use alternate rolling methods because people just remade their characters instead of forging a narrative playing a completely useless excuse for a character..

Also, your analogy is false because you don't roll your characters stats EVERY adventure like you do with warlord and psychic powers.

My group has chosen warlord traits from the get go, the only time I have to roll randomly is tournaments and everytime I do it's a reminder of just how terrible the random mechanic really is. I'm not really surprised to see the same jervis knows best approach with the knights, he's likely the only one left so no one to talk him out of it.

 Brothererekose wrote:

 Crablezworth wrote:
No one writes a story with a D6. At least, no one worth reading writes a story with a D6.

So the DragonLance series would fall into the latter category?

Never heard of it.

MECHANICUM MYRMIDON DESTRUCTORS new release from forge world people! add this to the knights..

One step closer to a Mechanicum army.. it will happen!!

 azreal13 wrote:

 Miguelsan wrote:

 azreal13 wrote:

dereksatkinson wrote:
Guys.. look at the epid equivalents.. it's obvious that chaos is going to get their own version of these kinds of models..

The fear is the incredibly derpy Skull Train Of Doom is the equivalent, and I doubt you'll find many who'd argue that the IK isn't a much cooler model.

And why not using the new models as count as with the StoD(TM) rules? If GW no longer cares about rules and doesn't sponsor any kind of organized gaming it seems logical that people with a gaming group would adapt some house rules as using count-as or their own gaming level (regular, escalation...) to their playing style.

M.

Because not everyone is very good, or confident, in conversion work, and they'd like a model as cool as the IK for Chaos that they can just glue together and slap paint on, but won't look like a mess.

Which, I guess, given GWs track record of "just add spikes" might be a forlorn hope, even with an official model.

That's not what I said. I'm proposing that given the current "forge the narrative" theme GW seems to like so much if you are playing with a regular group of equal minded people it might be very possible to reach a compromise to use the new knights as count-as for Khornemowers. I will agree that it's not posible for every army but surely people can find a place in most codexes for a Knight baing used as a count-as.

M.

dereksatkinson wrote:
Guys.. look at the epid equivalents.. it's obvious that chaos is going to get their own version of these kinds of models..

It is no such thing.

If THAT is "obvious", then it's also obvious that they're going to alter the WraithKnight soon, to make it a Gargantuan Creature, as it's acknowledged to be the updated version of the old Epic Eldar Knights.

Far more likely, IMHO, is that they'll fob off a Chaos version to FW at some unknown point in the future, and consider CSM players to already be good to go, since there's that Khornemower available to us.

 Accolade wrote:
US full retail to play one knight costs $181...

How do you even get at this number? You got the rules in the WD so you don't really need much else, so that's about $145 plus tax if you go retail. The only time you need the codex is if you want the background or if you need something not in the WD (no idea what that would be until I see the codex).

 insaniak wrote:

 DJGietzen wrote:
2) Its a 1 in 6 chance the model gets worse. An equal chance the model gets better. 2/3 of the time rolling on the chart would do nothing. Seems like a fair trade to me, and a decent way to keep the unit interesting with out a bunch of 'upgrades'

Giving every model in your army a 1 in six chance of being worse than what you paid for is not 'keeping them interesting'. It's lunacy.

It's akin to removing veterans and scouts from the Marine codex, and rolling a die for each of your tactical squads at the start of each game to see what you actually wind up fielding. It's a stupid idea as a part of normal gameplay.

Would you prefer a rule that for every knight titan in your force you can roll a d6, on a 1 nothing happens, on a 2-5 they get +1 BS and WS and better ion shields and on a 6 they get +2 BS and WS and the best ion shields?

Its the same mechanic used in the grey knight dex with the space monkeys. As we've heard it described its a lot less nuanced but its still the same thing and no one complained then that I can recall.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Breotan wrote:

 Accolade wrote:
US full retail to play one knight costs $181...

How do you even get at this number? You got the rules in the WD so you don't really need much else, so that's about $145 plus tax if you go retail. The only time you need the codex is if you want the background or if you need something not in the WD (no idea what that would be until I see the codex).

The white dwarf rules seem incomplete. Depending on how incomplete you may need the codex after all.

 DJGietzen wrote:

 Breotan wrote:

 Accolade wrote:
US full retail to play one knight costs $181...

How do you even get at this number? You got the rules in the WD so you don't really need much else, so that's about $145 plus tax if you go retail. The only time you need the codex is if you want the background or if you need something not in the WD (no idea what that would be until I see the codex).

The white dwarf rules seem incomplete. Depending on how incomplete you may need the codex after all.

Well, to be fair, I am framing my argument from the PoV of allies and not actually a main detachment. Given the "play one knight" statement I quoted, I assumed Accolade was going along the same lines.

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:

 MWHistorian wrote:
Wait....no Chaos knights? Why the ____ not? I'm going to throat punch the next GW employee I see.


Still an awesome model though.

I hope the next GW employee you see is a 500lb silverback gorilla with a GW redshirt and 'call me dave' on his nametag...

well, now we've got that out of the way, I would suggest there will likely be a chaos version or at least a 'chaos kit' along in good time, perhaps with rules, weapons and a shiny new codex all their own.

I wouldn't hold my breath. Chaos marines haven't been the darker reflection of the imperial brothers for a very long time, and in 6th edition that divide has grown by leaps and bounds. To complicate things, while FW makes a chaos reaver and warhound titans, there are no rules for those models in any 6th edition 40k book put out by the GW design team. I'd never stop a friend from using one in an apocalypse game, but they simply are supported in proper 40k (i.e what the GW design team has published as 40k or a 40k expansion/codex)


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Breotan wrote:

 DJGietzen wrote:

 Breotan wrote:

 Accolade wrote:
US full retail to play one knight costs $181...

How do you even get at this number? You got the rules in the WD so you don't really need much else, so that's about $145 plus tax if you go retail. The only time you need the codex is if you want the background or if you need something not in the WD (no idea what that would be until I see the codex).

The white dwarf rules seem incomplete. Depending on how incomplete you may need the codex after all.

Well, to be fair, I am framing my argument from the PoV of allies and not actually a main detachment. Given the "play one knight" statement I quoted, I assumed Accolade was going along the same lines.

OK, in that POV is your knight titan scoring? Is it a battle brother to your primary detachment? How about any of the other questions that might pop up becouse the codex says something the WD failed to mention and we just did'nt or could'nt think of it yet. You can't say the WD article is "enough" or not until the codex is published and we can KNOW whats inside it.