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.

So is there any general consensus on whether or not the 15mm leviathan crusader would work as a good substitute for a knight because from the pics it would seem that with a bit of basing it should be a comparable size. Does anyone have a pic of the two side by side?

 Therion wrote:
Of course, but that's really just semantics.

I don't disagree. I've always wanted to do a Tyranid army made up of Guardsmen. Running Guardsmen with double daggers for Hormagaunts, various Monstrous Creatures made up using Sentinels and whatnot. The expense of such a thing (and the fact that I already have a Tyranid army) has always stopped me, but I like the idea.

But at the end a Blood Angel army pretending to be Night Lords or a Guard army that calls itself “Renegade Guard” isn’t really the issue (it’s just semantics). The issue I’ve been talking about is taking something in your army that your army cannot normally have. That is breaking the rules and (I’m getting sick of typing this), not everyone is going to be ok with that and expecting people to be ok with that is wrong and and denigrating those that want to follow the rules is doubly wrong.

 Therion wrote:
That's why DIY Space Marine chapters have always had 5 codices to choose rules from, and why a traitor army big enough with enough unit options can play using as many as 8 or more codices.

My armies were structured in much the same way. My Ultramarines were always Ultramarines, but (when such things existed, before Chaos got Jervisified) my Chaos jumped between Iron Warriors, Alpha Legion, World Eaters and Word Bearers an awful lot. My Guard is set up to do all-infantry, Mechanised, mixed, armoured company and air-cav (and due to the size of my Guard army, can do several of those simultaneously, but that’s neither here nor there).

But a Chaos army, using the Chaos Codex, attempting to bring a Knight (or any other things listed under Come the Apocalypse) to the table is not the same thing. It’s a case of actually breaking the rules.

 Therion wrote:
Everyone's got a right to be upset about anything they want but in this light personally I can't get upset if I can't put a Heldrake and a Knight Paladin in the same army. I can have both on the shelf painted in the same colors and just field them at different events.

And that’s great, but as I’ve said, that’s not really the point. The point is (and now I’m just going to copy/paste this)… breaking the rules and (I’m getting sick of typing this), not everyone is going to be ok with that and expecting people to be ok with that is wrong and[/i] and denigrating those that want to follow the rules is doubly wrong.[/i].

 Zweischneid wrote:

I never expect anyone to be anything. I always ask nicely, as should everyone. Always. Without exception.

And? So? But? Therefore? Have I said anywhere that you shouldn’t?

 Zweischneid wrote:
But if you ask, and everyone agrees, what's the problem? Why stick to some idealistic rules-conformity "pre-emptively" before even bothering to ask?

I love how you’re saying “rules-confirmity” as if it were a bad thing. Playing by the rules is the norm, not the exception. Why is sticking to the rules 'idealistic'? It’s better to assume that people follow the rules than to assume that they don’t and that they’re somehow being an ass if they don’t let you field whatever you want.

 Zweischneid wrote:
Not to mention that quite a few people mentioned that "counts-as" is "ok" where "just adding a Knight" is not? Well, than do the former, if that is for some arcane reason more "palatable" and "acceptable". Same result, Chaos Knight on the table.

It’s not the same result Z. It’s not even close.

One scenario has you using a Knight as a Khornemower in your Chaos army. Bit of a different silhouette, but whatever; they’re both huge so it’s hardly entering the realms of ‘modelling for advantage’. You’re paying the points listed in the Escalation (or Apoc) book for it, using the rules printed in that book, and we go from there.

The other is using a Knight as a Knight in a Chaos army, and Chaos can’t get Knights. It’s worlds apart.

The rules are tools to have fun, not tools to spoil the fun.

And? I’ve never said anything to the contrary. I won’t fight your legion of straw men Z. It just ain’t going to happen. Come back when you’ve got an argument that’s on topic, or don’t come back at all. I don’t care either way.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

shade1313 wrote:
Again, it can quite handily be used if you play a traitor themed guard army.

I'm sure that's a comforting thought for all the CSM players out there.

Since I'm one of those CSM players, who has already voiced his displeasure at the ally table as reported, I can report that, no, it's not really all that comforting. Just in case you were wondering.

H.B.M.C. wrote:
But a Chaos army, using the Chaos Codex, attempting to bring a Knight (or any other things listed under Come the Apocalypse) to the table is not the same thing. It’s a case of actually breaking the rules.

That's obvious. There are enough legal theme options in the game that noone needs to try bring Hive Tyrants in Dark Angels armies, or Imperial Knights in Codex: Chaos Space Marines armies. Rules are rules.

Hey look at that. Someone in here gets it. Thank you Therion.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Hey look at that. Someone in here gets it. Thank you Therion.

*raises hand*

What am I, Nurgle gas?!

I thought we established this already: You are a lower case z.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Hey look at that. Someone in here gets it. Thank you Therion.

I get it, I really do, I just totally disagree.

 insaniak wrote:

 Breotan wrote:
Yea, iirc that's a pretty big change from the original fluff where the AdMech made these for the Knight worlds.

Wasn't the 'original' fluff that Knights were built by Eldar?

They had their own, I remember but I thought the Knight Worlds were originally a tight group of worlds out on the frontier somewhere and the AdMech built the Knights for the local lords who loved tournaments and jousting and stuff. I'm likely misremembering a lot and I don't have the old stuff available to look at so if someone has it, please correct me.

 MWHistorian wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Hey look at that. Someone in here gets it. Thank you Therion.

I get it, I really do, I just totally disagree.

We're not allowed to have an opinion different than H.B.M.C.'s

 MWHistorian wrote:

I get it, I really do, I just totally disagree.

Disagree with which part?

Disagree that it’s breaking the rules (which it is – CSM cannot ally with Knights, doing so breaks the rules)?
Disagree that assuming people will be ok with it won’t be the norm?
Disagree that denigrating people that conform with the rules is bad?

As I keep saying, what you do with your friends is fine. If someone at your LGS is ok with it, even better! But it is breaking the rules, and expecting people to just go along with it or, worse, attacking them because they won’t is flat out wrong.

 Breotan wrote:
We're not allowed to have an opinion different than H.B.M.C.'s

Cut that gak out now. If you want to argue against my points, do so. But if you're going to start coming at me directly rather than what I'm saying, then that little yellow triangle's gonna get a lot of use.

 MWHistorian wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Hey look at that. Someone in here gets it. Thank you Therion.

I get it, I really do, I just totally disagree.

It's hard for people to stay on topic while arguing with someone who doesn't think players need to follow the rules of 40K when playing games of 40K. I'm curious what the motivation for intentionally breaking fairly simple rules is, especially given the fact that everyone has alternatives I've talked about previously, but I fear it's a topic that will end this thread

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Disagree that assuming people will be ok with it won’t be the norm?

Sure. Let's go with this one. Will everyone be okay with it? No. But it only takes one person for me to get a game in. People who aren't okay with it don't have to play a game with me, do they?

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
But it is breaking the rules, and expecting people to just go along with it or, worse, attacking them because they won’t is flat out wrong.

No, but doing your own thing and asking if people are okay with it is just fine. If someone says no, either look for a different opponent or adjust your army. If someone gets all bent out of shape about it, then yes they are an asshat and you're better off looking for a different opponent anyway.

 Breotan wrote:

Thud wrote:

 Breotan wrote:
Not at tournaments but I'm sure you could get plenty of pick-up games at stores as long as you inform your opponent about what you're doing. Yes, there will be the obstinate fellow who will pitch a fit, but most people (based solely on the people I know in my area) should be fine with it.

So, you want to cheat (which is what breaking the rules is) and if your opponent won't let you, he is the dick?

Okaaaaaaaay.

If I can use your reply as a case study, then yes. Most people who decline to play "illegal" armies like that are just fine to do so. I'm saying that outside the tournament scene it really isn't that big a deal.

Not to cut this to the quick, but all of this argument seems to circle around a simple fact:

Games Workshop rules are so bad they constitute an active impediment of enjoyment of the game.

I don't mean to be crude about it, but no one would seriously suggest using, say, a Stormwall in a Khador army (Warmachine reference). I don't mean use the model (because you like it better then the Conquest model), but use the model and the rules. This would be a non-starter in almost any setting because PP does precisely what GW does not: write rules that are balanced and work as written. N.B., just using PP here as an example, I could have used Infinity (Morats in a Japanese Sectoral?)... or basically any other game system, really.

I find it very interesting that no one seems to be arguing about the balance implications of putting a Knight in a Chaos army: I suspect that is because such an argument is laughable on its face. So, I suppose, the real point is, if GW doesn't take its rules seriously enough to care, why should any player?

 Buzzsaw wrote:

 Breotan wrote:

Thud wrote:

 Breotan wrote:
Not at tournaments but I'm sure you could get plenty of pick-up games at stores as long as you inform your opponent about what you're doing. Yes, there will be the obstinate fellow who will pitch a fit, but most people (based solely on the people I know in my area) should be fine with it.

So, you want to cheat (which is what breaking the rules is) and if your opponent won't let you, he is the dick?

Okaaaaaaaay.

If I can use your reply as a case study, then yes. Most people who decline to play "illegal" armies like that are just fine to do so. I'm saying that outside the tournament scene it really isn't that big a deal.

Not to cut this to the quick, but all of this argument seems to circle around a simple fact:

Games Workshop rules are so bad they constitute an active impediment of enjoyment of the game.

I don't mean to be crude about it, but no one would seriously suggest using, say, a Stormwall in a Khador army (Warmachine reference). I don't mean use the model (because you like it better then the Conquest model), but use the model and the rules. This would be a non-starter in almost any setting because PP does precisely what GW does not: write rules that are balanced and work as written. N.B., just using PP here as an example, I could have used Infinity (Morats in a Japanese Sectoral?)... or basically any other game system, really.

I find it very interesting that no one seems to be arguing about the balance implications of putting a Knight in a Chaos army: I suspect that is because such an argument is laughable on its face. So, I suppose, the real point is, if GW doesn't take its rules seriously enough to care, why should any player?

Right. This is an etiquette discussion. I don't think anyone thinks that GW balanced the Knight with the armies it IS allowed to be fielded by, so...

 Breotan wrote:
Sure. Let's go with this one. Will everyone be okay with it? No. But it only takes one person for me to get a game in. People who aren't okay with it don't have to play a game with me, do they?

O…k…? I’ve never made any argument to the contrary. The issue has never been that you won’t find people who aren’t ok with it, or that you need to find lots of people that are ok with it. My point of contention has always been – right from the start, repeated ad-fething-nauseam – that you shouldn’t just expect people to be ok with it and that people who aren’t ok with it are not automatically ass-hats (as you put it) for wanting to play by the rules.

No, but doing your own thing and asking if people are okay with it is just fine.

Never said it wasn’t.

If someone says no, either look for a different opponent or adjust your army.

Sounds perfectly reasonable to me.

If someone gets all bent out of shape about it, then yes they are an asshat and you're better off looking for a different opponent anyway.

This isn’t about someone getting ‘bent out of shape’ because you want to break the rules. It’s about the assumption that people will just be ok with people taking units that aren’t in their Codex (ie. playing 40K without following the 40K rules, as Therion put it), and that people who don’t wish to break the rules are somehow in the wrong.

 Buzzsaw wrote:
Not to cut this to the quick, but all of this argument seems to circle around a simple fact:

Games Workshop rules are so bad they constitute an active impediment of enjoyment of the game.

I don't think it's quite that bad but I understand your point.

 Buzzsaw wrote:
I find it very interesting that no one seems to be arguing about the balance implications of putting a Knight in a Chaos army: I suspect that is because such an argument is laughable on its face. So, I suppose, the real point is, if GW doesn't take its rules seriously enough to care, why should any player?

I think we've all given up on there being balance within 40k, especially with the rumor of Apoc and Escalation becoming incorporated instead of just add-ons. And I don't think my position is one of not taking the rules seriously. It's more about the rule of cool and just having some fun with your friends.

Calm down H.B.M.C. you maniac, you're going to give H.M.B.C. a bad name with all this crazed ranting!
What are you doing with the knife! Forcing people not to break the rules of 40k isn't worth killing over...noooooooo!

 Buzzsaw wrote:

Not to cut this to the quick, but all of this argument seems to circle around a simple fact:

Games Workshop rules are so bad they constitute an active impediment of enjoyment of the game.

That tends to be a given most of the time, but that’s not what I’ve been getting at these past few pages. I fully acknowledge that the rules of 40K are insufficient at the best of times, but my point of contention is that wishing to follow the printed rules is not inherently bad, abnormal or something that should not be done. Bringing a Knight in a CSM army is breaking the rules, regardless of whether those rules are good or bad to begin with.

 Buzzsaw wrote:
I find it very interesting that no one seems to be arguing about the balance implications of putting a Knight in a Chaos army: I suspect that is because such an argument is laughable on its face. So, I suppose, the real point is, if GW doesn't take its rules seriously enough to care, why should any player?

Again, it’s a given. There’s no point in arguing “balance” when we’re talking about a 360 point 6HP super-heavy that doesn’t follow the Lord of War rules, can score, and carries a Strength D weapon into battle as part of a just-as-official-as-the-Marine-Codex regular Codex.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
It’s about the assumption that people will just be ok with people taking units that aren’t in their Codex...

My only assumption is that in a room full of gamers, enough people will be okay with it that I'll get games in with my Chaos Knight. Those who aren't don't really concern me. Now if everyone was up in arms about my desire to do this, then I'd have to reassess things but I don't see that happening in this specific situation.

 plastictrees wrote:
Calm down H.B.M.C. you maniac, you're going to give H.M.B.C. a bad name with all this crazed ranting!

HMBC has stolen all my thunder already, but he cannot take my fury! I still have that.

 plastictrees wrote:
What are you doing with the knife! Forcing people not to break the rules of 40k isn't worth killing over...noooooooo!

I know you're kidding, but again, that's not the point I'm making. My point is that following the rules is the norm, breaking the rules is not, and assuming people will simply allow you to break the rules and/or that people who want to the follow the rules are 'ass hats' is wrong.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Buzzsaw wrote:

Not to cut this to the quick, but all of this argument seems to circle around a simple fact:

Games Workshop rules are so bad they constitute an active impediment of enjoyment of the game.

That tends to be a given most of the time, but that’s not what I’ve been getting at these past few pages. I fully acknowledge that the rules of 40K are insufficient at the best of times, but my point of contention is that wishing to follow the printed rules is not inherently bad, abnormal or something that should not be done. Bringing a Knight in a CSM army is breaking the rules, regardless of whether those rules are good or bad to begin with.

 Buzzsaw wrote:
I find it very interesting that no one seems to be arguing about the balance implications of putting a Knight in a Chaos army: I suspect that is because such an argument is laughable on its face. So, I suppose, the real point is, if GW doesn't take its rules seriously enough to care, why should any player?

Again, it’s a given. There’s no point in arguing “balance” when we’re talking about a 360 point 6HP super-heavy that doesn’t follow the Lord of War rules, can score, and carries a Strength D weapon into battle as part of a just-as-official-as-the-Marine-Codex regular Codex.

Don't misunderstand me, I am entirely sympathetic to your point. My opprobrium is directed squarely at GW, not at the people valiantly trying to have fun with the terribly mangled tools GW insists on foisting on them.

In fairness, it's probably the case that my hostility towards GW as a company is great enough that I am incapable of being charitable towards them. The fact is that in no other game system that I can think of (Infinity, Malifaux, SWM, WM/H, etc) would this even be a point of discussion.

 Buzzsaw wrote:
In fairness, it's probably the case that my hostility towards GW as a company is great enough that I am incapable of being charitable towards them. The fact is that in no other game system that I can think of (Infinity, Malifaux, SWM, WM/H, etc) would this even be a point of discussion.

Uhh... off the top of my head... BattleTech. A group is playing a 3025 era/Succession Wars game and some guy wants to bring his 3050-era Clan 'Mech to the table. Of course that's more about breaking the agreement set between the players and not the actual rules (unlike the 'Chaos Knight' example).

But that's as close as I can get to this 40K example, and even it doesn't match up.

I wonder if GW have deliberately excluded them from allying Chaos because they are planning a large chaos kit equivalent to the Knight. I know the Lord of Skulls exists (sadly) but it doesn't really help people fielding any of the other 3 gods.

Has anybody had access to the Codex early? In all this back and forth I've gotten pretty lost.

 Medium of Death wrote:
I wonder if GW have deliberately excluded them from allying Chaos because they are planning a large chaos kit equivalent to the Knight. I know the Lord of Skulls exists (sadly) but it doesn't really help people fielding any of the other 3 gods.

Has anybody had access to the Codex early? In all this back and forth I've gotten pretty lost.

Slaanesh version -- replace chain sword with huge and paint it purple.

 Medium of Death wrote:
I wonder if GW have deliberately excluded them from allying Chaos because they are planning a large chaos kit equivalent to the Knight. I know the Lord of Skulls exists (sadly) but it doesn't really help people fielding any of the other 3 gods.

Has anybody had access to the Codex early? In all this back and forth I've gotten pretty lost.

It would make sense. But it's GW, so.....

I was really hoping that this would be a well planned and coordinated release on the part of GW. Instead we got...this. I mean small companies being run out of the basement are more efficient than this. How do you make so many mistakes in such a short period of time?

 Bronzefists42 wrote:
I was really hoping that this would be a well planned and coordinated release on the part of GW. Instead we got...this. I mean small companies being run out of the basement are more efficient than this. How do you make so many mistakes in such a short period of time?

Mistakes? What mistakes exactly?

We have a general distaste for a Codex that only has one unit, but is that necessarily a 'mistake'. We consider the fact that the Knight kit as a whopping two weapon options to be a mistake, but from the point of view of sprue design is that really a 'mistake', or more of a limitation (combined with a little bit of unwillingness to make a 4th sprue)? Is it a mistake to launch a companion book for a release such as this? Again, you could argue that we'd prefer all the information be in the Codex and not spread out across two books, but again, is that a mistake, per se?

The Codex has everything you'd need to play with the Knights.

The Companion Book is just fluff stuff effectively. I had a good sit down reading it today and it's just color plates and fluff, detailing specific Knights and their pilots. Essentially it's the "Uniform and Heraldry" books from Warhammer Fantasy(which there should be more of, damnit! They should have been regular items rather than one-offs and splash releases for just three armies) expanded and biggerized.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
We have a general distaste for a Codex that only has one unit, but is that necessarily a 'mistake'.

Legion of the Damned is also a codex for one unit. But comparing the two otherwise would be apples to oranges. Still, it is interesting to see that some people on Dakka really dislike the Titan codex yet are very much liking the LotD one, myself included.

Tinqle wrote:
So is there any general consensus on whether or not the 15mm leviathan crusader would work as a good substitute for a knight because from the pics it would seem that with a bit of basing it should be a comparable size. Does anyone have a pic of the two side by side?

dont mean to derail everyone's arguing to answer an actual question...you can use the 15mm leviathan as a stand in provided you give it some extra bulk (its about 4.5 inches tall vs the GW knight in the 6-7 inch range) of course if your not at all bothered by it not being the exact same size height wise then your golden