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.

Hello Dakka.

40K moral dilemma for you here. For my gaming club tomorrow night, there's only one guy I can possibly play against. He uses two Knights at 1500pts with outflanking melta-wielding Sisters in Rhinos to support.

I use quite fluffy armies (either Guard or Dark Eldar), and neither has the raw firepower or combat ability to deal with Knights. Last time out, using my IG, I was stomped all over the board despite throwing everything at those damn Knights.

Is it wrong to ask him to leave them at home this time? Am I being naive to not be building lists that can deal with Knights (I don't have the models without serious investment)? Should I simply try to enjoy playing a game where I have little to no chance of winning, no matter how tactically masterful I am? Otherwise I'm sitting at home with no war-gaming tomorrow.

Have at it, internet.

Don't have to play against the knights if you don't want to.

What are you taking to fight them anyway?

Knights are part of the game. IG have plenty of ways to deal with them, probably more than most other armies do. Either update your army or resign to losing a lot of games.

Going to try with my 5th ed Dark Eldar this time:

Archon, clone field, ghostplate, huskblade, soul trap
6 Incubi bodyguard
- Raider (dark lance)

Haemonculus, 9 wracks, raider (dark lance)

10 Kabalites, splinter cannon, raider (dark lance, night shields) with splinter wracks

10 Kabalites, splinter cannon, raider (dark lance, night shields) with splinter wracks

5 Wyches, haywire grenades, venom

5 Wyches, haywire grenades, venom

5 Wyches, haywire grenades, venom

5 Wyches, haywire grenades, venom

Ravager, three dark lances, night shields

 Scoundrel13 wrote:
Hello Dakka.

40K moral dilemma for you here. For my gaming club tomorrow night, there's only one guy I can possibly play against. He uses two Knights at 1500pts with outflanking melta-wielding Sisters in Rhinos to support.

I use quite fluffy armies (either Guard or Dark Eldar), and neither has the raw firepower or combat ability to deal with Knights. Last time out, using my IG, I was stomped all over the board despite throwing everything at those damn Knights.

Is it wrong to ask him to leave them at home this time? Am I being naive to not be building lists that can deal with Knights (I don't have the models without serious investment)? Should I simply try to enjoy playing a game where I have little to no chance of winning, no matter how tactically masterful I am? Otherwise I'm sitting at home with no war-gaming tomorrow.

Have at it, internet.

Welcome to the world of GW. Man-up (or rather Wallet-up) and buy something to counter it... and thus the cycle continues...

 Toofast wrote:
Knights are part of the game. IG have plenty of ways to deal with them, probably more than most other armies do. Either update your army or resign to losing a lot of games.

...or ask your opponent if they can not use them if you don't have the tools to fight them.

I feel 40k is (unfortunately) the sort of game where there has to be a bit of negotiation, especially if you're playing the same opponents and want a closer match.

Otherwise have a crack at fine tuning your army to take them on, assuming you have the models to do that.

 Scoundrel13 wrote:
Going to try with my 5th ed Dark Eldar this time:

Archon, clone field, ghostplate, huskblade, soul trap
6 Incubi bodyguard
- Raider (dark lance)

Haemonculus, 9 wracks, raider (dark lance)

10 Kabalites, splinter cannon, raider (dark lance, night shields) with splinter wracks

10 Kabalites, splinter cannon, raider (dark lance, night shields) with splinter wracks

5 Wyches, haywire grenades, venom

5 Wyches, haywire grenades, venom

5 Wyches, haywire grenades, venom

5 Wyches, haywire grenades, venom

Ravager, three dark lances, night shields

Which Edition is he using for his Knghts? Makes a big difference especially in close combat?
Wounldn't flickerfields be better as he is likely to get close quickly with Knights and Dominions - 5+ Invuln can be life or death.
Could try Trueborn with mutiple blasters?

You are perfectly within your rights to ask him not to bring them (or just to bring one, which I feel is a reasonable compromise as one at 1500 isn't stupidly hard to destroy), and if he's a reasonable human being and has the minis available, I imagine he'll agree. If he doesn't have the minis to swap out, you could always play at a lower points level.

40k requires negotiation between the players, but I don't see how that is ever a bad thing. Five minutes of discussion to ensure both parties have a better two hours is a fair trade, I think.

Flyers are something to look into against knights. Aside from a stubber, there isn't really much a Knight can do to a flyer. Also the Dark Eldar Flyers, particularly the Void Raven, may have a few options to consider.

The Vendetta also brings some options to the table having 3x Las-Cannons that are twin-linked. Chimera with melta-veterans might also be something you can consider.

Dude mass venoms is 1 of the best things you can use against a knight IMO. Knights aren't good against MSU. Take trueborn squads with blasters on venoms (Instead of witches) and hit from every facing. Scourge with haywire blasters will tear that puppy up too. You can easily wreck sisters with incubi or even kabalites with a succubus - I'd leave raiders with disintegraters. Drop one of your HQ.

One thing I saw once that is a good thing to keep in mind.

"Its not the screws fault that your hammer is useless"


Knights are part of the game now. They're their own codex, just as much as Space Wolves, Vanilla Marines, or Astra Militarum.

I wager that you wouldn't be happy if someone asked you not to use your 3 Lemun Russes that you'd paid good money for, assembled, and painted.


Imperial Guard have plenty of tools to take on Knights. You have cheap melta squads and massed Lascannon fire.

Maybe you should consider getting a Knight of your own too, not as counter for other Knights but for the tactical benefits. They're awesome models and they compliment most Imperial lists quite well. Even a single Knight can be a great centerpiece.

And Haywire is an excellent way of taking out super heavies.

It's quite simple.
You probably play Warhammer 40k for your enjoyment.
Playing against Knights does not give you enjoyment.

So nothing wrong with asking the opponent not to play it.

You don't have to play against anything or anyone whom you don't want to. If you're playing with good buddies then they should be more open to the idea that you just don't have the tools to counter Knights and perhaps not run them or give you some sort of handicap. Playing against random people at your FLGS is where you have to make the decision to play someone or not. Just remember that it's equally okay for them to run Knights, so no negative comments sent their way.

 Scoundrel13 wrote:
Hello Dakka.

40K moral dilemma for you here. For my gaming club tomorrow night, there's only one guy I can possibly play against. He uses two Knights at 1500pts with outflanking melta-wielding Sisters in Rhinos to support.

I use quite fluffy armies (either Guard or Dark Eldar), and neither has the raw firepower or combat ability to deal with Knights. Last time out, using my IG, I was stomped all over the board despite throwing everything at those damn Knights.

Is it wrong to ask him to leave them at home this time? Am I being naive to not be building lists that can deal with Knights (I don't have the models without serious investment)? Should I simply try to enjoy playing a game where I have little to no chance of winning, no matter how tactically masterful I am? Otherwise I'm sitting at home with no war-gaming tomorrow.

Have at it, internet.

Speaking to this as a moral dilemma (as you specified):

Either you (and he) are morally obligated to accept anything within the rules without negotiation, or not.

Within the rules, it is your option to densely pack the board with tons of terrain that is impossible for the knights to deploy on (not just wobbly model syndrome, but terrain they LITERALLY cannot fit on). You can fill the board with multi-level ruins, low bridges, narrow streets, etc, that all allow access for the models the size of infantry and small tanks, but which cannot accommodate Knights.

This, of course, assumes that your gaming club has enough of this scenery. If not, put as much of it as possible in such a way to hinder him as much as possible.

Now, either you and your opponent can agree to negotiate elements of the game (including both terrain and army construction), or you and he can play games where he brings knights, and either cannot deploy them at all, or is extremely limited in his deployment.

I bring this up as a thought experiment. I feel that clearly, you should be able to discuss these types of things with your opponent pre-game.

If, on the other hand, your opponent feels disinclined to do so, there's nothing preventing you from loading the board to handicap him. Alternatively, show up with a ridiculous Unbound army and take him apart (borrow several of those nasty C'Tan). This, too, is legal within the rules--unless he's open to negotiating on the type of game you are playing.

On the other hand, the real flaw in the rules is that this guy might only have two Knights and some Sisters. GW has written a game where some legal, valid armies have intense, crippling difficulty versus other legal, valid armies.

Kangodo wrote:
It's quite simple.
You probably play Warhammer 40k for your enjoyment.
Playing against Knights does not give you enjoyment.

So nothing wrong with asking the opponent not to play it.

But what if your opponent enjoys playing with his $140 model that he probably spent hours assembling and painting?

Then you'd be denying his enjoyment for your enjoyment.


Ultimately, every codex has the tools to deal with Knights. If a player doesn't take advantage of them that's his problem, not the guy with the Knights.

 Grey Templar wrote:
I wager that you wouldn't be happy if someone asked you not to use your 3 Lemun Russes that you'd paid good money for, assembled, and painted.

If someone (for some silly reason) brought an army that couldn't deal with 3 Russes, I'd be totally fine with my opponent asking me not to use them.

A very large facet of 40k is the rock paper scissors style of army building, I personally do not really like that facet, so I'm happy enough to negotiate terms with my opponent to make the game itself entertaining, especially in the situation where the person might not own the models required to face my army, better to have a fun game now than get the guy to spend hundreds of dollars and several months getting his army up to snuff.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Grey Templar wrote:

Kangodo wrote:
It's quite simple.
You probably play Warhammer 40k for your enjoyment.
Playing against Knights does not give you enjoyment.

So nothing wrong with asking the opponent not to play it.

But what if your opponent enjoys playing with his $140 model that he probably spent hours assembling and painting?

Then you'd be denying his enjoyment for your enjoyment.

If your opponent can't enjoy the game and you can't enjoy the game, maybe you shouldn't be playing a game together unless you can come to mutually agreeable terms

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
I wager that you wouldn't be happy if someone asked you not to use your 3 Lemun Russes that you'd paid good money for, assembled, and painted.

If someone (for some silly reason) brought an army that couldn't deal with 3 Russes, I'd be totally fine with my opponent asking me not to use them.

A very large facet of 40k is the rock paper scissors style of army building, I personally do not really like that facet, so I'm happy enough to negotiate terms with my opponent to make the game itself entertaining, especially in the situation where the person might not own the models required to face my army, better to have a fun game now than get the guy to spend hundreds of dollars and several months getting his army up to snuff.

People shouldn't show up to a Rock, Paper, Scissors tournament without Scissors.

The whole idea that its not only ok to handicap players, but that its socially unacceptable to NOT handicap is baffling.

No other game on the face of the earth encourages holding back, or even mandates it. You don't see people saying "Manning is OP, please ban!"


People should play the game. Playing the game is fun. Whats not fun is telling someone they can't use a model they spent a ton of money on, and probably 5+ hours building and painting.

Why should someone suffer because of your lack of planning?

Besides, Knights really aren't that hard to kill. Surely you can do 6 HPs of damage to an AV13/12/12 vehicle with a 4+ save(only on one facing I might add, flank it with Meltas)

To refresh the perspective of the thread the question asked isn't to do with tournaments.

It is a guy going to a local club where he only has one possible opponent; a guy playing with 2 knights and sisters.

Firstly, I don't think there is any harm in diplomatically suggesting double knights will give your collection a game that neither player would enjoy and as such changing the parameters of the game.

My suggestion is consider playing something different; perhaps a game of zone mortalis, or a series of quick 600 point games. Alternatively make sure you have plenty of terrain/objectives that is unfriendly to the knight if you are forced to face it.

If playing against the knights becomes inevitable don't despair. Use low cost defensive tactics to mitigate the damage the knights can do and make sure to focus on easy objectives rather than getting tied up in trying to destroy the knights.

If you can simply ignore the knights and still make a game of it then ignoring the knights is a valid tactic.

 Grey Templar wrote:
But what if your opponent enjoys playing with his $140 model that he probably spent hours assembling and painting?
Then you'd be denying his enjoyment for your enjoyment.
Ultimately, every codex has the tools to deal with Knights. If a player doesn't take advantage of them that's his problem, not the guy with the Knights.

That's not my problem, it's my enjoyment and money.
I'm not going to have every single game ruined to keep my opponent happy.

If my opponent cannot enjoy a game without an Imperial Knight than I will refuse 9 out of 10 games and either don't play at all or pick another opponent.
But to stay on topic: I think it is also bad sportsmanship to tell him only a day before.

In my area we have a gentalmans agreement to give fair warning to your opponent before bringing a lord of war(a real one not the HQs who became lords of war).

It has worked out nicely as generally people enjoy the games significantly more that way. Plus there are some of us who have lords of war but wont use them unless the opponent has them as well so then I know im not being rude or mean by bringing it.

This is IK we're talking about, not a transcendent c'tan. Any army that can't handle IK at 1500 will also suffer against cron AV13, land raider spam, Flyer spam etc. At that point you're basically telling half your opponents "I don't want to play against that army". In my meta, the people with good lists don't have a problem getting games. The people who refuse to play any list they don't like are the ones on the outside looking in while everyone else is throwing dice...

The classic "L2P newb" argument.

40k is a dynamic game.

If you fail to update your lists to the current play environment then why would you expect to have a chance at winning?

Martel732 wrote:
The classic "L2P newb" argument.

As opposed to the classic "let's play 40k like it's 1998 because my way of having fun is the only way of having fun and I'm too cheap/lazy to update my army" argument?

 TheAvengingKnee wrote:
In my area we have a gentalmans agreement to give fair warning to your opponent before bringing a lord of war(a real one not the HQs who became lords of war).

It has worked out nicely as generally people enjoy the games significantly more that way. Plus there are some of us who have lords of war but wont use them unless the opponent has them as well so then I know im not being rude or mean by bringing it.

Yea, LOW is a whole other can of worms.

I personally don't think Imperial Knights are that bad. Granted I have never been surprised to play one, they have either been in tournament settings, or against friends who don't mind using them.

Now, Adamantium Lance.... that can be bad... lol but typically only seem in a tournament/competitive setting.

I'm okay with being asked not to play my Knights, just don't get mad when I ask you not to play core units of your army. Fair is fair, right? I mean, it's not like most armies cannot kill a Knight in a single round of shooting if they are taking anti-tank units they should be taking anyway, so if I should drop units from my list you already can deal with, then you should be okay with dropping units from your list I don't want to deal with.

SJ

 Toofast wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
The classic "L2P newb" argument.

As opposed to the classic "let's play 40k like it's 1998 because my way of having fun is the only way of having fun and I'm too cheap/lazy to update my army" argument?

I personally find the knights much more unfair than the other units you listed, and so I could see refusing to play such an opponent.

I have been running eldar allies with my DE. Unit of fire dragons deep striking with an archon with a webway should handle a knight in 1 shot.

It is absolutely not wrong to ask an opponent not to use superheavies. That opponent, however, is perfectly within their rights to decide you're being a wet blanket and decide not to play with you.

What armies you bring are always a matter of negotiation, it's a give and take thing.

 Toofast wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
The classic "L2P newb" argument.

As opposed to the classic "let's play 40k like it's 1998 because my way of having fun is the only way of having fun and I'm too cheap/lazy to update my army" argument?

Is this the classic North Korean "I will tell you how you should have fun!" argument?

And this is why threads like this always turn into a flame-war.
I don't like to play against SHV's in WH40k, so I MUST be cheap, lazy or just a bad player.