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.

I have a hard time playing my Eldar 'casually'. Even when I bring a list that isn't min/maxed, I (often) win anyway. But this is due in part to how strong the codex is overall (and in part to how well I make decisions and roll 6's).

When I know someone wants a non-competitive game (from my point of view, not theirs--they may be bringing the most competitive list they can put together coupled with a tournament attitude), I pretty much have to play one of my other armies.

My point (I think I have one) is that, when you ask your opponent not to bring the Knight/Knights (which you certainly can), you may very well be putting him in a position where he feels like he has to play a completely different army. And if he doesn't have one (heaven help him if all he has are Sisters and Knights, I guess), then he might feel like you're asking him to 'roll over' for you. /shrug

In any case: By all means ask. A casual game of 40K is not bound by tournament conventions where you have no choice but to play the guy (and the models) on the other side of the table.

Kangodo wrote:

I personally haven't lost to Knights or other SHV's, but I don't like how they changed the game and I would rather avoid it.
A game against an Imperial Knight can be fun sometimes if I get at least a warning.

In those cases you bring in a unit to murder it, or a bigger super heavy to trounce it. My personal favorite is pulling out a warhound, putting DA libby with the 4+ invuln bubble behinds it, and spamming precience on it. makes short work of a knight player usually. This seems to discourage cheesy use of knights as there's always a bigger fish ready to obliterate them. Also if they are not a heavy psycher army a drop pod fully of zoanthropes can be great fun to a knight, Oh your shield adjusts in the shooting phase, well isn't that a shame you didn't cover your rear armor.

I played against an Imperial Knight just yesterday. The games are always the same. Focus fire on the Knight before he can get into CC, then spend the rest of the game dealing with what's left.

I don't like playing against Imperial Knights because they are really boring and repetitive to play against...I guess I could replace Lord of War with Imperial Knights and I'd feel generally the same. I know for a fact people feel the same way about my T CTan. Apocalypse exists for a reason, I suppose.

 MWHistorian wrote:

 Toofast wrote:
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...

So, for you there is no negotiation? What if the guy is still new to the game or doesn't have a lot of money to spend on the latest big thing?
This new meta requires a large degree of negotiation to make it work. "Suck it up and enjoy losing" isn't a good answer.

We don't really have negotiations other than if you want to use something that's on the ban list for BAO, LVO, NOVA, etc you must clear it with your opponent first. This is because we recognize that not all super heavies were created equal. Some are easy to kill and will barely kill anything, some are unstoppable and can table 1500 points on their own, others are somewhere in between the 2 extremes. IK are somewhere in the middle and taking 1-2 more units of AT is enough for most lists to compensate and have a chance against them. We don't have a lot of new players and almost everyone in the regular group has 5k+ of their main army. Whatever they need to add to their list to make a fair game, they usually have. When we get a new player we tone it down but once a league starts up they're expected to keep up.

 Toofast wrote:

 MWHistorian wrote:

 Toofast wrote:
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...

So, for you there is no negotiation? What if the guy is still new to the game or doesn't have a lot of money to spend on the latest big thing?
This new meta requires a large degree of negotiation to make it work. "Suck it up and enjoy losing" isn't a good answer.

We don't really have negotiations other than if you want to use something that's on the ban list for BAO, LVO, NOVA, etc you must clear it with your opponent first. This is because we recognize that not all super heavies were created equal. Some are easy to kill and will barely kill anything, some are unstoppable and can table 1500 points on their own, others are somewhere in between the 2 extremes. IK are somewhere in the middle and taking 1-2 more units of AT is enough for most lists to compensate and have a chance against them. We don't have a lot of new players and almost everyone in the regular group has 5k+ of their main army. Whatever they need to add to their list to make a fair game, they usually have. When we get a new player we tone it down but once a league starts up they're expected to keep up.

That's all very local meta specific and applying your local meta to everyone and saying "there's no need for negotiations ever" seems a bit disingenuous.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with asking an opponent not to play with a certain unit. The game requires some negotiation and compromise sometimes for both parties to have fun.

Always remember that if you would like for an opponent to change their list to meet your expectations, you should be expected to do the same for your opponent, should they ask.

In this case, I can see a reasonable compromise being dropping 1 Knight, but I also understand if the Knight player simply asked you instead to improve your list to handle the Knights.

Or just ask them if you can sub in a bit more anti tank so that they are not 100% screwed.

just agreeing before hand tends to work between civil people.

Or...

You could ask to borrow one of his Imperial Knights, and you can go Knight vs. Knight. Don't know how close a buddy you are with this opponent, or how you feel about doing something like that, but there's another possible compromise.

Sub in with what. No will agree to play against more points and you would have to have the extra models in the frist place.
The agreing part never works. If there is no way for a close friend to not play an army which trounces the one I own, how would stranger react? at best this would mean no game , so wasted time for a trip there and back again. And because it is you who don't want to play him, he gets the table, so he will probably get a game right away, against someone who is willing to play him, and you hope that maybe a group of people will be late and a table will be free. But because you were sign up for another table, your on the end of the line right now, so itsmore like 2-3 groups of people being late more then 20+min. One could sit a whole day and not get a game in.

I play with the same half dozen people all the time. I also have a rather large undefeated Necron Scarab farm (12 Spyders, too many Scarabs). They've all played against it, muitiple times, and they all dread facing it. Being that they have all indulged me going against it, I have no problem mixing it up, every other game against them, where I won't field them. I view the Imperial Knight situation in question the same way. If someone played against my list, and I crushed them because their collection is ill equipped to deal with it, and they asked me nicely ahead, I would be willing to take their enjoyment into consideration and field something different.

If I felt they were just trying to get me to handicap myself, so they can get an easy win, I'd double down on playing them.

I don't know the specifics of the OP's situation, but if he's faced it a few times and suffered crushing defeats, I don't see an issue asking for a casual game amognst friends without the knights. If it is a league, or a tournament, where the results matter, then it's kind of asking alot for your opponenet not to bring his best.

That being said, I don't think Imperial Knights are all that hard to defeat, if you know your going to face them ahead of time.

Just curious, what about fixed-list leagues?

OP here.

Wow, didn't really expect to get this much response. I guess it's an issue we've all as gamers been on one end or the other at some point.

Some added context for those asking: My DE army is fixed at 1500pts, I spent a long time building, converting and painting a very personalised and themed army. Although some of you said the TAC list is dead, or impossible to work, this is basically what I've tried to achieve. I wanted a themed DE army where all units ride to war in skimmers, nobody walking!

The list is all the models I have for DE. No trip blaster trueborns here.

I am not a newbie player, have been playing for about ten years. I do not have the money/ time to invest in more models right now, as with a poor salary I feel priced out of expanding at the moment.

I have far more IG (3500), but I played my Knights and Sisters opponent with this list before, so I want to try with DE. Unfortunately, they have less AT firepower.

The opponent was not the nicest guy tbh last time. Kind of rubbed it in my face that all my A14 couldn't save me from being smooshed by Knights, and when I said his list seemed nonsensical for 1500 pts (when would 30 Sisters be supported on the field by two super-heavies?) I got a "tough sh*t" in return.

I get that "the game has changed" and this is apparently the way 40K is now. Some of you will say "stop playing then". But I do still love this game. When it's great, it's really great. But it can feel like smashing your head against a brick Knight sometimes.

Anyway, that's just me being petty. Thanks for all the advice anyway.

Nope. You have every right to not fight anything. It might make you feel bad to deny a game, but it's your right. For example, our local group has an all Imperial Knights army, and I refuse to play against it. The reason is, my current collection of Orks is not sufficient to actually fight it. I lack the proper models to actually take them down. It would be a waste of time to play against his army. Even if we play Maelstrom, and I can out score him, the game isn't fun if I can't at least fire/slash back. I don't play 40k to play cat and mouse. I play it to blow stuff up! (And not just my stuff!)

The goal of a game is to have fun, and that applies to both you and your opponent. If you aren't having fun, why are you playing?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 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.

Also telling people to 'spend more money for a casual game' is bad and wrong advice.

It sounds like you are justified in wanting your opponent to change what they field. It sounds like the issue is bigger than a Knight, though. Your opponent doesn't sound like a very friendly person.

 Scoundrel13 wrote:
OP here.
Wow, didn't really expect to get this much response. I guess it's an issue we've all as gamers been on one end or the other at some point.

You know how the internet has these topics that always get out of hand, like religion, tipping, death penalty and guns?
Well, this is one of the 'bad guys' from WH40k.

It's basically because there are three large groups (and some other small ones):
1) You play to have fun, so refuse lists that you don't find fun.
2) But it's in the rules, so you must play against it.
3) Be reasonable and listen to each other (don't always refuse them and don't always play them)

I'm in the third group: The other guy spent a lot of money on those units and I actually do like to play against it from time to time.
But if I would have to face a Knight every single battle, WH40k would lose it's appeal to me.
Enjoying the game is not just important for you! If you don't enjoy it, you might quit. And if you quit the opponent lost someone to play with.

Compare it to a good and healthy relationship If you only do what your girlfriend likes, you are both going to end up single some time soon.

I get that "the game has changed" and this is apparently the way 40K is now. Some of you will say "stop playing then". But I do still love this game. When it's great, it's really great. But it can feel like smashing your head against a brick Knight sometimes.

Nonsense! You like this game, no reason to stop playing.
As you might have noticed a lot of people agree with you. This means that you will probably always find someone that wants to play without Superheavies.

Makumba wrote:
Sub in with what. No will agree to play against more points and you would have to have the extra models in the frist place.
The agreing part never works. If there is no way for a close friend to not play an army which trounces the one I own, how would stranger react? at best this would mean no game , so wasted time for a trip there and back again. And because it is you who don't want to play him, he gets the table, so he will probably get a game right away, against someone who is willing to play him, and you hope that maybe a group of people will be late and a table will be free. But because you were sign up for another table, your on the end of the line right now, so itsmore like 2-3 groups of people being late more then 20+min. One could sit a whole day and not get a game in.

...and your puppy ran away with your cat, and your girlfriend took your favourite Oasis record, the one with the special pasta sauce spot on the back of the sleeve... and your favourite shirt has a hole in it and you can't find your second favourite shirt, and it's raining and you can't find your car keys, and you haven't eaten all day and then you buy a pie and it has a hair in it and when you take it back the guy at the pie shop is rude and insists that you put it there yourself and you dont have any money to buy something else to eat and you really just wanted to play some warhams but the entire universe is conspiring against you and you feel insignificant in an uncaring universe and what's it all for anyway?



Or, you just say 'Hey, I don't really want to play against Knights. Any chance you could drop them from your list, and I'll chop something out of my list to match?' at which point your prospective opponent, being a reasonable guy who is just after a casual game, says 'Yeah, sure...' and you both get on with the game.

This really doesn't have to be some sort of giant production. It's just a game.

Makumba wrote:
Sub in with what. No will agree to play against more points and you would have to have the extra models in the frist place.
The agreing part never works. If there is no way for a close friend to not play an army which trounces the one I own, how would stranger react? at best this would mean no game , so wasted time for a trip there and back again. And because it is you who don't want to play him, he gets the table, so he will probably get a game right away, against someone who is willing to play him, and you hope that maybe a group of people will be late and a table will be free. But because you were sign up for another table, your on the end of the line right now, so itsmore like 2-3 groups of people being late more then 20+min. One could sit a whole day and not get a game in.

It's not like it matters anyway [/eeyore voice].

To answer your original question, I agree with many others that no - it's not wrong to ask your opponent not to use Knights. But if losing Knights leaves a hole in his army that your army happens to exploit, he has the right to ask you not to use whatever it is you've got, and so on and so forth.

 Scoundrel13 wrote:
(when would 30 Sisters be supported on the field by two super-heavies?)

To answer this question, I can think of a few scenarios.

1) A world with Adepta Sororitas stationed on it is being raided by Dark Eldar and a nearby Knight Order is sent to respond to the threat. These 2 Knights arrive at a small outpost just in time to try to save the Sisters manning it.
2) These Sisters are the last holdouts of a larger battle, with the Knights sent to reinforce.
3) Several Knights are dispatched to break an area of strong enemy resistance, and the Sisters are there to recover Holy Relics of their Order.
4) Same as above, but the Sisters are the only available ground troops to hold the ground the Knights capture.
5) Since 2 Knights bring about as much power as hundreds of Sisters, a token number are deployed to help the God-Machines of the Emperor while the major force is sent elsewhere, where their firepower is needed.

[off-topic-ish rant]
As satirical as the phrase "Forging the Narrative" has come, I honestly think a lot of people just aren't trying hard enough. That's a list of 5 very reasonable things I just casually rattled off while I boiled water for soup, I'm sure somebody actually playing a game could justify the scenario a bit better. Hard to read stories of "WHY would a Chaos army take 2 Chaos Lords, 3 Hellturkies, and 90 cultists. SO anti-fluff" sometimes.
[/endrant]

[edit]reordered the bits for more sensible organisation

But we all know the real answer is "Because I want to curb stomp my opponents, and I had to put something else in to make 1500, because I haven't finished up my 3rd and 4th Imperial Knights.

(Sorry if I sound bitter....I have to face these things routinely, and they're so frigging boring to play agaiagainst, win or lose)

Rihgu wrote:

[off-topic-ish rant]
As satirical as the phrase "Forging the Narrative" has come, I honestly think a lot of people just aren't trying hard enough. That's a list of 5 very reasonable things I just casually rattled off while I boiled water for soup, I'm sure somebody actually playing a game could justify the scenario a bit better. Hard to read stories of "WHY would a Chaos army take 2 Chaos Lords, 3 Hellturkies, and 90 cultists. SO anti-fluff" sometimes.
[/endrant]

Sounds like Tuesday in the Alpha Legion to me.

But seriously folks, 40k is a game. It's there for you to have fun, not for you to trounce people or complain about other people having fun doing something you don't like. The centerpiece of all human interaction is communication, if you and your opponent can agree on how your specific instance of the game ought to be played both people will have a lot more fun than if people decide to start getting self-righteous about rules or lore. You can know all you want about the rules and the lore, it's not an excuse to be a dick.

If you just spent a hundred and forty dollars on your big cool giant robot and you want to use it communicate that. If you're trying to play pure Daemons and you don't think you could do much to the Knight communicate that. If you think you could make a reasonable game out of what the situation is with an extra AT unit communicate that. If Knights killed your mother and you're deathly afraid of them, communicate that. Don't assume your opponent is obligated to comply with your phobias, understand it's a give and take, recognize it's just a game, and remember that you can always walk away from the table.

 DarknessEternal wrote:
It's not wrong to ask your opponent to play with/without anything.

It's also not wrong for him to refuse.

It's also not wrong for the two of you to not play each other because you can't agree on the type of game you'd like to play.

Exactly, if you can't come to some form of consensus, it's not like a game would ever work anyway.



I'm open to playing against a knight, maybe in a large casual game where we're maybe using one or two big things and some forgeworld. But if a regular opponent gave me the "it's a real codex now so you have to play against it" I'd laugh and tell them to find someone else to play gi joe with. This game needs formatting, badly, it's too many things to too many people and although I must agree that negotiation is sadly part of it, it often is far more comlicated, lengthy and emotional than it needs to be and it often leaves both parties feeling the other is acting entitled because neither party's preferences for play or overall ideals align.

Don't hate the player, hate the game. Why a few short editions ago you could tell your regular opponent running 3 knights or super heavies or stupid formations that you just wanna play 40k this week, not apoc. They could still take that personally back in the day but were less likely to. do so. GW could reduce our collective stress as gamers by formatting their bloated abortion of a game into neat little packages that facilitate better communication between players and gaming groups, or we can all pretend that this giant massive abortion of a ruleset is "40k".




As for whether you'll have much success trying to dictate what people play, it seems the individual playing the knights isn't really playing the game you yourself want to play. You' might be better off not playing them, because invariably you'll stop playing them eventually if you're not having fun, you may find some way to cope competitively speaking but if that essentially boils down to just spamming insanely expensive models into your list it just seems like a race to the bottom.

Rihgu wrote:

 Scoundrel13 wrote:
(when would 30 Sisters be supported on the field by two super-heavies?)

To answer this question, I can think of a few scenarios.

1) A world with Adepta Sororitas stationed on it is being raided by Dark Eldar and a nearby Knight Order is sent to respond to the threat. These 2 Knights arrive at a small outpost just in time to try to save the Sisters manning it.
2) These Sisters are the last holdouts of a larger battle, with the Knights sent to reinforce.
3) Several Knights are dispatched to break an area of strong enemy resistance, and the Sisters are there to recover Holy Relics of their Order.
4) Same as above, but the Sisters are the only available ground troops to hold the ground the Knights capture.
5) Since 2 Knights bring about as much power as hundreds of Sisters, a token number are deployed to help the God-Machines of the Emperor while the major force is sent elsewhere, where their firepower is needed.

Or the same one that applies to pretty much every variation of this question (as it comes up frequently with the 'Why is Marneus Calgar/Abaddon/Etc taking part in tiny skirmishes?' style questions) - the game of 40K that you're playing is just a snapshop of a section of a much larger battle.

Those 30 sisters and 2 knights aren't the entire army. They're just the parts of the army that happen to be in that part of the battlefield at that particular point in time.

 Crablezworth wrote:

 DarknessEternal wrote:
It's not wrong to ask your opponent to play with/without anything.

It's also not wrong for him to refuse.

It's also not wrong for the two of you to not play each other because you can't agree on the type of game you'd like to play.

Exactly, if you can't come to some form of consensus, it's not like a game would ever work anyway.



I'm open to playing against a knight, maybe in a large casual game where we're maybe using one or two big things and some forgeworld. But if a regular opponent gave me the "it's a real codex now so you have to play against it" I'd laugh and tell them to find someone else to play gi joe with. This game needs formatting, badly, it's too many things to too many people and although I must agree that negotiation is sadly part of it, it often is far more comlicated, lengthy and emotional than it needs to be and it often leaves both parties feeling the other is acting entitled because neither party's preferences for play or overall ideals align.

Don't hate the player, hate the game. Why a few short editions ago you could tell your regular opponent running 3 knights or super heavies or stupid formations that you just wanna play 40k this week, not apoc. They could still take that personally back in the day but were less likely to. do so. GW could reduce out collective stress by formatting their bloated abortion of a game into neat little packages that facilitate better communication between players and gaming groups, or we can all pretend that this giant massive abortion of a ruleset is "40k".

Basically this. My codex allows me to use my Stompa in a normal game. Would I bring it to a normal game? No. No I wouldn't. Not unless an opponent explicitly asked me to, for whatever reason. My Stompa belongs in Apoc, where it was designed for. I don't mind facing a Knight every once in a while, but it is not my goal to face one every game. Do i feel bad for denying a guy the chance to play his 140 dollar toy? Maybe a little. But in an age where Super Heavies are frowned upon anyway, what the heck do people expect? Know your meta before investing. That's all I can really say. (Not to mention the price of a Knight is pure absurd anyway. Hell, I didn't even pay close to retail for my Stompa, and why would I?)

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".

You should never feel bad for asking an opponent to leave ANY unit at home. As long as it is not every game, as he has a right to use his highly expensive models as well.
Explain that you would like a fluffy, sub-competitive battle this time.
At the end of the day the hobby is primarily about having fun. Winning is only a secondary concern.

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.

If somebody asked me to leave my sicaran at home, I would gladly accept. If they asked me a second time I would be ok again. If they kept asking then I would mention that negotiation is a two way thing. But I would never turn it down the first couple of times... *unless* I have just bought the model.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

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.

Exactly this ^. Also 'escalation' is a way for GW to get more £/$/€ out of everyone. Still fun to participate in though ;-).


I'd just like to point out btw that whilst I own a knight and bargelords, amongst other dangerous units - I have a very special place in my heart for my sicaran with schism of mars and ceremite (despite it being unpainted :-p)

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.