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.

In response to OP, I've never faced a Knight and only twice seen them on the table in an allies game. I have some stuff to deal with a Knight, but against 2 or 3 I would most likely fail. It's the same as playing against an all Flyer army. I doubt everyone has enough units to counter 5 or 6 Flyrants/Stormtalons.

If you knew ahead of time what your opponent was bringing, then sure you could tailor your whole army against it, but at that point it;s just rock, paper, scissors.

Also, very happy to see Peregrine show up with a l2p response

 Peregrine wrote:

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

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

You're asking what my point is and I will replay that my point is obvious even if you choose to ignore it. That point is simple, it's a bad comparison.

 Peregrine wrote:


No, but a knight and a LRBT squadron have roughly the same durability

And what if the problem isn't the units durability, it's the fact that you don't like the unit and have no interest sharing a table with it?

 Peregrine wrote:



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

You of all people taking issue with hyperbole, ok, my mistake, 2 knights. And it's not a strawman, you are literally sayin anyone who doesn't enjoy playing against x amount of knights should leave the hobby. I can only assume you're putting it on a bit and being hyperbolic because that idea t phase value is absurd.

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

Is that necessary? You would skip past even the suggestion the op spread his wings a bit, try and find new opponents or play groups, nope, to you he should just flat out quit?

Melevolence wrote:
You have as much right as telling the OP not to play this game as I do telling you you have no right to live.

Err, lol? Saying "40k is clearly not the game for you, maybe you'd have more fun with something else" is equivalent to saying "you have no right to live"? Seriously?

The issue isn't the Knights are properly balanced, it's that SUPER HEAVY as a unit TYPE are not balanced for regular games.

You're right, most superheavies aren't balanced for normal games. Putting all your eggs in one basket is usually a bad idea, and the superheavy unit will struggle to kill enough to justify its huge point cost. But I guess that's the price you pay when you want to bring an awesome model instead of the same old serpent spam lists.

(And yes, there are specific LoW units that are blatantly overpowered, but that's a problem with their unit rules and point costs, not LoW in general.)

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

IOW, "my army is well rounded for my special house-ruled version of 40k where the things my army has trouble dealing with aren't allowed".


Automatically Appended Next Post:

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

It's not a question of "deserving" to play "my" game, it's about whether or not 40k is the right game for them. You might have a right to play 40k despite not having any fun with it, but that doesn't mean that you should.

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

Which isn't a reasonable request to make. Vehicles are part of standard 40k, and people build armies that include them. If you have a "no vehicles" policy you're expecting people to make an exceptional effort to redesign their own armies to fit your preferences, just so you don't have to change your army at all.

 Peregrine wrote:

Melevolence wrote:
You have as much right as telling the OP not to play this game as I do telling you you have no right to live.

Err, lol? Saying "40k is clearly not the game for you, maybe you'd have more fun with something else" is equivalent to saying "you have no right to live"? Seriously?

The issue isn't the Knights are properly balanced, it's that SUPER HEAVY as a unit TYPE are not balanced for regular games.

You're right, most superheavies aren't balanced for normal games. Putting all your eggs in one basket is usually a bad idea, and the superheavy unit will struggle to kill enough to justify its huge point cost. But I guess that's the price you pay when you want to bring an awesome model instead of the same old serpent spam lists.

(And yes, there are specific LoW units that are blatantly overpowered, but that's a problem with their unit rules and point costs, not LoW in general.)

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

IOW, "my army is well rounded for my special house-ruled version of 40k where the things my army has trouble dealing with aren't allowed".

The point is the same. Neither of us have the right to tell anyone what to do. Get it now?

Something we all know. The issue is, even if they 'eggs in one basket', the game still tends to be uninteresting, and unfun. Facing several knights or all knight, or all flier list turns into "Sit on objectives and hope I don't die, because I can't even return fire/hurt their gak". Not fun for the person who can't even roll dice except when it will hurt him.

It isn't a house rule, silly bird. The rule book states players should be negotiating what we bring to the table. If my opponent brings something the list I brought that day can't handle and wont tweak his list to make the game reasonable, I won't waste his or my time setting up and wasting two hours of me doing nothing of importance. I'd rather we skip the game and have a beer instead. No house rule made.

 Crablezworth wrote:
And what if the problem isn't the units durability, it's the fact that you don't like the unit and have no interest sharing a table with it?

OP explicitly states that being unable to kill 1-2 knights is the problem.

You of all people taking issue with hyperbole, ok, my mistake, 2 knights.

Of course I am, because your "hyperbole" is the difference between "an army with a typical number of HP worth of vehicles" and "a one-dimensional spam army that easily overwhelms an average list's anti-tank units". Being unable to handle 1-2 knights means you don't have enough anti-tank for 7th edition. Being unable to handle an army of nothing but AV 13 means that you haven't tailored to face a single opponent.

And it's not a strawman, you are literally sayin anyone who doesn't enjoy playing against x amount of knights should leave the hobby. I can only assume you're putting it on a bit and being hyperbolic because that idea t phase value is absurd.

No, please read what I actually said: that if you literally have nothing in your list that can kill a knight and won't buy any new models to fix the problem then you should find a different game. A list with no anti-tank units is never going to be successful in the current game, so why stubbornly insist on playing a game that doesn't support the things you want to do?

 Peregrine wrote:
IOW, "my army is well rounded for my special house-ruled version of 40k where the things my army has trouble dealing with aren't allowed".

Isn't that the version of 40K that the rulebook tells us to play?

It's not a question of "deserving" to play "my" game, it's about whether or not 40k is the right game for them. You might have a right to play 40k despite not having any fun with it, but that doesn't mean that you should.

If you're having fun playing with an army made up entirely of grots armed with pointy sticks, why the hell shouldn't you?

The fact that your army struggles against certain other armies is only a problem if you play against those armies. Which was entirely the point of this thread.

The OP clearly has fun playing 40K. He just doesn't want to play against Knights. That's not a reason to not play 40K. It's just a reason to not play against Knights.

Vehicles are part of standard 40k,...

Only if you include them.

If you have a "no vehicles" policy you're expecting people to make an exceptional effort to redesign their own armies to fit your preferences, just so you don't have to change your army at all.

Now you're catching on.


Although the OP made no claim of expecting his opponent to not use Knights. He just asked if it was ok to ask his opponent to not use them, because he would rather not face them.

I'm honestly puzzled as to why you think this is such a big deal.

And I suppose everyone agreeing we shouldn't be telling other people how to play the game and shaking hands and going home friends is out of the question at this point?

 AnomanderRake wrote:
And I suppose everyone agreeing we shouldn't be telling other people how to play the game and shaking hands and going home friends is out of the question at this point?

I would...but I don't have hands :( I type with my nose.

 Peregrine wrote:
A list with no anti-tank units is never going to be successful in the current game, ...

Unless the people you play against aren't using tanks...

...so why stubbornly insist on playing a game that doesn't support the things you want to do?

Because it does... so long as you stick to playing the type of games you enjoy playing?

Melevolence wrote:
The point is the same. Neither of us have the right to tell anyone what to do. Get it now?

Of course I have a right to suggest that people do something. Why is this even something you feel the need to debate?

Something we all know. The issue is, even if they 'eggs in one basket', the game still tends to be uninteresting, and unfun. Facing several knights or all knight, or all flier list turns into "Sit on objectives and hope I don't die, because I can't even return fire/hurt their gak". Not fun for the person who can't even roll dice except when it will hurt him.

If you can't even return fire against a knight/Baneblade/etc then the problem is that your list sucks, and you're going to lose a lot of games against lists with no LoW units.

It isn't a house rule, silly bird. The rule book states players should be negotiating what we bring to the table. If my opponent brings something the list I brought that day can't handle and wont tweak his list to make the game reasonable, I won't waste his or my time setting up and wasting two hours of me doing nothing of importance. I'd rather we skip the game and have a beer instead. No house rule made.

Key point: negotiating. Showing up and saying "I'm not playing against LoW" is not negotiating, nor is expecting your opponent to do all of the work and modify their list to accommodate whatever you brought that day. Why should they be expected to change their list to make the game "reasonable"? Why shouldn't you have the obligation to fix your own list to be able to compete with theirs?

And that line still doesn't change the point about your list not being well-rounded. If you have to negotiate away a list of things your army can't even attempt to fight back against then you don't have a well-rounded army.

 AnomanderRake wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

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

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

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

The forgeworld Daemon Lords like An'ggrath can challenge a knight and strike one down. The Decimator also has a melee weapon capable of threatening a knight. Both of these are considered daemon units compatible with a daemon army.

 insaniak wrote:
Unless the people you play against aren't using tanks...

A hypothetical situation that has nothing to do with the normal game.

Because it does... so long as you stick to playing the type of games you enjoy playing?

IOW, never play pickup games, never play against anyone who doesn't follow your specific rules about army construction, etc. That is clearly not the situation the OP is in.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 insaniak wrote:
Isn't that the version of 40K that the rulebook tells us to play?

I don't see anything in the rulebook that says "if you don't want to include any anti-MEQ units in your army you can just tell your opponent not to bring their C:SM army".

If you're having fun playing with an army made up entirely of grots armed with pointy sticks, why the hell shouldn't you?

Because this is clearly a situation where the person playing the unconventional army isn't having fun?

 Peregrine wrote:


A hypothetical situation that has nothing to do with the normal game.

A "normal" game is an absurd notion. It will be different depending on everyone's meta, what their players enjoy etc..

 Peregrine wrote:

Melevolence wrote:
The point is the same. Neither of us have the right to tell anyone what to do. Get it now?

Of course I have a right to suggest that people do something. Why is this even something you feel the need to debate?

Something we all know. The issue is, even if they 'eggs in one basket', the game still tends to be uninteresting, and unfun. Facing several knights or all knight, or all flier list turns into "Sit on objectives and hope I don't die, because I can't even return fire/hurt their gak". Not fun for the person who can't even roll dice except when it will hurt him.

If you can't even return fire against a knight/Baneblade/etc then the problem is that your list sucks, and you're going to lose a lot of games against lists with no LoW units.

It isn't a house rule, silly bird. The rule book states players should be negotiating what we bring to the table. If my opponent brings something the list I brought that day can't handle and wont tweak his list to make the game reasonable, I won't waste his or my time setting up and wasting two hours of me doing nothing of importance. I'd rather we skip the game and have a beer instead. No house rule made.

Key point: negotiating. Showing up and saying "I'm not playing against LoW" is not negotiating, nor is expecting your opponent to do all of the work and modify their list to accommodate whatever you brought that day. Why should they be expected to change their list to make the game "reasonable"? Why shouldn't you have the obligation to fix your own list to be able to compete with theirs?

And that line still doesn't change the point about your list not being well-rounded. If you have to negotiate away a list of things your army can't even attempt to fight back against then you don't have a well-rounded army.

Except you were not suggesting. Telling someone they should not play is not suggesting.

Because most people don't make a TAC list to also handle Super Heavies. With the points allowed for a non apoc game, it is IMPOSSIBLE to bring enough units to cover every thing, especially Super Heavies. And as an Ork player...you're right. Not much in our army CAN take a Baneblade or other Super Heavies. Which is why I won't play them. Not that my list 'sucks'. My army lacks reliable tools to deal with multiple super heavy threats per game.

Because they brought the more over powered unit. It's more reasonable for me to ask them to not use it, and I'll reduce my army to match the points used. Unless you think I carry 1k plus points worth of extra models with me for a pick up game? It's far easier for my opponent to say "Sure, I won't use X, just lower your army to match". Anyone bringing Super Heavies should expect to meet resistance. They have every right to tel me ''no, I'd rather use the model" and that's OK. But if they insist on using it, I'll decline the game and not waste time. I'm not going to say "Sure, use that model. Let me drive home and back to get an answer to that model." And if you expect anyone to do that, you're foolish.

 Peregrine wrote:

 insaniak wrote:
Unless the people you play against aren't using tanks...

A hypothetical situation that has nothing to do with the normal game.

Can you define a normal game?


A normal game to me is 40k, a normal game to many others is apocalypse. We're just now forced to pretend there didn't use to be a distinction between the two.

Melevolence wrote:
Except you were not suggesting. Telling someone they should not play is not suggesting.

I'm sorry, I didn't realize that if I don't put a giant "THIS IS A SUGGESTION" sign on a bit of advice people will think that I'm holding a gun to their head and forcing them to do what I want.

Because most people don't make a TAC list to also handle Super Heavies.

Then it isn't a TAC list. TAC means "take ALL comers", not "take some lists that I'm prepared to face and lose horribly against others".

Because they brought the more over powered unit. It's more reasonable for me to ask them to not use it, and I'll reduce my army to match the points used.

Alternatively, since you're the person who is unhappy with the situation it is YOUR responsibility to make some changes to your own list, and only ask them to do something different as a last resort.

Unless you think I carry 1k pluus points worth of models to me for a pick up game?

Why are you assuming that your opponent has those models available to change their list?

It's far easier for my opponent to say "Sure, I won't use X, just lower your army to match".

Oh, I see, so I'm expected to play a badly designed army that is missing a key component while you get to adjust your army to bring your best units at the new point level?

Anyone bringing Super Heavies should expect to meet resistance.

Why? Because you've decided that you know better than GW about what should be included in 40k? Why should the person playing the game as-written expect to meet resistance, while the person who wants to add house rules expect their house rules to be accepted by default?

I'm not going to say "Sure, use that model. Let me drive home and back with an answer." And if you expect anyone to do that, you're foolish.

But it's perfectly ok to say "drive back home and get some new models to replace your LoW".


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Crablezworth wrote:
Can you define a normal game?

A game played using all of the default rules, without adding or removing anything. This includes LoW because they are part of the default rules as published by GW.

 Peregrine wrote:

 insaniak wrote:
Unless the people you play against aren't using tanks...

A hypothetical situation that has nothing to do with the normal game.

I must have missed the rule that requires players to include vehicles in their armies...

Because this is clearly a situation where the person playing the unconventional army isn't having fun?

Which situation are you talking about?

Because the 'situation' that was being asked about to start this discussion was someone asking if it was ok to ask an opponent to not use certain units.

Presumably he is doing just fine with his army in other games. He just wanted to know if it would be inappropriate to ask someone to not use a unit that he doesn't like playing against. The rest of this nonsense is just the whole thing getting blown all out of proportion.

The Imperial Answer wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

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

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

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

The forgeworld Daemon Lords like An'ggrath can challenge a knight and strike one down. The Decimator also has a melee weapon capable of threatening a knight. Both of these are considered daemon units compatible with a daemon army.

Daemon Lords aren't allowed in regular games anymore unless they are less then 25% of your army cost

And yes daemons have units that can hurt it in melee, none of them are reliable at killing a knight (too slow, doesn't cause enough damage in one swing, below i4). But one the knight gets to swing and stomp those units are dead and most of them cost over 300+ points

 Peregrine wrote:

 Crablezworth wrote:
Can you define a normal game?

A game played using all of the default rules, without adding or removing anything. This includes LoW because they are part of the default rules as published by GW.

So if I don't use every possible option from every single codex, dataslate, and other publication, I'm not playing 'normal' 40K?

Your games must be massive...

 Peregrine wrote:


Why? Because you've decided that you know better than GW about what should be included in 40k?

Or they know what they like and don't like playing against... And peregrine, don't act like you don't constantly (like the rest of us on here) say what should and shouldn't be included in this terrible excuse for a game. Or am I mistaken and you're constantly playing againsts absurd unbound lists and any old crap collection of stuff people are now allowed to call a legal army. Tell you what man, I'll personally fly out for a game against you, because I know you'll have no issue at all playing against my unbound triple transcendent c'tan list.

 Peregrine wrote:
Why should the person playing the game as-written expect to meet resistance, while the person who wants to add house rules expect their house rules to be accepted by default?

Everyone is playing with house rules because no matter what this edition is so bloated, every flgs, gaming group or "meta" has it's no no buttons that few dare press.



The same people acting like entitled brats and having a hissy fit because no one wants to play against their star god, eldar titan, knight or silly formation are the first to espouse the "can we just play 7th edition" tagline but when someone counters with "ok, can I bring my unbound super silly all -fill in the blank- list?" , well then all of a sudden the same people wishing to use the free market nature of the game as a beat stick reel their bs in real quick and start saying "well obviously no unbound, I mean that would just be silly".



The core of the problem is this edition has no boundaries, when everything is legal, what power does the word legal even have at that point?


I'm gonna go downstairs to the workshop and whip up 3 transcendent c'tans. I mean they're legal, so by that logic surely all my regular opponents and anyone I meet looking for a pickup game will not just want to play against them, no, they'll have to. And when they tall me they're not having any fun, I'll tell them that I'm having fun thus they musts be.

 Crablezworth wrote:
Or am I mistaken and you're constantly playing againsts absurd unbound lists and any old crap collection of stuff people are now allowed to call a legal army. Tell you what man, I'll personally fly out for a game against you, because I know you'll have no issue at all playing against my unbound triple transcendent c'tan list.

I don't like it, but we're talking about very different situations here. The 3x c'tan list would be almost impossible to beat with anything but a tailored anti-c'tan list, and not very fun to play against without that tailored counter list. Even lists that have no trouble at all with "average" opponents are going to lose horribly to it. And since nobody (or at least nobody who wants to have friends) brings a 3x c'tan list nobody is going to be prepared with a counter list when you show up, and many people won't even have the ability to build an effective counter list.

A list with 1-2 knights, on the other hand, isn't so blatantly overpowered and impossible to win against. Those knights are roughly comparable to other vehicle-based lists, and if you have the ability to deal with LRBTs/Hammerheads/etc you at least have a chance. And if you don't have any chance of fighting back against 1-2 knights then you have nowhere near enough anti-tank units and you're going to lose a lot of games against "normal" lists with no superheavies. So the 1-2 knight list isn't a case of "I have no hope of winning no matter what I do", it's "my list has a huge fundamental weakness and instead of fixing it I want you to change your list so I don't have to".

Everyone is playing with house rules because no matter what this edition is so bloated, every flgs, gaming group or "meta" has it's no no buttons that few dare press.

That doesn't change the fact that they're house rules, or that a person who wants to make house rules for their group should have the burden of justifying those rules instead of just showing up with a set of their own house rules and expecting everyone else to accept them.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 insaniak wrote:
So if I don't use every possible option from every single codex, dataslate, and other publication, I'm not playing 'normal' 40K?

Oh FFS, you know what I meant. A game uses all of the default rules is one where those rules are available. The game includes the rules for tactical squads as long as a tactical squad is an option that you can put in your army, even if you decide to take scouts instead. The game doesn't include the rules for tactical squads if your opponent says "I'm not playing you unless you leave your tactical squads at home".

 Peregrine wrote:
Oh FFS, you know what I meant. A game uses all of the default rules is one where those rules are available. The game includes the rules for tactical squads as long as a tactical squad is an option that you can put in your army, even if you decide to take scouts instead. The game doesn't include the rules for tactical squads if your opponent says "I'm not playing you unless you leave your tactical squads at home".

Ok.

Now can you explain why that's a problem?


If both players agree to leave those tactical squads at home, who the hell are you to tell them that they shouldn't be playing 40k?

 insaniak wrote:
If both players agree to leave those tactical squads at home, who the hell are you to tell them that they shouldn't be playing 40k?

Because:

1) If you're going to remove large sections of 40k, especially things like vehicles/LoW/etc that are the few "unique" things 40k has, why not find a better game that doesn't need so much modification? We're not talking about removing 1-2 of GW's worst balance mistakes, the OP essentially needs vehicles removed entirely. So why not play Infinity instead, and have a much better all-infantry game?

2) This isn't a situation where both players have decided that they don't like unit X and don't want to include it, it's one where one player likes X and has it in their army and the other player wants to remove it.

 Peregrine wrote:


That doesn't change the fact that they're house rules, or that a person who wants to make house rules for their group should have the burden of justifying those rules instead of just showing up with a set of their own house rules and expecting everyone else to accept them..

See, you can pretend to not get the point all you want, but then you say something like:

 Peregrine wrote:
[And since nobody (or at least nobody who wants to have friends) brings a 3x c'tan list nobody is going to be prepared with a counter list when you show up, and many people won't even have the ability to build an effective counter list..

But that's a good thing right? The hobby will lose dead weight, I mean those people didn't want to get with times and comprise their entire army of 3 models as well, like me, and thus should leave the game... right?







I mean for once the person asking the question (the op) isn't shouting waac at the top of their lungs, blaming everything on tournaments and labelling players. For once its a nice fluff bunny,just putting out a very real and very human downside of this terribel game we play and the answer we give them is put up or shut up essentially. I agree with you peregrine that it is a reasonable expectation to expen some time money and effort to keep an army up to snuff. But then again, I'm more competitive than fluffy when it comes to the game. I take my issues with fluff bunnies being holier art than though but the op sounds fairly reasonable. I don't think the op will have much success altering what his opponent puts in their collection, but I do hope they can find an opponent they enjoy playing.

 Peregrine wrote:
1) If you're going to remove large sections of 40k, especially things like vehicles/LoW/etc that are the few "unique" things 40k has, why not find a better game that doesn't need so much modification? We're not talking about removing 1-2 of GW's worst balance mistakes, the OP essentially needs vehicles removed entirely. So why not play Infinity instead, and have a much better all-infantry game?

Because you have 40K, and don't have Infinity?

Or... whatever. Pick a reason. Did I miss the sign on sheet where we all need to provide you with a valid reason for wanting to play 40K before we're allowed to buy models?

That might cause some amount of consternation.

2) This isn't a situation where both players have decided that they don't like unit X and don't want to include it, ...

Well, no... because he hasn't actually spoken to his opponent about it yet. Hence this thread.

 insaniak wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:
1) If you're going to remove large sections of 40k, especially things like vehicles/LoW/etc that are the few "unique" things 40k has, why not find a better game that doesn't need so much modification? We're not talking about removing 1-2 of GW's worst balance mistakes, the OP essentially needs vehicles removed entirely. So why not play Infinity instead, and have a much better all-infantry game?

Because you have 40K, and don't have Infinity?

Or... whatever. Pick a reason. Did I miss the sign on sheet where we all need to provide you with a valid reason for wanting to play 40K before we're allowed to buy models?

Yeah I'm at a loss there too, somehow disregarding the time, money and effort put into a 1500pt and just playing a different game is a better solution than asking your opponent if they'd be ok taking a less powerful list.

Surprised nobody mentioned that the opponent doesn't seem like a nice person to play with. 2 sides to every story but it seems this person will just the OP to "grow some balls" and not even consider changing his list.

It seems this person thinks he is so great playing 40K. Then again only getting one side of the story, but it just doesn't seem the opponent is reasonable.

Davor wrote:
Surprised nobody mentioned that the opponent doesn't seem like a nice person to play with. 2 sides to every story but it seems this person will just the OP to "grow some balls" and not even consider changing his list.

It seems this person thinks he is so great playing 40K. Then again only getting one side of the story, but it just doesn't seem the opponent is reasonable.

We don't know anything about the op's knight/sisters playing opponent.




I've had a regular opponent who also plays marines ask me not to run a thunderfire or stormtalon next time we play. I just flatly said "I'm not even spamming them, what's the deal?". It was worth him asking but he certainly didn't effect what I chose to put in my marine list. I felt it was a bit of an absurd request given he also plays marines, so its a mirror match in terms of codex's from the get go, he also has both models just not finished or painted. So I got a bit defensive because to my thinking, why should I have to alter my list because he has no time to paint the very same models he's asking me not to use? But the simple reality is if neither of us can come to some agreement or consensus we probably won't keep playing one another. And that's not a good thing for the game. My only thought is if there was a return to actual structure and limitation in how armies are put together, there would be a chance to mitigate some of the balance issues.

I prefer competitive games, I'm generally happier if my opponent brings what they feel is a good list given the circumstances (not everyone has thousands of points of painted models to draw from).

 Scoundrel13 wrote:

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.

Sounds like Asshat to me. Again one side of the story, but that doesn't sound like to me his opponent will change his tune and change up his army for once. Anyone who has to "rub" and say "tough crap" to someones face is a person who must win with plastic toy soldiers.

Why did this become such a huge thread? Holy cow.

Why can no one give the OP a clear and concise answer to his simple question. Is he breaking any rules of the game or being TFG by asking his opponent to not take a knight.

No...you are not. What you are doing is being a sissy pants but that is actually not uncommon among 40k players. I routinely beat peoples cheese with my own cheese. The game is cheese - you must find your own cheese and make them cry. Thats the game. I've tried to give suggestions about how to beat a knight with DE and IG.

Melta vets in space wolf drop pods.
Or venom with blaster true born.