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.

Just a simple Army of Knights ,...1 to 8 depending on points. Can it bring a fortification (like the Vengeance battery)?

Yes why wouldn't it be able to? You can pretty ,such always take whatever models are in your collection.

No, they don't have a fortification slot. I'd be surprised if anyone called you on it, though.

also...whats the point you can't hide behind it and you wouldnt shoot the weapon

 MasterSlowPoke wrote:
No, they don't have a fortification slot. I'd be surprised if anyone called you on it, though.

Why does that matter?

also...whats the point you can't hide behind it and you wouldnt shoot the weapon

Why wouldn't you fire the weapon? Plus AV14 AA is a nice addition to an ADlance. Keeps the high AV saturation but covers the Knights weakness.

unless you have a model in b2b with the battery it has to shoot BS1 i believe. Also im not sure about what the AV14 would come from i thought you were talkin gabout a regular defense line

 FlingitNow wrote:

 MasterSlowPoke wrote:
No, they don't have a fortification slot. I'd be surprised if anyone called you on it, though.

Why does that matter?

It's a fortification. You need a fortification slot in your detachment in order to take a fortification.

Brother Paen wrote:
Just a simple Army of Knights ,...1 to 8 depending on points. Can it bring a fortification (like the Vengeance battery)?

This is only legal if you're playing Unbound.

It is not possible to make a legal Battleforged army using only Knights and Fortifications. I believe only Combined Arms Detachments have Fortification slots.

 Kriswall wrote:

Brother Paen wrote:
Just a simple Army of Knights ,...1 to 8 depending on points. Can it bring a fortification (like the Vengeance battery)?

This is only legal if you're playing Unbound.

It is not possible to make a legal Battleforged army using only Knights and Fortifications. I believe only Combined Arms Detachments have Fortification slots.

Not only CAD has Fortification slots. CAD and many of the other Detachments have Fortification slots. The Knight Detachment doesn't have a Fortification slots.

Cheexsta wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:

 MasterSlowPoke wrote:
No, they don't have a fortification slot. I'd be surprised if anyone called you on it, though.

Why does that matter?

It's a fortification. You need a fortification slot in your detachment in order to take a fortification.

The rulebook disagrees with you. It says I can take any models in my collection.

Ghazkuul wrote:unless you have a model in b2b with the battery it has to shoot BS1 i believe. Also im not sure about what the AV14 would come from i thought you were talkin gabout a regular defense line

A vengeancy weapon battery is an AV14 building that can't be occupied with an automated weapon that fires at Bs2 ALWAYS (unless firing snap shots).[spoiler]

 FlingitNow wrote:
The rulebook disagrees with you. It says I can take any models in my collection.

For Unbound. Everyone here is talking about Battle-Forged

 FlingitNow wrote:

Cheexsta wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:

 MasterSlowPoke wrote:
No, they don't have a fortification slot. I'd be surprised if anyone called you on it, though.

Why does that matter?

It's a fortification. You need a fortification slot in your detachment in order to take a fortification.

The rulebook disagrees with you. It says I can take any models in my collection.

Ghazkuul wrote:unless you have a model in b2b with the battery it has to shoot BS1 i believe. Also im not sure about what the AV14 would come from i thought you were talkin gabout a regular defense line

A vengeancy weapon battery is an AV14 building that can't be occupied with an automated weapon that fires at Bs2 ALWAYS (unless firing snap shots).[spoiler]

Again, you can only make an army of Knights and Fortifications if you're playing Unbound. Obviously if you're playing Unbound you can take pretty much anything. My experience is that most people don't like Unbound.

 FlingitNow wrote:

Cheexsta wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:

 MasterSlowPoke wrote:
No, they don't have a fortification slot. I'd be surprised if anyone called you on it, though.

Why does that matter?

It's a fortification. You need a fortification slot in your detachment in order to take a fortification.

The rulebook disagrees with you. It says I can take any models in my collection.

Right. I hadn't realised we were talking unbound.

 CrownAxe wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:
The rulebook disagrees with you. It says I can take any models in my collection.

For Unbound. Everyone here is talking about Battle-Forged

The OP mentioned nothing about battleforged only so why assume that? Why assume they are disallowing normal rules in response to a rules query? If someone said "Is it possible to get ObSec in a Space Marine army" would you say "No as no formations contain ObSec as a command benefit for Space Marines only Nid through Sky light and BAs through a WD formation get that", then complain that you assumed they weren't talking about battle forged when some one suggests a CAD? Or would you see that as a very odd approach to take?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

My experience is that most people don't like Unbound.

My experience is that most people do like Unbound.

Right. I hadn't realised we were talking unbound.

Why did you not realise we were talking about the normal rules of the game on the rules forum?

 FlingitNow wrote:
The OP mentioned nothing about battleforged only so why assume that?

And he didn't mention Unbound so why assume that?

At any rate, yes, as long as you are playing unbound. If you are not, then you would need a combined arms detachment allied in in order to field it. Also note that if you are unbound, you don't get the seneschal bonuses, because that is knight detachment specific, and you can only take formations. So, best of both worlds, adlance and some batteries.

 Ghaz wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:
The OP mentioned nothing about battleforged only so why assume that?

And he didn't mention Unbound so why assume that?

Because it is normal rules. He didn't say battle forged either so why assume that? I assume you're using the rules in the rulebook if you're not using some of them you should state that. Why assume that Unbound isn't being used?

We get it; we made a unreasonable assumption. Time to move on, yes?

Also, vengeance batteries aren't fired by any other model. Doesn't work like that.

 FlingitNow wrote:

 Ghaz wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:
The OP mentioned nothing about battleforged only so why assume that?

And he didn't mention Unbound so why assume that?

Because it is normal rules. He didn't say battle forged either so why assume that? I assume you're using the rules in the rulebook if you're not using some of them you should state that. Why assume that Unbound isn't being used?

Don't be obtuse. You should know by now that this forum (and most of the internet) observe Unbound like some kind of super plague that is to be avoided at all costs. The safe assumption in a situation like this, unless unbound is specified, is to assume that they are using a Battleforged army, since that is what the vast majority of people use to play their games (at least, if the forums are anything to go by).

Besides, it's better to assume the more popular, more restrictive mode is what is being used, then intentionally mislead someone because they didn't specify it was the other, less popular way.

So, to answer the OP: No, you can't bring a fortification in a Battleforged Imperial Knights list. As always, unbound doesn't really need to be stated, as it's pretty obvious you can ally 4 Bloodthirsters with Marneus Calgar and Farsight if you'd like.

Agreed. Unbound is the exception, not the standard.

 FlingitNow wrote:

 Ghaz wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:
The OP mentioned nothing about battleforged only so why assume that?

And he didn't mention Unbound so why assume that?

Because it is normal rules. He didn't say battle forged either so why assume that? I assume you're using the rules in the rulebook if you're not using some of them you should state that. Why assume that Unbound isn't being used?

Wow, tough day? If someone's asking if something can be taken, you'd be pretty slow to not realize they're talking battle forged. And you know it.

Stop trolling.

To the OP, as others have said, you need the slot. Lacking that, I'd look for a really cheap detachment that gets you a few utility units and unlocks your fortifications.

Ignore FlingIt, he's working on his post count today.

Don't be obtuse. You should know by now that this forum (and most of the internet) observe Unbound like some kind of super plague that is to be avoided at all costs. The safe assumption in a situation like this, unless unbound is specified, is to assume that they are using a Battleforged army, since that is what the vast majority of people use to play their games (at least, if the forums are anything to go by). 

Besides, it's better to assume the more popular, more restrictive mode is what is being used, then intentionally mislead someone because they didn't specify it was the other, less popular way. 

In my experience plenty of people play unbound. It is a normal part of the rules just like Battleforged. I don't assume one or the other when someone asks a question unless they specify. Why would you assume someone is not using the rules in the rulebook when asking a rules question?

Would you think I was being a troll if I told someone their list was illegal because they are using tactical marines? Then act all shocked when people disagree with me and say "sure if you're using troops choices I assumed we weren't". Or if I told the OP his list was illegal right off the bat as Tournaments in my area limit you to 1 Knight or limit you to 2 detachments so you can never have more than 6 Knights? Just because people commonly play with rules different to those in the book does not mean you should answer rules questions with the assumption that your Houserules apply. You can clarify "well if you're not using troop choices you can have tactical marines" or "in battleforged the Fortification must belong to a detachment and the Knight Detachment does not contain a slot for them". Rather than just stating "no not possible" and then acting all hurt when someone points out you are in correct.

Wow, tough day? If someone's asking if something can be taken, you'd be pretty slow to not realize they're talking battle forged. And you know it. 

Personal attacks aside we don't know if he was talking about battleforged only or not. He might not be aware Unbound exists, he might not understand how battleforged works and how they impact command benefits for Formations and Detachments. Hence the wording of my first post.

 FlingitNow wrote:

Don't be obtuse. You should know by now that this forum (and most of the internet) observe Unbound like some kind of super plague that is to be avoided at all costs. The safe assumption in a situation like this, unless unbound is specified, is to assume that they are using a Battleforged army, since that is what the vast majority of people use to play their games (at least, if the forums are anything to go by). 

Besides, it's better to assume the more popular, more restrictive mode is what is being used, then intentionally mislead someone because they didn't specify it was the other, less popular way. 

In my experience plenty of people play unbound. It is a normal part of the rules just like Battleforged. I don't assume one or the other when someone asks a question unless they specify. Why would you assume someone is not using the rules in the rulebook when asking a rules question?

Would you think I was being a troll if I told someone their list was illegal because they are using tactical marines? Then act all shocked when people disagree with me and say "sure if you're using troops choices I assumed we weren't". Or if I told the OP his list was illegal right off the bat as Tournaments in my area limit you to 1 Knight or limit you to 2 detachments so you can never have more than 6 Knights? Just because people commonly play with rules different to those in the book does not mean you should answer rules questions with the assumption that your Houserules apply. You can clarify "well if you're not using troop choices you can have tactical marines" or "in battleforged the Fortification must belong to a detachment and the Knight Detachment does not contain a slot for them". Rather than just stating "no not possible" and then acting all hurt when someone points out you are in correct.

Wow, tough day? If someone's asking if something can be taken, you'd be pretty slow to not realize they're talking battle forged. And you know it. 

Personal attacks aside we don't know if he was talking about battleforged only or not. He might not be aware Unbound exists, he might not understand how battleforged works and how they impact command benefits for Formations and Detachments. Hence the wording of my first post.

I agree that personal attacks are never a good idea. However, saying yes before clarifying which army building method he was using was also not a good idea. Like it or not, agree or not, Unbound is NOT the standard on this forum. Unbound is NOT the standard in the greater gaming community either, based on commentary in this forum and others as well as tourney rules. Unbound is kind of like how Forgeworld used to be (and still is to a certain extent) - entirely legal, but you should probably ask your opponent before fielding it because he might say no.

For future reference, it is NOT a safe assumption to make that someone asking a question about list building is using the Unbound rules. The best course of action is to simply ask a clarifying question. "Are you playing Battle-Forged or Unbound?"

Regardless, this thread has run its course. The question has been answered. I would suggest a Mod Lock.

So, apologies all around for causing such a stir. I purchased three knights when the Codex came out and two more later to make a Household. These were followed up by converting three more Questoris to Cerastus knights.

So there I was, 8 Knights and trying to figure out how to use them. Somewhere along the way rules changed (" everything you have been told is a lie"...the Inquisition) and" battle-forged" and "unbound" were things, things argued over and despised in places.

Now I have learned,..
.I may field Knights with a Vengeance Battery as an Unbound army.
I need to learn the Pros and Cons of Unbound and Battle-forged.
Unbound armies are shunned in some places.
I should figure out what a Battle-forged list including Knights requires/allows.
I should know this BEFORE asking questions,...for there are no stupid questions, just stupid posters asking undefined questions.

Thank you all for your efforts in answering my question. off to read the rules and numerous updates and faqs......

Check the Knight FAQ and look up the Adamantium Lance these have dramatically changed how you field Knights in 7th Ed. Also read how to build your army in 7th as pretty ,such nothing that true in 6th is still true in 7th.

 FlingitNow wrote:

Don't be obtuse. You should know by now that this forum (and most of the internet) observe Unbound like some kind of super plague that is to be avoided at all costs. The safe assumption in a situation like this, unless unbound is specified, is to assume that they are using a Battleforged army, since that is what the vast majority of people use to play their games (at least, if the forums are anything to go by). 

Besides, it's better to assume the more popular, more restrictive mode is what is being used, then intentionally mislead someone because they didn't specify it was the other, less popular way. 

In my experience plenty of people play unbound.

Funny, in my experience nobody plays unbound. Every tournament I know of doesn't allow it, every game of 7th I've seen hasn't been with Unbound.

The default is to play bound with Detachments. Unbound is not the default way to play.

 Grey Templar wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:

Don't be obtuse. You should know by now that this forum (and most of the internet) observe Unbound like some kind of super plague that is to be avoided at all costs. The safe assumption in a situation like this, unless unbound is specified, is to assume that they are using a Battleforged army, since that is what the vast majority of people use to play their games (at least, if the forums are anything to go by). 

Besides, it's better to assume the more popular, more restrictive mode is what is being used, then intentionally mislead someone because they didn't specify it was the other, less popular way. 

In my experience plenty of people play unbound.

Funny, in my experience nobody plays unbound. Every tournament I know of doesn't allow it, every game of 7th I've seen hasn't been with Unbound.

The default is to play bound with Detachments. Unbound is not the default way to play.

I would agree the default for Tournaments is battleforged. But the default fir play is the rulebook which includes unbound. I see unbound regularly at my FLGS and at atleast 1 of the 2 main gaming clubs.

Yeah, good for your FLGS. But the overwhelming majority of people default to Detachments. Ergo, Unbound is the odd format which is rarely played. So don't assume its ok.

It's also weird to assume a person who is asking about unit restrictions is playing without unit restrictions.