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.

lemurking23 wrote:
Don't jinx it, man.

My bad

DCannon4Life wrote:
Are those your Knights? They look fantastic! I'd love to give them some unmodified-D (nudge-nudge/wink-wink).

Not sure if I'm 'lucky' or not, but where I play, we play the game without so many restrictions. /shrug My concern with modifying the D-Chart is that it is going to be increasingly difficult to prepare for tournaments outside of my normal stomping grounds (<---pun intended); a 5 hour trip to Minnesota or a 7 hour trip to Iowa for a tournament comes along with the additional burden of trying to arrange practice games with players that are not particularly interested in Limp-D [copywright!]. And if I can't get practice games...I'm not going to want to spend time and money to travel all that way. I am a competitive person, being unprepared is distasteful.

So: Limp-D will make the 40K community smaller, discontiguous, and likely contentious. But if that's what it takes for people to let you put those marvelously well-painted models on the table and roll dice with them, so be it--play on!

If you want practice games against me, you'll never get me to play an unmodified D game, and I'm one of the more competitive players in the Stomping Grounds. PS, my new Girlfriend is in you neck of the woods so I've been making the MKE drive often. And to be fair, both ITC and NOVA are going with Modified D tables, sure they are slightly different with NOVA's being closer to unmodified, but that makes moth majors heading the same route.


Anyway, Knights are an entire army of SH LoWs. Without Adamantine Lance they aren't that terrifying, but they definitely are unfun for many people and they are an exteme build that is very difficult for many player to build a TMC(Take Most Comers) list that can handle them.

And they now require a special snowflake exception from both ITC and NOVA. What is wrong with having No SH/GC LoW tournaments and having ApocLite tournaments with LoWs, IKs, etc? Instead of trying to create a single universal tournament with butthurt people on both sides, how about we strive for two styles, appealing to more people and offereing a greater variety? Each event could then gravitate towards which of the two standards out there. Call it...

Classic Standard: No SH/GC LoW, Modified D.

Modern Standard: Approved LoW, IKs, Modified D?

Look OP ....gw got ya, they suckered you to buy all those pretty knights and then after they hit their sales quota, they invalidated your existing rules and made you LoW. It happens man..same thing is going to happen in a month when all those shiny end times characters and books get invalidated. Just move on...there are support groups for this.

 quickfuze wrote:
Look OP ....gw got ya, they suckered you to buy all those pretty knights and then after they hit their sales quota, they invalidated your existing rules and made you LoW. It happens man..same thing is going to happen in a month when all those shiny end times characters and books get invalidated. Just move on...there are support groups for this.

Those models aren't invalid under GWs rules. Or are you suggesting GW wrote the codex as it is to purposefully invalidate their own models under the ruleset of an outside tournament organization like ITC and NOVA? Either way that makes little sense.

Unless something's changed nova is banning all LOW superheavy and gargantuans. The str d nerf they made is for future str d and the elder artillery.
Lvo/bao is modifying d, d scythe, restricting LOW to 1 with exception to knight codex ( possibly).
Also ad lance whole still good I think is not as bad as some of the other formations that are not limited to errant and paladin.
5 knights just might be more competitive. Especially when the apoc blast no longer can scatter and kill another knight.
That whole post about classic and modern 40k is basically what is happening this year, however I doubt it will stay that way as more and more armies get thier own plastic superheavy lord of war.

It is also about the plastic super heavies and gargantuan creatures now. Maybe SM will bring back tanks.

OP- Pretty sure Atlantis just banned super heavies and gargantuan monstrous creatures including Knights in organized play.

 Byte wrote:
OP- Pretty sure Atlantis just banned super heavies and gargantuan monstrous creatures including Knights in organized play.

There's nothing quite like a knee-jerk.

 Byte wrote:
OP- Pretty sure Atlantis just banned super heavies and gargantuan monstrous creatures including Knights in organized play.

I know...Mike was looking right at me when he announced it after the last tournament (and I've brought GK to the last 3!).

Well, you can still bring them on Sundays if you can get an opponent.

They look great BTW. I have four myself and really like the new dex.

They have the highest winning record in tournaments

At AdeptiCon, only 1 primary IK army finished in the top 32 of the Championships.

ToF overall winning percentage does not to take into account event formats.

Breakdown of Top 32 by primary detachment:

4 CD
6 ELD
1 GK
1 IK
4 NEC
1 ORK
9 SM
1 SW
2 TAU
3 TYR

It does not get any better for them looking at secondary or tertiary detachments either.

One of the arguments that comes up is that with their 65% win rate on TOF, they tend to beat more "average" players a lot with their losses coming in the final rounds against top-tier lists and players. I'm assuming that running Knights as primary means you had at least 3 under the old rules so you could get a knight warlord, which means that at least 1100 points of your army were Knights; effectively a massive deathstar. What ToF doesn't account for is army composition...for instance what is the win rate of Gravstar lists? Or Pentyrant? And what happens when you remove the fluffy footdar lists from the Eldar results? Considering that some of these lists have won ALL their games at GTs (including the final ones), I'm guessing that their win record is probably much higher than their army's overall. I don't think it's not too much of a stretch to say that these lists probably also beat the "average" players and lists more often than not.

An Invisible gravstar will take approximately 3 wounds over 6 turns from 60 bolter-armed marines (assuming no rapid-fire). Congrats, you've killed 1 out of 5 centurions (assuming draigo didn't tank some of those or the wounded ones moved).
6 turns of the same shooting will put 3 wounds on ONE swooping, 3+ save hive tyrant.
Wave Serpent spam...unless you got rear armor or an assault you're doing nothing. And you can't even hurt wraithknights.

Obviously 60 bolter marines is pure hyperbole, but for some reason it seems to be the metric by which Knights are judged, while other "deathstar units" get a pass because they aren't superheavy, or only have one lord of war in them. A lot of your weapons can't hurt knights? Well, 5/6 of ALL your weapons can't hurt an invisible unit (Centstar costs just a little more than 2 knights, with more firepower and mobility), and unless you have skyfire you're in the same boat against FMC spam. But, those lists are ok because they don't have eternal warrior vehicles in them.

 greyknight12 wrote:
One of the arguments that comes up is that with their 65% win rate on TOF, they tend to beat more "average" players a lot with their losses coming in the final rounds against top-tier lists and players. I'm assuming that running Knights as primary means you had at least 3 under the old rules so you could get a knight warlord, which means that at least 1100 points of your army were Knights; effectively a massive deathstar. What ToF doesn't account for is army composition...for instance what is the win rate of Gravstar lists? Or Pentyrant? And what happens when you remove the fluffy footdar lists from the Eldar results? Considering that some of these lists have won ALL their games at GTs (including the final ones), I'm guessing that their win record is probably much higher than their army's overall. I don't think it's not too much of a stretch to say that these lists probably also beat the "average" players and lists more often than not.

An Invisible gravstar will take approximately 3 wounds over 6 turns from 60 bolter-armed marines (assuming no rapid-fire). Congrats, you've killed 1 out of 5 centurions (assuming draigo didn't tank some of those or the wounded ones moved).
6 turns of the same shooting will put 3 wounds on ONE swooping, 3+ save hive tyrant.
Wave Serpent spam...unless you got rear armor or an assault you're doing nothing. And you can't even hurt wraithknights.

Obviously 60 bolter marines is pure hyperbole, but for some reason it seems to be the metric by which Knights are judged, while other "deathstar units" get a pass because they aren't superheavy, or only have one lord of war in them. A lot of your weapons can't hurt knights? Well, 5/6 of ALL your weapons can't hurt an invisible unit (Centstar costs just a little more than 2 knights, with more firepower and mobility), and unless you have skyfire you're in the same boat against FMC spam. But, those lists are ok because they don't have eternal warrior vehicles in them.

Excellent point. Have an exalt.

 greyknight12 wrote:
Obviously 60 bolter marines is pure hyperbole, but for some reason it seems to be the metric by which Knights are judged, while other "deathstar units" get a pass because they aren't superheavy, or only have one lord of war in them. A lot of your weapons can't hurt knights? Well, 5/6 of ALL your weapons can't hurt an invisible unit (Centstar costs just a little more than 2 knights, with more firepower and mobility), and unless you have skyfire you're in the same boat against FMC spam. But, those lists are ok because they don't have eternal warrior vehicles in them.

I've been saying the same thing about D; there are all kinds of super-killy (and super-survivable) units out there, but they get a pass because the idea of rolling a single '6' is easier to grasp (and therefore more troubling) than the idea of rolling (how many shots do 4 GravCents get?) enough dice to statistically kill a unit twice over (or more)....

Yes, it seems there is a special level of hate given over to Superheavies despite that there are many more powerful lists that I would posit are much more aggravating to play against. My question really is: How does banning Knights make the game better? It does not solve the problem of unfun armies to play against, simply limits the field of unfun armies, so those armies can cause more havoc.
Pentaflyrant is a skew list, and so is: Censtar, Seer Council. Superfriends, Thunderwolf, Greentide, Scatbike spam, etc. Hell, even an armored company or a Tyranid non-flyer monster mash list is a skew list, and for some players, that is going to be annoying to fight against. These lists all have incredible strengths that can be leveraged to devastate a foe quickly while being relatively safe from retaliation from most other lists, but they have some weaknesses that can be exploited by certain counters. I’d argue that a skew list is actually more susceptible to player error than any other because they have such glaring weaknesses that a canny opponent can easily exploit an error for a large return.
There are many, many powerful skew lists in 7th ed, and this is just how the game has coalesced in 7th ed. Yes, the game somewhat devolves into rock, paper, scissor, but by actually limiting different variants of skew without removing all skew, you actually move the game closer towards true rock, paper, scissor where there are only a few major lists. In the land of skew, the more there are, the more they cancel each other out, and the more pressure there is to not build skew oddly enough.
Even with that, player skill is still a determining factor. If lists were truly all that mattered, we would see the same lists piloted by different people dominate the biggest events because even the best players would lose to a superior list piloted by a less skilled player, and with the fact the game has a huge element of chance associated, no single person could reasonably expect to win major events multiple times because that element of chance would derail his/her plans at some point. Yet, we see this is not in fact true because we often see the same big names appear in the top 10 of major events, and these big names do not all pilot the same skew lists.
In the end of a too long post: Banning Knights does not help anything nor does it solve any real problems. If nothing else, it only allows other skew lists more room to dominate. If you want to truly remove skew, then you have to institute a true comp-system, which opens another whole host of issues. Banning Knights because, well, you essentially feel like it does little more than make a viable, GW published codex obsolete, so instead of GW squatting armies, now someone else is doing it.

My issue with all Knight armies is that is has killed the All-comers list in competitive play. Most AC lists have a lot of anti-infantry weapons, many of which cannot scratch the paint of an IK. For example, a DE venom-spam list that has some anti-AV will automatically start an 1850 game with about a 1000pt handicap against an all IK list. Cuz a million poison shots cant hurt armour.

If you don't build a list that can comfortably kill 2-3 IKs a turn, you are in for a rough game.

That being said, I don't think all IK lists are top-tier, as has been pointed out by recent tourney results. It is far more competitive to have 1-2 Knights supporting your "real" army. It is also more fun to play against since the parts of your army that cant touch the Knights will at least be able to roll dice vs the rest of the army.

In casual games, I would be more that happy to play against an all IK list, but I would need to list tailor first (which I normally do not like doing, but would have to). Otherwise it would not be a game, but me placing models on the board for a turn, then putting them back in the case. I can do that at home, by myself.

The nerf is to *ranged D only*

so the entire op is kinda invalid if he is complaining his knights close combat D attacks just got nerfed

 easysauce wrote:
The nerf is to *ranged D only*

so the entire op is kinda invalid if he is complaining his knights close combat D attacks just got nerfed

The ITC mod I posted was for all D-weapons, the NOVA mod was for ranged only (AFAIK at the time, they may have since changed).
I'm not at all complaining that Destroyer got nerfed; though it does hurt Knights a bit more since they pay for it unlike some other units (looking at you, wraithknight). In fact, if more D-weapons start showing up then modifying them will be absolutely necessary. What I'm saying is that if some of these nerfs are put into place then one of the major complaints about knights (the 6+D6, no saves) is not an issue anymore. And if we're going to mod D-weapons just so Eldar can play, why not let Imperial Knights play too under the same rules?

 Galef wrote:
My issue with all Knight armies is that is has killed the All-comers list in competitive play. Most AC lists have a lot of anti-infantry weapons, many of which cannot scratch the paint of an IK. For example, a DE venom-spam list that has some anti-AV will automatically start an 1850 game with about a 1000pt handicap against an all IK list. Cuz a million poison shots cant hurt armour.

If you don't build a list that can comfortably kill 2-3 IKs a turn, you are in for a rough game.

That being said, I don't think all IK lists are top-tier, as has been pointed out by recent tourney results. It is far more competitive to have 1-2 Knights supporting your "real" army. It is also more fun to play against since the parts of your army that cant touch the Knights will at least be able to roll dice vs the rest of the army.

In casual games, I would be more that happy to play against an all IK list, but I would need to list tailor first (which I normally do not like doing, but would have to). Otherwise it would not be a game, but me placing models on the board for a turn, then putting them back in the case. I can do that at home, by myself.

In a kill points game or play until someone is tabled game, sure, but what about objectives? Also, how does that same list work against censtar, draigowing, gravbike spam, pentaflyrant, or even a full armored vehicle list from just the normal AM codex? I agree that if you play DE venom-spam against knights, that is pushing a big rock up a steep hill, but it seems like DE venom-spam is not a great TAC list to begin with.

If a list is truly TAC, if that is even possible anymore (not saying yes or no as I honestly do not know), then you would have some elements that can threaten a knight, and if you have elements that do not, perhaps then can be used to harass the Knight's supporting units (if any) or just help control the board by making the knight use their limited attacks on a less valuable target. A wall of Venoms could help keep a knight contained in a certain part of the board, making it hard for them to score objectives or threaten the few dark lances you have.

Also, what picks up 2-3 knights a turn? At range, that seems really scary as that is a lot of firepower, and it seems like if you can do that, then to me that is a decent tournament list that may only struggle against infantry spam. If in melee, that is a lot of chainfist/powerfist/klaw etc that seems like an expensive, almost deathstarry unit.

DE venom-spam is a bad (or rather out dated) example. I only use it since poison cant hurt AV. TAC lists are so different now to the pre-Knight era, that I honestly cant think of a current TAC list (outside of OP Eldar)

The examples you just listed (censtar, draigowing, gravbike spam, pentaflyrant) are not what I would consider TAC. Top-teir lists, sure, but each list is more Rock-Paper-Scissors than TAC.

Any BTW, weight of fire is how Venom-spam used to deal with the above lists. It is that same reason so many people are losing their minds about Scatterlaser Eldar Bikes (which also cant hurt Knights very well)

 greyknight12 wrote:

 easysauce wrote:
The nerf is to *ranged D only*

so the entire op is kinda invalid if he is complaining his knights close combat D attacks just got nerfed

The ITC mod I posted was for all D-weapons, the NOVA mod was for ranged only (AFAIK at the time, they may have since changed).

Im fairly certain it was always just melee, either way, it changed some time ago for ITC that the mods are only to ranged D. melee is unaffected in ITC, so knights are fine in that regard.

 greyknight12 wrote:
And if we're going to mod D-weapons just so Eldar can play, why not let Imperial Knights play too under the same rules?

Because they don't deserve get a special snowflake exception to the "no superheavies" rule which presumably exists in this situation (since if it doesn't knights wouldn't be banned). If an IG player doesn't get to take their Baneblade then the knight player shouldn't get their superheavies either.

 Peregrine wrote:

 greyknight12 wrote:
And if we're going to mod D-weapons just so Eldar can play, why not let Imperial Knights play too under the same rules?

Because they don't deserve get a special snowflake exception to the "no superheavies" rule which presumably exists in this situation (since if it doesn't knights wouldn't be banned). If an IG player doesn't get to take their Baneblade then the knight player shouldn't get their superheavies either.

It is a special snowflake and is being treated as such. No other codex is comprised entirely of super heavies and therefore it is special.

This thread is silly for the obvious reason that nobody actually has any real basis for their complaints.

Specifically, nobody is stopping the OP from playing with his Knights if he wants to and nobody is forcing anyone else to play against those Knights if they don't want to.

Also, the argument that Knights shouldn't get their "snow flake" exception to the rules limiting or banning lords of war/gargantuan creatures is kind of absurd. This is because lords of war/gargantuan creatures have a "snow flake" exception to the 40k rules to begin with in that they are 0-1 or banned outright. Yes, the limiting or banning of lords of war/gargantuan creatures is a categorical "snow flake" exception.

So when you maintain that Knights shouldn't get a "snow flake" exception... you are essentially saying Knights shouldn't get a "snow flake" exception to an already existing "snow flake" exception... because?

Ultimately, if you are going to complain about allowing Knights to be taken as a whole army, you have to explain why Knights should be banned or limited in the first place (something you are presumably ok with), and at that point, you are merely arguing your opinion of how the game should be played/what is balanced versus what someone else thinks how the game should be played or what is balanced to them and good luck with that.

The idea of the so called snowflake exception is ridiculous on multiple levels. Those who maintain they shouldn't have said exception:

Do you also maintain all flyers should be banned since not all codices have access to flyers and therefore those who do are a special snowflake or vice versa?

What about Gauss? No other army has access to it but necrons, what makes them so damn special?

All codices are special, they are all unique.

 mortetvie wrote:
This thread is silly for the obvious reason that nobody actually has any real basis for their complaints.

Specifically, nobody is stopping the OP from playing with his Knights if he wants to and nobody is forcing anyone else to play against those Knights if they don't want to.

Have you even read through the thread? His FLGS has banned super heavies and gargantuan MCs including Knights in organized play. I would say that constitutes "someone" doing just that.

Byte...

(1) No one is forcing him to play at that store.
(2) He should still be able to play pick-up games with friends using his knights at that store unless that store is Nazi Germany.
(3) He can always play games at a friends house.
(4) He can try to find other places to play his knights.

 mortetvie wrote:
Byte...

(1) No one is forcing him to play at that store.
(2) He should still be able to play pick-up games with friends using his knights at that store unless that store is Nazi Germany.
(3) He can always play games at a friends house.
(4) He can try to find other places to play his knights.

Lots of gamers don't have many stores/clubs to choose from in a practicable travel range.
Many gamers can only show up once a week or a couple times a month for league night where the house rules are in effect and random pickup play at other times isn't a consistently available option.
Games at houses requires space, table, and terrain, which often isn't available.
Home play also typically largely limits you to one opponent typically.

Probably 90% of the people I know that play 40k do so with these realities in place.

 OverwatchCNC wrote:
It is a special snowflake and is being treated as such. No other codex is comprised entirely of super heavies and therefore it is special.

Why does it make any difference if the knight is a one-unit codex while the stompa is a page in Codex:Orks? They're both superheavies and if a tournament is going to enforce a "no superheavies" rule then there shouldn't be a special exception for knights.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 OverwatchCNC wrote:
Do you also maintain all flyers should be banned since not all codices have access to flyers and therefore those who do are a special snowflake or vice versa?

You completely missed the point of the special snowflake exception. It's not about which codices have access to something in the rules published by GW, it's about whether bans on unit classes are applied consistently. A special snowflake exception for flyers would be a hypothetical tournament where flyers are banned, except C:SM armies can take their Stormravens because the TO's friends all bought Stormravens and want to use them.

And I'm not saying that anything should be banned. A tournament where all superheavies are allowed does not have the special snowflake problem, and there would be no reason to ban knights in that case. My argument is only that knights should be treated just like every other superheavy and subject to the same rules. If a Baneblade is banned/limited to 0-1/whatever then knights shouldn't get a special snowflake exception to that rule.

 mortetvie wrote:
Byte...

(1) No one is forcing him to play at that store.
(2) He should still be able to play pick-up games with friends using his knights at that store unless that store is Nazi Germany.
(3) He can always play games at a friends house.
(4) He can try to find other places to play his knights.

I got nothing...