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.

 mortetvie wrote:
Yes, the limiting or banning of lords of war/gargantuan creatures is a categorical "snow flake" exception.

But that's an entirely separate issue. You can argue that one all you like, but the discussion here is whether or not knights should be banned given that all other superheavies are banned.

 Vaktathi wrote:

 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.

Truth. These circumstances mirror my own experiences.

 Peregrine wrote:

 mortetvie wrote:
Yes, the limiting or banning of lords of war/gargantuan creatures is a categorical "snow flake" exception.

But that's an entirely separate issue. You can argue that one all you like, but the discussion here is whether or not knights should be banned given that all other superheavies are banned.

Not exactly, the two issues are inextricably linked. To even have a leg to stand on when maintaining that "since Super Heavies are banned or 0-1 therefore->no exception should be made to allow the Knight codex" you need to address why the ban or 0-1 restriction should be there to begin with.

You see, the initial ban/limitation is its own snow-flake exception to the rules. so what if a TO makes an exception to the exception-they are free to do so on the same basis the initial exception exists at all. Therefore, at the end of the day, all we are arguing about is whose favorite color is the better color...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 MWHistorian wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

 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.

Truth. These circumstances mirror my own experiences.

If you can afford 10 Knights-as the OP apparently can, I am sure you can afford a gaming table and some space... Indeed, to even play this army, you are shelling out roughly 300-1000 USD. Meanwhile, some terrain, tables and a gaming mat is what, probably no more than 200-300? Maybe the guy can sell a Knight or two for a gaming table and some terrain... Maybe someone can buy a gaming table and some terrain instead of purchasing a 5th or 6th Knight?

Furthermore, in this day and age, it shouldn't be that hard to post on a store's page/some forum to try to find people in your area to set up games with. I've made plenty of friends through such means and now have regulars that come to my place to play games.

If none of those things are options then perhaps 40k isn't the right hobby or perhaps Knights just are not meant to be for you?

Money may grow on trees for some, but players don't.

 mortetvie wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 mortetvie wrote:
Yes, the limiting or banning of lords of war/gargantuan creatures is a categorical "snow flake" exception.

But that's an entirely separate issue. You can argue that one all you like, but the discussion here is whether or not knights should be banned given that all other superheavies are banned.

Not exactly, the two issues are inextricably linked. To even have a leg to stand on when maintaining that "since Super Heavies are banned or 0-1 therefore->no exception should be made to allow the Knight codex" you need to address why the ban or 0-1 restriction should be there to begin with.

You see, the initial ban/limitation is its own snow-flake exception to the rules. so what if a TO makes an exception to the exception-they are free to do so on the same basis the initial exception exists at all. Therefore, at the end of the day, all we are arguing about is whose favorite color is the better color...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 MWHistorian wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

 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.

Truth. These circumstances mirror my own experiences.

If you can afford 10 Knights-as the OP apparently can, I am sure you can afford a gaming table and some space... Indeed, to even play this army, you are shelling out roughly 300-1000 USD. Meanwhile, some terrain, tables and a gaming mat is what, probably no more than 200-300? Maybe the guy can sell a Knight or two for a gaming table and some terrain... Maybe someone can buy a gaming table and some terrain instead of purchasing a 5th or 6th Knight?

Furthermore, in this day and age, it shouldn't be that hard to post on a store's page/some forum to try to find people in your area to set up games with. I've made plenty of friends through such means and now have regulars that come to my place to play games.

If none of those things are options then perhaps 40k isn't the right hobby or perhaps Knights just are not meant to be for you?

I never said anything about owning knights. I was referring to his description of gaming situations.

 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.

This. 1000x this.

That isn't the only place to play in the world.

It's definitely not the only place to buy.
___

@OP - buy from an Internet discounter, and show the store how much money they're losing with their stupid policies.

 mortetvie wrote:

If you can afford 10 Knights-as the OP apparently can, I am sure you can afford a gaming table and some space... Indeed, to even play this army, you are shelling out roughly 300-1000 USD.

Owning X models is one thing. Having a space at home to play is another. That can be limited by the size of one's home, family/roommate situations, and many other things. Many people I'd be happy to play at a game store, but also don't necessarily want in my home (as an adult, I'm happy to play 16 year old Billy at the FLGS, I'm not inviting 16 year old Billy to my home). Alternatively, if one lives 45 minutes away from the game store, trying to entice someone else out to your place to play may not be practicable. There's a huge number of variables there. It's not simply a question of money.

Furthermore, in this day and age, it shouldn't be that hard to post on a store's page/some forum to try to find people in your area to set up games with. I've made plenty of friends through such means and now have regulars that come to my place to play games.

That absolutely works for some people. Other people simply don't have the flexible schedules or may have travel issues associated with this, particularly on an ad-hoc basis as opposed to more regularly scheduled store events. There may not in fact be anyone willing to come on off-days, at least not regularly. The store may be running events for other games and have no table space at other times. I've run into that more than once. I've been lucky in that most of my "40k" life I've lived within a few minutes (at times a couple of blocks) of my local game store, but most players I knew could only make it out on specific days and often only once or twice a month, and often had to drive a fair bit to get there. Currently I drive 90 miles round trip to play 40k, and arranging games on off-days is problematic.


I'm not a huge fan of Knights as an entire army, that's not something I enjoy facing or think should really be an "army" in and of itself, but I can see where the OP is coming from. Just assuming that home play or alternatively scheduled games are simple solutions that anyone can turn to with ease is highly unrealistic. Knights previously may not have been an issue and thus building such a collection not a problem, and subsequently they could have moved or store policy changed or something, not at all unrealistic. I can feel for that, and understand that situation, after all, trying to get anyone to play FW stuff was next to impossible in many places for years

 mortetvie wrote:
you need to address why the ban or 0-1 restriction should be there to begin with.

No I don't, because I'm not defending the limits on superheavies in general. I'm assuming that the ban exists and isn't up for debate because that's the context of the discussion. If you want to argue that superheavies should be played RAW and the bans/restrictions should be removed then fine, but that's a separate argument with no relevance here.

If you can afford 10 Knights-as the OP apparently can, I am sure you can afford a gaming table and some space... Indeed, to even play this army, you are shelling out roughly 300-1000 USD. Meanwhile, some terrain, tables and a gaming mat is what, probably no more than 200-300? Maybe the guy can sell a Knight or two for a gaming table and some terrain... Maybe someone can buy a gaming table and some terrain instead of purchasing a 5th or 6th Knight?

It's not just owning a 6x4 table, you need space to play in (hard to do if you have a small apartment), terrain that is at least as good as what the store has (which gets expensive and time-consuming), no schedule conflicts like a spouse who doesn't want a bunch of gamers coming over, etc. There's a reason people play in stores instead of at home.

If none of those things are options then perhaps 40k isn't the right hobby or perhaps Knights just are not meant to be for you?

Yeah, clearly if you want to play 40k with a perfectly legal army this just isn't the hobby for you and you should find something else to do instead. I'll be sure to quote this back to you any time you disagree with a tournament/store/etc policy on rule changes (for example, Eldar nerfs/bans).

Good job not actually addressing what I said and basing your comments on assumptions.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

 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.

This. 1000x this.

That isn't the only place to play in the world.

It's definitely not the only place to buy.
___

@OP - buy from an Internet discounter, and show the store how much money they're losing with their stupid policies.

As said before, not everyone is as fortunate as you to have multiple places to play or know people at the store, or have friend's house to play at.

 Peregrine wrote:

 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.

Right, I forgot these discussions are academic exercises for you.

 OverwatchCNC wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 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.

Right, I forgot these discussions are academic exercises for you.

They're academic exercises for anyone that isn't the OP, someone in a similar situation, or someone in a direct position to change that situation for them...

 OverwatchCNC wrote:
Right, I forgot these discussions are academic exercises for you.

Right, I forgot, you just can't let go of your absurd little vendetta. And no, it's not just an academic exercise for me. You don't know where I play and what rules they have, so please don't assume anything about them. The OP is not the only player who has to deal with the "special snowflake" exception (or lack of one) for knights in a store/tournament/whatever where superheavies in general are banned. If it's an academic exercise for me, then it's certainly one for you as well.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
And just to be clear on what my (not at all academic) argument is:

If a TO decides to play the game as-printed and allow superheavies then I'll happily play in that tournament. I've got a nice collection of them, and I'll willingly sacrifice a bit of competitiveness to put some of my favorite models on the table. And I'll expect that other players will be bringing their knights, just like I can bring my Malcador.

If a TO decides that the majority of their players don't want superheavies in the tournament that's fine. I'll be a bit disappointed that I have to put mine back on the display shelf, but I'll still go to that tournament. I've attended that kind of tournament and I didn't think the rule was at all unfair because it was consistently applied to all superheavies, not just mine. But if I show up at that tournament and my opponent has an army of nothing but superheavies, while I had to leave all of mine at home, then we have a fairness problem. It's just like we'd have a fairness problem if there was a limit of two detachments per army, except the TO's best friend is allowed to bring as many detachments as they want.

So, what the special snowflake exception means is that I'm not going to attend that event. And there are tournaments I've been interested in playing in but skipped specifically for that reason.

 Vaktathi wrote:

 OverwatchCNC wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 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.

Right, I forgot these discussions are academic exercises for you.

They're academic exercises for anyone that isn't the OP, someone in a similar situation, or someone in a direct position to change that situation for them...

Correct.

For the record, my neighbor has a table with terrain we both work on, so I'm not a complete social loafer and I do have some one to play pickup games with. But, I also like going to tournaments, and playing other people.

EDIT: And Peregrine, you make some really good points. For Knights though, the issue is more closely tied to Lord of War (or even 0-1) bans. Once Knights became Lords of War, they became impossible to play as an army under a lot of current comp structures. My purpose here is to advocate that there should be some effort to save Imperial Knights, rather than just throwing them in the ban pile. Whether the best way is changing comp or making exceptions, I don't know.

 Peregrine wrote:
If a TO decides that the majority of their players don't want superheavies in the tournament that's fine. I'll be a bit disappointed that I have to put mine back on the display shelf, but I'll still go to that tournament. I've attended that kind of tournament and I didn't think the rule was at all unfair because it was consistently applied to all superheavies, not just mine. But if I show up at that tournament and my opponent has an army of nothing but superheavies, while I had to leave all of mine at home, then we have a fairness problem. It's just like we'd have a fairness problem if there was a limit of two detachments per army, except the TO's best friend is allowed to bring as many detachments as they want.

So, what the special snowflake exception means is that I'm not going to attend that event. And there are tournaments I've been interested in playing in but skipped specifically for that reason.

You are of course correct in that they're two separate issues that folks butthurt about one are conflating into the other (similar to how folks always bring up comp scores when the discussion is about the other soft score category, painting). It doesn't matter that you actually agree with them on the broader issue...they can't simply stomach giving any inch or seeing any logic or reason in regards to the ACTUAL issue at hand because it might be seen as caving on the other. The question being discussed is whether or not Knights should NOT be considered a superheavy for one single particular cherry picked purpose but yet be considered a superheavy for every other purpose to benefit THOSE players whereas models of the same class/points totals/power levels and their players' don't get that same benefit. It flat out isn't fair. Either you apply the house rules equally to ALL players or you don't apply the rule at all. Giving them a special snowflake exception is just as stupid as saying that Blood Angel terminators are out but wolfguard ones are in. The attitudes displayed here are very orwellian animal farm-ish... all animals/superheavies are created equal but some are more equal than others. Lol.

The issue here is that arbitrary decisions have invalidated an entire codex. It would be one thing of Knights were just part of a larger Mechanicum codex where it is just one unit out of other options. If that was the case, it would be understandable that a 0-1 LoW limit would prevent a formation of 3 like Adlance. This makes sense to me with Eldar because Eldar is not just five variants of Wraithknights.

The problem here is that Imperial Knights is a codex, and that codex only has superheavy/LoWs for choices, so the usual restriction of 0-1 LoW or Superheavy prevents that army from being valid. This is a snowflake exception because Knights are the only codex that is comprised entirely of LoW, so by limiting LoW, then you remove an entire codex from playing. Is this an exception to a rule? Sure. Does that it invalidate it? No.

A lot of people seem to be defending the decision based on the fact that Knights would require an exception to a player-generated rule. Just because something is an exception does not mean that it is wrong, simply that it is also entirely possible that the rule being excepted may either be flawed or designed inside an older paradigm that is no longer entirely relevant to the current moment. Some exceptions are bad, such as buddy-guy-friend of a TO getting to bring 4 detachments instead of 3, but some exceptions are in fact positive and healthy.

Any TO has the right to limit what they want at his/her tournament, but that does not mean the decision is correct. A TO could hypothetically ban Eldar and Necrons, citing that they are unfair or create unfun games. They could cite that these codexes can create units which are exceedingly difficult to kill for many other armies, and they could also cite that these codexes can bring units who can consistently remove enemy models with little recourse, "punching above their weight" so to speak. These are all the standard arguments against LoWs and Knights specifically.
If a TO did in fact ban any other codex from a tournament, I think most posters on Dakka would be upset. I feel that most people who are against Knights are simply not acclimated to the new direction that GW is pushing 40k into, namely superheavies and big, beautiful kits (which carry a significant cost). Is this fair, right, evil? That's a whole other conversation. If any individual wants to restructure the game to suit their taste, let them, but when this individual is the one responsible for hosting an organized event where many people are invited, then the responsibility of the individual should be to the larger group, not his/her own tastes or even the tastes of a small group within that population.

If tournaments, conventions, local clubs want to create ban lists and say which codexes are acceptable, that is their right, but then well, it truly sucks for many players who want to play the game that they bought into, not just Guy A's 40k. Consistently creating pockets of Not-40K around the country does not really build a healthy community nor does it encourage others to want to share the hobby. GW does not release any tournament information, so we are left to our own devices, but the more different metas push away and create their own version of 40k that suits them and their group, the more issues like this we will have where players are flat out prevented from playing an official army. At the end of the day, any of us would be rather salty if a tournament/store/convention told us “You can’t play your army X”. Hell, there are still oceans of salt from the last time GW invalidated a codex, but there seem to be plenty of people keen on doing the same thing to other players because they either do not like superheavies, LoWs, or want to pedantically cling to a guideline that was created by players and therefore easily modified by players as the environment changes.

lemurking23 wrote:
The issue here is that arbitrary decisions have invalidated an entire codex.

Why does this matter? It's a one-unit codex that's functionally no different than ripping the Stompa page out of Codex: Orks and selling it back to you for $50, or ripping the Baneblade page out of the Escalation book and selling it to you as Codex: Baneblades are Awesome. Whether or not a unit has the "codex" label attached to it is irrelevant, what matters is how the unit functions.

Just because something is an exception does not mean that it is wrong, simply that it is also entirely possible that the rule being excepted may either be flawed or designed inside an older paradigm that is no longer entirely relevant to the current moment.

Which, again, is a separate argument. If you want to argue that superheavies in general need to be unbanned and played RAW that's fine, but it doesn't have anything to do with a discussion where the premise is that people believe that the ban on superheavies is necessary.

 Peregrine wrote:

lemurking23 wrote:
The issue here is that arbitrary decisions have invalidated an entire codex.

Why does this matter? It's a one-unit codex that's functionally no different than ripping the Stompa page out of Codex: Orks and selling it back to you for $50, or ripping the Baneblade page out of the Escalation book and selling it to you as Codex: Baneblades are Awesome. Whether or not a unit has the "codex" label attached to it is irrelevant, what matters is how the unit functions.

Just because something is an exception does not mean that it is wrong, simply that it is also entirely possible that the rule being excepted may either be flawed or designed inside an older paradigm that is no longer entirely relevant to the current moment.

Which, again, is a separate argument. If you want to argue that superheavies in general need to be unbanned and played RAW that's fine, but it doesn't have anything to do with a discussion where the premise is that people believe that the ban on superheavies is necessary.

It matters because codex is not irrelevant; it is GW saying "This is an official army for use of games in our product". If you rip out the Stompa, Orks still have a full codex. If you rip out Wraithknight, Eldar still have a full codex. Whether you like it or not, it is GW, the only actual authority on how this game should be played, making an official statement saying: "You can play this". If you want to play your version of 40k, go ahead, but do not take the position that this is somehow more correct than GW's position. This is not a rules dispute where how the rules were printed contradicts other printed rules; this is GW putting rules down and individuals saying "screw that noise".

Actually, that argument is relevant as you have said: The argument here is that people believe that the ban on superheavies is necessary, and my argument is this ban may require exceptions in order not to invalidate a playable army. I generally disagree with the ban on Superheavies/LoWs in general, but that is a separate argument. What I posited is that the current ban in this individual case should allow an exception for Knights because otherwise, an entire playable army is removed. I will happily go into a long discussion of why I think the ban on LoWs is misguided, but what I am specifically arguing here is that given that this ban is in effect, an exception should be made as no other GW-sanctioned, playable army is removed from participating.

lemurking23 wrote:
The issue here is that arbitrary decisions have invalidated an entire codex.

While you may not personally agree with the reasons, there is nothing arbitrary about the decision to not allow supers/gargs. The only thing that was arbitrary was giving knights a free pass unlike every other model in those classes.

OTOH, if somebody wanted to bring 3 Shadowsword Superheavy Tanks, each packing a S(D) Blast, I would totally allow it.

Shadowswords are arguably the most points-inefficient vehicles one can get, despite their "ooh... scary!" S(D) Blast weapon. Especially in "classic" FW version with the Targeters, but no hull gun for 500+ pts each.

lemurking23 wrote:
It matters because codex is not irrelevant; it is GW saying "This is an official army for use of games in our product".

No it isn't. GW publishes official rules and armies that do not have the "codex" label.

If you rip out the Stompa, Orks still have a full codex.

No you don't. You have a codex that is missing an entire section of the FOC.

Whether you like it or not, it is GW, the only actual authority on how this game should be played, making an official statement saying: "You can play this". If you want to play your version of 40k, go ahead, but do not take the position that this is somehow more correct than GW's position. This is not a rules dispute where how the rules were printed contradicts other printed rules; this is GW putting rules down and individuals saying "screw that noise".

And GW is saying that ALL superheavies are how the game is played, not just knights. If you're going to ban or restrict superheavies then you're already saying "screw that noise". The only question is whether you're going to say "screw that noise" in a fair and consistent manner, or "screw that noise" in an unfair manner by giving special snowflake exceptions to the particular units that you want to use and banning the others.

Actually, that argument is relevant as you have said: The argument here is that people believe that the ban on superheavies is necessary, and my argument is this ban may require exceptions in order not to invalidate a playable army.

Then why don't I have an exception to use any of my superheavies? My playable army is invalidated if its Malcador is banned.

 Peregrine wrote:

If none of those things are options then perhaps 40k isn't the right hobby or perhaps Knights just are not meant to be for you?

Yeah, clearly if you want to play 40k with a perfectly legal army this just isn't the hobby for you and you should find something else to do instead. I'll be sure to quote this back to you any time you disagree with a tournament/store/etc policy on rule changes (for example, Eldar nerfs/bans).

This seems contradictory to your position. You make mention of a perfectly legal army, which Knights are according to GW, yet you have argued with me that it is totally fine to not allow Knights if a ban in place, despite the fact it invalidates a perfectly legal army. Codex does in fact mean something, and anything produced by GW with rules on how to utilize it in a game of 40k, whether as a detachment, a formation, a CAD, or any other factor, does not take away the simple truth that those rules are official.

If you rip out Stompa, how many unit entries do Orks still have? Now compare this number to Knights. Orks can still function as an army without a Stompa while Knights cannot function at all as an army without LoWs. Playing with semantics does not change the actual point of my argument: Without multiple LoWs, Imperial Knights is removed from being able to play and thus invalidated; therefore, if a ban on LoWs is in effect, then an exception should be made to avoid said invalidation.

I think you should be able to play with your Malcador, and I am clearly not disputing that. You can still play any Imperial army (cept for Knights) without using a superheavy. I am disputing the fact that an actual codex, a perfectly legal playable army in this game, is being invalidated. I find this distasteful, short-sighted, and harmful to players rather than helpful.

lemurking23 wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

If none of those things are options then perhaps 40k isn't the right hobby or perhaps Knights just are not meant to be for you?

Yeah, clearly if you want to play 40k with a perfectly legal army this just isn't the hobby for you and you should find something else to do instead. I'll be sure to quote this back to you any time you disagree with a tournament/store/etc policy on rule changes (for example, Eldar nerfs/bans).

This seems contradictory to your position. You make mention of a perfectly legal army, which Knights are according to GW, yet you have argued with me that it is totally fine to not allow Knights if a ban in place, despite the fact it invalidates a perfectly legal army. Codex does in fact mean something, and anything produced by GW with rules on how to utilize it in a game of 40k, whether as a detachment, a formation, a CAD, or any other factor, does not take away the simple truth that those rules are official.

If you rip out Stompa, how many unit entries do Orks still have? Now compare this number to Knights. Orks can still function as an army without a Stompa while Knights cannot function at all as an army without LoWs. Playing with semantics does not change the actual point of my argument: Without multiple LoWs, Imperial Knights is removed from being able to play and thus invalidated; therefore, if a ban on LoWs is in effect, then an exception should be made to avoid said invalidation.

I think you should be able to play with your Malcador, and I am clearly not disputing that. You can still play any Imperial army (cept for Knights) without using a superheavy. I am disputing the fact that an actual codex, a perfectly legal playable army in this game, is being invalidated. I find this distasteful, short-sighted, and harmful to players rather than helpful.

He also has been a staunch advocate in the past for full allowance of all FW models in 40k tournaments. Just look at his sig.

"Everything GW publishes for standard 40k, including codices, supplements, Forge World, and White Dwarf, is part of the game. You can choose not to play with or against any of them, but don't pretend that your choice is anything but a house rule. "

He just likes arguing for the sake of arguing. There's no actual substance or greater purpose behind it. Don't worry though, he'll have a circular retort as to why the hypocritical/contradictory statements aren't just that.

lemurking23 wrote:

You make mention of a perfectly legal army, which Knights are according to GW, yet you have argued with me that it is totally fine to not allow Knights if a ban in place, despite the fact it invalidates a perfectly legal army. Codex does in fact mean something, and anything produced by GW with rules on how to utilize it in a game of 40k, whether as a detachment, a formation, a CAD, or any other factor, does not take away the simple truth that those rules are official.

If you rip out Stompa, how many unit entries do Orks still have? Now compare this number to Knights. Orks can still function as an army without a Stompa while Knights cannot function at all as an army without LoWs. Playing with semantics does not change the actual point of my argument: Without multiple LoWs, Imperial Knights is removed from being able to play and thus invalidated; therefore, if a ban on LoWs is in effect, then an exception should be made to avoid said invalidation.

It's not contradictory. He is simply arguing the point at hand and not a related but ultimately DIFFERENT point that you're obsessed with making. The scenario described in this thread is a tourney where SH/G are banned... PERIOD. END OF STORY. In that scenario with those IMUTABLE rules, should knights receive a get out of jail free exception card is the question. Nothing in your above argument makes them any more deserving of an exception than any other group of superheavies/gargantuans. An unbound army of 3 baneblades brought by a player with an escalation book is no more or less deserving of a freebie pass than a player who brings the knight codex and 4 knights. Both are entirely legal armies in the mess that is 7th edition yet YOU think one should have to play by an extra special set of rules that benefit it whereas the other doesn't. Games rules as well as house rules (which this is) should be applied fairly to all players and your position does NOT meet that criteria. If you give knights their special snowflake pass, EVERY army of superheavies or gargantuans should get one which defeats the entire purpose of having the rule (REGARDLESS OF WHETHER YOU YOURSELF AGREE WITH IT) in the first place.

The question isn't whether the no SH/G rule is fair but whether it should be applied fairly.

lemurking23 wrote:
This seems contradictory to your position. You make mention of a perfectly legal army, which Knights are according to GW, yet you have argued with me that it is totally fine to not allow Knights if a ban in place, despite the fact it invalidates a perfectly legal army.

Yes, it's fine to not allow knights if superheavies are banned. If superheavies are so big and scary that they have to be banned then there shouldn't be a special snowflake exception for the superheavies that some people want to use. However, I'd be quite happy if we just get rid of the ban entirely and allow both knights and all of the other superheavies.

Codex does in fact mean something

No it doesn't. GW publishes lots of rules that are just as official as any codex but do not have the "codex" label on them.

You can still play any Imperial army (cept for Knights) without using a superheavy.

I can play some other army, but I can't play my army. Why should I have to keep my models on the display shelf and change my army to suit a tournament's rules while you get a special snowflake exception to those rules? If I have to build and paint substitute units to replace the Malcador in my army then you can do the same with your knights. Or we can remove the "no superheavies" rule and both of us get to use our armies.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 OverwatchCNC wrote:
He just likes arguing for the sake of arguing.

No, you just can't let go of your absurd vendetta against me and would rather build a straw man than address the substance of my arguments. Whether you admit it or not I argue about tournament rules because I have a legitimate stake in 40k tournaments and the rules they use.

Also, you're missing the point of my signature. Which is a pretty impressive feat, given that it very clearly states that it's ok to have a house rule banning particular units. The actual thing I'm criticizing is the people who claim "FW units aren't official" based on ridiculous arguments like "FW is a third-party company" or whatever.

In order to change the pointless argument I present to you the best knight formation.

http://i.4cdn.org/tg/1431721386961.jpg

I think the argument has run its course. I hold that Codex does mean something as it is a self-contained, fully legal playable army. You do not agree. I am not sure we can reach any middle ground there.

You may not be able to play your army, but you may still play a full, self-contained army of your choice. A Knight player that wants to go to a tournament that bans LoWs cannot play his/her army nor can they play an actual army list as designated by the game's rules. This is my problem. It is not that a player cannot build the army that they want; my problem is that a player cannot build any army from a specific army list. This is problematic to me, and yes, I advocate for an exemption because the rule itself is flawed and does not consider that there is a stand-alone army book that is invalidated by this rule. Because it is an exemption does not make it inherently negative, and I am surprised that a person who would advocate for a more inclusive format would defend a position that severely limits the player.

In the end, people are free to create their own tournament constructs as they see it, but then I hope this does not devolve into pockets of Not-40k rolling around when people feel other self-contained codexes are too powerful and should be excluded. This does in fact set a precedent that I feel is unwarranted and potentially harmful to the player base at large.

I feel for any person that spent time, money, and energy on an army that they believed was legal under the rules only to find out that specific individuals decreed this not-kosher.

To the OP, I hope you get a chance to play with your Knights in a more inclusive setting. I wish you many 6s on stomps.

gungo wrote:
In order to change the pointless argument I present to you the best knight formation.

http://i.4cdn.org/tg/1431721386961.jpg

And to think you only needed to buy 5 knights at once during a limited time period for such rules!

Peregrine...

Your argument against the "snow-flake" exception to allow Knights when other Super Heavies/Gargantuan Creatures are banned/limited is poorly reasoned.

First of all, you really do need to address why allowing multiple Knights, since they are Super Heavies, is a problem and simply saying "why should they get an exception to the existing bans/limitations" is an insufficient and a weak argument. This is because you fail to even address the reasoning of the bans/limitations in the first place. You see, the allowance for the Knight codex would be following the same logic of the bans/limitations and so the initial bans/limitations need to be addressed to determine the appropriateness of any allowance for the Knight codex. Indeed, the various reasons for having any bans or limitations are actually integral to why it makes sense or does not make sense to allow Knights and you cannot rightly address the latter without first analyzing the former-something you refuse to do. This is because one is based upon the other and it is inappropriate to take one part of the equation in a vacuum and analyze it without considering the whole equation.

Finally, your point about "not being able to play your army" is pretty much meaningless because you can play your army, just not in events that limit or disallow that army. You are not entitled to play the game any way you want to, with any models you want to, in any and every game/venue. Also, you should change your army to suit a tournament's rules because those are the tournament's rules-if you don't like those rules don't go to that tournament.

I mean, if I just got the rulebook and read the unbound rules and thought "wow, I think I will make an army entirely out of Land Raiders!" then bought nothing but 5 Land Raiders, it would be silly for me to complain that tournaments don't allow unbound and that my Land Raiders have to sit on the display shelf and that I am being unfairly excluded from tournaments and that I shouldn't have to change my list to suit an event... and so on...

Overall, you seem to be making an argument founded on entitlement that says "well if you can play your army I should be able to play my army" but life doesn't work that way. Apparently, to you, it doesn't seem fair that you can't use multiple Malcadors when someone can use multiple Knights in light of a ban/restriction on super heavies. However, you never actually come up with any good reasons why that is a problem.