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.

 Vaktathi wrote:

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!

No the rules were sent by pdf to people who purchased that set which you can easily save to any mobile device or print at your leisure. There is no proof of purchase tied to these rules. As anyone who holds 5 Knights and is playing a 2000 pt Game can use it.

It's beastly as it contains nearly every useful rule from the knight codex. The warlord itself is amazing 3++ ion sv rerolls of 1,ws/bs 6, 5 atk on the charge, any penetrating/glancing hits your afraid of you can put on the paladin, reroll to hits in challenge, can fire overwatch, can issue challenges and take relics. Also has that great autocannon.

gungo wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

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!

No the rules were sent by pdf to people who purchased that set which you can easily save to any mobile device or print at your leisure. There is no proof of purchase tied to these rules. As anyone who holds 5 Knights and is playing a 2000 pt Game can use it.

Oh I get that, but to get them originally from GW you needed to buy that limited set.

It's beastly as it contains nearly every useful rule from the knight codex. The warlord itself is amazing 4+ ion sv rerolls of 1,ws/bs 6, 5 atk on the charge, any penetrating hits your afraid of you can put on the paladin, reroll to hits in challenge, can fire overwatch, can issue challenges and take relics. Also has that great autocannon.

3+ ion actually

Yeah, pretty absurd.

How many points do you have to pay on top of the individual knight costs for all those benefits?

 warboss wrote:
How many points do you have to pay on top of the individual knight costs for all those benefits?

None.

Because GW decided that formations just don't need points costs.

 Vaktathi wrote:

 warboss wrote:
How many points do you have to pay on top of the individual knight costs for all those benefits?

None.

Because GW decided that formations just don't need points costs.

Sounds fair...I mean it's not like the balance of power of stats and abilities in the game is quantified by a numerical scale or something. It's not like something that increases both of those should actually be paid for at tge table and not the cash register. An already controversial unit should obviously get better simple by spending more dollars and not the in game "currency" of points, right? If knight =x then clearly 5 knights = 5x + y where y is measured in dollars spent. Duh! It's just ridiculous that TOs feel a compulsion to tack on their own house rules when such balance from a reputable and infallible source like Gw is staring them in the face.

lemurking23 wrote:
I hold that Codex does mean something as it is a self-contained, fully legal playable army. You do not agree.

I don't agree because it's simply not true. SOME self-contained fully legal armies have the "codex" label, others don't. My Armored Battlegroup army is entirely contained in IA1 but does not have the "codex" label. And it's just as legal and playable as C:SM.

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.

Why does the army list matter so much? Would you be fine with a complete ban on knights as long as GW had included HQ + troops options (let's say they're both 5-man guardsmen squads with no special rules or abilities, and represent the knight's servants) in the knights codex? After all, then you'd be able to build a legal list from the knights codex, and you've already stated that you don't think "I can't build the army that I want to play" is a problem.

I am surprised that a person who would advocate for a more inclusive format would defend a position that severely limits the player.

I'm arguing for that limit because this is a context where limits already exist. Unnecessary limits are a bad thing, but it's much worse when you have inconsistent limits that include "special snowflake" treatment for some players.

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.

But, again, this is a context where we're already playing not-40k. If I can't take a Baneblade in my IG army then we're playing not-40k, and your knight army being legal doesn't change this. It just means that we're playing a version of not-40k where fairness has been discarded because you really want to take your knights.

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.

So why is it any different when I spend time, money, and energy on that Malcador (which is legal under the rules) and find that someone has decreed it not-kosher? Why is "but you can play a different army" an acceptable response in that situation?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 mortetvie wrote:
First of all, you really do need to address why allowing multiple Knights, since they are Super Heavies, is a problem

It's a problem because it's a rule that's being unfairly applied to some players and not others. If superheavies are banned then all superheavies should be banned, with no special snowflake exception for the ones that certain people want to use. This is no different than having a tournament where you're limited to two detachments, but I get to bring three because I'd complain to the TO if I don't get to play my army the way I want.

This is because you fail to even address the reasoning of the bans/limitations in the first place.

I don't need to because the reasoning doesn't matter. My argument is just as valid when the reasoning is "superheavies are too powerful" as it is when the reasoning is "we want to play 5th edition style games".

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.

And the exact same argument applies to the guy who wants to use their knights.

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...

Except that's not a good analogy because it's ignoring the unfairness of the situation. The more accurate one would be a situation where I have to leave my unbound Land Raider army at home because the tournament includes a "battle-forged only" rule, but my opponent gets to bring their unbound LRBT army.

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.

Why is it a problem? Because tournament rules are supposed to be fair and apply equally to all players. If I can't bring my superheavies then why should you get to bring yours? You might as well ask why I'd have a problem with a tournament where the TO's friends all got an extra 5 VP each game.

 Vaktathi wrote:

 warboss wrote:
How many points do you have to pay on top of the individual knight costs for all those benefits?

None.

Because GW decided that formations just don't need points costs.

And GW is correct here. The lack of flexibility *is* the cost. Particularly for these formations that have *exact* numbers of units, with no variation up or down.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

 warboss wrote:
How many points do you have to pay on top of the individual knight costs for all those benefits?

None.

Because GW decided that formations just don't need points costs.

And GW is correct here. The lack of flexibility *is* the cost. Particularly for these formations that have *exact* numbers of units, with no variation up or down.

Which is absolutely absurd, and if it came from anyone *but* GW you'd laugh at them for it.

A lack of flexibility is not a realistic cost for the value of the abilities, particularly when they still have a large number of options they can take and/or the options they could take would be limited in the first place anyways, and/or you're getting a pretty solid build of things to start with anyway, also when you could (and often, would) take the exact same mix of models in the basic, no frills detachment anyway without the amazing formation abilities.

If I wrote a formation that said I need to take 3x LR Vanquishers, but they all get BS6 and replace their normal Vanquisher shells with D shots, for free, that's fine because I have to take specifically three Vanquishers? No, of course not. Why is getting massive buffs to attack stats, defensive capabilities, and tons of free abilities any more acceptable?

Formations used to have points costs for a reason.

What "massive" buffs? In formation, the models get a +1 to something. Not a big deal.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
What "massive" buffs? In formation, the models get a +1 to something. Not a big deal.

Check back to the last page for the formation we're talking about...it's a whole lot more than just a +1 to a stat. There's two different bubble effects, charge and to-hit rerolls, ion shield boosts, a form of Look Out Sir, a +2 to stats on a Knight, and more.

And yes, +1 to a stat for free is still often a very big deal (e.g. BS5 Fire Dragons )

The Aspect Formation getting +1 for all 3 units is a pretty minimal bump, because you need to take exactly 3 units that are either all HTH or all shooty.

With +1 BS, 6 Fire Dragons hit 5x instead of 4x. And you must upgrade to include an Exarch, chroming FDs that probably didn't ever need the Exarch. If you can't kill a vehicle with 4 Melta hits, you won't drop it with 5.

The HtH Aspects are pretty hideously overcosted without the WS bump.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
The Aspect Formation getting +1 for all 3 units is a pretty minimal bump, because you need to take exactly 3 units that are either all HTH or all shooty.

Again, I wish I could just take 3x of something I likely was going to take anyway in my IG or CSM armies and get +1 to its most important offensive stat, increasing firepower output significantly (25% for a BS4 base unit)...for zero additional cost.

With +1 BS, 6 Fire Dragons hit 5x instead of 4x. And you must upgrade to include an Exarch, chroming FDs that probably didn't ever need the Exarch. If you can't kill a vehicle with 4 Melta hits, you won't drop it with 5.

Depends on what it is, if it's an AV12 vehicle in the open, probably, but the extra shot never hurts. If it's a Knight or a Leman Russ behind an Aegis line? That extra hit definitely helps. It also makes you less reliant on psychic support and thus allows you to better concentrate that resource on other units.

The HtH Aspects are pretty hideously overcosted without the WS bump.

Debatable and entirely target dependent.

Either way, this has been somewhat off-topic, going back to the Knight formation, there was a whole lot more than just a single stat bump.

When you finally stop QQing over Eldar and IG get their Decurion equivalent, then you can be sure there will be formations that give IG units bonuses for taking particular combinations and duplicates of things.

Similarly for CSM getting bonuses for taking specific, Fluff-driven formations for CSM (Legions). The CSM formation, in particular, practically writes itself for the Cults, Cultists, etc. based on the previous Apocalypse formations.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
When you finally stop QQing over Eldar and IG get their Decurion equivalent, then you can be sure there will be formations that give IG units bonuses for taking particular combinations and duplicates of things.

I'd much rather simply be able to run my Eldar without feeling like I'm clubbing baby seals than pining away for an IG decurion that may or may not happen several years in the future if GW can keep a design paradigm going for more than 15 months. That's the primary reason my space elves have been sitting in a box for most of the last two years (also that painting them is way more infuriating than I thought they would be).

Either way, setting the silly "QQ" sniping comments aside, bringing it back to the Knights for the third time now, did you ever take a look at the link on the previous page?

I did, and I saw nothing problematic with it. Basically a smattering of +1s for spending $800+ at the GW store.

Also, I'm pretty sure that the Decurion concept is going to hold for 7E - this is GW getting players to buy piles of things for in-game bonuses. It was effective in Apocalypse, it was effective for Necrons, it will be very effective for Eldar and so forth.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
I did, and I saw nothing problematic with it. Basically a smattering of +1s for spending $800+ at the GW store.

Well, I guess we have a radically different definition of what a "smattering of +1's" is and how much they matter (and when does a "smattering of +1's" add up to +6?). I still firmly believe that had a random poster tossed something like this up in the Proposed Rules forum a year ago, nobody would be doing anything but laughing.

Also, I'm pretty sure that the Decurion concept is going to hold for 7E - this is GW getting players to buy piles of things for in-game bonuses. It was effective in Apocalypse, it was effective for Necrons, it will be very effective for Eldar and so forth.

And 4 months ago we all thought 7E was going to have a consistent trend of downscaling, and a year and a half ago we all thought everything was going to be on par with Eldar, Tau, and Space Marines, after everyone thought GW mucked it on CSM's and DA's, which were different from the Necron and GK releases before them. Point is, we have no idea where GW will go.

The entire exalted court of house terryn costs what, 1920 points? Before upgrades?

Going to really destroy the Tournament scene with that.

Most likely to see a baronial court, which the scariest thing is the ionic shield wall. Maybe a court full of wardens firing overwatch with their average of 2 s6 ap3 hits? Heh.

 Crazyterran wrote:
The entire exalted court of house terryn costs what, 1920 points? Before upgrades?

There's not a huge number of upgrades available, largely just Carapace weapons and Heirlooms, which you've got some points left over to take if you want.

If you were going to take a full Knight army anyway, might as well get free stat boosts and special rules for each model while your doing it.

 Crazyterran wrote:
The entire exalted court of house terryn costs what, 1920 points? Before upgrades?

Going to really destroy the Tournament scene with that.

Most likely to see a baronial court, which the scariest thing is the ionic shield wall. Maybe a court full of wardens firing overwatch with their average of 2 s6 ap3 hits? Heh.

So it's not even possible at the typical tournament 1850 point level. I wonder if that was intentional by GW.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Vaktathi wrote:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
I did, and I saw nothing problematic with it. Basically a smattering of +1s for spending $800+ at the GW store.

Well, I guess we have a radically different definition of what a "smattering of +1's" is and how much they matter (and when does a "smattering of +1's" add up to +6?). I still firmly believe that had a random poster tossed something like this up in the Proposed Rules forum a year ago, nobody would be doing anything but laughing.

It's not a +6, no matter how hard you wish.

And it's not even close to broken. I think those Knights auto-lose to Eldar Wraithknights, which auto-loses to Decurion, which auto-loses to the Knights = perfect balance.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

 Crazyterran wrote:
The entire exalted court of house terryn costs what, 1920 points? Before upgrades?

Going to really destroy the Tournament scene with that.

Most likely to see a baronial court, which the scariest thing is the ionic shield wall. Maybe a court full of wardens firing overwatch with their average of 2 s6 ap3 hits? Heh.

So it's not even possible at the typical tournament 1850 point level. I wonder if that was intentional by GW.

Probably not given that they don't run any of these tournaments and are on record as saying they deliberately don't write for tournament style play.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Vaktathi wrote:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
I did, and I saw nothing problematic with it. Basically a smattering of +1s for spending $800+ at the GW store.

Well, I guess we have a radically different definition of what a "smattering of +1's" is and how much they matter (and when does a "smattering of +1's" add up to +6?). I still firmly believe that had a random poster tossed something like this up in the Proposed Rules forum a year ago, nobody would be doing anything but laughing.

It's not a +6, no matter how hard you wish.

That's not my point, but I'll rephrase it. My point was that you can't just hand-wave a grip of bonuses as meaningless, and pretend that multiple bonuses don't add up to something more than just "1".

And it's not even close to broken. I think those Knights auto-lose to Eldar Wraithknights, which auto-loses to Decurion, which auto-loses to the Knights = perfect balance.

Even if we assume these relationships holds true, that would appear to be rock-paper-scissors, which is terrible balance for a wargame at the army level. RPS works because you don't know what the opponent is throwing and ostensibly have a 1-in-three chance at any particular outcome with every throw (loss, win, tie). Throwing an army down knowing that you're going to auto-win or auto-lose is...terrible wargame balance. Why bother playing a game that stilted instead of just declaring the winner before spending two hours playing and using that time to play something else or grab a beer?

Anyway, I'll exit this thread on that note given where this is going.

All of this teeth-gnashing and hand-wringing, because GW Codices aren't balanced (Decurion, Warhost and Knights) is pretty silly, because GW has never been balanced, and never will be.

And the Tournament fig leaf is nonsense, because true competitive play is so rare.

So I will hand-wave the minor bonuses as meaningless and ignore any knock-on effects, because they really don't matter. GW makes Codices and sells models. Players choose to play them however they will, and that includes self-handicapping in pickup games. But there's so much QQing it's pathetic.

You taking the bait so hard is kinda strange. Players taking hyper narrow armies of all-Knights, all-Wraithknights *deserve* to auto-win and auto-lose based on those choices.

My comment about it destroying the tournament scene was sarcastic, in case anyone was unsure.

Knights aren't anywhere near the scary monsters people make them out to be.

Edit: though I'd rather them just blanket ban super heavies and gargantuan creatures rather than pick and choose.

Holy hyperbole the Knights of terryn are the best knight list for a 2k tourney. I know it's hard for people to understand there are different standards out there then 1850 tournaments. And it's not broken the worst knight to fight in that bunch is the high king warden with his 3++ and rerolls 1 and body guard who wil eat any pen or glance hits that get through his shields. The other 4 are just okay with the normal 4++ reroll 1.

The entire formation is just one giant 2 foot bubble of knights. That will look like
Kingsward, high king, herald, gatekeeper, judgment
with the gatekeeper protecting it from drop pod armies with its interceptor, the kingsward soaking your warlords hits, the herald being the biggest target by boosting everyone with invil 1 rerolls and overwatch, and the judge and high king charging anything that gets close to either flank.
It's a great formation for 2k lists but it's nothing breaking the tourney scene your still looking at the best 1850 list being skitarri and ad lance.

For your last 80 points I'd prolly take a carapace weapon on the gatekeeper just to give another weapon interceptor to defend against drop pod grav armies And whatever relic your heart desires. Rampage? It will not die? Or maybe just another carapace weapon for another knight.

 Vaktathi wrote:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

 Crazyterran wrote:
The entire exalted court of house terryn costs what, 1920 points? Before upgrades?

Going to really destroy the Tournament scene with that.

Most likely to see a baronial court, which the scariest thing is the ionic shield wall. Maybe a court full of wardens firing overwatch with their average of 2 s6 ap3 hits? Heh.

So it's not even possible at the typical tournament 1850 point level. I wonder if that was intentional by GW.

Probably not given that they don't run any of these tournaments and are on record as saying they deliberately don't write for tournament style play.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Vaktathi wrote:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
I did, and I saw nothing problematic with it. Basically a smattering of +1s for spending $800+ at the GW store.

Well, I guess we have a radically different definition of what a "smattering of +1's" is and how much they matter (and when does a "smattering of +1's" add up to +6?). I still firmly believe that had a random poster tossed something like this up in the Proposed Rules forum a year ago, nobody would be doing anything but laughing.

It's not a +6, no matter how hard you wish.

That's not my point, but I'll rephrase it. My point was that you can't just hand-wave a grip of bonuses as meaningless, and pretend that multiple bonuses don't add up to something more than just "1".

And it's not even close to broken. I think those Knights auto-lose to Eldar Wraithknights, which auto-loses to Decurion, which auto-loses to the Knights = perfect balance.

Even if we assume these relationships holds true, that would appear to be rock-paper-scissors, which is terrible balance for a wargame at the army level. RPS works because you don't know what the opponent is throwing and ostensibly have a 1-in-three chance at any particular outcome with every throw (loss, win, tie). Throwing an army down knowing that you're going to auto-win or auto-lose is...terrible wargame balance. Why bother playing a game that stilted instead of just declaring the winner before spending two hours playing and using that time to play something else or grab a beer?

Anyway, I'll exit this thread on that note given where this is going.

Knights,Decurion, and Eldar do represent rock/paper/scissors type armies which is why I don't play them. If you want to break rps you play an army that beats the meta, not one that is ingrained into it. That's why top players play good lists but not rps susceptible lists. RPS lists are a crutch but they are far from earth shatteringly good to the point of breaking tournaments. So let people bring their toys and play their armies. If they want to play one of the RPS builds let them.

Seriously stop eldar are not Rock Paper Scissors type army. You just lost all credibility with that comment. That army can handle anything thrown at it. It's the best tac army right now. Scatterbikes annihilate all but high armour targets which eldar has several units that target those, wraiths, firedragons, Knights. You have aspects that are just phenominally annoying to hit by every army such as warp spider shenanigans. You have some of the best anti air and anti fmc in game. Eldar have arguably the best psychic power shenanigans. Some of the most durable and fastest transports in game. Eldar right now are the rock, the paper And the scissors.

gungo wrote:
Holy hyperbole the Knights of terryn are the best knight list for a 2k tourney.

gungo,

Nicely asking: Have ImpKnights won many 2k tourneys, this build you refer to? Does ToF have data to back up your claim?

OVCNC:
Yeah, man. I would not have thought to put eldar as a rps.

Then again, folks, *specific* builds of a codex, can end up being rps, so labeling the eldar codex as rps is over looking many different builds.

 Brothererekose wrote:

gungo wrote:
Holy hyperbole the Knights of terryn are the best knight list for a 2k tourney.

gungo,

Nicely asking: Have ImpKnights won many 2k tourneys, this build you refer to? Does ToF have data to back up your claim?

OVCNC:
Yeah, man. I would not have thought to put eldar as a rps.

Then again, folks, *specific* builds of a codex, can end up being rps, so labeling the eldar codex as rps is over looking many different builds.

Um... didn't that list just come out a few days ago? If so, just how many tournies should they have won in that timeframe?

 Brothererekose wrote:

gungo wrote:
Holy hyperbole the Knights of terryn are the best knight list for a 2k tourney.

gungo,

Nicely asking: Have ImpKnights won many 2k tourneys, this build you refer to? Does ToF have data to back up your claim?

OVCNC:
Yeah, man. I would not have thought to put eldar as a rps.

Then again, folks, *specific* builds of a codex, can end up being rps, so labeling the eldar codex as rps is over looking many different builds.

Good point. Certain builds from those are potentially RPS. I'll be more specific next time.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 warboss wrote:

 Brothererekose wrote:

gungo wrote:
Holy hyperbole the Knights of terryn are the best knight list for a 2k tourney.

gungo,

Nicely asking: Have ImpKnights won many 2k tourneys, this build you refer to? Does ToF have data to back up your claim?

OVCNC:
Yeah, man. I would not have thought to put eldar as a rps.

Then again, folks, *specific* builds of a codex, can end up being rps, so labeling the eldar codex as rps is over looking many different builds.

Um... didn't that list just come out a few days ago? If so, just how many tournies should they have won in that timeframe?

That's sort of his point. We aren't fans of theory hammer. IRL>theory hammer.

 OverwatchCNC wrote:

That's sort of his point. We aren't fans of theory hammer. IRL>theory hammer.

Asking for proof is ridiculous within days of a rules release. Theorizing what is OP while obviously not infallible is not.

 warboss wrote:

 OverwatchCNC wrote:

That's sort of his point. We aren't fans of theory hammer. IRL>theory hammer.

Asking for proof is ridiculous within days of a rules release. Theorizing what is OP while obviously not infallible is not.

Theorizing while limited, is all well and good. Making decisions and changes to the game based on theory is not.