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.

gungo wrote:
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.

No. Eldar Wraithknights are RPS. If you make an Eldar TAC with bikes, spiders, transports, etc., then it's not going to auto-win the Knight formation.

Wraithknights are indeed RPS... as in they're rock and paper and scissors all in one at that points total with those new rules.

Point for point, Rending / Fleshbane Dire Avengers / Necrons will always auto-win against Wraithknights. WKs are not auto-win against TAC.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

gungo wrote:
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.

No. Eldar Wraithknights are RPS. If you make an Eldar TAC with bikes, spiders, transports, etc., then it's not going to auto-win the Knight formation.

Sorry your wrong
While individual units may be ideal for certain targets an eldar army is tac.
While a knight army with its 5 models at 1850 may not be the ideal target for scat bikes the can still hurt rear armour and grab objectives.
Meanwhile your serpents can drop min squads of wraith or firedragons which can kill a knight each round of shooting and wraiths will kill any knight that decides to charge them in overwatch. Warp spiders can hurt av12 and are mostly for the trolling of other armies with thier shenanigans. And a wraith knight as shown many times on this forum can easily handle any knight by itself for 2/3 the cost and likely kill two for it's price. So no a elder tac army owns a 5 knight army and in no way shape or form is at any disadvantage vs Knights. In fact eldars only inherent weakness is mass firing cover ignoring ap3 str6+ Shooting which is rare and heavy Melee invisible grav spam armies which are expensive points cost and not spamable. Neither of which while difficult for eldar is a hard counter as many battle reps have shown


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 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.

that knight formation is a week old and I never said knights were the best 2k army I said that formation is the best knight formation for 2k, Knights are to low model count and have very little protection from drop ship type anti vehicle armies for them to win major tournaments. Heck a couple of bad rolls from a list with a good alpha strike could derail a knight tournament list.
The reason that list is balls is the 3++ bs/ws6 warlord with rerollabe 1 and a cheaper knight that can eat any pen hits that get through.
And the other 4 Knights are balls with 4++ reroll 1 with bs/ws5 and tacked on individual rules like interceptor for those drop pod armies or reroll charge and hits in Melee and counter atk and overwatch. It's the best knight list for 2k not the best tourney list.

 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.

Not ridiculous, warboss. It is ignorance, on my part. I didn't know it was a brand new thing.

That is, I have not heard of a 5 IK list, therefore I asked.

As a teacher, I don't ridicule (same word origin as 'ridiculous') students for asking questions that, to an adult, seem ridiculous. I answer, nicely.

So, okay, gungo, maybe after a few weeks of tourneys we'll see some data on this 5 ImpK list.

I never said its the best 2k tourney list. It's the best 2k all knight list. Heck personally I rather have 3 Knights in ad lance and skitarri for a tac 2k list.

If where the OP plays uses ITC this thread has become a moot point. It's also no longer relevant to anyone else using ITC. Thank god.

All current source material is allowed, including GW Codexes, Data Slates, Formations, and current Forge World units and army lists which are listed below. Please note, Experimental and Horus Heresy/30K Forge World units are not allowed.

Army lists in Imperial Armor 14: The Siege of Vraks: The Death Korps of Krieg and Renegades of Vraks
Army lists in Imperial Armor 13: War Machines of the Lost and the Damned: Renegades and Heretics


Regardless of Detachments, no more than 1 Fortification and/or 1 Super Heavy/Gargantuan Lord of War may be taken from the allowed LoW list, below.

Note: The exception to this rule is Imperial Knights. One detachment in your army may include an Imperial Knight. So long as the detachment restrictions allow for multiple LoW, you may exceed the 0-1 LoW restriction within this detachment so long as all other LoW are also Imperial Knights.

Sigh. And now we're back to the ridiculous "specials snowflake" exception, because who cares about fairness when all the knight players will complain if you don't give in and change the rules.

Are there any really bad superheavy lord of wars without range d? Other then way to cheap melee/sun cannon wraithknight

Just wondering if it would be so bad if they made all superheavies without range d legal. Heck with the itc nerf non blast/ hellstiorm range d isn't that bad either.

gungo wrote:
Are there any really bad superheavy lord of wars without range d?

Not really. And even most of the D-weapon stuff isn't very good. A Shadowsword is a mediocre unit at best, you don't get the "oh god where did my army go" effect until you're talking about D-weapon titans. The only real reason not to play RAW with no restrictions for non-titan superheavies is that people want to keep playing 5th edition style games.

Peregrine, is your tournament scene using ITC rulings?

 Peregrine wrote:

gungo wrote:
Are there any really bad superheavy lord of wars without range d?

Not really. And even most of the D-weapon stuff isn't very good. A Shadowsword is a mediocre unit at best, you don't get the "oh god where did my army go" effect until you're talking about D-weapon titans. The only real reason not to play RAW with no restrictions for non-titan superheavies is that people want to keep playing 5th edition style games.

Not quite the biggest issue is at low point games several range str d weapons has a huge issue with turn 1 alpha strikes which is the worst issue with 40k.
I'm cool with Melee str d because it's nearly impossible to charge turn 1, requires several turns of movement, a random charge roll, overwatch, and then they usually have low initiative and hit after most dedicated Melee units. Compared to range str d, roll 6 remove from game or target vehicle and kill it with your d3 hull points anyway with a chance for another d3 from pen results or just explodes.

I'm cool with itc range str d too because it removes the alpha strike issue of str d while making it a double wounding mechanic. It's not because I felt 5th edition was awesome, which I didn't. I liked 6th/7th and 3rd.

gungo wrote:
Not quite the biggest issue is at low point games several range str d weapons has a huge issue with turn 1 alpha strikes which is the worst issue with 40k.

Low point games is where those units are the weakest, because your entire army is tied up in a single inefficient unit. A Shadowsword costs 500 points, and its single 5" blast is going to average maybe 3-4 hits per shot at most. And most of the time it's going to give up a cover save, so maybe 2-3 of them will actually die. There's no way you're going to earn back those 500 points by killing 2-3 tactical marines per turn, and the big expensive stuff isn't likely to appear. TBH you're going to get a better alpha strike by taking several conventional units instead.

And even in a large game the poor Shadowsword is going to struggle to be relevant. Let's say you kill a Land Raider, a terminator squad, and a tactical squad. And you roll nothing but 6s on the destroyer chart while doing it. That's ~550 points of damage inflicted by a ~500 point tank. And that's the best-case scenario. Add in cover/invulnerable saves, bad rolls on the destroyer table, etc, and you'll be lucky if you even come close to justifying your 500 point investment. That's not a terrifying alpha strike, it's a single-role specialist that barely influences the game unless your opponent also brings a LoW.

requires several turns of movement

If by "several" you mean "one". Turn one you move 12", turn two you move 12" and charge. Unless your opponent puts their whole army in the far back corner you're going to be getting second-turn charges most of the time.

 OverwatchCNC wrote:
If where the OP plays uses ITC this thread has become a moot point. It's also no longer relevant to anyone else using ITC. Thank god.

All current source material is allowed, including GW Codexes, Data Slates, Formations, and current Forge World units and army lists which are listed below. Please note, Experimental and Horus Heresy/30K Forge World units are not allowed.

Army lists in Imperial Armor 14: The Siege of Vraks: The Death Korps of Krieg and Renegades of Vraks
Army lists in Imperial Armor 13: War Machines of the Lost and the Damned: Renegades and Heretics


Regardless of Detachments, no more than 1 Fortification and/or 1 Super Heavy/Gargantuan Lord of War may be taken from the allowed LoW list, below.

Note: The exception to this rule is Imperial Knights. One detachment in your army may include an Imperial Knight. So long as the detachment restrictions allow for multiple LoW, you may exceed the 0-1 LoW restriction within this detachment so long as all other LoW are also Imperial Knights.

It doesn't.

 Byte wrote:

 OverwatchCNC wrote:
If where the OP plays uses ITC this thread has become a moot point. It's also no longer relevant to anyone else using ITC. Thank god.

All current source material is allowed, including GW Codexes, Data Slates, Formations, and current Forge World units and army lists which are listed below. Please note, Experimental and Horus Heresy/30K Forge World units are not allowed.

Army lists in Imperial Armor 14: The Siege of Vraks: The Death Korps of Krieg and Renegades of Vraks
Army lists in Imperial Armor 13: War Machines of the Lost and the Damned: Renegades and Heretics


Regardless of Detachments, no more than 1 Fortification and/or 1 Super Heavy/Gargantuan Lord of War may be taken from the allowed LoW list, below.

Note: The exception to this rule is Imperial Knights. One detachment in your army may include an Imperial Knight. So long as the detachment restrictions allow for multiple LoW, you may exceed the 0-1 LoW restriction within this detachment so long as all other LoW are also Imperial Knights.

It doesn't.

That's really unfortunate. I am glad ITC made the right choice in not declaring an entire codex banned, hopefully OP can use this development as leverage in his discussions with the local TOs and GT organizers.

 Peregrine wrote:

gungo wrote:
Not quite the biggest issue is at low point games several range str d weapons has a huge issue with turn 1 alpha strikes which is the worst issue with 40k.

Low point games is where those units are the weakest, because your entire army is tied up in a single inefficient unit. A Shadowsword costs 500 points, and its single 5" blast is going to average maybe 3-4 hits per shot at most. And most of the time it's going to give up a cover save, so maybe 2-3 of them will actually die. There's no way you're going to earn back those 500 points by killing 2-3 tactical marines per turn, and the big expensive stuff isn't likely to appear. TBH you're going to get a better alpha strike by taking several conventional units instead.

And even in a large game the poor Shadowsword is going to struggle to be relevant. Let's say you kill a Land Raider, a terminator squad, and a tactical squad. And you roll nothing but 6s on the destroyer chart while doing it. That's ~550 points of damage inflicted by a ~500 point tank. And that's the best-case scenario. Add in cover/invulnerable saves, bad rolls on the destroyer table, etc, and you'll be lucky if you even come close to justifying your 500 point investment. That's not a terrifying alpha strike, it's a single-role specialist that barely influences the game unless your opponent also brings a LoW.

requires several turns of movement

If by "several" you mean "one". Turn one you move 12", turn two you move 12" and charge. Unless your opponent puts their whole army in the far back corner you're going to be getting second-turn charges most of the time.

I know math can be hard for people now days but turn 1 move, turn 2 move is actually called "two" turns of movement. I know numbers are hard.

And back to the shadowsword no where did I mention the shadowsword. It's never was that bad of a lord of war, it's like the stompa they both pretty much suck for the points. Why don't you talk about the unit I mentioned instead you know the 295 of wraith knight with double Ds. The potential to wipe out two transports full of troops or two leman Russ tanks in one turn is brutal to nearly any list as an alpha strike, throw in some webway portal wraiths and even using LOS to hide some key units isn't even a problem. Alpha strike lists have always been the bane of 40k and it was a huge reason why gw nerfed the heck out of turn 1 assaults.

gungo wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

gungo wrote:

requires several turns of movement

If by "several" you mean "one". Turn one you move 12", turn two you move 12" and charge. Unless your opponent puts their whole army in the far back corner you're going to be getting second-turn charges most of the time.

I know math can be hard for people now days but turn 1 move, turn 2 move is actually called "two" turns of movement. I know numbers are hard.

Apparently wordz are eVen harderer.

SEVERAL:

being more than two but fewer than many in number or kind:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/several

more than two but not very many

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/several

Two is a "couple" and more than two or three is several.

http://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/several

a number of people or things that is more than two or three, but not many

http://www.macmillandictionary.com/us/dictionary/american/several


Two turns are NOT "several".

Two snarky replies don't make a polite.

If you guys want the thread closed, citing a dictionary often does just that, as well as the "numbers are hard for people .... " kind of comments.

And I hope mine isn't a 3rd snark. Just a kind, "C'mon, fellas!"

Eh, maybe a MOD will feel we're done.

It's not my fault gungo started a battle of wits while armed with such dull weapons. If you're going to go out of your way to specifically sarcastically "correct" someone, it is wise to make damn sure you actually are correct.

In any case, the thread has served its purpose. The OP asked the internet for his special snowflake exception and one major "authority" granted it. Whether or not his local scene adopts it is likely not dependent on this thread and never was.

 warboss wrote:
It's not my fault gungo started a battle of wits while armed with such dull weapons. If you're going to go out of your way to specifically sarcastically "correct" someone, it is wise to make damn sure you actually are correct.

In any case, the thread has served its purpose. The OP asked the internet for his special snowflake exception and one major "authority" granted it. Whether or not his local scene adopts it is likely not dependent on this thread and never was.

kiddo you said one turn and then immediately went on to say it took two turns in your example. It's not our fault you can't read what you wrote.

And no several was the correct word to use when I wrote it since it requires two or more turns of movement for an assault. If I said a couple that would be incorrect since it means two. The only thing dull here is your humour and how quickly you got hurt when you try to point out someone is wrong and you completely messed it up. Instead of admitting your mistake you continued to show everyone how you messed up so easily in the first place And no it's not because of your stunning wit, no matter what your mom tells you.

 warboss wrote:
It's not my fault gungo started a battle of wits while armed with such dull weapons. If you're going to go out of your way to specifically sarcastically "correct" someone, it is wise to make damn sure you actually are correct.

Agreed. I refrained from correcting the run-on sentences.

 warboss wrote:

In any case, the thread has served its purpose. The OP asked the internet for his special snowflake exception and one major "authority" granted it. Whether or not his local scene adopts it is likely not dependent on this thread and never was.

May I ask, and it is not my intent to be pedantic (that is, trolling), but would you please define the 'snowflake exception' (unique, one-of-a-kind, that part I understand). The term has been thrown around a lot, and I think it means you can have an ImpK army ... when most tourneys have ruled only 0-1 LoW ....

Is that correct?

 Brothererekose wrote:
May I ask, and it is not my intent to be pedantic (that is, trolling), but would you please define the 'snowflake exception' (unique, one-of-a-kind, that part I understand). The term has been thrown around a lot, and I think it means you can have an ImpK army ... when most tourneys have ruled only 0-1 LoW ....

Is that correct?

Exactly. It's when a tournament rules that superheavies are banned or restricted, except knights don't count because the people that want to use multiple knights are more important than the ones who want to use multiple Baneblades (or even one Baneblade).


Automatically Appended Next Post:

gungo wrote:
kiddo you said one turn and then immediately went on to say it took two turns in your example. It's not our fault you can't read what you wrote.

First, it's not their example, it's my example. And it's one turn of movement, because the second turn is the turn where you charge and slaughter stuff. You "waste" one turn getting into range and then you kill things. And either way it's not "several", which would imply 3+ turns.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

gungo wrote:
Why don't you talk about the unit I mentioned instead you know the 295 of wraith knight with double Ds.

Because:

1) I've never argued that all units with D-weapons are balanced. In fact my point was that some units with D-weapons are not balanced. But that's a problem with specific units being too cheap for their power, not ranged D-weapons in general, and should be solved with modifications to those specific units instead of banning/restricting a bunch of stuff that isn't too powerful.

2) The Wraithknight's D-weapons aren't that impressive in a small game (and remember, you claimed that the alpha strike is especially bad there) because there are a lot fewer expensive targets for it to kill. Sure, it can kill a Land Raider in one shot, but how many Land Raiders do you see in a 500 point game? 750? When people are still trying to fit enough basic troops into their armies it's a lot more likely that the Wraithknight is going to massively overkill 1-2 guardsmen or tactical marines per turn and never even come close to justifying its point cost. It only becomes a terrifying threat as point limits go up and it is almost always guaranteed to find a proper target to kill.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Brothererekose wrote:
May I ask, and it is not my intent to be pedantic (that is, trolling), but would you please define the 'snowflake exception' (unique, one-of-a-kind, that part I understand). The term has been thrown around a lot, and I think it means you can have an ImpK army ... when most tourneys have ruled only 0-1 LoW ....

Is that correct?

Exactly. It's when a tournament rules that superheavies are banned or restricted, except knights don't count because the people that want to use multiple knights are more important than the ones who want to use multiple Baneblades (or even one Baneblade).

How are these people more important (I'm not mad at you, but these clowns you refer to) ? I mean, it sounds elitist, even racist. Are Astra Militarum players being singled out?

I play Pask PlasmaCutioners. I got Vendettas.

Because though I play Eldar and Tau and Space Marines and Chaos Space Marines and Chaos Daemons and Astra Militarum, I will band with others of 'my kind' to stop this sort of prejudice. Also, I will admit to having played Space Wolves, Deathwing, Dark Angels and Tyranids, too, though it opens me up to more liability, more prejudicial treatment, by these people, to which you refer.

We gotta shut them down.
- - - - - - - - - -
That said, I thought Knights (Ad-Lance) were not being counted on such bans because they have a codex. More-over, they have not broken the game because the data on Ad-Lance fails to show dominance. ToF & ITC. *Single* inclusions of ImpKinghts in lists has data showing ... what'd that poster say? A 65% bump in success? Somesuch?

What tourney won't let you use multiple Baneblades? Tell me, and I'll try to help get them to rescind the ban, so *you* Peregrine, can play your multiple Baneblades. Srsly, let's rally the Internet. Get your local buddies to vote with their dollars. Store owners listen when the cash register fails to ring.

BTW, please keep in mind, no one listens to you. I have got a lot of feedback, and because your opinions are largely unsubstantiated, because you espouse vitriol and are chock full of adjectives, and yet, never yield any tourney data to back your opinions, no one takes you seriously.

If you backed what you say with 'NOVA this', 'at Adepticon that' or even citing what happens at your FLGS, well, it gives credence and weight.

So, again, which GT/RTT did you want to go to, that said 0-1 to BaneBlades? Or even a flat out, "No"?

Too bad you don't play near me. Our local FLGS allows Baneblades. The one guy that brings it never wins more than one outta three games though.

 Brothererekose wrote:
That said, I thought Knights (Ad-Lance) were not being counted on such bans because they have a codex.

Which is an absurd reason. "Codex" is not a magic word that makes something legal or appropriate for a standard game. Knights are superheavies, and if superheavies are so scary that they need to be banned or limited then printing "codex" on the front cover of the book instead of "supplement" or whatever should not matter at all.

More-over, they have not broken the game because the data on Ad-Lance fails to show dominance.

It doesn't matter. The issue is not whether knights break the game, it's consistency with bans/restrictions on every other superheavy unit. A Malcador spam army isn't going to break the game either, unless you consider "being so terrible that your opponent doesn't have any fun tabling you" to be breaking the game. So why should the Malcador spam army be banned while the much more powerful knight army is perfectly legal?

So, again, which GT/RTT did you want to go to, that said 0-1 to BaneBlades? Or even a flat out, "No"?

https://www.frontlinegaming.org/community/frontline-gamings-independent-tournament-circuit/itc-2015-season-40k-tournament-format/

Regardless of Detachments, no more than 1 Fortification and/or 1 Super Heavy/Gargantuan Lord of War may be taken from the allowed LoW list, below.

And here's the special snowflake rule:

Note: The exception to this rule is Imperial Knights. One detachment in your army may include an Imperial Knight. So long as the detachment restrictions allow for multiple LoW, you may exceed the 0-1 LoW restriction within this detachment so long as all other LoW are also Imperial Knights.

Too bad you don't play near me. Our local FLGS allows Baneblades. The one guy that brings it never wins more than one outta three games though.

Then your FLGS isn't part of this discussion. This is about giving a special snowflake exception for knights, not whether or not superheavies in general are legal or not.

... but Knights ARE a special snowflake.
They are they only army in the game where a primary detachment of Knights MUST consist entirely of superheavies and cannot ever have any non-super-heavy models. The Knight codex itself treats Knights as a special snowflake (allowing them to take multiple LOWs in a detachment), so FLG is simply following the codex rules.

Trasvi wrote:
... but Knights ARE a special snowflake.
They are they only army in the game where a primary detachment of Knights MUST consist entirely of superheavies and cannot ever have any non-super-heavy models. The Knight codex itself treats Knights as a special snowflake (allowing them to take multiple LOWs in a detachment), so FLG is simply following the codex rules.

Who cares about the "codex" label on the cover? They're superheavies, and the word "codex" doesn't give them any special privileges in the rules published by GW.

And no, they aren't following the codex rules because there is no 0-1 limit on superheavies in any codex. You can take one per CAD, but there is no limit on how many CADs you can take and non-CAD detachments can allow more than one LOW per detachment. So the question isn't "should we follow the rules", it's "now that we've modified the rules should we do so in a fair and consistent manner, or should we give special privileges to one group of players".

 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 .

But it has a choppy guy, a shooty guy, a melta guy, an anti-meq guy, and a battle cannon guy?

You can practically just as easily say harlequins are a one unit codex because everything dies to a stiff breeze and has high ws and bs...

herohammer wrote:
But it has a choppy guy, a shooty guy, a melta guy, an anti-meq guy, and a battle cannon guy?

And if GW wasn't trying to add filler "content" to justify charging full-book prices for a one-unit codex they would all be combined into a single unit entry like all the LRBT variants or the choice to give your tactical squad a plasma gun or power fist. If it wasn't in its own codex it would just be the basic stat line and shared rules with a list of weapon upgrades you can choose from. The only reason the knight gets the magic "codex" word and the Baneblade doesn't is that GW hasn't published Codex: Baneblade (soon to be followed by Codex: Tactical Squad) yet.

 Peregrine wrote:

Trasvi wrote:
... but Knights ARE a special snowflake.
They are they only army in the game where a primary detachment of Knights MUST consist entirely of superheavies and cannot ever have any non-super-heavy models. The Knight codex itself treats Knights as a special snowflake (allowing them to take multiple LOWs in a detachment), so FLG is simply following the codex rules.

Who cares about the "codex" label on the cover? They're superheavies, and the word "codex" doesn't give them any special privileges in the rules published by GW.

They're special because they're the only faction that has been written like this. They are a bona fide faction and NOT letting them be exceptions to any LOW restrictions is effectively banning them.
They ITC crew aren't giving special privileges to Imperial Knight players - they're letting them retain the special privileges they have in their book which allow them to play their army.
Not banning Imperial Knights isn't giving privileges to Knight players any more than not banning Eldar is giving privileges to Eldar players.

And no, they aren't following the codex rules because there is no 0-1 limit on superheavies in any codex. You can take one per CAD, but there is no limit on how many CADs you can take and non-CAD detachments can allow more than one LOW per detachment. So the question isn't "should we follow the rules", it's "now that we've modified the rules should we do so in a fair and consistent manner, or should we give special privileges to one group of players".

So what is more fair:
- attempting to curb abuse of multiple detachments (whereby people spam minimal troop taxes to take multiple Lords of War)?
- or banning an entire army?

I can never tell what you want out of the rules here. Most people don't think 40k in its entire RAW-unbound-take-everything-you-wish state is conducive for competitive tournament play. Given that people wish to persist in attempting tournament play by altering the rules somewhat, what choices do they have that you would ever agree with?

Trasvi wrote:
They're special because they're the only faction that has been written like this.

But why does this matter? Why is it so important that it's a one-model "faction" instead of just an entry in the Escalation book? Will Baneblades suddenly get their own special snowflake exception if GW publishes Codex: Baneblade and copy/pastes the Escalation rules for it into a separate $50 book? If they'd be ok in that situation then why do they need to be banned/restricted now?

They ITC crew aren't giving special privileges to Imperial Knight players - they're letting them retain the special privileges they have in their book which allow them to play their army.

That book has no special privileges. Nothing in it says "this is more official than other rules", it's just another book for 40k just like all the other ones. An army with 2+ knights is no different from an army with 2+ Baneblades from GW's perspective.

Not banning Imperial Knights isn't giving privileges to Knight players any more than not banning Eldar is giving privileges to Eldar players.

The difference is that the Eldar codex doesn't violate general rules like "no superheavies", so there's no reason why it would be banned. The knight "codex" does.

So what is more fair:
- attempting to curb abuse of multiple detachments (whereby people spam minimal troop taxes to take multiple Lords of War)?
- or banning an entire army?

The second, because the premise of the first is that multiple LOW are unfair. If you genuinely believe that multiple LOW are unfair then knights are an unfair army and need to be banned regardless of whether or not their rules have the magic "codex" word attached. What option #2 essentially says is "I know this breaks the game and is completely unfair to play against, but I'm going to allow it anyway".

I can never tell what you want out of the rules here. Most people don't think 40k in its entire RAW-unbound-take-everything-you-wish state is conducive for competitive tournament play. Given that people wish to persist in attempting tournament play by altering the rules somewhat, what choices do they have that you would ever agree with?

I want one of two things:

1) LOW played by RAW with no general limits on them (though specific units may need changes, just like specific non-LOW units may need changes).

or

2) Superheavies and GCs banned or limited to 0-1 with no special snowflake exceptions.

If you feel that unrestricted LOW are not appropriate for tournaments (and that's a pretty reasonable argument to make) then option #2 is the clear choice. Ban or restrict all superheavies equally, and don't make special exceptions just because some people at your local store really love their plastic knight kits and all the other superheavies are too expensive.