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.

 Draco765 wrote:
Just enough difference for each of the various gods yet similar to the standard loyalist knights.

It was a pity forgeworld couldn't resist going for that last +1 in the rules, but the principle was sound.

There's a topic.

Stick to it, without insulting other users.

Edit: Remove.

Sans hyperbole.

For matched play the rules are objectively inferior to IK rules. Consequently, for the purposes of matched or tournament play, they are largely useless.

Subjectively, the clear lack of effort put forth by GW in creating these rules reinforces a perception among Chaos players that they are not valued as customers.

As a result, I have not fielded Knights since early 8th edition and likely won't bother as long as their rules remain in their current state. They look pretty in the cabinet though, right next to Magnus.

Being worse than Imperial Knights doesn't necessarily have to mean they're competetively useless when they have access to other ally options.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Being worse than Imperial Knights doesn't necessarily have to mean they're competetively useless when they have access to other ally options.

Super, show your work. Thanks!

RK can't hit any of the crucial breakpoints (3++, targeting warlords, operate normally despite degradation, etc.) that IK can hit. As a result, they are functionally inferior. This has nothing to do with allies, which are there solely to provide a reservoir of CP to spend on them. Given that RK have a grand total of 2 stratagems and 1 relic to use, that reservoir of CP is objectively less useful to them. So you can throw in all the allies you want, it still doesn't put them anywhere near the same level of functionality as IK. Consequently, they are largely useless.

Maybe in the next codex GW is going to make renegade demon engines, and the new buff lord is going to make them better. no idea how much better, but +1 to hit is something.

 TwinPoleTheory wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Being worse than Imperial Knights doesn't necessarily have to mean they're competetively useless when they have access to other ally options.

Super, show your work. Thanks!

RK can't hit any of the crucial breakpoints (3++, targeting warlords, operate normally despite degradation, etc.) that IK can hit. As a result, they are functionally inferior. This has nothing to do with allies, which are there solely to provide a reservoir of CP to spend on them. Given that RK have a grand total of 2 stratagems and 1 relic to use, that reservoir of CP is objectively less useful to them. So you can throw in all the allies you want, it still doesn't put them anywhere near the same level of functionality as IK. Consequently, they are largely useless.

I agree with you, it's just not necessarily the case that being worse means it's competetively useless. It could hypothetically have had some ally combo available that Imperial knights do not, it just doesn't.

Renegade knights contribute quite a bit to a chaos force. If you can't win that is entirely on you.

 Marmatag wrote:
Renegade knights contribute quite a bit to a chaos force. If you can't win that is entirely on you.

That's why you see them in every tournament wherever Chaos shows up....
Oh wait.

 Marmatag wrote:
Renegade knights contribute quite a bit to a chaos force. If you can't win that is entirely on you.

Again, flippant statements with no attached arguments or data support are, well, a flippant statement with no attached arguments or data support.

Thanks for contributing...nothing.

An acquaintance of mine when 5-1 at a major with a Renegade Knight and Armigers alongside Magnus.

Is it top tier? No. But only Guard + Knight and Ynnari are, so if that's your benchmark for "what's good," then pretty much nothing is.

It's like people who complained that Tau weren't good. Or Orks aren't good. That is flatly incorrect; those armies are good. The fact that a few "better" things exist doesn't change that.

 Marmatag wrote:
An acquaintance of mine when 5-1 at a major with a Renegade Knight and Armigers alongside Magnus.

Is it top tier? No. But only Guard + Knight and Ynnari are, so if that's your benchmark for "what's good," then pretty much nothing is.

It's like people who complained that Tau weren't good. Or Orks aren't good. That is flatly incorrect; those armies are good. The fact that a few "better" things exist doesn't change that.

See? That was much better than a flippant statement with no data, I mean, it's anecdotal and is impossible to properly gauge without knowing what or who he faced, but it's data!

Yes, I'm sure there are situations where somebody manages to not faceplant with them. But they are nowhere near the level of basic utility of IK. I'd be willing to bet that IK vs RK we'd be looking at IK winning the vast majority of those match ups. So the fact of the matter is that when you field them you know, without a doubt, that you are bringing an inferior product to the table.

 TwinPoleTheory wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:
An acquaintance of mine when 5-1 at a major with a Renegade Knight and Armigers alongside Magnus.

Is it top tier? No. But only Guard + Knight and Ynnari are, so if that's your benchmark for "what's good," then pretty much nothing is.

It's like people who complained that Tau weren't good. Or Orks aren't good. That is flatly incorrect; those armies are good. The fact that a few "better" things exist doesn't change that.

See? That was much better than a flippant statement with no data, I mean, it's anecdotal and is impossible to properly gauge without knowing what or who he faced, but it's data!

Yes, I'm sure there are situations where somebody manages to not faceplant with them. But they are nowhere near the level of basic utility of IK. I'd be willing to bet that IK vs RK we'd be looking at IK winning the vast majority of those match ups. So the fact of the matter is that when you field them you know, without a doubt, that you are bringing an inferior product to the table.

You keep saying that a free product is inferior to a full price codex.
That comes under businesses 101 you don't give away content from behind the pay wall for free.

Also I do love how everyone keeps using examples of the meta 1400 points of Guard and a Castellen list as examples of why pure renegade knights are worse than Imperial Knights.

Compair Apples with Apples and people might stop writing you off as crack pots.

Are they more powerful, ok they have some traits most while good arn't exactlly OP like -1 to hit or 5+ fnp level of power.
They have strategums but they are highly limited in CP to use said strategums.
Choas has the ability to pick any weapon combo in questorus class knights, advantage Chaos.
Pure knights have an advantage over renegade knights but nothing not to be expected when compairing and index army to a codex army.


Do Imperial Knights forces rsally have more options than Renegade Knights well not really they get 1 named charictor and a preceptor knight.

The Preceptor is Imperial Knights only due to the story in the codex implying that onky 1 STC to produce the weapon exsists and it has been fought over with imperial then rebegade and finally back to imperial Forgeworld being the 1 location in the galaxy that can produce it.

Renegades can do double Thermal Cannons, double battlecannon and the famous Double Avenger Cannons thats 3 configuration that imperial Knight's can't advantage Choas.

Ice_can wrote:
You keep saying that a free product is inferior to a full price codex.
That comes under businesses 101 you don't give away content from behind the pay wall for free.

Yes, the discrepancy is that you guys keep telling us we should be happy because of that. At the same time, the multiple Chaos players who come in here to say they'd have been happy not only to pay, but to wait for a properly done codex is blown off.

Ice_can wrote:
Also I do love how everyone keeps using examples of the meta 1400 points of Guard and a Castellen list as examples of why pure renegade knights are worse than Imperial Knights.

Yes, and I said, line up IK vs RK, run a statistically significant series of games to gather data, and you will find IK winning the vast majority of those games.

Ice_can wrote:
Compair Apples with Apples and people might stop writing you off as crack pots.

The above would be 'Apples' to 'Apples', which I mentioned in the previous post.

Ice_can wrote:
Are they more powerful, ok they have some traits most while good arn't exactlly OP like -1 to hit or 5+ fnp level of power.

No, just 3++ and vastly superior relics.

Ice_can wrote:
They have strategums but they are highly limited in CP to use said strategums.

Strangely so is RK, but with significantly less variety and utility, but hey, nice attempt to minimize.

Ice_can wrote:
Choas has the ability to pick any weapon combo in questorus class knights, advantage Chaos.

Super, remind me why we don't see RK Castellans and such in that case? Oh, that's right, because they can't do any of the tactically useful things that IK can do, you know, like operate normally while damaged, snipe enemy characters, get a 3++, use one of the most amazing AT weapons in the game. I'm sure that has nothing to do with it though.

Ice_can wrote:
Pure knights have an advantage over renegade knights but nothing not to be expected when compairing and index army to a codex army.

Except that RK is now a Codex list, so yeah, not so much.

Ice_can wrote:
Do Imperial Knights forces rsally have more options than Renegade Knights well not really they get 1 named charictor and a preceptor knight.

As long as you ignore stratagems, relics, and house traits, sure.

Ice_can wrote:
Renegades can do double Thermal Cannons, double battlecannon and the famous Double Avenger Cannons thats 3 configuration that imperial Knight's can't advantage Choas.

So far, this is the only actual advantage that you've managed to list. I take it that since this is the only actual advantage you've listed that it outweighs all of the other places where RK is demonstrably and objectively inferior to IK, that the hill you've chosen?

Man, just because something is not completely top tier doesn't make it absolutely gak. Not everyone plays this game to WAAC. Hell I bought a knight just because it looked fun to convert and paint, not to mention a good way to learn to magnetize properly.

I have found my knights to do well enough against my buddies. They won't win me a game by myself, but they really plug some holes in my Death Guard.

PS - Converting knights to chaos is one of the most fulfilling things I have done in this hobby, can't recommend it enough!

PPS - Wishlisting I know, but if GW released a Renegade Knight codex, I would LOVE if Dominus and Armigers could have full weapon customization as well!

The main issue, that I see, is related to Knights and PL.

If you want a big, 100 PL Knight-Fight, and decide to each go ham on melee Knights (you like punching people with chainsaws bigger than Space Marines) the IK player gets five Gallants. The Renegade player gets four Renegade Knights that are the same as Gallants, except they lack any household trait, and have only one relic and two strats between them all.

 TwinPoleTheory wrote:

Ice_can wrote:
You keep saying that a free product is inferior to a full price codex.
That comes under businesses 101 you don't give away content from behind the pay wall for free.

Yes, the discrepancy is that you guys keep telling us we should be happy because of that. At the same time, the multiple Chaos players who come in here to say they'd have been happy not only to pay, but to wait for a properly done codex is blown off.

Ice_can wrote:
Also I do love how everyone keeps using examples of the meta 1400 points of Guard and a Castellen list as examples of why pure renegade knights are worse than Imperial Knights.

Yes, and I said, line up IK vs RK, run a statistically significant series of games to gather data, and you will find IK winning the vast majority of those games.

Ice_can wrote:
Compair Apples with Apples and people might stop writing you off as crack pots.

The above would be 'Apples' to 'Apples', which I mentioned in the previous post.

Ice_can wrote:
Are they more powerful, ok they have some traits most while good arn't exactlly OP like -1 to hit or 5+ fnp level of power.

No, just 3++ and vastly superior relics.

Ice_can wrote:
They have strategums but they are highly limited in CP to use said strategums.

Strangely so is RK, but with significantly less variety and utility, but hey, nice attempt to minimize.

Ice_can wrote:
Choas has the ability to pick any weapon combo in questorus class knights, advantage Chaos.

Super, remind me why we don't see RK Castellans and such in that case? Oh, that's right, because they can't do any of the tactically useful things that IK can do, you know, like operate normally while damaged, snipe enemy characters, get a 3++, use one of the most amazing AT weapons in the game. I'm sure that has nothing to do with it though.

Ice_can wrote:
Pure knights have an advantage over renegade knights but nothing not to be expected when compairing and index army to a codex army.

Except that RK is now a Codex list, so yeah, not so much.

Ice_can wrote:
Do Imperial Knights forces rsally have more options than Renegade Knights well not really they get 1 named charictor and a preceptor knight.

As long as you ignore stratagems, relics, and house traits, sure.

Ice_can wrote:
Renegades can do double Thermal Cannons, double battlecannon and the famous Double Avenger Cannons thats 3 configuration that imperial Knight's can't advantage Choas.

So far, this is the only actual advantage that you've managed to list. I take it that since this is the only actual advantage you've listed that it outweighs all of the other places where RK is demonstrably and objectively inferior to IK, that the hill you've chosen?

No if you drop your I'm a victim mentality you would have noticed I was agreeing that Index Renegade Knights aren't as good as codex Imperial Knights.

But you've gone full victim rant and keep trying to bring in outside factors instead of actually answering the breakdowns

Yeah build a stacked combination of warloard trait, strategums, psychic powers. It's the same type of argument that eldar can create a -7 to hit unit, technically true but not relevant to the topic being discussed.

Ice_can wrote:
No if you drop your I'm a victim mentality you would have noticed I was agreeing that Index Renegade Knights aren't as good as codex Imperial Knights.

First off, again, for the reading challenged, they're not an Index list anymore, they are a Codex list. Index implies that somewhere down the road they will get a Codex and become a real army. They have gotten their Codex, according to GW, this is a full-fledged, completely functional army. As far as the 'victim' mentality, you're the one telling us we should not only be satisfied with this implementation, but that we should be grateful we got one at all, I'm simply telling you, we're not, if that makes me a 'victim', so be it.

Ice_can wrote:
But you've gone full victim rant and keep trying to bring in outside factors instead of actually answering the breakdowns

Look, I get that reading isn't your thing, that's fine, everyone's different. I've answered every one of your 'breakdowns'.

Ice_can wrote:
Yeah build a stacked combination of warloard trait, strategums, psychic powers. It's the same type of argument that eldar can create a -7 to hit unit, technically true but not relevant to the topic being discussed.

Again, reading, try it. That 'stacked combination' is kind of the point, I didn't 'stack' anything from outside the IK codex, at all.

So tell me again why I should be grateful for a sub-standard, half-baked product? Oh that's right, because it was free, because I got into this game for the free stuff, it's a budget hobby!

 TwinPoleTheory wrote:

Ice_can wrote:
No if you drop your I'm a victim mentality you would have noticed I was agreeing that Index Renegade Knights aren't as good as codex Imperial Knights.

First off, again, for the reading challenged, they're not an Index list anymore, they are a Codex list. Index implies that somewhere down the road they will get a Codex and become a real army. They have gotten their Codex, according to GW, this is a full-fledged, completely functional army. As far as the 'victim' mentality, you're the one telling us we should not only be satisfied with this implementation, but that we should be grateful we got one at all, I'm simply telling you, we're not, if that makes me a 'victim', so be it.

Ice_can wrote:
But you've gone full victim rant and keep trying to bring in outside factors instead of actually answering the breakdowns

Look, I get that reading isn't your thing, that's fine, everyone's different. I've answered every one of your 'breakdowns'.

Ice_can wrote:
Yeah build a stacked combination of warloard trait, strategums, psychic powers. It's the same type of argument that eldar can create a -7 to hit unit, technically true but not relevant to the topic being discussed.

Again, reading, try it. That 'stacked combination' is kind of the point, I didn't 'stack' anything from outside the IK codex, at all.

So tell me again why I should be grateful for a sub-standard, half-baked product? Oh that's right, because it was free, because I got into this game for the free stuff, it's a budget hobby!

You really need to get over yourself, I am looking at the CA 2019 right now and it says "Index: Renegade Knights". Not everything that GW comes out with is going to be absolute gold, if you can't accept that and get incredibly agitated over it, than maybe this hobby isn't for you. Honestly, I am SUPREMELY grateful that GW gave us Chaos players the option to even RUN knights, and on top of that, to give us Chaos players an actual unique hook to the army (customizable weapons on questoris and a unique stratagem), they didn't HAVE to do it, but they did and I am having fun with mine.

Is it the best knight based faction? Not by a long shot! I have been playing this game off and on since 5th edition, armies rise and fall in power every edition and expansion, depending on the meta in tournaments and at stores. Hell I remember when Gray Knights were king and Tyranids and Orks were hot trash, things change. I also remember when factions would go several editions before they got a new codex as well! If anything, I can't help but be super pleased with GW this time around, everyone is getting a codex it seems like and even a few new armies altogether are sneaking in!

Lastly, if you feel this offended by a Renegade Knight index, why don't you just ask your playgroup if you can add some warlord traits or stratagems to the mix as funsies? As long as you aren't being ridiculous with them I don't see why nobody would be upset by that.

DudleyGrim wrote:
You really need to get over yourself, I am looking at the CA 2019 right now and it says "Index: Renegade Knights".

Fair enough, I concede the semantic point. It's still final and not changing, and trash.

DudleyGrim wrote:
Honestly, I am SUPREMELY grateful that GW gave us Chaos players the option to even RUN knights, and on top of that, to give us Chaos players an actual unique hook to the army (customizable weapons on questoris and a unique stratagem), they didn't HAVE to do it, but they did and I am having fun with mine.

You're right, they didn't have to do it, I don't have to be happy about the money and time I invested in it either and as a customer am free to crap all over it. But congratulations on your satisfaction with painting projects, good for you.

DudleyGrim wrote:
Is it the best knight based faction? Not by a long shot! I have been playing this game off and on since 5th edition, armies rise and fall in power every edition and expansion, depending on the meta in tournaments and at stores.

I've been playing since the 80s, I'm quite aware of GW's craptastic rules history.

DudleyGrim wrote:
Lastly, if you feel this offended by a Renegade Knight index, why don't you just ask your playgroup if you can add some warlord traits or stratagems to the mix as funsies?

Because strangely, my group is inclined to play by the rules we're most likely to see out in the world.

DudleyGrim wrote:
Is it the best knight based faction? Not by a long shot! I have been playing this game off and on since 5th edition, armies rise and fall in power every edition and expansion, depending on the meta in tournaments and at stores.

I've been playing since the 80s, I'm quite aware of GW's craptastic rules history.

If you hate it so much than why let it ruin your life? It obviously upsets you greatly, why not read a book or take a break? No one is forcing you to play the game, or putting limitations on yourself on what you can do with the game/models. Hell, I've had entire armies of models squatted by GW, I was upset, so I took a break until I discovered the new 8th edition of 40k. Maybe that is something you ought to do if the hobby is upsetting you so much.

DudleyGrim wrote:
If you hate it so much than why let it ruin your life?

I don't, it's just deeply annoying to listen to a bunch of painters tell me the rules aren't busted when they are objectively busted.

 TwinPoleTheory wrote:

DudleyGrim wrote:
If you hate it so much than why let it ruin your life?

I don't, it's just deeply annoying to listen to a bunch of painters tell me the rules aren't busted when they are objectively busted.

Well then Don Hooson managed to win a major tournament in the last year using Renagade Knights as a not-insignificant portion of his list. That is something that not every army can claim. Therefore, Renegade Knights are NOT "busted" or "worthless" like you have been claiming. Maybe it is you as the player who can't get them to work?

Ice_can wrote:

 TwinPoleTheory wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:
An acquaintance of mine when 5-1 at a major with a Renegade Knight and Armigers alongside Magnus.

Is it top tier? No. But only Guard + Knight and Ynnari are, so if that's your benchmark for "what's good," then pretty much nothing is.

It's like people who complained that Tau weren't good. Or Orks aren't good. That is flatly incorrect; those armies are good. The fact that a few "better" things exist doesn't change that.

See? That was much better than a flippant statement with no data, I mean, it's anecdotal and is impossible to properly gauge without knowing what or who he faced, but it's data!

Yes, I'm sure there are situations where somebody manages to not faceplant with them. But they are nowhere near the level of basic utility of IK. I'd be willing to bet that IK vs RK we'd be looking at IK winning the vast majority of those match ups. So the fact of the matter is that when you field them you know, without a doubt, that you are bringing an inferior product to the table.

You keep saying that a free product is inferior to a full price codex.
That comes under businesses 101 you don't give away content from behind the pay wall for free.

Also I do love how everyone keeps using examples of the meta 1400 points of Guard and a Castellen list as examples of why pure renegade knights are worse than Imperial Knights.

Compair Apples with Apples and people might stop writing you off as crack pots.

Are they more powerful, ok they have some traits most while good arn't exactlly OP like -1 to hit or 5+ fnp level of power.
They have strategums but they are highly limited in CP to use said strategums.
Choas has the ability to pick any weapon combo in questorus class knights, advantage Chaos.
Pure knights have an advantage over renegade knights but nothing not to be expected when compairing and index army to a codex army.


Do Imperial Knights forces rsally have more options than Renegade Knights well not really they get 1 named charictor and a preceptor knight.

The Preceptor is Imperial Knights only due to the story in the codex implying that onky 1 STC to produce the weapon exsists and it has been fought over with imperial then rebegade and finally back to imperial Forgeworld being the 1 location in the galaxy that can produce it.

Renegades can do double Thermal Cannons, double battlecannon and the famous Double Avenger Cannons thats 3 configuration that imperial Knight's can't advantage Choas.

Wrong. You don't have to compare them against only the top tier meta netlist out there. Compare renegade knights to literally any army, pick one, hell pick even the worst, and every one of those will have some synergies, some strategems, something cool they can do. Renegade knights have 1 useless warlord trait, 1 useless relic, and only 1 mid-tier stratagem. Even Tau Riptides have more synergies and things they can do.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

DudleyGrim wrote:

DudleyGrim wrote:
Is it the best knight based faction? Not by a long shot! I have been playing this game off and on since 5th edition, armies rise and fall in power every edition and expansion, depending on the meta in tournaments and at stores.

I've been playing since the 80s, I'm quite aware of GW's craptastic rules history.

If you hate it so much than why let it ruin your life? It obviously upsets you greatly, why not read a book or take a break? No one is forcing you to play the game, or putting limitations on yourself on what you can do with the game/models. Hell, I've had entire armies of models squatted by GW, I was upset, so I took a break until I discovered the new 8th edition of 40k. Maybe that is something you ought to do if the hobby is upsetting you so much.

I will never understand someone so myopic that they'll argue for broken rules.
I can understand arguing that a rule isn't broken, or the subjectivity of what's good and what's less powerful, but the position that there's nothing wrong with poorly written rules is baffling.

As has been said countless times, the fix isn't even hard. Being a pdf with no print copy it would take someone at GW all of 10 minutes to fix this.

"As has been said countless times, the fix isn't even hard. Being a pdf with no print copy it would take someone at GW all of 10 minutes to fix this."

That's pretty much what I've stated many times. That being said, I still have fun with my RK. Because, it's a game and that's what it's meant for.

Danny slag wrote:

Ice_can wrote:

 TwinPoleTheory wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:
An acquaintance of mine when 5-1 at a major with a Renegade Knight and Armigers alongside Magnus.

Is it top tier? No. But only Guard + Knight and Ynnari are, so if that's your benchmark for "what's good," then pretty much nothing is.

It's like people who complained that Tau weren't good. Or Orks aren't good. That is flatly incorrect; those armies are good. The fact that a few "better" things exist doesn't change that.

See? That was much better than a flippant statement with no data, I mean, it's anecdotal and is impossible to properly gauge without knowing what or who he faced, but it's data!

Yes, I'm sure there are situations where somebody manages to not faceplant with them. But they are nowhere near the level of basic utility of IK. I'd be willing to bet that IK vs RK we'd be looking at IK winning the vast majority of those match ups. So the fact of the matter is that when you field them you know, without a doubt, that you are bringing an inferior product to the table.

You keep saying that a free product is inferior to a full price codex.
That comes under businesses 101 you don't give away content from behind the pay wall for free.

Also I do love how everyone keeps using examples of the meta 1400 points of Guard and a Castellen list as examples of why pure renegade knights are worse than Imperial Knights.

Compair Apples with Apples and people might stop writing you off as crack pots.

Are they more powerful, ok they have some traits most while good arn't exactlly OP like -1 to hit or 5+ fnp level of power.
They have strategums but they are highly limited in CP to use said strategums.
Choas has the ability to pick any weapon combo in questorus class knights, advantage Chaos.
Pure knights have an advantage over renegade knights but nothing not to be expected when compairing and index army to a codex army.


Do Imperial Knights forces rsally have more options than Renegade Knights well not really they get 1 named charictor and a preceptor knight.

The Preceptor is Imperial Knights only due to the story in the codex implying that onky 1 STC to produce the weapon exsists and it has been fought over with imperial then rebegade and finally back to imperial Forgeworld being the 1 location in the galaxy that can produce it.

Renegades can do double Thermal Cannons, double battlecannon and the famous Double Avenger Cannons thats 3 configuration that imperial Knight's can't advantage Choas.

Wrong. You don't have to compare them against only the top tier meta netlist out there. Compare renegade knights to literally any army, pick one, hell pick even the worst, and every one of those will have some synergies, some strategems, something cool they can do. Renegade knights have 1 useless warlord trait, 1 useless relic, and only 1 mid-tier stratagem. Even Tau Riptides have more synergies and things they can do.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

DudleyGrim wrote:

DudleyGrim wrote:
Is it the best knight based faction? Not by a long shot! I have been playing this game off and on since 5th edition, armies rise and fall in power every edition and expansion, depending on the meta in tournaments and at stores.

I've been playing since the 80s, I'm quite aware of GW's craptastic rules history.

If you hate it so much than why let it ruin your life? It obviously upsets you greatly, why not read a book or take a break? No one is forcing you to play the game, or putting limitations on yourself on what you can do with the game/models. Hell, I've had entire armies of models squatted by GW, I was upset, so I took a break until I discovered the new 8th edition of 40k. Maybe that is something you ought to do if the hobby is upsetting you so much.

I will never understand someone so myopic that they'll argue for broken rules.
I can understand arguing that a rule isn't broken, or the subjectivity of what's good and what's less powerful, but the position that there's nothing wrong with poorly written rules is baffling.

As has been said countless times, the fix isn't even hard. Being a pdf with no print copy it would take someone at GW all of 10 minutes to fix this.

UR-025/Robotica Imperialis

Danny slag wrote:
I will never understand someone so myopic that they'll argue for broken rules.
I can understand arguing that a rule isn't broken, or the subjectivity of what's good and what's less powerful, but the position that there's nothing wrong with poorly written rules is baffling.

As has been said countless times, the fix isn't even hard. Being a pdf with no print copy it would take someone at GW all of 10 minutes to fix this.

Yes, but the meta of Dakka is to miss the point.

Danny slag wrote:
I will never understand someone so myopic that they'll argue for broken rules.
I can understand arguing that a rule isn't broken, or the subjectivity of what's good and what's less powerful, but the position that there's nothing wrong with poorly written rules is baffling.

As has been said countless times, the fix isn't even hard. Being a pdf with no print copy it would take someone at GW all of 10 minutes to fix this.

I'll never understand people who deliberately spread false information - such as that Index: Renegade Knights isn't in print anywhere.

Especially when the correct information - that it is printed in Chapter Approved 2018 - is even in the thread you're posting in...

 Dysartes wrote:

Danny slag wrote:
I will never understand someone so myopic that they'll argue for broken rules.
I can understand arguing that a rule isn't broken, or the subjectivity of what's good and what's less powerful, but the position that there's nothing wrong with poorly written rules is baffling.

As has been said countless times, the fix isn't even hard. Being a pdf with no print copy it would take someone at GW all of 10 minutes to fix this.

I'll never understand people who deliberately spread false information - such as that Index: Renegade Knights isn't in print anywhere.

Especially when the correct information - that it is printed in Chapter Approved 2018 - is even in the thread you're posting in...

Or at the original link:

https://whc-cdn.games-workshop.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/ENG_Index_Renegade_Knights.pdf